Forum Consensus and Opinions on Coalitions?

[SigurdStormhand]

If Christians are helping Muslims, then he's over 75% threat. Everybody is convinced they will be next if he's not stopped by that point.

Go read back a few pages - you can get to 75% as the Byzantine Emperor just by re-taking a few recently lost Duchies, which was cheered historically.

 

[JacobMunro]

At this point I don't really care about whether it's accurate or makes sense, I have played a couple of big campaigns after conclave dropped and have left the game alone since. The game is fun to play and makes sense as long as you're weak in terms of size and or council power, but the moment you are both large and have the realm completely under control, you have nothing to do. Depending on your religion/government you will have literally nothing to do unless you want to murder people just for spite's purposes. You sit around on your hands desperately hoping the Caliph declares a jihad so you can actually do something.

All I really want is for the defensive pacts to be optional without disabling achievements, because at this point, the moment Reaper's Due drops I'll never play for achievements ever again.

 

[Choombi]

Go read back a few pages - you can get to 75% as the Byzantine Emperor just by re-taking a few recently lost Duchies, which was cheered historically.

Well I'm sure it was cheered inside the Byzantine Empire, I'm doubtful independent kingdoms near it were as enthusiastic.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

It also doesn't make much sense that they'd suddenly not care anymore after a few decades or a succession. If a large nearby nation is a threat to you, unless it actually gets smaller or more decentralized, that nation is always going to be a threat to you. To an extent, defensive pacts should form if there are any sufficiently powerful different religion/culture group states nearby that holds some of their religion/culture group's land and should remain intact so long as that remains the case.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Well I'm sure it was cheered inside the Byzantine Empire, I'm doubtful independent kingdoms near it were as enthusiastic.

Well, you'd be wrong - this is the guy I jumped into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_I

There's no mentioned of the Christians forming a defensive Alliance whilst Basil wrecks Muslim Sicily, nore was such an Alliance fostered under his sons.

Or even of this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikephoros_II_Phokas

In the 9th century any price would prefer the overlordship of a Christian Emperor to helping Muslim Arabs. Things start to change towards the end of the CKII period, but even in the Renaissance most Christians would have

Byzantine Emperors in the 9th-10th Century were very "Threatening" but christians and Arabs tended to compartmentalise, and attitudes only hardened once the Crusades and Jihad took off.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

Well, you'd be wrong - this is the guy I jumped into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_I

There's no mentioned of the Christians forming a defensive Alliance whilst Basil wrecks Muslim Sicily, nore was such an Alliance fostered under his sons.

Basil I didn't conquer Sicily, he lost it. He conquered Cyprus (then lost it), had minor fights in Anatolia and retook the area around Bari/Calabria. In CK2 terms, that's one duchy and a few de jure single-county conquests, plus territorial losses. Hardly enough to trip the 75% line.