Early Games = Muslim, Late = Catholic (A mere observation)

[Sarenarass]

I noticed the more the game goes on the more it seems to lean against the Muslims. It starts largely in their favor with most Muslim nations having a larger levy than their Catholic counterparts... and they start on the offensive!

The Seljuks invade the Byzantine Empire!
The Fatamids.. attack everything! (Whether it be Abyssinia, Italy, or Greece!)
The Iberian Muslims 80% of the time conquer about all of Spain!
The Cumans (who I know aren't Muslim) usually expand at a steady rate taking land from its Orthodox and sometimes Muslim neighbors.

Surely we are doomed.. except for we aren't! I usually notice after the Holy Orders come around the Catholic Crusades generally become much more successful and around late 1100's to the 1200's and beyond the Muslims in Iberia begin getting pushed back. France or the Holy Roman Empire are usually the leaders of this wave of assaults. Usually in about 5 out of every 7 games the HRE slowly blobs into all directions and usually is the strongest power by the end of the game.

Though there are many complaints about the Fatamids being OP.. usually when they are overthrown their realm starts going into decline. This usually happens around 1120-1200. (I've never seen a single game where the Fatamids hold their dynasty all the way to the end date) And generally all the land the Byzantines lose they either take back themselves or Catholics do it for them. And finally.. the Pagans.. we all know they have no chance (not saying this is a fault, they didn't really have much of a chance at that date anyways).

IN SUMMARY: Muslims begin generally rapid expansion in the early game and Catholics generally go around capturing North Africa and Spain late game.

Is this something that should be fixed and is a balance issue or do you think it is designed this way?

 

[Lord Finnish]

You are correct.
And yes, it obviously should be fixed. There are three main violators, Fatimids, HRE and France. Perhaps something can be done to give them something else to deal with than invading everywhere, like how Seljuk Persia is despite its huge size relatively peaceful towards its neighbors.

 

[tvremote84]

You are certainly correct in saying the late game favors the christian powers, however the problem is generally that by the time the late game kicks in the only christian power left is the HRE, so they generally expand like crazy into spain, south france, hungary, etc. Wherever the muslims takeoever early sooner or later becomes part of the HRE, which is annoying. Its either Fatmids or HRE, no one else has a chance.

 

[unmerged(527492)]

One issue though, is that cultures seem to change too quickly and the game's mechanics don't really lend towards the restoration of former Christian/Muslim nations. So Spain eventually ends up Catholic, but it's also usually also German or French.

 

[Sarenarass]

One issue though, is that cultures seem to change too quickly and the game's mechanics don't really lend towards the restoration of former Christian/Muslim nations. So Spain eventually ends up Catholic, but it's also usually also German or French.

Yeah.. I have observed several games while bored (and generally have them run while I do other things) and the same thing happens a lot. Usually the HRE will blob everywhere and German culture takes over everything. Also, if there is no strong, unified power in Russia the Mongols will generally roll over them and I see them go as far as Poland (which they have in my game. Now the Russian, Lappish, Finnish, and Polish cultures are pretty much all gone and Mongol culture is everywhere. Denmark is under a Khan right now. Lol.

Also.. the HRE seems to have the least trouble expanding. Sometimes major nations just have too many rebellions to expand but the HRE never seems to be hindered by its size. The largest I've ever seen them get was from Spain to the corner of Russia and they had North Africa.. in my current game they have Germany, almost all of Italy, France, and Spain.

AND WITH THE SUNNI'S: They generally run into problems later in the game due to their moral authority almost always falling down. Sometimes they hold together but I see them splinter apart sometimes not much helping their survival chances against Catholic holy wars.

EDIT: Right now Venice owns almost all of Italy, Greece, and has Egypt... and Pisa owns the parts of Italy that the HRE and Venice don't have, Sicily, and North Africa.

 

[victimizer]

The game has to have some kind of a geopolitical DLC that fixes the way powers expand.

All major medieval empires expanded on the back of some big advantage that they had over their enemy. The arab empire spread because they had an advantage in the dry and desert terrain of the Middle east, which they mastered in warfare because of their bedouin traditions. The vikings expanded, conquering Russia and England and raiding pretty much everywhere, because they mastered sea travel and could travel shallow rivers with their short keeled boats. In both cases, Arab and Viking, they had the advantage of being able to choose their battlefield and could raid with impunity. Horse people like the Cumans had an obvious advantage in the Eurasian steppes, but weren't much of a threat in the German lands. Likewise, European expansion into the steppes, 1700-Russian style, wouldn't be possible because of the difficulty of lording over the steppes with European style medieval armies.

