I think instead of taking out Jihads, they should be given gavelkind like all the other religions. Because whereas Jihads actually existed in the Muslim world, Turkish succession only existed for the Turks. I believe Saladin had gavelkind succession when he died.
Nuclear Take: Muslims should lose access to Great Holy Wars
- Thread starter Heavenly Serpent
- Start date
-
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.
Feudal elective is probably the closest we have to representing the most common type of medieval Islamic inheritance. In practice, it usually went to sons, though that wasn't "supposed to" be automatic. Gavelkind for Saladin is an exaggeration. He chose to split up his titles to his sons, but it wasn't automatic, and his handing out hereditary titles to his kinsmen during his lifetime instead of making essentially viceroyal appointments of governors was seen as strange and alarming.
A lot of issues with trying to model historical inheritance in-game come from the fact that a LOT of historical successions were by appointment/designation of successors to each title, not any of the systems the game uses.
A lot of issues with trying to model historical inheritance in-game come from the fact that a LOT of historical successions were by appointment/designation of successors to each title, not any of the systems the game uses.
769 is much more balanced than 867, when it comes to more reliable AI outcomes. With 867 there are no large regional blocs that can impede an uncommonly strong AI. They're all small kingdom sized blobs that don't do anything in stopping AI expansion, let alone player expansion. Hence why it's all those complaints about Pagans or Umayyad "out of control."
In 769 at least there are said large regional blocs. Superblobs, even. It's difficult for players or AI to mount an attack into these without a substantial outside power base, and that's uncommon to achieve since said superblobs sit on all the good land. The reason it is less balanced than 1066 is that there are substantial blobbing opportunities as a vassal. In 1066 it's difficult to blob as a king and even harder as a vassal since you cannot easily get big enough (in the realm as vassal) to challenge the neighboring large regional blocs, whereas in 769 it's possible as a vassal to blob within a superblob and take all the good land, coming out extremely strong.
Last edited:
In 769 charlamagne fails 9/10 times and then the big blobs already on the map covers it, there is no balance. The blocks are far more evenly sized in 867.
If by evenly sized you mean too small to stop errant expansion, sure. Even if Charly fails the two or three blobs that result from the split are larger than the ones in 867, particularly since the bordergore means more of the realms are in close proximity to Aquitane.
867 is a garbage start with regards to balance. People just love that start because it allows for the easiest blobbing. Then complain when even the AI could do it. Duh? Pick least balanced start, get unhistorical unchecked blobby outcomes.
Yeah, which is why Charly is at least a superior start. Stronger regional blobs to slow blobbing from an abnormally strong AI (and players.) It is much more predictable what typically happens in 1066 than 769 start, and 769 start than 867.
Last edited:
Yeah but bigger block don't result in less blobbing they result in more blobbing. Ck2 like all paradox games has a problem with snowballing. Dont geg me wrong 867 is broken liek hell but 769 is the worst. Both of them are terribly balanced compared to the 1066+ ones.
I'm surprised nobody did this before, perhaps because people are more concerned about gameplay reasons than historica.
Muslims indeed did organize something like this. It didn't work exactly like Crusades, that a Caliph declared holy war and used his authority to force other muslim rulers. Simply because Muslim world worked differently.
But there were numerous cases when an emir or any local ruler declared jihad and warriors throughout the muslim world were joining him.
In Anatolia there were the Ghazi warriors organizing religiously justified raids into Byzantine territories... after the creation of Ottoman emirate, encouraged by the Ottomans, who used them to increase their power. Before that something similar happened during muslim expansion to Central Asia. There were numerous such wars in the Sahel where local ruler collected participants from more or less wide spectre of muslim countries and expanded Islam/aimed to reconquer territories ruled by infidels (be them non-muslims or wrong muslims). Most of them were minor and not all of them received caliphal approval, because the caliphal authority didn't really affect major rulers.
Were there no big expeditions like Crusades? I don't think so.
