New Faction Leader Question

[ArtistofWarfare]

Decided to make a new thread on this to keep things neat...my other thread doesn't need another bump yet anyway...

Question:

Quick and to the point: I was already excomm'd and on this next turn I took NO further hostile action of any kind (there was no hostile action involving me at all..no battles at land or at sea, no invasions...nothing, simply recruitment). Not to avoid anything, as said in my thread- The excomm really didn't hamper me. Anyway, I'm recruiting, defending and organzing a massive attack...I receive the warning that my Faction Leader has died (this was expected..he was turning 69) and that the Heir has taken over. As said, this is expected. However, I also got a message informing me that the Pope has requested all Catholic factions to Crusade against my lands. This was a surprise because a) I didn't recall any message being issued about this...I thought this was automatically implied when I got excomm'd. I didn't realize an excomm and a call for crusades against your lands were two seperate acts b) My excommunication was still lifted due to the death of my Doge and arrival of my new Heir to the throne.

Why would the Pope call for Crusades against my land, if the excommunication was lifted that same turn?

Perhaps he decided to issue the call the turn prior, and my King dying occurred after the point that the message was going to be delivered regardless? I can't recall exactly which message occurred first in sequence, but they did occur on the same turn.

So...if the excomm is lifted and I have a new Heir should I simply disregard this message? Is it just basically an expired, outdated message? No Crusades against me? heh...

Other quick questions:

1) The obvious- Why did he escalate his sanctions against me? I'm getting very powerful, not going to do a writeup now. 11 provinces, around 10k give or take in profit a turn, the largest navy, virtually unable to be invaded, stable, and we already have a huge land army but are building an even larger one. It's huge. In my campaign questions thread we still hadn't even ascertained for certain why he excomm'd me in the first place (although we're almost sure a bribing of a castle garrison was regarded as a "hostile act" and this was the cause) still- Did he call for the Crusades, an escalation in sanctions, due to the fact that his excomm had no slowing effect on my power and I have only build larger armies on my borders?

2) In the usual case- Does a new Heir and lifting of excomm also lift all prior warnings as well? In other words- Is not only your excomm, but also any warnings given to you to not attack other factions for 10 years "sanctions" lifted as well?

Let me also add to this that although France was also excomm'd along with me the year prior (we're not at war yet) I did not get any message stating anything about the Pope calling for Crusades against French lands. Interesting huh?

It may help to refer to my campaign questions thread (1133 AD) for reference but this is definitely getting interesting...

It's currently, 1143 AD...and I'm almost ready to flip another turn but I want to just get some consultation on this first since I had a minute to write a thread here...

My campaign thread is not 100% up to date, it's a few years behind...but other things have happened. I'm only more powerful and more secure though, building and teching up like crazy as I build several huge armies for defense, and for expansion. Let me add- My campaign thread states I have 12 provinces, I only had 11, it's a mis count. This thread is accurate, and therefore no...there's been no loss of province by me.

Thanks for the help, as always guys...This is an interesting course of events and I don't remember being in any situation where we basically had a Pope that I wasn't concerned about by 1140, was this powerful as a nation, and had the Pope just keep increasingly stepping up pressure against me even when I do not commit the actions that would traditionally justify this via the "laws of the Church" so to speak.

I mean it's basically: Proxy war by the Pope against me spearheaded by a Sicilian/Hungarian attack. We just cripple the coalition offensive and expand due to it but do not break the rules of our warnings. We're excomm'd. We have a non hostile turn (no military action of any kind involving our faction) but continue to dig in and build up for one turn, all as part of a plan to launch our first major attack on 2 fronts (this first "round of war" was a counter attack for us...not a true offensive) in rapid fashion, with nothing to slow us down. Boom- Call for Crusades against us as our King dies and as our excommunication is lifted.

Again, details in my thread and of course this is massively oversimplifying it but that's the basic chronological order of events in summary here pertaining to this.

It's quite interesting and thought provoking ...

