Jihads

I really wish CA would confirm that Jihads will be in Medieval 2. I realize they probably will be, but it would be nice to know for sure. Crusades and Jihads are both great fun, and I don't want the Muslim factions deprived of something that adds so much enjoyment to the game. (And you can bet I'll be playing as the Egyptians and Timurids quite a bit!)

Assuming that they will be in Medieval 2, I do have one other small request: Please program them so that they can be used offensively like the Crusades! To me, the single biggest flaw with them from the original MTW was that you could only use Jihads to take back provinces that you'd *lost*. I realize CA probably programmed them this way to avoid depicting Muslims in a negative light--and kudos to them for wanting to do so--but this quite simply is historically inaccurate.

Jihad--at least in the context of "Holy War" (which itself is an oversimplification of the word)--referred to both defending the lands of Islam and conquering new territory and/or attacking an enemy. (Probably the best-known example of Jihad in the context of an offensive military campaign is the Ottamans' conquest of Constantinople.) I wouldn't mind if we were limited to just one Jihad at a time, so long as we could use them to attack provinces just like Crusades can.

That would indeed be more historical.

Sadly, I think it's a lost cause.

What I notice in MTW 1 is that AI's seem to launch holy mission to the richest province of a faction. I'd love to see them launch crusades/ jihad to nearest provinces first. It makes sense that way. It's just kinda weird that Catholics often launch one to Algeria or Morocco instead of Valencia or Cordoba.

I wouldn't mind having Jihads being 'active.' If AI's launch jihad to nearest provinces first then there should be no problem...because somehow the Aragonese and Castilians 'endanger' the growth of Islam in Iberia.

Originally Posted by SirGrotius

Sadly, I think it's a lost cause.

I'm not sure what motivated you to say that, but in any case I hope you're wrong (no offense!). I posted this over at .COM too, so hopefully someone from CA will see it.

[Martok mentally crosses fingers]

Well, in Islam it's not really like what you're saying.

Jihad to conquer enemies' terroteries is a called 'Fard Kefayeh'. That means if a group of people did it, they will cover up for all others. While Jihad to regain a lost Islamic land is called 'Fard A'ayn'. That means that every muslims, child, woman, man or an old man is entitles to go fight to regain that land. Which is the thing that practically shows the strength of Islam, if followed.

Offensive Jihads would be nice, though they'd need some other restrictions to keep them balanced with the crusades, which had a lot of limitations (one at a time, only non-Catholic or excommunicated targets, Papal permission, etc.). Of course it sounds like they're introducing a whole new crusade system, so who knows how it'll all work in this one.

Anyway, they'd better incorporate jihads in some way at least. I'd also like to see something (though I can't think what) similar to the crusade/jihad system for Orthodox or Pagan factions, just to spice them up. I wish I had the creativity to make a more specific suggestion, but I'm at a loss there. There just seems like there's a hole or niche there that could stand to be filled.

Ajax

Byzantium doesn't need anything like the Crusades. Byzantine ideology which is strongly linked to theology implies that every war/battle is considered a holy war/battle anyway because it is done to protect the state be it defensive or offensive. The 10th-11th century expansionist wars of Byzantium were really essentially defensive in that former lands were recovered as a reclamation of former Christian territory.

On the other hand, it is still possible to set up a function equivalent of a Crusade for Byzantium based on Heraclius' example in the early 7th century. An overt official state and church "HOLY WAR" could be proclaimed opposed to the covert intrinsic and normative assumption that all wars/battles were holy.

In this HOLY WAR, functions of a Crusade could apply to Orthodox inclined neighbours and regions. Historically, it was the Caucasian Christians who responded like the Georgians and Armenians of Iberia, Abhazia, etc, etc did to Heraclius' call for HOLY WAR.

My two cents.

I did not play MTW(1??!). But just wondering with how crusades worked in that game, couldn't you just send an army down there to the holy land and attack Muslim forces, then it'd just be a crusade? What made a crusade be a crusade? I mean what was stopping a catholic religion attacking the holy land when there wasn't 'a crusade' on.

I know I dont make much sense in that paragraph, I hope you understand what I'm on about :(

I did not play MTW(1??!). But just wondering with how crusades worked in that game, couldn't you just send an army down there to the holy land and attack Muslim forces, then it'd just be a crusade? What made a crusade be a crusade? I mean what was stopping a catholic religion attacking the holy land when there wasn't 'a crusade' on.

