Desecrate Relgions in Citys

[Zarekk]

When a city is take, you should be able to desecrate certain religions. For example when the Crusaders take the big J, they can desecrate all the Muslims in the city. Of course this would not wipe THEM ALL out, but greatly reduce their influence on the city.

Again this would still hurt labor ect. I just think it should be an option that a conqueror can impose on a city he takes over. Its also very historically accurate. Wouldn’t it be funny to have a Egyptian King desecrate Rome after he takes it over?


Anyways, just an idea

[Reidy]

So like exterminating a city in RTW, except only the percentage of that religion? I like that idea, and it would give scope for dividing the population up into christian, Jewish and Islamic soldier pools.

[Hansa]

Good idea, except for christians to wipe all moslems out when taking a city is entirely plausible. Europeans where often nuts when it came to religion in the medieval period. A more complicated Rome model would work, but it should have about ten options not 3 like in RTW. Killing moslems or jews should have a negative impact on trade and money in general+++, so the system would have to be complicated, lots of options would also make it difficult for a player to decide what to do, but an advisor could help new players in that area.

[Zarekk]

Good idea, except for christians to wipe all moslems out when taking a city is entirely plausible. Europeans where often nuts when it came to religion in the medieval period. A more complicated Rome model would work, but it should have about ten options not 3 like in RTW. Killing moslems or jews should have a negative impact on trade and money in general+++, so the system would have to be complicated, lots of options would also make it difficult for a player to decide what to do, but an advisor could help new players in that area.

I agree. There should be serious downsides when you do decide to desecrate a religion. Look at it this way though, a Crusader army that takes the big J is going to have serious revolts on his hands, not to mention muslims trying to retake the city.

So by eliminating the muslim population, he won't have to worry about the threat from within.

[westy159]

Doesnt M2TW feature a system where factions will have their own "feelings" towards you? Do i need to say any more? Basically you wipe out a citys muslim population then a couple of factions are going to hate you for the rest of their lives...

[MaximiIian]

Sounds like an interesting idea. It would definitely increase the general's Dread rating by a considerable amount.

[Ceasar]

I like the idea, it would add some realism to the game and make it more interesting considering diplomacy.

[ENSAIS]

Sounds like an interesting idea. It would definitely increase the general's Dread rating by a considerable amount.

I definitely agree. This could add quite a bit to vices and virtues as well. Imagine getting increased dread rating, being seen as more catholic/ pious but maybe stirring unrest all in 1 action!

This kind of thing might be moddable once they bring back prisoner killing. Remeber, in MTW you could kill off nobody, just the ringleaders, or everybody... this would take that concept further. very promising idea!

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I thought that when the crusaders took a city they took a "Kill them all and let the almighty sort them out" approach.. What would be interesting is if your armies simply did what they pleased once the city was taken. Perhaps a stronger general with more influence could decide. But in the end you choose what you want and then depending on the general, the army does what it wants.

[The Lord Of Dance]

Good idea. I could definetly see an "Intollerant" trait for a general that desecrates other religions.

Intolerant - +1 Dread, +1 Piety
Very Intolerent - +2 Dread, +2 Piety - Morale for foregin troops of different religions under his command? and disorder among other religions if governor
Dogmatic - +4 Dread, +4 Piety - Even lower morale for foreign troops and more unrest among other religions in his city... but a higher standing with pope if catholic?

Then we could have the opposite
Tolerant - -1 Dread, -1 Piety + Morale for civilans and troops of different religions
Very Tolerant - -2 Dread, - 2 Piety, + 1 Acumen, + Morale for civilans and troops of different religions
Cultured - 2 Dread, - 2 Piety, + 3 Acumen, + 2 Influence (if king) + morale for foreigners.

Thats my lil theory. for traits revolving around the desecration.

[LSJ]

Genocide or forced conversion would be a very realistic addition to the game.
It suits the era nicely. When crusaders captured a town and still had bloodthirst, they would kill Muslims, and spare the Christians.
It would also get rid of religious difference penalties, from within. It should also make factions of the religion you desecrate go against you en masse.

[mark0701]

Genocide or forced conversion would be a very realistic addition to the game.
It suits the era nicely. When crusaders captured a town and still had bloodthirst, they would kill Muslims, and spare the Christians.

Don't agree with that mate. There are as many examples of Crusaders commiting acts against Christian settlements as their are against Muslims.

If you looked different to them and maybe had a bit of cash, then you were fair game whatever your religion.

[Kaidonni]

The extermination option in RTW is also controversial from a standpoint, in that case...especially when you take settlements where you end up exterminating 20,000+...and to have them on crucifixes in the pic, too...

You see what I'm getting at. We all take that for granted. So, the idea that you are given the choice to do even more questionable things in M2:TW while having more major consequences...good idea. We can't sugar-coat history when we've come this far. What we can do is show what may have been done that will disgust us, and how such actions also back-fire seriously.

[Ringeck]

Don't agree with that mate. There are as many examples of Crusaders commiting acts against Christian settlements as their are against Muslims.

There is a lot of silly misunderstandings about massacres of cities in ancient and medieval times. It has less to do with religion, although you can always count on inter-religious warfare to produce some spectacular massacres (which neither muslims, latin christians or orthodox christians seem to have regarded as a bad thing), and more to do with the great (to them) difference between cities taken by storm and cities taken by treaty.

