Improving on the Crusader States/KoJ faction

[McCloy]

SUGGESTIONS


1. The Early Period should begin in the first half of 1098, for a few reasons, one involving the important First Crusade. There were no Crusaders in the Middle East in 1080. The Crusade itself was called in 1095.

2. At this time in early 1098, the Crusader States, as they are commonly referred to today, should not be called The Templars or Kingdom of Jerusalem, although I understand the latter has popularity.

3. While the Frankish and Norman lords commanding the First Crusade were sometimes rivals and bickered much, they almost always overcame their differences and cooperated to fight any foreign challenger. As for bickering, they were actually less divided than the Turkic and Arabs lords who jealously guarded their own respective cities. In fact, despite their arguments, the Crusader lords generally came together and helped each other frequently as a confederated force, while the different Turks and Fatimids couldn't unify their plans at all or get over their differences. Hence the Crusaders won.

4. The Crusader States faction should have its capital in Antioch, a city freshly won after a terrible siege, pitched battles, and finally a bad plague. The capital can be moved to Jerusalem later of course. Antioch region extends a bit east to signify holdings in Edessa, where Baldwin of Boulogne set up a realm (but no point in adding him). The "general" governing Antioch should be Bohemund of Taranto (originally a Norman lord from Sicily, but now a Crusader with interest here.) The garrison here is small.

5. In addition, the Crusader States should have 3 other generals, one governing Tortosa, and 2 outside ready to strike south. These 3 other generals should be:

a) Godfrey of Bouillon (representing Lorraine) -- faction leader
b) Robert of Flanders (representing the northern French)
c) Raymond of Toulouse (representing the south Provencal French)

(the faction heir should be Baldwin of Boulogne, but we can make it Bohemund for simplicity's sake; other big lords aren't included because they either left, or did less than these three)

The army they command is not impressive, having suffered so much, and it has no cavalry. It should have 1 unit of Norman dismounted knights, 2-3 pilgrim nutcases, and 2 sergeant spearmen, and 1 catapult to signify the precious help from Genoese craftsmen. All the infantry and general units should be experienced. 1 silver chevrons? The force of course could be augmented by Armenian and Turcopole mercs, or reincorcements from Antioch and Tortosa.

6. Whether the Early start time is 1098 or 1099 or 1100, the Crusaders still never held Acre. Instead they avoided it and got it much later after taking Jerusalem and fighting the Fatimids at Ascalon.


EXTRA DETAILS

7. Damascus should be neutral, as it is now, with Turk rebels commanded by the power general "Duqaq".

Damascus was a massive city. Perhaps the start population should be bigger. It also should have a mix of Orthodox and Muslim religion.

In Damascus, there is a massive earthquake in the summer of 1138. It is considered one of the biggest earthquakes ever reported and worth scripting in.

8. In Aleppo, I'd like to see the historic rebel turk general there named "Ridwan" with a big army.

9. At this time, the Seljuk Turk (green) general of Mosul is named "Kerbogha".

10. Slightly off topic, Crete was a Byzantine posession until 1204, wherepon it became a Venetian dominion.

11. Cilician Armenia, to the northwest of the Crusader States, should have a strong Orthodox religious rating.

12. I assume my fave mod Stainless Steel will eventually become 0.5 years per turn. Please, please. If so, the Crusaders can fall upon Jerusalem by the 2nd turn and hope to wrap it up by mid to late 1099. And, to be historic, remember to EXTERMINATE the city.



more coming

[quagga]

This actually sounds like a pretty good idea to me, as it solves the Templars/KoJ taking up one faction slot - They could have all the KoJ units, but being able to recruit them may require Jerusalem (Though I wouldn't like to see them lose all their unit recruiting abilities if they lost it - unless they are very 'Jerusalem' specific.

Perhaps the Crusader States could also have a victory condition that includes conquering Jerusalem within 10 turns or so, and needing to hold it for a certain number of turns as well.

I also favour moving to .05 years = 1 turn. I think this tends to make more sense, and allows you to actually invest more in your early troops.

[Echad]

Well, but the Crusader States name is not only ahistoric, but also distracts the game from style, i.e. Kingdom of England, Fatimid Caliphate, etc..

And I'd like to actually start the game with already having Yerushalayim, since AI won't really live for long without any city, oh, you suggest Antioch/Edessa.

An Antioch faction would be a lil' less popular... Although... Having only KoJ and no Crusaders in the North will be even worse, so the idea is actually not bad, and we can always rename ourselves to Kingdom of Jerusalem later.

Anyway, while the idea is good, I'd like start a game right at the establishment of Kingdom of Jerusalem, but dunno what to do with another Crusader States' in that case... Maybe Rebels? Or regions belonging to France and the like? =\ OR KoJ with Antioch/something else belonging to them as well?

P.S. I am against 0.5 years per turn - it will take endless to finish the game, will slow down the hotseat even more, and will force even more epic peasant archers/spear militia battles.

Anyway - want to hear KK's feedback on this issue.