I'll save my details of my campaign and plans for another thread but just FYI- I'm almost definitely launching my attack regardless of any of this...For many reasons. I'm ready for it and my enemies are not and I could become a superpower asap due to it, and it's only the early 1140's currently. (We're already possibly bordering "superpower" status between our navy and land holdings as well as economy, infrastructure, military tech). Still, I'd like to just gather as much info about this as I can right now because a) it's the only thing I have any questions about right now...for the first time in several years things are relatively straightforward in my planning and I've organized my plans well in the past few days b) I also thought that the sharing of this might be found interesting by some others. I don't recall either experiencing, or reading/hearing of this scenario or one similar to it.


added w/ edit: Is it possible I misinterpreted the warning I got and it was telling me that the Pope had called for all Catholic factions to ATTACK me? Or is the only possible call that he issues along those lines for a Crusade? - That would answer my question about the excomm and call for Crusades being two separate acts...

Thought of one more thing ....then I'm off (sorry)- IIRC you cannot change your Heir correct? He is set? Of course I know you can kill him or throw him to the wolves in battle (always a laugh) but you cannot physically reassign the title of "Heir" from him to one of his brothers can you?

Thank you- 'Night

[Kaidonni]

Hmmmm...when I lost one of my Venetian Doges to old age in XL recently, I did have a warning against me not to fight the Sicillians, and was about to reach the excommunication date - then my Doge died. I wasn't excommunicated. I continued attacking Sicillian vessels, without excommunication or warning. A number of turns later I was warned once again, but it does seem that losing your leader when you're about to be excommed knocks out the warning, and you get a short new lease of life.

[Norkus]

Getting a new leader indeed "resets" all previous warnings and excommunication. That is at least my experience.

I am quite certain that the Pope asked the Catholic countries to lauch a crusade against you, not attack you. As far as I remember the Pope asks for crusades, not attacks.
Besides, your catholic neighbours will only be able to launch a crusade against you if you are excommunicated, so right now you are home free!

[macsen rufus]

When the Pope calls for a Crusade and for "all true sons of the Curch to chastise you mightily" then the other Catholic factions may or may not respond. Usually a few do. But as per Norkus' post, now you are no longer excommunicated they can no longer launch a crusade at you - and if they had responded instantly (ie "during" the end-year turn period, effectively just before your king died) then those crusades would take one step and instantly disband as your lands are now back safely in Catholic hands (ie yours, now that you've been recommed). I don't think the call is for an attack per se, just you don't have to pay the Pope to launch those Crusades he's 'called for'. Generally when these calls go out I see the AI factions launching actual Crusades rather than standard armies at the Pope's latest "bogeyman of the moment".

Your last question about the heirs, I'm afraid that MTW is very strict about primogeniture - the only way to remove an heir from the succession is to remove him entirely, you do not have an option to shift your favours to another son.... (more's the pity, still, those suicide battles are fun )

1) The obvious- Why did he escalate his sanctions against me?

I think the obvious answer is he's a meddlesome god-botherer who thinks he should be the most powerful (or influential) one around in Catholic Europe. It's not you personally he objects to, just your threat to his power. Ultimately he just deserves a good slapping and putting into his place, with a bit of stern advice about separating spiritual and temporal leadership

[Ravencroft]

Gotta agree with Macsen.

Apparently, the Pope's coding means that he can call for crusades vs factions which are non-Catholic, which probably includes excommed factions(well, that's what I can see from within the game).

[Martok]

Why would the Pope call for Crusades against my land, if the excommunication was lifted that same turn?

Perhaps he decided to issue the call the turn prior, and my King dying occurred after the point that the message was going to be delivered regardless? I can't recall exactly which message occurred first in sequence, but they did occur on the same turn.

That's it exactly. It's happened to me a few times where my ex-commed faction leader died in the same year the Pope called for Crusades against me.

So...if the excomm is lifted and I have a new Heir should I simply disregard this message? Is it just basically an expired, outdated message? No Crusades against me? heh...