Basically, imo, the game needs two major changes:

1. The importance of geography in expansion needs to be increased by a lot. E.g. a European army should have virtually no chance against a reasonably well lead Bedouin army in the deserts of Arabia. Thus European conquest of North Africa should be far more difficult, almost impossible. A Cuman army would have similar difficulty against a European army in the terrain of Germany (although super-effective armies like the Mongols, could master almost every terrain).
2. The game needs a total naval revamp. Naval levies should be reduced to a bare minimum and perhaps the fleets would be very expensive retinues? To use the sea as your highway, you'd need to control key territories like Constantinople, Venice, Genoa, Tunis and invest in ship production. Or something like that.

 

[Spartanlemur]

The Holy Roman Empire needs to be sorted out urgently; especially if the ERE happens to grow.

 

[Sian]

one of the problems with HRE is that they finally loses a independence war, they slowly just reincorperate 1 member of the independence league at a time.

 

[Comradebot]

You are certainly correct in saying the late game favors the christian powers, however the problem is generally that by the time the late game kicks in the only christian power left is the HRE, so they generally expand like crazy into spain, south france, hungary, etc. Wherever the muslims takeoever early sooner or later becomes part of the HRE, which is annoying. Its either Fatmids or HRE, no one else has a chance.

Now now, France is usually left. In fact, the only time I have seen then around late game was back when the old Mongol mechanics allowed them to use a single county Russia to bypass the HRE. The best case scenario is that Aquitaine breaks free and France never has the power to really make any major headway... but the Occitans rarely seem inspired to flee the French (though it is nice when they and the Dutch in Flanders unite for an independence league, definitely one of the best examples of that faction in actual use).


And its not even "late" game sometimes. I've seen France and the HRE in Iberia and North Africa before 1100 more than once.

 

[Hootieleece]

Naval Levies are way too numerous. Generally any Kingdom or Empire Sized Realm can levy more than enough ships to move its troops around.I've NEVER used the naval mercenaries because of this fact.

IRL the Crusades only worked because Genoa and Venice had the Sealift Capacity to move the Armies raised and ability to supply them.

Why did the German contingent always march through the Balkans and Asia Minor........it was too Big for # of ships available.

Vassals also need an option/event to refuse levy call up.......with appropriate realtions Malus and justified imprisonment.(So these blob can't win just by attrition)

 

[King_Duncan]

Yes, the Holy Roman Empire as represented in this game is far too powerful. Historically the Salian and Hohenstaufen kings barely excercised any direct political authority (in the raising of taxes and administration of justice) outside of their dynastic lands in the Rhineland, Franconia, and Swabia. Most ultramontane expeditions to subdue Italy would open the door to revolts at home, and even the most celebrated kings - like Barbarossa - had trouble getting most of their vassals to supply troops in large numbers. Above all, the Investiture Controversy - which is almost utterly absent apart from a couple of token events - split the Empire apart in the eleventh century. For a brief period Gregory VII had Henry IV at his mercy, and the king was forced to stall for time by grovelling his way to the pope and his patroness Matilda of Canossa in a sackloth in the dead of winter, begging for forgiveness.

Against this historical backdrop, how can German troops invading Tunis in 1100 (as often happens in my games) possibly be considered plausible alternate history? The high medieval Imperial polity should be much weaker, fiscally and militarily, than it is in-game at the moment.

 

[Frozen_Predator]

I've found that adding piety requirements to holy wars mostly changes these dynamics utterly, with Iberia becoming an almost stalemate situation for most of the game and North Africa being left alone, Southern Italy mostly becomes a multiple battlefield between Republics, the ERE and the Muslims.

 

[SewrRatt]

Naval Levies are way too numerous. Generally any Kingdom or Empire Sized Realm can levy more than enough ships to move its troops around.I've NEVER used the naval mercenaries because of this fact.

IRL the Crusades only worked because Genoa and Venice had the Sealift Capacity to move the Armies raised and ability to supply them.

Why did the German contingent always march through the Balkans and Asia Minor........it was too Big for # of ships available.

Vassals also need an option/event to refuse levy call up.......with appropriate realtions Malus and justified imprisonment.(So these blob can't win just by attrition)

A simple way to represent the naval power of Venice and Genoa would be to stop armies from crossing straits or disembarking if the sea zone has more enemy ships in it than friendly ships. This way Venice could actually defend itself like it should be able to, and Genoa if it were smart enough could even force the player to march there overland by just following the player's fleet with its own fleet. Then the only place the troops could disembark would be at a county the player owns by actually docking there. It would also provide a reason for the player to hire the mercenary navies, because 100 ships might put them over the threshold to allow troops to land in Venice or wherever. Maybe they could even limit the number of troops landing to the number of troops that could fit on the difference in ships between the attacking and defending navy.