[McCloy]

P.S. I am against 0.5 years per turn - it will take endless to finish the game, will slow down the hotseat even more, and will force even more epic peasant archers/spear militia battles.

Hehe, we must agree to disagree there. It wrecks my suspension of disbelief entirely to see a fleet move 300 km in 1.5 years. Or an army march from Antioch to Acre in 1.5 years.

0.5/turn is the first thing I modded in vanilla M2TW and now SS.

Maybe one day, there could be a customized manual setting to have turns = x time. I'd actually like to see each turn equal 2 months.

[McCloy]

Many times, the components of the Crusader states operated as one faction. Soldiers from one county or principality were dispatched to aid another, when the Muslims were on the march. They really had no other choice but to grudgingly depend on each other. When the first king (Godfrey) of Jerusalem died, his brother (Baldwin) in Antioch in was given the royal title.

Whereas, also in history, components of the Seljuk Turks and Fatimids did not operate as one faction. In fact, if the Muslims generals and city-holders had cooperated, instead of hating each other and acting as if they were independent factions, they would have crushed the First Crusade.

Furthermore, we know that the Crusader States weren't too different from other disorganized, feudal realms like the HRE or France. In fact, the former looks somewhat organized compared to the HRE, which is still called 1 faction.

In this proposal starting in late 1098, the Crusader States start with a city and a castle -- Antioch and Tortosa. They never had Acre until many years later.

I think it would be fun to start with a small faction that had 4 generals. They could have characteristics illustrating their self-interest and wild ambition. It would also give the States a chance if some generals died.

Muslim Jerusalem can start off with a modest garrison. I don't think it had a massive one like at Damascus, Mosul, Aleppo, and Antioch.


EDIT: Echad, your scenario is good, but I'm just throwing this out there to see what KK and crew think. In your scenario, Acre is rebel? Would Antioch be rebel or KoJ ?

I also hope there will be a troop shortage for the KoJ, to make things difficult, since almost everyone left for home by 1100.

[Echad]

Well, about the size of the faction - of course, this is the whole point - it must be hard...

I meant that the title of Crusader States is ahistoric... I suggested KoJ due to it having some sort of Monarchy and being one of the most important Crusader States. Again, I greatly discourage playing some States, an Order, or anything that is not the unique faction, but merely a pun that is supposed to look like a real faction.

So we have 2 ideas here - yours about the Antioch faction with the game starting in 1098, and mine with a round date of 1100 and a Kingdom of Jerusalem.

For now it doesn't matters, will we call them the Crusader States, Holy Land, or McDonalds... We should propose a (better finished) game concept to King Kong and let him decide on which variant to use, if not leaving the game 1080.

Let's weight all the pros and cons of each variant, lemme begin...

Reasons for 1100 and KoJ and against 1098 and CS:

1 - We would experience the faction right from it's birth, without the qustions of player's identity as a InsertTitle_InsertName. We will have concrete King and his family along with generals, and not a collection of landlords.

2 - If 1098, it can either be that AI as Crusader States will not be interested in Jerusalem at all, or just forced to be - the latter won't differ from the start in 1100 and the first will be just ugly and stupid.

3 - It is more noble to play as the Kingdom of Jerusalem, than as some random States, which were just famous by being on the way to Jerusalem.

4 - KoJ will be easily done by merging the existing factions of KoJ and Templars, without need to create completely new faction.

5 - The Siege of Jerusalem concept may be interesting, but I'd like to play it in Custom Battles more, than replaying it like 28 times at the start of each campaign as them, and the uppermentioned AI issues as well.

Now please, post your cons and pros, I want to hear about it.

Edit: I actually like the idea of united Crusaders' Faction more than the a lot of small ones... BTW, searched wiki for siege of Jerusalem, found a list, laughted... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem

[quagga]

Hmm, I'm still undecided as to which of these ideas sounds better - the only thing I am sure of is that having both Templars and KoJ seems a waste of a faction slot that could be better used elsewhere.

In any case, let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

1 - I think it makes sense that they would be called the crusader states, as it shows the primary reason for their inceptionand doesn't limit them to Jerusalem as a target.

2 - I don't think it's such a bad idea to force 'crusader' states to take jerusalem straight up. But I do think that it doesn't make sense to have KoJ when they may lose Jerusalem so often and so quickly.

3 - Maybe it is more 'noble' to play as KoJ, but I thought historically the crusader states did not really conduct themselves as traditional 'Kingdoms'. Also, the idea of crusader states perhaps more accurately captures the idea of more assorted crusaded principalities around that area.

4 - I don't think it would be that hard to create the necessary elements for a 'crusader states' faction - only a faction icon and campaign map banner would be required I think, as everything else could be simply taken from the current units? Echad maybe you can tell me if I'm missing something here - is lots more work involved?

5 - I have no real retort to this point - playing the seige of Jerusalem over and over again would indeed become boring. The only argument I can think of is that you wouldn't start a new campaign that often, and even if you held J-town from the start it would likely be fought over many times, meaning that the 1100-KoJ starting situation would not be that much better.

