Just like cadet branches, crusades are one of the things that people say "need to be reworked". How would you rework them exactly? Take into account how the same mechanics could be used for jihads and Great Holy Wars.
How would you improve the crusade mechanics?
- Thread starter Keizer Harm
- 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.
One quick idea I would have is, to not simply award the conquered territory to the biggest participant, but to make it into a new kingdom, and the top five participants being collectively the "protectors", similar to the tributary mechanics, that are also being expanded upon this very patch. The king would be a courtier pre-selected by the biggest participant, in the same fashion as the conquering China requires selecting someone to become the emperor. Perhaps if the biggest participant borders the conquered territory then it could be added to their country instead.
I dunno, I think it would be kinda neat if occupied provinces outside of the de-jure kingdom were also given if the war succeeds. Maybe they can be granted to whoever occupied them and made independent to simulate the real non-Kingdom of Jerusalem Crusader states in the Levant.
Use the new rally point mechanic to have the levies form into armies somewhere. So they don't all individually suicide in hopeless battles. Needs to take attrition into account of course.
They should function more like invasions and not be limited just to the kingdom title they were called against.
Some contributions to the core mechanics would greatly benefit the crusades.
For instance, I'd say it's about time to get rid of teleporting commanders. It's silly how you can just move them half a world away in an instant. Your army is slowly getting surrounded in Mesopotamia? Just one click, and your King is back to France, in less than a blink of an eye.
If you do get captured, it's not like you can't pay a ransom. If you rule a kingdom, and have the means to field tens of thousands of warriors, then you won't really be all that concerned with paying few hundred gold for your ransom.
And it's not like you can't recover your army of tens of thousands in a couple of years....
This time period (according to CK2) should be called Age of Plenty. Gold and men just spring out of nowhere, like mushrooms after rain.
Fortunately, ransom and levy replenishment can be easily tweaked. Just give us two game rules, one to scale up King's Ransom, and the other one to scale down levy replenishment.
And if you make a way to bring sense into teleporting commanders, you can also give us a game rule for it as well. Who doesn't like the new feature, can revert to default.
Also, armies on march, with dwindling supplies, won't really sit around slowly dying off from starvation in a real situation. They will pillage the land they're in. Whether you like it or not. And those pillaged lands won't really take it kindly to this behavior. French army stuck in Serbia, half way from their crusade target? Are they going to return home? Nope.
They're going to pillage the land, perhaps even burn some cities that complain.
And how do you even get supplies when you reach coastal provinces? is there a magical sea supply line? This may work in HoI games, but not so much in Middle Ages.
Perhaps give us a new type of ship. One that has no means of troop transport, but can carry supplies. You would assign a small fleet of these ships to sail between your port province, and the coastal province where your army is located.
You would then have an excuse to add war ships to the game. There would be no need to add actual naval combat. Just block the sea supply lines. Perhaps even make them a deterrence to enemy transport ships. You put your fleet of war ships in a sea province, and the enemy transport fleet can't enter it. They could also provide a siege bonus.
As for what happens when two opposing fleets meet in one province....just make them avoid each other, with no combat.
A small sacrifice for the implementation of a system that would greatly benefit the realism of this game.
These additions alone would have a drastic impact on how you wage Crusades.
As for the very Crusade mechanics...
Have the Pope announce the Crusade before the actual start of the military campaign. In that small period of time before the start, Leaders are chosen by the Pope.
In order for a character to qualify for the Leader position, he needs to fulfill certain requirements. He is either a character with a large amount of Piety (perhaps 1000 or more), or can supply a one time fixed amount of gold (say, 1000 coins).
Amount of coins can be realistically only supplied by Emperors and Kings. Perhaps even by powerful Dukes.
Piety requirement stands only to give chance to other characters that are not so rich. It would be hard to reach that amount. The Pope will either give the Leader positions to people who can actually support an army, or to those who are basically saints on Earth.
I can't say what the limit of Leaders should be. Perhaps there should be no limit.
Leaders who supplied the money mostly rely on their own levy.
Those who "supplied" Piety start getting events that grant them troops. Those wouldn't be free. Far from it.
For example, you are a Count of a single province, and you provided 1000 Piety, thus becoming a Leader. You now get a special interaction with other Christian characters. You can ask them for soldiers, in exchange for a favor. No, not that favor we currently have in the game. After the victory in the Crusade, your patron will ask for a portion of your share in conquest. Or something like that.
Perhaps gain an ability to send zealot preachers to other realms. They would have a chance to rile up the population, and make them raise in arms for your cause. Or you can risk a rebellion.
Isn't this kinda limiting?
Well, everyone can still join the war.
If you are not a Leader, but you contributed greatly, you are presented with immense gifts from the Pope. Firstly, you get a bunch of gold. Secondly, you get a fancy new trait, more powerful than the current "Crusader" one. And finally, you get various boosts for your economy, as well as opinion increases with your peers.
When the actual Crusade starts, "Crusader Leaders" are all set, and gain appropriate traits.
Upon victory, the Kingdom (and the capital Duchy) goes to the highest scoring Leader. Other titles are distributed to other Leaders by score.
For example, here we have Kingdom of Jerusalem.
There were four Leaders.
First one gains KoJ, Jerusalem Duchy and the city.
Second one gains Duchy of Galilee.
Third one gains Duchy of Ascalon.
Fourth one gains Duchy of Outerjordan.
But what if there are more than 4 Leaders? If there are no more Duchies, Counties and Baronies are granted.
After victory, Leaders are presented with an option. They will either abdicate their old titles and swear fealty to the Crusader Kingdom, or they will grant it to a relative. That relative will act as a permanent tributary to that Leader, and swear no actual allegiance to the Crusader Kingdom.
Idea here is to have several Crusader States, not just one big kingdom.
Yeah, I really cannot even comprehend the mess of a code that would need to be written for this...
I'd like to write about special interactions between Crusader States, Crusader Kingdoms, the Pope and other Christian rulers, as well as special governments and events/decisions....but this post is already too big.
For instance, I'd say it's about time to get rid of teleporting commanders. It's silly how you can just move them half a world away in an instant. Your army is slowly getting surrounded in Mesopotamia? Just one click, and your King is back to France, in less than a blink of an eye.
