New units faction roster proposals- Name of unit and brief history (suggestions with content appreciated)

[Ichon]

The extremely low melee attack of German feudal knights was already fixed but was retrograded accidentally in file merge and it will be corrected probably by simply making basic Feudal knights available in same number and removing German Feudal knights as there isn't a good reason to keep them in as separate unit. Imperial Knights with maces are the best heavy cavalry HRE will be able to field other than mercenary broken lances, probably I'll adjust armor upgrade for them a bit so they remain competitive longer.

Along with gunpowder units Gendarmes and Lancers are also gone as such superheavy cavalry weren't active in mod until after 1500. Really most units after 1430 will be gone to free up space for earlier units that players can actually see in more than just custom battle or playing 400 turns. The best armored heavy cavalry will be Noble Knights, Royal Banderium, Qapukulu, Scholarii, Royal Guard, and Patricians. King's Men and Imperial Knights will also get some improvements in armor upgrades while haven't decided yet about Heavy Boyars, maybe Heavy Qhulams, and some others.

[achilles-91]

The extremely low melee attack of German feudal knights was already fixed but was retrograded accidentally in file merge and it will be corrected probably by simply making basic Feudal knights available in same number and removing German Feudal knights as there isn't a good reason to keep them in as separate unit. Imperial Knights with maces are the best heavy cavalry HRE will be able to field other than mercenary broken lances, probably I'll adjust armor upgrade for them a bit so they remain competitive longer.

Along with gunpowder units Gendarmes and Lancers are also gone as such superheavy cavalry weren't active in mod until after 1500. Really most units after 1430 will be gone to free up space for earlier units that players can actually see in more than just custom battle or playing 400 turns. The best armored heavy cavalry will be Noble Knights, Royal Banderium, Qapukulu, Scholarii, Royal Guard, and Patricians. King's Men and Imperial Knights will also get some improvements in armor upgrades while haven't decided yet about Heavy Boyars, maybe Heavy Qhulams, and some others.

ok for all.. just one question, royal banderium will be only cav on european with armored horse ? i think it can be little unrealistick, assuming that french should also get that armored horse for some of they cav.. just suggestion

[Ichon]

ok for all.. just one question, royal banderium will be only cav on european with armored horse ? i think it can be little unrealistick, assuming that french should also get that armored horse for some of they cav.. just suggestion

Other cavalry mounts have armor and if they don't we can use the armor upgrades to show later armors. Noble Knights have mailed horses and the barding on many others is assumed to include/cover some armor pieces.

Banderium Knights are available at the half plate event and reflect the origination of breast and leg plates as well as some plate armor for horses but if you look closely they are actually still wearing mail in conjunction with some pieces of plate. That is why they are also using shields- once full plate is in use men at arms drop the use of shields since a shield doesn't add enough in protection to make up for the encumbrance and lack of offensive 2 handed weapon use.

We can show armor evolution through 1460 or so with armor upgrades as the Noble Knights 4th armor upgrade can maybe replaced with Lancers model for battles after upgrade in 1460. The unit card will remain the current Noble Knights and cost etc are the same but armor upgrades are calculated into the costs of units already.

Stopping the appearance of new units before full plate free up around 30 unit slots and make the factions more balanced if people eventually want to use late era custom battles since only few factions had access to the full plate units. Stopping the technology clock around 1430 for new units and 1460 for armor upgrades as that is before suits of full plate were in widespread use seems fair. Patricians available to Italian factions will be the only unit in full plate but an early version of plate that was lighter and did not have all the innovations of curves, ridges, and reinforcements that later plate developed. Even then that unit is not available until 1400 so that gives few hundred turns before having to worry about it.

The stats wouldn't change aside from armor as Noble Knights for example have 1 point higher attack and carry shields which Lancers in Plate armor do not but battle models would show Lancers.

That is what I meant by improvements in armor upgrades.

Really thinking about it we could even stop the technology clock earlier and cut any units available after half plate event in 1330. The Demi-lancer model might even work as upgrade for mounted sergeants etc to give a bit more 'late era' appearance though really I myself never played past 300 turns which is only in early 1300s but since I see a few people post screen shots from 1400s and custom battles with pikes and such are fun I decided to leave ability to reach pike militias and halberd men at arms and similar units for now not to mention find room in roster and AOR for more than 32 units is a bit of work especially if we can't find new models to represent such units...

[Lifthrasir]

That sounds good to me as long we're able to keep quite a lot of unit "variety" but I guess it shouldn't be a problem in that case.
From my personal point of view (but I guess that's what quite a lot of players also think), I would find the game boring if the type of units is too "restrictive".

