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?

[jfoytek]

Escrito originalmente por AugustusCaesar:

Escrito originalmente por 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?

Are you deaf dumb or blind?

Its obvious he is pointing out that NO Catholic Power Conquered and Held Jerusalem.
Not England, Not France, Not Spain, none of the above.....

After the first crusade most of the holy warriors just turned around and went home after they slaughtered the local inhabitants....

The few knights and low nobles that remained squabbled a little bit (benificiary's)

And Godfrey of Boullion had the most crusaders basically left and ended up elected the first king.

At that point the Muslim's didn't even twig that the crusade was a grand holy war against them, they just thought it was typical byzantine aggression in the region.

This is really the only thing that let the fledgling Kingdom of Jerusalem last as long as it did.
But Jerusalem wasn't content to sit their and be a happy neighbor they pushed the envelope and stirred up the hornets nest until the muslims finally kicked them out about a 100 years latter and Jerusalem would never manage to be reclaimed. As it was now very apparent to the Muslims what was going on!

Anyway its pretty clear what Rayan said and how you couldn't understand that very basic and simple concept makes me wonder if your trolling....

[jfoytek]

Escrito originalmente por AugustusCaesar:

Escrito originalmente por Rayan2033:

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



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?

He likely assumed you could read??? Seriously how you could not understand the very basic and simple concept is very strange indeed....

[mortache]

Escrito originalmente por 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.

Also, the land French king really ruled was more or less just the Duchy of Paris, called "Île-de-France"

[AugustusCaesar]

Escrito originalmente por jfoytek:

Escrito originalmente por AugustusCaesar:

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

Are you deaf dumb or blind?

Its obvious he is pointing out that NO Catholic Power Conquered and Held Jerusalem.
Not England, Not France, Not Spain, none of the above.....

After the first crusade most of the holy warriors just turned around and went home after they slaughtered the local inhabitants....

The few knights and low nobles that remained squabbled a little bit (benificiary's)

And Godfrey of Boullion had the most crusaders basically left and ended up elected the first king.

At that point the Muslim's didn't even twig that the crusade was a grand holy war against them, they just thought it was typical byzantine aggression in the region.

This is really the only thing that let the fledgling Kingdom of Jerusalem last as long as it did.
But Jerusalem wasn't content to sit their and be a happy neighbor they pushed the envelope and stirred up the hornets nest until the muslims finally kicked them out about a 100 years latter and Jerusalem would never manage to be reclaimed. As it was now very apparent to the Muslims what was going on!

Anyway its pretty clear what Rayan said and how you couldn't understand that very basic and simple concept makes me wonder if your trolling....

Oh, what the hell. Next point on the list, being accused of trolling for not understanding and/or agreeing with a point someone made.

If I was trolling, I would be a lot more aggressive and insulting myself, don't you think? For crying out loud, I tried to make peace with him 2 posts ago, and now you accuse me of trolling?


Look, where I got confused was because he wrote that "It's historically accurate, Jerusalem is too far to be conquered by a catholic power."

I wondered what he meant since the Crusades were Catholic Power(s) conquering Jerusalem.

Then he clarified that according to him, Catholics conquered Jerusalem, not Catholic Powers. I didn't agree with it and didn't quite understand where he made a difference between these two things.

So I asked. Because I wanted to know what he meant. Which made him angry and let him to call my post asking what he meant "dumbass".

Sorry, but I find that immature. If you immediately knew what he meant, then fine. But do you seriously presume that anyone not understanding what you immediately understood is "dumb"? What arrogance.

As for the rest, in my post where I did try to make peace I admitted that I was incorrect, which again led him to insult me, so.... yeah. Ef you if I ask, ef you if I disagree, but also ef you if I admit I was wrong. Guess whatever I would have done I would be insulted, huh?

Escrito originalmente por jfoytek:

Escrito originalmente por AugustusCaesar:

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

He likely assumed you could read??? Seriously how you could not understand the very basic and simple concept is very strange indeed....

No excuse to act like a 12 year old and start throwing around insults, whether directed at me or my "behavior". I'd assumed we were all adults here.

[dcbobo]

You can always tell who has been playing so much they aren't getting enough sleep lol

[jimbuu3]

I took place in a great holy war for the kingdom of bohemia as a prussian vadnist. the result my title the Kingdom of Prussia was given to my beneficiary and the kingdom of Bohemia is still with its original owner. what a dumb glitch.

[andrestricker8814]

Escrito originalmente por Rayan2033:

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

thats entirely false, its the complete opposite of historical accuracy>

Godfrey was the duke of Lower Lorraine, though he gave up the title to stay in Jerusalem
Raymond of Toulouse, was Count of Toulouse, Duke of Narbonne, Margrave of Provence AND the independent ruler of the county of Tripoli in modern day Lebanon, all at the same time
Bohemond of Taranto, was count of Taranto and Bari, and the Prince of Antioch all at the same time. His son Bohemond II inherited all those titles but eventually sold the Italian titles to focus on Antioch


pretending Baldwin was the only Crusade leader is whats A historical. because the Norm for crusade leaders, was holding titles in Europe and Outremer at the same time, and many of the leaders joined for the chance to take independent territories in the middle east.

I can understand the devs not wanting to allow players to steamroll the map, but the game is called Crusader kings.

I know this is a necro post, but its really nonsensical, I was just playing a count in the 1066 start, I had like 9 children already. Go on crusade, cant select a beneficiary, I say "thats odd, well I'll still get titles myself". Spend a fortune on hiring mercenaries so I can get a high participation percentage and hopefully get a title. win crusade. Get nothing
so I come here look this up to understand why, I cant become a crusader king, in crusader kings. and I see you butchering history, so sorry to inform you. But Crusaders mostly fought to add middle eastern territory to their own possessions

[CrUsHeR]

I was just playing a count in the 1066 start, I had like 9 children already. Go on crusade, cant select a beneficiary

I think we can agree that Crusader Kings is a game where you need to know a lot of stuff which isn't obvious or easy to understand, even though the UI tries its best to make things comprehensible.


That being said, if you are planning to play as a Crusader King in the 1066 start date, you need to get to work immediately. Either you start with a dynasty who already has a lot of unlanded members, like Murchad's Briain clan in Ireland. Or you start from scratch and try to get as many children as you can, then also get matrilinear marriages for the daughters and granddaughters. This would let you have plenty of beneficiaries to choose from.

Then you can simply switch over to the beneficiary after winning the crusade.

[AdahnGorion]

Because I want my niece to be a Queen of a far far away land, that I have no interest in to taggle up with my own, but for the dynasty! she shall rule in all her glory... atleast until the infidels attacks her

[Emperor2000]

Escrito originalmente por 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

That will be reworked in the future.
Devs have said that they are currently not happy with the renown system.