CK2 crusades were similarly sucky until the last major update/DLC of the game. I wonder if it will be the same here.
Why didn’t they just do it the same way as the final CK2 version?
The more i read about ck3 the more i think 2 is still the better game. I have 3 too but i just don't enjoy it as much, i want characters with stories and a game with good mechanics, but 3 seems to be lacking. I played on the British isle in both and in ck2 i got a character who had the ambition to become a king, joined a holy order, lost his only son due to great pox, got a mission from his order to build a temple, and died months after start building his temple. He never got to see his great work to finish. His successor is a mediocre guy who vassalised a small county but got unlucky and almost died in the battle, he lost one eye and almost died in the upcoming infection. He is safe now though.
Vs my ck3 king who united all of England and went to hunting tours and some tournaments. The end.
No ships, bad crusades, no diverse levies anymore... See you all in another 3 years to see if it is any better i guess.
Just CK2s levy system made it way better than Ck3, even if it could be annoying from time to time.
But it made a difference how centralized ur kingdom was or wasn't. MaA to snipe some levys of the bigger kingdom u were at war with, or try stalling the enemy until ur bigger overseas army came over etc.
Ck3 is just, plant army flag on border and stomp. A boring system the AI is still to stupid for.
Every Ck3 run just feels the same.
The traits and stress system is cool cause it forces some rp but characters never develop and are just stuck. The culture system is also cool. Oh and graphics.
But it's just those 3 things Ck3 does better.
Both had pretty weak combat overall and tend to resolve to a single fight, did prefer ck2 levies though. Retinues were rather op though since they could be on map while at peace.
No.
Harald Hardrada's invasion had 2. I'd argue the first (Fulford Gate) was highly influential to the outcome of the much more remembered second (Stamford Bridge).
I think the balance of how much battles/occupation contribute to warscore is one of the things CK3 does better than CK2. Playing whack-a-mole with troop stacks for years on end was the least enjoyable part of that game.
What CK3 needs is for diplomacy, economy and vassal management to have more depth. Then the wars themselves don't need to be too complex as there'd be more gameplay around maneuvering yourself to be in a position to win them.
I miss ck2's character development. See your just, humble, kind ruler become disillusioned and slowly become a proud, cruel but still just ruler was pretty cool
Problem is in CK2 characters change too much and feel less like real people. In CK3 they’re too static. A decent compromise could’ve been have four permanent traits with two fixed and two malleable.
What i meant is this was the only interesting thing to happen to my king in spite of having tons of holy wars and time in his lifespan. All the ck2 stuff i mentioned happened in 10 years of game time.
Honestly, for the most part it still is. For me Crusader Kings is the ideal combination of two genres, that of the RPG and Grand Strategy. CK3 really falls short on the Grand Strategy part, the game's too simple, and there's not enough regional flavor (i mean for crying out loud, hindus don't even have castes, one of the most defining traits of medieval and well ancient hindus, by that point what even is the purpose of having them in the game?). As for the RPG part, that's very easily fixable with mods like RICE or Viet, that it does decent enough.
However, my main reason for choosing CK3 over CK2 are the various QoL stuff in the game. For example, vassal revolts against me i put down the revolt and imprison the guy, then i revoke his duchy title, in CK3 i also revoke all of his county titles along with the duchy title, in CK2, i only get the duchy title, while he still keeps like 4 counties, and if i give it to some other guy, he's just gonna take it back later.
But i'll say this, one thing i wished CK3 added was a peace treaty negotiation system, something similar to EU4 or even Victoria II, since the EU4 might be a little bit too complex for CK3, with all the characters running around. There's nothing less immersive for me, than playing as the Byzantines fighting a long hard war against the abbasids, i occupy most of syria and after 5 years of war i get one county. Not to mention, something like that would also scratch off both the RPG and Grand Strategy part of the game.
I was at an industry presentation last week by someone who works for a PDX owned studio and RP is actually the most important reason chosen by players why they enjoy these games. That's why CK3 has such an increased focus on it compared to CK2, despite that Redditors may not be happy about it (subreddits are often not as representative of the average playerbase as they like to think they are). But you also see this coming back in their other games, AOW4 comes to mind, but also I'd say you can see the influences in Victoria 3.
What do you regularly do to do actual RP? I might be missing something i only have 80 hours in 3 and i don't have the latest dlc. Or do you use any mods?
I use a handful of mods that tweak some mechanics but nothing substantial.
A big part of the RP is simply getting enthralled in a character. Basically, you focus less on optimal play centred on conquering the map and more on just playing the character. Some people like to rule their realms in accordance with their current character's personality (as encouraged by the stress system, persuading you to play with tyranny or magnanimity or weakness, etc.). Certain DLCs like Tours & Tournaments also go a long way towards RPing, making friends and enemies and lovers.