Correct. The only way you could have a Crusade against you now is if another faction had launched one that same year. You're safe now that you're back in good Papal standing.

Other quick questions:

1) The obvious- Why did he escalate his sanctions against me? I'm getting very powerful, not going to do a writeup now. 11 provinces, around 10k give or take in profit a turn, the largest navy, virtually unable to be invaded, stable, and we already have a huge land army but are building an even larger one. It's huge. In my campaign questions thread we still hadn't even ascertained for certain why he excomm'd me in the first place (although we're almost sure a bribing of a castle garrison was regarded as a "hostile act" and this was the cause) still- Did he call for the Crusades, an escalation in sanctions, due to the fact that his excomm had no slowing effect on my power and I have only build larger armies on my borders?

It's pretty much automatic for the Pope to call Crusades againsted ex-commed factions, although he usually waits a few years after the excommunication before doing so. As Ravencroft indicated, he's basically coded for this behavior: Ex-com a faction, wait a few years, then call for Crusades against said faction.

2) In the usual case- Does a new Heir and lifting of excomm also lift all prior warnings as well? In other words- Is not only your excomm, but also any warnings given to you to not attack other factions for 10 years "sanctions" lifted as well?

Right. A new faction leader cancels & resets excommunications and all Papal warnings.

Let me also add to this that although France was also excomm'd along with me the year prior (we're not at war yet) I did not get any message stating anything about the Pope calling for Crusades against French lands. Interesting huh?

I won't claim to be certain of this, but I *think* the Pope can only call for Crusades against one ex-commed faction at a time (somewhat similiar to how you can only receive 1 Papal warning per 10-year period). Now that you're a Catholic in good standing again, he'll probably call for Crusades against the French in the next couple years now.

added w/ edit: Is it possible I misinterpreted the warning I got and it was telling me that the Pope had called for all Catholic factions to ATTACK me? Or is the only possible call that he issues along those lines for a Crusade? - That would answer my question about the excomm and call for Crusades being two separate acts...

The Pope specifically calls for Crusades against ex-commed factions. That said, he'll cheerfully look the other way if someone launches a regular, non-Crusade attack against the ex-commed faction as well.

Thought of one more thing ....then I'm off (sorry)- IIRC you cannot change your Heir correct? He is set? Of course I know you can kill him or throw him to the wolves in battle (always a laugh) but you cannot physically reassign the title of "Heir" from him to one of his brothers can you?

macsen rufus is correct -- you're stuck with that heir unless/until you get rid of him.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Wow are you guys great or what?

THANK YOU!!

As always- My thirst for knowledge here has been 100% satisfied.

Tonight's the night though...I'm "in the mood" to play moreso than I have been in several days and I have tons of time to play due to a snowstorm moving into my area. MTW's mother better worry...

All of Europe, Africa and the Middle East as well as the Catholic Church is waiting to see what to make of my new Doge. Will there be a policy change? Will we return to the policy set of 1087-1130 with peace and diplomacy being our main driver?

In reality- Quite the opposite. My new Doge is less influential and powerful than the previous but he has 2 command stars...the previous had none. We have other 2-5 star generals on the map currently. In other words...militarism is taking precedence and we find this time as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that we're not only rich and powerful, but extremely aggressive, cunning and calculated.

A continued buildup of arms, a continued climb of technology, and a continued mass conscription of an Imperial Army is our Doge's first orders to his commanders...

[Heidrek]

If you're embarking on a conquest campaign, you MUST build at least a couple of the Constables Palace/Marshall's Palace/Admiralty type buillings for those titles. turning that 5* general into a 7* one is a HUGE boost - it'll take you forever to earn those extra 2 stars the regular way and will almost ensure he's more capable than the commanders he'll be facing.

Likewise those 2 and 3 star commanders. Commanders of this level are pretty common so it's unlikely they'll have an advantage over their oppoennts, but 5+ command generals are much harder to come by. Keeping one of these 2 command granting titles vacant means you can bestow an instant command boost to any general that might need it at home should you facw a counter attack.

