why the crusaders dominate

[nein]

one thing I noticed is that the ayyubids have an inferior recruitment pool, in many regions they cannot train anything, and their main fort at dimyat is distinctly average, slow recruitment of a few unit types, zero access to their true elites... as opposed to the crusaders who can churn out plenty of high tier melee infantry right from the start. The fort in the arabian peninsula can be developed to give you the exact same troops as dimyat, which does not seem right. I would recommend levy units being available in most regions (easy access to cheap garrison fodder is vital to the economy otherwise garrison costs become expensive, also see the khwarezmshahs) especially the core regions in northern egypt. Also give access to tawashi in alexandria and al kahira, at the moment you can only build jund spearmen at best. I would recommend dimyat be upgraded to the next fort tier, many factions start with a fortress which gives easy access to their top tier (after building the required structures)

[wudang_clown]

In short, that is because Egypt was in disorder in 1174, many towns and cities were either destroyed or depopulated by war (before Saladin gained his growingly supreme power, there was much of serious contest between Fatimids, Crusaders, Saladin and his uncle, Nur al-Din). Saladin has just disposed Fatimids and defeated opposition (like Nubians previously serving in Fatimid army - thus that rebel army in the south. Main task of the player is to consolidate Saladin's power and build up his military base, which - as you've noticed - is rather weak at the start.

[nein]

it's weak for most of the game, the crusaders can build many structures right at the start that enable them to mass produce high quality units but the ayyubids cannot.

[Harith]

it's weak for most of the game, the crusaders can build many structures right at the start that enable them to mass produce high quality units but the ayyubids cannot.

u always can play on easy or just cheat to get mamluk units

[wudang_clown]

it's weak for most of the game, the crusaders can build many structures right at the start that enable them to mass produce high quality units but the ayyubids cannot.

Human player has always less resources if it comes to recruitment in comparison to AI. If you play as KoJ you can't really produce troops en masse, because you simply can't afford it. And in that context Ayyubid AI can train better units than Ayyubud human player in the same buildings.

No matter which faction you play (maybe apart of Ghurids and Romans), AI has always access to better units.

Besides, drop the talk about 2.3 and play 2.3.2. It changes things a bit.

[nein]

it's not that they are too hard harith, it's just that they have an inferior recruitment pool, both in quantity and quality compared to the koj. Wudang once the levant is secure the koj is rolling in money, the trick is using infantry-centric armies with only a few lancers as they are expensive. Once the levant is developed I was making 10k a turn with a full stack... 5k with 2. Though I did conquer halab and edessa too. Anyway what I am saying is that the koj has access to alot of buildings that give new units, barracks, templar stations, churches for normans... Between my forts and cities (and this is in an early game (turn 40) I could easily make a stack of quality units in a few turns. The ayyubids cannot do this, nowhere near, it's the main reason they get wiped out in most cases. They cannot keep up with the koj's recruitment ability.

[Dago Red]

Once the levant is developed I was making 10k a turn with a full stack... 5k with 2.

And what good is one measly stack, or even 2 to defend the entire kingdom and all the borders going to do you when that jihad is called. You will barely hang on to your kingdom by a thread as the entire world goes to war against you. And that jihad WILL come.

Though I did conquer halab and edessa too. Anyway what I am saying is that the koj has access to alot of buildings that give new units, barracks, templar stations, churches for normans... Between my forts and cities (and this is in an early game (turn 40) I could easily make a stack of quality units in a few turns.

As well you should! But even one quality stack by turn 40+ isn't much to write home about. The Crusaders were not representative of the same kinds of troops being fielded by the Ayyubid's at this time. While the KoJ should not be fielding large numbers, what they do field should be mostly of high quality -- that's what Crusaders were by and large. Heavily armed warriors come for a single purpose... they aren't there being taken from fields and shoppes and their herds like nearby factions who have lived there for thousands of years.

It makes the faction unique. All factions should strive to be more unique, not more similar to each other. The KoJ is really a confederation of a dozen different "factions" from all across Europe and the Levant. They should have a very diverse roster of powerful units, combined with local troops, and they do. This is a good thing.