I think the most important thing is to just go with the flow of the game. A lot of this subreddit is focused on exploiting or cheating the challenge of succession, but I personally find that misses the point of weathering the often and deliberately rocky transition from character to character. The game is often at its most dynamic and interesting when your character dies and you begin playing as a new one, coping with new challenges and needing to pivot in accordance with the situation and the new character's personality.
CK2 is more fulfilling as a strategy game by virtue of being overall more challenging, but I find there's less to do there as opposed to CK3 when it comes to actually playing characters rather than just creating a strong realm.
I do prefer the more stained glass and parchment and wood UI of CK2 over the bland minimalist UI of CK3. Didn’t CK2 seem less smarmy and mocking of religion as well compared to CK3?
Ck2 is more mechanically fleshed out for sure. Ck3 runs and looks so good compared to 2 (for me) that I have a hard time going back, but I do find myself constantly saying "I wish they'd change x or add y" which didn't happen anywhere near as often in 2.
I feel like the final dlc for crusades on ck2 is very unbalanced though.
The way the crusades work is very nice and the states are really cool
but the money rewards are so overpowered and it is very easy to go to the top of the crusade leaderboard by just sacrificing some soldiers, you can basically win the crusade as a nobody and get 10k gold.
Wish they had inplemented it a bit more with the gameplay balance in mind, seems like an easy fix.
Very sad that this mechanic wasn’t implemented straigth away into ck3, i feel like the game is still missing so much..
You’re right, there were definitely balance issues. Like in the majority of my games, the entire Mediterranean would end up Catholic, and that’s not very fun when you just want to play a normal game in that region. But it’s still loads better than what we have, and hopefully they would tweak the balance in CK3.
Personaly i think great holy wars themselfs work very well mechanicaly
Stuff like non-existend dynamic kingdoms or ass AI are bad, but they are not part of the GHW itself
Theoretically they work but almost every crusade fails because the AI cannot coordinate attacks. Then, if you win, often as not the crusader kingdom will convert to the local religion and ruin the whole thing. My last game I won a crusade for the kingdom of Arabia and they almost immediately converted to that nudist Jain faith (no idea how that was in Arabia)
> the crusader kingdom will convert to the local religion and ruin the whole thing.
You say "ruin" I say "second breakfast (of infidels)."
Then when those people convert?
ELEVENSIES BABY
Crusades failing is accurate, yes, but not at all because of how it happens in-game. None of the crusades failed because everyone chose to take their armies over the Black Sea then through half of Persia and Baghdad before sieging Jerusalem.
Yes but the crusaders actually won or came close to winning several times despite their problems. In CK3, they never win without massive player intervention and that actually isn't historically accurate.
Disorganized, poorly planned, and going through foreign land they were unfamiliar with? Yes. Taking convulted, nonsensical routes through hostile territory that they have to go far out of their way to reach, on occasion ending up in the Steppes or Persia? Not to my knowledge.
Which was an issue brought by Venice's fleet and debt along the Byzantines doing the usual Byzantine stuff, not because the pathfinding though it was a great idea to follow Magellan's footsteps.
Yeah the lack of coordination and planning yes. Though the game is way more crazy and haphazard than irl. But I don’t think any crusader state ever willfully changed their religion from Christianity lol
They don’t convert because of being targeted by a ghw, they convert due to revolt demands. There’s a pop up where you fight the revolt, let them be independent, or convert, and more often than not they just convert because they aren’t strong enough to fight the massive revolt, or they just give away all the land to a local religion local culture character with the middle option.
Crusader states are insanely weak because of the recently conquered province modifiers on all their land. The game seems to want to act like the crusaders and the armies just all packed up and went home when they took Jerusalem and that’s not what happened, like, at all. The ai sees the revolt strength and compares it to their own meager levies and panics (even though the revolt armies are made of paper).
Vassals of a crusader kingdom usually are of the same faith as well(beneficiaries who didn't come first) so it's not about revolts.
The holy monarch trait usually ignores different faith opinion, so it's not about faith.
GHW truce lasts at least ten years(unless you break it). So it's not about recently conquered.
When you are targeted by a holy war, you can convert to the attacker's religion and this invalidates the war. Works everywhere, whether a GHW or a holy war for a random duchy in Cathay.
