Holy lands +

[unmerged(44072)]

I never actually use offer vassalization. It never worked for me, and sometimes rulers would reject my vassalization offer and then offer to vassalize a few months later. I think the probability of vassalization because you hold the Kingdom title is way too high at the moment. It seems to occur almost automatically when the old ruler dies. It's weird to watch Germany disintegrate down to one vassal and a couple provinces, only to have recovered almost all of its territory thirty years later.

 

[TKaz84]

next, which is rather ck2 material i think, the arabs didnt know what hit em, they just knew it was from the west. Im thinking doesnt this mean that until the 1300s when the ottomans decide to take up on Europe the arabs shouldnt be able to attack europe? or maybe only through spain and/or byzantine territories. I mean they didnt even want to do attack europe not even thought of this. (yes i know discussed before many times)

can i ask whether the notorious multiple kingdom title disrupt events will find their way into 1.05 ?

The problem is a lack of "terra incognita" in CK that exists in EU/EUII. Everyone automatically has the entire map revealed, when in reality they should be limited to their home kingdom (or maybe even their own demesne). This also allows players to send marriage/vassalization requests to the far corners of the globe and have them answered immediately, which makes no sense. If I'm some Russian pricipality and I ask for the hand of some French courtier, it could take years, even decades, for the message to be recieved and replied to.

Unfortunately it is a CK2 issue, as the implementation of some form of hidden map or increased waiting times for diplomacy would require massive coding, and in the case of the hidden map a complete restructuring of several core game mechanics.

 

[qvcatullus]

qvcattelus, this is exactly what happens, kingdoms do restructure themselves over time.

Yes, I know. In a cheesy way that many folks complain about. I was hoping for something less cheesy.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

Yes, I know. In a cheesy way that many folks complain about. I was hoping for something less cheesy.

I can see no reason why, unless someone is actually capable of disputing the rightful ruler's claim and force him to abdicate/kill him before siezing the throne themselves, the kingdom wouldn't come back together. And anyway, it doesn't always come back together, if the ruler has a bad reputation then frequently kingdoms stay divided.

 

[Quift]

The problem is not the vasselage per se, but how it works. The system where all of my 70 dukes are all devadly loyal to me despite me taking 100% scutage is ridiculous.

Loyalty should vary between 20-80 % and reccuperate very slowly. Refusal to pay scutage should be an event. and mobilising troops should mobilise about a third of the kingdom. ie they are not 100% an extension of myself.

If this was the case then the rest wouldn't be a problem.

 

[unmerged(50471)]

Beacause the Crusaders never made a concerted attempt to eradicate Islam from the holy lands, they massacred the Muslim population of Jerusalem and maybe a few other cities but cities in the middle ages didn't contain anything like the majority of the population, and I know that a lot of the time the Crusaders were perfectly happy to leave the muslims alone, so long as they paid their taxes and didn't do anything insurrectionary, and this even includes the muslim aristocrats aswell.

Umm. No. There were almost no Muslims in the entire Kingdom of Jerusalem, except a few around Nablus. The Muslims who weren't massacred pretty much left en masse, as did most of the Jews. The population of Jerusalem (and also of Tripoli and Antioch - less sure about Edessa, but it was also substantially Christian) consisted almost entirely of eastern Christians of various types. In the Kingdom of Jerusalem they were mostly Orthodox and Arabic-speaking. In Tripoli there were Maronites, and in Antioch and Edessa you get Greek-speaking Orthodox, Jacobite Syrians, and Armenians. There were certainly *some* Muslims in the region, but not very many until after 1187.

It should also be remembered that Antioch and Edessa had, until shortly before the Crusade, been part of the Byzantine Empire. Antioch was certainly almost entirely Christian. To be realistic, the provinces of the Crusader kingdoms would be Orthodox, not Muslim (although even this is oversimplifying) - the northern provinces would have Greek or Armenian culture and be Orthodox, while the southern provinces would have Arabic culture and be Orthodox.

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

Its just, these sort of events are artificial.

When Napoleon formed an Empire did all the sudden he have widespread revolts and unexplainable Civil wars? Did Hitler have a massive uprising of people in Germany to topple his regime for no apparent reason?

No.

If the game can't beat you through straight out military actions, then there shouldn't be these events which screw you over and add no fun.

I am not saying the game has to be easy as pie, just a more fun way of losing than civil wars for no reason.

Those are slightly out of the time frame, though. After all, Hitler clearly wasn't worried about producing a male heir.