View Full Version : Being vulnerable to Crusades
Doug-Thompson
08-28-2006, 21:20
In MTW, I could play a Muslim faction, place three armies and one powerful fleet on the strategy map and be virtually invulnerable to Crusades. That won't be the case in MTW2.
Even a much inferior fleet might be able to slip past me, since my fleet doesn't control a whole sea any more. It just has a zone of control.
Likewise, a Catholic human player will be able to slip past bigger AI navies.
Just a thought.
Even a much inferior fleet might be able to slip past me, since my fleet doesn't control a whole sea any more. It just has a zone of control.
You have similar issues in RTW - for example, in Barbarian invasion if you want to stop a Saxon invasion of Britain. It's quite fun, setting up multiple fleets to try to find and sink a Saxon armada. The AI might sneak one past, it's true, but unfortunately it's none too smart[1]. I don't think it would be a major problem if you are talking about getting a fleet across a large stretch of water such as that from Sicily to the Levant. Stopping movement from Italy to Illyria is much harder, of course.
It's a good point you raise though - I have a feeling CA may have programmed its crusades to go by land though. To be honest, they are more fun that way.
[1]The AI should definitely be tweaked to stack ships to protect a major cargo of troops - it's just sad to sink a full stack on one ship (while we are at it, why doesn't CA impose a one ship: one transported unit restriction? - some players already use it as a houserule, but the AI could learn from them).
It's a good point you raise though - I have a feeling CA may have programmed its crusades to go by land though. To be honest, they are more fun that way.
I'm not sure I'm wild about the idea of Crusades being unable to travel by sea, but I can't deny it would help to balance things out for the AI a bit. If CA does restrict Crusades/Jihads to land routes, however, then I hope that at least they greatly reduce their "defection rates". Otherwise a Crusade from England or even Spain could be whittled down to almost nothing by the time they reach the Holy Land.
[1]The AI should definitely be tweaked to stack ships to protect a major cargo of troops - it's just sad to sink a full stack on one ship (while we are at it, why doesn't CA impose a one ship: one transported unit restriction? - some players already use it as a houserule, but the AI could learn from them).
A number of us have brought up the same point (at various times and places), but CA's response is always essentially the same: We are supposed to pretend the armies are travelling on invisible "transport" ships, and that the vessels we see on the map are just their escorts. ~:rolleyes: :shrug:
A number of us have brought up the same point (at various times and places), but CA's response is always essentially the same: We are supposed to pretend the armies are travelling on invisible "transport" ships, and that the vessels we see on the map are just their escorts. ~:rolleyes: :shrug:
Fine, that's more an aesthetic issue than a gameplay one. The gameplay one, in CAs terms, would be that an armada should not travel with just one escort. CA have done a good job through RTW patches of reducing the problem of small land stacks - the naval stacks issue needs tweaking. It's particularly obvious in a BI context, where the Saxons can be cranking out about 3-4 ships per turn, but the full stack of their elite troops is invariably protected by a single ship.
Fine, that's more an aesthetic issue than a gameplay one. The gameplay one, in CAs terms, would be that an armada should not travel with just one escort. CA have done a good job through RTW patches of reducing the problem of small land stacks - the naval stacks issue needs tweaking.
Agreed. I really wouldn't have had a problem with the concept of "invisible" troop transports had the AI organized its naval escorts better. Perhaps CA should program the AI to not allow armies to sail on open water unless a certain ratio of ships-to-army units was attained (preferably 1/1, but that's just how I'd do it)? Of course, as you pointed out, that would still necessitate getting the AI to better stack its ships in the first place.
Darth Nihilus
08-28-2006, 23:06
Unless I missed somthing, do you guys think it will be easy for the AI to transport its troops across the Sea of Marmara at the straits of Constantinople? I really haven't heard much about that aspect of the AI getting its troops from Europe to Asia Minor.
Unless I missed somthing, do you guys think it will be easy for the AI to transport its troops across the Sea of Marmara at the straits of Constantinople? I really haven't heard much about that aspect of the AI getting its troops from Europe to Asia Minor.
Wasn't there a landbridge there in MTW? I'd expect the same in M2TW. (Can't recall about RTW).
Midnight
08-28-2006, 23:14
In a recent screenshot thread ("MTW2 - Burebista style"), there is a screenshot of garish green arrows denoting land-bridges (apparently, the one from Spain to Africa's back...). Presumably, there'll be these around Constantinople.
Unless I missed somthing, do you guys think it will be easy for the AI to transport its troops across the Sea of Marmara at the straits of Constantinople? I really haven't heard much about that aspect of the AI getting its troops from Europe to Asia Minor.
EDIT: Never mind; econ21 and Midnight beat me to it. ~;p
Darth Nihilus
08-28-2006, 23:39
In the original MTW there was a land bridge connecting the two parts of Constaninople, but however there was also a land bridge also connecting England and Flanders, Naples and Sicily, and Corduba and Grenada. My point is I heavily assumed that they wouldn't have such a bridge in MTW2 because as far as I'm concerned, I'm about 99.9% sure there really wasn't one in real life. I thought the land bridge feature was going to be completly done away with in MTW2 as it was in RTW when there really wasn't one there historically.