If you do get captured, it's not like you can't pay a ransom. If you rule a kingdom, and have the means to field tens of thousands of warriors, then you won't really be all that concerned with paying few hundred gold for your ransom.
And it's not like you can't recover your army of tens of thousands in a couple of years....
This time period (according to CK2) should be called Age of Plenty. Gold and men just spring out of nowhere, like mushrooms after rain.
Fortunately, ransom and levy replenishment can be easily tweaked. Just give us two game rules, one to scale up King's Ransom, and the other one to scale down levy replenishment.
And if you make a way to bring sense into teleporting commanders, you can also give us a game rule for it as well. Who doesn't like the new feature, can revert to default.
Also, armies on march, with dwindling supplies, won't really sit around slowly dying off from starvation in a real situation. They will pillage the land they're in. Whether you like it or not. And those pillaged lands won't really take it kindly to this behavior. French army stuck in Serbia, half way from their crusade target? Are they going to return home? Nope.
They're going to pillage the land, perhaps even burn some cities that complain.
And how do you even get supplies when you reach coastal provinces? is there a magical sea supply line? This may work in HoI games, but not so much in Middle Ages.
Perhaps give us a new type of ship. One that has no means of troop transport, but can carry supplies. You would assign a small fleet of these ships to sail between your port province, and the coastal province where your army is located.
You would then have an excuse to add war ships to the game. There would be no need to add actual naval combat. Just block the sea supply lines. Perhaps even make them a deterrence to enemy transport ships. You put your fleet of war ships in a sea province, and the enemy transport fleet can't enter it. They could also provide a siege bonus.
As for what happens when two opposing fleets meet in one province....just make them avoid each other, with no combat.
A small sacrifice for the implementation of a system that would greatly benefit the realism of this game.
These additions alone would have a drastic impact on how you wage Crusades.
As for the very Crusade mechanics...
Have the Pope announce the Crusade before the actual start of the military campaign. In that small period of time before the start, Leaders are chosen by the Pope.
In order for a character to qualify for the Leader position, he needs to fulfill certain requirements. He is either a character with a large amount of Piety (perhaps 1000 or more), or can supply a one time fixed amount of gold (say, 1000 coins).
Amount of coins can be realistically only supplied by Emperors and Kings. Perhaps even by powerful Dukes.
Piety requirement stands only to give chance to other characters that are not so rich. It would be hard to reach that amount. The Pope will either give the Leader positions to people who can actually support an army, or to those who are basically saints on Earth.
I can't say what the limit of Leaders should be. Perhaps there should be no limit.
Leaders who supplied the money mostly rely on their own levy.
Those who "supplied" Piety start getting events that grant them troops. Those wouldn't be free. Far from it.
For example, you are a Count of a single province, and you provided 1000 Piety, thus becoming a Leader. You now get a special interaction with other Christian characters. You can ask them for soldiers, in exchange for a favor. No, not that favor we currently have in the game. After the victory in the Crusade, your patron will ask for a portion of your share in conquest. Or something like that.
Perhaps gain an ability to send zealot preachers to other realms. They would have a chance to rile up the population, and make them raise in arms for your cause. Or you can risk a rebellion.
Isn't this kinda limiting?
Well, everyone can still join the war.
If you are not a Leader, but you contributed greatly, you are presented with immense gifts from the Pope. Firstly, you get a bunch of gold. Secondly, you get a fancy new trait, more powerful than the current "Crusader" one. And finally, you get various boosts for your economy, as well as opinion increases with your peers.
When the actual Crusade starts, "Crusader Leaders" are all set, and gain appropriate traits.
Upon victory, the Kingdom (and the capital Duchy) goes to the highest scoring Leader. Other titles are distributed to other Leaders by score.
For example, here we have Kingdom of Jerusalem.
There were four Leaders.
First one gains KoJ, Jerusalem Duchy and the city.
Second one gains Duchy of Galilee.
Third one gains Duchy of Ascalon.
Fourth one gains Duchy of Outerjordan.
But what if there are more than 4 Leaders? If there are no more Duchies, Counties and Baronies are granted.
After victory, Leaders are presented with an option. They will either abdicate their old titles and swear fealty to the Crusader Kingdom, or they will grant it to a relative. That relative will act as a permanent tributary to that Leader, and swear no actual allegiance to the Crusader Kingdom.
Idea here is to have several Crusader States, not just one big kingdom.
Yeah, I really cannot even comprehend the mess of a code that would need to be written for this...
I'd like to write about special interactions between Crusader States, Crusader Kingdoms, the Pope and other Christian rulers, as well as special governments and events/decisions....but this post is already too big.
Last edited:
All of this might not be feasible, but some suggestions for a crusade rework:
What unlocks the crusades?
Currently, the crusades unlock under rather different conditions for different religion groups. Some of those triggers are very lax (Jewish and Zoroastrian GHWs only require that there is a rel head), others are fairly restrictive (Christian crusades and Muslim jihads require that specific counties have fallen and a certain year has been reached (or that a certain year has been reached, if all of the counties are held, in the case of jihads), and some are mostly reliant on factors that aren't necessarily possible for you to control (pagan GHWs require that the crusades or the jihads have been triggered, because apparently the reformed pagans can't get the idea to wage a GHW without watching the organized religions). It seems to me that unlocking crusades from the start for everyone would create all manners of issues (the Abbasid blob would likely crush most targets, particularly if supported by other Muslim powers, to name one issue), but I also think that the current triggers are fairly restrictive as you could e.g. have all of Italy except Rome fall to heathens/heretics and the Pope wouldn't be concerned about it (and you also have the whole side issue of reformed pagans apparently being unable to grasp the idea until the Pope or the Caliph shows them how it is done), so something different seems like it could be good for the game.
My personal suggestion here would be for all rel heads of religions that potentially could call crusades having a decision to trigger them that costs a significant amount of piety initially but that is reduced over time, is reduced if a lot of land (or highly important land) falls to heathens/heretics, is reduced if MA is high, is reduced if another religion already is crusading, and the like (for example, a Zealous, Ambitious, and rel head would probably be more eager to go off and conquer land for the faith than a Craven, Content, and Cynical rel head). This seems like it would prevent extremely early crusades, would get around the "Just don't take county X" issue, would let the pagans start their GHWs even if both the Christians and the Muslims haven't figured things out, and would make the start date less predictabe, thus making it difficult to go "Okay, it's 890 now, and I hold all of Italy as a heretic. Time to prepare for the first crusade!".
