Crusader DLC

[TheLionHeart]

As weird as this sounds a game called Crusader Kings has a really poor Crusading system. It could use some serious improvements. I have no idea why they have never attempted to add more to this portion of the game and make it more important. Some things could be added to make it a much more realistic and possible.
The crusades are way too uncoordinated, everyone will arrive at different times in very separate places just standing by while there is a giant death-stack destroying someone right beside them. Instead once the pope calls a crusade, a few months must be given for people to sign up for it. But instead of everyone leaving and arriving at whatever time they want the total levies of the crusaders should be divided up into separate large units, commanders of these armies will be chosen based on piety and martial level. If the crusade is successful the commander of the army which contributed the most should get the kingdom of Jerusalem the rest will either become vassals of that king or counts of a crusader state. If a king has the highest participation level he must nominate a family member.
The Byzantines should also fight in the crusades since Orthodox is still Christianity a feature that the game doesn't seem to get. There should be an exception for the Byzantines they should get to choose a special causus beli in it separate from the Catholic's, such as Christian re-conquest of Anatolia to help balance the strength against the Muslims.

 

[Jaxck]

The Crusades are actually very well done, historically speaking. None of the Crusades involved a strong unified invasion force for long, if at all. It is a challenge as a Catholic ruler to make the Crusades worthwhile, and definitly one of the most interesting parts of playing a Catholic. Byzantium shouldn't be allowed to join in the Crusades, as they never did in real life.

 

[NewbieOne]

Well, it's true that the crusading aspect is weak in Crusader Kings 2, as strange as this sounds. Yup.

On the other hand, the mess you write about isn't actually that far from reality. Mismanagement and bad organisation plagued the crusades. This said, yes, they tended to try to gang up, although there were always separate groups. It was especially typical to have one group pass through the Byzantine Empire (with various incidents along the way), while the other guys went by ship.

Contribution is broken IMHO. The number of troops fielded shouldn't be the decisive factor. It should be important, I guess, but not to the point of making successful sieges and battles irrelevant.

In connection with the above, it looks especially unfair when the AI lands a doomstack of 30K that just moves back and forth, sometimes literally left and right in a loop, losing thousands of men to attrition. When that type of 'contribution' determines the winner and the guy who did the sieges or the battles doesn't get it, then it looks particularly bad.

And I think any current truces with the target of the crusade should count as broken when joining. Same for jihad, of course.

The Crusades are actually very well done, historically speaking. None of the Crusades involved a strong unified invasion force for long, if at all. It is a challenge as a Catholic ruler to make the Crusades worthwhile, and definitly one of the most interesting parts of playing a Catholic. Byzantium shouldn't be allowed to join in the Crusades, as they never did in real life.

Actually, they never really contributed that much but they negotiated about sending assistance and there were some instances of cooperation. It was not pacifism or anything like that on their part (in the game files, this is basically a parameter of the Orthodox religion) but politics rather. They were threatened by the Franks too and not only by the Muslims. They had to balance it.

 

[redmoretrout]

I don't know too much about it, but shouldn't groups like the Knights Templar, be completely autonomous operating as a separate army rather than a simple mercenary band?

On a somewhat unrelated note I would love to see the Teutonic Knights as a playable faction.

 

[Kaiser Ludwig]

I don't know too much about it, but shouldn't groups like the knights templar, be completely autonomous operating as a completely separate army rather than a simple mercenary band? I would also like to see the Teutonic Knights as a playable faction.

The Holy Orders can ask to join your (defensive) Holy War or Jihad in order to defend you, in which case they do act as independent allies; a completely separate army

 

[MrQwerty]

What bothers me most about the crusades is that the individual who contributed the most to the war becomes "King of" the specified land. Either Jerusalem comes under complete control of one country (i.e. England), or a duchy captures a kingdom and sets the capital in the native land. This once happened, where Brittany contributed the most to a crusade for Greece, of which Brittany became part, only that the capital was established in Brittany.

To me, it seems that the victor of the crusade should be a vassal or an accomplished warrior (as TheLionHeart said) and not the king himself. I also note that crusading men being brought under independent leaders would also prevent the king of an established nation becoming king of the conquered land as well. England nor France nor the Holy Roman Empire should not have direct control of Jerusalem until vassals in the area revolt.

