Crusades are bs

[DiMarzio]

I've played the mod for a few games now and I really liked it, but recently the crusades have really made my blood boil. IMO the feature is broken and sadly it's hard for me to find any more enjoyment out of this mod, at least with catholic nations.

And why is that?

1. The suddenness and randomness of the crusades. There's just no time to prepare.

2. It steals your units. In random, and if lucky enough, where and when you really needed them. From your city you are desperately trying to defend with a stack of doom, from your SOD you are using to invade and even from your freaking galleys. Sure, you can distribute your units evenly to cities to prevent it, but usually you either don't want to do that or simply can't, because you have too few cities (eg Venice) or you don't have time. You can't prepare for any real wars because that son of a b pope takes majority of your units anyway. And the plague takes the rest.

3. The returning crusaders don't actually return, they just vanish (right?).

4. AI Arab defences are a joke.

5. And when you take Jerusalem, you can't possibly keep it, because of the rebels. I don't know what you are supposed to do to prevent that, but whatever it is, you don't have time, because there's like 10 turns between the capture and the revolt. This might be realistic, I haven't done any research, but it sure isn't fun or good design. It kind of makes you think, why are the crusades included in the first place. If the European civs can't hold the holy land, why don't you just spawn barbarians periodically in the holy land or something.

I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel. The feature might be realistic, but I don't care, it isn't fun.

 

[QManNL]

4. AI Arab defences are a joke.

5. And when you take Jerusalem, you can't possibly keep it, because of the rebels. I don't know what you are supposed to do to prevent that, but whatever it is, you don't have time, because there's like 10 turns between the capture and the revolt. This might be realistic, I haven't done any research, but it sure isn't fun or good design. It kind of makes you think, why are the crusades included in the first place. If the European civs can't hold the holy land, why don't you just spawn barbarians periodically in the holy land or something.

4. It really sucks to be on the butt end of a crusade, eh?

5. I totally sympathize with you on this; part of the reason France's UHVs are so annoying is because you have to correctly time the capture of Jerusalem... In the context of the game, that doesn't even make any sense. Crusaders came, they stayed, then they got pushed out. I don't know anything about Levantine politics from 1098 to 1250, but it seems inconceivable to me that they could hold a nation through hundreds of years of revolt.

I'm sure I read somewhere that some other person was making a case about the other crusade mechanics you mentioned and proposed something more realistic and tolerable. For the life of me I can't remember where it was or what details were laid out, but I agree that the sudden "disappearance" of these units (and the ludicrous aftermath of the plague for that matter) is ridiculous. Hopefully someone finds a more sensible solution.

Regardless of what features get resolved or not, I would be ecstatic just to see another update. Should I hold my breath?

 

[DC123456789]

Well, AbsintheRed still seems to be active on the forum, so we can still hope that he'll decide to return again like he did a few months ago.

Honestly, I'm just hoping to get some of the CTDs fixed...

 

[Publicola]

4. It really sucks to be on the butt end of a crusade, eh?

I've proposed pretty radical upgrades to the Crusade mechanic, to make it more enjoyable for the player and worthwhile for the European states. I think we should probably do the same for Arabia. Perhaps this could be done by expanding the map to include Baghdad or Mecca (I liked the tilted version of the map proposed a while ago, that would have allowed quite a few tiles along the Red Sea). Another possibility would be cutting off the final Arab UHV to right before the Crusades, allow them to collapse or at least lose the Levant, then generate a new Fatimid or Abbuyid civ to spawn out of Egypt when we want the Crusader States to fall or at least face near extinction. That way we can keep Arab weak enough for the initial Crusade to be effective, but give Egypt enough strength to make it increasingly difficult for the Crusader States to remain in power.

5. I totally sympathize with you on this; part of the reason France's UHVs are so annoying is because you have to correctly time the capture of Jerusalem... In the context of the game, that doesn't even make any sense. Crusaders came, they stayed, then they got pushed out. I don't know anything about Levantine politics from 1098 to 1250, but it seems inconceivable to me that they could hold a nation through hundreds of years of revolt.