The Almoravids organized large expedition to face the reconquista. So did the Almoravids. So did Saladin. All of them have declared jihads for reconquest of lost lands. They were not caliphs you may object. The Seljuk conquest of Iran was pronounced to be sunni reconquest of Iran ruled by shiite heretics, and as such have received caliphal approval. All of these were joined by warriors from outside of the realm of the main participant, although the forces of the organizer were always very dominant. OTOH, most of actuall crusades (except the most well-known) were very similar to this. So?
We are naturally aware mainly of events as they happened and were described in our cultural world, so your ignorance is understandable and is no shame. But your ignorance of the world outside doesn't mean it didn't exist.
You are both obviously not correct.
Muslims indeed did organize something like this. It didn't work exactly like Crusades, that a Caliph declared holy war and used his authority to force other muslim rulers. Simply because Muslim world worked differently.
But there were numerous cases when an emir or any local ruler declared jihad and warriors throughout the muslim world were joining him.
In Anatolia there were the Ghazi warriors organizing religiously justified raids into Byzantine territories... after the creation of Ottoman emirate, encouraged by the Ottomans, who used them to increase their power. Before that something similar happened during muslim expansion to Central Asia. There were numerous such wars in the Sahel where local ruler collected participants from more or less wide spectre of muslim countries and expanded Islam/aimed to reconquer territories ruled by infidels (be them non-muslims or wrong muslims). Most of them were minor and not all of them received caliphal approval, because the caliphal authority didn't really affect major rulers.
Were there no big expeditions like Crusades? I don't think so.
The Almoravids organized large expedition to face the reconquista. So did the Almoravids. So did Saladin. All of them have declared jihads for reconquest of lost lands. They were not caliphs you may object. The Seljuk conquest of Iran was pronounced to be sunni reconquest of Iran ruled by shiite heretics, and as such have received caliphal approval. All of these were joined by warriors from outside of the realm of the main participant, although the forces of the organizer were always very dominant. OTOH, most of actuall crusades (except the most well-known) were very similar to this. So?
We are naturally aware mainly of events as they happened and were described in our cultural world, so your ignorance is understandable and is no shame. But your ignorance of the world outside doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Last edited:
769 Abbasids don't even blob further. The Byzantines remain intact in all starts despite being objectively smaller and neighboring the Abbasids. There's just too many weak tributaries constantly under attack for the AI Caliph to do much of anything. They spend years marching from India to Armenia, then back, then to Transxonoxia (sp.) Then civil war hits because he's been keeping levies up for years. Repeat until Seljuks/Shia/decadence comes to wreck his ****
Umayyads have essentially the same starting position as 867 Umayyads, yet we often find the most complaints about them in Old Gods, the more played start.
AI Francia/HRE, when formed, still need the tech 4 to push into anywhere. If anything they often push into the Umayyads without use of Crusades.
With 769 Pagans often don't overrun France or Germany, since they remain substantial blocs even when split threeway and bordergored so they're all in the same region. That's not the case in 867, where Aquitane will rarely lift a finger for Germany and vice versa.
1066 >>> 769 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>867.
Yeah they're both inferior to the base start. But equating 867's poorly balanced start to 769's is silly.
Yeah but those are regular holy wars. The grear jihads are long since over.
The abassids don't blob in 769? Well thank you for that do but the ummayads do. As soon as Charlie is dead they eat all western Europe. And pagans are right in their coatails. Atleast in 867 the formation requirements for the hre arent essentially impossible for everyone but one character. I even see the ai form it from time to time. A lot more often than I ever see Charlie survive long enough to go through his events. Also fairly sure 769 is more played than 867.
And it's
1081>>>1066>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>867>>>769
769 is so bad half of Charlie's events don't even function.
Reading comprehension is a thing.
As soon as Charly fails in 769 his blob may split. Into three. Maybe. He'd need to make the titles, and more importantly has to crap out four males to be nearly as fragmented as the 867 start.
