Crusading in Crusader Kings

[unmerged(56602)]

So I've been playing CK for over a year now, and I still can't figure out any incentive for players to go crusading in the Holy Land. The reward for a successful crusade seems to be a bit of prestige, a dash of piety, massive debt, and a horrible reputation. Even realms that historically and theoretically has every reason to war on unbelievers, such as Castille or Apulia in 1066, seems to be far better off picking on Christians.

Anyway, my question to more experienced players is this: is there any reason (other than roleplaying or picking off small fry) to engage in crusades?

 

[ulmont]

Anyway, my question to more experienced players is this: is there any reason (other than roleplaying or picking off small fry) to engage in crusades?

Try it again and force-vassalize all the sheiks that you can. It'll be a lot more rewarding.

 

[unmerged(25971)]

A dash of piety? I think I got about 1000 last time. And was proclaimed a saint.

 

[Damocles]

It's not really worth it outside of RP reasons.

I mean. I can see hints of ways it might be able to improved, with a few mechanics tweaks and perhaps some event work...Yet it would require changing things that Johan has specifically stated will /never/ be changed (such as Muslims being allowed to take ships to anywhere in Europe).

A good way to represent Crusading, would be to make it so that Muslim armies only could pass from Tangiers to Gibraltar and that Christian and Muslim armies could pass back and forth in Constantinople. That would give Constantinople the strategic importance it deserves.

After that, the way that wars conducted against the Muslims need to change. Individual declarations of war (BB and all) along with accompanying individual peace treaties against various sheiks along the Outremer coast, just doesn't work out. There has to be some kind of system where basically, everything in Outremer has a claim on by Christians. It is positively ludicrous that anyone would have tarnished their reputation by reclaiming Jerusalem...However, they added the BB hit there to avoid people abusing Pagans and such.

So. Adequately representing the crusades is difficult.

Honestly, I've never seen any game manage it well. Medieval: Total War I and II didn't do it so hot either, yet for entirely different reasons. At least for MTW, the actual getting there was more accurate but little else was.

 

[ulmont]

It's not really worth it outside of RP reasons.

If you're aggressive, you can have all the territory that starts Muslim in the game as part of your empire by 1166 and still have an honourable reputation. How can that not be worth it?

 

[Drachenfire]

I do not think the crusades are worth it either, too expensive with too little reward. When I do go to war it is for specific limited provinces... I like to take the Welsh to Morraco

 

[OutsiderSubtype]

Two good reasons in my experience:

1) If you want a king title crusading can be an easy way to get one.
2) To seize wealthy provinces like Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc.

 

[Rob de Hard]

Deus Vult has totally cut the balls off the whole game in this respect.

Its called Crusader Kings, yet Crusading is financially impossible unless you keep typing 'gold', 'gold' etc.

There are also several serious issues with conquered states, states you make peace with simply being over-run by other crusaders, characters and courtiers being given christian identities but muslim names etc etc etc. Loads of bugs and crap oddities that are excused as 'limitations of the engine'. Uhuh.

Also, the original game gave you an strong incentive to crusade: bad boy alleviation.

The justification for castrating deus vult given was 'but it was too easy to pwn the muslims'. Which of course is crap, since you just make them harder to beat dummy.

As it is, I don't play Deus Vult. I wish I could, but I found it too limiting and very very boring if all I had to do was organize my bishophorics.

 

[Rob de Hard]

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy CK from time to time, but I prefer the original concept of the game: You start, you shore up your finances, build an army, ensure the Church knows it's place, have a son or two then, when your land border is secure against the French, you head for the Holy Land to forge a Kingdom of Heaven ..

That was fun.

Deus Vult is like the Politically Correct, Low Fat, High in Poly-unsaturates, Clinically Proven to make you vote Liberal version of its former burger loving, God bashing self.

Shame.

And that, so they say, is my 2 cents.

EDIT:

 

[unmerged(72383)]

Let me add a dumb question. Do you get anything for crusading as an orthodox? Maybe a pat on the back by Patriarch?

 

[Nick B II]

Let me add a dumb question. Do you get anything for crusading as an orthodox? Maybe a pat on the back by Patriarch?

Nothing.

Historically the Greeks weren't too happy about the Crusades, some of them maintain to this day that the Crusades were worse for Greek Christians than they were for Turkish Moslems.

