"Broken" crusades?

[Mr. No]

Probably a known issue with crusades. Pope calls for crusade. Christian side has more troops, but they are acting completely artificial(dumb). Running around with apparently no purpose or any main goal..... Arriving in small numbers, muslim side just kills them off with a large army. This a bug or a feature?
I remember in CK2, when Pope called a crusade, all domestic and wars between christian rulers were done. Now, this feature is not existent.
So, why is this still in game? Does it need a fix?

[Pennynow]

They’re kind of a joke at this point.

[Seijana]

I saw the First Crusade in my main game be a huge success. To be fair, the Fatmid caliphate was in heavy debt and my kushites had managed to seize Mecca which might have had an impact.

[bulbatrs]

The enemy is more organaised because they hunt the player armies together. abuse that and win the war easy.

[Mr. No]

Originally posted by bulbatrs:

The enemy is more organaised because they hunt the player armies together. abuse that and win the war easy.

What do you mean?

[ShepherdOfCats]

The supply limits were higher in CK2, and I think that's why the AI has a terrible time in CK3. Too much splitting up just as the enemy army arrives.

[bulbatrs]

Originally posted by Mr. No:

Originally posted by bulbatrs:

The enemy is more organaised because they hunt the player armies together. abuse that and win the war easy.

What do you mean?

if the ai is at war with the player it will ignore all other wars and go fight player army if it's within sight. That's what happens in crusades - ai focuses on player troops over any other troops.

[Mr. No]

Originally posted by bulbatrs:

Originally posted by Mr. No:

What do you mean?

if the ai is at war with the player it will ignore all other wars and go fight player army if it's within sight. That's what happens in crusades - ai focuses on player troops over any other troops.

Main issue imo is that on crusader´s side the smaller units just run around like headless chickens. Why are they aren´t joining bigger armies?
Secondly- as stated before, in CK 2 when Pope declared a crusade, all domestic wars between any christian fractions ended immediately. Why is this not implemented in CK 3 idk...
Thirdly- When looking at the tab comparing the armies involved in crusade, it appears that christian side has always more troops, but they are never arriving..So rulers are joining crusade but doing nothing basically..

[Mr. No]

Originally posted by Mr. No:

Originally posted by bulbatrs:

if the ai is at war with the player it will ignore all other wars and go fight player army if it's within sight. That's what happens in crusades - ai focuses on player troops over any other troops.

Main issue imo is that on crusader´s side the smaller units just run around like headless chickens. Why are they aren´t joining bigger armies?
Secondly- as stated before, in CK 2 when Pope declared a crusade, all domestic wars between any christian fractions ended immediately. Why is this not implemented in CK 3 idk...
Thirdly- When looking at the tab comparing the armies involved in crusade, it appears that christian side has always more troops, but they are never arriving..So rulers are joining crusade but doing nothing basically..

Appears to me that a crusade is not meant to succeed, because WHY is muslim side running around in 2 big armies having around 20 000 men in each army, and christian side has 1!! Mostly the Papal one and the others never arrive or send smaller units which are immediately slaughtered....
Bug or feature?
(i quoted myself as it seems) :::)))

[Joe Dirt]

I usually find the best way to deal with this is take direct the crusades to spain where they're not necessarily as strong. Once the Christian kingdoms are strong enough you can start pushing towards Jerusalem.

[Jackochainsaw]

The woeful crusades are close to how it happened in real life. Christianity lost most of them and at a certain point the Muslims in the region simply told them not to bother anymore (and the Christians nodded their collective heads). By that time heresies in the Catholic church were so high anyway that the Pope lost most of his support for such jollies. Also, there was some protection while out on a crusade, but it eroded over time and the crusaders came back to horrible situations back home. Money was better spent looking after their own.

The tango that occurs in game, and the lack of a war targeting system doesn't help. You should have objectives set (e.g. if going for Jerusalem, it should be made quite clear.)

