• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No, but in my mod I gave the Varangian Guard more troops and more variety of them. In the latest patch the Varangian Guard were nerfed (troop numbers cut) so remember that. If you're doing what I do and using them as a Holy Order then you'll probably want to give them some more troops.

Code:
d_varangian_guard_modifier = {
	levy_size = 8
	heavy_infantry = 800
	light_infantry = 300
	pikemen = 150
	knights = 300
	archers = 200
}

Right, this should help that holy order out, was rather weak while I was playing xD. I'll probably take away the knights and just give them 300 more heavy infantry instead, I just don't see them having knights <.<.
 
I still think it would be better (and easier) to just improve their holdings. Maybe reduce the muslim AI's hostility towards them too.


i think this is a good idea
 
Thanks everyone for the great ideas. The HO thing was never ideal, certainly not based on historical realism (anything I know of, anyway), but a gameplay workaround to try to make these domains playable. The ideal solution would be for the terrain to be such that the much smaller Ethiopians could ward off the many infidels, but when I've tried in the current setup, even with river and mountain def bonus combined, everything I had was slaughtered with barely a scratch to The Caliph's men.

The combination of improving their holdings and making mercenaries available might be sufficient alone. Although I think it would take drastic improvements to their holdings to make enough of a difference, and that wouldn't be too realistic either as arid Ethiopian holdings outshine Paris and Rome. It would be interesting to try with just mercs, but I think Abyssinia or Axum would quickly go broke. It's not just weathering one infidel storm (The Shia Caliphate) and building up for the next one in 10 years. You've got all the Caliph's vassals that can wage war and a bunch of other Muslim independents, too. You would spend most of your treasury on one wave, and then the next one would get you. This is just conjecture, though--it would be cool to try.
 
I was able to live till 1130, but was unable to expand and was eventually crushed even with the single set of mercenaries that I could recruit. It helps, but I think I'm going to have to add into the provinces extra castles to up their soldiers so that they can stand some kind of chance.
 
Thanks everyone for the great ideas. The HO thing was never ideal, certainly not based on historical realism (anything I know of, anyway), but a gameplay workaround to try to make these domains playable. The ideal solution would be for the terrain to be such that the much smaller Ethiopians could ward off the many infidels, but when I've tried in the current setup, even with river and mountain def bonus combined, everything I had was slaughtered with barely a scratch to The Caliph's men.

The combination of improving their holdings and making mercenaries available might be sufficient alone. Although I think it would take drastic improvements to their holdings to make enough of a difference, and that wouldn't be too realistic either as arid Ethiopian holdings outshine Paris and Rome. It would be interesting to try with just mercs, but I think Abyssinia or Axum would quickly go broke. It's not just weathering one infidel storm (The Shia Caliphate) and building up for the next one in 10 years. You've got all the Caliph's vassals that can wage war and a bunch of other Muslim independents, too. You would spend most of your treasury on one wave, and then the next one would get you. This is just conjecture, though--it would be cool to try.

If the terrain bonuses are insufficient, would it be possible to mod in a new terrain type, eg. "Nubian desert", with even more significant defender bonuses? I'm talking way out there, crazy amounts of bonuses here, probably, for it to have sufficient effect? Or modding the importance of terrain in combat would also be appealing, but that would be a global change...

"No Muslim Holy Wars on Monophysites" sounds elegant, if it's possible, too.
 
"No Muslim Holy Wars on Monophysites" sounds elegant, if it's possible, too.

It is. Open cb_types.txt and scroll down to the section beginning with this:

Code:
religious = {
	name = CB_NAME_RELIGIOUS
	war_name = WAR_NAME_RELIGIOUS

Replace the entire can_use section (the first section) with this:

Code:
	can_use = {
		ROOT = {
			NOT = { religion_group = pagan_group }
			NOT = { same_realm = FROM }
			NOT = {
				AND = {
					religion_group = muslim
					OR = {
						FROM = { religion = monophysite }
						FROM = { religion = nestorian }
						FROM = { religion = zoroastrian }
					}
				}
			}
			OR = {
				NOT = { religion_group = FROM }
				is_heresy_of = FROM
				is_parent_religion = FROM
			}
			top_liege = {
				religion = PREV
			}
		}
	}

Don't worry about Nestorians and Zoroastrians -- in vanilla you're unlikely to find realms ran by either, but it includes them alongside Monophysites anyway. This means that Muslims can still attack Nubia and Ethiopia conventionally (such as for its claims on the Egypt/Nubia border) but it can't launch Holy Wars against it.
 