Once you get a general up to 6+ stars, he becomes tough to stop and generally starts getting Virtues like Skilled Attacker/Defender etc, because he's always fighting battles and winning.

I can't overstate the importance of a strong commander. The valor boosts they give mean you will take fewer losses and inflict more from the same tropps, and the morale boosts mean your forces will be less likely to break and run, which in turn makes it more likely your opponents forces will.

Going to war with a 4 or 5 star general as your best commander is risky unless it can't be avoided. You want to outrank an enemy general by 2 command or more whenever possible. This sin't to say that you can't win this way, but it'll be harder, take longer and cost you more in both troops and money.

just my 2 cents - good luck!

[Spongie]

There's a point - I've gone through several kings who never set foot on the battlefield because when they die of old age, you lose the command stats (etc) whereas other generals keep theirs. Do most people tend to do this? I only started using my king to lead armies again when I read about how it affects the quality of heirs - he's jumped from being a 2-star to a 4-star general and is still only in his early 30s.

[Roark]

I totally agree with Heidrek. A couple of superstar commanders tranforms an otherwise mediocre empire into an effective invasion machine.

[wumpus]

Yo, ArtistofWarfare: Allow me to suggest--why don't you save your current campaign under a different filename? Then pursue the alternative plan that you have under this new filename (I don't think this is cheating--it's more like taking a peek at the next page of the book you're currently reading). In the meantime, your old campaign is kept unchanged for future use. See what happens next in your new continuation: do you remain excomm'd still? did one or so of the other factions launch a crusade against you? From my experience, it's not a quick thing to organize and launch a crusade the very next turn after the Pope calls for it--you have to have a chapter house, to have enough troops sufficient to fight in a distant land, extra money to support your crusade, etc., etc. So I don't think anybody would be able to launch a crusade against you in a jiffy (read "the very next turn"), so pursue your new savefile for several turns and find out IF (1) the excomm slapped on your new Doge really did take effect and (2) if so, whether somebody DID launch a crusade against you subsequently.

But your old campaign remains safe for you to continue properly in the future.

(But do you know what I'm thinking? I think the Pope is just secretly wishing to make war on you without openly declaring a war--the sneaky snake! And His Holiness would just want to do some harm on you because you have quite a powerful status already, so he excomms you, have the other factions tear you apart, and because you're near his Papal States, take over some of your wealth later. Quite a speculative scenario, don't you think?)

However, were I facing this situation and I didn't want to start a new savefile, I would just continue building up my troops. If my economy could afford it, I don't see any harm in making additions to an already humongous army in MTW.

Hawooh.

[wumpus]

There's a point - I've gone through several kings who never set foot on the battlefield because when they die of old age, you lose the command stats (etc) whereas other generals keep theirs. Do most people tend to do this? I only started using my king to lead armies again when I read about how it affects the quality of heirs - he's jumped from being a 2-star to a 4-star general and is still only in his early 30s.

Me, I would commit my king to war only if I'm assured that my heir is safely esconced in a castle in my heartland; but usually, it would be my heir that I'll have to lead my conquering army--but only if he has a younger brother who would become the heir if the current heir meets with a misfortune. This way, I would not be improving the blood of the current king's heir but that of the current heir's heir. I'm the conservative type, and I don't mind if I proceed slowly and safely. Hawooh.

[Martok]

There's a point - I've gone through several kings who never set foot on the battlefield because when they die of old age, you lose the command stats (etc) whereas other generals keep theirs. Do most people tend to do this? I only started using my king to lead armies again when I read about how it affects the quality of heirs - he's jumped from being a 2-star to a 4-star general and is still only in his early 30s.

It really depends on the situation. Using one's faction leader in battles early on in the game is indeed often a good idea, especially since there's a good chance he's one of your only decent generals at that point in the game.