How are the crusades targeted?
Crusade targeting is a rather messy issue that has several parts that could be improved. First off, we have crusade weights, which the AI uses to determine where to call crusades. Now, I'll admit I'm generally against railroading based on history, but I still think that the crusade weights are somewhat necessary because e.g. having the Catholics ignore Jerusalem would be rather strange. However, the crusade weights have some issues tied to the railroading:
- Some of the crusade weights that exist make very little sense if you start early. For example, the Catholics don't have any crusade weights for Mauretania, Egypt, or Africa, which were Christian prior to that start, but they do have crusade weights for e.g. Sweden and Rus, which have not been Christian at this point, which seems rather strange.
- That targeting crusades based on the crusade weights becomes rather silly if a religion ends up in a weird part of the map and loses its homelands. On the one hand, even if e.g. all remainign Muslim rulers are located in Britannia they should still want Mecca back, but, on the other hand, targeting it right away is unlikely to be successful.
- If de jure drift happens, the targeting can make little sense. For example, if all of k_england drifts into k_burgundy and that part of k_burgundy and k_france subsequently falls to heathens/heretics, the Pope will target "Burgundy" first despite it not making geographical sense, and things could get even weirder if the original k_burgundy drifts into e.g. k_cumania (and thus has no crusade weight for Catholics). This is tied to how de jure drift works to begin with, so it is not a crusade-exclusive issue, but it still can make crusade logic weird.
The second issue is that crusades only target one realm and require that the defender has a certain number of counties (six or more) in the target kingdom to be a valid target. This can be broken down into a bunch of sub-issues:
- Some kingdoms are impossible to target unless their de jure grows. This includes Galicia, which has a Catholic holy site and thus seems like it should be fairly high-priority.
- It is possible to keep the number of counties you have in a certain kingdom below a certain number (well, unless your vassals conquer stuff) and thus be immune to being targeted (at least when it comes to that region), even if you hold some fairly important counties (e.g. you could hold Jerusalem but nothing else in k_jerusalem and not have it come under attack).
- It is possible that there will be more than one crusade needed to secure a certain kingdom even if no land is lost between crusades. Given that crusades have a 30 year cooldown, that seems rather wasteful, and the crusaders happily ignoring one heathen/heretic while going after another right next to him is rather strange.
The third issue is that the AI usually stops making remotely sane decisions once all weighted targets are taken. Supposedly, this issue has been worked on in 2.8, but that has also been said in the past. The main issues here are the following:
- The AI ignores the distance to the target (and potentially even the need for ships on an ocean where no co-religionist has any ports), happily going after random kingdoms in India despite having to march through hostile land to get there. Non-bordering targets (that don't lie within a certain number of sea zones from the nearest friendly kingdom) should probably not be targeted.
- The AI does not seem to understand that, barring very specific circumstances (and the Tengri religion, given that it is associated with the steppes), going after tribal, or even nomadic, land is unlikely to be as productive as going after feudal land. Of course, this is not crusade-specific, but it can lead to the AI targeting rather worthless land at times.
- There is no evaluation of things like the presence of same religion (or same rel group/subgroup) counties, some kingdom/area previously being in the hands of the attacker's religion (or rel group/subgroup), there being important cities around that don't qualify as holy sites (e.g. Alexandria for Christians), and other concerns. This seems rather odd.
Some suggestions to deal with these issues:
- Make the crusades target some specific crusade regions (e.g. a hyporthetical crusade_north_iberia region containing the 1066 de jures of k_spanish_galicia, k_leon, k_castile, k_navarra, and k_aragon) rather than the de jure kingdoms. This would ensure that small de jures also can come under attack without having the CB target rulers with very little land, and de jure drift would not lead to leapfrogging over kingdoms that end up with lower weights than something more distant if regions were targeted instead. For those with SoA, this would mean that crusade requests would target the region rather than a kingdom, and perhaps the AI could be taught to pick their preferences as well.
- Make it possible to set/change crusade weights in the title history (or region history, if there was such a thing; I suppose global flags could be used to track that instead) and with events so that e.g. pagan areas that are Christianized later on don't start out with significant crusade weights.
- Make the AI discard crusade targets beyond a certain number of sea zones (or a certain distance) from the nearest co-religionist realm to avoid having it declare wars it is unlikely to be able to carry out. There might possibly be exceptions allowing e.g. Catholics to count distance from Orthodox realms to ensure that they can reach Jerusalem in 1066 without having to conquer something else first.
- Make the crusade target all crusadeable targets in the relevant area. This might have some issues (e.g. two parties that are at war with each other might end up being allied vs. the crusade, and e.g. a pagan and a Muslim realm might both end up defending against a crusade), but it seems more reasonable for the crusaders to go "Die (or convert) heathen/heretic!" and not care about denominations and realm borders than to go "Oh, you're the neighbour of the target? Well, I suppose we can't attack your land despite the fact that we kind of want to...".
- Possibly make the AI consider distance, holding type (mainly whether there are castles/cities, tribal holdings, or empty/nomadic holdings), title history, province religion, important cities (ideally, there would be an important_city = RELIGION flag to set in the landed_titles file, or even a way to set such a flag using events or title history), and other things that could be of interest to ensure that it goes after good targets even if all remaining targets are unweighted. There could be exceptions here to ensure that e.g. reformed pagans are willing to attack their unreformed brethren even if they are tribal and that the Tengri are willing to take the steppes.
What happens before the crusade starts?
Right now, the AI seems to be asking the question "Can I call a crusade?", not "Should I call a crusade", and the question "Is this a valid crusade target?", not "Is this a sensible crusade target?". The latter issue is something that I addressed in the previous point, so I will ignore it here.
Even if the Aztecs are invading the Iberian Peninsula, England and France are at war with each other, Italy and Sicily are in the middle of civil wars, and the HRE is being attacked by a GHW by some reformed pagan, the Pope can still think that it is an excellent opportunity to attack Jerusalem because surely he will be able to do it with the support of some Irish minors, two MRs, and a holy order or two. This almost inevitably leads to the crusade failing, MA suffering, and a 30 year cooldown to the next chance to do something useful (which also might be wasted).