It's still worth it sometimes -- land without claims is always good.

Nick

 

[Surgünoglu]

That's quite a tirade, Rob.

Yeah, Deus Vult is PC... Anyway, I'm not sure what's serious there and what's just simple pouting.

DV is fine for crusading. If anything, the ability to force-vassalize infidel leaders, pagan or Muslim, is fantastic, and the negotiation with Muslims and pagans does change the tendency to see a Moorish Scotland (not that it's impossible now, of course). The automatic annexation of original CK was really sloppy, in my opinion.

Now, the thing about crusading is that it costs money. But wasn't that the way in CK to begin with? War was always expensive. Nothing PC about that. It's factual. Don't play Victoria. It'd drive you to suicide.

I can free up several thousand crusaders to ship them to the Holy Land (from Denmark, mind you) and still net a few dozen gold a month. I have only one king title, but I've managed things very well.

And frankly, if you're crusading with a county, you're missing the point. Better to pick on Sicily or the pagan Baltic (as I did with the County of Sjaelland). If DV won't let you take on the K of Egypt as a one-prov count, I'm not sure what the problem is.

In any case, I have to agree with Rob, but not in a way he intended. It really is about this:

"You start, you shore up your finances, build an army, ensure the Church knows it's place, have a son or two then, when your land border is secure against the French, you head for the Holy Land to forge a Kingdom of Heaven...."

That's the way to do it, and that's why DV rocks. It is the true heir of CK and sharpens the game in many important ways.

 

[TC Pilot]

Personally, I don't see much wrong with the crusading system now with 1.5. Yeah, you go broke (or, at least you should), but so did everyone who went crusading. Yeah, you get a little badboy, but the 400 prestige and thousan piety make up for that, imo, plus you can always just grant your titles to a vassal.

The only problem I have with crusading is the annoying stupidity of, if I'm a vassal, my liege, who conventiently makes peace for 1 gold when I'm a day away from conquering Jerusalem.

As for the bb issue people have, couldn't badboy against pagans and Muslims be deactivated during the "crusade mode," so to speak?

 

[unmerged(91827)]

The only problem I have with Deus Vult Crusading is France/Germany making peace while my army is just outside of the target. That being said, redeclaring war costs 100 Prestige, and capturing the Holy Target is significantly more Prestige (especially with the Crusader trait), so you still net a profit.

As for cash... Well, if you're playing a County, you shouldn't bother Crusading anyway. Almost by definition any war as a Count will run at a loss because the size of your army is based on your income. It's not until you're a Duke, when you have a number of provinces in your Desmine as well as a few Counts to charge Scutage that you can have one or two regiments active without losing income. The same was true in 1.05, as near as I could tell.

Once you're on par with the AI, one or two regiments is all you really need since during a Crusade their armies are usually tied up with all the other attackers.

Having to make peace instead of automatically claiming a province is an infinite improvement over 1.05. Now you actually get a chance to take back the land they took from you while your army (well... regiment) is on its way from Continental Europe. If this wasn't a problem for you in 1.05, then it still shouldn't be. Really, it only adds to the game.

 

[Surgünoglu]

Yeah, I have to third that. My liege making peace when I'm about to satisfy his war aims--and a paltry peace, at that, gaining him some dozen gold? That's infuriating.

Probably unavoidable, though. It's a lot better than out-of-the-box CK, when I would negotiate a peace and all my vassals would remain at war, only to get gobbled out from under me. And to fix one, you have to have the other irritating side effect, but as you say, Nic, there's always a work-around.

As far as the Northern Crusade, it's a blast in DV. I love vassalizing pagan rulers throughout Finland--it makes for a different game than the usual suppression and conversion by the sword. They Christianize on their own, convert their own subjects, and eventually intermarry and become good Europeans. If anything, DV adds to all the ways we can wage holy war. That's a major good.

 

[unmerged(56602)]

Thanks for all the responses... immediately after that post, I got pissed off at my Kingdom of Sicily being massively in debt after obliterating the Emirate of Jerusalem in a classic blitzkrieg during the First Crusade. Despite Jerusalem being the target, five years of peace passed and I was still deeply in debt and the Crusade was still going. (Even though there was no Christian vs. Muslim fighting outside of the eternal Byzantine vs. Turk war.) So I switched to Team Fortress 2 for a while (isn't it weird that I can run that but not EU3?) and now I'm back.

