Muslims in Britain?

[Hamanu]

In a typical CK1 game, more often than not I witnessed a bunch of AI English kings invade the Holy Land only to have England overrun by various emirs and sultans totally ruining my game since then I as king of France or Norway or whatever had to intervene and conquer England to "save it from infidels". Would it be possible to somehow limit these continent wide conquests and I'm talking both ways. It should not be any easier for the King of Norway to control Tunis or Egypt either, let alone the Caspian Sea.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

The AI in CK1 cheated constantly. I think the main problem was that they never went into debt and so could always pay for long sea voyages and constantly mobilized regiments. There was also the fact that there was zero naval combat, or any real naval tech levels.
Medieval ships used by Islamic states were generally built for the Mediterranean and couldn't operate very well in Atlantic waters (while Northern European states built their ships to handle these waters naturally)
Hopefully Paradox will fix both of these issues in CK2 with AI that can manage its money better (and go into debt) and with naval tech levels both that reflect the reality of the times and allow us to engage in naval combat.

 

[yourworstnightm]

No more Sheikdom of Praha and Seljuq Norway, please.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

In a typical CK1 game, more often than not I witnessed a bunch of AI English kings invade the Holy Land only to have England overrun by various emirs and sultans totally ruining my game since then I as king of France or Norway or whatever had to intervene and conquer England to "save it from infidels". Would it be possible to somehow limit these continent wide conquests and I'm talking both ways. It should not be any easier for the King of Norway to control Tunis or Egypt either, let alone the Caspian Sea.

Didn't impecunious Englanders substitute Iberian warmongering for Levantine crusading, historically?

In any event, i raised this earlier as an aspect of crusading in general. i think it was all the piddly little counts joining up, taking their all-or-nothing armies and getting into a war with not only the King of Egypt but all his vassals and subvassals too. imho if armies are not all/nothing, and crusades are not Kingdoms-at-Transcontinental-War/Peace... then you could well have individual courtiers leading partial and independent contingents on crusades.

i.e. i don't think the problem is fleets, naval combat/tech, debt, mobilization. Rather the diplomatic foundation that suddenly put all of the county of Leicesterchestereshire at war with the sheikhdom of al-Eqsempliyya because one king got bit by the crusade bug.

No more Sheikdom of Praha and Seljuq Norway, please.

As for Norway and Praha, no problem if Muslim armies make it that far. i just don't think they should necessarily be part of the entire Seljuq empire if they're essentially a completely unconnected and far-flung possession of one count. i.e. it would be fairly self-regulating if the AI couldn't be badgered into sending it's entire military might into defending the territory of one probably rebellious vassal's vassal.

Again... i think the biggest problem is not the mechanical fact Muslim armies can get there, but that the waves of excommunications following stupid crusade/cross-DoWs/peace left the schismatic infidel Catholics with impotent fractured kingdoms and undefended counties. So instead of a brief retaliatory sack, you had a permanent chequerboard patchwork jigsaw. (Made worse by the fact that the Muslims never created titles on their own afterwards.) If the respective AI's didn't plunge all/nothing into the pointless fray, i would hope they could avoid some of the less plausible results.

 

[unmerged(183166)]

I remember the Sultan of Wales, then it was funnier when he was kicked out of wales, and he was in the middle of Turkey, still with his title.

 

[RedRooster81]

It should be an issue of supply lines, too. Historically, Sunni Islam expanded rather contiguously, but outlying areas (like Cordoba) did eventually declare independence. So it would follow that with the establishment of the Emirate of Aquitaine in 1090, the Emirate of Paris in 1130, and the Emirate of York in 1200, the Sultanate of Wales should not be that far off. But sending off a contingent of Seljuks in 1300 to conquer Oslo, not so much.

By the same token, I hope that the Crusader States in the Levant will be organized on a different footing than in CK1, where interested states each had their own colonies in Syria and Palestine (in my experience, Croatia, Sicily, and Bohemia were the most successful). I would prefer to see donations of men and treasure towards the Kingdom of Jerusalem. And I am irritated when the most impoverished fief holder in my realm declares war on Fatimid Egypt and expects for me to put off the next logical conquest and send 30,000 Burgundians across the entire Mediterranean to invade Alexandria (maybe there should be some mechanism [a council of war] between the major lords of a realm to decide on whether to declare war on a major foreign power).

 

[Spurius]

It should be an issue of supply lines, too. Historically, Sunni Islam expanded rather contiguously, but outlying areas (like Cordoba) did eventually declare independence. So it would follow that with the establishment of the Emirate of Aquitaine in 1090, the Emirate of Paris in 1130, and the Emirate of York in 1200, the Sultanate of Wales should not be that far off. But sending off a contingent of Seljuks in 1300 to conquer Oslo, not so much.

By the same token, I hope that the Crusader States in the Levant will be organized on a different footing than in CK1, where interested states each had their own colonies in Syria and Palestine (in my experience, Croatia, Sicily, and Bohemia were the most successful). I would prefer to see donations of men and treasure towards the Kingdom of Jerusalem. And I am irritated when the most impoverished fief holder in my realm declares war on Fatimid Egypt and expects for me to put off the next logical conquest and send 30,000 Burgundians across the entire Mediterranean to invade Alexandria (maybe there should be some mechanism [a council of war] between the major lords of a realm to decide on whether to declare war on a major foreign power).

