Also weird things tend to happen if you agree to be the vassal of a muslim. Perhaps this should be removed, for players at least?
-
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.
I just patched from CKDV 2.0 to CKDV 2.1.
And I must say the single most annoying feature BY FAR (!!) is that Muslims and Christians can now again walk through each others' countries.
THIS SUCKS!!!! IT COMPLETELY RUINS THE FEEL OF THE GAME!
I much prefer standstill crusades. Could Paradox implement a solution where the player himself can choose, upon loading a save file, along with the difficulty mode, whether or not marching through infidel lands is allowed?? Because on one hand I like the things that patch 2.1 introduced (better pledging f.ex.) on the other hand I hate the march-through-infidel implementation. I'd like to have a better choice than just whether or not to uninstall patch 2.1.
And I must say the single most annoying feature BY FAR (!!) is that Muslims and Christians can now again walk through each others' countries.
THIS SUCKS!!!! IT COMPLETELY RUINS THE FEEL OF THE GAME!
I much prefer standstill crusades. Could Paradox implement a solution where the player himself can choose, upon loading a save file, along with the difficulty mode, whether or not marching through infidel lands is allowed?? Because on one hand I like the things that patch 2.1 introduced (better pledging f.ex.) on the other hand I hate the march-through-infidel implementation. I'd like to have a better choice than just whether or not to uninstall patch 2.1.
Having said this, I have a third solution in mind:
Let's recall what the original problem was. Among the nine eligible crusade targets (alexandria, antioch, burgos, byzantion, cordoba, jerusalem, palermo, roma, tunis) there are three (burgos, cordoba, jerusalem) which cannot reached directly from the sea.
Burgos (in red; likely access provinces are in blue):
Cordoba (in red; likely access provinces are in blue):
Jerusalem (in red; likely access provinces are in blue):
The problem was that often AI rulers didn't "know" that they needed access through one of the blue provinces to reach the crusade target, so they declared war only on the owner of the red provinces. If the owner of the red province didn't own any of the blue provinces, and none of the blue provinces were owned by Christian rulers, then there was no way for the AI armies to reach the crusade target and the whole thing would fizzle in a very disappointing way. (Note that the other six targets --alexandria, antioch, byzantion, palermo, roma, tunis-- are right there on the coast so they don't have this problem. Jerusalem though has it and since it's the #1 target it makes this a bad problem.)
The player can of course DOW his way through the blue provinces at no cost and will this way also open up the route for fellow AI crusaders.
If all nations get access through all provinces then the AI can in fact reach the target. It is a solution, but it has its drawbacks. It means they will walk through muslim held Acre, Jaffa or Tyre, and establish themselves in Jerusalem amidst Muslim held territory. Worse still, the Muslims can retaliate by sending an army across all of Europe, which will march its way through France or the Rhineland and eventually siege the crusaders' homeland in the English midlands, central France or in Germany. This is absolutely idiotic and ruins the game feel for many people (including me).
Can the AI be "smartened up"? Can it be "told" that it needs to dow Acre and Jaffa if it wants to reach Jerusalem, or Asturias, Santillana and Vizcaya in order to reach Burgos? This would be the best solution.
Otherwise, could events put the crusading AI at war with the owners of said provinces? Yeah, this may result in suicidal charges or 2000 brave Christians into 20,000 strong Ayyubid armies but that's what happened in some of the crusades. Something like this:
The best way IMHO would be to add a "reach inland target" routine to the AI behavior, that automatically lets them know whether or not a target is in fact reachable from the coast, and if it's not, who needs to be declared war upon too (=combinatorial problem.) When this is known then the AI would add up the "strength" of all parties that need to be declared war on, and it would weigh its decision whether or not to actually declare war based on own strength and assessed combined enemy strength.
But I have my doubts whether such a solution is implementable.
Let's recall what the original problem was. Among the nine eligible crusade targets (alexandria, antioch, burgos, byzantion, cordoba, jerusalem, palermo, roma, tunis) there are three (burgos, cordoba, jerusalem) which cannot reached directly from the sea.
