Why form Kingdom of Jerusalem?

[RobRoy3]

Aside from role-playing, I mean?

Sure, there might be a certain cool factor having a friendly country of your culture in the Levant. But since you now have to core three provinces, one of which is inland (meaning probably two wars), it's actually going to cost you far more to do this, in terms of ADM points, time, AE, and over-extension.

It already made little sense to do it before, since you lose the extra missionary you'd get from outright control of Jerusalem. But, now, it seems to make even less sense. If you don't want to control the territories, directly, better to release and feed Lebanon or Syria, which WOULD be vassals, DON'T need coring, have decent ideas, and would start with the same culture as the locals. So I get to shed 220 ADM points for the privilege of forgoing a vassal?

Okay, maybe the culture's not a big deal, since it'd get Syrian as accepted, but this just seems like a non-starter for anyone but KNI or CYP; and it's a neutral, at best, for them.

Am I missing something? Is there some hidden benefit that might make this at least neutral, if not attractive, in 1.8?

 

[Boodas]

I'm pretty sure that If you form Jerusalem the reformation cannot happen. Though that might just be a MEIOU event only

 

[Mikalos]

I'm pretty sure that If you form Jerusalem the reformation cannot happen. Though that might just be a MEIOU event only

i do not understand the logic of that.

@OP: Because DEUS VULT

It never struck me as a smart decision to form KOJ just because the stupid thing always suddenly never wanted to know me. sure, thanks. time to reinvade your ungrateful ass.

 

[indika_tates]

There are some reasons to do it or not. If you form the kingdom, you move your capital to Jerusalem. So, all your greek provinces, rhodes (if started as knights), except cyprus become overseas. So is a way to have a westernized nation into middle east which is so powerful. The problem is that your core provinces belongs to Ottomans if they annexed syrian cores, that is the opportunity to declare war to Mamluks to "steal" the cores you need to form the kingdom. You can do it in a single war because that three provinces are cheap. I remember I did it only with a 50-54% war score with Venice help, of course.

Is a very lineal gameplay because you don't have so many choices and you are dependant of an ottoman-mamluks war to claim the provinces you need. With Knights ideas if you form the Kingdom and you are strong enough to face Ottos after, I think is one of the most powerful nations in Eu4 with probably one of the best national ideas group.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I thought in this patch you get a tag switch out of it rather than making an independent nation. Is that wrong?

Anyway, it's 1 war. You can just spend 50 DIP taking Jerusalem in the first war without issue. The hard part is actually taking the land, which requires a little bit of luck to do in time. KNI and CYP can both get +6 FL off of ADM ideas or a huge number of galleys (enough to solo Mamluk fleet if you catch them correctly) off of trade, but to convert it reliably you need religious; ADM 8 takes too long, and so does waiting on ADM 7 --> religious ideas. Technically, an inquisitor would work too (Jerusalem is 5 tax Sunni, so you'll need 4.5% strength for it and can get 1% from theologian decision, .5% stab, .5% decision, and 2% inquis and have 6%), but do you really want to rely on that being available?

KNI can piggyback Venice, but ironically it's easier to conquer the Ottomans doing that than it is Mamluks, because of the straits near the Ottomans. CYP can only ally Poland consistently w/o a statesman, which is pretty useful for survival but not exactly a "get Jerusalem quickly" option.

The only other way I can think of is to get Mamluks to land forces somewhere else (maybe occupying some vassal), then sink their fleet. Again, though, to do that solo you'd need trade ideas to boost your naval FL enough to actually beat them at sea or you'd get an ally who'd screw up the equation by sinking their fleet too early lol.

And so it feels like the best bet is to just go religious, vassal/conquer whatever you can, and hope the Ottomans do enough damage, calling in Venice if you're Knights a bit late so they can land forces to siege w/o Mamluk forces screwing them over due to not enough transports.

If I'm playing Knights or CYP without caring about that, I'd just go Orthodox after securing key Catholic allies and jack nations opportunistically with trade ideas. It's actually possible to solo Venice + Knights with trade ideas as CYP for example, if you catch half their fleet out w/ galley spam.

 

[Mikalos]

There are some reasons to do it or not. If you form the kingdom, you move your capital to Jerusalem. So, all your greek provinces, rhodes (if started as knights), except cyprus become overseas. So is a way to have a westernized nation into middle east which is so powerful. The problem is that your core provinces belongs to Ottomans if they annexed syrian cores, that is the opportunity to declare war to Mamluks to "steal" the cores you need to form the kingdom. You can do it in a single war because that three provinces are cheap. I remember I did it only with a 50-54% war score with Venice help, of course.