Exactly - CK2 should not stop significantly unhistorical things from happening but it should aim to show the associated difficulties. Armies that are away from a supply route should need to keep moving and defeat the opposition in order to remain on the field.

RedRooster's crusade model would also make the crusades stronger and more co-ordinated, which in my opinion is both more realistic and better for game play. Crusades should be a significant factor in the early and mid game: every ruler should have decisions to make when the crusade is preached in his realm. Options could be:

1. Take Crusader oaths - the ruler becomes a crusade leader and can call up armies to join the crusade. Success will increase the ruler's prestige and piety but risks dishonour, capture, death or punishment from the Church if the oath is not taken seriously.
2. Donate money to the Crusade - small boost to piety.
3. Allow them to preach but offer no further support - no bonus or penalty, a proportion of the realm's soldiers will join the Crusade army. Characters may also decide to take the cross and can potentially become Crusade leaders.
4. Forbid them to preach in your realm - this ensures that the ruler keeps all his armies for other uses but will attract the Church's displeasure.

Land taken as part of a Crusade should become an independent realm under the rule of a Crusade leader but could start allied to the realm of which that leader was formerly a part. Crusade leaders with land should have the option to donate conquests to a landless relative. Land could also be given to existing Crusader states or to one of the military orders.

 

[the_legion]

I remember the Sultan of Wales, then it was funnier when he was kicked out of wales, and he was in the middle of Turkey, still with his title.

That's not so unrealistic. Some german kings held an inherited title as "King of Jerusalem" when they where long kicked out by the muslims.


To the original topic:
As Tskb18 said, if they make it that far (with high costs, logistic malus, naval invasion malus) they should be able to conquer Wales but I doubt
that some arab ruler would be able to directly control this lands.

The easiest way to ensure that is to introduce a "demesne-range", "vassal-range", and a connected-bonus. The demesne-range should be total. If a province is more than X away from the capital the King shouldn't be able to hold it directly. The vassal-range should be indirect: If a province is more than X away from the capital it is highly likely that it will go the independent way. And last but not least a connected-bonus that counters the vassal-range-malus to a certain degree so connected empires can be slightly larger than unconnected ones. It should be possible for a portugese King to hold the county of muscovy as vassal but not likely.*

* I stole the idea (partly) from somewhere.

 

[th3freakie]

That's not so unrealistic. Some german kings held an inherited title as "King of Jerusalem" when they where long kicked out by the muslims.

Juan Carlos I, King of Spain, of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaén, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, and of Neopatra, Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Roussillon and of Barcelona, Lord of Biscay and of Molina, would disagree with that claim.

 

[RedRooster81]

Juan Carlos I, King of Spain, of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaén, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, and of Neopatra, Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Roussillon and of Barcelona, Lord of Biscay and of Molina, would disagree with that claim.

Yep, I would agree. In a sort of shady deal, Fernando and Isabel apparently also bought the rights from Andreas Palaiologos to the Roman Empire. He earlier made the same deal with Charles VIII of France, and his younger brother to Bayazid II. As a side note, I would like to be able to buy and sell claims, or have my vassals give them up. Not just from this strange historical example noted above, but also from Richard I's giving up of his claims to various bits of France in exchange for French royal support against his father Henry... there are surely other cases of poor landless nobles or royals selling their claims (or maybe mortgaging them?) to their lieges or others. In any case, good point on all those claims that the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon still maintains.

 

[Tufto]

The best I ever witnessed was the Sheikdom of Galloway. This problem needs to be stopped now.

 

[RedRooster81]

The best I ever witnessed was the Sheikdom of Galloway. This problem needs to be stopped now.

To be fair, it is no more out there than the King of Persia or the Duke of Basra, but I've been both in CK1. As long as the religious frontier has pushed forward that far, it could be plausible under certain conditions, but given how history has worked out, it does seem rather strange.

 

[Panjer]

I thought this stuff was already more or less fixed in Deus Vult.

 

[RedRooster81]

I thought this stuff was already more or less fixed in Deus Vult.

I always think that CK should follow what was plausible. In my current game, I am playing an expansive France, which covers Gaul, Occitania, Aragon, and Navarra. Scotland got into a long war with the Emirate of Badajoz. The end result: Scotland was reduced to Lothian, and Badajoz set up vassal sheikdoms in the Highlands and Northumbria. I immediately began a two-front war with Badajoz (popularized throughout Britain as the Crusade of the Moors, pun intended). My earls marched 10,000 Saxons north, while the Dukes of Aquitaine and Valencia agreed to mobilize. Seeing 40,000 Gascons and Aragonese on his doorstep, the Emir agreed to give up the Scottish lowlands.

 

[yourworstnightm]

As for Norway and Praha, no problem if Muslim armies make it that far. i just don't think they should necessarily be part of the entire Seljuq empire if they're essentially a completely unconnected and far-flung possession of one count. i.e. it would be fairly self-regulating if the AI couldn't be badgered into sending it's entire military might into defending the territory of one probably rebellious vassal's vassal.