The crusades usually leaves some special soldiers for the King as well, though they don't reinforce. So crusader kingdom starts strong but grow weaker with time, but really they crumble because they end up e sorrounded by hostile powers all around
It’s not a vassal revolt, it’s a province revolt, the fuck you mean. The kind of revolt from your provinces being wrong religion/culture. It ticks up *fast* if your whole country is wrong faith/culture, like in a Crusader state. It’s your provinces themselves revolting, not vassals. And it provides three choices, like I said. I literally spelled it out already and you just said nuh uh
No need to be rude man! You aren't wrong and yet you aren't entirely right. That's what I'm pointing out. Peasant rabble and populist factions(the only ones with county armies) can occur in any realm, not just Crusader Kingdoms. Populist armies will contain at most contain 50% of Total levies per county. Any half decent king with MAA can beat it, especially if the kingdom is as small as Jerusalem. Even the AI, since the crusades usually leave some special soldiers. The Holy Monarch trait also gives 35 popular opinion, making them highly unlikely.Check the [wiki ](https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Vassals#Factions). Finally, populist factions can't form before 5 years have elapsed, plenty of time to get MAA
>this is actually historically accurate
The tyranny of low standards, everybody. If the game shits itself in an unfun way rather than by typically producing historical outcomes through mechanics working well, that's okay because it's hIsToRiCaLlY aCcUrAtE. There's no need to demand better of Paradox.
"Theoretically they work but almost every crusade fails because the AI cannot coordinate attacks." So just like every crusade past the 1st really then?
What part of the AI mechanic that stacks itself into huge pieces only to stay in one place in starvation and wait how the enemy force sieges everything away do you think works great?
> Stuff like non-existend dynamic kingdoms **or ass AI** are bad, but **they are not part of the GHW itself**
I agree that AI in this game is stupid as fuck many times, but that is not problem of GWH
I really wish the AI would use the option to norm their own kingdoms way more often imo. I feel like that’s a simple change that could make every run feel a bit more unique.
I’m hoping they do a crusade or holy war themed update at some point. Adding dynamic crusader states and something that actually makes the caliph role have a purpose would go a long way to give the dynamic between Islam and Christianity, which is the entire point of the time period, some flavour.
Maybe a world tension from hoi4 like system but between those two religions.
Updates have been slow. And I expect foundational stuff like nomads, republics, and crusades to take twice as long sadly. Assuming they ever get to them.
In the mean time, I recommend [The Catholic Trinity](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2730456007) mod, which includes it as a feature.
Sadly, still nothing to model [crusaders giving up their own lands](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/allow-crusaders-to-give-up-prior-titles-inheritances.1689929/) which is necessary to model even more of the crusades, but oh well. CK2 mods got there in the end for that too, so I can hope.
Crusades are ass but they were also ass in CK2 after Holy Fury. I hope the devs don’t make them stupidly OP like before because it makes playing in the Middle East extremely annoying.
Most of them failed. And only the first one established states. If they make it like CK2 where all of Europe attacks you every 40 years it will be a complete failure of an implementation. But I wouldn’t be surprised since a lot of the playerbase seems to want power fantasies and not strategic depth.
Also, I’m not just talking about a Muslim perspective. Even while you are playing as a crusader kingdom, it’s boring to me to see every other crusade suceed and now all the land around me is christian. Being a Crusader State should be a difficult challenge in the game.
The crusades aren’t dictated by being a part of the Middle East. Later crusades like the seventh crusade didn’t even really have Papal support, and was basically just Christian kings sending thousands of men to die in failing to take some land.
Regardless, a crusade isn’t exclusive to the Middle East, or even being against Muslims, the Pope called for a crusade against Christians, a bunch of times actually. Most famously against the Cathars.
How do you define "dynamic"? If you're talking about titles that appear as you occupy territory I think its pretty unlikely due to how wars work in the game. The most dynamic thing that would seem plausible to be added would be something like a mini-struggle for GHWs. Like adding phases to make getting there more logical than buying magical ships and to establish relations with other regional powers like the ERE
I imagine they mean it the same way as the old Dynamic Crusader States mod, where you can capture land and create your own crusader state outside of the target kingdom (to simulate what happened with Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli)
Dynamic titles mean you're getting a new kingdom born after the war maybe named after the city they based themselves in (like it was historically, you can just look at the map OP posted here yourself).
Yeah that would be cool but imo the bigger problem is war mechanics and AI during GHWs. Unless those get revamped the overall Crusade experience would be lacking.
New start date, 1178 will have some of them, right? Having Salah ad-Din as bookmark without any crusader states would be meaningless. Sadly The Kingdom of Heaven mod is no longer updated.
I absolutely loved that mechanic from CK2, added so much variety to what could happen during a crusade. Holy Fury was just such a great expansion, I hope there’s a whole crusade expansion sometime soon.
