Pretty sure it's been said that one cannot add war goals in CK2. I forget which DD or thread noted it.
Developer Diary 19 – Crusades
- Thread starter King
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A goal, not THE goal, one of the hundred, but one of them, the goal of the co-ordination. Most of it was unorganised, independant counts privately responding to the outrage of mazirikert or whatever it was called, the big battle the byzantines lost to the turk which sparked it, the desecration of the holy sepulcher, atrocities committed against pilgrims, the rising tide of christian confidence as it became a progressive, High civilisation as the siege of the moslem and viking on christian shores had finally been lifted, the united spirit of a continent, or the spiritual call of Urban in um, wherever c-named town in france that council was in. Or the great conflict of ideas. But the Stragetic goal of the co-ordination, what the generals got together to structure their organised plan on once they got there, the division of islam was the goal of that crusade. Just as WWII was to defeat the nazis, but the goal of high command was to take strategic targets one after another. Nothing has only one cause or effect or goal or aim.
But the point was, the Crusaders werent an organised under single leadership movement, it was co-ordinated. It was different european forces acting independantly, but in concert, towards a single goal. Which CANT be represented in game, because its too big. So representing it as many kings declaring seperate wars in the same direction at the same time does as well as would be possible anyway.
The big organised crusades under single leadership are represented by the king going and taking his kingdom with him, but the majority of the crusades were co-ordinated, not organised. and thats what the crusade mechanic in CK2 represents, motivation for individuals to take up the call on their own whether under the leadership of a king or not. To act together but not under command, to crusade.
So the Crusade Mechanics arent perfect, but there good enough and probably as good as its possible to be. As if it was only organised then it wouldn't leave room for anyone outside of that command to go forth which would be as much of a problem. Its an issue too big for the game to represent without excluding most of it, however the game did it it would miss half of it, but get the other half. This mechanic works and is good enough, so no worries. thats the point.
In CK2 your goals must be stated at the war declaration, and only the original declarant can press for those specific goals. You can't gain land from defensive wars, even with claims, but I think you can force the aggressor to give up their claims to your land.
So wars should be handled in short order for best results. Dragging them out doesn't help you.
So wars should be handled in short order for best results. Dragging them out doesn't help you.
For wars, I think there's only 3 options in CK2.
Enforce goal of CB, white peace, and reverse goal of CB. So if you were taking a duchy as the goal of your CB, the first option would give you the duchy, the second option would end the war but you'd still have your claims, and the third option would cause you to give up your claims on the duchy.
Enforce goal of CB, white peace, and reverse goal of CB. So if you were taking a duchy as the goal of your CB, the first option would give you the duchy, the second option would end the war but you'd still have your claims, and the third option would cause you to give up your claims on the duchy.
Yeah, but if you were still part of the HRE, you'd still be part of it because Kings can be vassals of Emperors. I'm sure you'll agree that this makes very little sense from a geographical standpoint.
Ehh, I'm not so sure about that. Urban did not mean for the "Crusaders" to bypass every city along the way to Jerusalem. In fact, the target of the "First Crusade" isn't even mentioned in some of the copies of Uban's speeches at Clermont. The idea that there was a specific target for the "First Crusade" is not really correct, and the major reason "Crusades" evolved to have specific targets in the subsequent decades/centuries was to support the Kingdom of Jerusalem and make sure it didn't get overrun by Muslims (Whether by trying to expand the Kingdom, take back lost territory, or by attacking Muslim strongholds).
Maybe you are right, but then again we don't know. Surely it would have been better if this was taken care of within the mechanics of a Crusade System, instead of having to fight it out with your liege who wants taxes and military support from your provinces half a world away.
Also, I have seen how Crusade's play out (live stream), and unless they change before the game releases (and no Dev comment in this thread suggests they will be improved) they're actually lamer then they sound.
My point is: they took what could have been an awesome, major focal point of the game, and made it boring as hell. As it stands, it's just a Holy War (that apparently anyone can go on without waiting for a Crusade) with a cool name.
Yes, the DD makes the crusades sound really 'surgical', letting you take the target duchy and nothing else. It's a shame, because elsewhere in the game we have seen the 'Invasion' CB, which lets you keep every bit of land you have conquered on the way to achieving your war goal. Which in theory would fit the crusades well.
On the other hand, it seems that the crusades aren't really anything more than a jumped-up Holy War CB (which is always available), so although you can only take Jerusalem in one war, you can effortlessly start fresh wars to seize the surrounding lands. If the AI can handle opportunistic land grabs on the way to the crusade target, that might work out okay.
On another subject, back in post 138 I asked if the Knightly Orders would have any geographical limitaitons, or if it was entirely possible for the Teutonic Order to end up fighting the Reconquista and owning southern Spain. I don't think we've had an answer on that?
What that makes me wonder is if there's a "truce" period afterwards, and if so for how long. Because potentially it seems there's a sneaky strategy whereby you could launch offensive wars in order to avoid the enemy getting an opportunity to use their CB.
