Printable View
I'm assuming that we are to stay under excommunication while on our "unsanctioned" crusade? This would make it more interesting and challenging. . .but what if we put forth all this effort and then the Pope still says Nein?
Also Austria will have difficulties in partcipating because Leopold is the only Austrian avatar at the moment.
It's a great idea, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
And it will also guarantee a dead boring game for those that are left behind, to fight defensive battle after another one.I have to think about this.
Defensive battles are great. I like them a lot more than offensive ones.
I doubt it will be boring Kag. Venice, Milan, France and others will smell the blood in the water and be on the march. We might even have a crusade called against us. :sweatdrop: If it does get too boring, we can always address it in another session, add a few expansion goals.
While we are defensive we could also fall subject to more assassins though, unless we train some more ourselves, but at the same time we won't get any more florins coming in (actually more going out due to assembling a huge fleet, training more troops at full upkeep etc). It will just cripple us...
Maybe Econ21 should just give Rome back to Pope after old warmonger GH is dead.~;) We wont win this game untill we have fullfilled our winning objectives and thats Rome and certain amount of provinces.As long as Rome is not in our possession we wont win the game, no matter how large the Reich is.:smash:
Like heck he will. :laugh4: It's our capital now, and if he does I shall haunt him from the grave. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Note we also need Jerusalem, so if we crusade somewhere else we'll be fine ;)
That's the idea. Well, not cripple - but severely handicap. So far the AI has not thrown much of significance against us. We've seen few full stacks except those we have sought out. A pause to allow the AI to build up would be a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
I think the crusade is a great idea. Trying to hold onto the Holy Land while expanding in Europe was what made my solo English campaigns challenging well after 100 turns. I fear TinCow is right - we are just going to expand too rapidly now. Siphoning off a good chunk of money and generals to the Holy Land may be enough to make the game competitive.
I dont agree.We could take the whole continent without winning the game.If we stay out of Rome. If we would expand enough East we should take the massive brunt of Mongol Invasions in our Eastern border. I dont think Jerusalem is on HRE´s winning conditions. But i understand it would be great journey for those who would go. I think that we could crusade and infact should. But if by leaving Rome alone,we could expand also elsewhere,i think we should leave it be and take it for example as the last city in the campaign.:yes:
We could, but really, how much of a challenge would it be? The House armies will own everything in sight, and we won't have to worry about a Pope since we'll be excommed. I think what the crusade gives us is a challenge, one that leaves the outcome of the game in doubt for a while.
Plus, we'd fight the Mongols and Timurids too. :hide:
We can definitely continue expanding in Europe, but is that actually interesting? If we grow so large that we meet the Mongols with our eastern borders, we'll already be so powerful that they won't be much more than a few interesting battle reports a month from now.
Do you guys really just want a steamroller, expand-in-all-directions-until-victory campaign?
HRE needs 45 regions including Rome and Jerusalem iirc. Could have been Antioch, but doubt it.
While the OOC goal seems semi-OK, its not really valid for explanation IC. Why would the Diet want to stop expanding in Europe while also taking the Holy Lands? I would imagine no one back then would have wanted to stop on expansion in Europe.
Also, it will be ages till Mongols arrive. The crusade takes maybe 3-5 turns by boat and then what?
Crusade would be a good idea. Because then you can start taking over egypt which is always fun. And then you will have the mongols to deal with if not them the Timurids or if u are lucky both!
You forget, we're doing this without the blessing of Popey. That alone will add plenty of turns. Plus, the sheer amount of troops we're taking alone will put our European territories in a much weaker position.Quote:
Also, it will be ages till Mongols arrive. The crusade takes maybe 3-5 turns by boat and then what?
econ21 proposed going by land. I agree with him on this. A land journey would be very lengthy and rather epic in nature.
We don't really need a lot of troops though, AI hardly ever defends their cities well.
I would think 1-1.5 stacks including a vast amount of generals is more than enough to take the city and hold it.
Without crusading movement I'm guessing we need 6 turns max without taking agents and siege equipment with us onto the boats.
TC: And it would also lead to our relations with every single nation along the way dropping to abysmal and going against the edicts calling for the need to establish alliances and treaties. It would also cause a drop in global reputation.
Just checked from the game.HRE winning condition: Hold 45 provinces,including Rome region. About the steamrolling.No i dont want that and if we would listen to pope we could not do that,since he would stop our offensives always. As bigger we would get,sooner the warning for excommunication would come. I think we should just wage war when attacked,or when a crusade is called. But then thats just my opinion.:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
We can march all the way to Jerusalem by only crossing Byzantine, Turk, and Egyptian lands. We would definitely want to fight the Turks and Egyptians anyway, so that's no loss (we don't even have trade agreements with them yet). So that only leaves Byzantium... which gives an interesting choice to the Crusaders... pay bribes to them to keep relations good or save money and risk fighting them. Don't forget that the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople!Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Personally, I love the idea. The way we are currently going, we would win in another 3 terms or so. That's why I tried to send generals into battle "understrength" as it were when I was Chancellor.