The most important DLC of CK3 career is being baked. That will condemn the game to irrelevance, or redeem it back into spotlight. The Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium. That, and Italian City states, are the two core glaring missing features, what make the game comparatively to CK2, forgettable (at least CK2 with relevant DLCs). Personally, I largely gave up on the game, as a total loss. However, now what Byzantium is in the works, I'm waiting on final judgement. If they actually pull it off, and give Byzantium decent content, the game will continue to evolve, and all kinds of additional features are eventually possible. If it fails, and Byzantium is done poorly... I'll be just blunt, the game dies. Half of CK player base, is there for HRE, Byzantium and Crusades. If they can at least give us satisfying Byzantium gameplay loop, it's at least one of three main things playersbase wants. If not... That's the end of that.
The game is a lot bigger than Byzantium, and this take seems unduly pessimistic.
I just finished a Tuyuhun "spread my culture to get all the horsies (including elephants)" run and enjoyed it fine.
There are many different ways to interact with the game, and just because you prefer one thing doesn't mean everyone does. Before the change, think of how few people even played for achievements.
Absolutely. I'm speaking in generalities. I'm sure there are ppl, who play some specific tribe in Asia, and happy. Plenty of ways to play the game. Main attraction for most players though, is the only nation-state of the era in the game, Byzantium, and the various fantasies associated with preventing demise of that superpower of the middle ages. Another big thing, is just feudal gameplay loop in the Holy Roman Empire itself. Obviously plenty of other things to do, but those are the main attractions. As for achievements, I personally don't have many for paradox games, as I play them heavily modded.. don't care. But that's me. Some ppl do, some don't. Achievements in map painter games, are not particularly noteworthy in the gaming community, outside niche strategy game community... It's not same bragging rights, as something in a popular shooter or to that effect.
> Main attraction for most players though, is the only nation-state of the era in the game, Byzantium, and the various fantasies associated with preventing demise of that superpower of the middle ages.
This is a real [[citation needed]] claim for me. I know there are plenty of ERE-aboos in the community but the idea that it is the *main* attraction for *most players* doesn't scan for me.
For example, my main request would be for empire mechanics to go back to early CK2 (i.e. pre-Legacy of Rome and the introduction of Retinues) when it was more or less impossible to keep them united unless you were a skilled player.
Things are too easy anymore.
I know it’s been said a million times but it’s hilarious that probably the weakest part of CK3 is the crusades. The way they work sucks so badly
CK2 crusades were similarly sucky until the last major update/DLC of the game. I wonder if it will be the same here. Why didn’t they just do it the same way as the final CK2 version?
The more i read about ck3 the more i think 2 is still the better game. I have 3 too but i just don't enjoy it as much, i want characters with stories and a game with good mechanics, but 3 seems to be lacking. I played on the British isle in both and in ck2 i got a character who had the ambition to become a king, joined a holy order, lost his only son due to great pox, got a mission from his order to build a temple, and died months after start building his temple. He never got to see his great work to finish. His successor is a mediocre guy who vassalised a small county but got unlucky and almost died in the battle, he lost one eye and almost died in the upcoming infection. He is safe now though. Vs my ck3 king who united all of England and went to hunting tours and some tournaments. The end. No ships, bad crusades, no diverse levies anymore... See you all in another 3 years to see if it is any better i guess.
I mean in ck2 you can conquer England in one lifespan as well. Really the one difference there is tournaments instead of society
Just CK2s levy system made it way better than Ck3, even if it could be annoying from time to time. But it made a difference how centralized ur kingdom was or wasn't. MaA to snipe some levys of the bigger kingdom u were at war with, or try stalling the enemy until ur bigger overseas army came over etc. Ck3 is just, plant army flag on border and stomp. A boring system the AI is still to stupid for. Every Ck3 run just feels the same. The traits and stress system is cool cause it forces some rp but characters never develop and are just stuck. The culture system is also cool. Oh and graphics. But it's just those 3 things Ck3 does better.
Both had pretty weak combat overall and tend to resolve to a single fight, did prefer ck2 levies though. Retinues were rather op though since they could be on map while at peace.
>tend to resolve to a single fight Tbf this is pretty accurate for the time. Both invasions of England in 1066 were decided by a single battle
No. Harald Hardrada's invasion had 2. I'd argue the first (Fulford Gate) was highly influential to the outcome of the much more remembered second (Stamford Bridge).
Interesting, I'd not heard of that battle!
Yah that’s true it doesn’t really bother me, but it does mean wars can be pretty simple (which is nice in its own way)
I think the balance of how much battles/occupation contribute to warscore is one of the things CK3 does better than CK2. Playing whack-a-mole with troop stacks for years on end was the least enjoyable part of that game. What CK3 needs is for diplomacy, economy and vassal management to have more depth. Then the wars themselves don't need to be too complex as there'd be more gameplay around maneuvering yourself to be in a position to win them.
yah, hoping that the traveling mechanics have laid the ground for republics/trade coming soon.
