CoC Mamluks: OP or not?

[Fanstar1]

Not really, they didn't need the Ottomans this time for some reason, especially considering that Mamluks are stronger than ever before now.
It actually was an other way around - Ethiopia have soundly thrashed the Mamluks and then the ottomans attacked

Mamluks ai has hard time handling wars sometimes

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

They've been mostly stagnate in my first game past 1500. They held their own ground with the Ottomans in a few wars over the Anatolian Beyliks, did some minor expanding into the Arabian peninsula. Eventually carved up the Ottomans and made a marche out of Byzantium then later Candor and Syria. The Mamluks were weak enough to give into my threatening war for Syrian cores before 1600.

 

[SaucyBaron]

Mamluks were a major power in 1444, it could very easily have been the Mamluks that would come to dominate the middle east instead of the Ottomans.

Complaining about having an easy time while playing the Mamluks is like complaining that France or The Ottomans are to easy to play as.

 

[ParagonSaber]

Yes, the Mamluks were a major power in 1444, but the game's intent is to somewhat model the era from 1444 to 1821.

In 1821, France had just gotten back from eating all of Europe and the Ottomans, while declining, had been a power since the 15th century (and the power for a good portion of that time.) The Mamluks, on the other hand, had not existed as a political entity for three centuries.

The argument that they seem to get all of the good and none of the bad things of their government system seems sound. Playing as an Iqta, which also got buffed to some extent, I was still eager to reform my government to get rid of the constant negative events it gave (some of them, though, were related to religion instead). The Mamluks have no such issues, while IRL their factionalism and infighting stagnated them and weakened them terminally.

 

[bbqftw]

They get horrifically dumpstered by Ottomans on VH, the proper difficulty.

 

[Balkri]

You don't get many bad events, although I hate the event about riders harassing pilgrims to Mecca (lose prestige-legitimacy or a lot of gold).
The succession is so far harmless, aside from the fact that you have no control on the stats of your posible sultan. If you go for a Circassian ruler you get 15 army tradition, but with no Circassians provinces you can only use the -5% power cost for a year mechanic.
If you shose a sultan from another group you can use the sell slaves (to get gold) or rise aditional support for manpower, but at the cost of low legitimacy.

The low legitimacy can be a problem for some events... like one related to who will be in charge of protecting the route to the holy cities, but so far I have only see it once.

If you expand into an area with Circassians, well you can easily stack army tradition and also get the extra gold/manpower from the mamluk goverment interactions.

A big problem I found at the start is that the nobility state have to many provinces, one or two events and you can get the Aristocratic Coup disaster really early in the campaing, cripling your economy with -25% trade income and taxes.
You can avoid it by taking away the provinces, but doing so you will very likelly deplete your initial manpower of only 18k with noble rebels.

Aside from that not much. Ethiopia can be a nuisance at the start. The ottomans are always a menace and if you expand south, well you can have problems with some colonial powers like spain or portugal.

The Mamluk goverments is really cool, but so far we don't have a way to know the stats of the posible sultan, only his age and the legitimacy that he will have at he start (And so far I already got a really competent 0, 2, 0 with 100 legitimacy so a good ruler is not a warranty) and depending of your choice some of the unique interactions will have absolutely no efect.

They seem overpowered right now. But I think that being so close to the ottoman empire is always a hard start.

 

[_Rasputin]

In-game, shouldn't they start losing strength after Europeans interfere with trading from the Persian Gulf and India? Wash't that how it went in history?

Essentially, yeah. They also had a civil war at the same time, so some disaster chains or events could be modelled on these two scenarios. The problem is, that would rely on AI Portugal reaching the Red Sea by around 1510-20; which simply isn't going to happen.

 

[Chief Iacid]

A big problem I found at the start is that the nobility state have to many provinces, one or two events and you can get the Aristocratic Coup disaster really early in the campaing, cripling your economy with -25% trade income and taxes.
You can avoid it by taking away the provinces, but doing so you will very likelly deplete your initial manpower of only 18k with noble rebels.

Yes, I got that. A side question: Anyone knows how to reduce their influence? Taking away land doesn't seem to help, it yields a 0.0% decrease whatever province I choose. And the tooltip showing what factors make up the influence level stays at 40% for land ownership.

 

[buhite2]

Eh, my experience with them hasn't exactly demonstrated that they're that dangerous. I beat them in a defensive war (without fighting them) started when they attacked a moderately well fed Aq Qoyunlu ally of mine. They had a strong numbers advantage on us, but the seem to have a lot of trouble with Arbian wastlands and annoying forts. In the end I think I me and my AI friend accidentally kited them around the middle east without a single major engagement or completed seige on their part until another ally sieged all of the northern levant.

Also, I think we need to consider the fact that the Ottomans, even nerfed, remain fairly dangerous. I haven't had a chnace to test Mamluks or Ottomans against each other yet in the new patch, but it still looks to me like the Turks have a strong advantage in a one and one fight early-mid game.

