First AI Crusade Always Against Cairo

[Shatstaffel]

Not sure if the AI Crusade always calls it against Cairo due to it being the most powerful city or if its just a convenient target etc - but would be nice if their was some variety in the 1st crusade - maybe Antioch, Jerusalem, a Turkish held province perhaps (randomly chosen or based on power / size) even Moorish or Constantinople/Byzantine Cities (targets may not be historically accurate but in the game it would add more dynamism and fun)

This crusade against cairo usually hurts Egpyts growth significantly since its always the first city to be taken (which is the point of a crusade) but consistently having it against Cairo only as a first AI crusade makes it sort of stagnant.

If its an AI issue of choosing the most powerful city then making it choose from a random list of Egyptian/Turk/Moor/Byzantine would be better, if its another issue then basing its decision on a list of large/powerful cities or maybe with a dynamic list that targets against an appropriate faction that is leading in the current game would be fun too.

[skullman86]

It's normally Jerusalem about 90% of the time, Antioch about 5%, and other random cities are the other 5% (in my games anyway).

[Shatstaffel]

It's normally Jerusalem about 90% of the time, Antioch about 5%, and other random cities are the other 5% (in my games anyway).

Really? in my campaign games on very hard/very hard its been Cairo about 6times in a row - maybe a fluke or something else? (Using TLR 1.9b5)

In Vanilla of course it seems more random, with Jerusalem. having a high % of being chosen.

[Averroës]

The AI seems to pick the highest value target that isn't rebel-owned for the first crusade. AI jihads don't seem to differentiate between rebel-owned or not. In pre-1.9b5 versions, Jerusalem was usually taken by the Egyptians or the Turks by the time of the first crusade call. But in 1.9b5, Jerusalem is usually still rebel, so Cairo gets it. I'm guessing this will change with the upcoming version, because there will be two Turkish factions instead of oine far away to the east, so Jerusalem might fall earlier in time for the first crusade.

It would be possible for Tornnight to remove Cairo as a crusade target to fix this, but then we'd lose a lot of historical accuracy. Cairo was indeed an important crusade target, later on; although the crusades never succeeded in taking it.

[tornnight]

I think I may give the Caliphate of Syria, Jerusalem at start. Unless that is historically inaccurate. That may fix this issue.

[Averroës]

It's not inaccurate, historically. In the early 11th century, rule of Palestine shifted back and forth between the Fatimids and the Abbasids. Sometime just before our game begins, probably around 1075, the Fatimids had lost control of Palestine to the Seljuks under Malik Shah, which would be correct for us.

By 1095, the Seljuk Sultanate of Syria had lost Palestine again to the Fatimids, who were in control when the crusaders arrived. The Sultanate of Syria was likely in disarray at the time because of the breakup of Tutush I's Syrian Sultanate to his two sons in 1095. These divisions enabled the crusaders' victories and likely also enabled the Fatimid reconquest of Palestine, but the timing is in question. So in 1080, I'd say that Jerusalem in the hands of the Syrian Sultanate is fine. Damascus and Tyre certainly were in Seljuk hands then.