More realistic Crusader States

[Josh Knight]

I saw a post about making the units of the C States more realistic, so i figured I would point out some map flaws as well.

1st, Karek castle was ALWAYS controlled by the crusaders right from the end of the 1st crusade. It was a very important defense against the saracens, and therefore should be in the crusaders hand's from the very start.

Likewise, Acre was also the most important city militarily speaking in Outremer. It was THE port where goods and people would come in. It was one of the first city's captured in the 1st crusade, so it should also belong to the crusaders.


Just some things to make it more realistic, all the while making the Crusader States campaign easier to handle.

[Ichon]

So you want CS to start with Jerusalem, Acre, Kerak, Edessa... and Antioch? Or drop one because that starts to get CS too strong. I'd be happy with Edessa, Kerak, and Jerusalem.

[hippacrocafish]

So you want CS to start with Jerusalem, Acre, Kerak, Edessa... and Antioch? Or drop one because that starts to get CS too strong. I'd be happy with Edessa, Kerak, and Jerusalem.

I hardly think that's an over-powered starting position considering that they have to fight two muslim super-powers, possibly more if a Jihad is called, and the Romans are a very likely enemy as well. I think it's fair addition.

[Ichon]

Getting a castle is a nice challenge for CS though. Starting with a castle makes things MUCH easier. CS is supposed to be one of the more difficult and fun campaigns. If CS starts with castle it should probably lose 2 cities. If it starts with 2 castles(Acre) then definitely it needs to lose some other things.

I think CS starting with Jerusalem, Kerak, and Acre is a nice solid core but would need to consolidate power over Antioch,Triploi and Edessa which could start as 50% Christian to represent that other Crusaders there but not totally unified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_states

[king spartacus]

I question whether one settlement or castle will make much difference. In my current campaign CS was destroyed two turns after a Jihad took Jerusalem. Strange seeing as the still had Acre and Edessa. What would cause that?

[Seether]

All family members might have died

[king spartacus]

I thought in SS a regent is chosen?

[Seether]

If there is no more (of age?) family members in the tree, the faction dies. I'm pretty certain that is hard-coded.

[king spartacus]

Ah, well them all holding up in Jerusalem and getting slaughtered is no good then.

[Heskey]

Having play CS in RR/RC + BGR IV in 6.1 on VH/VH I know just how hard they are to get off the ground, and I'm all in favour of giving the CS a fully realistic starting position, whether it makes them 'too powerful' or not, it'll be realistic.

[hpsauce13]

if you want to make it more realistic then by all means give them those settlements, but CS recruitment options need to be severely limited to reflect the hard time they had gathering enough troops to garrison places effectively, especially professional troops.

[Dagda]

CS is surrounded by the two biggest regional powers that just happen to hate their guts. I don't see how giving them a couple cities to start that they were going to take anyways in the first 20 turns makes them "overpowered".

[Beowulf1990]

They should definitely get an extra province or two, it is better for balance AND accuracy.
You have to agree that they simply can't sustain themselves the way they are now, the muslims eat them for breakfast.
I can understand the desire for a more challenging crusader campaign, but i always felt that people that complain that things are too easy can just play a little less 'gamey'.

I don't save before battles, merchant, spy or assassin attempts. I honour alliances whenever not suicidal, i basically let things happen that a lot of players use 'gamey' tactics to avoid. This makes for a much more interesting and challenging game.

However when i played the crusader states i just couldn't, without using some less then fair measures i would have been defeated rather easily. One lost battle and say goodbye to Jerusalem.

[Navajo Joe]

It cuts both ways with CS,
1: When I Beta Test CS in 6.3, I got completely overrun by the islamic factions, with RR, just was not able to recruit enough troops, I did suggest that CS, needed to receive Crusader re-inforcements, also to receive Armenians in the north, in Antioch and Edessa.

2. When playing 6.2 RR/RC as Templars with Emerging KOJ sub mod, Seljuks were at war with the Fatimids & Byzantines, Fatimids at war with K-Shah, so generally the AI left me alone. This naturally happened, to get a diplomat to create this would take alot of time and cash

[Sebastos Abdes Pantera]

If you thought that was bad, in the old versions where you were the Templars you started off with one wooden castle. The CS is designed to be a challenging faction as it was in history. You may have to disband the expsensive but brilliant Lazarus Knights and make militia armies.

[meese]

I think if you play with BGR, or even just RR sometimes, it can be difficult to start. However, I find that if you don't, their troop quality typically wins over.

[Gorrrrrn]

If you're starting in 1100 Acre would not be in crusader hands - it wasn't captured until 1104.

the crusader castle at Kerak wasn't started until 1140s

[Seether]

Way to kill the discussion Roz

[Gorrrrrn]

it seems realism is one of things people want if it suits them.

[Point Blank]

it seems realism is one of things people want if it suits them.

And 'coolness', there has to be lots of that too. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I know it when I see it. And it better be there.