 

[SupCanard]

Surely we are doomed.. except for we aren't!

Despite having the same opinion about the game, I mean after like 30 games or so, half of them being multiplayer ones, I have the same conclusions. But sadly, I was surprised at this point, where you assumed we were all catholic readers/players. Sorry to surprise you, but some of us are not (for example, I firmly believe in atheism and think that religions shouldn't have survived the Crusader Kings era but that's another story).
Too bad, you made a correct observation about the game, which is, in my opinion, flawed by this false presumption. You 're right when you state that there is a shift in power in the game, but you 're wrong when you say "We" and talking about catholic nations.

Of course, I'm not taking this seriously. That mistake is not the end of the world of course. Just wanted to remind you to do not assume that we are all catholic players, be it in-game or IRL. Btw, I think this is intended. If you play a muslim nation, know that you are powerful at the start of the game but you will loose power during the game and will have to deal with the mongols, you have to play accordingly. Same thing if you play a christian nation. Keep in mind that you are not as powerful as the Fatimids for example, and you have to restrain the muslims for example as much as you can until the power shift is in place. In my multiplayers game (we are 8 players, playing one session a week), we all know this and we play accordingly.
Muslims players try to extend their nation as much as they can at the start, whereas catholic nations players try to keep as much of their power as they can, until they are able to retake lost lands when they are at their peak of power later in the game and start to expand their empires.

[Edit]: I agree with what SewrRatt said about the use of naval power. Something should be done about it.
Players shouldn't be allowed to land troops if there are hostile naval force in same location. Actually nothing prevents it, and players exploit this fact.

 

[cywang86]

one of the problems with HRE is that they finally loses a independence war, they slowly just reincorperate 1 member of the independence league at a time.

You should tell that to people complaining about independence factions. Let them go, and devour them all later.

 

[leksu]

In one of my games, the Fatimids were overthrown about 5 times, but every time they managed to get on the throne of Egypt again, until I conquered them.

 

[Sarenarass]

Despite having the same opinion about the game, I mean after like 30 games or so, half of them being multiplayer ones, I have the same conclusions. But sadly, I was surprised at this point, where you assumed we were all catholic readers/players. Sorry to surprise you, but some of us are not (for example, I firmly believe in atheism and think that religions shouldn't have survived the Crusader Kings era but that's another story).
Too bad, you made a correct observation about the game, which is, in my opinion, flawed by this false presumption. You 're right when you state that there is a shift in power in the game, but you 're wrong when you say "We" and talking about catholic nations.

Of course, I'm not taking this seriously. That mistake is not the end of the world of course. Just wanted to remind you to do not assume that we are all catholic players, be it in-game or IRL. Btw, I think this is intended. If you play a muslim nation, know that you are powerful at the start of the game but you will loose power during the game and will have to deal with the mongols, you have to play accordingly. Same thing if you play a christian nation. Keep in mind that you are not as powerful as the Fatimids for example, and you have to restrain the muslims for example as much as you can until the power shift is in place. In my multiplayers game (we are 8 players, playing one session a week), we all know this and we play accordingly.
Muslims players try to extend their nation as much as they can at the start, whereas catholic nations players try to keep as much of their power as they can, until they are able to retake lost lands when they are at their peak of power later in the game and start to expand their empires.

[Edit]: I agree with what SewrRatt said about the use of naval power. Something should be done about it.
Players shouldn't be allowed to land troops if there are hostile naval force in same location. Actually nothing prevents it, and players exploit this fact.

Funny, I was thinking about that "We" looking a bit strange, but I was talking from the perspective of a Christian ruler for that brief sentence... to possibly some people's confusion.

Yes, I agree with SewrRatt's ideas. If I may add.. I think that mercenary navies should have to be used more often. When Venice loaned the Crusaders ships during the (I forgot which one) Crusade it was one of the largest fleets massed on par with the late Roman Empire. Yet pretty much as long as you have about 8 coastal provinces you can muster a navy of about 60-100, easily satisfying your transportation needs.

I also agree with victimizer in that geography/terrain should be very important in being able to keep/retain your land and to expand. Maybe a bit 'out-of-date' example, but when the Romans attempted to conquer "Germania" their normal tactics of fighting in large formations was next to impossible in the thick forests of Germany. They were constantly ambushed and in the tight spaces unable to defend themselves.

