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?

[Misha]

It's historically accurate, Jerusalem is too far to be conquered by a catholic power.

[AugustusCaesar]

Originally posted by Rayan2033:

It's historically accurate, Jerusalem is too far to be conquered by a catholic power.

What do you mean? That is exactly what the Crusades where, so what are you talking about?

Originally posted by Messsucher:

Originally posted by ReconCharlie:

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 :))

You presume every game will be the same.

In my recent Jerusalem Game, I won the Crusades and choose to control my Beneficiary, and due to various reasons, including Muslim infighting (as is historical accurate) as well as 2 further Crusades (less accurate), as of 1200 the Muslims still haven't declared a Jihad and I have gained a huge Realm.

Originally posted by Thought Criminal:

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

Well, that was CK2, this is CK3. It isn't possible to choose yourself anymore.

Originally posted by Dayve:

It's because ruling the holy land AND a kingdom in Europe is impossible in medieval times.

True, which is why what I would love is if you choose yourself as Beneficiary, if you win your original title go to a distant relative while you only keep the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

That way you could choose yourself and it would make sense from an immersion perspective.

[Misha]

What do you mean? That is exactly what the Crusades where, so what are you talking about?
.

It was conquered by catholics, Not a catholic power, It was an independent kingdom with a sovereign ruler separate from other catholic powers.

[Messsucher]

Originally posted by AugustusCaesar:

Originally posted by Messsucher:

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

You presume every game will be the same.

In my recent Jerusalem Game, I won the Crusades and choose to control my Beneficiary, and due to various reasons, including Muslim infighting (as is historical accurate) as well as 2 further Crusades (less accurate), as of 1200 the Muslims still haven't declared a Jihad and I have gained a huge Realm.

Sounds like the hotspot ain't hot anymore.

[=]

Crusade targets in the Levant are a poisoned chalice, they are lands that you absolutely do not want as a European ruler as you will be constantly fighting for them against bad odds. I have managed to get 2 dynasty members the number 1 slot in the crusade so far. The first kingdom in Jerusalem lasted about 5 years before being overrun with the survivors converting to Islam (including their original holdings in Scotland). The second crusade was for Syria and her kingdom has now been cut in half within the space of a couple of years and she has also converted to Islam...

[AugustusCaesar]

Originally posted by Rayan2033:

What do you mean? That is exactly what the Crusades where, so what are you talking about?
.

It was conquered by catholics, Not a catholic power, It was an independent kingdom with a sovereign ruler separate from other catholic powers.

Okay, true, but again, what is your point? Why are you telling us this, how is it relevant to this discussion?

[Misha]

Originally posted by AugustusCaesar:

Originally posted by Rayan2033:

It was conquered by catholics, Not a catholic power, It was an independent kingdom with a sovereign ruler separate from other catholic powers.

Okay, true, but again, what is your point? Why are you telling us this, how is it relevant to this discussion?

WTF? The op said he wanted to conquer Jerusalem, I told him it's historically accurate that you can't conquer Jerusalem, It's historical game ffs.
Dumbass reply. Just leave if you don't have an answer.

[AugustusCaesar]

Originally posted by Rayan2033:

Originally posted by AugustusCaesar:

Okay, true, but again, what is your point? Why are you telling us this, how is it relevant to this discussion?

WTF? The op said he wanted to conquer Jerusalem, I told him it's historically accurate that you can't conquer Jerusalem, It's historical game ffs.
Dumbass reply. Just leave if you don't have an answer.

Dude, what the hell? Calm down, why get so angry? My God, are you 12?

The OP talked about conquering Jerusalem in the context of a Crusade. Which happened. You are talking outside the context of a Crusade. Which is why I ask what you want to tell us, considering this is about the Crusades.

The Question of the OP is, why can't you choose yourself as Beneficiary. Not why you can't just conquer Jerusalem as some Western European Ruler, but why you can't become King of Jerusalem through the Crusades yourself.

Which by the way happened, the first King of Jerusalem, was a count before the Crusades, as you could be.

[Midas]

The crusade whas a "get rid of your sons" card. Political it whas started cause there many sons of nobles, and they needed land. So a crusade whas a win win solution for europe. Get rid of sons, and show the enemy he cannot do everything with your faith. Many noble suns died or settled there, and europe became a bit more stable do to less "wars"

[Misha]

Dude, what the hell? Calm down, why get so angry? My God, are you 12?

"Why u MAD Bro!!111!" Come-on, Calling me a 12 year old is unwarranted. This isn't 4-chan.

The Question of the OP is, why can't you choose yourself as Beneficiary. Not why you can't just conquer Jerusalem as some Western European Ruler, but why you can't become King of Jerusalem through the Crusades yourself.

Which by the way happened, the first King of Jerusalem, was a count before the Crusades, as you could be.