[Ichon]

That sounds good to me as long we're able to keep quite a lot of unit "variety" but I guess it shouldn't be a problem in that case.
From my personal point of view (but I guess that's what quite a lot of players also think), I would find the game boring if the type of units is too "restrictive".

Sure- the whole idea is to cut out units few players ever see other than custom battles and add more diverse and unique units earlier which will be seen and used more.

Adding 30 units to rosters, AOR, and as mercenaries from 1132 to 1240 or so is far as I've thought right now. I haven't even come up with 30 additional units so far so probably we can eventually add a few more between 1240 and 1430 so that not all the units are 'front loaded'

[MRENGLISHRULES]

We need musketeers. And cannons. But at the moment, all they do is crash the game.

[achilles-91]

i agree with u ichon

[Ichon]

We need musketeers. And cannons. But at the moment, all they do is crash the game.

Handgonnes, bombards, and cannons/ribaults are still in game but musketeers and all later cannons will be gone.

[Lifthrasir]

The Crusader States

While looking for info about Abbasids during the 12th century, I found some interesting stuff about Crusader State from Osprey. In this 1st part, I particularly like the first part explaining the king's obligations. I hope that's something we can use and reflect in SSHIP.

Part 1a: Fief & Salaries
Even in war, however, the king was often no more than first among equals, his leadership depending upon personality. The king also had to pay for a knight’s horse and equipment when campaigning beyond the frontiers, promising to replace lost animals in a form of insurance called restor.
Further more the king was obliged to protect a knight’s fief against enemy raids or invasion. On the other hand the military obligations placed upon fief-holders were much heavier than those in most of Europe where, in fact, they generally declined during the 12^th and 13^th centuries. A man could be summoned for an unlimited period, though a knight was theoretically excused from fighting on foot in defence of a castle or town. Members of the military élite were also involved in war at an early age, less than 15 years, though it should be remembered that their sisters were bearing children when young as 13. Most sources say that a man could be called upon until he was 40, though in some cases a warrior seemed to serve until 60.
Generally speaking war was seen as a youthful occupation, with great emphasis being laid on the ardour and enthusiasm of the inexperienced bacheler in the popular tales of the time. On the other side it is worth noting that some Muslim authors maintained that warfare demended experience and prudence, and that 40 was the warrior’s optimum age.

Part 1b: Allies
The Armenians were the most important of the Crusaders’ regional allies – as distinct from local troops recruited within the Crusader States. Many Armenian mercenaries became available in the early 12^th century as fewer of them went to serve in Fatimid forces. Numbers of such troops were also floating around Syria in the chaotic early Crusader period, fighting for all and sundry. Those on the Christian side served as both allies and mercenaries, as cavalry and as highly regarded infantry archers, sometimes in large units under their own princes. At time, their numbers reached 4,000 horsemen and 10,000 infantry. The feudalisation of neighbouring Cilician Armenia in the late 12^th and early 13^th centuries made it even easier for Armenian warriors to fit into armies of the Crusader States (…)
Another important Christian power was Georgia. Though not a direct neighbour of the Crusader States it played a significant regional role. Georgian troops fought as infantry and as armoured cavalry, some using javelins or bows. Their armour and equipment was very similar to those of neighbouring Islamic armies.
Similar to the Georgians and closely allied with them was the Byzantine Empire of Trebizond (Trabzon). Its relations with the Crusader States in Syria were tenuous, but it came into frequent, though not always friendly, contact with the Crusader “Empire of Romanie” following the Fourth Crusade. Trebizond’s cavalry probably armoured in normal Byzantine style, fought with lances, while the infantry of its mountainous hinterland were noted archers with composite bows. Mercenaries from Crusader States served all these Christian powers. Men from Antioch were, in fact, prominent throughout Anatolia in both Christian and Seljuq-Turkish armies. Others fought for Byzantium, playing a leading role in the tragic battle of Myriokephalon in 1176. Others had helped a Byzantine invasion of Egypt some years earlier.

[Lifthrasir]

The Crusader States

That part is quite long but I couldn't choose to remove too much as it is full of details to explain how the system worked. I hope that MWY can use some of these info to make the CS script/economy system more accurate. I think it might be good to increase the trade incomes due to Italian merchants in CS ports but to increase taxes to reflect what it's called below the fief de soudée.