 

[PhoenixG]

Removing does help, but the problem is at the start of the game they own so much land that it overshot the 40%. They % they own isn't the same value that gives the influence.

Eh, my experience with them hasn't exactly demonstrated that they're that dangerous. I beat them in a defensive war (without fighting them) started when they attacked a moderately well fed Aq Qoyunlu ally of mine. They had a strong numbers advantage on us, but the seem to have a lot of trouble with Arbian wastlands and annoying forts. In the end I think I me and my AI friend accidentally kited them around the middle east without a single major engagement or completed seige on their part until another ally sieged all of the northern levant.

Also, I think we need to consider the fact that the Ottomans, even nerfed, remain fairly dangerous. I haven't had a chnace to test Mamluks or Ottomans against each other yet in the new patch, but it still looks to me like the Turks have a strong advantage in a one and one fight early-mid game.

From my one game experience as Mamluks, I would say in terms of fighting power it's still the same Ottoman pre-1.23. The only thing it's nerfed is their early expansion rate and not so keen to take constantinople as first mission.

 

[makaramus]

Yes, the Mamluks were a major power in 1444, but the game's intent is to somewhat model the era from 1444 to 1821.

In 1821, France had just gotten back from eating all of Europe and the Ottomans, while declining, had been a power since the 15th century (and the power for a good portion of that time.) The Mamluks, on the other hand, had not existed as a political entity for three centuries.

The argument that they seem to get all of the good and none of the bad things of their government system seems sound. Playing as an Iqta, which also got buffed to some extent, I was still eager to reform my government to get rid of the constant negative events it gave (some of them, though, were related to religion instead). The Mamluks have no such issues, while IRL their factionalism and infighting stagnated them and weakened them terminally.

mamluks did lose aganist ottoman because they didnt adapt tech fast enought usually... they were trusting their cavalary way too much ignored firearms totaly(also it was hard to get them compared to ottmans)
in game this represented as ottoman has REALLY BETTER tech group compared to mamluks

in my games ottoman still defeat mamluks 10 out of 7 wars but 3 times mamluks conquer half of anatolia and forcing ottoman ally france to hold his remaining lands after that mamluks conquering arabia . but thats the point: ALTERNATE ENDING is good

 

[Chief Iacid]

Removing does help, but the problem is at the start of the game they own so much land that it overshot the 40%. They % they own isn't the same value that gives the influence.

I see, thx.

 

[Rusky]

To me, it seemed like the reason the Mameluke A.I. would have trouble is because they don't have any crazy defense terrain, like mountains to block Ethiopia or anyone else, and have so much land and the travel time that it's hard to plan and respond for the A.I. unlike the player. Just like Muscovy/Russia if it gets in to a downward spiral.

Everyone else seems to have forts that block their major rivals really well and are positioned in more defensible places.

Seems like there is gonna be a nice A.I. balance between everyone in the Middle East IMO...( with the Ottomans being strong but hated and the Mameluke's being Strong and loved but really spread out. )

 

[schondetta]

For my feeling, Mamluks is still the same as last patch. The new government is nice, but it does nothing for combat or such. They only thing it's better for Mamluks is that Arabia is richer.

This is my impression i just finished a game trying to get " The Levant Turnabout" I stopped around 1539 after getting the achievement. Overall the tag didnt feel that much more powerful then pre coc. I had just played as the Mamluks a couple weeks ago and it feels about the same. of course they are stronger now no doubt but its not as crazy as everyone presumes. I still had a tough time taking down the Ottomans which was always the concern with the tag. Also there were a ton of shitty estate events based on buffing the Amirs i spent a lot of time with them over 80% influence or under 40% loyalty. The thing is once you placate The Ottomans you have all of the middle east/anatolia to yourself with no threatening rivals until later in the game. But that was true pre coc as well.

The govt is strong no doubt but also remember what your giving up. I was thirsting for more state limit which you dont get until tech 8. the passive bonus(+ cultural promotion which you cant even take advantage of without more states and gives no early game advantage ) is lackluster and the Sunni passive bonus ( 100% heir chance) is essentially useless too to balance the powerful +2 to admin. the succession is pretty good too since you dont take stab hits. Also there Ideas suck ass imo and you cant tag switch (unless i missed something).

The overall increase in admin point generation to me means i dont have to take and waste a slot on Administrative IG as the govt inherently acts a like a core cost reduction modifier. I was drowning in admin points most the game with somewhat aggressive expansion and taking religious and Innovative at the same time

I think with all this considered they are properly balanced and any calls for them being OP and needing a nerf is ridiculous.

 

[PhoenixG]

While you do have a better chance to get better admin ruler/have more MP, RCC is still always better. imo the OP part of RCC isn't the reduction of admin, but the reduction of coring time.

Their ideas are decent. Lots of trade ideas with a bit military.

You can form Arabia.

After playing longer as Mamluks in this patch I must say; until you reach empire, you'll really lack states. No more stab hits on mornach death. I got lot richer lot faster. The extra culture slots are really useless (currently I've 5/11 and can't promote more stuff).