Yes. Around 1000 militarily they fielded bigger and more advanced armies, they were tolerant against other religions, education was more wide spread and easier to obtain, medicine was way more sophisticated. In europe they were mostly busy waging war against each other and being good christiabsSuperior? LOL
Uhmn... no. The first crusade was the first crusade. the second the second. the third the third. there was no "bigger crusade". But to be fair, yes, their was an overarching goal of all crusades, which was "to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories " (https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades) and that failed in the end, at least until the end of the first world war. That doesnt mean that some of them acchieved what they wanted.the crusade definitely was a thing. The 1st crusade was only part of the bigger crusade(hence the name 1st crusade), like during ww2 nazis successfully invaded poland, but they were later defeated and driven out, so you can't call ww2 a nazi victory. The crusade had a goal and the goal was not achived at the end, they might have won some battles, but that doesn't change the result.
Well thats because you are talking about "the crusade" which isnt a thing, like there isnt "the jihad". there were multiple crusades, and the first of them happened to be a militaric and strategic success. Yes, ofc they wouldnt have succeeded against united moslems, after all the muslimic states where quite superior to their european counterparts in that period of time, both militarily and culturally. Still, conqering 2 of the best defended cities at that time and defeating the enemys that managed to conquer most of byzantines holdings is not a small feat.you keep bringing up the 1st crusade, but that is only a part of the entire crusade. And it wasn't impressive at all, the enemies were unprepared and underestimating them.
havnt tested yet, but my first thought was that they function as some kind of replacement if fighting lords and ladys die, mostly due to execution by the player.I wonder if the addition of the new lords/ladies is in preparation down the line for moving to younger generations as everyone at the start ages/dies out. Otherwise, we're in for a lot more armies if even a small amount of those added can fight in the field.
I came to the same conclusion, however I've not taken the comment as a complete roadmap but things that are on their priority list right now in this moment. I've seen it as an attempt to please the people who demand a roadmap without giving a roadmap.So if you review the statement put out by the developer Duh_TaleWorlds you will see that it does not actually include any mention of new content or features.
- AI performance optimizations
- Formation system performance optimizations
- Memory management improvements
- Battle formation AI and tactics overhaul
- Siege tower and ladder usage fixes for AI
- Additional fixes on siege battles
- Agent AI combat enhancements
Please keep in mind that these priorities are neither all-encompassing nor set in stone. We will adjust them if the need arises.
I'd say they are talking about kingdom stability and balance, all the mentioned points are vital for having a somewhat stable gameworld after some time. no snowballing, no bankrupt lords, clans being (mostly) where they belong, no huge discrepancy in wealth, no starving towns without hostile interference and so on.What do you guys think "Simulation Health" means? I frankly think it sounds like doublespeak.
its about the advantage that cavalry heavy nations like vlandia and mostly khuzait get, despite being faster on the campaign map allready.I don't know what's the background for this but ooooooouupphh...this will result in more stupid losses of high tier soldiers when fighting nearly naked looters with stones in simulation. Don't like.