My original question was, is that where all of the crusades crossing into Asia Minor are going to be crossing over at, like they did historically?
In the original MTW there was a land bridge connecting the two parts of Constaninople, but however there was also a land bridge also connecting England and Flanders, Naples and Sicily, and Corduba and Grenada. My point is I heavily assumed that they wouldn't have such a bridge in MTW2 because as far as I'm concerned, I'm about 99.9% sure there really wasn't one in real life. I thought the land bridge feature was going to be completly done away with in MTW2 as it was in RTW when there really wasn't one there historically.
You're right, there weren't any land bridges in actuality. ~;) A number of players protested this feature in MTW, and now again with Medieval 2. Like it or not, however, CA has a somewhat valid reason for including them, as they make it somewhat easier for the AI to deal with the map.
My original question was, is that where all of the crusades crossing into Asia Minor are going to be crossing over at, like they did historically?
My guess is yes, that's where most Crusading armies will cross, particularly if they're controlled by the AI. I don't know if you'll actually be *required* to, though.
Darth Nihilus
08-29-2006, 01:29
As Doug Thompson originally posted, it was very easy to stave off crusades in the original. I really never played as a Muslim faction though, but I was, and still am, a huge Byzantine fan. On that accord, I faced crusades endlessly and since I always refused to let them pass through, they tried to crusade against me, but to no avail. I would simply place a large stack of kataphracatoi or Varangians there and they wouldn't get by. Anyways, that was about the only way in the original MTW that crusades would try to get to the Middle East, and thats the way it happened in history. I'm just hoping a crusade isn't easily stopped by one or two enemy ships sitting in the Marmara. The pro to using the bridge is I suppose that it will be a lot easier on the AI.
Sorry, that was kind of one big ramble......
Midnight
08-29-2006, 15:24
I really, really don't like the idea of 'land bridges' now we've got free-moving ships, and I don't like the way they're currently shown on the map, but I'll gladly take it if it helps the AI move around with a bit more vim.
I thought the land bridge feature was going to be completly done away with in MTW2 as it was in RTW when there really wasn't one there historically.
Well in reality the sea of Marmara was crossed without supporting navies, so a land bridge there makes sense although it should greatly hinder an armies movement. Also it's done mostly for the A.I.'s sake. As a human player can quickly decide the best way to get there army there.
An evil thought 1 peasant on that landbridge. Oh too bad guess you'll have to take the long way.
sunsmountain
08-30-2006, 22:25
I really, really don't like the idea of 'land bridges' now we've got free-moving ships, and I don't like the way they're currently shown on the map, but I'll gladly take it if it helps the AI move around with a bit more vim.
Here, here. Give the AI all the help it can get, even if it surrenders a bit of realism. One or two landbridges near Constantinople shouldn't be too bad, right?
Azog 150
08-30-2006, 23:40
I'm not sure I'm wild about the idea of Crusades being unable to travel by sea, but I can't deny it would help to balance things out for the AI a bit. If CA does restrict Crusades/Jihads to land routes, however, then I hope that at least they greatly reduce their "defection rates". Otherwise a Crusade from England or even Spain could be whittled down to almost nothing by the time they reach the Holy Land.
This was often the case in many crusades. Probaly why most of them failed. The childrens crusade didnt even make it to the holy land, there fellet was sunk and they all died or were sold as slaves
Meh, since I became Egypt for 12th Century Glory, I'm more interested in seeing a nice contest between the Arabs.
Would anyone be interested in an Arab world mod?
This was often the case in many crusades. Probaly why most of them failed. The childrens crusade didnt even make it to the holy land, there fellet was sunk and they all died or were sold as slaves
True, but that's sidestepping my point. What I'm getting at is that when Crusades failed, it didn't have that much to do with soldiers defecting before they reached their destination. (The main reasons why they failed are myriad, and I'm not going to sidetrack the thread by discussing them here.)
Now of course people certainly did "defect" from Crusading armies as they made their way across Europe and Asia Minor to the Holy Land. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that I doubt such defections occurred at the rate at which MTW's Crusades lost troops, and that CA should lower Medieval 2's Crusade/Jihad's defection rate if they were to force them to move over land.
Azog 150
08-31-2006, 10:20
I do understand what you are getting at, would be a bummer to travel across land all that way to find you have 100 men and you have to go back home.
This isnt really about being vunerable to the crusades but its about the crusades.... I never played the first mtw much, never owned a copy. In the crusades in that, how did they represent multinational armys going to the holy land? Do you control an english army and the AI control the others or what?
Mithradates
08-31-2006, 12:11
Basicly u got a crusader army that consisted of a few knights and slightly higher level units. You would march them to a province of your choice that is muslim or heretic. The army would gain a small amount of troops every province it marched through however it would also lose some to desertion. The army was under your command however when it arrived it would just be a rag bag of small units and peasants, it was very hard to get them to work well.
