Crusades and the Egypt respawn

I'm making this a new thread as it got to be too large a post for the Suggestions and Requests.

One part of History that was underrepresented in RFC Vanilla and this modmod is the very short but important period of history of the crusades. I don't expect this too end up very high on the priorities list but believe it is important.

For the crusades, I propose a system sort of like the current trading companies mechanic.
There are 3 potential crusading nations: France, England, and HRE. Upon discovering a certain technology (Engineering? Guilds?) there will be an option as to:

- Levy an army (must have more than 1 pop in all cities): -1 population in all cities and army of a knight, a crossbow, a levy, and 1 or two trebuchets spawns 1N of Jerusalem at war with the owner of Jerusalem unless it is Catholic, otherwise owner of Damascus/Tyre, otherwise owner of Trabzon.

- Hire a mercenary army (must have 400 gold in treasury): -400 gold from treasury, spawn an army with a pikeman replacing the levy above 1N of Jerusalem at war with the owner of Jerusalem unless Catholic, otherwise owner of Damascus/Tyre, otherwise owner of Trabzon.

-Do nothing: -3 relations with all Catholic leaders which expires after 10 turns on normal speed

AI will rank order: mercenary if possible, then levy if possible, then do nothing.

This will:
-Even further encourage player HRE to research Engineering (as if there wasn't enough already)
-Simulate an important part of European Medieval History
-Allow (I think) for a better Egyptian respawn, to the point where it could be playable (see below)

With the crusades, the Egyptian repawn is able to be more active, and as mentioned above, even playable. I am not very good with this area of history, but have a rough outline for the sort of new civilization. This I expect to be even lower on the priorities list.

Spawns Islam around 900 AD if Arabia's stability is below 10 (sort of common I believe).
Capital is Cairo, they do not flip Tunis anymore (it is for the Moors).

UU should be some sort of knight replacement not requiring iron that has a bonus defending against knights, allowing defense against Camel Archers.

No clue on the UB

UP should be something either about desert or about religion

UHV should reflect all 3 main dynasties before the Ottoman conquest (Fatimid/Ayyubid/Mamluk)
Control 2 Holy shrines in 1100 (preferably Christian and Islamic, but I'm not going to say no to others)
Ensure no Europeans in the Maghreb, Egypt, or the Levant in 1300 AD (Repulsion of the Crusades)
Control the Levant in 1600 (Repulsion of the Ottomans, who should spawn at war with them, have bad relations with them, and attempt to overtake them. Difficult against Janissaries with available units. This should be a better goal.)

You mean atleast 2 pop right? Otherwise you end up with a zero pop city.
Anyways, I second this. It would also of course have to take into account your own state religion too, since the player is not guaranteed to be a catholic himself.

Yes, definitely. Meant to say more than.

I really like that idea, but you should definitely add Italy (Reps. of Venice, Pisa + Genoa) as a major crusade-nation.

Also, we should not forget about the terrain changes: cultivating marshes with workers (if it is not done already) and maybe something about desert tiles. I thought, a unit could suffer -10% life/turn while resting on a "desert tile not covered by own/vassal's culture" ( or maybe "not within the fatcross of own/vassal's city"?) and not a river/oasis tile. A tech could obsolete this punishment (dunno which one would be appropriate, though).
I think this could really help further improving the accuracy of the mod and also give some quite challenging approaches to conquer a desert-located civ and might help discourage the AI to go mad about Indies along the silk route.

Maybe some of this could somehow be stretched out to discourage too early, ahistorical contact between medieval European civs and far-eastern civs?

That is meant to be more a part in the Mercenary armies. Italy conquering Jerusalem is just wrong in my opinion.

Well, you said it yourself, that is your opinion and not historical fact

One of the 4 crusader states, the "Principality of Antioch" was ruled by a family from Tarent (Italy) and the urban quarters of Akkon (just as an example, as Akkon was the most important city and basis for the crusades) were called "Genoese Quarter", "Venetian Quarter" and so on.
The merchants from the three big Italian maritime republics kept the crusader states alive (well, not really long, but nonetheless, they did it). The soldiers came mostly from France and the HRE, but everything other, the everyday life, was dominated and enabled by the Italian maritime republics (Genoa, Venice, Pisa).
Every historian would agree that the Italian nations were equally important for the crusades as the HRE, France or England

The crusader states were never under the direct rule of any medieval nation. So it makes no sense to see French, Holy Roman or English Jerusalem too.