Part 2: Local Troops
Few non-knightly cavalry are recorded in the early 12^th century, but the service of servientes loricati (armoured servants) and serjens a cheval (mounted sergeants) become more common later in the century. Not that all the knightly class were of European origin – most of those who settled after the First Crusade married local women and produced a class of so-called poulains. These were soon integrated as a vital part of the military élite. Though Catholic in faith, the poulains often clung to aspects of local culture and were sometimes despised by the supposedly “pure blooded” Westerners.
Other warriors of direct Middle Eastern origin, including some Armenians, were also raised to knighthood in the 12^th century, while all the cavalry except the Turcopoles fought together.
Nevertheless, grades of military status remained rigid to the end. An agreement of compensation for death outside an official warfare, reached between the Lady Isabella of Beirut and Sultan Baybars of Egypt in 1269, stipulated that a captive knight be released in compensation for a slain knight, a Turcopole for a Turcopole, footsoldier for footsoldier, peasant for peasant.
The system of fiefs which supported this feudal élite was particularly complicated. Not only was the number of fiefs inadequate, but men owed service to more than one lord. Some fiefs were held by women, while others were Church fiefs which might owe no military service at all. (…) Other smaller fiefs were held by non-noble sergeants and Turcopoles.
The entire system was disrupted in 1187 when so much Crusader territory fell to Saladin. Though some ground was regained following the Third Crusade there seems to have been no more non-noble fiefs, while even a member of the aristocracy now had to be dubbed a knight before taking over his estates. The “Frankish” peasantry, never numerous, disappeared into the cities or turned renegade, so that the inhabitants of the countryside were now wholly indigenous. One solution to the shortage of land was to create the fief de soudée or money-fief for the many landless men and pilgrims who came to the East. These were not paid directly by the government but were the tolls of ports, markets, mills and bridges. Such fief-holders were, of course, city dwellers and their military obligations were unlimited. The origins of the idea are obscure but some Muslim iqtas were similarly based on tolls and dues. An increasing number of knightly and even lordly families had to rely on such sources of income after the disaster of Hattin, until by the last years of the Crusader States the great majority of fief-holders had such fief de soudée.
The military and political organisation for the other Crusader States was similar to that kingdom of Jerusalem. These owned theoretical, but not often effective, allegiance to Jerusalem, and in 1186 Saladin even thought it worthwhile offering Muslim “knights, sergeants and crossbowmen” to Count Raymond III of Tripoli in the hope of encouraging his defection. Mercenaries were commonplace in the armies of all Crusader states. Such men included knights who held no fiefs; instead they were paid for as long they were needed - or as long as the ruler could afford them. Others were paid by lords and fief-holders to serve in place of perhaps no longer existing lesser vassals. Rich and powerful men also maintained their own mercenary forces, particularly in the last anarchic years of the Crusader States.
In addition to these Westernised troops were those of local origin who fought in traditional ways. The most famous were the Turcopoles who were distinct from many of the native-born sergeants. Known personal names suggest that in the early days many were converted Muslim prisoners of war, of whom there were a large number. Such Turcopoles fought as light cavalry, usually as horse-archers though not using highly mobile harassment techniques of the nomadic Turks. Rather they operated like the professional mamluks or ghulams who formed the core of most Islamic armies. Many later Turcopoles may have been descended from these converts and the great majority was soon placed under the control of the Military Orders.
Other local troops also played a significant role, particularly in the 13^th century, though the religious and social gulf between them and the dominant “Frankish” Catholic élite remained wide. The Maronite Christians of Lebanon were among the most effective, particularly as light cavalry and as infantry archers in mountain warfare. The Shi’a Muslims (Alawites and Nusayris) of the Syrian coastal mountains were equally effective, but were unpredictable to both Crusader and Sunni Muslim paymasters. They reserved their most reliable support for the Shi’ite Muslim Ismailis (Assassins) of the same mountainous region. For much of the 13^th century the coastal range remained largely outside the control of both the coastal Crusader strip and the Muslim inland cities, some of its jabaliya (hill-folks) inhabitants supporting one side, some the other.

