Also, I would like for Osmond to marry either Maria of Frankonia or Antoinette Capet, I hope that either Wülfgang or Bertrand will respond to this request.
-
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.
Sterkarm said:
If we do harshen the restrictions, I think we need to fundamentally remodel the restriction rather than just tinker with what we have. This was what I was going to propose:
Players may only begin a new crusade against infidels if they have no provinces in their country that have "muslim" or "pagan" as the domianant religion. This would include provinces under your vassals' control as well as your personal demense.
Patrucio said:
Well, I think that is a good idea, but it should be limited to personal demesne.
Here is a few ideas I had about restricting Crusades:
1) Jerusalem is the primary target of Crusading. Jerusalem should be conquered first and when it is secured, we may turn our attention to other moslems / pagans.
1b) We may also crusade if pagans / moslems conquer fellow christians, to return the conquered land to christian hands.
2) We must first declare war and then send the troops, instead of declaring war when our troops stand in pagan / moslem land already.
3) If we allow our land to be captured by moslems any other fellow christian may recapture it and may also keep it then. Because the tactic of allowing almost your whole homeland to be taken while you take their homeland is just silly. You probably should leave at least half of your armies home to defend against incrusions.
1b is logical to implent only if 1 is implented. Others are stand-alone suggestions, though they may be combined.
1) Jerusalem is the primary target of Crusading. Jerusalem should be conquered first and when it is secured, we may turn our attention to other moslems / pagans.
1b) We may also crusade if pagans / moslems conquer fellow christians, to return the conquered land to christian hands.
2) We must first declare war and then send the troops, instead of declaring war when our troops stand in pagan / moslem land already.
3) If we allow our land to be captured by moslems any other fellow christian may recapture it and may also keep it then. Because the tactic of allowing almost your whole homeland to be taken while you take their homeland is just silly. You probably should leave at least half of your armies home to defend against incrusions.
1b is logical to implent only if 1 is implented. Others are stand-alone suggestions, though they may be combined.
Sterkarm said:
The reason it would have to be vassals as well as personal demense is you could just give away all the provinces you conquored that haven't converted yet away to existing vassals or in land grants and attack whenever you wanted. If it was limited to personal demense, it would be less restrictive than the current rule.
I don't know how enthusiatic I am about this one. It would just stymie the crusading for a couple decades at most, until the Fatimeds collapsed or two or more players decided to work together on taking Jerusalem. It would also force people to be concerned about Jerusalem, where I think it better if you want to stymie Crusading to force them to be concerned about each other instead.
This rule just assumes that the original historical reason for calling crusades (ie. the abuse of pilgrims) is the reason that the crusades were called. The conversion rule assumes the reason other crusades were called (ie. the conversion of pagans and taking of lands 'for Christianity'.)
It could be implemented along with other rules, though. While thinking about Jerusalem, perhaps also a:
1c) The 'Kingdom of Jerusalem' should be created at the earliest possibility. No player may hold the Kingdom of Jerusalem title.
That would create a buffer to protect the Middle East from 7 over-muscled PC domains, and would also give the Muslim AI a chance to retake Jerusalem.
I like this rule. Crusading shouldn't be something you hide. You should be open and proud of it. Having to declare your intent to Crusade by DOWing a pagan enemy before you have even mustered your troops is grandiose and arrogant. I like that. It would also make people more paranoid if they notice you mustering troops without announcing it before-hand, because that would mean you're planning on fighting somewhere in the neighborhood.
I like this one as well. If forces you to take on the RP responsibility of defending your vassals. It's actually a sound tactic, game wise, to let your vassals get creamed so you can sieze their lands in a reconquesta and then dole it out as you wish. In real life, though, you would be viewed as a horrible and unfit leader for failing to protect your vassals. Naturally, if we decide to change rules and insert this one, the one province in Burgundy would be subject to a grace period or ex pos facto imunity to this rule.
I don't think there should be a requirement as to how much (if any) numbers of men you have to leave behind, just so long as you are aware any land taken from you or your vassals by muslims/pagans is fair game for the other PCs. That in and of itself is an incentive to make sure that your home is secure. It could involve leaving part of your army behind, or it could involve paying another King who can't crusade to protect your lands while you are away. Of course, if you're willing to pay another King to protect your lands, then all I would have to say is 'cavaet emptor'.
I think the most effective anti-crusading factor is aggression against each other. It's what kept crusading down in real life. You're not going to go expend your strength and treasure fighting pagans and muslims when the other players are looking for any chance they can get to attack you and steal your lands. If we want to put Crusading to a near stand-still, we could insert a rule that says you must go to war against a PC kingdom or their vassals between Crusades, and at least one province must change hands during that war.
For example, if Hyzen wanted to go to Jerusalem with this rule in place after he finishes up his current campaign, he might pick a fight with England (over either their norman holdings or their iberian ones) or the Gaelic Kingdom (over Brittany). Allies that got drawn into that war (Scotland might join in on the side of her English ally, Burgundy on the side of her French ally, and Germany could side with either- being allies to both France and England- or might sit it out) would get their crusading rights back as well, so long as they also abided by the "gain or lose at least one province" rule.
Of course, if you want HARSH restrictions, then you would combine suggestions. For example:
After declaring an offensive crusade, a player must convert all Muslim or Pagan lands in their country and fight in at least one war against a PC nation or their vassals before another Crusade can begin. Until Jerusalem is in Catholic hands, the controller of Jerusalem (be they Pagan, Muslim, or Orthodox Christian) is the onlt legitimate crusading target. Players must declare war on their crusading target before they can muster any troops for a crusading campaign.