 

[UEF-Hokie]

To me, it seems that the victor of the crusade should be a vassal or an accomplished warrior (as TheLionHeart said) and not the king himself. I also note that crusading men being brought under independent leaders would also prevent the king of an established nation becoming king of the conquered land as well. England nor France nor the Holy Roman Empire should not have direct control of Jerusalem until vassals in the area revolt.

I disagree with this, as its not historically accurate. The nobles of the First Crusade, those who contributed the most and covered themselves in glory were the ones to gain the title. In the case of Crusader Kings II, it just happens that the sovereign kings tend to join the early crusades in addition to the lesser nobles. As it stands, I believe the system works and achieves its the correct outcome, though it doesn't represent a historical outcome at all times.

 

[brxbrx]

Contribution should be revamped. I pop in briefly at the beginning with 20k troops to get brownie points with the Church, and maybe gain a little fighting experience (the Crusader trait), and I'm on top of the contributors list for almost the whole war. And I sure as hell don't want to get saddled with an outremer kingdom!

 

[generalolaf]

If they redid contribution and made it so that the KoJ could go independent at least sometimes, it'd be fine IMO.

 

[monsterfurby]

I think there's really only one thing missing: the politics concerning ports and rally points for crusader armies. Since you can basically put troops on a boat in Lübeck and send them all the way to Jerusalem without a scratch, one of the key issues for crusading armies - access to ports to get them to the holy land - is somewhat nullified.

It would be cool if owners of ports in the mediterranean had a special decision to open/close ports/demand tolls from crusade armies. This wouldn't influence the naval system directly (that would require way too much change to the system already in place), but affect the attrition troops in the holy land take as well as, naturally, Christian rulers' relations to those rulers. Something along the lines.

 

[Accrsd]

The Crusades are actually very well done, historically speaking. None of the Crusades involved a strong unified invasion force for long, if at all. It is a challenge as a Catholic ruler to make the Crusades worthwhile, and definitly one of the most interesting parts of playing a Catholic. Byzantium shouldn't be allowed to join in the Crusades, as they never did in real life.

This particular comment doesn't exactly ring true. The byzantine empire was integral to the first crusade and perhaps provided the most worthwhile contribution. While the byz didn't go into an open state of war (i don't think) they did provide mercenary soldiers, secure supply lines, staging areas, and most importantly their incredibly valuable ports which for the first crusade was the only safe place to approach the holy lands from. The role they provided as both buffer state and martial contributor is perhaps the most important thing for the first two crusades. Later the Byzantines did get directly involved in the crusades In an attempt to prevent the holy lands from falling back into Muslim hands. When all was said and done the orthodox greeks did as much as the catholics.

 

[Mixxer5]

Damn... The very name of this dlc is ironic...

 

[Ravenous.BE]

The Crusading system is very well done as it is right now. They revamped it early on and improved it.

After over 400 hours of playing, I finally decided to dabble in the middle east. I won the first crusade for Jerusalem, and kept it as my own while leaving Ireland to my relatives. The Holy Land was my only base of operations, and I survived.
Egypt, Arabia, Syria, ... It all fell to the Crusader State that I had created. It was great fun, and very hard to keep.

 

[delling]

I also think it's too easy to become max contributor. As king of Sweden I load up 2/3 of the troops I can raise, ship them off, occupy something, let them waltz around for a while until they die or the crusade is won (so I don't have to ship them back). Lo and behold, I'm the king of Sicily or a corner of Iberia. Note that 2/3 of the troops of Sweden in the early game is tiny by comparison so my actual contribution is just as tiny.

I usually don't crusade to Jerusalem however - it's too hard for me to defend if I'm not a powerhouse.

My bet for the last big DLCs: pagan & HRE/catholics.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

If they redid contribution and made it so that the KoJ could go independent at least sometimes, it'd be fine IMO.

+1

KoJ becoming a secondary fief of a European king 99% of the time is very annoying.

Also, the fact that lots of kings join the first crusade is also a bit bad. It means that the crusading armies are much stronger than they were in reality, so in order to provide balance the Muslim rulers are made much more powerful than they ought to be. Which leads to silliness like Fatimid Italy.

If kings had to appoint regents for the time when they're on crusade, and were subject to bad events at home, that might counterbalance the eagerness of kings to join the fray. Dukes, with their smaller lands and less complicated politics, would join more eagerly. Maybe the regents of dukes and counts who go on crusade could also get support from the church? So they wouldn't have to fear losing their lands to thieving neighbours. Kings on the other hand would have to fear that factions would conspire to lower crown authority or raise pretenders so going on crusade would represent a less attractive prospect for them unless they are already popular and without threats at home.