Some of these points may be valid now, but that's only because there are vast rebel territories in the area. When other factions are added, the KoJ will barely be hanging on again if nothing else changes and they simply have more enemies. They are also losing several starting provinces in 3.0.

disclosure: I'm playing with RBBR on 2.3 (or was when my install was working) which has much more punishing recruitment times and far fewer overall armies on the map at any one time. Still the general points stand. It doesn't sound like you're steam rolling into Baghdad with 10 stacks in the field.

[wudang_clown]

Are you referring to 2.3 or 2.3.2? Because the latter has somewhat improved Ayyubid behaviour against KoJ AI.

If you mean that you are better organizer than Ayyubid AI, then that's true, and I'm afraid there's nothing that can change that. I believe the only way, apart from improving campaign AI via scripting (which has its obvious limitations), to make Ayyubids, or any AI faction, better against human player, is to introduce some number of sensible handicaps against human player.

[nein]

just speaking from experience after playing both, the koj can recruit much easier. The ayyubids need access to cheap garrison fodder, maybe harasifa and those green spearmen should be made available in northern egypt

[wudang_clown]

Well, yes, but that will change in 2.4, I assure you.

[Slaxx Hatmen]

We really need the Zengids over in Syria. The KoJ is too free to expand without double pressure from Nur ad-Din and Saladin.

[Bernardius]

thats true, but i modified the KoJ EDU so that their troops are a bit more expensive and the replenishment time and the time to build is longer, that helps too!

[wudang_clown]

I think Saladin could only field an army comparable in size to that of the Latins, not bigger, because his dominion wasn't in good shape and it lacked money to finance bigger forces. I've already pointed that out somewhere, that there were c. 18 000 men (most of them, if not all, were cavalrymen) listed in military registers sometime around the battle of Hattin, and obviously Saladin didn't take them all to fight crusaders, because he had to secure much bigger area than that under control of the Latins.

Another myth is that Muslim armies consisted of masses of unarmoured rabble and maybe few better equipped troops. Ayyubid troops were not of lesser quality, because Latin army didn't consisted exclusively of well-trained, best equipped and best motivated knights. This is another myth. Knights were always in minority.

And you are wrong about Harafisha Infantry, Dago, and it's enough to look at the units textures to see that. Harafish formed an urban organization of vagabonds, and as such it would present lowest figthing value. However, that's actually rather inopportune name for an unit which was initially planned as regular unit of Ayyubid army - which is mirrored in its codename and its textures - it's rather doubtful that a vagabond would be able to equip himself in parts of mail. So, "Harafisha Infantry" should be renamed, but as an unit should be still of comparable value to Outremer Swordsmen.

[nein]

>You're missing some of the best battle mode gameplay by fleeing from Jihads. I've heard others complain about it but I think they just don't like siege battles.

on huge settings a city siege = lag, which is the main reason people complain. Especially when there are huge jihad armies, potentially 2 at a time participating via an alliance. The crusader siege of constantinople is a lag fest on huge settings.

>That's not off balance to me at all.

I never said it was, the AI on the other hand gets alot of bonuses

>I agree, but see above. There are probably differences between your game and mine given RBBR. But overall I had the opposite experience.. i don't know if they were restored but "vanilla" 2.3 had key missing KoJ units and with borked swordsmen in BC the KoJ were mincemeat in prolonged conflicts

in vanilla bc cavalry is god, heavy lancers can kill hundreds at a time with one charge, light horse archers can destroy entire armies and be impossible to chase down. Basically an infantry centric force is a bad idea in vanilla if you can avoid it. At best infantry serve the purpose of pinning the enemy so that your cavalry can crush their rear, unless you lure them into bridge battles and have plenty of archers/javelins to exploit the bottleneck. This is a good strategy for makuria, who cant really stand against the ayyubid cavalry.

my favorite edu is the gamegeek one, it nerfs cavalry - charge strength and horse archer arrow supply (they have alot of volleys in vanilla - enough to kill an army if you place them on a hill) whilst buffing infantry morale, another thing I hate about vanilla BC is the ease of which units rout.