I'm sure I read somewhere that some other person was making a case about the other crusade mechanics you mentioned and proposed something more realistic and tolerable. For the life of me I can't remember where it was or what details were laid out, but I agree that the sudden "disappearance" of these units (and the ludicrous aftermath of the plague for that matter) is ridiculous. Hopefully someone finds a more sensible solution. ?

Are you referring to my proposal? It's in the thread titled "Logistics for Crusades" -- here's the link. Even if that isn't what you were referring to, I'm always eager to get feedback, so let me know what you think.

 

[QManNL]

Are you referring to my proposal? It's in the thread titled "Logistics for Crusades" -- here's the link. Even if that isn't what you were referring to, I'm always eager to get feedback, so let me know what you think.

I have not seen that post but I may have seen an earlier proposal of yours that you built up on, if that makes sense. A larger Arab world may be fun but I contemplated cutting out the Levant and North Africa (except the western Maghreb), so that the focus of the scenario was more on Western Europe. If it is expanded, however, I would definitely like to see Georgia and Armenia added, and a Khanate of the Golden Horde may be necessary. It's just the problem with going farther east is we're going to want to add progressively more Civs like the Sassanids and the Safavids, Ak Koyunlu, etc. when the mod can barely handle all of the regions there are as it is. Or else make the region a boring, broken wasteland of independent cities and barbarian states... I'd rather increase the scale of the map to make the European gameplay feel more satisfying instead of expanding the map to include more civilizations. Like, even expanding west to open up the North American east coast sounds more interesting to me, though I think it does sound a bit ridiculous now that I've put it in writing lol

 

[AbsintheRed]

Regardless of what features get resolved or not, I would be ecstatic just to see another update. Should I hold my breath?

Absolutely

Well, AbsintheRed still seems to be active on the forum, so we can still hope that he'll decide to return again like he did a few months ago.

Yeah, I'm here, checking back every now and then, even if sometimes I don't have time or motivation to even post.
Under motivation I mean that usually I don't like to react to all the constructive feedback, if it was a while since I did some work on the mod, and I'm not sure when will I be able to do so.

I guess it may be a little disheartening, but you can be sure that I won't abandon RFCE.
So thanks for your patience everyone, and keep up with the feedback pls.

 

[Publicola]

I wasn't really involved in the early development of this mod -- I've done my best to read and catch up on others' proposals, but unless it's one of my two threads ("Logistics for Crusades" and "Suggestions and Requests"), both near the top of the thread list) then it probably wasn't me who proposed it.

I have not seen that post but I may have seen an earlier proposal of yours that you built up on, if that makes sense. A larger Arab world may be fun but I contemplated cutting out the Levant and North Africa (except the western Maghreb), so that the focus of the scenario was more on Western Europe.

Part of me agrees with you, but I'm pretty sure that's the part that is biased toward the modern ages. From 1492 on, sure, the western countries dominated the European scene, but before that -- from the fall of Rome to the High Middle Ages -- it was Eastern Europe that was the powerhouse. That wasn't just the Byzantines either -- when the Mongols invaded Russia and threatened to overrun the rest of Europe, it was Hungary and the Eastern powers that were able to field the largest armies in response.

In short, I actually really like the focus on Europe as a whole.

If it is expanded, however, I would definitely like to see Georgia and Armenia added, and a Khanate of the Golden Horde may be necessary. It's just the problem with going farther east is we're going to want to add progressively more Civs like the Sassanids and the Safavids, Ak Koyunlu, etc. when the mod can barely handle all of the regions there are as it is. Or else make the region a boring, broken wasteland of independent cities and barbarian states... I'd rather increase the scale of the map to make the European gameplay feel more satisfying instead of expanding the map to include more civilizations. Like, even expanding west to open up the North American east coast sounds more interesting to me, though I think it does sound a bit ridiculous now that I've put it in writing lol

I understand what you're saying, though I agree it's a bit ridiculous to contemplate expanding the map to include the farthest reaches of Central Asia, let alone North America (if you're looking for Middle East/Central Asia gameplay, try Sword of Islam). There should be limits, and a mod about Europe should remain focused on Europe.

