Bizzare campaign AI...advice needed please!

**Ren the Unclean** · August 18, 2011, 09:46 AM

I just got done playing a really strange campaign as KOJ. This is the first time I have played with BC 2.3. I played on Medium campaign settings (if this helps).

Not once through the entire campaign did the Ayyubids attack or try to secure Jerusalem. I thought that there was a scripted Jihad that would trigger a war between Jerusalem and the Ayyubids around 1187 (The historical fall of Jerusalem to Saladdin). Instead, they stayed quiet and fought only with the Rebels and Omanis.

Wish I could say the same for the Eastern Roman Empire! They were constantly picking a fight, not just with me but with every other Christian faction too. At one point they were at war with Jerusalem, Georgia, and Armenia at the same time!!!!

At some point a crusade was launched (Why, I don't know...The Arabs were my friends and peaceful neighbors the whole time!). The crusade was diverted to Constantinople (which in the strange context of my game made sense), where both stacks went rogue and defected to the rebels. Richard the Lionheart went rebel???

Can someone advise me...I played many games in previous versions of BC with very historical results. IS something not quite balanced in 2.3 or is this attributable to Medium settings?

If there's something I can do to my own scrpt to avoid this mess, I appreciate any advice. When stuff gets wildly ahistorical, it takes the fun out of the game.

**kaiser1993** · August 18, 2011, 01:10 PM

That's because of the difficulty you chose, try hard or very hard. Then factions will be more aggressive and gives a much better campaign experience.
The crusade that happened is a scripted historical event, it means you get Richard the Lionheart.

**Dago Red** · August 18, 2011, 01:34 PM

The Crusade that diverted to Constantinople is historical, the 4th Crusade sacked the Eastern Roman Empire's capitol and installed their own puppet on the throne. At this time the ERE and the Crusader states were not friendly, they barely ever were. As soon as the 1st Crusade set off from Constantinople in 1097 they were trying to deceive each other and get the upper hand, constantly breaking deals.

As for the Ayyubids sitting pretty that will happen on hard too, but to a lesser extent. There is something wrong with the way the AI plays the faction right now I think. But friendly relations between the Ayybuds and the KoJ is also historical.... in fact they had minor alliances at times. If Raymond had his way, he and Salahadin would both have been happy living together in peace with shared rights given to Jerusalem.

**Ren the Unclean** · August 18, 2011, 02:49 PM

Thanks. I'll try again on hard settings and see if that improves things.

I know there were tensions between the ERE and Jerusalem, but I wish there was some way to at least keep a basic peace. It's a little crazy that all the Christian factions are fighting each other and likewise for the Islamic factions.

I like campaigns that mirror the timetable of history. It feels disappointing when the Ayyubids are weak in 1187 and sit quiet during the period when they historically were taking Jerusalem. They look so weak right now I feel guilty picking a fight with them.

I think individual campaign scripts for different factions would be a big enhancement to the mod, similar to what they have for Roma Surrectum. For example, if you are playing as Jerusalem, the death of Baldwin IV in 1186 and subsequent succession crisis and Ayyubid attack on Jerusalem would be a scripted event (complete with spawned stacks if the Ayyubid strength was already too low). Likewise, similar scripts could be made for other major factions to set the stage for major historical events.

(Sorry, I just finished playing the Demise of the Republic campaign on Roma Surrectum before this...

)

**Fewrfreyut** · August 18, 2011, 03:57 PM

this seems fairly typical. In half the games I play the ERE and KOJ wind up at each other`s throats. Amusingly, one time the Ayyubids actually forced KOJ down to 2 provinces: Tripoli and either Homs or Hama. The Ayyubids then vassaled KOJ. a few turns after, one of the Papal assistance crusades triggers and KOJ gets Barbarrossa and co. for all the good they did

**Dago Red** · August 18, 2011, 03:58 PM

It's just not ahistorical for the ERE and KoJ to be at each other's throats in the least bit. before the 1st Crusade many of the Crusader nobles involved had at one time or another fought skirmishes against ERE and Greek cities. by the time of 1204 a full on invasion occurred, represented with that event you witnessed. And the mod is called Broken Crescent afterall, it's focus seems to be the inter-Muslim conflicts just as much as the conflicts with the Crusaders and the Mongols. So everyone fighting everyone else isn't unrealistic at all, in fact, that was the case.

I agree the Ayyubids are too passive though. I wish there were mechanisms to ensure that the Ayybids can make peace easily with the KoJ but also have triggers to force each into war.

**Fewrfreyut** · August 18, 2011, 05:18 PM

agreed. such triggers could be useful.

By the way, this isn't a serious issue for me, but has anyone else noticed their faction's family members don't die? I've repeatedly played games where faction leaders last past 90, including one as the Seljuks of Iraq where the Sultan was still leading his armies at the age of 107.

