Jman47's Realistic Win Conditions

[jman47]

Ive recently been thinking about editing the Descr_win_conditions in both campaigns to make the win conditions for each faction a bit more realistic, for instance- some catholic factions certainly did not have the resources or geographic ability to participate in crusades to the holy land, such as Ireland, Scotland, Norway, or Aragon for instance, yet all these factions still have to capture jerusalem as part of the win conditions. spain and portugal also could be seen as to be fighting the heathens on a different front, the moors in iberia, so why should they have to go to the holy land? also the byzantines could be changed to reflect the idea of regaining all the former lands of the eastern roman empire, the turks and egyptians could have the goal of completely uniting the eastern mediterranian under one muslim banner, the Kwarezmians dominating not only persia but also arabia and the caucuses, the cumans uniting russia under the banner of paganism, or the lithuanians doing it in eastern europe, and the 2 russias battling over uniting russia under one orthodox power, and kiev possibly having designs on once again trying to expand southward into byzantium. all of these things could but arent represented in the win conditions, which i could change and upload as a treat to all you fellow SSers out there. i just need to know how many people are interested and if there is a mod like this already, so im not wasting my time. im also open to suggestions or historical fact as to why some factions should have X province in their conditions, ect.

thanks and happy posting!

[Gorrrrrn]

jamn47

small historical point - norway did participate in crusades.

1107-11 King Sigurd of Norway went on crusade to the Palestine.

[HighLord z0b]

Are you referring to short campaigns or long campaigns?

In my view, win conditions don't reflect historical realism on the whole, but represent the ideal situation that the faction would have liked to achieve. For example whilst I agree that Byzantium should be looking to regain it's holdings in middle east, they would also be looking to regain their hold in southern Italy and capture Rome to rebuild the old roman empire. Similar situation for HRE, they are looking to rebuild the old Roman Empire.

In fact I think that the Roman empire itself is almost the model for the win condition, you need to create an empire similar in size.

[caralampio]

I agree with the OP in that VC should reflect what would be an ideal grand empire for that faction. Taking down its historic enemies and expanding more or less within its geographic area. This should leave out Jerusalem for many factions.

By the time the game ends Jerusalem was long lost for Christianity.

[jman47]

highlord z0b- im personally talking about long campaigns, where epic victory conditions would be normal for the length of the campaign.

caralampio- exactly what i mean

like for byzantium the goal would be to regain all the lands held under Justinian's rule, meaning asia minor, the middle east, north africa, italy, at least part of iberia, and southern france.

Using Norway as an example their goals would probably be more aimed towards eliminating the constant threat of the danes to the south, as well as novgorod to the east, and become the prominent baltic power and control the rich baltic sea trade. they would be less interested in holding land in the levant since it is geographically impossibe to reinforce such lands for them in reality.

however states such as france, england, and the HRE to a lesser extent would be more focused on regaining the holy lands, as history shows.

The HRE would also be set to try and regain all the lands under charlemagnes rule, meaning france, germany, and italy.

Spain, Portugal, and Aragon would all be focused towards the moors in iberia, so why would they feel the need to open another front against heathens across the known world?

Scotland and ireland were too busy trying to fight off the tyranny of the english to participate in crusades, they had enough conflict to deal with.

im not sure if poland and hungary historically participated in crusades or if they had motivation to do so, some research would help solve that.

there are many more examples to list, such as a united muslim east, beating back the mongols, a united russia, a pagan russia, and a pagan eastern europe.

feel free to make more suggestions as well

[Gorrrrrn]

Scottish nobility actually did fight in the Reconquista - those dastardly english might have given them time off for good behaviour maybe? (Or perhaps the Scots stopped trying to burn down Durham for a while and making off with the Bishop's cattle?)

Irish too disorganised to go anywhere on crusade.

Danes and Swedes were to busy with the baltic crusading to go to holy land. (Don't know if the Norwegians particpated in baltic crusades - too busy attacking them Scots I expect and discovering america. - their VCs might be to capture Ireland, England and Scotland and northern France and maybe Sicily?

I don't think the English (or other) crusaders were motivated by the lust for land - they just wanted to recapture the Holy Land for Christendom, not create an empire there.

So removing Jerusalem from victory conditions makes some sort of sense from an empire building perspective, but not from a liberating the Holy Land one.

[Teutonic Joe]

if there are different win conditions based on the campaigns it can go like this:
The main factions of the crusades (HRE, Britain, France, Italian factions) can all have Jerusalem as their main objective in the Early Era Campaign. In the Late Era campaign the KoJ is already established so taking Jerusalem seems very irrelevant