Crusades

[yourworstnightm]

Well, while crusades in CK I could result in some amusement, like Hungary migrating to Tunisia or Norway controlling Anatolia, they were usually quite shitty. After the great glory of conquering Palestine as a French, English or German king, you sit there with a lot of holdings and vassals in the Middle East that you really don't want, and certainly has no interest in protecting if the Mega Seljuqs invade. The Crusader States don't really form, except as some small 1 province nations that anyway pledge allegiance to you. I'd like Crusader States to form after successful crusades, with generals and nobles from courts involved in the crusades getting titles and land in the Holy Land. Instead of France and Germany growing fat in the Middle East, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Tripoli, the Duchy of Antioch etc. are formed. Or the Latin Empire if you save Constantinople from the Turks. The gain for the crusading kings and nobles should be huge prestige and piety boosts.

And don't get me started on the Sheikhdom of Praha issue (it seems to be fixed in DV, don't want it back).

 

[Count Lake]

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[besaccia]

Maybe after a succesfull crusade some event like the famous ( or infamous? ) 'papal state' event fire to release the crusader kingdoms, with big malus if you refuse to release it.

 

[Count of Reval]

Some more (general) thoughts:
1) There should be less crusades - but let them be richer experiences. (Modified MTTH of the event should be tuned so that there will be about 3 of them in a century, not more.)
2) Triggering and ending a crusade might include some deeper political dimensions.
3) Crusades might be more coordinated, require more interacting (at least with one's vassals).
4) There should be stronger incentives for a player to become a crusader, at least if he's a king. (Motivation has to be more complicated than just mainly avoiding a penalty on piety. Crusade should feel like an opportunity, exciting venture, not regular annoying obligation.)
5) Crusade targets in Poland and Hungary to stop the Mongols.
6) Counter-crusades (Jihads).

 

[unmerged(84239)]

This could be possible with a 'release vassal' option from EU2. Maybe with an additional option 'give province'.

At least the latter would be very important for me.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

A jihad would be a nice touch. I was kinda annoyed when as Athens I became the Kingdom of Jerusalem and controlled Mecca (and Alexandria, as well as Jerusalem) with absolutly no backlash from the Muslims that their most holy city was in Christian hands.

As for the Crusades, rather than a random event fire there needs to be some reasoning. I'd like if the First Crusade would be put off until within a decade of its historical time. Other than that though, the crusades need to be much, much, much more difficult with much greater reward, for both liege and besieger.

So how do we make the crusades harder? Well I would assume the distance between Germany and Jerusalem was a tad bit upsetting to those who fought. So more attrition then? Sieges in CK1 kinda sucked, I'd much rather prefer the EU3 system.

Also thing I always noticed as Castille was that there were always French, English, Swedish, Danish as well as Arab ships constantly passing through Gibraltar. So maybe the huge abstraction of navies made it seem unrealistic because nobody crossed via land, and just made amphibious invasions.

 

[BonSequitur]

Crusading armies

Split off from this thread.

Essentially, the idea is that, during a Crusade, Christian states can raise a special type of army, a Crusader army, which would be subject to special rules. My general idea of how that would work best is:

• Raising a crusader army is a realm-wide decision. It gives every province in the demesne a manpower hit, but does not completely deplete their manpower, nor does it prevent those provinces from also raising regular armies. Crusading armies are not created by a regular levy, after all.
• Crusading armies are somewhat more effective, and cheaper to maintain, than regular armies. How good they are largely depends on the piety of the ruler raising one; a very pious ruler will draw great numbers of crusading knights and generally run a very prestigious crusade. A ruler that isn't pious at all would field a fairly pitiful crusading army, as his crusade would be seen as a transparently hypocritical ploy, and thus joined only by levies and poor local pilgrims.
• Crusading armies suffer less attrition while marching through Christian lands, and move slightly faster, as they essentially get logistical support from the Church.
• Crusading armies are fully controlled by whomever raised them. It is possible to irrevocably tell a crusading army to join someone else's crusade - vassals can only do that to their liege, sovereigns to any other crusading king - in which case, the controller of that crusade will pay the bills. This is a way to avoid piety loss for not participating in the Crusade, although not a very prestigious one.
• Crusading armies can do anything - after all, historically, they didn't always stick to retaking the Holy Land - and indeed even interfere in secular laws. This, however, causes loss of Piety and desertion, especially if the army is being marched to fight an European war. A ruler with very high piety or intrigue might be able to use a crusading army as a political tool, like Dandolo did against the Byzantines, but he risks being disgraced.
• Crusading armies will happily fight for any part of the Holy Land; Acre and Antioch (Of Holy Hand Grenade fame) are especially prized targets, besides of course Jerusalem. They will get extremely antsy, however, if their ruler puts off conquest.
• If a Crusading order controls land in the Holy Land - which is likely - Then bored or disillusioned crusaders will steadily defect to them. The Templars and Hospitallers are, of course, in 24/7 Crusade Mode, and are able to raise much larger armies than their paltry holdings would suggest, under normal conditions, as is any truly independent crusader state; after all, it's only with the continued support of most of Europe that the Kingdom of Jerusalem ever survived.