If you want instead to model the investment of resources of these nations you should add to the list Italy, Spain and even Scandinavia.

fabe said:

Well, you said it yourself, that is your opinion and not historical fact

One of the 4 crusader states, the "Principality of Antioch" was ruled by a family from Tarent (Italy) and the urban quarters of Akkon (just as an example, as Akkon was the most important city and basis for the crusades) were called "Genoese Quarter", "Venetian Quarter" and so on.
The merchants from the three big Italian maritime republics kept the crusader states alive (well, not really long, but nonetheless, they did it). The soldiers came mostly from France and the HRE, but everything other, the everyday life, was dominated and enabled by the Italian maritime republics (Genoa, Venice, Pisa).
Every historian would agree that the Italian nations were equally important for the crusades as the HRE, France or England

Click to expand...

As I say, this is not an area of History I know much about. The reason I did not include Italy is because they start with both Guilds and Engineering, but considering the time period, maybe. One thing to remember is that until the Italy spawn, in game play Italy is represented by either indies or the HRE. Also, this would make it incredibly beneficial as player Arabia to take/burn Italy to prevent yet another army spawning near Jerusalem. Also, this could be exploited by a player as England/HRE/France to wait until the Italy spawn to research tech X and get the weakened army to attack.

I did not include Spain because they already have their own little crusade with the Moors. Enough resources go into that already.
Scandinavia is even worse. They need to do their attacking against Europe.

The best reason to not consider Italy is that they spawn when the crusader states were basically almost done for.

Leoreth said:

Italy...spawn

Click to expand...

Whoops. It's getting late...

I think its cool you raise this idea Hippo and i just wanted to express some ideas on this too.

The difficulty in simulating the Crusades is that it presupposes that these military campaigns (which lasted some approximate 300 years) were both inevitable and motivated (predominately) by religious belief (rather than the exploitation of religious power for material and political gain.)

Historically, it would have been possible for the Christian kingdoms of Europe to co-exist peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, indeed those nations had traded and been non-warring neighbours for sometime in their history were it not for the unique set of circumstances that occured during the deterioration of the Byzantine Empire - (and a set of circumstances that may not be repeated i think? In every game played in RFC.)

It took a unique event to initiate the crusades, and that was the threat of collapse (of the Byzantine Empire) and their request for immediate military aid from (the Pope) who himself (will have seen himself as a kind of spiritual emperor of a spiritual version of the Western -Christianised, Roman Empire) capable of lobbying Western Kings to go to war. Yet no way would the Byzantines ever have made that request for aid unless it was their very very very last resort. (The history of the Crusades reveals that their fears of requesting aid were well founded... ie. they were eventually annexed by crusading armies and worse...)

So in other words, while 'religious allegiance' motivated the crusaders, and religious zealots certainly inspired the 'extent' of atrocity - the genuine cassus belli of those rulers were far far far... far more inspired by concerns of the 'material world' than those of the supernatural. In such a case, if the Byzantines were under no threat, the crusades may never have occured. There is even evidence that many muslim rulars (including the Fatimads) sought alliances with the incoming Crusaders (for help in their wars against the Seljuk Turks.) So this conflict was far more complex than one of Christian vs Muslim... it was geo-political, economically and politically motivated and highly factionised by states of either religion (and in the Muslim case, of their differing denominations whoes leaders sought different resolutions.)

It should be noted, that the rulers of the Christian Kingdoms saw the opportunity of material gain too in the Holy Lands, as a legitimised form of territorial expansion and riches (as the rules of titleship and ownership were oft more complex than what might be won by the sword and shield alone in Europe.) Here in the Islamic world gains could be made without accounting for... I would go further to argue that this material gain was the primary reason for expansion into these lands (and its subsequent cost saw the Kings eventually abandon these gains onto others...)

Therefore it seems impossible to create a mandatory Crusade event, as it was not inspired by an inevitable religious conflict, but a political conflict based on a unique set of circumstances whereby one nations desperate invitation saw others take advantage.

Yet the potential for Crusade (or Jihad) may well be worthy of inclusion, and could perhaps become a special event option (following something like the discovery of theocracy or another religious intolerance?) that presents a unique expansion option for players possessing the holy city (for Christianity or the Apostic Palace etc?) or the Islamic Holy City.

It is not truly mandatory if it were to be implemented right now. There is a way around it even though that way is sort of cheating. I use it with conquerors all the time.
This will seem a little blunt, evidently from some of your other posts you are okay with that, but the Conquistadors were not inspired by riches, but only by the circumstance that the natives were weak and some willing to join forces due to politics.

And, finally, to deny your point. Byzantium from 620 AD onward in the game is always under distress. That part is covered. There are reasons other than religion and history to want Jerusalem. It is a money bag. Temple of Solomon + Church of the Holy Sepulchre and with a well played game with any of those three All Saint's Church is enough Economic reason that even without this event or the incentive of a UHV goal, I will go for a crusade out of Europe, and often Asia and America as well. I want to see the European AI reflect this, and a deterministic event is the clear way to do this. Even without the Catholic Holy City in Jerusalem, the area around there (except for Jerusalem itself) is resource rich with Damascus and Egypt.

