Crusade Beneficiary. Why?

[ReconCharlie]

Maybe I am missing something with this, but I don't quite understand why I wouldn't inherit all the land and titles if I am the biggest contributor to a Crusade (like in CK2).

If I don't select a beneficiary it goes to someone else. If I do set a beneficiary it just gives more power to a potential dynastic rival. It makes no sense, as the ruler I should get those lands and titles. Am I missing something here?

[Jmac]

No, you aren't missing anything.
Paradox dev's hate allowing the player to "steamroll the map" so they do everything they can to prevent you from doing so

[John 'Hunt' Showdown]

Crusaders states usually fail, so long term threats are unlikely to your own dynasty from having a crusader state. The biggest boon I can think of is potential inheiritances and the boost to renown from having landed family members.

[ReconCharlie]

That's infuriating and makes no sense from a historical perspective. Godfrey of Bouillon was the first "ruler" (refused title of King) of Jerusalem for his service during the First Crusade.

[Messsucher]

You really don't want Jerusalem at least. Muslims will Jihad it away from you, leaving only dust of behind of you armies roflmao. You must be very strong empire before you can take Jerusalem.

[Slimane]

You can select yourself if you're duke rank or lower I think. Because I remember doing so in CK2 at least.

[Dayve]

It's because ruling the holy land AND a kingdom in Europe is impossible in medieval times. French kings in the 11th century couldn't even leave the safety of their own castle because their vassals would murder them to death, and kings in general had to be close to the lands they ruled to assert their power, so ruling both a kingdom in Europe and the holy land is simply not doable.

[cb4n28]

I just selected one of my kids who hadn't given me grandkids yet and wasn't my heir. The result? She has Jerusalem now, but I am her direct heir and my heir is second in line. Now its just a matter of an assassination plot

[VoiD]

England couldn't even keep a piece of land right next to them from revolting

[ReconCharlie]

Originally posted by Dayve:

It's because ruling the holy land AND a kingdom in Europe is impossible in medieval times. French kings in the 11th century couldn't even leave the safety of their own castle because their vassals would murder them to death, and kings in general had to be close to the lands they ruled to assert their power, so ruling both a kingdom in Europe and the holy land is simply not doable.

Good point.

[ReconCharlie]

Originally posted by cb4n28:

I just selected one of my kids who hadn't given me grandkids yet and wasn't my heir. The result? She has Jerusalem now, but I am her direct heir and my heir is second in line. Now its just a matter of an assassination plot

Ha ha, I did almost the same thing in the end. I designated my twin sister and then assassinated her daughter and then her to get it. Clearly I am very pious person! ;)

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by ReconCharlie:

Originally posted by cb4n28:

I just selected one of my kids who hadn't given me grandkids yet and wasn't my heir. The result? She has Jerusalem now, but I am her direct heir and my heir is second in line. Now its just a matter of an assassination plot

Ha ha, I did almost the same thing in the end. I designated my twin sister and then assassinated her daughter and then her to get it. Clearly I am very pious person! ;)

Please tell how it is after first Jihad, but please don't come rage how it was :))

[CrUsHeR]

The point is, you actually want another dynastic king. Renown income is linear to the amount of independent titles held by your dynasty. https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Dynasty#Renown

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by CrUsHeR:

The point is, you actually want another dynastic king. Renown income is linear to the amount of independent titles held by your dynasty. https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Dynasty#Renown

Cool, did not know about those, that changes the game.

[☭ Calabresa ☭]

It seems more beneficial to leave Jerusalem for you beneficiary, you can always call them to help on your wars (if you are the Dinasty Head) and they also increase the Dinasty Renown. If they lose it to a Jihad, oh well, if they don't, great. Good thing is you don't really have to worry about it after that

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by ☭ Calabresa ☭:

It seems more beneficial to leave Jerusalem for you beneficiary, you can always call them to help on your wars (if you are the Dinasty Head) and they also increase the Dinasty Renown. If they lose it to a Jihad, oh well, if they don't, great. Good thing is you don't really have to worry about it after that

ROFLMAO, I think someone not that eager to get Jerusalem anymore.