I was able to live till 1130, but was unable to expand and was eventually crushed even with the single set of mercenaries that I could recruit. It helps, but -I think I'm going to have to add into the provinces extra castles to up their soldiers so that they can stand some kind of chance.

Thickening their holdings out sounds like a pretty good idea, and maybe a splattering of counts would make the area feel more alive while you're stuck unable to expand.
They certainly do need mercenaries, as it is just unfair for them to have none.
Finally, if it were possible, perhaps the addition of a truce existing between the Caliphate and the East African Christians at game start? If only to just give a tiny period in which you know the anvil won't drop.
 
Just an idea:

Why don't you improve the Religious_CB? Add a clause for attacking the culture of abyssinia if you are a fatamid muslim disallowing a holy war all together and vice versa.

Add this to the can_use section of the religious CB (which is mentioned above):

Code:
NOT = {
            OR = {
                AND = {
                    ROOT = {
                        any_dynasty_member = {
                            character = 3100 #Some dead guy in dynasty
                        }
                    }
                    FROM = {
                        OR = {
                            culture = ethiopian
                            #culture = makkourae
                        }
                    }
                }
                AND = {
                    FROM = {
                        any_dynasty_member = {
                            character = 3100 #Some dead guy in dynasty
                        }
                    }
                    ROOT = {
                        OR = {
                            culture = ethiopian
                            #culture = makkourae
                        }
                    }
                }
            }
        }

Make sure you get the correct number of brackets -- this basically means no member of the Fatimid dynasty can declare war on Ethiopians. Don't remove the hashes.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I really hope the devs read this thread.

Anyway, first I thought it was because only part of Abyssinia was represented on the game map. Then I checked again and heh, it seems that practically the entire real-life Abyssinia is there, only straight-line borders on the west and south but everything is in there. So one can't really come up with a "reinforcements from distant parts of the realm" mercenary vassal. But what about making some tribes hireable?

Also, perhaps strengthening the Nubians a bit (as long as they exist) could be the solution.

One more thing I suppose one could capitalise on is the whole Prester John legend, which the westerners were at some point crazy about, and which could be used to attract them to defend Abyssinia, provided that sufficient contact is made (i.e. something more happens in this regard than it did historically in real life), e.g. marriage, conversion (16/17th century example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susenyos_of_Ethiopia; I guess pulling it off during the crusading era wouldn't have been out of the whack), acquiring a common border (sort of like the Byzantine Palaiologi inherited the marquessate of Monferrato in the HRE/Italy in 14th century and that branch is actually still living) etc.

From a sorta-historical, speculative point of view, any crusade that targets Egypt would be overjoyed to be able to connect with Ethiopians, Nubians or whomever else on the south, even without a religious conversion. So perhaps a distant, remote Christian kingdom could become an ally of the entire crusade? Or even simply capable of joining in, with different dialogue if player-controlled?

Yet another common tactic in such cases in the middle ages was the "mendicant tour" manoeuvre. :p The final Byzantine emperors probably spent half their lives in western courts, looking for help. So had crusader rulers before. This is totally realistic for a Latin/Catholic noble anywhere which is not Europe, for a heavily oppressed Basileus, I guess conceivable for a king of Georgia or Armenia. And, with a stretch of imagination, Abyssinia. Suppose the Abyssinian legacy runs into a king of England that's secure in his realm, has a steady peace with Scotland and France or otherwise doesn't have to worry about them, is basically sitting on 80K levies and 2000 gold and getting bored. So he DoWs the caliph, drags the entire kingdom with him to acquire the Crusader trait which makes everybody love everybody, get some piety and prestige. Alternatively, no military aid is forthcoming (like always) but, let's say, the Pope spares 1000 gold out of his 35000. Or an aging veteran crusader with 25 martial score decides he wants to go because nothing (i.e. no land) is keeping him in Europe and crusading is the only job he ever held with any luck.

