• 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.
Currently playing as Jerusalem (started around 1120, Rum has conquered half of Turkey and Allepo and Mosul are independant) and I have no idea what OP's talking about, even when I constantly get attacked for Galilee and religious defence, the only thing I lost was 2 counties and then just because they called a Jihad for it and I was defending Galilee at the same time (not sure why they keep choosing Galilee, it's in the middle of my lands and my personal upgraded holdings, insane atrition so by just waiting I can kill about half of any Shiite doomstack), and losing 2 counties doesn't feel like much of a loss when you just consumed Allepo, Mosul and Damascus.
And from the 2 counties I lost I even got one back via rebellion flip because I made peace for the Jihad with the weakest and furthest away enemy.

I see no issue with the Muslims power, only with massive empires power, which the Shiite Caliphate obviously is, with the game focussing on Christian states the two blobs that usually get bashed are the HRE ans ERE, but the Caliphate has the same problems, it never loses territory through rebellion, it keeps summoning massive doomstacks and will usually only gain lands, be it from Muslims or Christians.
It is a bit ridiculous how every muslim castle is a doom fortress that spawns 3k soldiers though, seems like historically this should be restricted for only the stronger provinces, not to mention that it's pretty hard to tax or levy the nomadic people that inhabited large parts of north Africa.
 
You know, I heard the mongols and the arabs pretty much beat the crap out of the christians in most of this time period...


Everything was funny, execpt this.

Really please prove that muslims ever invaded european soil, since that is nonexistent

Only Ottomans have done this, and that was long after this period.
 
Everything was funny, execpt this.

Really please prove that muslims ever invaded european soil, since that is nonexistent

Only Ottomans have done this, and that was long after this period.

First of all, the Byzantine Empire was, last I checked, a Christian nation and they got their asses handed to them by the various Islam nations nearby; granted, internal struggle played a part in that too. Also keep in mind that most of the Crusades in the time didn't go all that well, so there's that too.

As for the Mongols... yeah, they pretty much kicked the asses of everyone, from Novgorod to Hungary. Hell, Hungary's Béla IV is called the "Second Founder [of Hungary]" (excuse the poor translation), because the Mongol hordes wrecked the country so bad in the 13th century.
 
First of all, the Byzantine Empire was, last I checked, a Christian nation and they got their asses handed to them by the various Islam nations nearby; granted, internal struggle played a part in that too. Also keep in mind that most of the Crusades in the time didn't go all that well, so there's that too.

As for the Mongols... yeah, they pretty much kicked the asses of everyone, from Novgorod to Hungary. Hell, Hungary's Béla IV is called the "Second Founder [of Hungary]" (excuse the poor translation), because the Mongol hordes wrecked the country so bad in the 13th century.

No that's ordothox christian and they had seprate pope.

Byzantine Empire was Orthodox not Christian, however Orthodox is part of the Christianty. So that means only Christian Orthodox were beaten badly.

With this logic you can say that russian are mongols. And that all westren cultures are the same.

You know what I mean, but in a way you are right they were part of the Christianty.
 
Everything was funny, execpt this.

Really please prove that muslims ever invaded european soil, since that is nonexistent

Only Ottomans have done this, and that was long after this period.
Iberia. But yeah nobody's saying that the Muslims conquered europe or whatever. The Mongols obviously did but is anybody here seriously arguing that the muslims are nearly as strong as they are? I mean come on you guys...a mid-sized country can easily beat the shiites early in the game if you play half decent. Late-game situations, however, are actually quite different. What makes the Shia caliphate strong in such a situation is the fact that they don't have to transport their troops with ships and that really is the whole reason that they may seem unbeatable. While in early-game situations, a 'big' army is 10k~ troops, I find that after a while, even if I try not to expand that agressively, I'll be able to get about 50 times as many troops more than before, while naval attrition (and land attrition too, for that matter) stays the same. As for Iberia, I find that i can always unite the kingdoms and destroy the muslims, without using holy orders and, if I do use them, then it's just too easy. Unless of course we're talking about some ugly, retarded, gluttonous, gay count trying to fight off the Muslims, in which case...
 