[Dago Red]

I don't know, I like cavalry that can have a big impact -- but that must be vulnerable in prolonged melee. It makes for fun gameplay, and gives you something to do that requires serious attention. You shouldn't be able to just leave cavalry in a slugfest, they have to keep moving. But used right, they should be devastating.

Those Khwarezm heavies, the ERE kataphracts, the palace ghulams, and most of the KoJ mounted knightly orders should be horrifying to see on the battlefield. You know what it's like to see a group of Cave Trolls in that enemy army in Third Age? It should be like that -- you weep and prepare for at best, a Pyrrhic victory.

I think Saladin could only field an army comparable in size to that of the Latins, not bigger, because his dominion wasn't in good shape and it lacked money to finance bigger forces....

I think Salahdin's reforms reflect what you're saying, but those took a while to take effect and for those new troops and organizations to come to the fore. Otherwise there were still lots of old Fatamid infrastructures and troops around.

I know knights were in the minority, but lots of Crusaders were similarly armed and armored. So you have all these different groups, Normans, Venetians, Franks, Germans, Genoese, Britons, etc, arriving for one purpose = war. And they were trained and equipped for it.

Sure there were highly trained Ghulams, fearsome Kurds and badass Tawashi, etc. But regional powers martial strength would be much more diluted by a vast mixture of troops, some unreliable due to their militia/peasant classification -- to put in in game terms -- and not as reliable as "professional" soldiers for many reasons. The Crusaders were fanatics, and neither unprofessional nor unreliable for most of those reasons at this time frame (though unreliable at times for other reasons ie infighting between Templars and the King/other Princes, etc, etc). Their main weakness is low numbers, poor planning, and lack of big picture planning -- it's as if Salahdin was playing chess and the Crusaders were playing checkers.

At the outset of the game though, I do not agree that the forces were matched in strength. I'm not saying the Ayyubids were a saracen rabble in pajamas fighting with stones against tall handsome Zeus and Jupiters clad head to toe in steel capable of slicing down 100 men a piece! Just that they were different kinds of fighting forces (though much less so than the difference between the KoJ and the Turks of Rum) and one force was highly militarized and fanatical, and came from overseas with a single minded purpose... and the other force was a normal group of humans with various strengths and focuses who had to come to grips with lots of things before they were capable of matching their enemy. It took some time.

[Wareg]

I don't know, I like cavalry that can have a big impact -- but that must be vulnerable in prolonged melee. It makes for fun gameplay, and gives you something to do that requires serious attention. You shouldn't be able to just leave cavalry in a slugfest, they have to keep moving. But used right, they should be devastating.

Those Khwarezm heavies, the ERE kataphracts, the palace ghulams, and most of the KoJ mounted knightly orders should be horrifying to see on the battlefield. You know what it's like to see a group of Cave Trolls in that enemy army in Third Age? It should be like that -- you weep and prepare for at best, a Pyrrhic victory.



I think Salahdin's reforms reflect what you're saying, but those took a while to take effect and for those new troops and organizations to come to the fore. Otherwise there were still lots of old Fatamid infrastructures and troops around.

I know knights were in the minority, but lots of Crusaders were similarly armed and armored. So you have all these different groups, Normans, Venetians, Franks, Germans, Genoese, Britons, etc, arriving for one purpose = war. And they were trained and equipped for it.

Sure there were highly trained Ghulams, fearsome Kurds and badass Tawashi, etc. But regional powers martial strength would be much more diluted by a vast mixture of troops, some unreliable due to their militia/peasant classification -- to put in in game terms -- and not as reliable as "professional" soldiers for many reasons. The Crusaders were fanatics, and neither unprofessional nor unreliable for most of those reasons at this time frame (though unreliable at times for other reasons ie infighting between Templars and the King/other Princes, etc, etc). Their main weakness is low numbers, poor planning, and lack of big picture planning -- it's as if Salahdin was playing chess and the Crusaders were playing checkers.