The complaint is a little silly anyway. Like what does he want exactly? The inability for Catholics to war against heathens without Papal permission? I think the Crusade system the developers are using here is pretty good. You can do a normal holy war, but there are also Crusades which act like holy wars but there are extra incentives like bonus piety.
I think too many people are dismissing how big the crusade bonuses really are. There was one recent LP where the guy playing did a quick game as Jerusalem. He was quickly overwhelmed by one of the Caliphs but he may have been able to save himself if he hadn't lacked the piety to recruit the Holy Orders, one of which had like 7,000 troops which would have given him a fighting chance. It's bonuses like this that make a crusade way more competitive for Christians than a regular holy war, IMO. If you guys played CK1 (or watched the recent CK2 Byzantine LP), you know that the Muslims are capable of fielding gigantic doom stacks and every soldier you can find counts.
That depends on how it is implemented, it at least should start out as a nominal vassal, especially if the first ruler also is a duke in the HRE. OTOH the distance should make it much more likely to break free from the empire, the possessions in the empire could get in trouble though.
For instance IRL the king of Cyprus got his royal crown from the HRE, but de facto it was certainly independent.
It will also help to ensure situations like the second crusade where european kings send support for the crusader states happen, I think its good that we will have situations where the European kings try to ensure that the KoJ is defended.
Exactly. The only wars I ever drag out in my preview copy are Invasion Wars against fellow Catholics. This is because I want to replace as many of the original ruling class as possible with my own loyal people. Even when I do that, it's usually just done select duchy-sized chunks. It would take too damn long to take out all of the English earls, for example, in a single war.
Due to plotting among vassals, there really is an incentive to keep wars short and sweet. Long wars tend to irritate vassals whose levies you borrow.
Pretty much.
When claims are at stake, you can force the attacker to drop claims if the attacker loses (not just white peace). Some war goals, though, don't really have an opposite. So, when you get completely spanked on a Holy War or Crusade CB, you just lose more piety and prestige. (That is painful for different reasons.) Vassals that lose against their liege usually end up in prison. (Again, painful for a different reason.)
Bear in mind that whatever is at stake in the war (the county or duchy) counts a lot for war score. If one side or the other controls the whole thing for more than X amount of time, they start getting a war score bonus. Furthermore, no matter how you get the war score, 100% means you can force terms. This means that phony wars are pointless (you end up losing war score and being forced to accept a bad peace). It also encourages people to either strike at capitals, important countries (to deprive the enemy of levies and taxes), or the target itself.
Note also that losing a claim in a war is pretty bad. Regaining the claim might be impossible or take years and years, so you can't do like CK1 and lose a claim and just buy another one right away for 500 prestige or whatever. There are times where fighting to secure a white peace on offense is very important.
Yeah, the Holy Orders are one good way to spend piety.
You can also get annulments for piety (get rid of that pesky spouse!). Your piety increases your relation with all clergy in your faith, so that makes excommunication harder. You can also request excommunication in exchange for piety. And, of course, the Invasion CB requires a hefty chunk of piety (500 at last count, I think). Since you can't just buy a claim on kingdom titles anymore, that Invasion CB is really important when you want to start collecting kingdom titles.
Piety is also required for the Paragon of Virtue ambition. Given it's bonuses, that is a pretty big incentive right there.
Piety also adds to your final score when you die. So being a saintly king has its advantages, too. Those looking to run up their dynasty's score will find Crusades attractive.
How do you get an invasion CB? Do you have to go to the diplomacy screen Pope and ask for it?
I think you interact with the target diplomatically, but the Pope is "asked" and grants approval. The criteria involved in the Pope's decision is unknown to to me, though.
How scripted are the areas of operation of the 3 crusader orders. Can the Teutonic Knights fight and gain land in Hungary or the Holy Lands? Can the Hospitalers or Templars participate in the Baltic crusades? Can any of them turn up in the reconquista?
You can use them all against any pagan or muslim realms. Doesn't matter where it is.
The events where they might ask you for a border province or the right to establish a castle in your provinces are geared more toward the historical path, with Templars and Hospitalers focusing on the Holy Land and the Teutonic Order against the pagans.
Those Castles are templar baronies? will there be events for the other quarters in the holy land and jerusalem? i.e. italian merchant republics getting baronies in the KoJ or cities baronies generated with italians in charge if thats how it works.
Will the moslem Kingdom of Egypt get a penalty to or atleast very low starting kingdom authority? So as crusades being possible without having to fight the whole of it at once but while its fighting and mostly indifferent to eachother.
That sounds perfectly historical. everytime the moslems got organised, [in CK2 terms kingdom authority] the crusader state couldnt possibly raise enough troops to stand a chance, which is why we dont still have a kingdom of jerusalem around to day. it couldnt match the numbers. Every soldier should count and be hard to come by.