Fatimids Need Toning Down?

[unmerged(20077)]

It seems the Fatimids are too powerful in CK. They were historically already in decline in 1066, and a hundred years later Saladin and his uncle were able to remove them from Egypt with little difficulty.
In the game, however, everyone seems scared to death of them, and with good reason. I've heard about them conquering England, and in my game they've just taken Constantinople.
This also leads me to the Zirids and Hamadids - in 1057 they'd been invaded by Hilali Bedouins at the behest of the Fatimids (who weren't powerful enough to fight them themselves but wanted to destroy potential rivals) resulting in terrible devastation. Their provinces in CK terms should have few improvements left and/or start 1066 as pillaged. However... this would make it easy for the Fatimids to attack them. Hmm.

 

[Brannart]

I'm more afraid of the Byzantines.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I'm more afraid of the Byzantines.

Right now they are far more deadly. Perhaps after Byzantium is fixed and the mongols are refixed then maybe Fatimids should get looked at.

 

[unmerged(15042)]

It seems the Fatimids are too powerful in CK. [snip]

Not if you're Germany. I had never played Germany before, but I had no problem taking out the Fatimids when a Crusade was called for Alexandria. They exist no more, after the next Crusade was called for Jerusalem.

 

[Martinus]

Personally, I think the problem with Fatimids is not that they are too powerful per se, but the fact that they are:
1. Too aggressive,
2. Too often allying with Spanish muslims,
3. Can travel great distances and strike back at Christian homelands without much trouble.

I don't think they should be too easy to conquer - after all they were the Muslim equivalent of the Holy Roman Empire, so they shouldn't be beatable by an European Duke or a Count, unless he is very lucky.

People are scared of them not because they can defend themselves well in Egypt (which they should), but because if they go to war with them, you soon end up with a 6000 strong muslim army besieging Paris or London.

 

[Solmyr]

Some things we did in the bugfix:

- start Egyptian provinces at struggling level (Egypt was hit by a famine in 1066)
- consolidate Fatimid Holy Land vassals under emirates (there are tags for muslim emirates of Jerusalem, Tripoli, Damascus, Syria, and El-Arish, why not use them), so that if they rebel they stand more of a chance to win their independence
- give Seljuks claims on the entire Holy Land (to prevent Seljuk-Fatimid alliances and to get the Seljuks to expand in that direction as they historically did - the latter will also require a more aggressive Seljuk AI)
- give Aswan to Nubia

 

[unmerged(35838)]

Personally, I think the problem with Fatimids is not that they are too powerful per se, but the fact that they are:
1. Too aggressive,
2. Too often allying with Spanish muslims,
3. Can travel great distances and strike back at Christian homelands without much trouble.

I don't think they should be too easy to conquer - after all they were the Muslim equivalent of the Holy Roman Empire, so they shouldn't be beatable by an European Duke or a Count, unless he is very lucky.

People are scared of them not because they can defend themselves well in Egypt (which they should), but because if they go to war with them, you soon end up with a 6000 strong muslim army besieging Paris or London.

Yeah just expoited these traits. I was duke of brandenburg, unable to do anything on hard level and living in fear of the mecklenburg- pommerainian tribe alliance when the fatimids and some other mob all but took out bohemia around 1080. I waited till their armies went home, took the provinces which gave me enough prestige to take out King of Bohemia'a last prove (150 very cheap), hey presto i am king of Bohemia. I was lucky that they had exhased themselves taking bohemia so i was able to defend and make peace.

 

[unmerged(5040)]

I think that the major problem of the Fatimids in the game is that they control the major crusader areas. Historically (1066) the regions of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria were independent in all but name. The christian AIs would probably be much more willing to crusade in the area if it were filled small warring pricipalities.

 

[Secret Master]

In the latest beta, the Fatamids are not so daunting. I'm not sure what was tweaked (if anything), but I have successfully lead two multi-kingdom coalitions against them, and crushed them utterly.

The AI seems more willing to help you crusade. They won't do it themselves, but they will let you take the lead and go conquer the whole Holy Land.

 

[unmerged(25476)]

in the current beta now I've seen the Fatmid kingdom fly appart 3 times now... it's kind of unpredictable as to when it actually happens but sometime around the 1080 to 1200 timespan the Fatmid kingdom splits into tiny independant counties... they are pretty easy pickings...

 

[ComradeOm]

Right now they are far more deadly. Perhaps after Byzantium is fixed and the mongols are refixed then maybe Fatimids should get looked at.

In the meantime I'd hate to think of what the Fatimids would achieve with a seriously weakened Byzantium nearby...

 

[unmerged(7415)]

As recently as the Oct17 thru Nov18 beta patches, I have seen no border changes in the Middle East if left up to the AI. The Byzantine, Seljuk, and Fatimid borders are rather static across the region unless I (as a western crusader) enter the area.

-In one game I seized Egypt in the 1220s, and the Byzantines countered by seizing Syria. The Seljuks then moved into Judea region and mopped up.

-In a second game Byzantium DOWed me, and I ended up holding parts of Asia Minor. The Seljuks seized Armenia and eastern Anatolia. The Fatimids did nothing.

In the current game, I have not entered the Middle East and the borders between Byzantium, Seljuks and Fatimids are static. The Seljuks control Cebta/Tangiers, and a province in Scotland (groan). The Fatimids have not expanded. The Al-Muratibids moved to Bohemia.