That said, I do believe that the mod map should expand the playable area in the Middle East -- not to shift the focus towards the Middle East, but to give a bigger base and foundation for the Middle Eastern civs as they fight back against Europe. That's why I suggested the easternmost city should be Baghdad -- it's a major city, in the middle of the Tigris/Euphrates river valley, and was the center of Islamic civilization for a good chunk of the Middle Ages.

Especially given my proposals to ramp up the Crusade mechanic and make it more immersive, the Arab civilization needs quite a bit of help to be able to stand in self-defense. Part of this could mean expanding their core to include Baghdad or even Medina, Mecca, and Jeddah along the Hejaz. Part of this could be giving the Arabs additional playing options, like adding 'colony' projects to represent the salt trade with Mali or the Silk Road with the Far East. Part of this could also be adding in new civilization spawns for the various dynasties (Ummayid, Abbasid, Fatimid, Abbuyid, Mamluk, etc.), each of which could revitalize the Arab civilizations and give additional forces (military troops) to assist in fighting back against Crusaders, Mongols, etc. Any or all of these might serve as solutions to the issue of, not only making the Middle Eastern civs playable, but making them a sufficient challenge for the other European states that were their rivals.

 

[QManNL]

Part of me agrees with you, but I'm pretty sure that's the part that is biased toward the modern ages. From 1492 on, sure, the western countries dominated the European scene, but before that -- from the fall of Rome to the High Middle Ages -- it was Eastern Europe that was the powerhouse. That wasn't just the Byzantines either -- when the Mongols invaded Russia and threatened to overrun the rest of Europe, it was Hungary and the Eastern powers that were able to field the largest armies in response.

In short, I actually really like the focus on Europe as a whole.

I'm not sure why I specified Western Europe, but nonetheless I do want to see more flavor added to France, England, Germany, and Italy; and expanding the scale of Europe would affect all of it, not just the west. Needless to say, any form of map expansion would be ridiculous if the CTDs aren't taken care of.

I understand what you're saying, though I agree it's a bit ridiculous to contemplate expanding the map to include the farthest reaches of Central Asia, let alone North America (if you're looking for Middle East/Central Asia gameplay, try Sword of Islam). There should be limits, and a mod about Europe should remain focused on Europe.

That said, I do believe that the mod map should expand the playable area in the Middle East -- not to shift the focus towards the Middle East, but to give a bigger base and foundation for the Middle Eastern civs as they fight back against Europe. That's why I suggested the easternmost city should be Baghdad -- it's a major city, in the middle of the Tigris/Euphrates river valley, and was the center of Islamic civilization for a good chunk of the Middle Ages.

Especially given my proposals to ramp up the Crusade mechanic and make it more immersive, the Arab civilization needs quite a bit of help to be able to stand in self-defense. Part of this could mean expanding their core to include Baghdad or even Medina, Mecca, and Jeddah along the Hejaz. Part of this could be giving the Arabs additional playing options, like adding 'colony' projects to represent the salt trade with Mali or the Silk Road with the Far East. Part of this could also be adding in new civilization spawns for the various dynasties (Ummayid, Abbasid, Fatimid, Abbuyid, Mamluk, etc.), each of which could revitalize the Arab civilizations and give additional forces (military troops) to assist in fighting back against Crusaders, Mongols, etc. Any or all of these might serve as solutions to the issue of, not only making the Middle Eastern civs playable, but making them a sufficient challenge for the other European states that were their rivals.

And yes, the Baghdad thing had me worried that we'd be on track to becoming SOI + Europe, yet that's an irrational worry. What it comes down to, I guess, is whether we should include more Arab involvement, or less of it, but I agree that the current situation is not ideal: a civilization shouldn't be stuck in the corner. Though, I do realize that someone needs to be around to bully the Byzantines.

However, I feel that some of the changes you're suggesting are really pushing the boundaries on the scope of this mod (and our computers). If I wanted this much Middle East, I would rather play SOI.