I have been in games where the Catholics absolutely wreck. I've seen a Catholic Jerusalem, Syria and Mesopotamia formed in one particular game but most of the time, they come away with egg on their face. Also, never seen to date, any jihads. Very disappointing.

[Mr. No]

Originally posted by Jackochainsaw:

The woeful crusades are close to how it happened in real life. Christianity lost most of them and at a certain point the Muslims in the region simply told them not to bother anymore (and the Christians nodded their collective heads). By that time heresies in the Catholic church were so high anyway that the Pope lost most of his support for such jollies. Also, there was some protection while out on a crusade, but it eroded over time and the crusaders came back to horrible situations back home. Money was better spent looking after their own.

The tango that occurs in game, and the lack of a war targeting system doesn't help. You should have objectives set (e.g. if going for Jerusalem, it should be made quite clear.)

I have been in games where the Catholics absolutely wreck. I've seen a Catholic Jerusalem, Syria and Mesopotamia formed in one particular game but most of the time, they come away with egg on their face. Also, never seen to date, any jihads. Very disappointing.

I ve changed the target already and not much happened, same things happened over and over again.
This isnt matter of historical outcome, rather matter of gameplay, which appears to be broken.

[Good Graces]

Originally posted by Jackochainsaw:

The woeful crusades are close to how it happened in real life. Christianity lost most of them and at a certain point the Muslims in the region simply told them not to bother anymore (and the Christians nodded their collective heads). By that time heresies in the Catholic church were so high anyway that the Pope lost most of his support for such jollies. Also, there was some protection while out on a crusade, but it eroded over time and the crusaders came back to horrible situations back home. Money was better spent looking after their own.

The tango that occurs in game, and the lack of a war targeting system doesn't help. You should have objectives set (e.g. if going for Jerusalem, it should be made quite clear.)

I have been in games where the Catholics absolutely wreck. I've seen a Catholic Jerusalem, Syria and Mesopotamia formed in one particular game but most of the time, they come away with egg on their face. Also, never seen to date, any jihads. Very disappointing.

I don't remember the crusader armies taking a roundabout cruise trip in the gulf of suez

[Tanuvein]

Historically one of the pushes for the Crusade was a surfeit of titled princes in Europe causing too many skirmishes and civil wars (the other being the Catholic church wishing to reestablish itself as a political entity). When they were sent to Jerusalem, each commander was eager to grab every fort they could along the way. They would often try to outrun each other to conquer new territories. This is the period the four Crusader States were established and lasted for 200 years. I think the AI needs to be given objectives by the programmers to do specific things when they go to war, perhaps even a historical drive to recreate their Crusader States in Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli and Jerusalem. This would not only make the game more historical, but it would also make the AI more engaging with regards to Crusades and actually get those Holy Orders involved. Now maybe *you* want to race them to get that nice territory in Acre. This changes the engagement with friendly AI to be direct and would guarantee there are more forces there for the player to interact with.

[endymionologist]

So, I maintain that the best scene in El Cid is the one where the King is yelling about losing a battle because the title character decided to go off and siege Valencia instead, and that means maybe the way I look at things generally isn't helpful to a lot of players.

Originally posted by Mr. No:

This isnt matter of historical outcome, rather matter of gameplay, which appears to be broken.

If a program that pretends to be an historical simulation reproduces historical failures by recreating historical mistakes, I have a really hard time calling that "broken." Paradox does a similar thing in Victoria, where (spoiler for your World History class) the way to get the best outcome from WWI is to stand on the sidelines building canneries until it's clear that none of the fighting will happen in your own country and then join just long enough before the end to get your troops in on the final overruns.

[Tanuvein]

I am pretty sure that scene you describe is just Hollywood fiction. It's mostly based on ad hoc legends moreso than history. I barely remember the movie anymore, but El Cid was utterly loyal to King Alfonso until he raided the Moorish Kingdom of Toledo which was under Alfonso's protection, and again when he pursued Moors into Granada and they had a falling out over that. When he takes Valencia it is for himself at the head of a mixed Moorish and Spanish army to create his own kingdom. He nominally served the King at that point, but ruled independently.