Burgos (in red; likely access provinces are in blue):
Cordoba (in red; likely access provinces are in blue):
Jerusalem (in red; likely access provinces are in blue):
The problem was that often AI rulers didn't "know" that they needed access through one of the blue provinces to reach the crusade target, so they declared war only on the owner of the red provinces. If the owner of the red province didn't own any of the blue provinces, and none of the blue provinces were owned by Christian rulers, then there was no way for the AI armies to reach the crusade target and the whole thing would fizzle in a very disappointing way. (Note that the other six targets --alexandria, antioch, byzantion, palermo, roma, tunis-- are right there on the coast so they don't have this problem. Jerusalem though has it and since it's the #1 target it makes this a bad problem.)
The player can of course DOW his way through the blue provinces at no cost and will this way also open up the route for fellow AI crusaders.
If all nations get access through all provinces then the AI can in fact reach the target. It is a solution, but it has its drawbacks. It means they will walk through muslim held Acre, Jaffa or Tyre, and establish themselves in Jerusalem amidst Muslim held territory. Worse still, the Muslims can retaliate by sending an army across all of Europe, which will march its way through France or the Rhineland and eventually siege the crusaders' homeland in the English midlands, central France or in Germany. This is absolutely idiotic and ruins the game feel for many people (including me).
Can the AI be "smartened up"? Can it be "told" that it needs to dow Acre and Jaffa if it wants to reach Jerusalem, or Asturias, Santillana and Vizcaya in order to reach Burgos? This would be the best solution.
Otherwise, could events put the crusading AI at war with the owners of said provinces? Yeah, this may result in suicidal charges or 2000 brave Christians into 20,000 strong Ayyubid armies but that's what happened in some of the crusades. Something like this:
Code:
#check if youre at war with Jerusalem and have no way to get there
#trigger:
and { atwar with owner of Jerusalem
not { or { or { at war with owner of Acre
Acre christian owned
}
or { at war with owner of Jaffa
Jaffa christian held
}
or { and { or { at war with owner of Tyre
Tyre Christian held
}
or { at war with owner of Tiberias
Tiberias Christian held
}
}
}
}
}
}
#action:
#one of the following
40%: declare war on owner of Acre
40%: declare war on owner of Jaffa
20%: declare war on owner of Tyre and owner of TiberiasThe best way IMHO would be to add a "reach inland target" routine to the AI behavior, that automatically lets them know whether or not a target is in fact reachable from the coast, and if it's not, who needs to be declared war upon too (=combinatorial problem.) When this is known then the AI would add up the "strength" of all parties that need to be declared war on, and it would weigh its decision whether or not to actually declare war based on own strength and assessed combined enemy strength.
But I have my doubts whether such a solution is implementable.
I'd like to see a more realistic army upkeep/attrition system so that its possible to emulate historical battles and wars. Presently no player can really afford to send a crusading army of 10,000 into the holy land via sea or via land without going broke and losing 70% of the army to attrition. This just didn't happen in reality, its basically broken. The AI of course can ignore this so it leaves the player constantly running broke or spending years..decades saving up for a very short period of conquest. Lets not forget that these conquests piss off his vassals at home due to BB for killing Muslims..er.
The other flaw is when a large nation fights another large nation. The AI enemy will happily gather up a force of 20-30k and wreak havoc on your land. If by chance your demense can match this, your economy will be ruined within a few months of campaigning. This just didn't happen! Raising your whole army didn't bankrupt you within months. It's really stupid. If you don't happen to have the personal manpower to field an army this size you have to pull from your vassals, who seem even more backstabbing and rebellious than even bastards of history could manage.
No doubt apologists will respond with lame ways to get around these flaws, or explain how its to limit the player or other rediculous responses. It doesn't make them any less of flaws.
The other flaw is when a large nation fights another large nation. The AI enemy will happily gather up a force of 20-30k and wreak havoc on your land. If by chance your demense can match this, your economy will be ruined within a few months of campaigning. This just didn't happen! Raising your whole army didn't bankrupt you within months. It's really stupid. If you don't happen to have the personal manpower to field an army this size you have to pull from your vassals, who seem even more backstabbing and rebellious than even bastards of history could manage.
No doubt apologists will respond with lame ways to get around these flaws, or explain how its to limit the player or other rediculous responses. It doesn't make them any less of flaws.
Kaelic said:
70% loss due to attrition sounds historical for Crusades if you look at it as a whole. Its not really known how many people set out for a Crusade in 1096 but out of the 30,000 made it to the Byzantine empire and pushed on into Muslim lands, only 10,000 made it to Jerusalem.
And secondly, King Richard of England basically went bankrupt financing his crusade.
