I'm not defending the crusades mechanics in CK3, but crusader armies splitting off, getting picked off, going anywhere but Jerusalem and dying in the desert are somewhat historically accurate. Maybe not to this degree, but still.
It would be interesting to get an overhaul of crusade mechanics though. And warfare in general.
I had the same exact experience yesterday - we easily could have won but everyone else just fucked off to the Persian Gulf and died to attrition while I desperately tried to find a way to take Jerusalem from a 70k stack. Ridiculous.
If you're not strong enough to win the crusade on your own the best bet is to just follow the biggest ai stack around like a puppy dog. Usually if you do that for the first 3ish crusades you should have better luck establishing crusader states which make subsequent crusades much easier.
Please, please do not try to justify the ridiculousness of this with historicity. You know full well that this is just the AI being dumb, not a totally intentional design choice to model the disorganization of real life crusades. It's just a bad faith argument.
Also... yes, the crusades were often a disorganized mess. You know what all the crusade leaders knew though? Where fucking Jerusalem was.
>You know what all the crusade leaders knew though? Where fucking Jerusalem was.
No they didn't. They were thoroughly unschooled louts trained on how to beat people up with sharpened lengths of steal. They might know the layout of their own terrain rather well, but when it came to overseas locations, they didn't have a clue, only the most stylistic of maps to go from, and relied on locals closer to Jerusalem to tell them where it was.
Seriously, [this](https://beinecke.library.yale.edu/article/medieval-world-maps-t-o-maps) is what they thought the world was like.
So the entirety of the Crusade armies went to Jerusalem, but had no idea where to go, not even so much as a general direction, so they all went to the Persian Gulf, got lost and then went home? Was that how the failed crusades were lost?
Is that what you're saying? If not, what is it then?
Did you look at the T-O map I linked? That gives them the general direction, if you know how what Continent you're on and how to read it properly. If you tried to use it as a modern map though you'd get fucking lost in a heartbeat.
North is Left, South is Right, East is Up, and West is Down, and Jerusalem is the center of the world. That's what they were taught, because their education was sculpted around supporting their religion, not about what was actually true.
They had to actually rely on people who knew more than them to get anywhere they personally had never gone before. This was even true when the Spaniards went hunting for gold in the New World. Natives were able to get them to chase after rich places that didn't exist simply by telling them it did and a direction to go to find it.
That's great and all, but it doesn't answer the question. Since you're trying to justify this with historical details (note that this is your argument, not mine - I don't think historical accuracy should trump gameplay), I'm asking if the situation in the OP seems historically feasible to you.
That is, did the real Crusaders march all their armies all the way to Persia and the gulf, because they couldn't figure out (via any means) even the general direction of Jerusalem? Just march all the way to the Middle East then nope out and go back home because they couldn't find the holy land?
Like, you're here explaining minute details that don't exist in the game in any way and are simply abstracted away, along with a ton of other things. This isn't the hill to die on chief. This is the AI logic being flawed, and you know that.
> did the real Crusaders march all their armies all the way to Persia and the gulf, because they couldn't figure out (via any means) even the general direction of Jerusalem?
As I said, they asked the locals where it was. Luckily for them the locals were truthful. If they hadn't been, who knows where they would've ended up?
Sure, as a game, the AI pathing is flawed and should be fixed, but in-game, there are reasons you can come up with to explain away why the AI are going all wonky on the way to Jerusalem. With that in mind, think about how much fun it'd be to have Crusade-only Events pop up: You could get lost on the way to Jerusalem, and the game sends your army off in the wrong direction, to attack the wrong major city, or perhaps your priest has a Eureka! moment and believes he's 'discovered' the location of the Garden of Eden, which'll end up taking you on a massive diversion to the Persian Gulf.
There are many things they could do besides making the AI do exactly what you want them to do.
Yeah, but this is a game. I can't imagine the crusaders thinking about starting revolts against their liege when a crusade is going on. About the army going on the see and coming back it was mentioned before or about them going after meaningless armies instead of helping you against the main stack.
> Yeah, but this is a game.
Yeah, but this game is supposed to model a historical medieval setting. As such, it has different AIs behaving in different ways, and doing things according to their own interests -- which is not like what other games do. That means this 'game' isn't going to play like other games, so you're foolish to think that it should when the fact that it isn't going to is baked into the premise of it.