It is not truly mandatory if it were to be implemented right now. There is a way around it even though that way is sort of cheating. I use it with conquerors all the time.
This will seem a little blunt, evidently from some of your other posts you are okay with that, but the Conquistadors were not inspired by riches, but only by the circumstance that the natives were weak and some willing to join forces due to politics.

Click to expand...

Apolagies Hippo, i don't understand? (My fault probably in using mandatory?) What is the relation to Conquistadors etc? If you just want to expand on that in relation to the Crusades discussion?

And, finally, to deny your point. Byzantium from 620 AD onward in the game is always under distress. That part is covered. There are reasons other than religion and history to want Jerusalem. It is a money bag. Temple of Solomon + Church of the Holy Sepulchre and with a well played game with any of those three All Saint's Church is enough Economic reason that even without this event or the incentive of a UHV goal, I will go for a crusade out of Europe, and often Asia and America as well. I want to see the European AI reflect this, and a deterministic event is the clear way to do this. Even without the Catholic Holy City in Jerusalem, the area around there (except for Jerusalem itself) is resource rich with Damascus and Egypt.

Click to expand...

1) Byzantium is always under distress. Fair enough under these circumstances it might ask for help - but we are still automating an act of international relations ingame that may otherwise play against the priorities of the AI or even the player for sake of 'recreating' a historical event with a very unique basis (in a game where such an event should not necessarily occur) given its counter-factual/alternative history basis.

We know there are some inevitable abstract elements that occur, such as religions, or technologies, but specific wars or cassus belli are completely relative and unique... no two Byzantines under duress would have made the same foriegn or military policies... Yes your right Jereusulum is a rich and tasty city BUT thats for us or a civ to determine whether that makes it a legitimate target? Why should that 'objective' be event scripted?

I quite enjoy choosing to develop a Christian country (friendly with the Muslim kingdoms) or one that wishes to crusade against them without it being automated or cajolled towards.

Don't take that as a whole-sale rejection of your idea (and im just expressing an opinion.) I think an event to provide a (non-city objective specific) choice that explores the phenomena of the crusades (and) Jihad are worthy of inclusion, perhaps civic dependent, and somewhat more abstractly.

Finally while the crusades occured in the middle ages in this version of history, in the games version, the crusades (of a type) can occur if the pre-requisites are there, at any time... over any city... so it need not surely be so specifically tied.

Aside from the obvious Christian-Muslim contention over the Holy Land,
I'd like to also bring up that the Crusades were a major catalyst in weakening the Byzantine Empire. Especially the Fourth Crusade.

Speros Vyronis in Byzantium and Europe wrote:

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.

Click to expand...

Mechanically speaking, if we were to implement the Crusades,
they should accelerate the fall of the Byzantines as well.

I know grim stuff eh! But like the Rape of Nanking... or Berlin... and so forth... do these events occur each game? I just like the idea i guess of maybe just maybe the Byzantines surviving more than they ought to hehe... anything that scripts the demise just seems a bit boo boo...

Im still for something abstract to reflect the concepts of crusade or jihad - just id find it more exciting if it were unpredictably levelled (against perhaps a city of mine) or some other enemy?

I have just edited the first post to go to alternative cities and therefore civs. This way the third civ to get the crusade will go weaken Byzantium, then hopefully get taken by the Seljuks and if not them the Turks.

On the subject of a respawn Egypt, I would like to see them playable with or without the crusades, but think that they would be more exciting with a respawn Egypt.

Spawning them directly near Jerusalem will really nerf or buff HRE's UHV.
Also, Jerusalem is not the only target of Crusaders..

1) Constantinople
2) Damietta, Alexandria
3) Jerusalem, Tripoli, Damascus, Acre
4) Antioch, Edessa

That is the intention. HRE needs to research a tech first, then retain the city. Many of the mentioned cities are best represented in the game by Jerusalem. The hopeful subsequent war with a respawned Egypt would go towards Alexandria. The owner of Trabzon war should go towards the Byzantines, and in Europe Constantinople.

What if another European nation that HRE is friendly with, outrun HRE on getting stacks to Jerusalem?

My suggestion is as follow :
Instead of land stack, get naval stack filled with Knight, Crossbow, Pikeman etc... they can choose to attack Alexandria etc, or Jerusalem etc, Constantinople etc, or Sur etc.

...and.. no crusader interested in Trabzon afaik.