Again... i think the biggest problem is not the mechanical fact Muslim armies can get there, but that the waves of excommunications following stupid crusade/cross-DoWs/peace left the schismatic infidel Catholics with impotent fractured kingdoms and undefended counties. So instead of a brief retaliatory sack, you had a permanent chequerboard patchwork jigsaw. (Made worse by the fact that the Muslims never created titles on their own afterwards.) If the respective AI's didn't plunge all/nothing into the pointless fray, i would hope they could avoid some of the less plausible results.

But the Muslims marching unchallenged throught Christian Europe to reach Bohemia bugs me every time, as well as them sailing past Christian kingdoms to invade Norway.

 

[veji2]

But the Muslims marching unchallenged throught Christian Europe to reach Bohemia bugs me every time, as well as them sailing past Christian kingdoms to invade Norway.

Exactly, It doesn't make sense... The whole completely crazy novelty of the crusades was that thousands of men would just cross 4000 kilometers of land, without trying to conquer it, to conquer the faraway holy land... This is because the Holy land was the goal of the crusade... The muslims at that time didn't have this Holy land to liberate in Europe...

The Crusades should not result in a kingdom declaring war on an emirate, but on a character, leading his host, being at war with the infidels.

Let's take an example. Say I am playing the duke of Toulouse and the Crusade is called. I have several immediate options :
- I can give money to support it, I will pay a certain (quite heavy) amount of gold that just disappears really, it is assumed it helps finance the crusade. I have a small piety gain, but i will get this event again and again.
- encourage my knights to participate and actively support the crusade. I pay a heavy amount of money and the AI mobilizes a small host from my domain, that includes some of my courtiers and could very well include my advisers or heirs... this host joins the other crusading army, and who knows, my former marshal or my son might end up count of Tripoli... I will get the event again, but less frequently. Depending on how the game models it, I could control or not that small host.
- Join the crusade. I mobilise a host from my domain, with my character at the helm, which gains the trait crusader. This means I control my host and actually play the crusade, and in the meanwhile the realm is administered under a regency rule, which means that my diplomatic, Stewarding and Intrigue stats are affected by a new trait, "away to the crusades". I can than play the crusade, paying for my host (maybe at a reduced cost to model the support given by other christians), and go an liberate the holy land.

This would be the character driven events. regarding the dynamics, the result would be an automatic state of war with the infidels, somewhat akin to the automatic state of war against the indigenous populations in EUII : When I cross their territory, I automatically engage their armies or siege their casltes if I stop their. But these emirates are not at war with my duchy. If some of their land is conquered, by a crusader, it is a crusader land, automatically at war with the emirate whose land it just conquered. That would mean that the muslim try to conquer it back, but don't cross the mediterranean to conquer my realm..

Of course the situation is different where there is a land border, Spain, Sicily, Byzantine empire. There their would be more traditionnal wars between kingdoms and emirates..

 

[Nick B II]

I thought this stuff was already more or less fixed in Deus Vult.

More or less fixed, not tottally fixed. The major fix is that a ruler of the wrong religion gets all kinds of crappy events. A Sheikdom of the Western Isles is just as likely to spring up, but due to those events it'll be weak and should be conquered by some neighbor quickly.

Nick

 

[RedRooster81]

Of course the situation is different where there is a land border, Spain, Sicily, Byzantine empire. There their would be more traditionnal wars between kingdoms and emirates..

I think that you make some good points. It should be a contribution of all of Christendom, for the most part. The Roman Empire should be able to retake the Levant and Egypt, Aragon should be able to conquer North Africa, Sicily should be able as well, who knows? But for England to conquer Persia or Persia England? Not so good, unless it is contiguous. Hopefully there will also be more focus on local possibilities. Germans should expand eastward, as should Denmark (I was proud of the Danes for conquering Meckleburg in my last game--I was England). A resurgent Caliphate of Cordoba might try to cross the Pyrenees again; France should take a leading hand in driving them back.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Juan Carlos I, King of Spain, of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaén, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, and of Neopatra, Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Roussillon and of Barcelona, Lord of Biscay and of Molina, would disagree with that claim.

As Archduke of Austria and Brabant, he would of course count as (effectively) a german king...

 

[Hamanu]

As Archduke of Austria and Brabant, he would of course count as (effectively) a german king...

Not exactly, the titles to Austria, Burgundy, Brabant, Tyrol. Habsburg, Flanders originate from Maximilian of Habsburg and were passed on to his grandson Charles V in 1519. When Charles, as senior of the dynasty divided the Habsburg inheritance with his brother Ferdinand, he gave Ferdinand Austria, Tyrol and his claims to Habsburg (in Switzerland). The Spanish line of the Habsburg were only titular holders of those titles and, according to the Habsburg House Law of Succession, could not have been passed down through the female line (until Charles VI and Maria Theresia in 1740). How the Bourbons got those titles in 1700 I have no idea, but I doubt the Austrians recognized it as anything but mere "flavor text"

And The Holy Roman Empire was an elective monarchy and no hereditary titles could guarantee the imperial throne.