I know I dont make much sense in that paragraph, I hope you understand what I'm on about :(

You built an agent stand that basically looked like a giant cross. You could have dozens of these but you could only have one active crusade at a time. You started a crusade by picking it up and plonking it down on a particular non-catholic/excommunicated province - that became the objective. The Cross then turned into a Crusade stand, much like a Horde from BI. You then very slowly crossed Europe one province a turn* sucking up troops from local armies so you end up with units of 7 knights, 13 archers and so on. You could also add units to the Crusade if you wanted, or send normal stands to accompany them. The Crusade ended one of two ways - either it was destroyed or ran out of steam, or it took the province.

There was nothing stopping normal attacks but Crusades were risky in that if they were defeated, your kings influence/loyalty took a hammering. They were very slow as well, and with despite the likes of Frances GA conditions which had some ludicrous time limit on a successful Crusade they just werent worth the bother.

Jihads worked the same way but the objective could only be a province that had at any time been Muslim but was now held by anyone else.

As for Jihads representation, I think they were reflected perfectly well in MTW as being primarily defensive (in a militant interpretation anyway, Jihad can mean a lot of things). Jihad in the form of advancing the muslim world militaristically was seen as admirable and/or just, but not required when the war was offensive. If Muslim lands were attacked, then Jihad became the obligation of all non-disabled Muslims to reclaim those lands. Offensive wars might have been a good work, but defensive was a religious duty. Of course, Muslim armies fighting the Byzantines might have seen themselves fighting a holy war, and the Byz vice versa - but that can be reflected by giving them high morale.

*If you had a naval link built up you could get there very fast (a continuous chain of ships on the map from one port to another was a one turn trip so technically you could move far, far faster using navies in MTW than RTW), but that was an end game thing and if you can do that youve probably conquered the Holy Land already.

Your influence went up for a successful Crusade. Other advantages include:

a) no maintenance cost for anything you got or put into the Crusade till it was over.

b) it could march through territory. If you couldn't reach a province by water or land (b/c you'd have to invade your neighbor first), you could reach it by Crusade.

c) Great crusader units that could only be generated by a crusade and if you let it sit a few turns in a high zeal province, you get lots of free units. Plus if the province is not yours it may suck up the local troops too, including maybe some you could never build.

Your ruler would also get a piety boost for a successful crusade on top of the added influence. They were great for making mediocre kings into respectable rulers.

Ajax

I never liked Crusades or Jihads, though mainly because I played as Muslim or Orthodox factions (though I experminted with the English for a while). It seemed easier to focus on what's around you rather than going of Crusading in the Middle East (I suppose if your Spain it's different, but as England there wasn't much point to a Crusade since you could never utilize those troops for a long time). That and I was always excommunicated...

Definitely want to see holy wars of all sorts. Wars of religion are so much more interesting than just fighting over land or resources...

Not only could Crusades and Jihads suck up troops (a very nice way of weakening your neighbour for an attack) but it could also at times suck up generals or even princes.
I was so unlucky to have my best prince taken from me by a Crusade.

Then I began wondering if he could in fact become king, for he retained his crown (meaning royalty for that faction). It would be nice to see my family on the throne of two factions.

Also Crusades could travel over other factions' ships, so you didn't need a line of your own ships, just a line of ships in general (as long they were catholic).

Where is my global jihad arrrrrr..

Anyways i think Jihad should remain defensive to give the muslims uniqeuness.

For an offensive jihad i think CA should allow a jihad to go to regions that have 90% or so muslims (or maybe an event the population would plead you to liberate them or something).

One of the big negatives about the implementation of Crusades in the original MTW was that the AI was usually pretty rubbish at finding its way to the Holy Land. Quite often you'd see Crusade stacks wandering aimlessly around Western Europe, sucking up your garrisons! And then eventually just stop. And the real killer about this was that if you didn't agree to allow a Crusading army passage it would attack you! Hopefully Crusading armies in MTW2 will have an greatly improved sense of direction.

Originally Posted by faisal

Where is my global jihad arrrrrr..

Anyways i think Jihad should remain defensive to give the muslims uniqeuness.

For an offensive jihad i think CA should allow a jihad to go to regions that have 90% or so muslims (or maybe an event the population would plead you to liberate them or something).

That's a neat idea Faisal; I like it. I would probably lower a province's Muslim "events-trigger" percentage, though. I'd say more like a modest 50-60% would probably be better, at least from a gameplay standpoint. Otherwise, you'd practically have to spam a province with alims/imams or it would take too long a time for it to really be worth it.

Unless, of course, they increase the "potency" of religious agents this time around (which I rather hope they do)....