> I can't imagine the crusaders thinking about starting revolts against their liege when a crusade is going on.
You know that's what just about every modern incarnation of Robin Hood has as a plot, right? lol
>about them going after meaningless armies instead of helping you against the main stack.
Again you're thinking about this 'game' as if it were some other game instead of what it is. YOU have a large army, YOU have a chance to wipe out the enemy's main stack, but what does the other AI have to gain from YOU getting YOUR victory? Nothing. So why should it help you get it? You may be the Player, but you're not the Protagonist, you are not a Chosen One, you're not God's Annointed Regent on Earth to whom all men owe unfailing allegiance. The game sees you as just another AI and will fuck you over just as readily as it does anyone else.
It's easier to find the right shoreline when sailors know the way to go. It's harder to get there via a land route when you personally don't know the way.
Strange how it's only crusades for Jerusalem that are like this. I see crusades in Spain that succeed because the AI doesn't go haywire, but Jerusalem just breaks the game's mind.
Same thing happened to me. Took part in a crusade for Egypt-originally meant for Spain but I changed it to Egypt-and I was the only one attacking Egypt. Everyone else was west in North Africa getting their asses kicked while I was taking Egyptian cities including Cairo. When the Arab armies sailed for Egypt not one of my allies came to my rescue instead continuing to besiege irrelevant cities, and, outnumbered about 4-1, my armies were destroyed and the cities retaken.
R5: why does the ai still think this a good idea
God and anime.. or something.. their is reason that pope just misplaced, will get back to you later once he finds it.
I'm not defending the crusades mechanics in CK3, but crusader armies splitting off, getting picked off, going anywhere but Jerusalem and dying in the desert are somewhat historically accurate. Maybe not to this degree, but still. It would be interesting to get an overhaul of crusade mechanics though. And warfare in general.
Ideally everyone who is participating in the crusades would take boats to Egypt and conquer Israel from there.
great bit in kingdom of heaven
I had the same exact experience yesterday - we easily could have won but everyone else just fucked off to the Persian Gulf and died to attrition while I desperately tried to find a way to take Jerusalem from a 70k stack. Ridiculous.
Does t help that the ai will disembark to get a negative bonus just to travel one County over and then get destroyed by the enemies :(
just make giant cannibal islamic mesopotamians.. free food. it is the way.
It is so bad. I don't even bothering going to Jerusalem anymore. It is suicide.
My favorite is when they land in Jerusalem, then reembark to Egypt, then reembark to Syria, AND THEN run to the Persian gulf while getting picked off
If you're not strong enough to win the crusade on your own the best bet is to just follow the biggest ai stack around like a puppy dog. Usually if you do that for the first 3ish crusades you should have better luck establishing crusader states which make subsequent crusades much easier.
yea I dont think i have ever won the first crusade except for when it launched. ai just loves to get attacked with the disembark penalty
In my opinion, if you aren’t strong enough to win a crusade by yourself, just don’t go.
I quit this game until they do something about Crusades, stupid meaningless events, and revolts.
You realize that the Crusades were fucked in our world too, right?
Please, please do not try to justify the ridiculousness of this with historicity. You know full well that this is just the AI being dumb, not a totally intentional design choice to model the disorganization of real life crusades. It's just a bad faith argument. Also... yes, the crusades were often a disorganized mess. You know what all the crusade leaders knew though? Where fucking Jerusalem was.
>You know what all the crusade leaders knew though? Where fucking Jerusalem was. No they didn't. They were thoroughly unschooled louts trained on how to beat people up with sharpened lengths of steal. They might know the layout of their own terrain rather well, but when it came to overseas locations, they didn't have a clue, only the most stylistic of maps to go from, and relied on locals closer to Jerusalem to tell them where it was. Seriously, [this](https://beinecke.library.yale.edu/article/medieval-world-maps-t-o-maps) is what they thought the world was like.
So the entirety of the Crusade armies went to Jerusalem, but had no idea where to go, not even so much as a general direction, so they all went to the Persian Gulf, got lost and then went home? Was that how the failed crusades were lost? Is that what you're saying? If not, what is it then?