Once your empire reaches a certain size, however (I want to say around 30 provinces or so), using your faction leader becomes a risky prospect....specifically, if you use him to command a battle in which you're the attacker. If you use your faction leader to lead an invading army into an enemy province, your empire tends to treat him as "cut off" -- just as if he were on Crusade/Jihad or stuck on island somewhere -- and your entire faction may suddenly erupt into civil war and/or massive rebellions everywhere. This doesn't always happens if/when you use your king in offensive battles, but there's a *very* signficant chance that it will. So be careful if you own a lot of territory!


Note: Using your faction leader to command *defensive* battles isn't a problem at all, regardless of how big your empire is. So if you have a large empire and a faction leader with a high Command rating, you could still park him on a disputed border province that's under threat of invasion. That way your king will have the opportunity to put his command stars to good use, but without endangering his empire.

[drone]

Me, I would commit my king to war only if I'm assured that my heir is safely esconced in a castle in my heartland; but usually, it would be my heir that I'll have to lead my conquering army--but only if he has a younger brother who would become the heir if the current heir meets with a misfortune. This way, I would not be improving the blood of the current king's heir but that of the current heir's heir. I'm the conservative type, and I don't mind if I proceed slowly and safely. Hawooh.

This is usually what I do. I stick the King someplace safe, and get the heir out and about earning his spurs. Leaving the heir to sit idle in a safe province will hurt you when he takes over, the time for combat is before he ascends the throne.

[macsen rufus]

I'm with Drone on that one - the heir apparent should be out in the field gaining experience, otherwise he stands a big risk of earning vices like "inbred" if he's sitting around in a castle doing nothing. It's certainly not worth molly-coddling him, as usually younger brothers have even better stats, so skipping one due to a misfortunate accident is often a blessing in disguise anyway

[Jxrc]

If you use your faction leader to lead an invading army into an enemy province, your empire tends to treat him as "cut off" -- just as if he were on Crusade/Jihad or stuck on island somewhere -- and your entire faction may suddenly erupt into civil war and/or massive rebellions everywhere.

Sorry for the out of topic question but, BTW, does adding your king to a crusade bring any additional benefit if successful ?? Always seemed not worth the risk but perhaps if there is some additional benefit to be gained ...

[Martok]

Sorry for the out of topic question but, BTW, does adding your king to a crusade bring any additional benefit if successful ?? Always seemed not worth the risk but perhaps if there is some additional benefit to be gained ...

He'll probably gain some extra piety, but that's about it.

It's not worth adding your faction leader to a Crusade/Jihad in any case, though -- the risk of civil war and/or mass rebellions is far too high.

[Jxrc]

That's what I thought. Could be done for role-playing purpose though ... Would make the game more challenging as well if you set yourself the rule that your king must always be the leader fo yours crusades ... That being said if I ever set that rule to myself, I am pretty sure that I probably will find very good reason not to launch any crusade ... Shame on me for being such a coward

[Emperor Mithdrates]

Its quite simply a matter of power. Im a catholic myself and im not proud of some of the things my religion did so many years ago but at those times the pope was the leader of a faction. If he thinks his neibouring countries getting too powerful he'll order everyone else (well, the catholics) to attack you.

[Martok]

That's what I thought. Could be done for role-playing purpose though ... Would make the game more challenging as well if you set yourself the rule that your king must always be the leader fo yours crusades ... That being said if I ever set that rule to myself, I am pretty sure that I probably will find very good reason not to launch any crusade ... Shame on me for being such a coward

Heh. I hardly call it cowardly, mate. It's not your fault that the game's mechanics are set up so that it's usually a bad idea to send your faction leader on Crusade. It's a pity, since I like to roleplay my factions a lot -- and sending faction leaders on Crusades certainly qualifies as a solid RP element.


Actually, there are two factions that can sometimes get away with sending their kings on Crusade: the Spanish & Aragonese. Given their starting position, the Almos' territory makes for some excellent early Crusading opportunities....and best of all, it means that the Aragonese/Spanish king won't be away from home for very long.