Is a very lineal gameplay because you don't have so many choices and you are dependant of an ottoman-mamluks war to claim the provinces you need. With Knights ideas if you form the Kingdom and you are strong enough to face Ottos after, I think is one of the most powerful nations in Eu4 with probably one of the best national ideas group.

he isnt talking about reforming into the KOJ, but the decision of giving it to them as a catholic monarch

 

[AurochsAway]

I thought in this patch you get a tag switch out of it rather than making an independent nation. Is that wrong?

Tag-switch if playing as Knights of Cyprus. Any other Catholic nation works like before, creating independent Jerusalem.

 

[RobRoy3]

Tag-switch if playing as Knights of Cyprus. Any other Catholic nation works like before, creating independent Jerusalem.

Yeah, it's a nice addition that adds some flavor for KNI and CYP. And the decision isn't a bad deal for them, since they'd keep the provinces. Still doesn't do much for them, but the role-playing argument might be compelling for them, and the free capital shift could be useful if expanding in that direction.

But for everyone else a previously entertaining, marginal decision is now just bad, as far as I can tell. Since I don't think the avoid Reformation thing is true in vanilla, I can't see why anyone would ever do it, now (again, aside from KNI/CYP).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, it's a nice addition that adds some flavor for KNI and CYP. And the decision isn't a bad deal for them, since they'd keep the provinces. Still doesn't do much for them, but the role-playing argument might be compelling for them, and the free capital shift could be useful if expanding in that direction.

But for everyone else a previously entertaining, marginal decision is now just bad, as far as I can tell. Since I don't think the avoid Reformation thing is true in vanilla, I can't see why anyone would ever do it, now (again, aside from KNI/CYP).

I see what you mean, but the game has a few things like that. Kurland was like that too though they seem a bit better now, but several switches are almost purely cosmetic and for nations like Qara Qoyunlu doing stuff like forming Persia actually gives you worse ideas than you have (though it's useful to generic junk ideas Tabarestan).

 

[balmung60]

Why? Because it makes more sense than "The Knights" being painted across the map and the flag looks nice.

Now, DEUS VULT!

 

[zodium]

Yeah, it's a nice addition that adds some flavor for KNI and CYP. And the decision isn't a bad deal for them, since they'd keep the provinces. Still doesn't do much for them, but the role-playing argument might be compelling for them, and the free capital shift could be useful if expanding in that direction.

But for everyone else a previously entertaining, marginal decision is now just bad, as far as I can tell. Since I don't think the avoid Reformation thing is true in vanilla, I can't see why anyone would ever do it, now (again, aside from KNI/CYP).

It was always bad, since you lost the Conquest of Jerusalem bonus. It's like saving Byzantium and feeding them back the Empire so they'll rename the provinces, or helping Granada reconquer Iberia: You do it because it's there.

 

[RobRoy3]

I see what you mean, but the game has a few things like that. Kurland was like that too though they seem a bit better now, but several switches are almost purely cosmetic and for nations like Qara Qoyunlu doing stuff like forming Persia actually gives you worse ideas than you have (though it's useful to generic junk ideas Tabarestan).

Sure, it's a nice flavor addition for KNI/CYP, if essentially cosmetic. But it would've worked better as a separate, new decision. Even in this thread, it's confusing people since two pretty different game actions are now housed in the single Jerusalem decision.

It was always bad, since you lost the Conquest of Jerusalem bonus. It's like saving Byzantium and feeding them back the Empire so they'll rename the provinces, or helping Granada reconquer Iberia: You do it because it's there.

Yeah, but if you didn't need the missionary, and/or didn't want to get bogged down in the Levant, it used to be a nice little something extra to do, if you're basically just "passing through" the Mamluks (taking Gaza/Sinai to get bases in the Indian Ocean a few years earlier). You could convert Jerusalem and resurrect the Kingdom at little cost; fun, despite the irritation that the ungrateful SoB didn't become a vassal. If you're pressed for dip slots, you didn't even mind that so much.

Minor issue, really. I'm always just a bit irritated when they actively remove something entertaining, however marginal, without any need. Guess I'll have to replace fantasies of resurrecting Crusader states with fantasies of a Maronite/Syriac resurgence. On the plus side, Lebanon/Syria get the decent arabian ideas, and will be faithful vassals.