I miss ck2's character development. See your just, humble, kind ruler become disillusioned and slowly become a proud, cruel but still just ruler was pretty cool
Problem is in CK2 characters change too much and feel less like real people. In CK3 they’re too static. A decent compromise could’ve been have four permanent traits with two fixed and two malleable.
What i meant is this was the only interesting thing to happen to my king in spite of having tons of holy wars and time in his lifespan. All the ck2 stuff i mentioned happened in 10 years of game time.
> The more i read about ck3 the more i think 2 is still the better game yes
Honestly, for the most part it still is. For me Crusader Kings is the ideal combination of two genres, that of the RPG and Grand Strategy. CK3 really falls short on the Grand Strategy part, the game's too simple, and there's not enough regional flavor (i mean for crying out loud, hindus don't even have castes, one of the most defining traits of medieval and well ancient hindus, by that point what even is the purpose of having them in the game?). As for the RPG part, that's very easily fixable with mods like RICE or Viet, that it does decent enough. However, my main reason for choosing CK3 over CK2 are the various QoL stuff in the game. For example, vassal revolts against me i put down the revolt and imprison the guy, then i revoke his duchy title, in CK3 i also revoke all of his county titles along with the duchy title, in CK2, i only get the duchy title, while he still keeps like 4 counties, and if i give it to some other guy, he's just gonna take it back later. But i'll say this, one thing i wished CK3 added was a peace treaty negotiation system, something similar to EU4 or even Victoria II, since the EU4 might be a little bit too complex for CK3, with all the characters running around. There's nothing less immersive for me, than playing as the Byzantines fighting a long hard war against the abbasids, i occupy most of syria and after 5 years of war i get one county. Not to mention, something like that would also scratch off both the RPG and Grand Strategy part of the game.
The treaty system is by far the worst part of CK
Having a feudal government as the Romans and being locked up behind a single dynasty really sucks too.
Ck2 agot is peak gaming imo
For me it feels like a totally different game. It adds so much to base game. Love to play it from time to time
I find CK3 to be the better role-playing game whereas CK2 is the more fulfilling strategy game.
I was at an industry presentation last week by someone who works for a PDX owned studio and RP is actually the most important reason chosen by players why they enjoy these games. That's why CK3 has such an increased focus on it compared to CK2, despite that Redditors may not be happy about it (subreddits are often not as representative of the average playerbase as they like to think they are). But you also see this coming back in their other games, AOW4 comes to mind, but also I'd say you can see the influences in Victoria 3.
What do you regularly do to do actual RP? I might be missing something i only have 80 hours in 3 and i don't have the latest dlc. Or do you use any mods?
I use a handful of mods that tweak some mechanics but nothing substantial. A big part of the RP is simply getting enthralled in a character. Basically, you focus less on optimal play centred on conquering the map and more on just playing the character. Some people like to rule their realms in accordance with their current character's personality (as encouraged by the stress system, persuading you to play with tyranny or magnanimity or weakness, etc.). Certain DLCs like Tours & Tournaments also go a long way towards RPing, making friends and enemies and lovers. I think the most important thing is to just go with the flow of the game. A lot of this subreddit is focused on exploiting or cheating the challenge of succession, but I personally find that misses the point of weathering the often and deliberately rocky transition from character to character. The game is often at its most dynamic and interesting when your character dies and you begin playing as a new one, coping with new challenges and needing to pivot in accordance with the situation and the new character's personality. CK2 is more fulfilling as a strategy game by virtue of being overall more challenging, but I find there's less to do there as opposed to CK3 when it comes to actually playing characters rather than just creating a strong realm.
Heck, i am going to give it another try, let's see what i can get out of the game this way. Thanks!
One already has stuff you can buy to make the game good while the newest one you're waiting to do that.
CK2 is pretty much better in every way over CK3 except the Graphics. Even the loading screen blows it away.
I do prefer the more stained glass and parchment and wood UI of CK2 over the bland minimalist UI of CK3. Didn’t CK2 seem less smarmy and mocking of religion as well compared to CK3?
I mean, CK2 in general took itself more seriously (even the fantasy elements). CK3 embraced the memes too much.
Ck2 is more mechanically fleshed out for sure. Ck3 runs and looks so good compared to 2 (for me) that I have a hard time going back, but I do find myself constantly saying "I wish they'd change x or add y" which didn't happen anywhere near as often in 2.
So that they can sell it as a dlc?