1000 piety and being sainted mean very little to me. What, I get to control the Pope? Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.

I play Victoria, and I find it much easier to maintain a strong economy and fight a war concurrently in that game, despite (or perhaps because of?) the mind bending micromanagement required.

Force vassalizing would, of course, mitigate the Bad Boy problem. But I don't Robert Guiscard or Richard the Lionheart would have marched in and said, "Hey Muslim Lords, the status quo is cool, just pay me tribute now and convert later." nor would the Pope or their vassals have been amused.

I've decided if that when I plan on playing well, no grand crusades. When I'm bored, rich, or want to roleplay... I'll cry "Deus Vult!" and go hog wild.

 

[Tux the Penguin]

Thanks for all the responses... immediately after that post, I got pissed off at my Kingdom of Sicily being massively in debt after obliterating the Emirate of Jerusalem in a classic blitzkrieg during the First Crusade. Despite Jerusalem being the target, five years of peace passed and I was still deeply in debt and the Crusade was still going. (Even though there was no Christian vs. Muslim fighting outside of the eternal Byzantine vs. Turk war.) So I switched to Team Fortress 2 for a while (isn't it weird that I can run that but not EU3?) and now I'm back.

1000 piety and being sainted mean very little to me. What, I get to control the Pope? Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.

I play Victoria, and I find it much easier to maintain a strong economy and fight a war concurrently in that game, despite (or perhaps because of?) the mind bending micromanagement required.

Force vassalizing would, of course, mitigate the Bad Boy problem. But I don't Robert Guiscard or Richard the Lionheart would have marched in and said, "Hey Muslim Lords, the status quo is cool, just pay me tribute now and convert later." nor would the Pope or their vassals have been amused.

I've decided if that when I plan on playing well, no grand crusades. When I'm bored, rich, or want to roleplay... I'll cry "Deus Vult!" and go hog wild.

As people have said, there are only two real reasons to go crusading: RP and gain some prestige/piety or 2) get a quick Duke title as a poor count.

I've been wanting to play a game as a poor count and have him eventually become King of Jerusalem and then build the Dutchies around it. Too bad you can't be "Prince" when Catholic. That just sucks.

 

[Damocles]

If you're aggressive, you can have all the territory that starts Muslim in the game as part of your empire by 1166 and still have an honourable reputation. How can that not be worth it?

You get BB hits for annexing Muslim territory nowadays. I don't count exploits meant to keep it down. And in any case, only the player can accomplish it. The AI never has a chance.

 

[unmerged(90294)]

Crusading. And your life will never be the same again.

Any reason to engage for crusade ?

Yep, you send your vassal's armies, which weakens them in case they rebel, keep yours at home, pay only the travel to the heathens' lands and get yet another crown and vassals (=duty to liege) without risk if you don't pick your enemy at random. Force-vassalize muslims/Pagans and your BB gets down so fast that you can remove your vassals after or even during the war and replace them with your family.

(And it's very, very useful if you use Kinniken's alternative scoring mod.)

What if you simply were too ambitious ? Crusades are very costly, which was historically the case. You usually didn't get anything from it but ruin and a hope for salvation. Godeffroi de Bouillon had to sell his castle away BEFORE leaving.

Perhaps you could have more limited goals. For instance, conquering Jerusalem from the Fatimids'vassals is at least a 20000-men business in the first crusade (The Fatimids must be around 50000 to 60000 men strong if I'm not mistaken. No wonder it's too much for a duchy, even for Sicily. But Zirid and Beni Halal are definitely there for you.

 

[Rob de Hard]

I dont think anyone actually believed they were doing God's will by crusading.
More likely they reasoned that a mouldy castle in France was best exchanged for a castle in Outremer where sugar, spice, slaves and silk were plentiful.

Exactly the same human instinct that drove men to the western frontier in the 19th century.

If you read the primary sources, such as Geoffrey de Vinsauf's Itinerarium Regis Ricardi, it leaves little doubt that the motivations and psychology of the crusader Princes was light years different from the interpretation of their actions by men such as Geoffrey - fanatics who wouldn't sound out of place on an Al Qaeda video.

Absolutely nothing has changed in terms of religious fundamentalist thinking.

The good news is, nobody paid much attention to the lunatics back then either. Especially not Princes like Richard.