[Lifthrasir]

The Crusader States

Part 3a: Military Orders
In contrast the Crusader Military Orders were totally dedicated to the triumph of the Cross, though this did not stop them from clashing with those who ruled the Crusader States. These Orders soon provided the largest and most effective standing armies in the Crusader East, and by the 13^th century the Order of the Temple, Hospital and Teutonic Knights were essential not only in offensive operations but for garrisoning the main Crusader castles. They came to see themselves as the real guardians of the Holy Land, though there remained deep antagonism between the Temple and the Hospital. Their history is well known though their origins are obscured by legend.
The immediate reason for the creation of the Templars was a danger from Muslim raiders and local peasants who picked off unwary pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem in the early §12^th century. The Order was finalised in 1128, and from then on its Brothers were full-time fully committed members of a monastic order whose patently military character was justified by the need to defend the Church. (…) Templars often regarded themselves as simplices (unlearned) in religious matters. Rules on behaviour, celibacy, personal property and military discipline were extremely strict. Privacy was unknown, diet was frugal, washing infrequent and sports forbidden.A man often slept in his ordinary clothes, prayed frequently and owed total obedience to his superior. The organisation of the Temple mirrored that of the kingdom itself, with its own maître, senechal, marechal, supervisor of uniforms and regional commanders. Such commanders had their own quatermasters, under-marshals and standard-bearers. Both Temple and Hospital also had naval leaders, the Hospitaller amiral and the Templar grand commander de la mer. Those who fell in battle were regarded as martyrs, and the Hospitallers developed a whole mystique of martyrdom.

Part 3b: Militias
Another important source of troops was the militias. Real urban communes did not appear until after the battle of Hattin in 1187, that of Tyre being a short-lived early example which evolved in the dark days of 1187-88 when this city was virtually the last outpost of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Earlier militias were simply urban forces, some perhaps organised around local fraternities, rather than representing a true commune. Nor were they very important until the 13^th century. By then some coastal cities were expanding fast as refugees flooded from the shrinking Crusader hinterland. (…) Urban confraternities or brotherhoods played a military role (before the recognition of communes during the 13^th century), forming individual units within the militia, each under its own banner. Most members were settlers of European origin, though the confraternity of Saint George and Saint Belian was for the local Syrian Christians. The bourgeois of such cities already defended their walls and provided the ruler with units of both mounted and infantry sergeants; again, these had to be paid if serving beyond their own area. Generally speaking, however, urban forces were loyal to local leaders rather to the king (…) Cities could certainly provided disaffected members of the nobility with great wealth and fortified bases from which to defy the ruler.
(…) the military situation of the 13^th century Crusader enclaves had much in common with the great cities of medieval Italy where there was a comparable urbanisation of the military aristocracy. Within the coastal cities there were also influential and increasingly independent Italian merchant communities. They similarly provided forces for the defence of the city as well as frequently fighting among themselves – Genoese against Venetian against Pisan (…)
In the 12^th century the Crusader States were sometimes able to field formidable forces. The County of Edessa could only maintain 100 knights but never had a chance to develop its full potential. Rich Antioch could call upon some 700 knights, smaller Tripoli from 200 to 300 and the relatively Kingdom of Jerusalem about 1,000. These figures represent the situation before the battle of Hattin. A proportion of ten infantry to one horseman seemed normal in Tripoli and was probably similar elsewhere. More than 10,000 assorted non-noble troops were thus maintained by the Crusader States, the Church and the cities. To these could be added the Turcopoles, the increasingly important Military Orders and passing pilgrims from Europe.

[Lifthrasir]

The Crusader States

Proposal for CS roster:
I guess we need to review the CS recruitment and economic systems with a major event represented by the battle of Hattin.
Before the battle of Hattin, give them a Westernised unit roster with Military Orders as elite units, local militias in cities and quite a lot of mercenaries units that they can hire.
After the battle of Hatings, increase the militia importance in cities, reduce the Westernised unit (limited recruitment/replenish rate), increase mercenaries recruitable, may be add some specific local units to represent the assimilation of Western people with local inhabitants.

I think CS should have a kind of economic bonus but an unrest penalty to represent all the tensions between local inhabitants, Military Orders, local merchants and/or nobles, etc... Basically the idea is to try to represent their military power but also to reflect all internal tensions they faced at that time.

... detailed list should come soon

[achilles-91]

nice info about CS. im looking forward to see they new roster how will be done

[Navajo Joe]

Lifthrasir, a very nice piece of work, +rep

As you know from the research that I did for ss7.0, the Cistercian Order were key behind the formation of the miltiary orders, they stated and specified in how they would have to conform. You also know my thoughts on how the farming and religious building trees could change to reflect the importance of this order.

[achilles-91]

i hope we get russian models for druzhina and other units from rusichi total war

[MWY]

Wow, nice work lifth!

About the unrest.. that's not only a problem the cs had. Basically every major power was facing inner resistance and unrest. I haven't found a good way to reflect this yet.

