New Faction Leader Question

[Martok]

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?

Yes and yes.

[Ravencroft]

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.

This proves my suspicion that the AI cheats in most games, if not all .

The only difference between crusades and jihads is that crusades are offensively inclined(i.e., used to conquer) while jihads are used counter-offensively(i.e. recapturing a "lost" province)

[Martok]

The only difference between crusades and jihads is that crusades are offensively inclined(i.e., used to conquer) while jihads are used counter-offensively(i.e. recapturing a "lost" province)

That, plus the fact that you can have multiple Jihads going at the same time.

[caravel]

That, plus the fact that you can have multiple Jihads going at the same time.

Oh yes? Not that you'd do anything like that eh?

[Martok]

Oh yes? Not that you'd do anything like that eh?

Moi? Mercy, no!

I've *never* spammed 20 Jihads to Khazar in order to take it back from the Mongols, nor have I ever sent 5-6 of them to retake Constantinople. Nor have I launched 10-12 Jihads towards Iberia when the Spanish re-emerged. Or sent 3 just to retake Sicily.

(Those are completely random examples, by the way -- I've never done any of those things myself. Really. Scout's honor.)

I would never abuse Jihads in that manner. Nope, not me.


[whistles innocently]

[seireikhaan]

Moi? Mercy, no!

I've *never* spammed 20 Jihads to Khazar in order to take it back from the Mongols, nor have I ever sent 5-6 of them to retake Constantinople. Nor have I launched 10-12 Jihads towards Iberia when the Spanish re-emerged. Or sent 3 just to retake Sicily. (Just to pick completely random examples -- I've never done any of these things myself. Really.)

I would never abuse Jihads in that manner. Nope, not me.


[whistles innocently]

Well, I'd like to mention that I have also NEVER abused Jihads. Like sending 26 jihads to Khazar so that I could confront the Mongols with 47,000 gold armoured troops when they appeared onto the map, consequently threatening to drain my 300k florin treasury in 14 turns once it was over.

NEVER.

[whistles innocently]

[Ravencroft]

Oh, and building JIhads will give you units like Hashishin waaayyy before you can build them.

ANd it's best to build them in a province adjacent to the province in question.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Moi? Mercy, no!

I've *never* spammed 20 Jihads to Khazar in order to take it back from the Mongols, nor have I ever sent 5-6 of them to retake Constantinople. Nor have I launched 10-12 Jihads towards Iberia when the Spanish re-emerged. Or sent 3 just to retake Sicily.

(Those are completely random examples, by the way -- I've never done any of those things myself. Really. Scout's honor.)

I would never abuse Jihads in that manner. Nope, not me.


[whistles innocently]

Well- since you can only jihad to reclaim lost land...where is the abuse here?

Unless the abuse is in the fact that you don't necessarily have to be the previous owner of said province that is being reclaimed....

Example- You're Egypt...the Almos get rocked on the Iberian Peninsula...You build 10 Jihads to go "reclaim" it...End result is 25,000 garrison troops and the entire Peninsula under Egyptian control. Is that the kind of scenario we're talking about?

And/or are you talking about a situation where you are building multiple jihads to go after 1 minor lost province?

[Martok]

And/or are you talking about a situation where you are building multiple jihads to go after 1 minor lost province?

Bingo.

If a player were to use multiple Jihads to reclaim a single lost province, they could amass a huge army with strong units for a relatively modest price -- often times more cheaply than if they trained a regular army (composed of the same units) themselves. It's an exploit of the game's Jihad mechanism, and generally isn't considered very sporting by most of us that play Muslim factions....even though it is awfully tempting at times.

Of course, as I stated earlier, I myself have never done anything like that. No sir.

[macsen rufus]

Shame, shame on you all - I never spam Jihads ....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

well, except maybe once, I'm sure it was only once, to deal with the Horde...

I now have a rule for crusades and jihads - one active and one spare marker maximum

[Martok]

I now have a rule for crusades and jihads - one active and one spare marker maximum

I've imposed a similar rule on myself, but with one addendum: I will allow myself multiple simultaneous Jihads, so long as I'm using them to take back multiple provinces. Thus, if I have 3 Jihads going at one time, that means I have to be trying to retake 3 provinces.

Of course, as a practical matter, I still usually end up doing only one Jihad at a time. For one thing, it feels more realistic that way. In addition, I also generally find it to be too much of a hassle to manage simultaneous Jihads -- just one at a time is usually enough for me, thank you.

[caravel]

I have much the same rules as macsen rufus except that I launch the Jihad exclusively from either Syria, Morocco or Rum and rarely from any other provinces. If I do launch a Jihad from another province then it will never be a coastal province and always one of the muslim factions' homelands.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Bingo.

If a player were to use multiple Jihads to reclaim a single lost province, they could amass a huge army with strong units for a relatively modest price -- often times more cheaply than if they trained a regular army (composed of the same units) themselves. It's an exploit of the game's Jihad mechanism, and generally isn't considered very sporting by most of us that play Muslim factions....even though it is awfully tempting at times.

Of course, as I stated earlier, I myself have never done anything like that. No sir.

That just brings up so many ideas and plans for conquest it's not even funny...

[Spongie]

My 8-influence English king, who advanced from a 2-star to a 4-star general after a few victories, finally saw his eldest son come of age as... a 6-star general (EDIT: his second son is also a 6-star general)

Oh, all those wasted generations simply because I wasn't sending my king into battle (resulting in a dynasty of 0-star heirs).....

[Kenshin the vega bound]

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!

I consider this a sort of explot, since the none king commanders basicly live forever. I also like rping Kings and Princes, so I do my battles with them all the time.

[Knight of the Rose]

Well - you can always play with -greengenerals if you want to limit the age of your generals. However, that would only make the relevant buildings/provinces even more important.

[Brave]

Really? Just sending your king for a few skirmishes makes 6 star heirs?

[caravel]

Well - you can always play with -greengenerals if you want to limit the age of your generals. However, that would only make the relevant buildings/provinces even more important.

In MTW/VI your generals die of old age anyway. The -green_generals command line argument stops the dead general being replaced with a general of equal stats, instead it replaces him with a general of lower stats.

Personally I don't use this nowadays as it tends to hit the AI quite hard and you end up fighting against AI armies lead by 0 and 1 star generals, as the AI is not much good at hanging on to or nurturing it's good generals as it is.

[Ironside]

Really? Just sending your king for a few skirmishes makes 6 star heirs?

Not exactly, high influence kings are the secret to high star hiers, although getting more stars through combat certainly help.

Was playing an Almohad campaign where 80-90% of the troops were former jihad troops. The rest was there for exotic value and balance.

Learned that UM and peasants (jihad leftovers) isn't the best troops vs cav though. 4k vs 600 and loosing.