Nonsense, the problem is blob stability and AI aggression. (And to repeat myself, AI traits/personality not having any seeming effect on their actions)
- 2
Paradox don't believe in the Reconquista
- Thread starter LegatusI
- 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.
IMHO the fact that Kingdom of Asturia survived in real history was a matter of luck and one-in-a-thousand chance, not because of some great deeds, but just like the victory of the First Crusade a hard to belive effect of a pile of human errors - lucky for the europeans. 
- 13
- 5
IMHO the fact that Kingdom of Asturia survived in real history was a matter of luck and one-in-a-thousand chance, not because of some great deeds, but just like the victory of the First Crusade a hard to belive effect of a pile of human errors - lucky for the europeans.
Just like the first big success of Islam by the way, when Abu Bakr exterminated zoroastrianism. The Persian Empire lost because of a very particular context.
- 3
- 3
- 2
Historically the main reason why Asturias survived was because of it's mountainous terrain and lack of major population centers for the Muslims to conquer and establish control over. And the game does a bad job of representing either of those two.
Sure, if you fight in the mountains the defenders get a bonus, but the game just adds together all bonuses from terrain, technology, combat tactics and cultural building so in the end it's really not all that much of an advantage. Terrain will decide an otherwise equal battle, but if the enemy brings 3x as many troops as you have they will crush you and there is nothing you can do about it.
Sure, if you fight in the mountains the defenders get a bonus, but the game just adds together all bonuses from terrain, technology, combat tactics and cultural building so in the end it's really not all that much of an advantage. Terrain will decide an otherwise equal battle, but if the enemy brings 3x as many troops as you have they will crush you and there is nothing you can do about it.
- 7
The problem was not to conquer Asturia, but to control it afterwards. It just wasn't worth the effort in that time and place. But if Sunni had a time machine and could look into future and see the coming events, I'm sure that neither Asturia, nor Francia nor any other European country would stand a chance.
- 4
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
Umayyads don't use de jure claim wars to gobble up Asturias. The sultan declares a holy war, wins, then his emirs swarm like piranha to the point where Asturias is lucky to have 1 or two counties left.
Apparently one user, that I have seen, has mentioned seeing a successful Asturias. I haven't myself (12 games played in the area and they always die... not even a large Charlemagne or Karloman Kingdom really matches the Umayyads for levies) but apparently it can maybe happen... Though part of the problem is the now aggressive vassal AI and the other is that allies are bugged with holy wars.
Both problems in their respective dates. However, the Charlemagne start at least has a counter blob against the ERE and the HRE will most likely never form without the player causing it. Meanwhile, western Europe is all messed up because the Karling are not stable or really able to match up AND AI is bugged with holy wars.
It doesn't help that the starting leader of Asturias, Aurelio, is in his fifties and has no wife or kids. It's particularly weird because the game links to his Wikipedia page which states he was born circa 740 C.E. but Paradox decided to add 20 years to his age.
That's also the problem. The AI doesn't consider things that historically kept Asturias safe. It certainly wasn't mostly luck because the revolt for independence had occurred a half century before the Charlemagne start.
- 1
The problem is that the same stuff stopping the early game from taking a more or less historical course is still there after whatever events and other special factors you use to railroad a vaguely historical start are taken away. Warfare in CK2 is so hilariously different from historical warfare that historical outcomes are pretty much out the window.
- 6
- 1
IMHO the fact that Kingdom of Asturia survived in real history was a matter of luck and one-in-a-thousand chance, not because of some great deeds, but just like the victory of the First Crusade a hard to belive effect of a pile of human errors - lucky for the europeans.
Try hurling a stone in the air then tell me whats the probability of it not falling down, make sure your head is in the trajectory of the stone, you will learn a thing or two about probabilities in the universe.
- 10
- 2
- 2
The second question is easy, the first question is hard.
It's so far from reality for a couple of key reasons: warfare is too cheap and campaigning is too easy. It's easy to sit an army of twenty thousand men on one county for twelve months to siege it down if you have to, while in history you would tend to end the campaign by the time winter came (giving the defender time to recover, and forcing the attacker to call the troops out again). Because it's so cheap to wage war, even a marginally valuable county is worth it to seize, while historically plucky defenders could keep their sovereignty by fighting fiercely to defend it; since it just wasn't worth it to bring large forces to bear against them, they just had to be a sufficiently hard target to make conquering them not worth the effort.
I think the campaigning season could be implemented if some design effort was brought to bear on it. As for making war expensive, that's harder. Do it wrong and you're simply asking the player to stare at the screen while it's running at maximum speed while he accumulates a war chest to fund the next conquest.
- 6
I could sort of see something where if Asturias falls and then Crusades are activated early, then the first crusade(s) should be directed at Iberia. Then perhaps you could have an event that releases Asturias as independent nation if the the victor is king or emperor tier. Otherwise, it would probably make sense to have a scripted rebellion if they fall- something akin to the Shia Uprising so that you have a chance at a Christian Iberia. That could also represent how Asturias would have been difficult to keep a grasp on for the Umayyads historically.
Edit: Just to clarify, by "early crusades" I mean the existing game mechanic where they're unlocked in the year 950. All I'm saying is that perhaps the Pope should direct the first crusade or two in the direction of Aquitaine or Iberia to sort of ensure the Umayyads don't run completely rampant. I could sort of see the event popup already that says something like "While the Holy Lands are of course endangered, His Holiness the Pope has decided that enough is enough. It is time to reconquer rightful Catholic lands in Iberia. The Pope has termed this great undertaking the Reconquista.". After the success or failure (let's give it say two crusades/chances), then perhaps you'd get a second popup saying "With the Reconquista victorious/failed, the Christian World must move forward and attempt to reclaim the Holy Lands.". I suppose in the background, that could perhaps alter crusade weights to lean towards Iberia/Aquitaine the first time around and then Jerusalem later. A less direct approach could be the other alternative I thought of, which was having something akin to the Shia Uprising- maybe give that a few chances to fire for the next 50-100yrs after the fall of Asturias. It wouldn't exactly be too far of a stretch to imagine Christian peasants getting rather ticked with their Islamic overlords and staging a good-sized rebellion.