Then once we get into the 16th century and beyond, we're looking at an Ottoman empire that takes up about 20% of the map, and maybe some Safavids at the edge. And unless we have a magician working on the map, there's going to be a lot of area opened up in Siberia--what are we going to do with it? A rather large and disproportional amount of the map may wind up being dedicated to Russia and Turkey, who already have an enormous presence as it is.

 

[SanJose]

My suggestion for the Crusades

• Crusade leader cannot declare war on any Christian state
• When Crusades capture city in HolyLand, catholicism autospread, city becаme independent, winning unit disappear.
• Don't trigger Crusades if Catholicism represented in indie Jerusalem
• Reduce the army of the Crusade(or in Crusade represented units from top5 piety civs)

 

[Ballazic]

I wouldn't say the crusades are BS. But I agree that they could be better.

2. I don't know how doable this would be-especially considering you would have to teach the AI how to do this. But what about a crusader bidding contest for leadership. You can choose how many units you want to send and the king who sends the largest army commands the force.
I don't know if any of you are familiar with the game of thrones board game, but there is a similar bidding system that works well. The more soldiers you send, the more faith points you would acquire as well.

3. I really like that the army isn't allowed to stick together indefinitely, but I agree that it would be good for some units to return back to their homelands after the crusade.

I don't think it would be a good fix to have the map expanded. I think the Arabs potentially have a lot of cities, the crusades, and barbarians are the only thing that really counters their strength until the Ottomans show up. Also they are important because they can be used to gain access to the resources for a lot of the corporations.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I wouldn't say the crusades are BS. But I agree that they could be better.

2. I don't know how doable this would be-especially considering you would have to teach the AI how to do this. But what about a crusader bidding contest for leadership. You can choose how many units you want to send and the king who sends the largest army commands the force.
I don't know if any of you are familiar with the game of thrones board game, but there is a similar bidding system that works well. The more soldiers you send, the more faith points you would acquire as well.

3. I really like that the army isn't allowed to stick together indefinitely, but I agree that it would be good for some units to return back to their homelands after the crusade.

I don't think it would be a good fix to have the map expanded. I think the Arabs potentially have a lot of cities, the crusades, and barbarians are the only thing that really counters their strength until the Ottomans show up. Also they are important because they can be used to gain access to the resources for a lot of the corporations.

I agree with your thoughts.
Crusades are not perfect ATM, but they work more or less well enough.
Will probably revisit the mechanics at one point, but right now it's rather low priority.

Low priority, apart from the minor nation revolts in Jerusalem, which is really annoying/unfun for the player.
That part will be changed as soon as I figure out what would be the best solution (suggestions for it are welcome)
Anyway it does get the job done of breaking the too powerful christian presence in the Levant.
Also it might be less annoying now that not all units will flip on losing cities to secession/minor nation revolts, and I will also set that it won't result in a total culture conversion either.

PS: I also know the GoT boardgame, and really love that mechanics
But as you said, the AI wouldn't really be able to handle it, so it probably won't make it into RFCE.

 

[DC123456789]

For the future, I think a special Crusader State civ would ultimately be the best solution.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

For the future, I think a special Crusader State civ would ultimately be the best solution.

This was mentioned a couple times in Publicola's thread, it seems to me that at the "end" of a successful Crusade (when your army would normally go home) you'd have a choice to turn your conquered cities into the Crusader States civ, which would auto-vassal. This might also work for "Latin Empire" or whatever if Venice takes Constantinople.

 

[Swarbs]

Personally I'd like to see a more dynamic approach to Crusades, which sees more variation in who takes control of them and the aftermath.

For the joining process, instead of simply being asked whether or not to join a crusade, I think there should be more options:

1. Fully support the crusade - costs 50 gold per city and takes half your total surplus units (total military units - number of cities to ensure single defenders are excluded)
2. Support the crusade financially - costs 50 gold per city
3. Support the crusade with manpower - takes one third of your total surplus units
4. Don't support the crusade

Only civs which choose option 1 actually get the chance to lead the crusade (or take financial control of it), so leading the crusade is actually expensive rather than costing the leader the same as every other civ.