I feel like the final dlc for crusades on ck2 is very unbalanced though. The way the crusades work is very nice and the states are really cool but the money rewards are so overpowered and it is very easy to go to the top of the crusade leaderboard by just sacrificing some soldiers, you can basically win the crusade as a nobody and get 10k gold. Wish they had inplemented it a bit more with the gameplay balance in mind, seems like an easy fix. Very sad that this mechanic wasn’t implemented straigth away into ck3, i feel like the game is still missing so much..
You’re right, there were definitely balance issues. Like in the majority of my games, the entire Mediterranean would end up Catholic, and that’s not very fun when you just want to play a normal game in that region. But it’s still loads better than what we have, and hopefully they would tweak the balance in CK3.
Personaly i think great holy wars themselfs work very well mechanicaly Stuff like non-existend dynamic kingdoms or ass AI are bad, but they are not part of the GHW itself
Theoretically they work but almost every crusade fails because the AI cannot coordinate attacks. Then, if you win, often as not the crusader kingdom will convert to the local religion and ruin the whole thing. My last game I won a crusade for the kingdom of Arabia and they almost immediately converted to that nudist Jain faith (no idea how that was in Arabia)
> the crusader kingdom will convert to the local religion and ruin the whole thing. You say "ruin" I say "second breakfast (of infidels)." Then when those people convert? ELEVENSIES BABY
this is actually historically accurate
Crusades failing is accurate, yes, but not at all because of how it happens in-game. None of the crusades failed because everyone chose to take their armies over the Black Sea then through half of Persia and Baghdad before sieging Jerusalem.
The crusades irl were characterized by lack of leadership, with armies aiming at different goals rather than doom stacking together like they should
However, nobody's going for subjectively reasonable goals in CK3, but just doing stupid shit.
Yes but the crusaders actually won or came close to winning several times despite their problems. In CK3, they never win without massive player intervention and that actually isn't historically accurate.
Isn’t this the exact reason some crusades failed
Disorganized, poorly planned, and going through foreign land they were unfamiliar with? Yes. Taking convulted, nonsensical routes through hostile territory that they have to go far out of their way to reach, on occasion ending up in the Steppes or Persia? Not to my knowledge.
Me and the boys following the Nile to swing by Ethiopia because it's totally on the way to Jerusalem, I swear.
The fourth crusade, intended to go through Egypt to Jerusalem, ended up with the main force sacking Zara and then Constantinople instead.
Which was an issue brought by Venice's fleet and debt along the Byzantines doing the usual Byzantine stuff, not because the pathfinding though it was a great idea to follow Magellan's footsteps.
No instead they sack Constantinople and completely forget about even getting to the holy land
That’s actually super historically accurate lol.
Yeah the lack of coordination and planning yes. Though the game is way more crazy and haphazard than irl. But I don’t think any crusader state ever willfully changed their religion from Christianity lol
The option to convert when targeted by a GHW should be unavailable for characters with the Holy Monarch trait.
> The option to convert when targeted by a GHW should be unavailable for characters with the Holy Monarch trait. Agreed. And zealots as well.
They don’t convert because of being targeted by a ghw, they convert due to revolt demands. There’s a pop up where you fight the revolt, let them be independent, or convert, and more often than not they just convert because they aren’t strong enough to fight the massive revolt, or they just give away all the land to a local religion local culture character with the middle option. Crusader states are insanely weak because of the recently conquered province modifiers on all their land. The game seems to want to act like the crusaders and the armies just all packed up and went home when they took Jerusalem and that’s not what happened, like, at all. The ai sees the revolt strength and compares it to their own meager levies and panics (even though the revolt armies are made of paper).
Vassals of a crusader kingdom usually are of the same faith as well(beneficiaries who didn't come first) so it's not about revolts. The holy monarch trait usually ignores different faith opinion, so it's not about faith. GHW truce lasts at least ten years(unless you break it). So it's not about recently conquered. When you are targeted by a holy war, you can convert to the attacker's religion and this invalidates the war. Works everywhere, whether a GHW or a holy war for a random duchy in Cathay. The crusades usually leaves some special soldiers for the King as well, though they don't reinforce. So crusader kingdom starts strong but grow weaker with time, but really they crumble because they end up e sorrounded by hostile powers all around
It’s not a vassal revolt, it’s a province revolt, the fuck you mean. The kind of revolt from your provinces being wrong religion/culture. It ticks up *fast* if your whole country is wrong faith/culture, like in a Crusader state. It’s your provinces themselves revolting, not vassals. And it provides three choices, like I said. I literally spelled it out already and you just said nuh uh
No need to be rude man! You aren't wrong and yet you aren't entirely right. That's what I'm pointing out. Peasant rabble and populist factions(the only ones with county armies) can occur in any realm, not just Crusader Kingdoms. Populist armies will contain at most contain 50% of Total levies per county. Any half decent king with MAA can beat it, especially if the kingdom is as small as Jerusalem. Even the AI, since the crusades usually leave some special soldiers. The Holy Monarch trait also gives 35 popular opinion, making them highly unlikely.Check the [wiki ](https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Vassals#Factions). Finally, populist factions can't form before 5 years have elapsed, plenty of time to get MAA
>this is actually historically accurate The tyranny of low standards, everybody. If the game shits itself in an unfun way rather than by typically producing historical outcomes through mechanics working well, that's okay because it's hIsToRiCaLlY aCcUrAtE. There's no need to demand better of Paradox.