From his wiki article:
Don't forget that out of the 100,000 supposed Germans that set out with Barbarossa, hardly any made it.
Of course Richard had better luck with the whole attrition issue because he sailed instead of using a land march, but as a whole Crusades are expensive and costly.
However, I will agree as they are now it is unrealistic that Crusader armies are completely independent and uncoordinated.
Despite the massive attrition and costs the Crusaders face, they would often simply combine their forces even those who were once rivals in the mainland.
So you should see a stack of French, English, and Flemish fighting as one unit and that territories get doled out to the nobles who are along for the ride.
I'm not sure how that would work or if it could, but I think crusades should have a forward base and a date that you need to get your troops their.
For the first crusade everyone met up at Constantinople and during the 4th they met up at Venice then the decided who would be the leader based on rank and fight together (mostly) until one group left for its own.
And I'd like to see members of your court or sons request that they join the crusade. Especially landless sons who want to find their own.
When I go Crusading to the Holy Land I never lose 70% of my troops to attrition. Certainly not with an army of just 10k.
Don't sent your army in one big stack but use smaller stacks and only unite them when you are close to the target.
Also plan the route that your army takes more carefully, don't just click on a province where you want them to go. The computer will then sent them using the 'fastest' route, which often means he will sent them by sea. Instead of that select a router that goes more over land, that way you can keep your attrition down.
Well if you've ever read anything about the crusades, specifically the fourth one, then it'd be obvious to you that shipping an army off into the Levant *was* horrendously expensive. This is not a-historical. And what do you mean with "broke" - that you have a negative income for a while and run into debt? Big deal, sure its bad for some provinces, you lose improvements and so on and get corruption/thieves/smugglers, but that's the price you pay. I find it tolerable to lose a couple of fisheries/glass works/smithies while I go conquering Syria or northern Italy. I regularly go deep into debt (-2000 to -5000 in the 11th century, more in later centuries) when I fight heavy wars. The gaim ain't about amassing gold, since money buys you no harldy any armies in this game, it's about amassing prestige and piety, which DOES contribute towards making your dynasty grand and powerful.Kaelic said:
There are events that balance financial losses, like for example the "calling the estates general" event which ought to bail you out of even the worst financial troubles.
Also, if you are trying to raise gigantic armies purely from your demesne then you're doing something wrong -- one of the main points of the game is to have many vassals whose armies you can use freely without worrying about the upkeep cost. Only shipping them somewhere costs you money. The AI relies heavily on its vassals' armies and this is probably why they're outpacing you.
I play on normal, and unless I stack my entire army of 50,000 into one province I never lose more than maybe half to attrition over the course of an entire campaign.
There's a feature which is a bit broken: You can actually have a display about what causes attrition in any given unit. Move the mouse into the upper left corner and it'll show a tooltip into with the attrition causing factors.
I think there is some confusion as to how I play. I have no issues keeping my stacks small, not raising all my demense in one, campaigning to keep attrition down yadda yadda. My annoyance is that I have to act like this to survive in the game while the AI does not. The AI clearly acting far more historical. The Byzantines are a great example of the economic annoyances involved in running an army. You can never fund the Byzantion regiment ever as the Byzantine Emperor even with max Scutage. Not to mention this regiment alone is never capable of maintaining its size outside of the city for even the shortest time. One month a province over in your own lands? You lose a few thousand troops.
And I'm sorry but intentionally running negative is poor game design if it is required to play historically. Just so you can have purely random province improvements disappear, or rely on purely random events to stay above water. Thats just not cricket and a great example of what I meant when apologists would offer ways to play around this. I do not care how to get around it, I already know. I want the game to not need it!
And I'm sorry but intentionally running negative is poor game design if it is required to play historically. Just so you can have purely random province improvements disappear, or rely on purely random events to stay above water. Thats just not cricket and a great example of what I meant when apologists would offer ways to play around this. I do not care how to get around it, I already know. I want the game to not need it!
Kaelic said:
Your talking about the Constantinople regiment? What year are you at? And what level do you have for your stewardship skill?
I can usually field that regiment and break even.
vertinox said:
I'm not at a year, it's just an example. Start up 1066 scenario, let the regiment max out and then deploy it, see how long you can keep it out before your kingdom turns to crap just from "campaigning". You don't even have to move it! You won't even make a year, a year of campaigning. Those Medieval wars must have been short and swift in history!