That said, it's still a risky proposition. I might send my Spanish king on Crusade once or twice into Almohad lands, but no more than that. (And even then, I've sometimes suffered rebellions anyway. )

[Jxrc]

Heh. I hardly call it cowardly, mate. It's not your fault that the game's mechanics are set up so that it's usually a bad idea to send your faction leader on Crusade. It's a pity, since I like to roleplay my factions a lot -- and sending faction leaders on Crusades certainly qualifies as a solid RP element.)

Would not might the risk if the reward was substantial (let's say twice as much prestige and additional piety) Wonder if that could be modified but I fear that kind of mechanism is hard-coded .... As a matter of fact is has never been that a great idea for a king to take part to a crusade historically (Barbarossa got drowned, Saint Louis died, Richard Liohheart made prisonner on the way home ...) So probably the game is somehow accurate in that respect .... Only king I can remember who successfully took part in a crusade is Frederick II who just landed in Jerusalem, made a deal with his good friend the Sultan, crowned himself king of Jerusalme and left .... Not too epic indeed a a bit far away of any kind of total war .... Would be nice though if you could just reach your target province, ask the Egyptians to leave peacefully (cause you are on a mission for god of course) and see them oblige

Actually, there are two factions that can sometimes get away with sending their kings on Crusade: the Spanish & Aragonese. Given their starting position, the Almos' territory makes for some excellent early Crusading opportunities....and best of all, it means that the Aragonese/Spanish king won't be away from home for very long.

That said, it's still a risky proposition. I might send my Spanish king on Crusade once or twice into Almohad lands, but no more than that. (And even then, I've sometimes suffered rebellions anyway. )

Only other possibilities I see would be:

- as the HRE: taking provinces such as Pomerania and or Prussia early in the game (the Poles will probably take the province for one turn just to mess with you) ... Moreover HRE loyalty being what it is you'll probably end up with a civil war almost immediately after your king has joined the crusade so you need to start the crusdade in an province adjacent to your target ... otherwise ...
- as the Italian or Sicilia: taking Crete, Rhodes or Cyprus if you can land therer without having to destroy any enemy fleet first and if no fort has been build there. If there is not fort there, you never destroy the harbour when conquering the province, if there is one you almost always do (so that your king would be cut off for an additional five turns at least - assault the keep + build new port).

A risky (silly ?) move in any case but could probably be done just for the thrill of it ... I am almost tempted to give it a try ... Perhaps I am getting reckless with age ??

[caravel]

Playing as the Spanish you can send your king on crusade to say Cordoba, Granada, Morocco etc, so it is viable. Personally I do send my kings and heirs on a lot of crusades when playing as a catholic. I just make sure that I've got a strong navy in place in order to get them back.

I few times I have sent my king on a crusade to the holy land. Yes loyalty suffers at home but this can be compensated for and it adds an interesting dynamic to the game. [is repeating himself]One of my most memorable campaigns as the English involved my whole kingdom accidentally relocating to asia minor.[/is repeating himself]

[Jxrc]

Yes loyalty suffers at home but this can be compensated for and it adds an interesting dynamic to the game.

Probably hard to do early in the game (too many peasants needed, cannot affor to keep low tax rate for long, ect) but a nice way to make the game more challenging once you've managed to get thing a bit stable.

One of my most memorable campaigns as the English involved my whole kingdom accidentally relocating to asia minor.

Sunnier wheather, no fog, harems left behing by the previous tenant ... Not a bad move IMHO

BTW many thankfs for you tips on CTD in the Apothecary. Would have give my PC the bin without you (so I probaly need to thank you on the behalf of my PC as well) ...

[caravel]

Probably hard to do early in the game (too many peasants needed, cannot affor to keep low tax rate for long, ect) but a nice way to make the game more challenging once you've managed to get thing a bit stable.

Yes you probably need to be in the high era and reasonably stable, with some decent shipping.