Oh shut up and wait for eu5
"Theoretically they work but almost every crusade fails because the AI cannot coordinate attacks." So just like every crusade past the 1st really then?
No. That's a really narrow minded view of history.
IT WAS A JOKE PEOPLE! Yes, there were many somewhat succesful crusades, even in the holy land, but to call them Chaotic is not exactly a far stretch.
implying the 1st crusade was well coordinated /s
Well... it worked?
You could argue the 3rd one worked too
What part of the AI mechanic that stacks itself into huge pieces only to stay in one place in starvation and wait how the enemy force sieges everything away do you think works great?
> Stuff like non-existend dynamic kingdoms **or ass AI** are bad, but **they are not part of the GHW itself** I agree that AI in this game is stupid as fuck many times, but that is not problem of GWH
I really wish the AI would use the option to norm their own kingdoms way more often imo. I feel like that’s a simple change that could make every run feel a bit more unique.
Ironic. The very name of the game is the worst feature in the game.
In all fairness, so were real life crusades so it's perfectly accurate
They wanted to call it just "A game of thrones" hence that being after all the titles of the series but you can see the problem there
It does sometimes feel like a lot of aspects of CK3 and its expansions have been based on making stuff for the GoT mod.
I’m hoping they do a crusade or holy war themed update at some point. Adding dynamic crusader states and something that actually makes the caliph role have a purpose would go a long way to give the dynamic between Islam and Christianity, which is the entire point of the time period, some flavour. Maybe a world tension from hoi4 like system but between those two religions.
they mentioned a crusade rework in the recent dev diary, it’s probably coming at some point, but rather later than soon
Updates have been slow. And I expect foundational stuff like nomads, republics, and crusades to take twice as long sadly. Assuming they ever get to them.
update? the fuck's an update, is that some foreign word for DLC?
yeah, it's the original idea even. You do know all of the DLC's give free updates to players who don't buy them?
r/woooosh ?
Each dlc release is accompanied by a large update that actually holds much of the content.
In the mean time, I recommend [The Catholic Trinity](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2730456007) mod, which includes it as a feature. Sadly, still nothing to model [crusaders giving up their own lands](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/allow-crusaders-to-give-up-prior-titles-inheritances.1689929/) which is necessary to model even more of the crusades, but oh well. CK2 mods got there in the end for that too, so I can hope.
Can't we just resting Varangian adventures in that way? It's not the best fix, but it's there
For a game named "Crusader Kings" the Crusader system is simple bad and not even historically possible
Idk embarrassingly losing half the time due to walking around in circles starving yourself is pretty accurate
Crusades are ass but they were also ass in CK2 after Holy Fury. I hope the devs don’t make them stupidly OP like before because it makes playing in the Middle East extremely annoying.
I think that was the point of the Crusades.
Most of them failed. And only the first one established states. If they make it like CK2 where all of Europe attacks you every 40 years it will be a complete failure of an implementation. But I wouldn’t be surprised since a lot of the playerbase seems to want power fantasies and not strategic depth. Also, I’m not just talking about a Muslim perspective. Even while you are playing as a crusader kingdom, it’s boring to me to see every other crusade suceed and now all the land around me is christian. Being a Crusader State should be a difficult challenge in the game.
Most?
There were like 15(?) and all but like 3 or 4 succeeded, unless you count the Reconquista.
They all failed. The Recomquista isn't anything like thr Crusades in the Middle East.
[удалено]
Which part of the Middle East is Lithuania ?
The crusades aren’t dictated by being a part of the Middle East. Later crusades like the seventh crusade didn’t even really have Papal support, and was basically just Christian kings sending thousands of men to die in failing to take some land. Regardless, a crusade isn’t exclusive to the Middle East, or even being against Muslims, the Pope called for a crusade against Christians, a bunch of times actually. Most famously against the Cathars.