On the flip side, I wouldn't even mind a similar treatment for Byzantium. If they happen to fall or the player starts late, a Crusade could be directed at Greece/Anatolia with an event that gives the Byzantine Emperor the land back versus some holy order or large Western European kingdom getting it. Granted, I realize we have all different opinions on whether even historical events should be a thing let alone pseudo-historical events for the sake of gameplay.
Edit: Just to clarify, by "early crusades" I mean the existing game mechanic where they're unlocked in the year 950. All I'm saying is that perhaps the Pope should direct the first crusade or two in the direction of Aquitaine or Iberia to sort of ensure the Umayyads don't run completely rampant. I could sort of see the event popup already that says something like "While the Holy Lands are of course endangered, His Holiness the Pope has decided that enough is enough. It is time to reconquer rightful Catholic lands in Iberia. The Pope has termed this great undertaking the Reconquista.". After the success or failure (let's give it say two crusades/chances), then perhaps you'd get a second popup saying "With the Reconquista victorious/failed, the Christian World must move forward and attempt to reclaim the Holy Lands.". I suppose in the background, that could perhaps alter crusade weights to lean towards Iberia/Aquitaine the first time around and then Jerusalem later. A less direct approach could be the other alternative I thought of, which was having something akin to the Shia Uprising- maybe give that a few chances to fire for the next 50-100yrs after the fall of Asturias. It wouldn't exactly be too far of a stretch to imagine Christian peasants getting rather ticked with their Islamic overlords and staging a good-sized rebellion.
On the flip side, I wouldn't even mind a similar treatment for Byzantium. If they happen to fall or the player starts late, a Crusade could be directed at Greece/Anatolia with an event that gives the Byzantine Emperor the land back versus some holy order or large Western European kingdom getting it. Granted, I realize we have all different opinions on whether even historical events should be a thing let alone pseudo-historical events for the sake of gameplay.
Last edited:
- 5
- 4
- 2
The last thing we need are early crusades. It's bad enough to get them in a few years into the CM/TOG start because some viking adventurer took over Rome.
- 5
- 1
Excellent explanation. Makes a lot of sense.
...And if you read the wiki page on the Kingdom of Asturias, apparently before the Umayyads, both the Visigoths and the Romans before them were unable to pacify and control the area too. So it not as surprising the Muslims couldn't keep hold of it even after they overran Asturias in 714. South of the mountain passes there was a preexisting Visigoth governing structure, indeed the Muslims co-opted and used it, except in the Northern mountains, where it says they had to pacify the land one mountain valley at a time, and were easy targets when the locals fought back.
- 4
I know where you're coming from with that, but I'm just saying have the Pope pick an Iberian kingdom (or perhaps Aquitaine if that too is overrun by the Umayyads) as a first crusade target if the crusades are activated early in 950.
Last edited:
- 5
An early crusade tends to target Aquitaine anyway - because Paradox thought it was a good idea to have Barcelona (starting out as controlled by the Umayyads) as de-jure Aquitaine for some reason.
- 2
And the fact that it isn't uncommon for Umuyyads to win a Muslim invasion of Aquitaine anyway.
- 2
Which was established by Charlemagne AFTER expanding into Hispania. The CM start date is set almost 30 years before that conquest even happened. So Barcelona has no business being a de jure part of Aquitaine in the first start date.
- 5
well to be frank both the nubian states and austurias should have a built in option for the AI to play their politics in such a way that they get a NAP but not alliance with the Umayyads and Arabian Empire/Egypt in some different kinds of ways.. maybe give the nubian culture a special ability if they're upstream of the silk road from their neighbor that they can get a "Trade Relation" Status with top liege/direct liege that remains in effect so long as trade is uninterrupted. And actually now that the silkroad and NAPs are both in the game there should be a whole new part of diplomacy that revolves around securing trade wealth between two groups as opposed to outright conquest..
And another thing to make trade better i think would be to not just lop off all trade moving forward because of light/moderate raiding. Instead it should be based on fort level of county and current garrison of the top holding Vs size and seige rating of raiding force. If the raiders have a chance to siege out the garrison silk road should be off, if no siege possible and loot bar isn't brought below 70% of wealth then silkroad stays on.. That way puny 250 raider stacks in anxi can't gum up the entire northern silk road for 189 years because either AI adventurer nonsense... or.. an otherwise normal player just wanted to watch the basin burn to see how the AI would react to it >.> ... not that i would ever do such a thing <.< >.>
Oh right this is about Austurias... I'm a take my silk road rant to it's own thread....
And another thing to make trade better i think would be to not just lop off all trade moving forward because of light/moderate raiding. Instead it should be based on fort level of county and current garrison of the top holding Vs size and seige rating of raiding force. If the raiders have a chance to siege out the garrison silk road should be off, if no siege possible and loot bar isn't brought below 70% of wealth then silkroad stays on.. That way puny 250 raider stacks in anxi can't gum up the entire northern silk road for 189 years because either AI adventurer nonsense... or.. an otherwise normal player just wanted to watch the basin burn to see how the AI would react to it >.> ... not that i would ever do such a thing <.< >.>
Oh right this is about Austurias... I'm a take my silk road rant to it's own thread....
- 5