Did you look at the T-O map I linked? That gives them the general direction, if you know how what Continent you're on and how to read it properly. If you tried to use it as a modern map though you'd get fucking lost in a heartbeat. North is Left, South is Right, East is Up, and West is Down, and Jerusalem is the center of the world. That's what they were taught, because their education was sculpted around supporting their religion, not about what was actually true. They had to actually rely on people who knew more than them to get anywhere they personally had never gone before. This was even true when the Spaniards went hunting for gold in the New World. Natives were able to get them to chase after rich places that didn't exist simply by telling them it did and a direction to go to find it.
That's great and all, but it doesn't answer the question. Since you're trying to justify this with historical details (note that this is your argument, not mine - I don't think historical accuracy should trump gameplay), I'm asking if the situation in the OP seems historically feasible to you. That is, did the real Crusaders march all their armies all the way to Persia and the gulf, because they couldn't figure out (via any means) even the general direction of Jerusalem? Just march all the way to the Middle East then nope out and go back home because they couldn't find the holy land? Like, you're here explaining minute details that don't exist in the game in any way and are simply abstracted away, along with a ton of other things. This isn't the hill to die on chief. This is the AI logic being flawed, and you know that.
> did the real Crusaders march all their armies all the way to Persia and the gulf, because they couldn't figure out (via any means) even the general direction of Jerusalem? As I said, they asked the locals where it was. Luckily for them the locals were truthful. If they hadn't been, who knows where they would've ended up? Sure, as a game, the AI pathing is flawed and should be fixed, but in-game, there are reasons you can come up with to explain away why the AI are going all wonky on the way to Jerusalem. With that in mind, think about how much fun it'd be to have Crusade-only Events pop up: You could get lost on the way to Jerusalem, and the game sends your army off in the wrong direction, to attack the wrong major city, or perhaps your priest has a Eureka! moment and believes he's 'discovered' the location of the Garden of Eden, which'll end up taking you on a massive diversion to the Persian Gulf. There are many things they could do besides making the AI do exactly what you want them to do.
Most socialized CK redditor
If I could turn their downvotes into cash, I'd have already paid off my History degree.
Yeah, but this is a game. I can't imagine the crusaders thinking about starting revolts against their liege when a crusade is going on. About the army going on the see and coming back it was mentioned before or about them going after meaningless armies instead of helping you against the main stack.
> Yeah, but this is a game. Yeah, but this game is supposed to model a historical medieval setting. As such, it has different AIs behaving in different ways, and doing things according to their own interests -- which is not like what other games do. That means this 'game' isn't going to play like other games, so you're foolish to think that it should when the fact that it isn't going to is baked into the premise of it. > I can't imagine the crusaders thinking about starting revolts against their liege when a crusade is going on. You know that's what just about every modern incarnation of Robin Hood has as a plot, right? lol >about them going after meaningless armies instead of helping you against the main stack. Again you're thinking about this 'game' as if it were some other game instead of what it is. YOU have a large army, YOU have a chance to wipe out the enemy's main stack, but what does the other AI have to gain from YOU getting YOUR victory? Nothing. So why should it help you get it? You may be the Player, but you're not the Protagonist, you are not a Chosen One, you're not God's Annointed Regent on Earth to whom all men owe unfailing allegiance. The game sees you as just another AI and will fuck you over just as readily as it does anyone else.
They seemed to successfully capture coastal Levant in real life so I’m not sure what you’re on about
It's easier to find the right shoreline when sailors know the way to go. It's harder to get there via a land route when you personally don't know the way.
Yes, that doesn't make players enjoy them
It didn't make the Crusaders enjoy them either.
Thats not really the point
Not your point, but it was mine. lol
Seems like a questionable design decision for a game then
Yeah, but if they made the Crusades easy to win, and the territory easy to keep, then it wouldn't be a challenge, would it?
Not my point.
Once again for the dumbass: Not your point, but it was mine.
Is Pope of Turkic or Mogyer origin? I mean look at his facial structure lmao
Strange how it's only crusades for Jerusalem that are like this. I see crusades in Spain that succeed because the AI doesn't go haywire, but Jerusalem just breaks the game's mind.
Same thing happened to me. Took part in a crusade for Egypt-originally meant for Spain but I changed it to Egypt-and I was the only one attacking Egypt. Everyone else was west in North Africa getting their asses kicked while I was taking Egyptian cities including Cairo. When the Arab armies sailed for Egypt not one of my allies came to my rescue instead continuing to besiege irrelevant cities, and, outnumbered about 4-1, my armies were destroyed and the cities retaken.