Alternatively, if Byzantium overblobs, which is likely in the pre-Manzikert scenario, the Basileus probably wouldn't mind an entire king submitting as his vassal. Regrettably, I can't find the exact source to show, but Abyssinia did cooperate with the Byzantines back in the time the Byzantines were still able to make a presence at the Red Sea. This means pre-Muhammad times but also after the baptism of Abyssinia (4th century), basically has got to be 5th or 6th century. It's just a couple hundred years, the learned people would know about it, it's not like, "wow, we've discovered a new kingdom full of Christians," for the Byzantines by any means.

What else? I'm wondering about the Catholic orders. I think that just as long as they were close enough geographically (e.g. there are Christian-held counties on the other coast of the Red Sea, should be enough), they would be able to be convinced to help the Abyssinians. I have no data to back this up with but I think the Templars would be the most likely (these were the guys who ran their own diplomacy and were far from simple war mongers or opportunists, they were capable of seeing the big picture and I believe their horizons would have been broad enough to have helped Abyssinia if needed and feasible; historically it wasn't really needed first of all).

Probably a last idea but also one used by certain Christian rulers in the East: submit to the Ilkhanate. Actually, Antioch did that in the last decades of its existence, and the duke, along with his Armenian cousin, rode into the captured Baghdad. Since the Ilkhan is represented as an emperor (so is the Great Mugal of the Timurids) and the ruler of Abyssinia as only a king, I think it should be feasible. It certainly wasn't outside the mentality of the Mongols, who already in 13th century insisted that the Pope and everybody else in Europe should submit to their vassalage. And Mongol vassalage (in the case of the Ilkhanate at least) tended to mean that you were expected to make yourself useful. It didn't really rely on the Khagan being close to you and able to protect you, while, obviously, declaring war on an important Ilkhanate vassal would tend to have been a bold idea. After the dust settled, I guess that during a bad succession the larger kingdoms could obtain and defend independence, particularly if they allied each other or somebody else.

Anybody feel free to poke me if you'd like me to back up some of the claims.
 
I don't understand what the fuss is about. There are numerous mods that address this issue.
 
I don't understand what the fuss is about. There are numerous mods that address this issue.

A mod is not the same as a patch or fix in vanilla. It has a different feel. Not everybody feels like this, it's basically a subjective thing.
 
I don't understand what the fuss is about. There are numerous mods that address this issue.
That's not the right mentality -- if everyone said that then no one would complain or suggest better alternatives and nothing would ever get changed. Games wouldn't evolve as Paradox games do (with better features/ideas being implemented over time).

People should comment (sensibly, and with clear suggestions) if they think they can improve a particular aspect of the game, and Abyssinia definitely needs improving.
 
I agree. And the reason that this occurred is because the Muslims were not able to conquer Nubia. So they decided to trade and live in peace. Kind of hard to imagine in game Nubia ever being able to garnish any type of peace through combat. A holy order or some mercenaries would help that.

Any idea why that was the case? I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with that particular region and era, but maybe something workable might present itself.

For now, a possible option could be removing Monophysite Orthodox Christians (or even specifically, Ethiopian/Nubian Orthodox Christians) from the list of valid targets for holy war CBs.
 
Philo, you'll be pleased to know I'm currently working on a mod to address a lot of the issues that have been raised here. In addition to adding a couple of my own ideas, I'm borrowing bits and pieces from other mods that have tackled certain aspects I want to include, in order to cobble them together into something resembling a comprehensive Abyssinia buff. Once I have an ETA, you'll be the first to know. :happy:

P.S. If you want to catch an early look, you might want to drop by the CKII Modding IRC channel, where you'll probably find me desperately trying to flag down some of our more esteemed modders here for help with all the walls I've been running face-first into -- plus, it'll make Meneth happy! :laugh:
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of no more CBs against Abyssinia, this is really one of the issues I've really not liked much about this game is the inaccuracies of Abyssinia, and how horribly weak they're made to be. Its sad to see in my opinion and hopefully PI will figure something out. Sad seeing probably the longest lasting kingdom/empire in africa get nerfed into oblivion.