Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

When to expect the next 3xpansion?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69935 Bug Reports 19716 User Modifications 10603 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6373 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
Naval combat also works better with the I:R map due to the greatly increased detail. The CK2 map doesn't really have the scale to properly model galleys having a short range and needing to stay within a reasonable distance of fresh water supplies. Usually it's just 1-2 sea zones distance. In I:R you have a great amount of detail with coastal waters and archipelagos:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...or-development-diary-6th-of-may-2019.1174793/

In other ways galleys have advantages near the coast because they are independent of the wind and can more easily get close to the coast (and sail configurations for sailing ships were still pretty primitive). That made them attractive for coastal defense or amphibious invasions. Even in the north. Or to carry trade goods along the coast. A galley could cross the English channel in good weather, but you wouldn't invade Norway from England with a galley fleet. You'd need very complex systems to reflect stuff like that
 
Last edited:
tribnia said:
For Qarmatians, I hope that Paradox could add a decision to rob the Black Stone for ourselves, which may cost a lot piety, but will also make the moral authority of Sunni and Shia drop sharply. So there should be an event to ransom it , paying a lot of gold and prestige for much piety and stop the debuff. There should be an event to return it, too, which may increase muslims' opinion upon you, as well as offerring much piety and prestiege.
Click to expand...
Assuming 936-939 start date they should have the Black Stone in their possession, as it was taken in 930 and returned in 952.
 
Woifee said:
Naval combat would break the crusades. The crusaders most likely won’t defeat the arabs navy ever.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget in this scenario their would be the Venetian and other Merchant Republic navies to counter them. Crusades always win anyways these days I doubt destroying their fleets would do much.
 
Last edited:
Byzantium2000 said:
Don’t forget in this scenario their would be the Venetian and other Merchant Republic navies to counter them. Crusades always win anyways these days I doubt destroying their fleets would do much.
Click to expand...

The reason why the Crusades are almost always successful is because there is now a high enough incentive for almost all independent rulers and dependent rules to join. Not only that but with a solid way to give money to the war effort. If navies were involved the Crusades would lose almost everytime. This is because when the dependent rulers send their fleets it usually only has a few ships. Stopping this trickle could have disastrous effects on both the result of the Crusade and the outcome of it. If the majority of the dependent rulers lost their troops at seas they would fail to receive any of the bonuses of a victorious crusade (as their contribution would be non-existent) and would have no army whatsoever. This would lead to a multitude of situations none of which I can see as positive.
 
TheEuropeanHistoryNerd said:
The reason why the Crusades are almost always successful is because there is now a high enough incentive for almost all independent rulers and dependent rules to join. Not only that but with a solid way to give money to the war effort. If navies were involved the Crusades would lose almost everytime. This is because when the dependent rulers send their fleets it usually only has a few ships. Stopping this trickle could have disastrous effects on both the result of the Crusade and the outcome of it. If the majority of the dependent rulers lost their troops at seas they would fail to receive any of the bonuses of a victorious crusade (as their contribution would be non-existent) and would have no army whatsoever. This would lead to a multitude of situations none of which I can see as positive.
Click to expand...

Most Crusades were historically considered failures. Pretty much only the first one succeeded at its stated purpose.
 
Wehrwolf81 said:
6th crusade was quite a success, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Crusade
Click to expand...
That just leaves all the numbered crusades besides the First not accomplishing their stated goals.

Funnily enough the Sixth Crusade was won through diplomacy, not fighting (Frederick II didn't have enough forces to properly capture his goals, and so basically bluffed the Ayyubid ruler at the time Al-Kalif, who was dealing with a rebellion in Syria). So I'm not counting that one. The Alexandrian Crusade (Tenth Crusade) was almost devoid of religious motive and mostly a preemptive raid against Egypt to prevent them from attacking.
 
TheEuropeanHistoryNerd said:
The reason why the Crusades are almost always successful is because there is now a high enough incentive for almost all independent rulers and dependent rules to join. Not only that but with a solid way to give money to the war effort. If navies were involved the Crusades would lose almost everytime. This is because when the dependent rulers send their fleets it usually only has a few ships. Stopping this trickle could have disastrous effects on both the result of the Crusade and the outcome of it. If the majority of the dependent rulers lost their troops at seas they would fail to receive any of the bonuses of a victorious crusade (as their contribution would be non-existent) and would have no army whatsoever. This would lead to a multitude of situations none of which I can see as positive.
Click to expand...
Well I'm assuming in this scenario though only Merchant Reoublics would have a lot of ships, if navies were actually added I doubt most feudal nations would be allowed alot of ships, I dont see how this would ruin things for the AI.
 
Goodmongo said:
It is very subjective and comes down to what "success" is defined as. All of them on one hand can be considered a failure as one of their goals was to make the lands Christian for all time.

The Third Crusade can be considered a success and the fourth depends on if you decide it on their original objective, Jerusalem, or their modified objective, Constantinople because their original purpose became moot with the assassination of Alexios.
Click to expand...

Well except for the fact that the Fourth Crusade near directly led to the collapse of Christian control in the Anatolian Peninsula.
 
Ksiendzu said:
It is too early IMO. They have not shown anything expansion related in DDs yet.
Click to expand...
My guess would be they will start telling us little bit about the next expansion either tomorrow or this Friday.But they probably won't give us the name and release date.
They are heavily teasing us ATM with the new start date which is all but confirmed and I believe that is what they are gonna officially reveal first.I am new and my assumption doesn't have much of a base so it is better to not expect though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back