To make the AI less prone to wasting crusades, I would suggest that it refrains from crusading unless it seems like there would be enough support to have a decent chance. The exact way to evaluate this would probably need some consideration (particularly since some religions might care less about random co-religionists supporting them, and e.g. the Abbasids might be content to ignore the fact that the Umayyads are being attacked and declare a jihad on someone at the same time), but ensuring that no non-nomadic Catholic realm is defending against a kingdom-tier (or higher) war and that the Catholic realms that are at peace can muster a certain number of men (that probably should depend on the date).
It might also be a good idea to have the rel head explicitly ask co-religionists if they are prepared to support a crusade (with the AI answering in accordance with its traits and the like), so that the Pope doesn't assume that everyone would be happy to support him if they are at peace, and it could also be nice to have a couple of years to prepare for the crusade so that it is less "Drop everything and march to Jerusalem right now!" and more "Start preparing to reconquer Jerusalem in the near future!".
Who leads the crusade?
The Pope marching off to Jerusalem (or whatever) is certainly amusing, but probably not very realistic, and it might instead be better for the rel head to be able to appoint a leader (though a secular rel head probably should go himself). Assuming there was some kind of preparation phase, the Pope (or whatever) could ask various secular rulers to suggest leaders, with the possible responses being the ruler in question (if they can lead troops), some unlanded courtier (that can lead troops), or not suggesting anyone at all, with the AI picking an option based on traits and opinion. When the crusade preparations are nearing the end, the Pope/etc. would pick one of the suggested commanders to lead the attack (or pick himself, if his traits makes that reasonable). If the leader is landed, the Pope triggers a war declaration for him, otherwise the leader gets an adventurer title, some event troops, and is forced to declare war by the Pope. Some of the other candidates (including all landed candidates) would be declared sub-leaders and be called in (and would get some event troops if they were unlanded). It could perhaps be possible to spend money or piety to increase the chances of your candidate being picked.
How is the crusade supported?
Currently, everyone that joins the crusade marches to the crusade target with basically all the troops at their disposal (unless they get side-tracked by peasant rebels, raiders, or the like) instead of some people dedicating themselves fully and others helping to a lesser extent. I think that it would be more interesting to be able to support the crusade in a few different ways:
- Supporting the crusade by joining it personally. This would basically be the same as the current joining.
- Supporting the crusade by sending some troops. This would lower the levies in some (or all) demesne provinces for a number of years and have one of the crusade leaders spawn an equal number of event troops in that province when the crusade starts (prioritizing crusade leaders from that realm, if any). This would be mutually exclusive with personally joining the crusade.
- Supporting the crusade by sending money. This would be mutually exclusive with personally joining the war.
- Supporting the crusade with prayers. Basically the same as doing nothing, though perhaps this could mean spending piety to avoid having the Pope get upset that you aren't going. This would be mutually exclusive with all other forms of aid.
The AI would pick how it supports the crusade based on distance to the targets, claims in the target region, its opinion of the leaders for the crusade, its traits, and other relevant factors, so e.g. a Zealous ruler would almost certainly join fully while a Cynical ruler distant from the target would perhaps do nothing at all or just send a little money.
What happens at the end of the crusade?
If the crusade is won, the outcome would depend on whether there was a co-religionist holder or claimant (that isn't excommunicated/etc.) for the kingdom associated with the target region (this association could get a bit messy due to de jure drift, though...). If there is such a claimant or holder, the expectation should be that any land not claimed by its occupier is given to this claimant/title holder (unless the occupier is a claimant to this title or the de jure title for the land), but the participants can still choose other outcomes (see below).
If there is no claimant or title holder, the main crusade leader gets the option to decide whether to keep the land personally and keep any previous titles (which the AI always picks if unlanded, but only picks if it is nearby, if it has a claim, or if it is Greedy if it is landed), to keep the land and abdicate from any previous titles (ideally in a fashion that would make inheritance unlikely in either direction), to give the land to an unlanded relative not in the line to inherit its current titles (picked somewhat frequently if the AI doesn't want to keep the land), or to give the land to a holy order (which the AI doesn't pick if it was the crusade leader). All other crusade leaders get the option to turn over the land they have occupied to the person that got the main leader's land (which they pick if it fits their traits and they like this person) with no strings attached, to become a vassal of the main crusade leader (only possible if an unlanded crusade leader, and only picked if it fits based on traits and opinion), to give the land to a holy order (rarely picked), to give the land to an unlanded relative not in the line of succession (somewhat frequent), to renounce prior titles to rule the new land (probably never picked), to keep the land personally (rare unless it was claimed, it is near their present titles, or the character is Greedy or the like). If the new holder wasn't the occupier, they get the option to swear fealty to the main crusader state, with the choice made based on personality and traits.
Any remaining event troops would be kept by the relevant crusader states, and all co-religionists would get the opportunity to send some reinforcements there in exchange for piety, any money given to support the war effort would be divided between the leaders of the crusader states (unless the Pope was Greedy and kept it), and all crusader states and landed participants would be able to ally without setting up a marriage.
I am of two minds when it comes to letting the crusaders take occupied counties outside the target region, which some people have suggested. On the one hand, it would be somewhat realistic for them to take as much as possible, but on the other hand it could easily lead to the player (if in command) dragging out the war to take a lot more land, and it could also potentially lead to bordergore due to random counties being occupied (or even partially occupied) in a non-contiguous fashion. Perhaps only bordering counties and counties sharing a sea zone with a county in the relevant region should be allowed to be taken, or perhaps it is best to be strict and exclude everything outside the region.
Potentially, there could be ways to e.g. return Greece and Anatolia to the ERE, as having the crusader state(s) and a non-crusadeable empire/kingdom fight over the land after the crusade probably would weaken both of them and thus be a bad idea (though it would be somewhat realistic for people to make selfish choices).
Of course, given that a lot of the above might be divisive (particularly since fun is heavily subjective), having game rules for things would likely be a good idea. All of the above might also not be equally suitable for all religions capable of calling crusades, so perhaps some things should be different for some religions.
What unlocks the crusades?