No that's ordothox christian and they had seprate pope.

Byzantine Empire was Orthodox not Christian, however Orthodox is part of the Christianty. So that means only Christian Orthodox were beaten badly.

With this logic you can say that russian are mongols. And that all westren cultures are the same.

You know what I mean, but in a way you are right they were part of the Christianty.
I just cried a little. I really did. I was gonna correct you but then I saw the 'russians are mongols' thing and I just facepalmed.
 
Ignoring the part of your post that might get you banned, you're right. I didn't respond to all of your post, and I'll tell you why. In my opinion, the game is more fun if it's historical. And I don't think muslims and mongols should be "nerfed into space" because that would take out challenge and historical accuracy from the game. I disagree that it's impossible to beat them in the first place.

However, I do agree that strong powers aren't weakened enough by civil wars. In realizing that, I tried to come up with ideas of why this is, and solutions to the problem. Then, I went to the bug report forum and wrote a proper suggestion instead of raging on the forum.

I flew off the handle and some percieved snarkiness on your part made me get unnecessarily angry, you have my apologies for my putburst and it wont happen again
 
Except that's the problem. Dukes can't disobey their King in this game. King orders troops levied? Boom, it's done, Duke has no say whatsoever, and has no control over those units. Taxes, laws, same deal.

Whether or not the Pope recognizes a territory as a separate country in reality, the only way for civil disobedience to be implemented in the game as it stands is through a War for Independance. Either that or make it so any levey of Vassal troops (or application of laws and taxes, not just the voting) has to be agreed upon by the Vassals. Every disobediant act should come at a loyalty cost, of course, and there should also be an option to be more generous with such requests for a bonus.

You could choose in ck1 not to raise troops, and i didnt understand why they changed this
 
Also clearly the issue is with the large powers being to stable, it takes away from the game when you have these large empires, there needs to be more plots and less stability to help make them more fluid
 
Also clearly the issue is with the large powers being to stable, it takes away from the game when you have these large empires, there needs to be more plots and less stability to help make them more fluid

It's a fine line to walk. For every person that wants to make it harder to hold together large empires, there is an equal number of people that will complain that it is impossible to hold their own countries intact if it changes.

Where is the perfect dividing line between empires collapsing sometimes, and players never being able to expand because they are constantly fighting civil wars?
 
I would like at least some more plots which would make being under a liege more interesting. I get that people wouldn't like their own empire to fall apart but it would make it all the more satisfying if you pull it off and it would mean that the ai wouldnt be able to throw its doomstacks around with impunity
 
The game must be nearly balanced to perfection if such an unbased rage thread is on of the top threads. I hate blobs in paradox games, but u think they are balanced really nice in this game, and i dotn midn them a lot for all the fun happening within them. Sure if you the count of Arborea or Capua you can nearly bet on getting stomped by a muslim blob, but well shit happens , bordering a Muslim blob in real life wast a piece of cake either. You say you dont care about real life but fun? Yeah sorrym cant see the fun were starting in a horrible position you can still easily rise to success. Maybe you should change your approach to the game instead of wanting to change it to fit your style and ruin the fine balance it has at the moment.

Edit: just saw your last post and i see you already realize maybe the game should be played not trying to beat the blobs. Looks like you are on a good way. And her ei agree , the inner mechanics of the blobs could be still improved a lot to provide more fun and challenge.
 
Techinally they lost, since only a few years after they were pushed back. To north west Africa.


But weren't these Muslims there before Christian/Romans came to spain? And settled down?

Romans were there about 800 years before. And Christianity came before Islam as well.

Also, 8th century to 13th century isn't "few years."
 
its not balanced! certain empires ALWAYS dominate the map nearly every single time. I dont call that balanced when the same damn thing happens every time.

If it was balanced to perfection then there would be no rage thread....