Fix Fatamids

[unmerged(75409)]

The Fatimids having lower military tech? Why? The Europeans didn't have a technology advantage; they had a quality advantage that proved fleeting later on. The knights stemmed from a highly privileged social class that could draw on the resources of the rest of the society. But they were scarce and formed only the core of the crusades. The crusader armies had plenty of riffraff as well to fill the rank and file.

Europeans should have an advantage in Europe and on the shoreline of the mediterranean. The muslims would have an steep advantage in desert terrain and the deep inland of the middle east. Libya and North Africa, for example, should be essentially impossible for HRE and others to conquer in 1066.



In the 1066? No it isn't debatable. The muslim empires had made siginifcant agricultural advances by that time, which weren't well known in Europe. And agriculture was like 95 % of the economy at this time, so these advances had real effects. Cultural advances depend on the eye of the beholder.

If you made some factual statements rather than blanket statements like "it's not debatable" you post might come across as more knowledgeable.

Military technology (in the game) means: Refinement and effectiveness of weapons. Western Europe in 1066 looked back on a history of over 200 years of incessant warfare against all kinds of fellow Europeans as well as invading people. Warfare was the defining feature of its ruling class. The knights that barged into the Levant in the first crusade might never have seen soap, bazaars or water toilets, but they were pretty damned good at KILLING PEOPLE (which is 90% of what warfare is ultimately about) Their mounted warriors were much better armored and armed than those of the muslims, their siege weaponry was excellent (lots of improvised yet highly effective sieges during 1st crusade), please tell me where you get the impression that any part of the traditional middle eastern Muslim war equipment or tactics were superior to those of the 1098/99 crusaders?

The discussion is about how to "fix" the Fatimids i.e. make them less overpowered. It doesn't really help the issue in any way if you debate the social background of knights or their relative numbers in a crusading army, unless you propose how any of that connects to the game. Sure the crusading armies had riff raff but what is it that you're saying? That the light infantry should be weaker? Stronger? Left as it is?

I think Egypt and the middle east in general needs a bit of the nerf hammer... it's okay to have scary muslim bogeymen in the game, who can defeat even an intact Byzantine or HRE empire, but from a game design standpoint it's just really awful if they start out as mega threats on day 1. That's really the gist of it.

 

[WanderingKnight]

...I think Egypt and the middle east in general needs a bit of the nerf hammer... it's okay to have scary muslim bogeymen in the game, who can defeat even an intact Byzantine or HRE empire, but from a game design standpoint it's just really awful if they start out as mega threats on day 1. That's really the gist of it.

I just wanted to support Fatimid nerfdown, and this, what Leviathan07 stated is what I feel too. I have no idea how to made it better, but something must be done.

I started serious game, planning to play full time 400 years. After just 50 years of my game while I was preoccupied of forming and stabilizing Kingdom of Serbia suddenly noticed that the whole Byzantine empire was swept by Egypt. !?! So hours of plays were thrown out now, and instead to continue my fun game of plots and small realistic expansion I had to deal with those aliens. And than I discovered that I can only start crusade against them just by claiming ONE principality. What that mean for game play 400 years struggle to fight superpower?! Crazy. And not fun at all. It did get even worst when I figured out how strong armies this Egypt (+ Byzantine) empire had. Again not fun, not playable. And than, in a just 10 years or so almost the whole Balkan was Shiite and Arabic, please.. this part have to balanced as well (nor Byzantine empire, nor Ottomans could not assimilate domestic population for centuries, and convert them completely to there own religion) again, it is not fun to play. As for this conversion part, I might, have a suggestion (if it is not how does it work now): Convertibility of the culture should stay at the pace as it is now only for very similar culture, FE Serbian realm convert to Bulgarian under Bulgarian ruler, or Croatian to Serbian, but it should be one level harder (or even two) for Greeks to be converted to some south Slavic population and opposite, and very very hard for cultures like Arabic to replace any of this. Same for religions (as it is if you converting Christians to other Christians, like orthodox into catholic, but much more difficult from Christianity to Islam or opposite.