Kaelic said:I'm not at a year, it's just an example. Start up 1066 scenario, let the regiment max out and then deploy it, see how long you can keep it out before your kingdom turns to crap just from "campaigning". You don't even have to move it! You won't even make a year, a year of campaigning. Those Medieval wars must have been short and swift in history!
You are talking about the richest province in the game of course it will be tough to maintain that regiment. Certainly at the beginning of the game when there isn't much money around.
If you were able to have a positive monthly balance and fight a long war in CK with large armies then the game would be to easy. Since almost nothing would hold you back from conquering the whole Middle East in one war as the Byzantine Empire.
I believe that you lose money monthly when at war is intentional.
The main problem is, that regiment size is directly related to province income and that each province can only have 1 regiment. So you can have a Byzantine regiment of 40,000 men and a Sligo regiment of 100 men.
A system where you could call up a certain amount of men would be better, but I don't see that happening anymore in a patch.
In my mod I have greatly reduced the income of the richest provinces, like Byzantion and Venice and made the provinces around them a bit richer.
Veldmaarschalk said:
I agree there and think a good solution would be a progressive curve of cost as the war continues. Think of it as a loss of population at home running the country while the upkeep of the army would be a generic cost of upkeep. That way initially you're fine and aren't upkeep doesn't blast you in the first month but a prolonged war will ruin you.
You're also right that there is a flaw in that a regiment size is tied to the value of a province and you can't control how many are deployed. It's a shame because the game already has the capability to do this as the regiment size is refilling at home while the regiment is active, so data is already tracked separately from the deployed unit.
Hm, I really should apply for a Europa engine thingy.
I wouldn't call the troop system a "flaw", that's how raising armies in the medieval era worked - your vassals had troops, and their vassals had troops. The richer the land, the more vassals, and the more troops your vassals could support. 'National' armies did not exist.
Waging a large scale war in the medieval era was hideously expensive because of the primitive taxation systems and even Byzantine Emperors regularily went into debt doing so. The whole model is perfectly historically sound and a necessary gameplay element to maintain the challenge.
The one thing I do feel is ahistorical about waging war is how ridiculously worthless pillaging is. 20 gold for looting Rome, woo hoo.
Waging a large scale war in the medieval era was hideously expensive because of the primitive taxation systems and even Byzantine Emperors regularily went into debt doing so. The whole model is perfectly historically sound and a necessary gameplay element to maintain the challenge.
The one thing I do feel is ahistorical about waging war is how ridiculously worthless pillaging is. 20 gold for looting Rome, woo hoo.
And you couldn't recruit less at a time to keep costs time. Wrong!Wiz said:
Thats nice, nobody suggested they did.
So campaigning with 20,000 men for a few months put most countries into the negative causing their buildings to collapse historically? Really? Wrong again! Not to mention that a nation didn't run in the negative much it simply ran OUT of money and stopped being able to do anything, such as pay the army.
Necessary yes. Good? No. Historical? No. Better alternatives? Yes.
You sir are an apologist.
Kaelic said:
That negative balance symbolizes how much loan you have taken. And event selling those buildings aren't that impossible. Sometimes rights for certain businesses were sold to cover the debts. Although it would be more realistic if building wouldn't disappear, but I believe that this symbolize the fact that crown don't enjoy these incomes anymore.
Olaus Petrus said:
Yes I know why it does it and what it symbolizes but it isn't an accurate way to simulate it. Not to mention the AI ignores debt so can campaign forever because it's stupid and this was the best way around them going broke all the time
Kaelic said:
Relax a little, I misunderstood you because of your earlier posts. It's perfectly reasonable to want to recruit less than the entire regiment at once.
And yes, campaigning with 20,000 men for a few months would put a medieval ruler into the red, although they had options for financing that do not exist in the game. Negative money is debt, and countries waring themselves into debt is as historical as it gets.
Kaelic said:Yes I know why it does it and what it symbolizes but it isn't an accurate way to simulate it. Not to mention the AI ignores debt so can campaign forever because it's stupid and this was the best way around them going broke all the time
Do you honestly want the AI to be even weaker? The game is too easy as it is.
Wiz said:
You can state this as many times as you like, can you actually provide common examples where a 20,000 man army would put a ruler in the red for a few months?
Wiz said:
This is a pointless comment, I never suggested I want them weaker, I said the AI is stupid and that was their way around it.