Sunnier wheather, no fog, harems left behing by the previous tenant ... Not a bad move IMHO

Easily one of the best and most memorable campaigns I've ever played. I had sent a crusade to one of the eastern provinces (I think it was Antioch, Tripoli or Palestine) and dug in there for several years. A second Crusade resulted in the capture of another. I then made the rash decision to send the King out there by sea with a relief army a few years later. Things got bad back home and war started with the French. Excommunicated by the Pope and many provinces getting overly rebellious. Then the French hit me with eveything they had and slowly but surely I lost all of the homelands. By stark contrast in east my forces had struck out at the weakened Byzantine, established a new capital in Constantinople and had conquered the Turks and Egyptians. I remember fighting off the Mongols in Georgia with Billmen and Longbows. It took a few hundred years for my kingdom to finally re take the homelands from the French IIRC and I seem to remember that after enacting bloody revenge upon them that they reappeared somewhere in Britain.

BTW many thankfs for you tips on CTD in the Apothecary. Would have give my PC the bin without you (so I probaly need to thank you on the behalf of my PC as well) ...

[Jxrc]

Easily one of the best and most memorable campaigns I've ever played. I had sent a crusade to one of the eastern provinces (I think it was Antioch, Tripoli or Palestine) and dug in there for several years. A second Crusade resulted in the capture of another. I then made the rash decision to send the King out there by sea with a relief army a few years later. Things got bad back home and war started with the French. Excommunicated by the Pope and many provinces getting overly rebellious. Then the French hit me with eveything they had and slowly but surely I lost all of the homelands. By stark contrast in east my forces had struck out at the weakened Byzantine, established a new capital in Constantinople and had conquered the Turks and Egyptians. I remember fighting off the Mongols in Georgia with Billmen and Longbows. It took a few hundred years for my kingdom to finally re take the homelands from the French IIRC and I seem to remember that after enacting bloody revenge upon them that they reappeared somewhere in Britain.

Total Exodus can be a fun game too it seems

Only time I did something similar is my first campaign as the Polish (must have been something like my tenth campaign - you know when you think you know it all while you actually do not know that much). Everything that could go wrong did go wrong and I made quite a few obivous blunders as you will see. In a nutschell, the Byz beat me to Moldavia (I did not know then that it was so important to grab that poor province) and started their usual roaming through the Steppes. Basically got stuck between the French (who had destroyed the HRE as usual), the Hungarians and the Byz. Tought I just had to lay low for a while and wait for one faction to spontaneoulsy disintegrate (was still young and boundless faith in the future ) but at the beginning of the high period nothing significant had happened and I was still stuck with IRCC Silesia, Poland, Vo*something (can never remember that name ), Lithuania, Livonia, Sweden and Norway when the GH showed up with a huge army in Khazar, Volga-Bulgaria and Georgia.... Something like 20 stack all in all I guess (but that was the vanilla version so they had loads of ballisas and trebuchets)... since it was indeed my lucky campaign the Khan was deadly set to killing Poles and only Poles .... GH took Kiev and then it was time for an all out assault against me ... Don't know if I could have repelled the GH (probably it was quite doable for anyone with enough experience but I am confident that I would have blown it then since I did not undertsand the mechanics of the game) but decided just to leave the continent for a while and let the Byz and French deal with that S*. Retreated to Sweden without triggering any civil war despite loss of influence and made a "surprise" come-back some 20 years later. GH later on got into a civil war of their own and disappeared. All was well for a few years until the Horde reappeared in the middle of Poland (did not know yet the 120% rule) ... Was already hard pressed by the Byz so that was pretty much the end for me ... Last king of Poland died in battle a bit after 1300 ... Disappointing end but really a fun campaign.

[putts]

Just thought I'd lob my 2 cents at this topic....

I'm currently in a campaign as Poland and HRE was constantly at war with at least 3 different nations. Thus, they are constantly on Ex-com status.

At one point in time the "..HRE has died..." message and then immediately saw the "Pope requests crusades against HRE" next (just like you mentioned) and had to chuckle a bit at the poor HREs.

However, out of curiosity I checked my allies panel to see if Germany was still ex-commed which they weren't.

