Crusades end if the Caliphate is usurped

[Ekstrakt]

I've had this happen twice in a row today.
We launch a succesful crusade, siege Jerusalem and 'fend of the heathens. It's all going as planned and it looks like we'll win.
Except the fact that this just doesn't happen. A single province has launched a full-scale rebellion against the Caliphate, deploying two stacks of 20.000 men, quickly gaining warscore, reaching 100% and thus conquering the Caliphate under a new dynasty.
Thus I get a message telling me we've won the crusade for Jerusalem, but in reality he has kept his lands and we all go home.
I've had this happen twice just today. How come this is the way it ends? The crusade should keep going even if the caliphate is usurped. It's not a crusade against that dynasty, but a crusade for Jerusalem, the holy city.
The aim of the crusade is to conquer Jerusalem, no matter who the Caliph is.

Am I the only one who's seen this happen?

 

[mcpenguin]

So that's what happened in my game! I was wondered what was going on when I received message that a crusade was won for Jerusalem only to find the area still painted green after. This happened on 2 occasions (saved and reloaded) so I just assumed it was a bug and never really looked into it

 

[Isaios]

That's wierd. Haven't seen that yet, mind sharing a save?

 

[unmerged(488308)]

Yeah that's pretty ridiculous, I've experienced it myself at least 5 times.

Would the pope call off a crusade on a muslim dynasty who is in civil war ?
Nope, he would take advantage of that.

So please Paradox, fix it, this is both frustrating and a-historical.

 

[Velger]

I've also had it happen, and I agree, it seems completely ridiculous; what should the Christians care for the laws and rules of the Muslims? The entire point of the 'Holy War' CB is that neither side particularly cared for the inheritance laws and such of the other; it was about religion, not legalism. Who controlled the lands being invaded didn't matter in the slightest.

Edit - not to derail, but I also think it's silly that wars against those rebelling against their liege arbitrarily end, with no option to simply press the war onward against the re-unified state with your occupations intact. It follows the same logic as I have for criticizing the initial post topic; why should your war end just because of that? Your claims don't disappear, so it seems silly that you have to start all over instead of having the option to simply continue to press the claim in spite of the reunification if you think you can still win anyway.

 

[Ekstrakt]

Thanks for the replies, I'll see if I can find a save as I get home. This needs to be fixed, as I honestly do not think it's WAD.

 

[magritte2]

Yes, it happened in the game I was writing an AAR for, which was sad, because the Europeans were actually beating the Fatimids for a change. I think the crusade is handled just like any other war and sometimes (though not always), the death of the principal in a war will result in a white peace. I haven't been able to figure out why sometimes when a rebellious vassal dies, his successor carries on the war and sometimes he doesn't. There are times when the death of the liege you're rebelling against should end the war, like a war against his tyranny, but it doesn't seem to make sense for an independence war. Or a crusade.

 

[mcpenguin]

In my game, last I checked, the crusaders were losing in the war. That's why I was surprised to see the message that they actually won and even more surprised to see that they really didn't!