At the outset of the game though, I do not agree that the forces were matched in strength. I'm not saying the Ayyubids were a saracen rabble in pajamas fighting with stones against tall handsome Zeus and Jupiters clad head to toe in steel capable of slicing down 100 men a piece! Just that they were different kinds of fighting forces (though much less so than the difference between the KoJ and the Turks of Rum) and one force was highly militarized and fanatical, and came from overseas with a single minded purpose... and the other force was a normal group of humans with various strengths and focuses who had to come to grips with lots of things before they were capable of matching their enemy. It took some time.

I think that main advantage of charge was psichological effect, so I like gamegeek edu with relatively weak frontal charge but with some modifications. If you change weaker units' morale to about 0-1 level and add to shock cavalry ''frighten_foot'' ability even charge with little casualties will cause panic and destruction of enemy's army and I think this was main task of shock cavalry (as It's name indicates).

Horse also gave some adventages in close combat. Cavalrymen was higher than enemy, could inflict a blow with more power. Horse also was active, kicking and biting, also was much more difficult to kill than man cause of It's size. But I agree that heavy infantryman still should defeat cavalryman from simillar rank.

I don't like idea with houndreds of repeated charges. I think shock cavalry should charge once, in decisive moment of battle. But It is only my point of view and battle conception

[nein]

>I don't know, I like cavalry that can have a big impact -- but that must be vulnerable in prolonged melee. It makes for fun gameplay, and gives you something to do that requires serious attention

vanilla battles are too hectic and fast because of godlike heavy cavalry units. Gamegeek lets you sit back and enjoy the fight instead of frantically burst routing entire armies with cavalry charges.

[wudang_clown]

Otherwise there were still lots of old Fatamid infrastructures and troops around.

The troops around you are talking about were in opposition to Saladin, obviously. He had to recruit an army which would be loyal only to him, for this he needed money and human resources, and both were certainly not in abundance.

In 1181 Saladin's army numbered around 8.500 cavalrymen + garrisons in towns (which were of rather limited usability, as they were "native" forces of those towns and were supposed to defend them, not to wander about Syria). So, 8.500 + couple of thousands more (tawashi, ghulams, karaghulams, Turkoman and Bedouin auxiliaries) for campaign of 1187. I think he could field some 15.000 troops in one place at a time, without dangerously weakening other parts of his dominion.

Crusaders, on the other hand, could possibly field around 10.000 troops (knights, serjeants, military orders, Turcopoles and mercenaries).

This is hardly a huge difference.

I know knights were in the minority, but lots of Crusaders were similarly armed and armored. So you have all these different groups, Normans, Venetians, Franks, Germans, Genoese, Britons, etc, arriving for one purpose = war. And they were trained and equipped for it.

It's like saying that any crusader was almost (similarly) as well armed and armoured as a knight, or that knights were not that well armed and armoured. Were all crusaders that rich to buy all the equipment? Or was the equipment rather cheap?

Sure there were highly trained Ghulams, fearsome Kurds and badass Tawashi, etc. But regional powers martial strength would be much more diluted by a vast mixture of troops, some unreliable due to their militia/peasant classification -- to put in in game terms -- and not as reliable as "professional" soldiers for many reasons.

I think that notion of fighting peasants is a huge misunderstanding. They played their role while harrasing foraging parties of an enemy, but I really don't think any reasonable commander would deploy them as a part of his army. That would be idiotic for several reasons.

Firstly, no one would waste equipment to arm untrained men, and sending them with sticks, hoes and whatever against much better equipped enemy would be rather senseless. Secondly, peasants were not supposed to fight, but to work. Although in theory they were free (in the Middle East), in fact they were bound to soil by various exploiting obligations. It would be stupid of a ruler to allow them to die on a battlefield, because of foresight consequences (no harvest + no taxes = no food + no money = disaster). That's why all civilians were seeking refuge behind walls of towns and fortresses, and usually they were granted that refuge.