That's not even what he said, He said he didn't want a dynastic rival in charge, I don't even disagree that you should be able to play as a crusader king(That's literally the name of the game) But he just wants to keep his title and Jerusalem.

Also the first "king" of Jerusalem was the son of the count, His heir was a count who was related to him, And the heir gave up his title before becoming a king, He didn't hold both.

[The Prophet]

Originally posted by ReconCharlie:

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?

Give it to the hier in line to inherit the crown, So when you die as king your son should keep crusade territory and it says in your crown. Or you could marry your inheritor to the beneficiary of the crusades.

[☭ Calabresa ☭]

Originally posted by Rayan2033:

That's not even what he said, He said he didn't want a dynastic rival in charge, I don't even disagree that you should be able to play as a crusader king(That's literally the name of the game) But he just wants to keep his title and Jerusalem.

Well, you can choose to play as your beneficiary if you win the Crusade, usually one of your sons, what you can't do is your main character getting Jerusalem and keeping the old titles.

[AugustusCaesar]

Originally posted by Rayan2033:

Dude, what the hell? Calm down, why get so angry? My God, are you 12?

"Why u MAD Bro!!111!" Come-on, Calling me a 12 year old is unwarranted. This isn't 4-chan.

The Question of the OP is, why can't you choose yourself as Beneficiary. Not why you can't just conquer Jerusalem as some Western European Ruler, but why you can't become King of Jerusalem through the Crusades yourself.

Which by the way happened, the first King of Jerusalem, was a count before the Crusades, as you could be.

That's not even what he said, He said he didn't want a dynastic rival in charge, I don't even disagree that you should be able to play as a crusader king(That's literally the name of the game) But he just wants to keep his title and Jerusalem.

Also the first "king" of Jerusalem was the son of the count, His heir was a count who was related to him, And the heir gave up his title before becoming a king, He didn't hold both.

Then why didn't you just reply to me like you did now? Explaining what you meant instead of getting angry?

Your post I am quoting now and your post from before are completely different in tone. There was no need to call my tweet "dumbass" when I tried understand you by asking you what you meant and how it connect to the OP because I didn't see it.

If I had somehow insulted you or purposefully misunderstood you I'd get it, but I didn't. I simply asked you to clarify.

As to the OP, his point about Dynastic Rival was just a minor point, his main question was why you yourself couldn't get yourself the title of the Crusade Target.

You said it is historically accurate that you couldn't, I argued it would be accurate that you could since there were former Title Owner who gained new titles in the Holy Land.

You are right that I was wrong, I misunderstood somethings reading about Baldwin before the Crusades. Still, I don't see any of that proving that you shouldn't be able to gain the Title if it is followed by the loss of your original titles.

[Misha]

Originally posted by ☭ Calabresa ☭:

Well, you can choose to play as your beneficiary if you win the Crusade, usually one of your sons, what you can't do is your main character getting Jerusalem and keeping the old titles.

I actually didn't now that,I like playing as crusader states, So good to know.

[AugustusCaesar]

Originally posted by Rayan2033:

So let's say i was angry, REAL angry, So say i was flipping tables and smashing screens, Fuming out my mouth over a guy on steam And i called your "tweet" dumbass, So what? Did that warrant calling ME a 12 year old? I attacked your arguement and you attack me PERSONALLY over it?

Get over it, It's just a game, And i wouldn't even talk about the 12 year old thing have you not been so hypocritical, Making enemies over a game is a dumbass thing to do (Oww wow is me! I called something you did a dumbass thing! It's like they're two different people! I guess i am an lying sociopath behind a screen)

I was just having my casual midnight banter while browsing stellaris workshop, And then you show up decide to analyze my "tones" over text on the internet and take it personally.

Kindly - ♥♥♥♥ off

My freaking God, how I hate Steam. Filled on the brink with such angry people, this is literally the third or fourth time this week that people got so angry despite me simply disagreeing or asking for further explanation. And I am getting tired of it.

Sorry, but you started it, you called my tweet "dumbass", which I do take as an insult to me, so I wondered, WONDERED if you are 12 based on YOUR behavior.

Take me asking if you are 12 as an insult, I apologize if you did, but just as you did I meant to call your behavior like a 12-year old, not you yourself. So apparently we both took our respective insults personally when we BOTH didn't meant it so.

It's laughable that now you act as if I started this aggressive forth-and-back when all I wanted was to understand you and thus asked what you meant.

Never did I insult you (or your behavior) other than the 12-year old thing, and that was after you insulted me (or my behavior) first.

In my last comment I even tried to calm it, I admitted I was wrong, I mentioned how your last post was much nicer, what else do you want me to do for you to not be so damn angry? Kiss your behind and ask for forgiveness?

Also hypocritical that you call me "angry" and imply that I am triggered when I write calm and collected while your writing style is erratic and aggressive. Not mine.