Crusader Kings developers apparent don't like Crusaders

[SirRitter]

I just recently been playing with the historical leaders of the first crusade for the first time: The Bouillon brothers, Tancred, Bohemond... why do they have such pathetic and ahistorical stats?

This seems particularly deliberate in the case of Bohemond of Taranto. The man was a brilliant military commander who at his 20's gave the then General Alexius Commenos a run for his money and nearly carved a norman conquest in greece along with his father. His actions in the first crusade(specially during the siege of Antioch) are legendary. He impressed Anna Commenos such that she wrote a lenghty description of her fascination with him(the only crusader actually described in her writings). The principality of Antioch founded by him lasted over 150 years and his adventures in defending against the muslins and the byzantines are nothing short of epic(he once travelled to Europe and not only managed to gather a huge army of volunteers, but he also wedded the princess of France!).

Now this guy, who should be brilliant strategist, brave, strong and ambitious has stats in the game which barely qualify him as a foot soldier. This is only one example of course, the Bouillon brothers get possibly even worst treatment. This while random viking raiders from the 9th century who got their asses kicked have some of the best stats in the game.

Seems to me almost deliberate really.

 

[SovereignGrave]

I don't think it's deliberate; I think that it's just that, like so many characters, they have randomized stats. So well-known and impressive individuals end up with sub-par stats because their stats and traits are all just randomized when you load the game.

 

[greendevil]

Just bias, like anything else in the game. If Bohemond of Taranto had been a swedish dude he'd have 20 in every stat now.

Actually, I'd go as far as to say that paradox' historical education is kinda poor.

 

[Rationalsanity]

I thought education stats for most landed characters were set in stone, as were congenital traits? Personality traits are random/semi random in most cases though. But certain character do merit better stats, that's for sure.

 

[aitaituo]

I thought education stats for most landed characters were set in stone, as were congenital traits? Personality traits are random/semi random in most cases though. But certain character do merit better stats, that's for sure.

I believe the history files have to specifically define their stats including education, otherwise they're randomly generated at the start of each game.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

They are defined

Bohemund d'Hauteville

1140 = {
    name="Bohemond"
    dynasty=678
    martial=8
    diplomacy=7
    intrigue=8
    stewardship=6
    religion="catholic"
    culture="norman"
    trait="brave"
    trait="cynical"
    trait="wroth"
    trait="tough_soldier"
    father=1128
    mother=10003
    1058.1.1 = {
        birth="1058.1.1"
    }
    1105.1.1 = {
        add_spouse=205511
    }
    1111.3.3 = {
        death="1111.3.3"
    }
}

Not sure which Tancred you refer to, as there are several. Some have predefined stats, some don't.

The stats for Bohemond are pretty mediocre, true. If that would be all to complain about currently, i'd be happy.

 

[Elm0__]

I'd go as far as to say that paradox' historical education is kinda poor.

I would agree with that. IMHO they're basing their research mostly on Wikipedia and don't go far beyond, which often leads to some annoying misconceptions.

 

[imperium3]

Personally I wouldn't centre my complaints on those characters' stats, but more on the fact that it's basically impossible to win the First Crusade with any of them. In this game you have to be a large, powerful kingdom to win crusades...

 

[Yenzen]

There are defiantly some things set in stone other than education. Matilda of Tuscany is always zealous and tends to have very good stats, particularity in terms of diplomacy, but she does receive some random skills, for example. William the bastard tends to have godly stats and the initial Byzantine Emperor and his heir are always lackluster.

 

[Rationalsanity]

Major characters like Duke William and so forth have stats that are preset. Some rulers, like King Malcolm III of Scotland are semi-random (said character will always be a Wroth, Cynical, Dutiful Cleric but also gets 2 free traits) and others are purely random.

Bohemond just got screwed by his stats though, as did the other original Crusaders with actual non-random stats.

 

[Sunspawn]

They are defined

Bohemund d'Hauteville

1140 = {
    name="Bohemond"
    dynasty=678
    martial=8
    diplomacy=7
    intrigue=8
    stewardship=6
    religion="catholic"
    culture="norman"
    trait="brave"
    trait="cynical"
    trait="wroth"
    trait="tough_soldier"
    father=1128
    mother=10003
    1058.1.1 = {
        birth="1058.1.1"
    }
    1105.1.1 = {
        add_spouse=205511
    }
    1111.3.3 = {
        death="1111.3.3"
    }
}

Not sure which Tancred you refer to, as there are several. Some have predefined stats, some don't.

The stats for Bohemond are pretty mediocre, true. If that would be all to complain about currently, i'd be happy.

The Tancred that rules Antioch in 1100. He was one of the leaders of the First Crusade and, like Raymond of Toulose and the Bouillon bros, was quite the commander.

IMO the bias is not everyone else having crap stats, but Swedish/Germanic characters having awesome stats that are far beyond anything characters who are far more relevant and well-documented get.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

The Tancred that rules Antioch in 1100. He was one of the leaders of the First Crusade and, like Raymond of Toulose and the Bouillon bros, was quite the commander.

This one eh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tancred,_Prince_of_Galilee

30871 =

{
name="Tancred"
dynasty=678
religion="catholic"
culture="norman"
trait="deceitful"
trait="skilled_tactician"
father=71253
mother=1143
1072.1.1 = {
birth="1072.1.1"
}
1096.1.1 = {
trait="crusader"
}
1112.12.5 = {
death="1112.12.5"
}
}

IMO the bias is not everyone else having crap stats, but Swedish/Germanic characters having awesome stats that are far beyond anything characters who are far more relevant and well-documented get.

