Infamy decay

[Rubidium]

Yeah, the Crusaders spent a ton of time squabbling amongst themselves, even when they were doing well against the infidels (indeed, during the First Crusade, the debate over who should get the surrendering city of Ascalon was so heated that eventually it was left in Fatimid hands for 50 years rather than allow any of the crusaders to control it).

And one of the reasons the Jimena brothers who rule Spain in 1066 started fighting each other was because Sancho (ruler of Castile) was making inroads into the Muslim lands near Leon.

 

[Robert II]

Yeah, the Crusaders spent a ton of time squabbling amongst themselves, even when they were doing well against the infidels (indeed, during the First Crusade, the debate over who should get the surrendering city of Ascalon was so heated that eventually it was left in Fatimid hands for 50 years rather than allow any of the crusaders to control it).

And one of the reasons the Jimena brothers who rule Spain in 1066 started fighting each other was because Sancho (ruler of Castile) was making inroads into the Muslim lands near Leon.

So to reflect this they added world wars?

 

[Soylent Dave]

So to reflect this they added world wars?

You only get a "world war" if your realm is ahistorically massive and expanding ahistorically fast.

Seems a bit off to complain about ahistorical consequences at that point.

 

[Robert II]

You only get a "world war" if your realm is ahistorically massive and expanding ahistorically fast.

Seems a bit off to complain about ahistorical consequences at that point.

Tell that to Charlemagne.

 

[Soylent Dave]

Charlie doesn't end up with a 'world war' against him in game. And historically he built his empire over 40 years (sometimes with gaps of several years in between his wars, which I presume were just him waiting for his threat to go down.. ) and did actually make enemies all the way to Byzantium in the process...

If you want to argue that some of the numbers need tweaking? Fine. That's a thing worth discussing. If you want to argue that there are other ways to destabilise large realms? Yep, I'd agree.

But if you're going to pretend that every instance of threat is "the entire world unites against you", then you're not actually talking about the game as it stands; you're imagining a caricature.

 

[Robert II]

I was talking about how before the most recent patch Charlie did end up with a world war because inheriting Karlomans realm and taking Saxony caused his infamy to be so high the world joined against him.

Charlie did make enemies true but at no point can I remember the various British kingdoms,pagan tribals,ummayads,abbasids and Byzantines joining to stop him from conquering Bavaria.

 

[Silversweeeper]

Yeah, the Crusaders spent a ton of time squabbling amongst themselves, even when they were doing well against the infidels (indeed, during the First Crusade, the debate over who should get the surrendering city of Ascalon was so heated that eventually it was left in Fatimid hands for 50 years rather than allow any of the crusaders to control it).

And one of the reasons the Jimena brothers who rule Spain in 1066 started fighting each other was because Sancho (ruler of Castile) was making inroads into the Muslim lands near Leon.

There is a rather big difference between "This guy is taking land I want near me, so I want to stop him so that I don't get conquered and so that I can take the land he took" and "This guy is taking land I don't have any interest in, so he must be stopped because his realm size is increasing". If defensive pacts only formed near where you had been expanding and included the realms that had an interest in the land you took (and perhaps their nearby friends if you are very much bigger), they would make a lot of sense and would slow down your expansion (in their direction), but right now it makes no difference where you have been expanding save for which enemies are getting weaker and which realms are getting closer to the border of your empire.

If the ERE expands against the Slavic pagans in the Balkans in 769, it should of course concern Bavaria and Venice as the imperial forces push the borders back north and into land that these realms likely were likely planning on taking, but it should have no impact on the opinion of Muslim Armenia or Khazaria if the ERE has been ignoring them. Conversly, if the ERE attacks Armenia, Cilicia, and perhaps some Abbasid revolters, taking as much land as in the previous example in a similar amount of time, the Muslim rulers in the Levant should be the ones getting worried while the Pope should ignore it even though the ERE holds Neapolis, but right now both of these examples would be bothering the Pope about as much as if the ERE had been reconquering Sicily and Venice, with the difference mainly being the threat for different CBs, not where the land was taken.

 

[Soylent Dave]

There is a rather big difference between "This guy is taking land I want near me, so I want to stop him so that I don't get conquered and so that I can take the land he took" and "This guy is taking land I don't have any interest in, so he must be stopped because his realm size is increasing"

Not really. Not when we're talking about Defensive Pacts which are wholly reactive, at least.

If in your example the Pope attacked you out of fear of your expansion, then yeah - you'd have a point. That would be much more unlikely.

But what Pacts model is your neighbours getting nervous because you're getting bigger and more powerful. The people you're actually attacking become hostile; the realms around you are just preparing for the worst (particularly your coreligionists). They're going to be glad that the infidel is getting weaker - but they're also going to be worried that their belligerent neighbour (who has no alliances or NAPs with them) is getting bigger and more powerful.

Successful, warlike, expansionist rulers aren't good neighbours. They're the sort of people who end up declaring themselves Bretwalda, or High King, or Emperor, or whatever title will determine that all of a sudden you owe them your fealty - because they've got the biggest army, and are - after all - clearly favoured by god, what with killing all those infidels.

 

[ninoallen]

if your realm is ahistorically massive and expanding ahistorically fast.

have you ever heard of a man called Alexander the Great, or maybe Genghis Khan? maybe the Muslim caliphate ?