Also, as you said the idea of one crusading faction seems better than a whole lot of small ones, as it allows for a unified roster. Also, I was thinking that the transferable titles for that area could be designated as 'King' of Jerusalem rather than duke, etc.

All in all I am not sure which way I think is better - The only thing I am sure of is that the current SS5.1 early campaign situation with the templars as a faction doesn't really make sense to me, historically or practically.

What do you think Echad - do you find any of this convincing?

[Son of Mao]

3. While the Frankish and Norman lords commanding the First Crusade were sometimes rivals and bickered much, they almost always overcame their differences and cooperated to fight any foreign challenger. As for bickering, they were actually less divided than the Turkic and Arabs lords who jealously guarded their own respective cities. In fact, despite their arguments, the Crusader lords generally came together and helped each other frequently as a confederated force, while the different Turks and Fatimids couldn't unify their plans at all or get over their differences. Hence the Crusaders won.

The Crusaders didn't win the Saladin wiped them out. If they won it would be christians in the levant today, not Jews and Muslims.

[Sonny WiFiHr]

The Crusaders didn't win the Saladin wiped them out. If they won it would be christians in the levant today, not Jews and Muslims.

Crusaders states survived Saladin even without Jerusalem.Another king crushed crusaders i can't remember his name.

[llamasboy]

Crusaders states survived Saladin even without Jerusalem.Another king crushed crusaders i can't remember his name.

Was it Osman? Or was he later?

[Echad]

Crusaders won the first Crusade, and were more-or-less succesfull later... AND, more precisely, they won a WAR agianst Fatimids and Turks, which McCloy put... Saladin was from Ayyubids, who actually were the enemies of Fatimids.

[Son of Mao]

Crusaders won the first Crusade, and were more-or-less succesfull later... AND, more precisely, they won a WAR agianst Fatimids and Turks, which McCloy put... Saladin was from Ayyubids, who actually were the enemies of Fatimids.

The Crusaders were no match for a unified Muslim force. Thats really all it took.

[Echad]

1 - I say again we are not about the faction names now, but about other things. My point one was really about having discrete title and family tree as KoJ, and none such possible for Crusader States, since there was a separate ruler for each of them.

2 - But it will require scripting, which someone must do, and it will slow down the game.

3 - And a I said - I don't want to play a nonexistand union of four states, or the like... KoJ was significant enought.

4 - Only issue with that is that I have no enought creativity in fantasy to create a faction icon and campaign map banner for non-existant faction... Maybe rereading LotR may help, but it's really beyond the scope of Stainless Steel. And KoJ existed for long time already when they lost Jerusalem, so it is historically accurate.

5 - I won't like starting as Normandy faction in place of England and take London from the Saxons each time - that way my faction would exist for wow, 5 turns or the like, before it would became another one.

All in all - you are saying pros for Crusader States, but still no cons for Jerusalem, and I gave some cons for CS.

[hylander25k]

I don't know - I just don't like the "Knight's Templar" faction. The Knights templar was an order not a faction name. Wasn't there any proper name for the area/cities they occupied during the crusades (maybe no Outremer, cause there was never a "Kingdom of Outremer")

[King Yngvar]

As long as they are not called "knights templar" and as long as they don't take up 2 faction slots I could not be more indifferent to wether their name be Crusader States or Kingdom of Jerusalem. I like your idea however and the starting date should be moved up to around 1100 I definately agree on that. Even though my prefered date would be around the third crusade.

[Mafiozo]

This discussion has already been and i must say i agree with Echad. There can be only one and of all KoJ is the best. It represents their core, as of antioch and their disputes it can easily be made. Christian governor of all those cities could have reduced loyalty. Then you would have KoJ and it's units, KoJ's noble family tree and your forces with low loyalty. You would always be on lookout of rebellion. The most important matter is that such created faction could under AI rule be a competitive one(in early era Knights Templar aren't). I think we all agree that only faction in Jerusalem could be competative. Think if u create crusaders in Antioch. Egypt would counquer Jerusalem in first 15 turns, once he does that Antioch and such crusader state is dead in next 30 turns. So much of me

[IZ-Master]

If u move the starting Date , Think of all the work u have to do for others factions

[roy34543]

Im pretty sure it was Amir Baybars.
Not sure if what i read was accurate, but he seemes like a very loathsome person in comparison to saladin.

[Mafiozo]

here is something just for fun. First crusader encounter battle with muslims happened like this: Crusaders rode female horses that were in the mating period while muslims rode male horses. U could guess what happened. Female horses started to run away and muslims chased crusaders, casualties were almost none but still it is a nice example of human stupidity

[aleph2007]

here is something just for fun. First crusader encounter battle with muslims happened like this: Crusaders rode female horses that were in the mating period while muslims rode male horses. U could guess what happened. Female horses started to run away and muslims chased crusaders, casualties were almost none but still it is a nice example of human stupidity

You call it stupidity ? A fight without casualties ?
On the contrary, A superior form of intelligence...