Why the Catholic AI is doomed in the 767AD Start Date...

[Hvymtlboy]

All of the following observations are made of independent rulers of large nations.

Simply put, Baptisms. Every time one of their children is born, regardless of the financial situation, the AI pays to have them baptized. Usually by the pope, which can run into the hundreds of gold, meaning the Kings of the Catholic world are almost always operating with a -25% morale penalty to their troops for running a deficit.

Now if memory serves, the developers took the same stance on the AI buying weapons, armor, crown jewels and going broke...it was simply too difficult to program them to live within their means with those decisions. The ERE can survive a year or two in the red, not the West, not at the earliest start dates.

Rant off...and Thanks for listening...

( Oh, and it should read the 769 start date... )

 

[Cardolam]

Mostly because temples get raided by pagans and the MA goes way south. This leads to religious revolts and province religion changes that cannot be effectively reversed due to the low MA. Thus, Catholic realms get eaten from within.

 

[Cuban]

Yeah, on this point I also take issue with Catholic monarchs being forced pay too high a price to be crowned. At the same time it's not terribly realistic because if a monarch of a realm of a certain size is refused to be crowned by the pope but is then subsequently crowned by a bishop of that realm, that's a blow to the credibility of the faith.

Real life tended to be more balanced, Popes gave kings more leeway until shown otherwise such as Henry II's excommunication and subsequent penance.


Kings should pay a price to the Church but they shouldn't be forced to make big political choices (like allowing the church to decide who will rule vast tracts of land instead of the monarch) or go uncrowned, it's too stark a difference and if that was truly realistic it would lower religious authority when denied and would incentivize rulers to disregard the Roman church and incentivize heretics. I don't think it's a coincidence that the most infamous Papal-Monarchical conflict was against the HRE and that Lutheranism found fertile ground in Germany.

It's corny but a line from StarWars encapsulates the issue of the Catholic Church increasing it's temporal power and subsequently becoming less credible and important to the ruling classes as time wore on. "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip from your fingers."

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

I have only experienced Catholic collapse once, in my current game. And the only reason why I've experienced it is because I reloaded my campaign continuously until the last Merovingian ascends and splits the realm. I wanted to preserve all the bloodline despite playing a Zoroastrian.

I find Catholicism fine in this start. The only difference now feels like Britain gets run over by Norse much more often, but that's not out of expectations. Also Britain is not core Catholic lands as much as Italy, Germany, and France are, and with those intact the OP as hell Crusades will regain all that land in a couple hundred years.

This is especially the case now that the Umayyads have about the same chance to form Hispania as Charlemagne has of forming Francia/HRE. Shift to claimant factions and splitting of de jure Andalusia, did a huge number on the chances the AI forms Hispania, and now reconquista mechanics sent those chances from something like 50% to 33%. Honestly surprised when Hispania forms these days.

 

[Hvymtlboy]

Mostly because temples get raided by pagans and the MA goes way south. This leads to religious revolts and province religion changes that cannot be effectively reversed due to the low MA. Thus, Catholic realms get eaten from within.

This point I am aware of, as a Norse I usually only raid Muslim lands. The money, captives, and the artifacts are better there too. However this often leads to a ERE taking over Tunis and the Maghreb for me. < shrugs > I have even seen Iconaclast Mali emperors on a routine basis...

 

[Lycrist Katkiller]

The ai simply can't handle Gavelkind succession.
The ai keeps pumping offspring, leading to succession crisis basically all the time.
This destroys small realms but eroding the power basis and weakens larger realms to the point where they can't fight neither uprisings nor foreign invaders.
It also keeps them in fighting civil wars most of the time (Because of the many claimants). During those rebellions the realms are easy targets for muslims and other threads and they can't support each other against those threads.

Iqta succession on the other side has no such downside. Of course there are even more claimants and even more factions, but with open succession usually most titles remain in the same realm. And even the AI can sustain a power base.

Weak catholics being chewed up by muslims leads to low morale authority. This leads to more uprisings and rulers converting weakening the European realms even more.

Iqta government on the other hand allows for tyranny revoking of duchies and retracting vassals.

But default the muslim succession law and government form is superior in terms of stability.
No wonder so many people like heir designation or switch to feudal elective

Of course, there are decadence revolts but they only happen rarely and only to the top liege. There are no revolts if a vassal dynasty grows decadence

 

[Hvymtlboy]

This is especially the case now that the Umayyads have about the same chance to form Hispania as Charlemagne has of forming Francia/HRE. Shift to claimant factions and splitting of de jure Andalusia, did a huge number on the chances the AI forms Hispania, and now reconquista mechanics sent those chances from something like 50% to 33%. Honestly surprised when Hispania forms these days.

I see the Umayyads form Hispania much more often than Charlie founding Francia or the HRE. What happens with the Reconquista mechanics is usally this, so and so wins a war for Navara. That king then turns on Austurias for Viscaya, slauthering each others armies. The Umayyad princes finish the rest because they do not have to honor any truces from their liege, and *poof* Hispania forms. On rare occasions, if Charlie leads a successful attack for Navara, then it sometimes can be stopped...

 

[Duskwave]

I'm thinking about how few post-Holy Fury datapoints I have, so not really sure what the current state of things actually is, vs carrying over my assumptions from before. Pre-Holy Fury, most of my games were 769 starts, and in most of them, the First Crusade was to try to reclaim Aquitaine, and failed. Catholicism only had a chance of survival if I was the one leading it, in which case it was basically synonymous with my realm (and thus went on to span most of the world, of course), otherwise totally doomed. My impression is that Crusades becoming much more powerful has changed the balance a lot, but it's hard to get a good sense given how large an effect I usually have.

 

[DPS]

FWIW, in my experience AI controlled Catholic realms are hardly "doomed" in the 769 start. Yes, somethings Catholicism collapses, but it's hardly guaranteed. I don't think there is a major problem here that needs to be addressed. It's to be expected (and, frankly, to a certain extent, desired) that the game will diverge from actual history pretty quickly after it starts. If there is going to be anything done about it, it should be minor tweeks at most. Look back at threads from a year ago, and people were complaining about he exact opposite thing--that Catholic realms were too stable and that Catholic MA would quickly max out at 100 and stay there.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

I mean stable realms are still a problem in all starts.

Not just Catholic realms though. Any realms. They really only ever collapse from external pressures, rather than internal ones.

It's just more obvious in the Catholic ones because there are no horde events or Shia uprisings. Massive external threats that usually topple just about any realm.

 

[eastcoastceojam]

Look back at threads from a year ago, and people were complaining about he exact opposite thing--that Catholic realms were too stable and that Catholic MA would quickly max out at 100 and stay there.

Paradox significantly increased the piety requirements after Holy Fury to complete the "Paragon of Virtue" ambition (2000 piety now vs 500 pre-HF). So the Catholics get a lot fewer AI rulers adding +1% to Moral Authority for 20 years than they did in the past. Could explain why the religion seems more tenuous now than before, even though Crusades are a lot stronger.

 

[KmVoss]

In my current game the HRE formed early, followed by germania, and despite hitting 0% authority recently, when I look at the religious map it's still a solid sea of catholicism. They're all in hole from losing papal wars for Latium, yet they still seem be to be as stable as ever. Weird.

Also, the Arabian empire bobbed. .. and blobbed, and blobbed all over the map @ 0 decadence for centuries. The only reason it hasn't taken over the world is that I keep beating them in crusades. This has definitely provided me with more challenge but it feels broken. No mods or anything.