Thoughts?

 

[Caranorn]

Split off from this thread.

Essentially, the idea is that, during a Crusade, Christian states can raise a special type of army, a Crusader army, which would be subject to special rules. My general idea of how that would work best is:

• 
  [1]Raising a crusader army is a realm-wide decision. It gives every province in the demesne a manpower hit, but does not completely deplete their manpower, nor does it prevent those provinces from also raising regular armies. Crusading armies are not created by a regular levy, after all.
  [2]Crusading armies are somewhat more effective, and cheaper to maintain, than regular armies. How good they are largely depends on the piety of the ruler raising one; a very pious ruler will draw great numbers of crusading knights and generally run a very prestigious crusade. A ruler that isn't pious at all would field a fairly pitiful crusading army, as his crusade would be seen as a transparently hypocritical ploy, and thus joined only by levies and poor local pilgrims.
  [3]Crusading armies suffer less attrition while marching through Christian lands, and move slightly faster, as they essentially get logistical support from the Church.
  [4]Crusading armies are fully controlled by whomever raised them. It is possible to irrevocably tell a crusading army to join someone else's crusade - vassals can only do that to their liege, sovereigns to any other crusading king - in which case, the controller of that crusade will pay the bills. This is a way to avoid piety loss for not participating in the Crusade, although not a very prestigious one.
  [5]Crusading armies can do anything - after all, historically, they didn't always stick to retaking the Holy Land - and indeed even interfere in secular laws. This, however, causes loss of Piety and desertion, especially if the army is being marched to fight an European war. A ruler with very high piety or intrigue might be able to use a crusading army as a political tool, like Dandolo did against the Byzantines, but he risks being disgraced.
  [6]Crusading armies will happily fight for any part of the Holy Land; Acre and Antioch (Of Holy Hand Grenade fame) are especially prized targets, besides of course Jerusalem. They will get extremely antsy, however, if their ruler puts off conquest.
  [7]If a Crusading order controls land in the Holy Land - which is likely - Then bored or disillusioned crusaders will steadily defect to them. The Templars and Hospitallers are, of course, in 24/7 Crusade Mode, and are able to raise much larger armies than their paltry holdings would suggest, under normal conditions, as is any truly independent crusader state; after all, it's only with the continued support of most of Europe that the Kingdom of Jerusalem ever survived.

Thoughts?

For easier reply I replaced your bullets by numbers:

1) Fully agree...

2) I'd say not just piety, rather a combination of piety and prestige. A very pious noble (Godefrey of Bouillon) would find a similar ammount of support as a very prestigious one (Richard the Lionheart), the best being of course a combination of both...

3) I basically agree, though it should still be subject to requesting passage etc. Though obviously refusing passage to a crusading army should lead to not only a hit in relationship between nobls but also a loss of piety...

4) Not sure I understand this point...

5) Agreed...

6) Crusades were directed at quite a few areas outside the Levant (Prussia, Livonia, the Balkans, the Albigensians, Spain, Egypt, North Africa etc.). But something should probably be tied into the game to make crusades to the levanty more attractive (more gain of piety, likely to find more followers etc.)...

7) Actually crusading orders were not solely lcated in the Levant. The Teutonics after a brief stay in the Levant went to the Balkans, then Prussia and Livonia. The short lived Sword Brothers started out in Livonia. There were several orders in Spain. Etc. But otherwise yes, deserters from crusading armies should in some percentage reinforce the orders, likewise a percentage of disbanded crusading armies joining orders closest to where they were disbanded...

In general good ideas I'd say...

Note that crusading states should also be more developped as an idea. That is a way to create relatively strong states like Jerusalem, Antiochia etc. Oh and a percentage from 7) should also reinforce those states...

 

[BonSequitur]

4 is basically a permutation of the 'expeditionary force' mechanic from HoI3. You can raise a crusading army, then hand over the reins to another crusading ruler. This way, you wouldn't have to pay for the upkeep of the crusading army yourself, and would avoid the loss of piety and prestige associated with sitting out a crusade, but another ruler would get all the credit and prestige from the conquests he gained with your army.