Now, I'm not super intelligent about MTW but I am a computer programmer so this was my reasoning on it:

While the "off-turn" is calculating, it generates all the events that are going to happen in between your turns. My guess is that these are done in some order and that having the Pope send Crusades at someone is one of the earlier calculations and having a King die is one of the later calculations (probably an oversight on development's part). So.....even though HRE was no longer ex-commed, the calculation to see if the Pope wants crusades ran first and so both messages ended up in the queue.
Now, the messages probably have an order of their own and the Crusades is almost always the last one so that's why, when you see it, it looks like the faction gets ex-commed by their King dying and then gets Crusades sent after them.

So....basically....Crusades won't happen because that Faction is definitely not ex-commed but the developers didn't do their calculations/messages in the proper order so there are confusing messages.

[Jxrc]

Just thought I'd lob my 2 cents at this topic....

I'm currently in a campaign as Poland and HRE was constantly at war with at least 3 different nations. Thus, they are constantly on Ex-com status.

At one point in time the "..HRE has died..." message and then immediately saw the "Pope requests crusades against HRE" next (just like you mentioned) and had to chuckle a bit at the poor HREs.

However, out of curiosity I checked my allies panel to see if Germany was still ex-commed which they weren't.

Now, I'm not super intelligent about MTW but I am a computer programmer so this was my reasoning on it:

While the "off-turn" is calculating, it generates all the events that are going to happen in between your turns. My guess is that these are done in some order and that having the Pope send Crusades at someone is one of the earlier calculations and having a King die is one of the later calculations (probably an oversight on development's part). So.....even though HRE was no longer ex-commed, the calculation to see if the Pope wants crusades ran first and so both messages ended up in the queue.
Now, the messages probably have an order of their own and the Crusades is almost always the last one so that's why, when you see it, it looks like the faction gets ex-commed by their King dying and then gets Crusades sent after them.

So....basically....Crusades won't happen because that Faction is definitely not ex-commed but the developers didn't do their calculations/messages in the proper order so there are confusing messages.

Totally unable to comment whether it's correct but it makes a lot of sense.

Only thing I would add is that, IRRC, it happened to me few times to be at the receiving end of a crusade even though my ex-com leader had died in the meantime. Perhpas totally unrelated since there some other apparent glitches that favour IA factions when it comes to disbanding crusades.

[putts]

Totally unable to comment whether it's correct but it makes a lot of sense.

Only thing I would add is that, IRRC, it happened to me few times to be at the receiving end of a crusade even though my ex-com leader had died in the meantime. Perhpas totally unrelated since there some other apparent glitches that favour IA factions when it comes to disbanding crusades.

It's also possible that it happening to an actual human player is a different ordering scenario than when it happens to an AI faction.

Also, when it happened to Otto in my game, I didn't have a Crusade that I could test the theory on.

I still think it's an ordering glitch that slipped past the programmers but I'm unsure of what potential wormholes it creates.

[Martok]

I'm pretty sure putts has the right of it. Papal (Crusade against ex-commed faction) calculations seem to take place before the (ex-commed faction leader dies) event.

Totally unable to comment whether it's correct but it makes a lot of sense.

Only thing I would add is that, IRRC, it happened to me few times to be at the receiving end of a crusade even though my ex-com leader had died in the meantime. Perhpas totally unrelated since there some other apparent glitches that favour IA factions when it comes to disbanding crusades.

Yeah, it's a different situation in those cases. If a Crusade is launched against you while you're ex-commed, it will continue even if your current leader dies and your faction regains good standing with the Pope.

On the flip side, however, if you launch a Crusade against an ex-commed faction who then regains good Papal standing, your Crusade is automatically disbanded (and you suffer the standard influence hit as a result). The AI does get a sort of "cheat" in this regard.

[Heidrek]

do Jihads also give you an influence boost if suucessful?

aAlso, do they have unit "magnetism" like a Crusade does where they suck up troops from the province they are in?