Currently, the crusades unlock under rather different conditions for different religion groups. Some of those triggers are very lax (Jewish and Zoroastrian GHWs only require that there is a rel head), others are fairly restrictive (Christian crusades and Muslim jihads require that specific counties have fallen and a certain year has been reached (or that a certain year has been reached, if all of the counties are held, in the case of jihads), and some are mostly reliant on factors that aren't necessarily possible for you to control (pagan GHWs require that the crusades or the jihads have been triggered, because apparently the reformed pagans can't get the idea to wage a GHW without watching the organized religions). It seems to me that unlocking crusades from the start for everyone would create all manners of issues (the Abbasid blob would likely crush most targets, particularly if supported by other Muslim powers, to name one issue), but I also think that the current triggers are fairly restrictive as you could e.g. have all of Italy except Rome fall to heathens/heretics and the Pope wouldn't be concerned about it (and you also have the whole side issue of reformed pagans apparently being unable to grasp the idea until the Pope or the Caliph shows them how it is done), so something different seems like it could be good for the game.
My personal suggestion here would be for all rel heads of religions that potentially could call crusades having a decision to trigger them that costs a significant amount of piety initially but that is reduced over time, is reduced if a lot of land (or highly important land) falls to heathens/heretics, is reduced if MA is high, is reduced if another religion already is crusading, and the like (for example, a Zealous, Ambitious, and rel head would probably be more eager to go off and conquer land for the faith than a Craven, Content, and Cynical rel head). This seems like it would prevent extremely early crusades, would get around the "Just don't take county X" issue, would let the pagans start their GHWs even if both the Christians and the Muslims haven't figured things out, and would make the start date less predictabe, thus making it difficult to go "Okay, it's 890 now, and I hold all of Italy as a heretic. Time to prepare for the first crusade!".
How are the crusades targeted?
Crusade targeting is a rather messy issue that has several parts that could be improved. First off, we have crusade weights, which the AI uses to determine where to call crusades. Now, I'll admit I'm generally against railroading based on history, but I still think that the crusade weights are somewhat necessary because e.g. having the Catholics ignore Jerusalem would be rather strange. However, the crusade weights have some issues tied to the railroading:
- Some of the crusade weights that exist make very little sense if you start early. For example, the Catholics don't have any crusade weights for Mauretania, Egypt, or Africa, which were Christian prior to that start, but they do have crusade weights for e.g. Sweden and Rus, which have not been Christian at this point, which seems rather strange.
- That targeting crusades based on the crusade weights becomes rather silly if a religion ends up in a weird part of the map and loses its homelands. On the one hand, even if e.g. all remainign Muslim rulers are located in Britannia they should still want Mecca back, but, on the other hand, targeting it right away is unlikely to be successful.
- If de jure drift happens, the targeting can make little sense. For example, if all of k_england drifts into k_burgundy and that part of k_burgundy and k_france subsequently falls to heathens/heretics, the Pope will target "Burgundy" first despite it not making geographical sense, and things could get even weirder if the original k_burgundy drifts into e.g. k_cumania (and thus has no crusade weight for Catholics). This is tied to how de jure drift works to begin with, so it is not a crusade-exclusive issue, but it still can make crusade logic weird.
The second issue is that crusades only target one realm and require that the defender has a certain number of counties (six or more) in the target kingdom to be a valid target. This can be broken down into a bunch of sub-issues:
- Some kingdoms are impossible to target unless their de jure grows. This includes Galicia, which has a Catholic holy site and thus seems like it should be fairly high-priority.
- It is possible to keep the number of counties you have in a certain kingdom below a certain number (well, unless your vassals conquer stuff) and thus be immune to being targeted (at least when it comes to that region), even if you hold some fairly important counties (e.g. you could hold Jerusalem but nothing else in k_jerusalem and not have it come under attack).
- It is possible that there will be more than one crusade needed to secure a certain kingdom even if no land is lost between crusades. Given that crusades have a 30 year cooldown, that seems rather wasteful, and the crusaders happily ignoring one heathen/heretic while going after another right next to him is rather strange.
The third issue is that the AI usually stops making remotely sane decisions once all weighted targets are taken. Supposedly, this issue has been worked on in 2.8, but that has also been said in the past. The main issues here are the following:
- The AI ignores the distance to the target (and potentially even the need for ships on an ocean where no co-religionist has any ports), happily going after random kingdoms in India despite having to march through hostile land to get there. Non-bordering targets (that don't lie within a certain number of sea zones from the nearest friendly kingdom) should probably not be targeted.
- The AI does not seem to understand that, barring very specific circumstances (and the Tengri religion, given that it is associated with the steppes), going after tribal, or even nomadic, land is unlikely to be as productive as going after feudal land. Of course, this is not crusade-specific, but it can lead to the AI targeting rather worthless land at times.
- There is no evaluation of things like the presence of same religion (or same rel group/subgroup) counties, some kingdom/area previously being in the hands of the attacker's religion (or rel group/subgroup), there being important cities around that don't qualify as holy sites (e.g. Alexandria for Christians), and other concerns. This seems rather odd.
Some suggestions to deal with these issues:
- Make the crusades target some specific crusade regions (e.g. a hyporthetical crusade_north_iberia region containing the 1066 de jures of k_spanish_galicia, k_leon, k_castile, k_navarra, and k_aragon) rather than the de jure kingdoms. This would ensure that small de jures also can come under attack without having the CB target rulers with very little land, and de jure drift would not lead to leapfrogging over kingdoms that end up with lower weights than something more distant if regions were targeted instead. For those with SoA, this would mean that crusade requests would target the region rather than a kingdom, and perhaps the AI could be taught to pick their preferences as well.
- Make it possible to set/change crusade weights in the title history (or region history, if there was such a thing; I suppose global flags could be used to track that instead) and with events so that e.g. pagan areas that are Christianized later on don't start out with significant crusade weights.
- Make the AI discard crusade targets beyond a certain number of sea zones (or a certain distance) from the nearest co-religionist realm to avoid having it declare wars it is unlikely to be able to carry out. There might possibly be exceptions allowing e.g. Catholics to count distance from Orthodox realms to ensure that they can reach Jerusalem in 1066 without having to conquer something else first.
- Make the crusade target all crusadeable targets in the relevant area. This might have some issues (e.g. two parties that are at war with each other might end up being allied vs. the crusade, and e.g. a pagan and a Muslim realm might both end up defending against a crusade), but it seems more reasonable for the crusaders to go "Die (or convert) heathen/heretic!" and not care about denominations and realm borders than to go "Oh, you're the neighbour of the target? Well, I suppose we can't attack your land despite the fact that we kind of want to...".
