Baron03
Baron
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 314
I know there's more important stuff to work on (civics, adding turns to the mid-game, extra civs), but I wanted to explain some thoughts on the crusades, specifically the fourth one. The fourth crusade to me is the most important and had the biggest impact of all the crusades: decline of Byzantium, establishment of Latin states, and so on. I don't think it should be relegated to Venice or Genoa conquering Constantinople. Is there a better way to represent the fourth crusade, and the crusades in general? If nothing changes then I think they are handled pretty well right now.
General crusades:
If the human player is chosen for the crusading leader: then the human player chooses from a list of cities to conquer from the Arabs like Jerusalem, Antioch, Tripoli, Cyprus, etc. (I would imagine the list would change from each crusade and that Jerusalem will always be the target for the first).
If the AI is chosen, then targets are either randomly selected or already determined to mimic the given crusade.
Would it be a good idea to have the second player who lost the voting and didn't become the leader of the crusades to attack a lesser city, for example Antioch, but with a smaller force? This might be beneficial to the first crusade.
The whole bribery system can remain to take control of the crusade, but not divert to attacking Constantinople.
Crusades Targets:
first: Jerusalem*, Antioch, Sur
Second: Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa
Third: Jerusalem, Sur
Fourth: See below*
Fifth/Sixth: Jerusalem, Cyprus, Damietta, Sur
Seventh: Damietta
Eighth: Tunis
Ninth: Jerusalem, Antioch, Sur, Cyprus
The fourth crusade:
As I spoke before, simply having Venice or Genoa conquer Constantinople seems lacking to represent a crusade. It could be the best way for all I know though, and anything else like this might be too complicated. This would be more of an overhaul.
Having a Latin Empire civ could represent the influence of the Latin Crusader States (not just the 1204-1260 civ) in the Balkans during the 13th-15th centuries. I think it would be better than Venice/Genoa because the current crusades usually leave a strong Byzantium. Having the Latin Empire would make a realistically fragmented southern Balkans more possible. I don't think many cities revolt from them during this timeframe. There's still the problem of them retaining Egypt against Arab AI to some extent, or an independent Alexandria is never conquered by AI Arabs.
For the Latins: The initial stability penalties might lead to some cities declaring independence, which would be a problem. Stability is still iffy at times. But they can conquer the rest of Greece historically and break apart. I do not see that as a problem if cities no longer flip via culture. If they fail then they fail, so a big civ won't take up empty space and sit around. No respawn. Plus, a strong player actively fighting Byzantium will help weaken it and provide a great challenge. It would als make the Byzantine second UHV more challenging.
For Venice/Genoa: there is still a small opportunity to take Constantinople and the extra spawn of troops and Declaration of War against Byzantium would let them do something. A pop up could allow them to spend gold to participate or have a few more units spawn (maybe a settler too?).
Currently: Even when Constantinople is taken and held very long, Byzantium still remains very strong, losing only one city to independent revolt that I have noticed. It's only a matter of time before whoever takes Constantinople loses it to an independent city anyway.
Of course there's the issue of even having the Latin Empire (why not Jerusalem, etc). It takes time to add another civ especially when four others are on the way, and the Middle Ages are probably going to receive more turns. Maybe having a series of independent revolts and serious secessions would be better? But leaving Byzantium and the fourth crusade the way that they currently are doesn't give the Ottomans much of a chance. I don't know how much time this would take away from current projects either.
Armenian kingdom of Cilicia:
Would it be better to have Tarsus flip to independent cities similar to the NW African provinces?
Suggestions listed in short:
1. Change crusades to allow choosing of a city (except during first crusade) and allow a second civ to choose another city to conquer from Arabs.
2. Keep bribery system but do not allow redirect to Constantinople.
3. Add a Latin Empire civ to replace the fourth crusade.
4. Allow flip of Adrianople and Thessalonica to Latin Empire if Constantinople is taken.
5. Have independent revolt of Cilicia in Tarsos.
6. Maybe make Alexandria flip to AI Arabs at their spawn.
General crusades:
If the human player is chosen for the crusading leader: then the human player chooses from a list of cities to conquer from the Arabs like Jerusalem, Antioch, Tripoli, Cyprus, etc. (I would imagine the list would change from each crusade and that Jerusalem will always be the target for the first).
If the AI is chosen, then targets are either randomly selected or already determined to mimic the given crusade.
Would it be a good idea to have the second player who lost the voting and didn't become the leader of the crusades to attack a lesser city, for example Antioch, but with a smaller force? This might be beneficial to the first crusade.
The whole bribery system can remain to take control of the crusade, but not divert to attacking Constantinople.
Crusades Targets:
first: Jerusalem*, Antioch, Sur
Second: Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa
Third: Jerusalem, Sur
Fourth: See below*
Fifth/Sixth: Jerusalem, Cyprus, Damietta, Sur
Seventh: Damietta
Eighth: Tunis
Ninth: Jerusalem, Antioch, Sur, Cyprus
The fourth crusade:
As I spoke before, simply having Venice or Genoa conquer Constantinople seems lacking to represent a crusade. It could be the best way for all I know though, and anything else like this might be too complicated. This would be more of an overhaul.
Spoiler :
Having a Latin Empire civ could represent the influence of the Latin Crusader States (not just the 1204-1260 civ) in the Balkans during the 13th-15th centuries. I think it would be better than Venice/Genoa because the current crusades usually leave a strong Byzantium. Having the Latin Empire would make a realistically fragmented southern Balkans more possible. I don't think many cities revolt from them during this timeframe. There's still the problem of them retaining Egypt against Arab AI to some extent, or an independent Alexandria is never conquered by AI Arabs.
For the Latins: The initial stability penalties might lead to some cities declaring independence, which would be a problem. Stability is still iffy at times. But they can conquer the rest of Greece historically and break apart. I do not see that as a problem if cities no longer flip via culture. If they fail then they fail, so a big civ won't take up empty space and sit around. No respawn. Plus, a strong player actively fighting Byzantium will help weaken it and provide a great challenge. It would als make the Byzantine second UHV more challenging.
For Venice/Genoa: there is still a small opportunity to take Constantinople and the extra spawn of troops and Declaration of War against Byzantium would let them do something. A pop up could allow them to spend gold to participate or have a few more units spawn (maybe a settler too?).
Currently: Even when Constantinople is taken and held very long, Byzantium still remains very strong, losing only one city to independent revolt that I have noticed. It's only a matter of time before whoever takes Constantinople loses it to an independent city anyway.
Of course there's the issue of even having the Latin Empire (why not Jerusalem, etc). It takes time to add another civ especially when four others are on the way, and the Middle Ages are probably going to receive more turns. Maybe having a series of independent revolts and serious secessions would be better? But leaving Byzantium and the fourth crusade the way that they currently are doesn't give the Ottomans much of a chance. I don't know how much time this would take away from current projects either.
Armenian kingdom of Cilicia:
Would it be better to have Tarsus flip to independent cities similar to the NW African provinces?
Suggestions listed in short:
1. Change crusades to allow choosing of a city (except during first crusade) and allow a second civ to choose another city to conquer from Arabs.
2. Keep bribery system but do not allow redirect to Constantinople.
3. Add a Latin Empire civ to replace the fourth crusade.
4. Allow flip of Adrianople and Thessalonica to Latin Empire if Constantinople is taken.
5. Have independent revolt of Cilicia in Tarsos.
6. Maybe make Alexandria flip to AI Arabs at their spawn.
Last edited:
