Fix Fatamids

[Tufto]

I think the Seljuks should start at war with the Fatimids from the start. IIRC, they were at war by 1066.

But then they'd be fighting two powers at once. That would make the Byzzies too powerful again.

They need more decadence, Sunni provinces, angrier vassals, and the lowest crown authority at game-start. Or, alternatively, keep them as they are but stop them from attacking Greece through some mechanism or other.

In fact, the latter would probably be the best choice. Maybe change the invasion+ Holy War CBs so that you have to have a direct land border with the duchy/kingdom to be invaded.

 

[Rozmarzony]

Just civil war in Fatimids state at the start of the game... like in reality.

 

[l3ol3o]

I think the biggest problem with the Fatimids is that they are so damn stable. The Seljuks are constantly in civil war and turmoil. I rarely see this with the Fatimids.

In my current game it's about 1230. So far they have taken Sicily, Armenia, Anatolia and even Italy. They just lost Italy to a crusade and now Venice holds Italy. TBH I'm really excited to see Venice this powerful but the damn Fatimids haven't had a single civil war yet. Last time I checked they still had their first leader who was in his mid 80's. I've even been sowing dissent there also but that doesn't seem to be doing anything.

I think the fix to the Fatimids is to make them less stable. The Seljuks are a huge power but they are held in check by the fact they are unstable.

 

[NezzeOne]

I think the biggest problem with the Fatimids is that they are so damn stable. The Seljuks are constantly in civil war and turmoil. I rarely see this with the Fatimids.

In my current game it's about 1230. So far they have taken Sicily, Armenia, Anatolia and even Italy. They just lost Italy to a crusade and now Venice holds Italy. TBH I'm really excited to see Venice this powerful but the damn Fatimids haven't had a single civil war yet. Last time I checked they still had their first leader who was in his mid 80's. I've even been sowing dissent there also but that doesn't seem to be doing anything.

I think the fix to the Fatimids is to make them less stable. The Seljuks are a huge power but they are held in check by the fact they are unstable.

People tend to forget that, regardless of the state of the Fatimids, Egypt is still hilariously broken. It can field a stupid amount of troops. The problem isn't the ruling dynasty, it's the bloody nation and the amount of (upgraded) Baronies it starts with.

 

[magritte2]

People tend to forget that, regardless of the state of the Fatimids, Egypt is still hilariously broken. It can field a stupid amount of troops. The problem isn't the ruling dynasty, it's the bloody nation and the amount of (upgraded) Baronies it starts with.

Are Egypt's troop numbers really that far out of line? Egypt has always been a very populous country, surely far more populous than any Western European nations of the time other than perhaps France (and HRE if you count that as a nation). It probably needs more small provinces in the Nile valley, which would likely make it more prone to revolts, but it should be able to field a lot of troops.

 

[fcmsaab]

Copy paste this trigger modifer that I made to balance the fatimids.


Fatamids_fall = {
potential = {
is_ruler = yes
}

trigger = {
has_landed_title = k_egypt
Not = { year = 1200 }
}

general_opinion = -35
global_tax_modifier = -0.45
land_morale = -0.5
castle_levy_size = -0.35
city_levy_size = -0.35
temple_levy_size = -0.25
castle_vassal_max_levy = -0.35
city_vassal_max_levy = -0.35
temple_vassal_max_levy = -0.35
global_revolt_risk = 0.25

icon = 7
}

They will have more civil wars and harder time defending against crusades, thus allowing the Kingdom of Jerusalem to form.

 

[NezzeOne]

Are Egypt's troop numbers really that far out of line? Egypt has always been a very populous country, surely far more populous than any Western European nations of the time other than perhaps France (and HRE if you count that as a nation). It probably needs more small provinces in the Nile valley, which would likely make it more prone to revolts, but it should be able to field a lot of troops.

You're right. But we also need to think of this in terms of balance. Honestly? Regardless of what dynasty rules Egypt, I've seen them spread across the map like the plague. So toning down some of Egypt's duchies (Damietta and Cairo, to be specific) would probably help settle things.

 

[BritNavFan]

People tend to forget that, regardless of the state of the Fatimids, Egypt is still hilariously broken. It can field a stupid amount of troops. The problem isn't the ruling dynasty, it's the bloody nation and the amount of (upgraded) Baronies it starts with.

It's the nation, the baronies it starts with, AND the fact that it has lots and lots of cheap mercenaries (the Mamluks). The Fatimids are getting independence wars in my game, but the central core is so much stronger than the provinces that it routinely puts the rebels down.

Are Egypt's troop numbers really that far out of line? Egypt has always been a very populous country, surely far more populous than any Western European nations of the time other than perhaps France (and HRE if you count that as a nation). It probably needs more small provinces in the Nile valley, which would likely make it more prone to revolts, but it should be able to field a lot of troops.

Actually, Egypt hasn't always been a very populous country. Its population was declining over the CKII period.

 

[berke]

In what sense? Unless you are referring to factional feuding, the Fatimids were not top in anything. They routinely lost battles to Europeans when they outnumbered them ten to one (battle of Ramillat, for instance). The Egyptian army of the late eleventh and the twelfth century was worse than useless. It was a destabilising force that routinely acted as a plague, looting its own citizenry and indulging in obscene bouts of palace coups and internecine warfare.

Fatimid navies repeatedly threatened Byzantine coasts. Granted, this was more of a problem in the 10th century.

 

[Shadowkire]

It's the nation, the baronies it starts with, AND the fact that it has lots and lots of cheap mercenaries (the Mamluks). The Fatimids are getting independence wars in my game, but the central core is so much stronger than the provinces that it routinely puts the rebels down.

What this guy says, two days ago I started a new ERE game and by 1068 the Fatimid Caliph died somehow and the Caliphate was in a nasty civil war with two simultaneous succession crisis' and an independence faction. I attacked only 1 of the pretenders for Damascus and then took Damietta from the Caliph, so only 1 rebel was weakened along with the main state, but in the end the Caliph won all three wars because he still had the Mamluks.

The Fatimids start the game with an empire and they have a cheap mercenary army larger than the full levies of most kingdoms. In fact I may do an experiment where I force all the Fatimid vassals rank count and above to revolt and watch the outcome over several different games to see how effective the Mamluks are in stabilizing the Caliphate.