**Dago Red** · August 18, 2011, 06:18 PM

yes it's a known issue, much discussed. There are fixes listed in submods, and it's to be fixed in next patch as well.

**Fewrfreyut** · August 18, 2011, 06:39 PM

ok no worries. I can wait for the patch.

**Cope** · August 21, 2011, 03:51 PM

Even though the relations between the Byzantines and the Crusaders was strained, that doesnt mean that the crusaders would randomly attack the Byzantines whilst completely ignoring their muslim neighbours. Its not like the fourth crusade sacking of constantinople was planned, moreover it was just a bunch of illdisciplined latins striking out at the first nice looking thing that came into view.

It also seems stupid to have the pope ordering new crusades when there is no need for one. In my ERE game the KoJ is doing really well...so the 4th crusade (which is apparently a couple of rebel armies) would never have occured in the first place.

**Dago Red** · August 21, 2011, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Leving

Even though the relations between the Byzantines and the Crusaders was strained, that doesnt mean that the crusaders would randomly attack the Byzantines whilst completely ignoring their muslim neighbours.

It wasn't random at all, the story is long and involves all kinds of political maneuverings, many intrigues between the Doge of Venice and his ambitions, and the King of Germany & Holy Roman Emperor, Phillip of Swabia and his marriage to the Eastern Roman Empire's princess Irene Angelus -- her family had been tortured and imprisoned (more intrigue) by the current ERE Emperor, but her brother had escaped and arrived in the West where he ingratiated himself to his hosts.

Furthermore, Phillip was at odds with and not recognized by the Pope (who called the Crusade) as Holy Roman Emperor. All these events came together in the perfect harmony for Venice and the HRE once the Crusaders arrived in Venice for their transport to the Middle East when they did not have enough money to pay.... they were re-directed by their Venetian and HRE leaders to install Irene's brother on the throne of the ERE, among other things. These conditions have little/nothing to do with events in the Holy Land.

Originally Posted by Leving

Its not like the fourth crusade sacking of constantinople was planned, moreover it was just a bunch of illdisciplined latins striking out at the first nice looking thing that came into view.

You're right the sacking was not planned, but the overall expedition was. So regardless of how it turned out, the 4th Crusade was destined to lay siege and overthrow the Emperor. Once they succeeded, they installed Irene's brother on the throne, who was then to help pay for the Crusade to continue to Egypt. However, he was assassinated -- of course the new Emperor was very short lived since he had an army of Crusaders sitting there, this time they laid siege in earnest, sacked the city and held it for their own.

"illdisciplined latins" is a bit inaccurate. Granted the Crusaders who arrived in Venice were not nearly as formidable as say the 1st Crusaders, and you're right they were filled much more with commoners than the knights and warring classes of previous Crusades, but they picked up large numbers of nobility along the way -- not to mention Venetians and the HRE contingents. Thus the 4th Crusade was composed of a fairly broad mix of men. They would surely have caused serious problems for Cairo had they actually gone there instead.

But they never even set their ships in that direction, nor was Constantinople the first thing that came into view either though -- they had first attacked and sacked the port of Zara from the Hungarian King and claimed it for Venice.

In conclusion, the 4th Crusade happens no matter what is going on in the Holy Land or the Middle East. Pope Innocent III called it in 1198 as soon as he was made Pope (it just took so many years to put together and set out) because he was a Crusader, not so much because of conditions there.

**Deutschland** · August 21, 2011, 07:07 PM

Its absolutely not ahistorical that the ERE makes war on the crusader states. I would call it a historically accurate campaign.

**Cope** · August 21, 2011, 09:12 PM

First of all,

It wasn't random at all, the story is long and involves all kinds of political maneuverings

I was talking about my own Broken Cresent game, not what really happened. I was making the point that the crusader states, ie, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, wouldn't have just attacked the Byzantines whilst ignoring their muslim neighbours. It is equally weird that the Armenians would attack the Greeks, whilst the Seljuks would ignore them.

Secondly, your argument is mainly speculative. The Latins only sacked the city for the wealth, and it was a move that was opposed by the pope (till the dollar startin rolling into Rome.) The sacking was simply oppertunist thievery.

**Dago Red** · August 21, 2011, 10:13 PM

But the Crusader states actually attacked and fought amongst each other a few times, not just against the ERE, and made alliances with Muslim neighbors many times. And vice versa. It wasn't so Christian v Muslim anymore after the 1st Crusade, but much more about local politics in most cases. As far as your particular game, I see your point... but mine was that no matter what's happening in the campaign the 4th Crusade should occur and gave short reasons why.

Other Crusades rightly do not occur no matter what though, but depend on the conditions in your campaign.