Azog 150
08-31-2006, 14:41
Well the screen shots of what i guess are crusades looks very impressive (like just about every other screen shot i have seen of the game) so i hope that is not the case in this one.
Basicly u got a crusader army that consisted of a few knights and slightly higher level units.
But the trick was to add a stack or two of your own troops to the crusade. That way you start with a viable army and your losses from desertion are offset by recruiting men from the lands you pass through. I always viewed adding your own troops to your crusade as the King sanctioning the enterprise and adding some of his own men to it (as the Kings of England, France, Germany etc often did).
AI crusades coming into your own lands were terribly annoying, the way they recruited from your own armies, running them down. It was always a tough decision - let them steal your men or get excommunicated refusing them entry.
AI crusades coming into your own lands were terribly annoying, the way they recruited from your own armies, running them down. It was always a tough decision - let them steal your men or get excommunicated refusing them entry.
Indeed. This was the single biggest problem I had with Crusades in MTW. It's not that I would've minded them passing through my lands on their way to the target province--I'm all for letting them through, as long as they move in a straight line. ~:) It's that they would wander back and forth across your lands for years and sucking up your troops; but of course the human players can't do the same to the AI factions. :furious3:
Still, I overall enjoyed Crusades and Jihads. They were a nice gameplay feature, as well as adding a touch of historical flavor.
Indeed. This was the single biggest problem I had with Crusades in MTW. It's not that I would've minded them passing through my lands on their way to the target province--I'm all for letting them through, as long as they move in a straight line. ~:) It's that they would wander back and forth across your lands for years and sucking up your troops; but of course the human players can't do the same to the AI factions. :furious3: .
The famed vacuum-cleaner crusades. Yes, those were irritating.
Still, I overall enjoyed Crusades and Jihads. They were a nice gameplay feature, as well as adding a touch of historical flavor.
True - they really get the gameplay going. The Jihads should have been less restrictive, though - there is no historical reason jihads should be purely defensive Reconquisita-type wars...
Midnight
09-01-2006, 11:32
I imagine it was to make them notably different from Crusades.
I'm really looking forward to seeing how the AI deals with Crusades this time around, since it's going to have so much more freedom to move them (and if I see one going backwards...).
True - they really get the gameplay going. The Jihads should have been less restrictive, though - there is no historical reason jihads should be purely defensive Reconquisita-type wars...
I imagine it was to make them notably different from Crusades.
Yes, I believe that was CA's reasoning as well. I'm still glad they're modifying Jihads somewhat for Medieval 2, however. Being able to "liberate" provinces with significant Muslim populations is something quite a few players have wanted, and I'm glad to see this feature has been included in the sequel.
I'm really looking forward to seeing how the AI deals with Crusades this time around, since it's going to have so much more freedom to move them (and if I see one going backwards...).
Well CA has stated that Crusades that don't keep moving towards their target province/city will begin to lose men, so I don't think we'll see the "vacuum-cleaner" Crusades (as Ringeck put it) in Medieval 2. Hooray for that! :thumbsup:
Azog 150
09-01-2006, 22:17
What are those giant crosses we see in the screenshots? Do they have a purpose and are they historically accurate or just a unit to look at?
What are those giant crosses we see in the screenshots? Do they have a purpose and are they historically accurate or just a unit to look at?
If you're referring to the crosses in the battle scenes, I believe they bestow a morale bonus on all nearby Catholic units (sort of like the Legionary Eagles in Rome).
highlanddave
09-02-2006, 01:33
i think martok hit it, the cross bestows close by units with morale bonus.
historically i know the crusaders lost the "true cross" that the pictured cross may imply at the battle of hattin in the outreamer in 1187. you can see it in the movie "kingdom of heaven" that came out a couple years ago.
Doug-Thompson
09-02-2006, 03:42
WARNING: History lecture post.
Whether the "True Cross" was a fragment of Jesus' cross is highly doubtful, but the the Crusaders certainly believed it. Saladin wrote about how Crusader prisoners would stop whatever they were doing and kneel down whenever he showed them the captured cross.
The bejeweld crucifix seen in the movie and, presumably, in MTW screenshots reproduces a shell that contained nothing but a fragment of the wood. The rest ot the True Cross was in fragments scattered as holy relics all over Europe.
The cross itself was found by the mother of Constantine during a pilgrimage, after her son ordered the rebuilding of a Christain temple on the supposed site of the crucifixion. She found three crosses. According to legend, each one was touched by a sick person. The third cross cured the sickness was was declared to be Jesus' cross. Years later, the story improved. A dead person was brought back to life.
The fragment in the crusader's cross was hidden in Jerursalem when the Muslims first captured the city. It was "miraculously" found during the first crusade, at what proved to be a very fortunate time for the crusaders.
Much like the Ark of the Covenant for the armies of ancient Israel, the cross in history made crusader armies feel more confident in the attack. Obviously, belief in its powers were over-rated.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.