Normans are germanic too.
Its only two norse characters that get huge stats as far as i recall. Maybe new Widukind as well.

I doubt it's actual bias, but inconsistency. Paradox as it is.

 

[SPAMbuca]

I'm not sure how they did their research, but perhaps some of the cruelties committed by the Crusaders on the First Crusade made them tune the stats down in general. Also, perhaps, it's just a matter of balance gameplay wise.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

I'm not sure how they did their research, but perhaps some of the cruelties committed by the Crusaders on the First Crusade made them tune the stats down in general. Also, perhaps, it's just a matter of balance gameplay wise.

While at least one of those atrocities was due to ineptness, being bloodthirsty murderers doesn't stop the vikings having good stats.

 

[GC13]

I would agree with that. IMHO they're basing their research mostly on Wikipedia and don't go far beyond, which often leads to some annoying misconceptions.

I can buy that. It's not just characters either: it's a whole bunch of small things and some really big ones too.

 

[History_Buff]

I just recently been playing with the historical leaders of the first crusade for the first time: The Bouillon brothers, Tancred, Bohemond... why do they have such pathetic and ahistorical stats?

This seems particularly deliberate in the case of Bohemond of Taranto. The man was a brilliant military commander who at his 20's gave the then General Alexius Commenos a run for his money and nearly carved a norman conquest in greece along with his father. His actions in the first crusade(specially during the siege of Antioch) are legendary. He impressed Anna Commenos such that she wrote a lenghty description of her fascination with him(the only crusader actually described in her writings). The principality of Antioch founded by him lasted over 150 years and his adventures in defending against the muslins and the byzantines are nothing short of epic(he once travelled to Europe and not only managed to gather a huge army of volunteers, but he also wedded the princess of France!).

Now this guy, who should be brilliant strategist, brave, strong and ambitious has stats in the game which barely qualify him as a foot soldier. This is only one example of course, the Bouillon brothers get possibly even worst treatment. This while random viking raiders from the 9th century who got their asses kicked have some of the best stats in the game.

Seems to me almost deliberate really.

Bohemond probably should have better stats, but the question I have is how much of that near conquest of Greece was thanks to him and how much of it was thanks to his father, who was Robert Guiscard if I am not mistaken? Also, those Vikings didn't necessarily get their asses kicked. Haestein was one of the most successful Viking raiders ever and starts off in a very tricky situation right next to a large and powerful West Francia were he kind of needs good stats. Ivar the Boneless led the Great Heathen Army to conquer Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia before leaving to set up shop in Ireland where he established a dynasty that would rule a large part of Ireland for a good while to come. Bjorn Ironside led one of the most successful Viking raids ever into the Mediterranean and managed to sack the city of Luna by a very clever trick where he pretended to be dead and then rose from the coffin to lead an attack on the city once they let him and some of his men in to have him buried due to his claim of conversion. This he did because he thought the City was Rome. Sigurd Snake-in-the-eye participated in the campaigns of the Great Heathen Army and was the father of the man who united Denmark. Halfdan led the Great Heathen Army after Ivar left and after losing to Alfred the Great, became the first King of Jorvik before briefly becoming King of Ireland. He would then die in battle trying to reclaim Ireland. Harald Fair Hair is the man who first united Norway. Rurik is the man who founded Russia. These are all really famous and successful people who definitely deserve really good stats and are not just "a bunch of Vikings who got their butts kicked".

 

[keynes2.0]

Everyone looks good when you are going by self congratulatory propaganda about their victories. Half the kings of Europe would be geniuses with average stats of 20 by that standard. The other half (the ones who didn't write the history) would be slow and average stats of 3.

 

[SirRitter]

Personally I wouldn't centre my complaints on those characters' stats, but more on the fact that it's basically impossible to win the First Crusade with any of them. In this game you have to be a large, powerful kingdom to win crusades...

It is unlikely to repeat their remarkable historical deeds at all with their current stats, actually. I had to deactivate achievements and change their stats to what I think is more correct in the history files.

Baldwin of Boullion for instance was an able ruler who greatly expanded the early kingdom of Jerusalem by defeating the egyptians several times and was compared to biblical Saul, David and Joshua by chroniclers. Okay, so the chroniclers tend to exagerate... but in the game he is a 'thrifty clerk"!

I would agree with that. IMHO they're basing their research mostly on Wikipedia and don't go far beyond, which often leads to some annoying misconceptions.

This I think. And some of the traits assigned are rather random and picked for one or two historical anecdotes. I never read mention of Bohemond's piety(probably because there is no historical mention of it), but "cynical"? Perhaps the guy who did his stats assigned that to him because Bohemond was the one who accused Peter Bartholomew of being a dangerous quack who fabricated the discovery of the holy lance? Not sure that would qualify him as a cynical bastard, specially since he turned out to be right and Bartholomew was eventually exposed.

 

[SignedName]

Everyone looks good when you are going by self congratulatory propaganda about their victories. Half the kings of Europe would be geniuses with average stats of 20 by that standard. The other half (the ones who didn't write the history) would be slow and average stats of 3.

Why would Anna Comnena write propaganda for Norman barbarians? That just doesn't make sense.

 

[keynes2.0]

Because it fit well with the dramatic epic she was writing about her brother.