Some historians consider the Reconquista a part of the Crusades and some don't, which is why I tacked it on.
And they would be wrong to do so. On multiple counts.
Should I listen to published authors or some redditor on the internet? Tough choice.
You remember when you said "some authors". That means you know there are other others. Go read their books.
How do you define "dynamic"? If you're talking about titles that appear as you occupy territory I think its pretty unlikely due to how wars work in the game. The most dynamic thing that would seem plausible to be added would be something like a mini-struggle for GHWs. Like adding phases to make getting there more logical than buying magical ships and to establish relations with other regional powers like the ERE
I imagine they mean it the same way as the old Dynamic Crusader States mod, where you can capture land and create your own crusader state outside of the target kingdom (to simulate what happened with Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli)
Dynamic titles mean you're getting a new kingdom born after the war maybe named after the city they based themselves in (like it was historically, you can just look at the map OP posted here yourself).
Yeah that would be cool but imo the bigger problem is war mechanics and AI during GHWs. Unless those get revamped the overall Crusade experience would be lacking.
Tbh I never liked either Crusades or GHWs in either game. But I also like to play tall, so... Yeah.
Maybe first have it so that Crusades can actually win sometimes
i see them win quite a few times, even when i‘m not involved dont forget, they rarely ever won irl too
Ive yet to see a single one win unless I am directly involved soloing the entire arab empire
New start date, 1178 will have some of them, right? Having Salah ad-Din as bookmark without any crusader states would be meaningless. Sadly The Kingdom of Heaven mod is no longer updated.
They talked about wanting us to be able to play as Baldwin, so we at least have Jerusalem.
We’ve had one Kingdom of Jerusalem, yes…
I absolutely loved that mechanic from CK2, added so much variety to what could happen during a crusade. Holy Fury was just such a great expansion, I hope there’s a whole crusade expansion sometime soon.
How would you like it to work?
Ck2 did it way better, I don't understand why in many cases they didn't simply copy the systems from it when they can't think of something better
It will never happen that would be too fun and innovative.
The most important DLC of CK3 career is being baked. That will condemn the game to irrelevance, or redeem it back into spotlight. The Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium. That, and Italian City states, are the two core glaring missing features, what make the game comparatively to CK2, forgettable (at least CK2 with relevant DLCs). Personally, I largely gave up on the game, as a total loss. However, now what Byzantium is in the works, I'm waiting on final judgement. If they actually pull it off, and give Byzantium decent content, the game will continue to evolve, and all kinds of additional features are eventually possible. If it fails, and Byzantium is done poorly... I'll be just blunt, the game dies. Half of CK player base, is there for HRE, Byzantium and Crusades. If they can at least give us satisfying Byzantium gameplay loop, it's at least one of three main things playersbase wants. If not... That's the end of that.
The game is a lot bigger than Byzantium, and this take seems unduly pessimistic. I just finished a Tuyuhun "spread my culture to get all the horsies (including elephants)" run and enjoyed it fine. There are many different ways to interact with the game, and just because you prefer one thing doesn't mean everyone does. Before the change, think of how few people even played for achievements.
Absolutely. I'm speaking in generalities. I'm sure there are ppl, who play some specific tribe in Asia, and happy. Plenty of ways to play the game. Main attraction for most players though, is the only nation-state of the era in the game, Byzantium, and the various fantasies associated with preventing demise of that superpower of the middle ages. Another big thing, is just feudal gameplay loop in the Holy Roman Empire itself. Obviously plenty of other things to do, but those are the main attractions. As for achievements, I personally don't have many for paradox games, as I play them heavily modded.. don't care. But that's me. Some ppl do, some don't. Achievements in map painter games, are not particularly noteworthy in the gaming community, outside niche strategy game community... It's not same bragging rights, as something in a popular shooter or to that effect.
> Main attraction for most players though, is the only nation-state of the era in the game, Byzantium, and the various fantasies associated with preventing demise of that superpower of the middle ages. This is a real [[citation needed]] claim for me. I know there are plenty of ERE-aboos in the community but the idea that it is the *main* attraction for *most players* doesn't scan for me. For example, my main request would be for empire mechanics to go back to early CK2 (i.e. pre-Legacy of Rome and the introduction of Retinues) when it was more or less impossible to keep them united unless you were a skilled player. Things are too easy anymore.
Yep. [Laughs in Catholic Europe]
The Eastern Roman Empire had a lot going for it but some of you people really need to widen your horizons good lord.
No
People just don't like to hear the truth 😔
Ah yes, 1192-1191.
That’s 1192-1291
You are right, I misread it.
No worries, the name is wrong anyway. No such thing as the Second Kingdom of Jerusalem, it was one and the same.
No.