And I usually always see France/Holy Roman Empire/some Italian state 'colonizing' North Africa at some point. With the current technology it would've been near impossible to keep those colonies afloat and with enough supplies. That's why large scale colonization of Africa didn't happen for quite some time. Also.. going back to cultures.. I remember in my game as Norway when I conquered England that I had one province go to "Norwegian" culture in about 60 years. That's about 2-3 generations in that time. I hardly doubt you would be a Saxon grandfather and suddenly have Norwegian grand children. And it's even worse when the Crusades are won... how does the middle east become German so quickly? Lol

 

[Sarenarass]

Don't look at it!

DON'T LOOK DIRECTLY AT IT... so many things you do not want to see or know.

(Culture map in the current game I'm watching)

You can see the "Independent Realms" screenshot here "http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?585791-The-Obligatory-CK2-Strange-Screenshot-Thread&p=14601125#post14601125"

 

[PanzerKrigs]

Despite having the same opinion about the game, I mean after like 30 games or so, half of them being multiplayer ones, I have the same conclusions. But sadly, I was surprised at this point, where you assumed we were all catholic readers/players. Sorry to surprise you, but some of us are not (for example, I firmly believe in atheism and think that religions shouldn't have survived the Crusader Kings era but that's another story).
Too bad, you made a correct observation about the game, which is, in my opinion, flawed by this false presumption. You 're right when you state that there is a shift in power in the game, but you 're wrong when you say "We" and talking about catholic nations.

Of course, I'm not taking this seriously. That mistake is not the end of the world of course. Just wanted to remind you to do not assume that we are all catholic players, be it in-game or IRL. Btw, I think this is intended. If you play a muslim nation, know that you are powerful at the start of the game but you will loose power during the game and will have to deal with the mongols, you have to play accordingly. Same thing if you play a christian nation. Keep in mind that you are not as powerful as the Fatimids for example, and you have to restrain the muslims for example as much as you can until the power shift is in place. In my multiplayers game (we are 8 players, playing one session a week), we all know this and we play accordingly.
Muslims players try to extend their nation as much as they can at the start, whereas catholic nations players try to keep as much of their power as they can, until they are able to retake lost lands when they are at their peak of power later in the game and start to expand their empires.

[Edit]: I agree with what SewrRatt said about the use of naval power. Something should be done about it.
Players shouldn't be allowed to land troops if there are hostile naval force in same location. Actually nothing prevents it, and players exploit this fact.

Why, oh why, do you mix personal religion in to this? I really cannot see where anybody in this thread, but you, starts talking about the PLAYERS religion.
But besides this. Yes, it is probably intented, sort of. It is just too radical, or extreme, if you will. And culture-spread is ridiculous. Other than that, this thread does have some very solid points and solutions.

 

[SupCanard]

Why, oh why, do you mix personal religion in to this? I really cannot see where anybody in this thread, but you, starts talking about the PLAYERS religion.
But besides this. Yes, it is probably intented, sort of. It is just too radical, or extreme, if you will. And culture-spread is ridiculous. Other than that, this thread does have some very solid points and solutions.

I never saw you write a comment like this in the hundreds of posts in the Paradox Interactive forums, starting by a "For the love of god!" or "For Christ sake". Feel free to correct me, but then, please correct all those posts first

I said this because he said "we", so I was asking myself who could be this "we". And as I said, since we re not all playing catholic nations nor we are all catholic players, I found that using the word "we" was a mistake. For example, let's assume I'm playing in a game the Fatimid faction, still cannot see why the "we" could seem weird? If you can't understand this, then... Don't say anything...

He didn't mention it in his first post but explained later that he was talking from a catholic ruler point of view. With that said, then the "we" takes sense, without saying it, it didn't. Btw, OP perfectly understood, why there were some confusion or some questions about it and simply clarified the situation.

Back to topic then. I think if France or HRE and some italian factions are so often colonizing north Africa, it is mostly because it is a cheap way of making your vassals happy. You don't need a CB for it, since north Africa is of a different religion, and vassals do like this as you are fighting infidels. Holy wars are a really cheap way of getting some kingdom stability. So when AI is strong enough to expand, but doesn't have any valid CB, AI nearly always target those lands. It's not for their strategic advantages but rather for their social and political advantages... Human players do this also, and don't even care to defend those lands afterwards, since if retaken by muslims, it ll give them new easy, and not far away targets to content their christian vassals again. Those lands are not important to those christian invaders, but the benefits from the wars made there are important and are the main purpose of colonisation in this area.