 

[Accrsd]

I also think it's too easy to become max contributor. As king of Sweden I load up 2/3 of the troops I can raise, ship them off, occupy something, let them waltz around for a while until they die or the crusade is won (so I don't have to ship them back). Lo and behold, I'm the king of Sicily or a corner of Iberia. Note that 2/3 of the troops of Sweden in the early game is tiny by comparison so my actual contribution is just as tiny.

I usually don't crusade to Jerusalem however - it's too hard for me to defend if I'm not a powerhouse.

My bet for the last big DLCs: pagan & HRE/catholics.

i held it successfully as Serbia once. Reverse invaded the then Shia Caliphate ... granted the only reason i survived is that i moved my capital to jerusalem(for immediate holy order and merc armies), changed to Levantine culture, and landed a bunch of high learning stewards to force conversion to catholic... but yeah.. this was just before the introduction of west africa and changing caliph to a ducal equivalent title

 

[bullyasagi]

I think the Crusader system is actually very good, but would be happy about it when the pilgrims were supplemented (similar to the Hajj for Muslims). Assuming successful crusade against Jerusalem.
And an event in which you can call on the participation of the Crusade - Factors for the calculation here would be the moral authority. Rulers who should not participate in this crusade increasingly lose some points of moral authority. (for better balancing)
I think that would take some new tactical points.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

This particular comment doesn't exactly ring true. The byzantine empire was integral to the first crusade and perhaps provided the most worthwhile contribution. While the byz didn't go into an open state of war (i don't think) they did provide mercenary soldiers, secure supply lines, staging areas, and most importantly their incredibly valuable ports which for the first crusade was the only safe place to approach the holy lands from. The role they provided as both buffer state and martial contributor is perhaps the most important thing for the first two crusades. Later the Byzantines did get directly involved in the crusades In an attempt to prevent the holy lands from falling back into Muslim hands. When all was said and done the orthodox greeks did as much as the catholics.

They didn't fight, but they were still important? So what's your point??? Supply lines and grain shipments don't figure in this game. Yet. What do you want that should be there, to give the byzzies a role in the crusades as you demand??

That the BYZ emperors should have a diplo option "provide mercs to crusaders"? That BYZ territory should count as "friendly" for a crusading army's supply (thereby raising supply limit in neighboring muslim lands) if the BYZ emperor chooses some as-of-yet not implemented diplo option?

All of that would be an option. But if you don't want to derail the discussion into a history debate then make proposals that relate to the game.

 

[Accrsd]

They didn't fight, but they were still important? So what's your point??? Supply lines and grain shipments don't figure in this game. Yet. What do you want that should be there, to give the byzzies a role in the crusades as you demand??

That the BYZ emperors should have a diplo option "provide mercs to crusaders"? That BYZ territory should count as "friendly" for a crusading army's supply (thereby raising supply limit in neighboring muslim lands) if the BYZ emperor chooses some as-of-yet not implemented diplo option?

All of that would be an option. But if you don't want to derail the discussion into a history debate then make proposals that relate to the game.

my point is that (unfortunatly it was glossed over) That they did eventually participate openly in military campaigns. Sure this was during Saladin's reconquest but they did participate is all i'm saying. I didn't offer any ideas because of the fact that I wanted to only state that Byz had a role. I'd also like to state that during the fourth crusade the city of Constantinople was captured by catholic crusaders from it's orthodox owners so all in all a crusade should affect them in some way. I also understand though that they don't go on crusade for the same reason they don't have an invasion casibali. Do i have an idea for mechanics that could bring them involvment? no. does that mean someone won't read my post and come up with a theorized mechanic.. well in the end you did. a rather good one at that

 

[Zhetone]

If the Kingdom of Jerusalem were to be independent, it would be nice to have a special notice of some sort when it gets attacked by Muslims or really, anyone else. Knowing when Christians in the Holy Land are under attack would be rather nice...
the resultant kingdoms should also start out allied with those who participated in the crusade so that they're better defended. I've seen Jerusalem get beat up without anyone helping it survive before, and that's kind of annoying. I realize that's pretty much what happened in real life, but there should be a chance of something else happening.