@achilles: I'm also excited. But this will probably be a huge amount of work, so don't expect anything soon and don't expect all things at once.

[Ichon]

Pretty good information Lifthrasir- the only difficulty is basing rosters on events which happened historically but aren't guaranteed to happen in the game. The battle of Hattin for example would occur between 50-100 turns into a game and the 4th Crusade capture of Constantinople would occur even later. I would like to make CS rosters a bit different than most other rosters especially early on but making a sharp roster change around the date of Hattin I'm not really in favor of.

As for how to reflect the tension of ruling the Crusader states... given MWT2 mechanics that is very difficult. The original Crusaders and their descendents seemed to have made quite good system of rule and respected the various communities very similar to Normans in Sicily adopting to local traditions and creating a new culture. The main problem with Crusaders is that they had to deal with the Knight Orders and the Pope as well as continual traffic of pilgrims and knights seeking both religious purification in battle against heathens and riches. Such people did not understand nor respect the local communities that Crusaders relied upon and saw a stark black and white difference between Catholics and everyone else.

Successive Kings of Jerusalem tried to harness the power of the European volunteers but often found their goals co-opted by the newcomers and the aims of the Knight Orders. Even before Hattin the power of the Jerusalem had been dissipated in the siege of Damascus in the 2nd Crusade which lost Jerusalem the affinity of many local Muslims whose lands were looted by men of the 2nd Crusade as well forced Damascus formerly an independent city balanced against Aleppo into the hands of Nur ad-Din Zangi. The last chance for Kingdom of Jerusalem to recover in its own right were the campaigns into Egypt but miscommunications between various groups and the bickering of the Italians as well that Amalric was pressured to attack Egyptian cities by European Crusaders despite being allied with Fatimids and the losses in the north against Nur ad-Din while Amalric's army was campaigning in Egypt nullified any long term advantage for Kingdom of Jerusalem despite capturing both Alexandria and Damietta temporarily.

Other point to keep in mind is that historically Antioch was supposed to be under Byzantine control due to agreements made in the 1st Crusade but that didn't happen until 1158 when the years following the loss of Edessa and the failed 2nd Crusade attack on Damascus led to surge in power of the Zengids and Antioch asked for protection of the Byzantines and honored previous treaties. That only lasted a few years because Reynald of Chatillon married into control of Antioch and broke all agreements with Byzantines and Zengids raiding both Cyprus and Zengids. Manuel Komnenos marched to Antioch and with an army at his back forced previous agreements to be honored.

If we were going to make a sharp change in rosters to me the loss of Edessa and Antioch are larger events than Hattin as it changed composition of Crusaders armies and weakened the Kingdom of Jerusalem to the point even 3rd Crusade didn't do much but preserve status quo which left Saladin in charge of Syria, Egypt, and upper Mesopotamia. The 4th Crusade ended Byzantine interference in Syria and weakened Christian positions all over Anatolia while the final blow was Mongol invasions which while destroying many Muslim powers had the effect of strengthening Rum Turks and Mameluks as trade routes shifted to the benefit of both and neighboring Muslim competition was crushed by Mongols leaving the field clear.

What I'd propose for Crusader States is that any Crusader family member participating in a Crusade actually losses influence and authority thus weakening the Kingdom. The direct opposite of participation for other Catholics because the Crusade invites European Crusading elements and strengthens the Knight Orders and leads to unrest and loss of position for the King of Jerusalem. Players can thus call a Crusade to gain free upkeep and grow their army but face increased unrest and difficulty ruling any gains once the Crusade is over. Of course not joining the Crusade has its own problems displeasing the Pope and perhaps leading to reduced support for CS (end of missions giving money for 40 turns?)

Actual roster changes would not be much but we really need to add Mercenary Barracks to most factions- Crusaders particularly. I think it should be easy to reuse the graphic for Hetaroi Barracks that Byzantines currently have and call it Mercenary Barracks and add it to most factions with wider variety of units able to be recruited there at native unit prices (not at the cost for normal mercenaries as the barracks represents longer term more formal structure of allied/vassal service with pay for foreign units).

MWY already said he added Mercenary barracks for Moors and my proposal for Cuman roster also relies on having mercenary barracks present. We can of course make Mercenary barracks add some unrest so only in cities where you are sure of control should it be built as foreign elements might cause problems with locals or between each other. Capturing a city with Mercenary barracks built it might be necessary to decide between the benefits of military recruitment vs the unrest.