- Possibly make the AI consider distance, holding type (mainly whether there are castles/cities, tribal holdings, or empty/nomadic holdings), title history, province religion, important cities (ideally, there would be an important_city = RELIGION flag to set in the landed_titles file, or even a way to set such a flag using events or title history), and other things that could be of interest to ensure that it goes after good targets even if all remaining targets are unweighted. There could be exceptions here to ensure that e.g. reformed pagans are willing to attack their unreformed brethren even if they are tribal and that the Tengri are willing to take the steppes.
What happens before the crusade starts?
Right now, the AI seems to be asking the question "Can I call a crusade?", not "Should I call a crusade", and the question "Is this a valid crusade target?", not "Is this a sensible crusade target?". The latter issue is something that I addressed in the previous point, so I will ignore it here.
Even if the Aztecs are invading the Iberian Peninsula, England and France are at war with each other, Italy and Sicily are in the middle of civil wars, and the HRE is being attacked by a GHW by some reformed pagan, the Pope can still think that it is an excellent opportunity to attack Jerusalem because surely he will be able to do it with the support of some Irish minors, two MRs, and a holy order or two. This almost inevitably leads to the crusade failing, MA suffering, and a 30 year cooldown to the next chance to do something useful (which also might be wasted).
To make the AI less prone to wasting crusades, I would suggest that it refrains from crusading unless it seems like there would be enough support to have a decent chance. The exact way to evaluate this would probably need some consideration (particularly since some religions might care less about random co-religionists supporting them, and e.g. the Abbasids might be content to ignore the fact that the Umayyads are being attacked and declare a jihad on someone at the same time), but ensuring that no non-nomadic Catholic realm is defending against a kingdom-tier (or higher) war and that the Catholic realms that are at peace can muster a certain number of men (that probably should depend on the date).
It might also be a good idea to have the rel head explicitly ask co-religionists if they are prepared to support a crusade (with the AI answering in accordance with its traits and the like), so that the Pope doesn't assume that everyone would be happy to support him if they are at peace, and it could also be nice to have a couple of years to prepare for the crusade so that it is less "Drop everything and march to Jerusalem right now!" and more "Start preparing to reconquer Jerusalem in the near future!".
Who leads the crusade?
The Pope marching off to Jerusalem (or whatever) is certainly amusing, but probably not very realistic, and it might instead be better for the rel head to be able to appoint a leader (though a secular rel head probably should go himself). Assuming there was some kind of preparation phase, the Pope (or whatever) could ask various secular rulers to suggest leaders, with the possible responses being the ruler in question (if they can lead troops), some unlanded courtier (that can lead troops), or not suggesting anyone at all, with the AI picking an option based on traits and opinion. When the crusade preparations are nearing the end, the Pope/etc. would pick one of the suggested commanders to lead the attack (or pick himself, if his traits makes that reasonable). If the leader is landed, the Pope triggers a war declaration for him, otherwise the leader gets an adventurer title, some event troops, and is forced to declare war by the Pope. Some of the other candidates (including all landed candidates) would be declared sub-leaders and be called in (and would get some event troops if they were unlanded). It could perhaps be possible to spend money or piety to increase the chances of your candidate being picked.
How is the crusade supported?
Currently, everyone that joins the crusade marches to the crusade target with basically all the troops at their disposal (unless they get side-tracked by peasant rebels, raiders, or the like) instead of some people dedicating themselves fully and others helping to a lesser extent. I think that it would be more interesting to be able to support the crusade in a few different ways:
- Supporting the crusade by joining it personally. This would basically be the same as the current joining.
- Supporting the crusade by sending some troops. This would lower the levies in some (or all) demesne provinces for a number of years and have one of the crusade leaders spawn an equal number of event troops in that province when the crusade starts (prioritizing crusade leaders from that realm, if any). This would be mutually exclusive with personally joining the crusade.
- Supporting the crusade by sending money. This would be mutually exclusive with personally joining the war.
- Supporting the crusade with prayers. Basically the same as doing nothing, though perhaps this could mean spending piety to avoid having the Pope get upset that you aren't going. This would be mutually exclusive with all other forms of aid.
The AI would pick how it supports the crusade based on distance to the targets, claims in the target region, its opinion of the leaders for the crusade, its traits, and other relevant factors, so e.g. a Zealous ruler would almost certainly join fully while a Cynical ruler distant from the target would perhaps do nothing at all or just send a little money.
What happens at the end of the crusade?
If the crusade is won, the outcome would depend on whether there was a co-religionist holder or claimant (that isn't excommunicated/etc.) for the kingdom associated with the target region (this association could get a bit messy due to de jure drift, though...). If there is such a claimant or holder, the expectation should be that any land not claimed by its occupier is given to this claimant/title holder (unless the occupier is a claimant to this title or the de jure title for the land), but the participants can still choose other outcomes (see below).
If there is no claimant or title holder, the main crusade leader gets the option to decide whether to keep the land personally and keep any previous titles (which the AI always picks if unlanded, but only picks if it is nearby, if it has a claim, or if it is Greedy if it is landed), to keep the land and abdicate from any previous titles (ideally in a fashion that would make inheritance unlikely in either direction), to give the land to an unlanded relative not in the line to inherit its current titles (picked somewhat frequently if the AI doesn't want to keep the land), or to give the land to a holy order (which the AI doesn't pick if it was the crusade leader). All other crusade leaders get the option to turn over the land they have occupied to the person that got the main leader's land (which they pick if it fits their traits and they like this person) with no strings attached, to become a vassal of the main crusade leader (only possible if an unlanded crusade leader, and only picked if it fits based on traits and opinion), to give the land to a holy order (rarely picked), to give the land to an unlanded relative not in the line of succession (somewhat frequent), to renounce prior titles to rule the new land (probably never picked), to keep the land personally (rare unless it was claimed, it is near their present titles, or the character is Greedy or the like). If the new holder wasn't the occupier, they get the option to swear fealty to the main crusader state, with the choice made based on personality and traits.
Any remaining event troops would be kept by the relevant crusader states, and all co-religionists would get the opportunity to send some reinforcements there in exchange for piety, any money given to support the war effort would be divided between the leaders of the crusader states (unless the Pope was Greedy and kept it), and all crusader states and landed participants would be able to ally without setting up a marriage.
