Actually the first crusade split after Antioch and a small party took Edessa historically.
Printable View
Actually the first crusade split after Antioch and a small party took Edessa historically.
is there still 2nd and third waves of mongols or did we own them too hard?
AFAIK there is a 2nd and third wave that are bigger/meaner I think Ganghis (sp) even shows up.
but what i was wondering is that it says faction destroyed - are they not coming or does the faction come back to life?
The faction destroyed means only the first wave was destroyed. From what I read, each wave you destroyed will have another announcement of a faction destroyed being displayed.
Well, if you manage to get all three waves onto your territory before striking out against them, you'll only get one faction destroyed message. Basically Mongols reemerge after a while as in wave 2.
I think we should allow them to build an empire, would be fun
I really don't think they'll need our permission!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Well, you may recall the draft constitution did not mention Edessa. That was because, cough, I did not know it existed. :embarassed: When a spy revealed it during my Chancellorship, I had a rethink.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
In historical terms, as factionheir said, it was part of the crusader kingdoms.
In gameplay terms, if we take it, we basically remove the Egyptians north of the Jerusalem (they still hold Baghdad, but that's faraway). I thought it sort of tidies things up - Turks in the north; Egyptians in the south.
I would strongly advocate we do not raid and take the remainng Muslim settlements - especially Gaza and the Turkish lands. Let them keep building up infrastructure and spawning armies so we are under continual pressure from a rising Islam. This is purely OOC, so we keep a challenge (same reason I don't want us to keep taking French territories).
Interesting idea. Together with factionheir's two half strength armies and the "leave the Muslims alone" injunction, perhaps we can slowly strangle Outremer? So that next time, the Mongols get entrenched. Perhaps there should be an anti-Outremer faction in the Diet that tries to starve it of resources? We may already have a leader in Jonas. Historically, when did crusading die out? Isn't there some in game date when crusades become impossible or at least crusading mercs become unavailable?Quote:
I think we should allow them to build an empire, would be fun.
I'm just thinking of things to do. As I said before, I think we are at a tipping point. We could either press on and finish the game. Or perhaps we should pull back a little, weaken ourselves and create new challenges. It depends what kind of experience people want. If they would find it frustrating to just hold the line and keep battling off AI hordes, we should press on. Personally, I am quite attracted to turtling - we have very lively OOC thread and seem to be developing the stories and roleplaying quite, so perhaps we can keep the game fun despite not making progress on the campaign map?
I suggest people take up OOC views on this, then find a way to rationalise them in character and we decide it through the usual in-character edicts, Chancellorship elections and charter amendments. I don't think there is much need to argue it all out OOC - when we did that with the crusade to Jersualem, it broke the immersion for some people and we lost something from the experienced.
I'm for an anti-crusading faction
Jonas seems to be a good person to be in it. And I'll gladly make Ansehelm the number two.
However with 3 or 4 it still doesn't have enough power to get the edicts through.
Günther von Kastilien seems a good candidate with his 2 Piety (hell the whole house of Franconia seems up for the job). And there are quite some low piety Swabians.
I think after the second crusade failed, morale was quite low in terms of forming the third one. While the third one did end up being formed and led, it too, too failed and that was pretty much the last time western europe listened to a pope calling a crusade.
Considering we have yet to fail a single crusade....
As for mercenaries, all crusading mercenaries we can hire at this time will cease at 1300. That includes Crusader knights, Crusader sergeants, Great cross.
Religious fanatics and pilgrims will remain in the pool. Flagellants become available for a while until 1370.
1300 is a breaking point for a lot of common mercenaries such as Frankish knights and merc crossbows, which get replaced by modern versions, such as mercenary (german) knights and merc pasive crossbows. Merc (german) knights are actually worse than Frankish knights in terms of morale and stats and speed.
Around 1300, we'll also start seeing the gunpowder age mercs and pikes.
That could be interesting for the young generals left out there. The glory gone and now stuck to defend some barren land fighting to survive and the homeland doesn't see the need to assist a priority. Interesting!?Quote:
I'm just thinking of things to do. As I said before, I think we are at a tipping point. We could either press on and finish the game. Or perhaps we should pull back a little, weaken ourselves and create new challenges. It depends what kind of experience people want. If they would find it frustrating to just hold the line and keep battling off AI hordes, we should press on. Personally, I am quite attracted to turtling - we have very lively OOC thread and seem to be developing the stories and roleplaying quite, so perhaps we can keep the game fun despite not making progress on the campaign map?
It might be interesting to compare Outremer's revenue and costs. I guess potentially, it may be lucrative. But if not, requiring it to be roughly self-sufficient could be one way of constraining things over there. Upgrading fortresses soon gets expensive.
I know we decided against decentralising budgets in the HRE trial under Lucjan, but perhaps something simpler could be done just for this case.
While our capital is in Rome, income in Outremer won't be too high due to distance penalty. Also, Rome is actually quite close to Palermo which has several of the resources normally found only in outremer, leading to our merchants not getting too high of an income from those over there.
Has the distance penalty gone up since 1.0? I remember in my 1st scottish campaign my crusader kingdoms only had a distance penalty of 35% ( I figured it would have been 80% like in RTW). I always figured it was 'scaled' to acommidate the americas, and as such the middle east wasn't as hard to maintian.
Not sure if anything has changed since 1.0, but there was some Citadel research showing that distance penalties in M2TW were half those of RTW so 35% compared to 80% sounds about right.
I caved in and bought a hard copy. I checked d2d's site and they still don't have a patch up. Considering the size and complexity of the patch, I'm not optimistic that it'll be implemented soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Of course if I knew what I was doing I'd have bought a hard copy in the first place.
Here's a simple solution:Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Charter Amendment X.X: The Kingdom of Outremer may not spend more than 10,000 florins per turn total on construction and recruitment of soldiers, ships, agents, and mercenaries. If the Kingdom of Outremer spends 5,000 florins or less on a turn, on the next turn only it may spend 15,000 florins. If the Kingdom of Outremer spends nothing on a turn, on the next turn only it may spend 20,000 florins. Expenditures in excess of this amount may be approved by a simple majority vote of the Diet.
That limits expenditures, allows for 'savings' for expensive projects, and doesn't require any complex math. If it's too much or too little, just change the numbers. (I have no idea how much we're making at the moment, just threw out random easy to use numbers.)
I suppose the thing is that as we progress in the game, buildings become increasingly expensive. Consider building an armoury for instance. That alone costs 9600. Similarly upgrading to citadel/huge city.
I'd probably say it would be a better idea to limit military expenditure there to a certain amount. Like no more than 5k upkeep a turn:
DFK upkeep: 220
GB upkeep (as well as most cav): 250
Forgot which file it was but paying us costs too (i.e. the character)
More positively, with Outremer going into defensive mode, the first wave of Mongols stomped and fears about our over-expanding in Europe, we need to start thinking about some "glorious achievements" or something to aim for next.
Just brain storming:
1) Armed merchant/missionary expedition to Timbucktu.
2) Punitive raid on a faraway Russian city as pay back for Thorn
3) Establishing a holding on the west coast of Europe, to set us up for America (we can wait on this one).
4) Interfering in some wars between our allies and enemies, as we did at Constantinople.
5) Topping that obnoxious Danish Prince who wanted to kill his dad and got his crusade to attack us.
6) Some chevauchée style raids on our long term enemies - try to defeat their armies in the field, but leave their settlements alone.
7) Maybe some cultural goals to make the economy tighter for a bit: e.g. a cathedral in every city? (would require a CA, I guess).
8) A charm offensive to try to turn an enemy into an ally (again, would make the economy tighter).
I'd also encourge players to look at their character's traits and retinue, to figure out some personal goals (e.g. Lothar seems to be collecting scalps or something). Or, if the traits etc are no help, just dream up something.
Again, it may be best for immersion if we don't debate or even announce these things publically OOC, but work for them in character or via PMs.
1) I can make arrangements for that this term still since the BHA will soon be en route to the Milanese
2) Could work. FHA is almost back to full strength.
3) Might be a while
4) I have sent Jobst to help the English against Danes/France
5) I can send up Welf Courcy if you like
6) Hmm interesting. But that would slow down the game a lot, not in terms of progress but in terms of OOC because you'd have too many battles a turn and need to get all players to fight them
7) I've been doing something like that and also law buildings
8) Will be difficult/impossible with our current reputation
Another few ideas could be when we get a less pious emperor + chancellor (maybe Jobst) and he decided to break relations with the pope and end up gifting all of outremer to papal states so they defend themselves. Eventually when the next mongol waves come in and take a papal city, we can declare a crusade on it.