Or please, can you made something that was part of EU III, I think, an OPTION FOR HISTORICAL GAME PLAY, that is, AI that will try to behave as much as possible to how it did in history, this randomness is too much for my taste, especially when game is not well balanced (and I mean that in friendliest possible way).

 

[unmerged(206584)]

Reforming the naval system and dropping muslim military tech a bit while decreasing their morale relative to christian troops would resolve some issue.

European knights should crush the less professional army of the muslims.

 

[Accrsd]

Reforming the naval system and dropping muslim military tech a bit while decreasing their morale relative to christian troops would resolve some issue.

European knights should crush the less professional army of the muslims.

that could help, but the most major thing i see that needs to be done would be to make Shia Jihads less powerful the Fatimid sultans. As is with high enough piety a Fatimid Caliph can call a jihad, win a kingdom, and if he saved up enough piety immediately call an invasion... for another kingdom, it's actually a miracle this doesn't happen. Though the solution might just be better to remove their Invasion option entirely if they already have an equivalent title

 

[victimizer]

Reforming the naval system and dropping muslim military tech a bit while decreasing their morale relative to christian troops would resolve some issue.

European knights should crush the less professional army of the muslims.

Rather than going on vague nonsense like this, the game should better reflect the strategic dynamics in the mediterranean. Moving large armies overseas should require much more effort than just "raise navy levies" ---> "put levies in ships" ---> "go and conquer the infidels in iceland".

The European armies weren't especially superior to Muslim armies; which is why the crusader kingdoms never endured beyond the shoreline of the levant for long periods at a time. The crusader kingdoms were preserved because of Muslim internal conflict and European naval control. Muslim armies were not push overs, and in most cases, they were probably superior in their native middle east.

The problem isn't just the Fatimids. I've seen, at times, the HRE conquering all of spain, and north africa from mauritania to libya, even going as far deep as Mali! And it had absolute crown authority.

 

[AndreasPhokas]

muslim armies werent trash, in terms of heavy infantry the europeans had them beat baring the elite islamic troops but in terms of calv....knights werent invincible, there were plenty of battles in the medieval era where said knights just blind charged and got hacked down. id take a good squad of horse archers than a squad of knights who think they can smash down the whole enemy army themselves

 

[unmerged(206584)]

Rather than going on vague nonsense like this, the game should better reflect the strategic dynamics in the mediterranean. Moving large armies overseas should require much more effort than just "raise navy levies" ---> "put levies in ships" ---> "go and conquer the infidels in iceland".

The European armies weren't especially superior to Muslim armies; which is why the crusader kingdoms never endured beyond the shoreline of the levant for long periods at a time. The crusader kingdoms were preserved because of Muslim internal conflict and European naval control. Muslim armies were not push overs, and in most cases, they were probably superior in their native middle east.

The problem isn't just the Fatimids. I've seen, at times, the HRE conquering all of spain, and north africa from mauritania to libya, even going as far deep as Mali! And it had absolute crown authority.

The crusader kingdoms never endured beyond the shoreline of the levant for any length of time because they didn't have any peasant backbone to do so. They were in another cultures lands that had opposing religion and didn't speak their language. Moving armies across the Mediterranean for every small conflict wasn't feasible, Europe could sack anywhere but they couldn't control it because of distance and shipping. Almost all of the crusaders were done over land because they couldn't afford to pay the man in venice to move their army.

Crusades and jihads should be land movements except in the case of venetian/Genoa shipping since they were the only ones that could do that early in the game.

Once the mediterrian isn't a highway for anyone to go anywhere and muslim military might is curtailed because of their reliance on mercenaries and raise religious conflict between sects in the middle east while also nerfing cb's that make chain conflict possible would balance out the world. I'd also say reduce the frequency of war in iberia because the kingdoms are eaten up rather quickly because the AI is dumb and tries to fight the entire muslim iberia in the first 10 years.