The usual fate of a city taken by treaty (i.e.) surrendering was rather grim, but in the treaty, some "rules" were sketched out. Depending on the desperation level of the city and the besiegers assessment of his chances of winning, this could be the garrison and any citizens that wanted to go with them getting leave to do so, or only the leave of some people, or ransoms, or enslavement, or pretty much anything. Being required to leave behind your immovable loot ("only what you can carry") was a common rule.

A city taken by storm was another matter entirely. It was totally at the mercy of its captors, and neither garrison nor civilians could expect any mercy except what was granted by the captors. Sometimes, the commander of the siege let his troops run wild for a certain amount of time (the osmannic empire had a "traditional" three-day period of going amok, but more often the sack time was set by the commanders before the city was stormed, and now and then the troops simply did as they pleased). Sometimes, even after a storm, some people were set to be spared from the sack, but that usually meant that someone with authority and his troops had to protect them from the sacking troops to avoid "accidents". If the city was conventiently divided according to culture or religion this was of course easier, and sometimes you could escape the worst by being granted sanctuary in buildings that in theory were off limits to the sacking army. Sometimes. This custom was age-old - Polybius describes roman soldiers during the punic wars go completely wild after succesful siege assaults, killing humans and animals indescrimately, and goes on to call it "as was custom".

Even at the best of times, a sack would lead to widespread and uncontrollable killing and looting. It was practiced by members of pretty much all religions - Muhamad Gazanis sack of Somnath in 1024 was not much behind the crusaders' sack of Jerusalem in 1099 in ferocity, and the fall of Edessa in 1144 was followed by a blood orgy that was not more restrained that that suffered by Constantinople in 1204 or the burning and destruction Mehmed II's troops made said city suffer in 1453 until Mehmed stopped the sack 24 hours into the masscre, contrary to his promise to his troops of maintaining ancient 3-day sacking tradition - after all, he intended to make the city his capital. That probably did not come as much of a relief to the great deal of citizens who had gotten killed, raped or had their homes plundered and burnt down in the meantime.
Sacking the cities of someone of a culture similar to your own was often frowned upon in literature, but that didn't stop it from happening several times all over europe, the mediterranean, and the middle east.

One of the reasons the extensive sack of Baghdad in 1258 was reviled so much was because the city actually surrendered to the mongols, but that they broke the agreements they had over the conditional surrender and effected a sack that put anything had had happened in centuries to shame. While it was an effective terror tactic, it probably also reinforced the resolve of defenders elsewhere.

The reasons sacks were so common in ancient and medieval (and later) warfare was probably to a some degree psychological - the besiegers had a tough and nasty job to do, that of storming a fortified place where the defenders had a big advantage over the attackers even if those attackers had managed to collapse walls or roll up siege towers to the walls. In a siege assault, a lot of your comrades die. That makes you angry. If the defenders have refused terms and you then storm the city, seeing cousin Bob and your pals Kurt and Joe getting skewered by defenders on the way in, the pleas of surrendering defenders is probably not going to make much of an impression. In addition, it was a source of potential great wealth for the common soldiers, who could make a killing (excuse the pun) on a lucky loot, as opposed to the more controlled division of booty that usually followed conditional surrender.

[ENSAIS]

Thanks for that very informative post!

Given the woes of the diplomacy machine, I don't see any hope of being able to tie in the more controlled surrender of a city (and therefore penalties elsewhere if you sack it anyway) vs a complete massacre/ religious motivated desecration (esp. for jihad/ crusades based armies).

I already love the TW series for what it DOES do, though. But wouldn't it be great to have those options for immersive effect in the MTW2 period?!

[ENSAIS]

YEah, depopulating its cities with lots of "fanatic" type units...
Wow, if this stuff actually was implemented you could see a whole logical take off and interconnection from the previous STW/MTW options of ransoming/ executing, thru RTW enslave/ exterminate/ occupy, to something like this.

Definitely would be an interesting evolution of the game!

[quadrille]

I get the feeling this, though certainly interesting, might be a bit too controversial for CA to include. A game that gives the option to kill all muslims? All jews?! While historically accurate, it's like making a holocaust game where you play the nazis

[The Thracian]

When a city is take, you should be able to desecrate certain religions. For example when the Crusaders take the big J, they can desecrate all the Muslims in the city. Of course this would not wipe THEM ALL out, but greatly reduce their influence on the city.

Again this would still hurt labor ect. I just think it should be an option that a conqueror can impose on a city he takes over. Its also very historically accurate. Wouldn’t it be funny to have a Egyptian King desecrate Rome after he takes it over?


Anyways, just an idea

I think it's a great idea it could have it's advantages and disadvantages eg. Relations with Muslim Factions Go Down But if your Christian it would increase your standing with the pope slightly.

[Ceasar]

Another advantage with this is if you are playing as a non muslim faction. Whiping out the muslim population decreases the risk of a jihad as the jihad only can start if the majority of the citys inhabbitans are muslims.

[ENSAIS]

Not really sure about that Ceasar... I thought the religious ferver level, not the majority of population level, was the determining factor for a Jihad to recapture a previously muslim province from a different oppressor religion?

Religious-based genocide would surely incite the neighboring muslim population to react with higher zeal/ or possibly to be afraid to react, is you were perceived as very, very powerful with a very high dread rating.

But this whole topic really would add quite a bit of depth and interest to factions and overall game play if just a fraction of the ideas here made it into MTW2!