As for militias - they obviously played their roles during sieges of their towns, but they wouldn't agree on any prolonged and far away campaigns, and therefore can not be really considered as part of full time standing army.

The Crusaders were fanatics, and neither unprofessional nor unreliable for most of those reasons at this time frame (though unreliable at times for other reasons ie infighting between Templars and the King/other Princes, etc, etc). Their main weakness is low numbers, poor planning, and lack of big picture planning -- it's as if Salahdin was playing chess and the Crusaders were playing checkers.

You mean, fanatics like Bohemund III, who negotiated a private treaty with Saladin? Or all those Latins who served in Muslim armies as mercenaries (and later some of them fought against Muslims at Hattin)?

one force was highly militarized and fanatical, and came from overseas with a single minded purpose... and the other force was a normal group of humans with various strengths and focuses who had to come to grips with lots of things before they were capable of matching their enemy. It took some time.

Well, no, because Muslims had their own strong military tradition, their own military elite and their own "fanatics" (called ghazis), and certainly it isn't true that Muslim armies were dominated by kind of levy en masse. Why to send peasants and townsfolk, who generate income and produce various goods, to war, if you have your own military class whichvery purpose is to fight?

[Dago Red]

I think he could field some 15.000 troops in one place at a time, without dangerously weakening other parts of his dominion.
Crusaders, on the other hand, could possibly field around 10.000 troops (knights, serjeants, military orders, Turcopoles and mercenaries).This is hardly a huge difference.

Actually that's 50% more than the Crusaders had at the time if your figures are correct. No it's no image of Godless hordes rushing down the shining Christian knights by the hundreds of thousands... but in reality land where you and I are discussing like sensible people, that is still a significant manpower difference.

This should be reflected in manpower pools and where it doesn't nerf the unit, in the actual number of troops in a KoJ unit.

Firstly, no one would waste equipment to arm untrained men, and sending them with sticks, hoes and whatever against much better equipped enemy would be rather senseless.

It did occur though, and every garrison that Salahdin had or was more loyal to a Muslim ruler than the Christians was one garrison that the Crusaders had to contend with in any given nearby battle -- garrisons sortied out all the time to bolster battles going on nearby. Certainly they were not peasants as such, but a type of local militia was involved. Levies were always raised in campaigns, consisting of less-than-professional troops too. Yes, they were disbanded as soon as possible.

The KoJ was always outnumbered, except during an actual Crusade -- aptly reflected in game.

You mean, fanatics like Bohemund III, who negotiated a private treaty with Saladin?

I was speaking loosely, I meant the religious Orders, which stand out as the fanatics of the century to me, but I did not mean to unfairly generalize them.

Well, no, because Muslims had their own strong military tradition, their own military elite and their own "fanatics" (called ghazis), and certainly it isn't true that Muslim armies were dominated by kind of levy en masse.

Now you are generalizing. I don't understand discussing "Muslims" here so broadly. I'm just addressing the immediate surroundings of the KoJ, namely the Ayyubids. I don't recall there being many Ghazi's in their ranks. In fact the time (in that area) was marked by a considerable lack of religious zeal, according to Muslim scholars that I've read. And that was cause of division among some who preached for jihad against the Crusaders which fell on deaf ears for decades -- another reason broad coalitions were hard to piece together against the Christian invaders.

It is largely believed like you by lots of people who haven't researched much, except the Ayyubid-Crusader histories..................

What is the point of that statement other than to agree with what I said, that it "took time." I have done research. I didn't realize you were watching me all these years through your crystal balls, but you must have mistaken the books I read and the Museums I go to and the archives I access for something else.

[Harith]

I dunno about u guyz, but the crusaders in the campaign no longer dominate. Therefore, I think locking the thread, or even better deleting it, will be more beneficial because:

1. They no longer dominate with 2.4
2. People might be confused with the title and assume it is some sort of religious argument or w.e
3. well... yea there is no need