I like Byak's suggestions, combined with Patr's. Except, I don't like the "HARSH" restrictions.
All,
Looks like the stablest game around these parts.
It's a bit late in the evening (on a Saturday no less) for me, but if you're only going three hours and you don't mind a heathen American cutting you off regularly at about that time...
I just picked up CK again after 1.03 and I'm fatally inexperienced (my last MP game, around release, Slargosian Normandy and his French Overlord kicked the shit out of mon Savoyards, unaided by the Emperor, yet it didn't matter because I annexed half the Muslims in three years), but if you have room...
I'd love to take over Bohemia, or perhaps Denmark or Poland... Whatever's available.
Looks like the stablest game around these parts.
It's a bit late in the evening (on a Saturday no less) for me, but if you're only going three hours and you don't mind a heathen American cutting you off regularly at about that time...
I just picked up CK again after 1.03 and I'm fatally inexperienced (my last MP game, around release, Slargosian Normandy and his French Overlord kicked the shit out of mon Savoyards, unaided by the Emperor, yet it didn't matter because I annexed half the Muslims in three years), but if you have room...
I'd love to take over Bohemia, or perhaps Denmark or Poland... Whatever's available.
Well, out of our 7 players, at least 3 are americans already (Patrucio, Hyzhenhok and Sterkarm), so you wouldn't be so out of place, HG.
Sterkarm said:
All the "harsh" restrictions are is the suggestions Byak and I made combined into one paragraph. If we used all the restrictions we have suggesteted this far, the last paragraph is what it would look like.
We like to think so.
The last session was a bit abbreviated. We usually try for 5 hours, though we are defferential to occasional time constraints. Which means that this American is usually going to bed at 4 am local time (I live in Michigan, putting me in EST). It usually annoys my wife to have me stay up that late, but I don't sleep much and still get up with my daughter so she doesn't say too much about it.
Then again, what's late for us (and by us, I include our Brazilian friend) is quite early for our European associates. If the time frame we strive for seems daunting (3-8 am GMT), you could always take a nap in the afternoon like I do. (I have a co-sleeping toddler who sleeps easier and longer when someone naps with her for a bit, which gives me the perfect excuse to sleep on a Saturday afternoon.)
Sure. Inexperience isn't an issue. One of the players (Lincoln, King of Italy) has said that this is his first MP game in CK.
I'd shy you away from Poland, but mainly because another of our players really wanted Poland but wasn't allowed to because of the boundaries we established for PC domains. It would probably be unfair to him to hand out Poland later.
Bohemia would be a very good choice if you don't mind being a bit smaller and in the thick of things. I assume you have read the character histories, so you know the general situation of Bohemia. Otherwise, I'd steer you toward either Croatia (which has become tangentially involved due to an alliance with a PC domain), one of the Scandinavian Kingdoms (Denmark would be best, since that would give you a border with at least one other PC, although Norway has had the most involvement in our alternate history timeline), or one of the Iberian Kingdoms (Iberia has been a source of heavy Crusading, so your main obstalce towards unification of the region would actually be other PCs...)
If you're interrested, download the save file and take a look at things. Pick out a Catholic Kingdom you want, and build a character based on our rules (in another thread.) I'd place the restriction on your character that you have to be the child of the existing ruler if he has any male children of age, but other than that you could have free reign to design as you wish. I'll mod your character in, and repost it to the forum.
I might be interested in joining this game. Since I live in Finland I should have similar playing times as Jarkko.
Which kingdoms are taken? So I don't accidentally pick a reserved one.
Which kingdoms are taken? So I don't accidentally pick a reserved one.
Maybe some of you new interested felllows could substitute Jarkko on next sunday when he visits the obscure Convention in Sweden? It would give you chance to try out whether or not you like it, without the commitment of choosing a regular spot.
Byakhiam said:
Only if he won't mind our maniacal, schizophrenic kings with delusions of grandeur ruining his realm.
Solmyr said:Only if he won't mind our maniacal, schizophrenic kings with delusions of grandeur ruining his realm.
It's plenty ruined already
. Oh, by the way, he can take Poland, I don't mind (well, I do mind, but I'm willing to sacrifice for the greater good). Just please don't put a German or Russian on the throne, because he'll find a Burgundian knife in his back in a few seconds, even if he is a piast .
Solmyr's a good guy. He's the one that got me into CK, after all. He should play with us.
To answer his question, the realms that are currently being played are (from west to east) The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; The Kingdom of England; The Kingdom of France; The Kingdom of Germany; The Kingdom of Burgundy; The Kingdom of Italy; and the Kingdom of Naples. We're playing in 1066 with an alternate scenario and a boatload of house rules.
The preferred domains are the Catholic ones that border upon at least one other PC. That would leave you with: Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Leon, Spanish Galacia, and Castille.
He should play with us.To answer his question, the realms that are currently being played are (from west to east) The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; The Kingdom of England; The Kingdom of France; The Kingdom of Germany; The Kingdom of Burgundy; The Kingdom of Italy; and the Kingdom of Naples. We're playing in 1066 with an alternate scenario and a boatload of house rules.
The preferred domains are the Catholic ones that border upon at least one other PC. That would leave you with: Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Leon, Spanish Galacia, and Castille.
Patrucio said:
You say that now...
Hungary sounds good for me. It's eastern enough that I can get away with placing an evil tyrant on the throne.
I assume I should create a character with the rules in that other thread? Who should I send it to?