Humbut, I wouldn't be too scared this time. The new crusades are not going to be factional, they are going to be a Papal decree, which seems to be more firm. And also likely to get more attention from the devs.

We can stlll add an offensive arm to Jihad under a different name:
Razzias which were essentially raids into enemy territory.

Muslim volunteers were often recruited for these raids into enemy territory.\

Under the Turkish period, there was a more developed ideology of the Ghazi warrior who devastated enemies on the frontier.

If it was implemented, the Razzia would of course be effective in recruitment in high Muslim areas with a combination professional soldiers and enthusiastic civilian volunteers.

A Razzia would form a huge army to attack an enemy, their purpose is to stay as long as possible in an enemy province (not conquest), the longer they stay, the more money they extract. In addition, it could add experience to troops if an enemy was to try to expel them after a prolonged period.

In Byzantine history it is not uncommon for Arab forces to winter in Byzantine territory.

However, a Ghazi function would have as its purpose both loot and conquest.

I would like to see functions for raids in MTW2 based on the idea of staying in an enemy province to extract booty. You don't have to capture a city, u just want to ravage the province which in turn reduces the city's income. In addition, the longer you stay, the more unrest caused in the provinces's city. THis will break the idea of having to conquer cities all the time. It is also a good way to make easy money and make ur troops earn their share.

Originally Posted by Martok

That's a neat idea Faisal; I like it. I would probably lower a province's Muslim "events-trigger" percentage, though. I'd say more like a modest 50-60% would probably be better, at least from a gameplay standpoint. Otherwise, you'd practically have to spam a province with alims/imams or it would take too long a time for it to really be worth it.

Unless, of course, they increase the "potency" of religious agents this time around (which I rather hope they do)....

In MTW, a couple of imams could turn a province muslim in a couple of turns if no other religious agents are present.

Did you know Saddam Hussein declared a Jihad for Iraq?....guess muslim fanaticism is dying out these days

Well I surely did not hear about that.. (Or read it)

I think that's a great idea about making an offensive jihad only possible with c.90% islam.

- it means that using them against your recently taken territories would still be usual
- it would add a sense of urgency about religion if you were a non-islamic faciton
- it gives a vital role to the religious rating of province
- it adds to the rpging element of the game if you felt you were liberating your fellow muslims

at the same time there would need to be some way to stop the agent-spamming of mtw which could change the religion extremely quickly

Build more agents.. Isn't that one easy sollution!

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

Build more agents.. Isn't that one easy sollution!

Yes, but you have to admit it was rather cheesy in MTW. "You want me to convert Cordoba to Catholocism? No problem! I'll just dispatch my horde of 30 Bishops there, and we'll have every single Moor there singing praises to Jesu in just a couple years!"

Yeah, it would be nice if CA could fix this somehow....


Hey, here's an idea: Make religious agents more expensive to train, but have them much more likely to survive assassination attempts (which would also help offset the increased cost). That way you couldn't just flood a province with religious agents and convert the population overnight. It would instead be more economical to send just one guy into a province at a time. Yes, converting provinces would take longer; but since your alim/bishop is much less likely to be killed by assassins, it would still be worth spending money to train these guys and send them out into the world.

Or we could have each province have some sort of set curve. Like Granada and Corduba are more prone to bishops having some major influnce where Egypt and Arabia are not.

Or they could make it so that only the highest-valor bishop/alim has any effect, the way they changed the spies in MTW1. Then there'd be no reason to spam them and you'd have to give it time for the conversion to take place (unless other factions sent along one of their own to help you out!).

Ajax

Make religious agents effective only after their faction has acquired the province. Otherwise, cap conversion to 10% of population in a province not occupied by your faction.

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Or they could make it so that only the highest-valor bishop/alim has any effect, the way they changed the spies in MTW1. Then there'd be no reason to spam them and you'd have to give it time for the conversion to take place (unless other factions sent along one of their own to help you out!).

Ajax

That's not a bad idea. Priest/Alims would still need to beefed up to improve their chances of being assassinated, though. If only one guy can preach in a province at a time, we want to make sure he can't be killed very easily!

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Make religious agents effective only after their faction has acquired the province. Otherwise, cap conversion to 10% of population in a province not occupied by your faction.

Except that would completely negate my and Faisal's idea (okay, mostly Faisal's ) of being able to launch Jihads to "liberate" provinces where a majority of the population is Muslim. In addition, I've never cared much for artificial caps like what you're referring to (sorry, nothing personal!).