Can't target Constantinople for a crusade for some reason.

[dan_457]

So basically, I'm playing as Genoa and have been playing a bit differently. Rather than just conquering Europe (other than Italy anyway), I've been pioneering numerous crusades. Recently the Romans have creeped up and now border me, so I want to curb their power. For whatever reason though, Constantinople is not on the Crusade list. Also, for some reason, it's not their capital, so maybe that has something to do with it? They never lost it to a crusade/jihad previously, nor is it not currently a target of a Jihad, as one was just recently completed against the mongols.

A completely unrelated question, but I had a Vassal army blocking Income from me by being on my roads, but when other neutral, or allied party's move through it doesn't really affect anything. What's up with that?

[Henry X]

I don't think you can call crusades on the Byzantines because they are a Christian power.

[dan_457]

That would make sense, and I never really considered that. I figured that because they were Orthodox, they were fair game. Still that's kind of unfair, why can everyone be crusaded against (even if they need to be excommunicated first), but the Orthodox get a pass? Especially in the case of the Romans, they are so over powered right of the bat, it's not even funny.

[MortalCoil]

Kind of a random thought but can you have a crusade AND a jihad on the same settlement?

[bɑne]

Kind of a random thought but can you have a crusade AND a jihad on the same settlement?

The settlement would have to be owned by rebels . Can't see it happening otherwise. If you want to test, make a hotseat with console enabled and play a christian and a islamic faction to delcare both. Without the hand of the player the chances are slim to none.

[Vespasian92]

Yet neither do Orthodox factions get the benefits of a crusade/jihad, so it evens itself out. They are still legitimate targets for Muslim jihads anyway.

[dan_457]

I guess it is balanced in a way then.

Random question about the Romans, why are they so strong in the game? I don't have much knowledge about them at this point, but weren't they seriously declining by this point in history? Yet, in SS they are absurdly powerful, they consistently become twice as strong as even the the strongest Muslim factions in my campaigns(early campaign anyway).

[jman47]

I guess it is balanced in a way then.

Random question about the Romans, why are they so strong in the game? I don't have much knowledge about them at this point, but weren't they seriously declining by this point in history? Yet, in SS they are absurdly powerful, they consistently become twice as strong as even the the strongest Muslim factions in my campaigns(early campaign anyway).

Actually in the early game they are supposed to be strong. Historically Byzantium had recently Suffered a defeat at manzikert only a few years earlier of the start date, however had they managed to regain anatolia somehow things could have been different (I believe there is already a thread on this speculation )

Regardless the real death knell of Byzantium was the 4th crusade, concluded in 1204, 120 years before the start date, roughly closer to the mid-game, which is gameplay wise when other powers start to get troops that can match their armies.

[dan_457]

Actually in the early game they are supposed to be strong. Historically Byzantium had recently Suffered a defeat at manzikert only a few years earlier of the start date, however had they managed to regain anatolia somehow things could have been different (I believe there is already a thread on this speculation )

Regardless the real death knell of Byzantium was the 4th crusade, concluded in 1204, 120 years before the start date, roughly closer to the mid-game, which is gameplay wise when other powers start to get troops that can match their armies.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the 4th Crusade. Still though, I still can't but help but feel that they are a little too strong regardless. They lack a certain balance in the early campaign, and can often snowball out of control, kind of like the inverse of the HRE.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

I don't have much knowledge about them at this point, but weren't they seriously declining by this point in history? Yet, in SS they are absurdly powerful, they consistently become twice as strong as even the the strongest Muslim factions in my campaigns(early campaign anyway).

I kind of answered this in another thread. The ERE was actually at this point in a fairly good condition, much wealthier than most western kingdoms. They could afford to spend tax money on a large Venetian fleet for example, or to obtain the food needed for the large armies of Crusaders crossing the empire. Militarily, they had a professional army, meaning they actually did march to battle in rank and file (which is unhistorical for other armies at this period), they were drilled to fight so. Other European kingdoms did not have professional armies for centuries to come. The ERE are in fact militarily under-powered in the game.

They declined for other reasons, too many to list, mainly of economic nature. There was also fierce competition for the throne (it was not hereditary, nor were emperors elected). Also foreign policy was governed by a certain Christian ethic - e.g. it was preferable to rescue remaining Christian communities following invasions and resettle them within the empire than reconquer lost lands that had been invariably ransacked, because the looted territories would have to be rebuilt (and it was not seen as fitting to a Christian emperor to sell conquered people to slavery or steal their properties). Most other peoples had mostly the opposite motive, to conquer so as to loot and the ERE had been a prime target since late antiquity. Eventually, the high cost of the empire's infrastructure, while emperors faced continual external threats and internal challenges, took its toll. Under such finely balanced conditions, one unlucky surprise (diversion of the 4th Crusade in a time of political instability) and you're out. John Julius Norwich has written a good accessible history of the Byzantine empire - most relevant: Byzantium; v. 3: The Decline and Fall.

[tudor93]

oh, the discussion about how OP the Byzantine Empire is... a classic !

[dan_457]

oh, the discussion about how OP the Byzantine Empire is... a classic !

Well, I'm obviously new around here, so I wouldn't know the forums current predisposition when it comes to the Byzantines. Regardless, it feels like a bias went into the creation of the faction. They have excellent, cheap, highly spammable spears, heavy infantry, overall excellent roster, and the best Calvary in the game aside from lancers. A single Scholarii/Athanatoi can change an entire battle, even when just carelessly thrown into a mosh. Combine that with their economy early campaign, and it just gets out of hand.