I'm only worried about when it will start. I haven't got another avatar yet, and I'd hate to miss something as good as this.
I also suggest that we have a council of the Crusaders. Historically in the First Crusade, that is what happened.
Well if u look at the map you wont really have to worry bout your global rating down because u are crossing Hungary which we are already at war with and then u have your allies the byzantines who u can try to gain military access from and then u have the turks. Honestly who cares what the turks think lol
That's #4 in my Edict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
4: All strategic decisions regarding the Crusade, such as choice of settlements to attack and commanders of the Crusading armies, will be made by the generals who participate in the Crusade. All decisions will be made by majority vote, without regard for earthly influence. We are all equal in the eyes of God on this Holy Mission.
While your E1.1 has merit TC, I wonder whether ICly, electors will vote for E1.3 or E1.1
Difference being expansion in Europe.
I really want to see some IC decisions and deliberations here :D
When did we go to war with Hungry?Quote:
Originally Posted by nazgul3
as for the Crusade, I can't decide, I think it's a huge waste of time and effort, and holding out against europe with a large portion of our forces gone for dozens of years while excommunicated doesn't sound easy. Also I worry what being excommunicated for that many years will do to our cities (iirc don;t they rebel more easly when excommunicated?).
but I doubt I'll get an avatar if we don't... so I am for it.
edit: will this crusade actually get us...uh....re-communicated?
We're not at war with Hungary, but since we've taken Zagreb, we have a direct border with Byzantium and do not need to cross Hungarian lands in order to get to the Middle East by land.
If anyone's curious, I just checked the distance of the march between Zagreb and Jerusalem. A march by the fastest route without siege weapons would take about 14-15 turns, and that doesn't include a single turn for siege, slowdowns due to battle or obstructions, or anything else. The Crusade would be pretty much guaranteed to take 20 turns, possibly 30.
Man a lot has happened and I'm sorry to hear that some of the things I had in mind for the next Election for Chancellor are already now top priority. Especially the Crusade. I fully understand the need to slow down our expansion a little, but a Crusade while being excommunicated? Sorry, I just can't wrap my mind around that. As Leopold has already suggested the best course of action would be to give the Pope either Rome or Florence to be reconciled with him. Then 10 turns from now we can call an official Crusade on Jerusalem.
Why bother with all the hazzle of Crusading and then neither of the partaking generals gets any Crusader traits or ancilliaries? That would just spoil the whole thing for me.
So for me the prospect of a Crusade would come up at the next Diet, and I had hoped to incorporate it into a possible Chancellor speach for Leopold. To have a peaceful Chancellor after the recent centuries of war. Sure we aren't tired of war yet but the populace of the HRE sure is. I believe that discussions about Crusades could have waited a little bit longer.
I have yet to read through all the IC deliberations in the Diet, but that are my OOC thoughts for now. Also, this could not have come at a worse time for me personally. I had hoped to spend a nice vacation at my parents and tend to my gaming urges. Unfortunately personal developments will prevent me from doing this in the next three days. My grandmother is severly sick and will have to be transferred from the hospital to a nursing home. I will accompany my father and help him with all the stuff, so I will be gone from Tuesday afternoon until Thursday evening.
So I won't be here to make the big decisions IC or OOC.
FactionHeir, I have no IC response to your comments about taking settlements, because my reasons are entirely OOC. If we continue to expand in Europe, there's really no point in launching the Crusade. We're already almost halfway to our goal of target provinces. 30 more turns of unrestrained expansion will finish the game.
Why cant we do both?Just give Rome away. If that kind of miracle should happen that i will be Kaiser in this game.You can all count on it that Papacy will get Rome back at that point.:smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
That is the problem though: the purpose of a PBM is to roleplay, not metagame.
While I fully understand that you want a longer game, this can be accomplished in further chancellor terms where peace with several nations can be a priority, but I feel it is wrong OOCly and ICly to restrict characters from taking settlements if they are allowed to fight on foreign soil. Even if it were that your edict meant you must stay inside your own region, it would make more sense, but would not be of any more popularity ICly I think...
It is a dilemma, but do remember that removing that clause from the edict does not mean we aggressively pursue expansion - we simply do not forbid it when the opportunity arises.
Leopold: My condolences for your family. Hope all goes well for you.