Option 1 gets you lots of faith points, whilst options 2 and 3 get you fewer faith points. The number of faith points for options 1 and 3 depends on how many good quality units you send - sending knights will get you lots of faith, sending spears, swords or archers gets you much less.

With regard to the taking of units, I think the selection screen should state how many units will be taken, so for a civ with 12 military units and 6 cities it would be 3 units for option 1 and 2 units for option 3. Units will be taken preferentially from the capital city, so if you select one of these options you have three turns to move the units you wish to send back to your capital, although if you have any knights / lancers there is a 50% chance one of those units will replace one of the units in the capital.

Civs which choose option 1 should get an auto peace with all Catholic nations, meaning you can fully support the crusade without leaving yourself open to attacks whilst weakened.

A civ must have enough gold to pay the costs of options 1 and 2, and must have at least six surplus units to choose 1 or 3.

The civ which leads the crusade is chosen based on a combination of the total strength of the units they provide and their total faith points. So it won't just end up being the civ with the most faith - if you want to take control of the crusade then you can do so by having a lot of surplus knights, for example,

I think those options would give a bit more dynamism for crusades, and would also result in a greater level of variation in the strength of crusading armies - not all crusades were massive and successful kill fests where the crusading armies had overwhelming strength. In some cases crusades might end up being pretty easy to defeat, particularly if civs choose not to send their best units in support.

 

[Swarbs]

Also in the aftermath, rather than being stuck with a load of minor revolts in Jerusalem, I think there should be another set of dynamic options. So five turns after the crusade begins, you get something like:

1. Vassalise the region - Transfer all cities and armies in the Levant to the Crusader States as a vassal
2. Suppress the region - Similar to the current situation where you keep control of the cities but have regular revolts (ideally in the form of big Arab and barbarian army spawns next to the city rather than a revolt in the city itself)
3. Bribe the elites - Keep control of the cities and units, but maintenance costs in the Levant go up massively to reflect the cost of bribing local groups to prevent revolts

 

[gilgames]

50 gold/city is .....(cant find words) ie: france can easily have 10-12 cities = 5-600 gold. I usually do not have that much. 10/city is also decent. crusaders should take vessels too, specially cogs and holks.

my option for joining process

1, Faithfull: units+gold
2, Believer: gold OR units
3, Incredulous: DoW on arabia, no gold, no units + loose small fp (~2-3)
4, Heretic: do nothing + loose lot of fp (~5-10)

IF Arabia success to defend al-Quds should gain lots of faith points! like 10+
also should be able to call help from other islamic civs....

 

[Baron03]

I like the vassalize option if there's a successful crusade.

Is it a good idea to have the second civ on the voting option spawn outside Antioch with a smaller army if it's under Arabian control?

 

[Swarbs]

10 gold per city is ridiculously low. The aim is to make the crusades more dynamic, not just be an easy option - the player has to decide whether it is worth saving that much gold. It's also more realistic - the bigger nations usually came under much more pressure to support crusades, so it should be much harder for them to avoid it by paying a tiny amount of gold.

I don't see the point of your option 3 - DOW on Arabia will make no difference to 90% of civs as they will not have borders anywhere near Arabia. Again, that just seems to be an easy option which wouldn't exist in real life - why would you lose less prestige in the eyes of the Pope and the faithful if you declared war and then did nothing to back it up?

 

[AbsintheRed]

10 gold per city is ridiculously low. The aim is to make the crusades more dynamic, not just be an easy option - the player has to decide whether it is worth saving that much gold. It's also more realistic - the bigger nations usually came under much more pressure to support crusades, so it should be much harder for them to avoid it by paying a tiny amount of gold.

I don't see the point of your option 3 - DOW on Arabia will make no difference to 90% of civs as they will not have borders anywhere near Arabia. Again, that just seems to be an easy option which wouldn't exist in real life - why would you lose less prestige in the eyes of the Pope and the faithful if you declared war and then did nothing to back it up?

Yep, even if we have more options, all of them should be meaningful.
Real choice, all options with benefits and disadvantages.

 

[gilgames]

right now, there is NO benefits for going on a crusade, only for first time, maybe. even that is questionable.