Interesting ideas. . .
I agree, we should set some goals for ourselves, privately, that we should try to accomplish IC. This will increase RP, add some intrigue to the game and ensure that no one has a full picture of what's going on.
If we wanted to achieve more traditional TW goals, paint the map black for instance, we could, but that's what single player games are for.
I'm not saying you should do any, let alone all, of that, factionheir. You're having a pretty lively chancellorship as it is. It is more like ideas for the future. I think it would be good to use the Diet sessions to propose such ideas and agree glory goals. The Diet is rather quiet, so it would be good to channel things through there.
It sounds like our reputation is becoming a constraint on diplomacy. What can we do to raise it? And what should we avoid to stop it falling further?
I have this post from you in the Citadel FAQ:
Is that still your take on things?Quote:
Originally Posted by factionheir
I think Warluster has retained quite a lot of freedom for when he becomes Emperor. The way he has role-played Jobst means I can't predict what he will do. Could be interesting. Especially with that pagan magician in his retinue... :eyebrows:Quote:
Another few ideas could be when we get a less pious emperor + chancellor (maybe Jobst) and he decided to break relations with the pope and end up gifting all of outremer to papal states so they defend themselves. Eventually when the next mongol waves come in and take a papal city, we can declare a crusade on it.
OK, what happen to you updating the house maps? :P
FH, I read that the reputation thing has a lot to do with chivalry, that if you release POW and just occupy cities, your reputation will improve? That might be difficult to implement in RP sake, so our reputation will just keep going down?
econ: Pretty much the same as before, so that post is still correct. As per 1.02 though, having a good reputation is worth it if you want to pursue diplomacy.
You could add though that as per 1.02, being allied also gives a boost to reputation.
Its quite difficult to achieve this as StoneCold says as we tend to sack every settlement we come across and sometimes exterminate. Part of the reason is RP, the other is that we do lack a lot of florins for construction by having so many armies and goals. Also, in vanilla 1.02 and before, the change in reputation is minute when you perform said action so basically your first 40 or so turns decide what reputation you end up on.
In my SP games, I have modded the responsible file to increase the effect of each action, so that there is a point to doing them in the mid term and not only in the very long term and made simply being at war with someone no longer drag down your reputation.
Gee, I didn't realize that people missed my MSpaint projects. I've been a bit too busy as a historian to return to my cartography. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
Seriously, 1228 is beginning to rival 1154 as the most documented year. Which is a good thing.
Edit: Also, the house maps haven't changed much. Lose a few, gain a few. . .
I would like to see less sacking - sacking is like playing on an easier difficulty level; lots of cash and eases public order problems. If it hits reputation too, that's another reason to curtail it. Maybe I'll propose a CA to limit it - it would create some interesting player interactions if dreadful generals insist on sacking. I doubt such a CA would pass though - you lot seem a pretty hardnosed bunch, heads in baskets, an' all.
On the scarce florins, I get the impression you have gone more for the guns rather than the butter in your Chancellorship. Under Henry, I had enough florins to continually build in every settlement worth building in from about the second turn on. I guess the armies for Outremer sucked up a lot of cash in your first half term.
I'm not quite understanding this. Are you saying that lots of minute changes in the first 40 turns add up and so the odd good deed later does not matter? Because presumably lots of good deeds in the next 40 turns could reverse it. Or am I missing something?Quote:
Also, in vanilla 1.02 and before, the change in reputation is minute when you perform said action so basically your first 40 or so turns decide what reputation you end up on.
Might not be able to play my battle in time. Is there anyone else in the stack that can fight for me? I figure we can justify this in-character as Conrad pulling the ol' switcheroo - he's already done it once.
Well yes, your good deeds could reverse it in 40 later, but actually more than 40, because the further time advances, the less major incidents happen and you will already be suffering under the trigger lowering your rep for being at war for 40 turns. (note it reduces rep for every faction you are at war with except slave, so at war with 3 factions, take triple hit)
As for not having florins for buildings, I am actually aiming to build something in every settlement, plus since 10 turns passed, buildings get more expensive and cities develop. For example a turn starts with 30k during your chancellorship, you could build say 8 buildings. I can only build some 3-5 buildings in comparison.
Fredericus could fight it if you don't want to, since his avatar is also sieging. In that case i'll upload 1228-7a