About crusades outside the Levant, of course. I was mostly focusing on the numbered crusades, which, except for the Iberian component of the Second Crusade and the bizarre Fourth Crusade (Again, an example of Christian-on-Christian crusader war) were targeted at the Levant, although it would make sense to make the system more generic to incorporate the Baltic crusades and the Reconquista as well. However, those two were more localised affairs; certainly, the rulers of England wouldn't have considered it worth their time sending men to take back Iberian land from the Saracen, or go fight some weird Pagan tribes practically halfway between Brittany and Cathay. Crusades for the Holy Land were a big deal across all of Europe, while other Crusades were largely expansionist movements on the part of Christian rulers on opposite sides of Catholic Europe. It makes sense for the Pope to be petitioned (Or compelled by a political backer) to proclaim a crusade against the Baltic pagans, or the moors, or in an alt-history scenario even the Mongols/Ilkhanate, but those crusades shouldn't be as prestigious as crusades for the Holy Land, and generally should attract local rulers.

As for knightly orders, perhaps they should form in a manner similar as rebels - With or without support from the rulers, Teutonic Knights and Knights of Santiago would form armies in German or Spanish lands, and promptly march towards the closest heathens to carve out crusader states.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Split off from this thread.

And I have merged it with this thread

 

[nwinther]

So, you'd have two "warriors" in your province window - one "Raise Regiment" and one "Raise Crusader Regiment" - with different stats depending on the current situation (Are you a "Crusader", has the Pope called for a crusade, what is the target etc)? So when you raise a Crusader Regiment, that warrior disappears (materializes as a movable regiment), but your regular regiment warrior remains (although with somewhat changed stats, as many regulars will have joined the crusade).

To avoid too much Micromanagement, there could be a rule-of-thumb, that 80% of your regular knights join the crusade, 30% of your infantry and 20% or your bowmen etc. with another supplement of volounteers, calculated from province stats, ruler stats etc.

It should be possible to call for a "personal" crusade. If the German Emperor wants to go crusading, but can't get the pope to call one, he can identify a target and raise a crusader-army. If the pope hasn't called for a crusade, and you haven't done it yourself, it's impossible to raise a crusader army. The size of the C-army should rely on the prestigeousness of the C-target. If it's an orthodox held province, not very many will join, if it's a pagan held province, some will join, if it's a muslim held province many will join, if it's a muslim held sacred province (Jerusalem etc.) "all" will join - and variations thereof.

 

[nattai]

Perhaps a call to crusade will generate an event where a king could either accept to go (and hand over control of the nation to the next in line in the meantime), decide not to go, or even be banned for joining because of a pre existant excommunication.

It would be interesting if a king decides not to partake, that particularly pious nobles could decide to make the journey themselves, such as during the First Crusade. So instead of one large army, you might have a number of smaller ones which may or may not eventually join together whilst crossing Asia Minor. Another idea would being able to pay for passage to the Holy Land from an Italian maritime state if you are on good enough terms with them.

I think some sort of interaction with Byzantium would be nice to see. Kingdoms in Europe ought to freely offer passage imo, but in Byzantium there could be some sort of interaction with the emperor in regards to provisions, crossing the Bosporus, maybe even some assistance in crossing Asia Minor. All of this could be linked to the relations between the current emperor and the crusade leader(s). Good relations will lead to a lot of help being given, a poor one will lead to something akin to what happened between Barbarossa and Isaac Angelos.

 

[Calgacus]

Crusading war was badly executed in Ck1 partly because of the 'total war' model (appropriate to Hearts of Iron but not to CK period) and partly because anyone can stroll around the map unrealistically. The crusader states couldn't form properly because the design of the political systems was unrealistic and inflexible, and this wasn't compensated for adequately with events.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Split off from this thread.

Essentially, the idea is that, during a Crusade, Christian states can raise a special type of army, a Crusader army, which would be subject to special rules. My general idea of how that would work best is:

• Raising a crusader army is a realm-wide decision. It gives every province in the demesne a manpower hit, but does not completely deplete their manpower, nor does it prevent those provinces from also raising regular armies. Crusading armies are not created by a regular levy, after all.
• Crusading armies are somewhat more effective, and cheaper to maintain, than regular armies. How good they are largely depends on the piety of the ruler raising one; a very pious ruler will draw great numbers of crusading knights and generally run a very prestigious crusade. A ruler that isn't pious at all would field a fairly pitiful crusading army, as his crusade would be seen as a transparently hypocritical ploy, and thus joined only by levies and poor local pilgrims.
• Crusading armies suffer less attrition while marching through Christian lands, and move slightly faster, as they essentially get logistical support from the Church.
• Crusading armies are fully controlled by whomever raised them. It is possible to irrevocably tell a crusading army to join someone else's crusade - vassals can only do that to their liege, sovereigns to any other crusading king - in which case, the controller of that crusade will pay the bills. This is a way to avoid piety loss for not participating in the Crusade, although not a very prestigious one.
• Crusading armies can do anything - after all, historically, they didn't always stick to retaking the Holy Land - and indeed even interfere in secular laws. This, however, causes loss of Piety and desertion, especially if the army is being marched to fight an European war. A ruler with very high piety or intrigue might be able to use a crusading army as a political tool, like Dandolo did against the Byzantines, but he risks being disgraced.
• Crusading armies will happily fight for any part of the Holy Land; Acre and Antioch (Of Holy Hand Grenade fame) are especially prized targets, besides of course Jerusalem. They will get extremely antsy, however, if their ruler puts off conquest.
• If a Crusading order controls land in the Holy Land - which is likely - Then bored or disillusioned crusaders will steadily defect to them. The Templars and Hospitallers are, of course, in 24/7 Crusade Mode, and are able to raise much larger armies than their paltry holdings would suggest, under normal conditions, as is any truly independent crusader state; after all, it's only with the continued support of most of Europe that the Kingdom of Jerusalem ever survived.

Thoughts?

1) Dividing the 2 seems good

2) nope.
They aren't more effective. Maybe on one occasion, when they take weapons which are banned in christian vs. christian wars. (like crossbow).
They also aren't cheap. Especially ship rent for crusaders was higher then usual.
It should also depend on money first, then piety. (even if you would like to take 8k because you are pious, you can only finance 4k) Crusaders often went bankrupt.

3) I'm not sure about the less attrition/more speed...
Rather:
- ask the country to pass
- if it allows then less attrition, but looted provinces

4) agree

5) maybe, desertion and excommunication in exchange

6) not only holy land. Baltic pagans, countries conquered by mongols, a successful Seljuk conquest of the balkans, against the Moors in Iberia should be good too.

7) actually Jerusalem had more funds then most catholic countries...
I think a different event set for them would be better.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Many good ideas here. I hope crusades will be completely remade. We want good crusades, not shitty crusades in CK 2.

 

[Doomdark]

I can say this much: Crusades will be completely reworked in CK2.

 

[TempestDK]

I can say this much: Crusades will be completely reworked in CK2.

Yay

 

[LordofSaxony]

This is basically a rehash of what I've said before in the CK1 forum a long while back.

I'm hoping that the Crusader army is automated, where it follows the quickest path to it's destination, so it can't be abused by the player (and as well being fair to the AI). During a call for the Crusades, or while it's currently active, you can pick characters you want to go, and what army you want to send with them (ie, send 5,000 soldiers, 12,000 soldiers, etc). While the Crusader army marches to it's destination it can *pick up* more soldiers by automatically turning some local population into soldiers.

If your characters are successful, they can get some *special* traits that are Crusader only, such as a nice healthy piety bonus, prestige, etc. If your characters and army do the bulk of the warfare, you'll get the land yourself. This is sort of, in an abstract way, similar to Sins of a Solar Empire's Pirate system, anyone play that? The more money bid on your enemy, the more likely the pirates will attack them. Indirectly, the same type of thing can be said about this type of Crusader system. The better characters you send, the bigger the army you send, may grant you special perks, such as getting the Crusade target under your direct control, very rare titles, etc. Therefore it may be more worth your while to send your heirs for those special perks, as well as contribute more forces to this venture. It's sort of like bidding, do you bid less and play it safe (less characters, less soldiers), thereby less likely to succeed in the Crusades, or bid more and risk a lot more (more characters, more soldiers), yet you may get more out of it in the end.

I would not like to see a player option for manually controlling a Crusader army. If people are wondering why, go play MTW2 which lets you manually control Crusading armies, and see how much abuse you can do with it - seriously it's pretty bad. They modeled the Crusades much better in MTW1, it was more of a natural disaster. If a Crusader army marches through your lands you have two options, either let them pass and let it absorb some of your people, or stop them by attacking it. It followed an automated path which usually marched straight to the objective (not player controlled, what-so-ever). This gives a Crusader army more of a natural whirlwind effect (ala MTW1), rather than feel like it's a bloated manually controlled army marching around ransacking non-crusading targets because it can due to shear numbers and nothing to stop it (ala MTW2).

 

[A_Dane]

I can say this much: Crusades will be completely reworked in CK2.

You must be some sort of Demi-god!

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

You must be some sort of Demi-god!

So lets build a Cathedral for proper worshipping.