That's still larger than the blobs in 867 AND due to bordergore Charly's blobs are in the region. They are much more likely to get help from the other blobs than Germany helping Aquitane in 867. Or vice versa against Pagans.
Same thing for Pagans. Pagans eat up 867 just fine. Not the case for Charlemagne start.
867 is so bad even the AI can blob ridiculously easily. And that's saying a lot. Old Gods is by far the blobbiest and hence least balanced start. There's simply no comparison to Charly.
Charly is worse than 1066 because you can blob within these static superblobs and reach a critical mass to bulldoze everyone, unlike 1066 where that's more difficult. Working from the outside is even more difficult due to them being superblobs.
Expanding within as a vassal until critical mass is still objectively slower than Old Gods, where you can run over every blob on the map with just two kingdoms worth of a power base, and getting those two kingdoms is ridiculously easy since the blobs are so small. Tons of prime land being held by small regional blocs rather than large (1066) or huge (769) blocs.
Last edited:
But they were all for kingdom-sized territories or larger. Hence they qualify for GHW, rather than duchy-level regular HW, don't they?
As I said, you cannot expect the same behaviour of religious head which had completely different functions and level of authority. Hence there should be other parameters to be considered. And these are met.
The discussion of "Muslims are OP in early starts" have been had before, and to some extent my experience has been the same has @Naughtius Maximus 's: Abbasids are paper tigers and the Ummayads rarely permanently stay in France/Aquitaine, and even if they did as @MK1980 stated if Ummayads are the problem taking away GHW's won't solve the problem.
GHWs should go away because they are ahistorical, and if that nerfs the muslims to far then buff them with something that is historical not with this copy of crusades like how they used to be.
On the contrary, I think Jihads should be worked a bit and tweaked, rather than removed. Same with other Great Holy Wars of other religions. At least up to the standards of the new Crusades.
That, and removal of the nonsensical "hunt apostates" in Indian religions.
That, and removal of the nonsensical "hunt apostates" in Indian religions.
they're not, because they were not invasions, but defensive/reconquest religious wars.
They are religiously justified wars. They are proclaimed by a ruler who has some sort of religious authority. The ultimate religious authority of their religion approves them. They are for large scale territory. They get participants from larger parts of their religious world than just the proclaimer's realm.
What else do you need for a Great Holy War definition to be met? That they are declared by the pope who didn't exist in that religioin?
This!
Last edited:
They are not religion wide struggles where rulers of that religion flock to the banner of the cause from all over the muslim world. Perhaps the muslim invasions should count as religious wars, or jihads should be completely retooled to work like the reconquista in spain except targeting kingdoms, because that is a lot closer to what you are describing than the current iteration (I have inf act suggested this before that muslims get a reconquista like CB for the holy land). The current iteration is a clone of the old crusades, if they have any semblance of similarity with reality that is purely coincidental.
Also mercenaries and opportunists joining in struggles abroad, especially ones against other religons, is not exactly something unique to the muslim world the reconquista and the crusades. In fact it is more rule than exception. Consider for an example the normans in southern italy. Perhaps the reconquista CB should be retooled as the new holy war CB replacing the old one.
And while the muslim johads may have targeted kingdom level titles they did not always end up with the entierty of those and in CK2 they would have to, in ck2 success in war is all or nothing. So I would argue that these wars should not be represented with cbs targeting kingdom level titles. Take the holy land for an example, the kingdom of jerusalem did not fall all at once but instead was gradually chipped away a piece at a time, despite the offical target of the war was the entire kingdom.
It is not Jihads in their current form.
Last edited:
Serious question, not rhetorical: does that happen, in your games? In mine it's rare anyone much joins them, certainly not everyone. They can choose to, but honestly, I think random friendlies should have the "Offer to Join War" option for almost every war, there are plenty of historical examples of people jumping in and "helping" for their own motives...