 

[Funnyman320]

Ax the muslim holy order, re-buff the holy orders to what they were at release and make it so that christian rulers have access to some heavy cavalry. That should fix some of the balance without going overboard. We dont want to see to many successful crusades but at the same time they are too freaking powerful. In my Byzantine game I cant stop them at all!

 

[esbenmf]

Fatamids >> Fatimids

Done

Esben

 

[Lwantssugar]

One very small suggestion is to have the Hashhashin not be a holy order anymore, as it stands they basically serve as the Fatimids personal hammer with which to beat into their enemies skulls. Generating piety is pretty simple when you can holy war and Jihad anything that moves, another idea is the option of making a non aggression pact like in HoI

 

[victimizer]

The crusader kingdoms never endured beyond the shoreline of the levant for any length of time because they didn't have any peasant backbone to do so

That could be true as well. But my point is that in the Middle East, the Muslims had an advantage because of their mastery of desert warfare. It conferred them a mobility advantage and allowed them to often choose the battlefield.

Sort of like vikings could use their overwhelming naval advantage to move across waters at incredible speeds and avoid enemies entirely.

The game could achieve a balance with like: Muslim desert supremacy vs European naval supremacy. Both sides would have to work hard to break through that supremacy.

 

[Laotze]

Fatamids should be a political trainwreck for the first ten years of the game. PI is being lazy with their setup which is leading to all the problems here. That and when decadence gets out of control let the muslim empires split up, and not just rotate to next dynasty. I enjoy playing as muslims with sword of islam but a couple of concepts were NOT thought out very well.

BTW best way to curb Fatamids is to add 10 years to timer and start in 1076. Don't lose much but helps with idiotic, ahistorical 1066 setup. No need to get into European v. Muslim armies biases etc.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Laotze, how would you improve the setup? What suggestions do you have? Paradox can't be unaware of the Fatimid issue, so if you have sensible, workable suggestions then it may be worth posting them in the bug forum.

 

[BritNavFan]

Model the Mamluks as a retinue instead of as extremely cheap, extremely numerous mercenaries?

 

[maidros]

That could be true as well. But my point is that in the Middle East, the Muslims had an advantage because of their mastery of desert warfare. It conferred them a mobility advantage and allowed them to often choose the battlefield.

Sort of like vikings could use their overwhelming naval advantage to move across waters at incredible speeds and avoid enemies entirely.

The game could achieve a balance with like: Muslim desert supremacy vs European naval supremacy. Both sides would have to work hard to break through that supremacy.

You are mixing up very different armies. There is no one single `Muslim army' template. The armies of the Iberian peninsula and north Arfica, and parts of West Asia were the Arab-Berber model - javelin armed light cavalry, with an additional lance/sword for the most part, backed up by decent spear and sword wielding infantry. The `Muslim army' template you are describing is the Turkish model - horse archer heavy armies that had extraordinary mobility. However, we are discussing the Fatimids, who relied on massed bowfire by Sudanese archers backed up by Berber and Arab light cavalry who harassed the enemy with javelins and then tried to destroy him with charges when he showed signs of weakening. Against the Crusaders, this was a singularly poor army model. The Sudanese bowmen lacked the power to penetrate the armour and the Arab light cavalry was cut down when they tried to charge against more heavily armoured European horsemen. This is one reason why the Fatimids fared so poorly against the Crusaders. The other reason was their abysmal morale, and propensity for backstabbing internally. All the Fatimids did, even when they outnumbered the Crusaders ten to one was sit behind the protection of the Nile, against the Crusaders who were being harassed by the Turks farther north. The bulk of the effective fighting against the Crusaders was done by the Sultanate of Rum and Zengids (Turks) initially and later, the Ayyubids (Kurds and Turks), not the Fatimids.