As for how to reflect unrest problems in factions... the only somewhat realistic way I've been able to see so far with MTW2 mechanics is the authority of the Faction Leader. When the ruler has high authority the kingdom would be fairly stable and only new conquests have some unrest issues so players would have to get a high authority leader to hope to capture and hold enemy capitols. If the Faction Leader dies and a successor with low authority becomes the ruler before enough buildings/culture, religion is converted in new conquests the chance of rebellion is high as well in any cities disaffected for other reasons (where extremely low authority would cause problems even in core territories).

With +authority traits already more difficult to get from MWY's work I think this could be a good interpretation- the main work then would be script or something else to raise and lower unrest based on authority of the FL. BGR already has something similar with authority of the FL affecting troop loyalty and several other things.

EDIT- this would also make MWY's work with regents and usurpers more relevant as such men have weak authority so making sure of the line of succession would be more important.

[Melooo182]

I dont know, so what if the crusader states manage to conquer zengids and cripple egypt by the time the battle of hattin comes? you will force the crusader states player to switch his recruiting strategy because of a this event which might be completely unrealistic in the player's campaign?

Too many "What Ifs" to put it simple like that, you should rather put some other requirements like if the crusader states fall to 4 provinces or less and no longer controls jerusalem, then the event kicks in or just bypass the event and then change the recruitment options.

Yep i like Ichon's ideas regarding Crusades effects, I think I will loan some of this for my take on crusader states in "Kingdoms, Empires and Republics"

[Ichon]

I dont know, so what if the crusader states manage to conquer zengids and cripple egypt by the time the battle of hattin comes? you will force the crusader states player to switch his recruiting strategy because of a this event which might be completely unrealistic in the player's campaign?

Too many "What Ifs" to put it simple like that, you should rather put some other requirements like if the crusader states fall to 4 provinces or less and no longer controls jerusalem, then the event kicks in or just bypass the event and then change the recruitment options.

Yes, anything past 50 turns into the game 'mandatory' result I dislike a bit. Occasionally it might still make sense to have event such as Bulgaria rebellion, Cathar Crusade, or Mongol invasions but for things like 4th Crusade or Battle of Hattin or Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (which had similar affects for Moors to Hattin for Crusaders) feels a bit off- I wouldn't suggest we make Constantinople rebel in 1204 by event and similarly changing rosters for CS by event date I don't think makes sense.

Especially since rosters won't change hugely as result and that just naturally by how rosters and campaign plays out similar changes happen already. For example longer game last more chapter houses are built by player bringing in more Knight order units. We could add an unrest/rebellion factor to the buildings similar to mercenary barracks showing that military power in the hands of anyone but the ruler tends to weaken the ruler's authority but I'm not convinced that is the best option for CS especially if religious conversion times are slowed down they will have a hard time expanding (despite gaining some protection from harassing imams of their neighbors). Also militias and urban units become more important over time simply due to the rise of professionals and that city militias in late game with pikes/halberds are relatively more useful than in early game when it is mostly light spear units and crossbow.

[Lifthrasir]

Wow, I didn't expect so much reaction with my CS posts but honestly, I have no credit. I've just reported some info from Osprey publishing.

Ok, the battle of Hattin is probably not the best choice. what I've tried to explain is the Western Kingdom were less and less able to provide a good support to CS. Ichon has already illustrated that with his explanation about the 2nd and 4th crusades.
So basically, CS had to rely more and more on themselves and their "allies" and mercenaries available. I've probably not been able to make myself clear
Regarding Religious Orders, MWY has already added an unrest factor if the player decide to develop their chapter houses or not and I think it's fine. Then for some elite units, it is possible to make their availability depending on 1 (or several) settlement. For example, Polycarpe did that by the past with his BG submod, making some units impossible to recruit if Jerusalem was lost.
I think these features plus the conversion rate lowered, it will make CS as a very challenging faction.

However, it still has to be "playable" by human player and AI as well.

My main idea is to increase the type of mercenaries (hired or recruited) for CS but without penalizing them with a "too high" cost or upkeep. At present, we have mostly Turcopoles and some Armenians available for CS. Why not reflecting these Maronite Christians from Lebanon? what about Georgian or Roman mercenaries with may be low availability and only recruitable in Anatolia?
About peasants, what's the point of keeping an European peasant model when this is not historically true.
Can we reflect the brotherhoods for early town militias with unrest bonus or penalty?
Can we reflect the fief de soudée with a building or something else to increase the incomes for CS?
Can we add more units available beside the existing one if a merchant guild is built in a CS settlement?

I know that's a lot of question but it might be interesting to consider and discuss about them.