I am of two minds when it comes to letting the crusaders take occupied counties outside the target region, which some people have suggested. On the one hand, it would be somewhat realistic for them to take as much as possible, but on the other hand it could easily lead to the player (if in command) dragging out the war to take a lot more land, and it could also potentially lead to bordergore due to random counties being occupied (or even partially occupied) in a non-contiguous fashion. Perhaps only bordering counties and counties sharing a sea zone with a county in the relevant region should be allowed to be taken, or perhaps it is best to be strict and exclude everything outside the region.
Potentially, there could be ways to e.g. return Greece and Anatolia to the ERE, as having the crusader state(s) and a non-crusadeable empire/kingdom fight over the land after the crusade probably would weaken both of them and thus be a bad idea (though it would be somewhat realistic for people to make selfish choices).
Of course, given that a lot of the above might be divisive (particularly since fun is heavily subjective), having game rules for things would likely be a good idea. All of the above might also not be equally suitable for all religions capable of calling crusades, so perhaps some things should be different for some religions.
All of the above could be implemented with a few simple rules, some of which already exist and some of which will work much better once JD comes out.
First off, Crusades shouldn't target dejure kingdoms or realms, but should target holy sites and their environs OR areas of high Catholic concentration. In my current campaign starting in England in 1077 it is now 1160 or so and the Third Crusade has been called for Jerusalem. But not "Jerusalem" mind you, but the dejure k_jerusalem.
The middle east is a bit of a mess and most of Jerusalem itself is controlled by Persia, while the northern three counties are controlled by the Seljuqs, who apparently changed their name to Syria halfway through the Crusade. I landed in Persian territory and immediately got the "I stand before the gates of Jerusalem" text, but I wasn't actually in the war until I headed north and joined my allies.
If a Crusade was called for a Holy Site and everything owned by heretics or infidels anywhere up to say 2-3 provinces away then we might see things like a Principality of Antioch, which we will never see if we just target the dejure territory.
Secondly, title distribution after the first Crusade/Jihad should be simple - baronies are kept by whoever captured them, with county control going to whoever captured the most baronies in the are (ties decided by Papal opinion and Piety), duchy control going to whoever now holds the most counties in the area (ties again broken by Papal opinion and Piety) and the Kingdom title going to whoever holds the most Duchies.
The above scenario would mean that the Crusader State(s) would be a crazy patchwork of idnependent and semi independent realms, depending upon who captured which area - richer lords would set up their own Principalities, while lesser lords would become vassals of k_jerusalem.
Third, Crusades at least should come in three flavours - First, Fourth and all others. In the first Crusade only Dukes and below should be able to join, but they should be able to raise heaps of holy warrior event troops by decision. At it's heart the First Crusade was basically a bit of a land grab by landless nobles and second sons, it was only later that Kings and Emperors became involved. The extra event troops would balance out the loss of King-level troops, it would also give the player a chance to plan for the Crusade by stockpiling Piety or whatever it would take to raise the troops.
The "Fourth" or "Wicked" Crusade could actually be any Crusade after the first. All it would be would be is a chance for a called Crusade to have it's war goals changed from liberating the Holy Land to capturing trade ports or taking Constantinople, but with all the war localisations and nearly identical with the standard Crusade. Players should be able to work out if a Crusade has gone "Wicked", AI rulers will play along as they do until the war goal is met or the war lost.
All other Crusades should be normal and virtually identical with the current mechanics, with perhaps a slightly increased chance to protect an existing Crusader realm. Aft the same time, any Crusade after a "Wicked" one should have a lot lower chance to get interest from nobles, the whole idea should start to become passe except to particularly Zealous or Wroth characters.
I did like the idea above about some mechanic for choosing a war leader, who may end up becoming the ruler of the conquered realm or who may not, but having control of the bulk of the Crusades troops should give them plenty of advantages when it comes to adding up warscores and conquered baronies. One idea might be to add a temporary King level title to which all (most ?) AI rulers would attach, with control of the title being held by whichever current landed "Crusader" had the highest combined Prestige and Piety. During the above First Crusade this person might control all of the AI that chose to join in, later on they would be merely "first among equals" of the royal participants.
Adding decision for players to donate Piety, gold or troops to the cause in return for some sort of character modifier and Papal and Crusade Leader opinion boost would also be a great idea.
First off, Crusades shouldn't target dejure kingdoms or realms, but should target holy sites and their environs OR areas of high Catholic concentration. In my current campaign starting in England in 1077 it is now 1160 or so and the Third Crusade has been called for Jerusalem. But not "Jerusalem" mind you, but the dejure k_jerusalem.
The middle east is a bit of a mess and most of Jerusalem itself is controlled by Persia, while the northern three counties are controlled by the Seljuqs, who apparently changed their name to Syria halfway through the Crusade. I landed in Persian territory and immediately got the "I stand before the gates of Jerusalem" text, but I wasn't actually in the war until I headed north and joined my allies.
If a Crusade was called for a Holy Site and everything owned by heretics or infidels anywhere up to say 2-3 provinces away then we might see things like a Principality of Antioch, which we will never see if we just target the dejure territory.
Secondly, title distribution after the first Crusade/Jihad should be simple - baronies are kept by whoever captured them, with county control going to whoever captured the most baronies in the are (ties decided by Papal opinion and Piety), duchy control going to whoever now holds the most counties in the area (ties again broken by Papal opinion and Piety) and the Kingdom title going to whoever holds the most Duchies.
The above scenario would mean that the Crusader State(s) would be a crazy patchwork of idnependent and semi independent realms, depending upon who captured which area - richer lords would set up their own Principalities, while lesser lords would become vassals of k_jerusalem.
Third, Crusades at least should come in three flavours - First, Fourth and all others. In the first Crusade only Dukes and below should be able to join, but they should be able to raise heaps of holy warrior event troops by decision. At it's heart the First Crusade was basically a bit of a land grab by landless nobles and second sons, it was only later that Kings and Emperors became involved. The extra event troops would balance out the loss of King-level troops, it would also give the player a chance to plan for the Crusade by stockpiling Piety or whatever it would take to raise the troops.
The "Fourth" or "Wicked" Crusade could actually be any Crusade after the first. All it would be would be is a chance for a called Crusade to have it's war goals changed from liberating the Holy Land to capturing trade ports or taking Constantinople, but with all the war localisations and nearly identical with the standard Crusade. Players should be able to work out if a Crusade has gone "Wicked", AI rulers will play along as they do until the war goal is met or the war lost.