My current scenario doesn't help my opinion either. When the Mongols came, they didn't even scratch the Romans, in fact they formed an Alliance just long enough for them to come out unscathed. The Mongols wiped out the Khwarezmians, but now with the horde all but exhausted, it leaves a massive amount of territory for them to just swoop up unopposed. This meant during their truce, almost the entire spearhead of the Roman army came straight at me, up Croatia and towards Venice, and I'm the only Catholic faction the border. It's exactly like the mongol horde, expect they can maintain it. I fought them head to head for about 15-20 turns, and was actually winning fairly decisively, capturing Ragusa and Croatia, but I can't maintain it. It burned up 3/4 of my treasury, about 150,000 florins.

Currently I'm ranked second in terms of military power, and they are at least twice, if not more powerful than I am. I can't really see a way of winning against them, admittedly though, I am far from a great player. If I play aggressively, I go bankrupt, If I play defensively they conquer the middle east unopposed, and would most likely adsorb Egypt as well, rendering them completely unstoppable. This is where being able to crusade would be a life saver, all of the other Catholic nations with their thumbs up their bums, could actually chip in and slow them down, but as of now, it's not possible. They are snowballing so hard right now, a Timurid invasion starting a Constantinople wouldn't even get off the ground.

[Mausolos of Caria]

Well, I'm obviously new around here, so I wouldn't know the forums current predisposition when it comes to the Byzantines. Regardless, it feels like a bias went into the creation of the faction. They have excellent, cheap, highly spammable spears, heavy infantry, overall excellent roster, and the best Calvary in the game aside from lancers. A single Scholarii/Athanatoi can change an entire battle, even when just carelessly thrown into a mosh. Combine that with their economy early campaign, and it just gets out of hand.

I think the problem is that the Byzantine Empire under the Kommenoi could still field one of the best armies around and the victories of Alexios or Ioannes Kommenos prove that they were able to defeat both ''Franks'' and ''Saracens'' if lead by a proper general.
The fourth crusade and a string of non- talented Emperors like the Angeloi (ruled at the end of the 12th century) or other internal reasons for the Byzantine decline can't be depicted well enough in the game. I think in SS 7.0 they should deal with that problem by making the early Turkish unit roster better (and they WERE extremely dangerous warriors compared to the rest) and maybe making Venetian or Genoese navies more aggressive towards the ERE- at least that would be a solution as close to history as possible, without having to change too much.

[dan_457]

I think the problem is that the Byzantine Empire under the Kommenoi could still field one of the best armies around and the victories of Alexios or Ioannes Kommenos prove that they were able to defeat both ''Franks'' and ''Saracens'' if lead by a proper general.
The fourth crusade and a string of non- talented Emperors like the Angeloi (ruled at the end of the 12th century) or other internal reasons for the Byzantine decline can't be depicted well enough in the game. I think in SS 7.0 they should deal with that problem by making the early Turkish unit roster better (and they WERE extremely dangerous warriors compared to the rest) and maybe making Venetian or Genoese navies more aggressive towards the ERE- at least that would be a solution as close to history as possible, without having to change too much.

Historical accuracy is obviously very important, but when it creates such a large imbalance, it should be corrected. It's like clockwork at this point, I've been playing a lot of SS lately, and in each campaign it's been the same story. By about 50-60 turns in, the Byzantines have easily 2 and Half times the military and economic strength to the next closest faction. You can't really stop that. None of the Islamic factions can beat them, only Jihad them to slow them down, the Mongols barely reach them, and they can just pick off Catholic factions one by one.

Regardless of how powerful they may or may not have been at the time, this is still a game, and you can't ignore balance for accuracy, and vice versa, which is clearly the case with the Romans here.

[Mausolos of Caria]

Historical accuracy is obviously very important, but when it creates such a large imbalance, it should be corrected. It's like clockwork at this point, I've been playing a lot of SS lately, and in each campaign it's been the same story. By about 50-60 turns in, the Byzantines have easily 2 and Half times the military and economic strength to the next closest faction. You can't really stop that. None of the Islamic factions can beat them, only Jihad them to slow them down, the Mongols barely reach them, and they can just pick off Catholic factions one by one.

Regardless of how powerful they may or may not have been at the time, this is still a game, and you can't ignore balance for accuracy, and vice versa, which is clearly the case with the Romans here.

Yeah, I'm not denying that fact at all, game play and historical accuracy always have to be combined for the biggest possible fun. As I said before the most realistic option to stop this is to make the Turks (and Venice) stronger, and I heard they are indeed working on the former, so that problem might be solved in 7.0

[Strengelicher]

In vanilla I think it was possible to call for a crusade against Orthodox factions, especially Constantinople, if owned by the Byzantines. In SS 6.4, you cannot call a crusade against an Orthodox faction, only against Muslims and Pagans.

Concerning your other question - your vassal's army should by right not interfere with land trade in your province. Have you checked that there actually is a negative effect? Maybe you could post some screenshots of the phenomenon.

And lastly: The Byzantines were historically extremely dangerous from 1100 onward and had virtually indestructible generals and bodyguards. However, historical sources indicate that their expansion was eventually halted and reversed by the Genoese (of all people) under the leadership of some Doge called "Dan", whose exact identity we do not know very much about.

[Delvecchio1975]

In vanilla I think it was possible to call for a crusade against Orthodox factions, especially Constantinople, if owned by the Byzantines.

Uh-uh, not possible in vanilla either!

[PapaRosario]

^What about an excommunicated Catholic faction? Or can you not call a Jihad if they're excommunicated?

[MortalCoil]

^What about an excommunicated Catholic faction? Or can you not call a Jihad if they're excommunicated?

: / your guess is as good as mine (if not better)

[Lord Blackfyre]

I modded my eastern Romans to be catholic, considering how involved they were with the crusades UT seemed wrong that they couldn't take part. And got a crusade and jihad called on me at the same time