 

[Mikalos]

Sure, it's a nice flavor addition for KNI/CYP, if essentially cosmetic. But it would've worked better as a separate, new decision. Even in this thread, it's confusing people since two pretty different game actions are now housed in the single Jerusalem decision.

Yeah, but if you didn't need the missionary, and/or didn't want to get bogged down in the Levant, it used to be a nice little something extra to do, if you're basically just "passing through" the Mamluks (taking Gaza/Sinai to get bases in the Indian Ocean a few years earlier). You could convert Jerusalem and resurrect the Kingdom at little cost; fun, despite the irritation that the ungrateful SoB didn't become a vassal. If you're pressed for dip slots, you didn't even mind that so much.

Minor issue, really. I'm always just a bit irritated when they actively remove something entertaining, however marginal, without any need. Guess I'll have to replace fantasies of resurrecting Crusader states with fantasies of a Maronite/Syriac resurgence. On the plus side, Lebanon/Syria get the decent arabian ideas, and will be faithful vassals.

if you're gonna take gaza and sinai, i dont see why Jerusalem is much more of a stretch

 

[zodium]

I don't really see what's being removed, I guess. The difficulty doesn't lie in whether you have to core 5 or 10 BT, but in going out of your way to convert it on time. It's basically the same thing?

 

[RobRoy3]

if you're gonna take gaza and sinai, i dont see why Jerusalem is much more of a stretch

Jerusalem and Nablus. So that's four provinces, when my goal is really just the Indian Ocean port. ADM points are always precious, and this isn't where I'd choose to spend any.

I don't really see what's being removed, I guess. The difficulty doesn't lie in whether you have to core 5 or 10 BT, but in going out of your way to convert it on time. It's basically the same thing?

Well, pre 1.8, I could afford to hang on to the single province for awhile waiting for it to convert. That conversion was all that was needed to release the KOJ.

Now it's three provinces to acquire/core and one to convert. So if I want to create KOJ, now, OE, and probably time, and maybe AE, become bigger concerns, as well as the extra ADM points. Too expensive. Just doesn't make any kind of sense to create something that won't even be a weaker vassal. You'd keep the provinces if you're going to make that kind of investment, or give them to a friendly Lebanon/Syria which doesn't require making nearly that kind of investment.

 

[dstarsboy]

To summarize the OP's point, there is actually no point whatsoever to form KoJ unless you're Knights or Cypress.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The OE hurts a bit, but you can convert only the 1 province then release AFAIK. If you have religious ideas and just raise autonomy in those provinces you can probably finish it before seeing rebels, which will by Syrian unlike IIRC Sinai being Egyptian.

Without religious ideas, I don't see how most nations can do it anyway pre-reformation; ADM 8 is hard to reach and still convert it and you often don't want that +1 unrest theologian decision.

Losing the extra ADM hurts though, and it always did.

I wish the knights and Cyprus didn't start with Orthodox capitols, it makes it more annoying especially for Cyprus. Cyprus has a mediocre ruler and a lollerbad heir too.

 

[balmung60]

It would be easier if the Reformation didn't consistently happen so early. For something that happened in 1517, it sure happens in the 1490s a lot, which puts a really big time crunch on forming Jerusalem.

 

[RobRoy3]

The OE hurts a bit, but you can convert only the 1 province then release AFAIK.

No, that's the change. You now need to core three provinces (Jerusalem, Nablus, and Gaza), as well as convert the one (Jerusalem, now inland). Kind of expensive for the privilege of releasing a lame minor with default ideas, not a vassal, not even a positive opinion modifier.

...unlike IIRC Sinai being Egyptian.

Bedouin, now, actually.

Without religious ideas, I don't see how most nations can do it anyway pre-reformation; ADM 8 is hard to reach and still convert it and you often don't want that +1 unrest theologian decision.

I sometimes take "Advancement of True Religion", just depends on what kind of game I'm playing. But an inquisitor was usually sufficient in my experience. And the nations I'd usually do it with were GEN and VEN, who could usually accomplish it before the Reformation, without too much trouble. I mean, they still can. But why would they? Just too expensive, now, for the non-existent benefit.

 

[zodium]

Look at it this way: before, the "reward," in terms of utility gained, was already negative. That is, you would actually lose utility by accomplishing this. It is still negative, it's just that the cost is ever so slightly higher. Does it really matter? If I'm going to do it at all, my decision was never going to be based on cost-benefit because it was always bad, so this change really changes nothing. And even in terms of difficulty, it changes very little because the real difficulty was always in conversion, not conquest.