All other Crusades should be normal and virtually identical with the current mechanics, with perhaps a slightly increased chance to protect an existing Crusader realm. Aft the same time, any Crusade after a "Wicked" one should have a lot lower chance to get interest from nobles, the whole idea should start to become passe except to particularly Zealous or Wroth characters.
I did like the idea above about some mechanic for choosing a war leader, who may end up becoming the ruler of the conquered realm or who may not, but having control of the bulk of the Crusades troops should give them plenty of advantages when it comes to adding up warscores and conquered baronies. One idea might be to add a temporary King level title to which all (most ?) AI rulers would attach, with control of the title being held by whichever current landed "Crusader" had the highest combined Prestige and Piety. During the above First Crusade this person might control all of the AI that chose to join in, later on they would be merely "first among equals" of the royal participants.
Adding decision for players to donate Piety, gold or troops to the cause in return for some sort of character modifier and Papal and Crusade Leader opinion boost would also be a great idea.
I don't have much of a problem with the current crusade mechanics but the one thing I would definitely want would be the ability to create independent realms near to the target of the crusade.
Crusades don't need a radical overhaul, like too many people suggest. Recent changes to how AI allies function in wars, such as being able to give them orders and the like, were a big improvement to war coalitions, in general. The only thing I think crusades really need is the AI to be given the ability to share transports amongst AI lords. The Duke of Toulouse shouldn't be trying to move 5K soldiers across the Mediterranean with 10 ships. Other crusaders with large navies should be able to pick up that stack in Toulouse. Crusades for Jerusalem seem to fail most often because of logistics. Everyone brings their own soldiers over at different times, and it's often the case that some little count is sending 700 troops to siege a coastal county and that troops are immediately doomed. Another solution is to give crusaders a huge amount of event ships for the duration of the war. I don't think naval mercenaries are a good solution because mercs can be only be hired by one lord at a time and it's possible for them to not be available when crusaders need them.
The other change I'd like to see is how the CB works. Crusades should only be for holy sites (with a few scripted exceptions so Catholics can do things like pick on Baltic pagans). No more jihads for Hungary or crusades for Persia. With few exceptions, if your religion has all of its holy sites, the religion head should be content.
The other change I'd like to see is how the CB works. Crusades should only be for holy sites (with a few scripted exceptions so Catholics can do things like pick on Baltic pagans). No more jihads for Hungary or crusades for Persia. With few exceptions, if your religion has all of its holy sites, the religion head should be content.
Last edited:
I'd love for them to be 'living' wars, perhaps based on how the crusade is going troop losses could be involved (think desertion) or if the rulers have relevant traits (greed, for example) then coupled with slow progress they could become entirely derailed and start attacking neighbouring states of the same religion (like the Fourth Crusade) something like a 'purity of cause' metric for the strength and unity of the Crusade.
Perhaps add a distance modifier to stop RH declaring Crusade/Jihad/GHW for a location on the opposite side of the map to you and your faith? If there are heathens next door you go for them, not the guys minding their own business at the edge of the map
On the one hand, that may be more balanced, but on the other....
On the one hand, that may be more balanced, but on the other....
Maybe if you're crusading for a land that has majority of population of your religion, there should be events that add troops to your stack, to reflect the fact that the locals wish to not be governed by infidels? Mostly Light troops like in peasant revolts, but that could compensate for losses from battle and attrition.
I'm thinking that maybe you should have traits like "Inspiring Leader" or similar for this to happen.
I'm thinking that maybe you should have traits like "Inspiring Leader" or similar for this to happen.
The matter of logistics is a great point, so as far as catholic crusades are concerned, how about a mechanic that would enable some sort of deal for catholic republics to provide the transports so that troops actually do get to the target en masse instead of piecemeal?
Happy to get a response, in any case. This has truly never happened to me before: seven disagrees without understanding what any of them are disagreeing withOn the one hand, that may be more balanced, but on the other....
On the one hand, that may be more balanced, but on the other....
Man, reading all this has me already getting excited for some sort of changes in the next expansion haha.
I hadn't realized how barebones Crusades were in vanilla (haven't gotten to that point yet).
If I were to ask for one change and one change only, it'd be to overhaul the reward mechanics so there's more reason to participate beyond just the trait. Allow free raiding and/or sacking in infidel provinces, or grant sums of piety on crusade completion.
I hadn't realized how barebones Crusades were in vanilla (haven't gotten to that point yet).
If I were to ask for one change and one change only, it'd be to overhaul the reward mechanics so there's more reason to participate beyond just the trait. Allow free raiding and/or sacking in infidel provinces, or grant sums of piety on crusade completion.
It is a bit silly to think that crusaders securing the Holy Land would care which parts of the Holy Land belonged to which indepdendent states. I'm not up-and-up on the historicity of it, but would they even be aware of the details of such divisions? I feel that a crusade/jihad/Great Holy War should automatically make war on all wrong-religion independent rulers holding land within the target kingdom, or should at the very least target a religion within the kingdom rather than a realm.
The Pope being the war leader leads to funny in-game mechanics as well -- if you're the target you can just blitz his holdings in Italy to win the war. Maybe such a counter-attack would draw a response and relieve some pressure, eventually, but not immediately and not if thousands of troops are marching into your own lands unoppsed. Defending against a crusade called by an unlanded Pope actually feels more realistic.
Leader selection could have bias towards variables like ruler power, control of holy sites, cash and piety. So you could see kings in England, Spain, Germany often being chosen, as well as capable rulers with the ability to raise levies, mercenaries, and holy orders -- so that France and the like wouldn't be left out.
I believe there are at least some improvements in the upcoming update regarding how the pope targets a kingdom and the ability to just siege down Rome
Also I think that when a war would be declared for the entire kingdom of Jerusalem when it is split between multiple powers that for the sake of game balance it would be better to target one like currently and not all owning provinces (It would be impossible for the AI to have to fight both the Fatimids and the Seljuks)
Also I think that when a war would be declared for the entire kingdom of Jerusalem when it is split between multiple powers that for the sake of game balance it would be better to target one like currently and not all owning provinces (It would be impossible for the AI to have to fight both the Fatimids and the Seljuks)