 

[victimizer]

You are mixing up very different armies. There is no one single `Muslim army' template. The armies of the Iberian peninsula and north Arfica, and parts of West Asia were the Arab-Berber model - javelin armed light cavalry, with an additional lance/sword for the most part, backed up by decent spear and sword wielding infantry. The `Muslim army' template you are describing is the Turkish model - horse archer heavy armies that had extraordinary mobility. However, we are discussing the Fatimids, who relied on massed bowfire by Sudanese archers backed up by Berber and Arab light cavalry who harassed the enemy with javelins and then tried to destroy him with charges when he showed signs of weakening. Against the Crusaders, this was a singularly poor army model. The Sudanese bowmen lacked the power to penetrate the armour and the Arab light cavalry was cut down when they tried to charge against more heavily armoured European horsemen. This is one reason why the Fatimids fared so poorly against the Crusaders. The other reason was their abysmal morale, and propensity for backstabbing internally. All the Fatimids did, even when they outnumbered the Crusaders ten to one was sit behind the protection of the Nile, against the Crusaders who were being harassed by the Turks farther north. The bulk of the effective fighting against the Crusaders was done by the Sultanate of Rum and Zengids (Turks) initially and later, the Ayyubids (Kurds and Turks), not the Fatimids.

An army of archers and light cavalry is superior compared to an army of heavy knights in the conditions of the middle east, but such an army model requires good cohesion and morale, while the European model was less complicated. Backstabbing officers and bad morale is enough to explain the Fatimid failure. An inherent failure of their military system is not a necessary explanation.

 

[ASPGolan]

An army of archers and light cavalry is superior compared to an army of heavy knights in the conditions of the middle east, but such an army model requires good cohesion and morale, while the European model was less complicated. Backstabbing officers and bad morale is enough to explain the Fatimid failure. An inherent failure of their military system is not a necessary explanation.

I agree, most westerners still think that their crusaders were superior in war technology, but they weren't, this is why it was possible later on for the ottomans to dominate battles against any european nation, not just former byzantines: they were light and mobile, while the muslims were agile and light (they were the david of david vs goliath) and most of the times, in an equal numbers battle, it was decisive. The biggest problem for western armies is fatigue and inability to chase down the enemy when it retreats (as a tactics or not).

 

[maidros]

I agree, most westerners still think that their crusaders were superior in war technology, but they weren't, this is why it was possible later on for the ottomans to dominate battles against any european nation, not just former byzantines: they were light and mobile, while the muslims were agile and light (they were the david of david vs goliath) and most of the times, in an equal numbers battle, it was decisive. The biggest problem for western armies is fatigue and inability to chase down the enemy when it retreats (as a tactics or not).

The Ottomans - especially the Ottomans after 1420s - were a gunpowder army, with the bulk of the fighting done by the professional Janissaries, The Ottoman army which threatened Europe did not remotely resemble the Turkish armies that harassed the Crusaders. The Ottomans were, for the most part, an infantry army, with some cavalry auxillaries. The victories of the Ottomans should be attributed to their superior gunpowder infantry and siegecraft, not their mobile cavalry (for which they generally recruited Kazakhs and Anatolian levies, whose role was in skirmishing and scouting).. On the other hand, the Turkish armies of the Crusader period were mostly cavalry archers, who excelled in harassing an enemy and wearing him down over a period. One of their finest moments was in defeating the Crusade of 1101, when they thrashed three huge crusader armies (the Lombards and the Norman army, the Nivernois, and finally, a Franco-Bavarian army), utilising the wide open spaces of Anatolia from Chankiri to Tarsus to wear down their enemy before destroying him. The only problem was that they required a battlefield as large as Anatolia to be successful and that was not always possible.

The `western' armies were not just knights. The knights were an important part, but they were never many. The bulk of the fighting done by the armies of Richard the Lionhearted in the third Crusade was done by the professional Italian mercenaries from the north Italian republics (who were mostly crossbow men and light infantry) and locally recruited `mounted sergeants' who were essentially a light cavalry unit. The knights were used for one purpose and only one purpose - as a battering ram to break the enemy formation. There were other specialised units to pursue fleeing enemies.

 

[AndreasPhokas]

I agree with maidros. another issue with knights is their tendency to HEY LOOK THESE GUYS ARE MERE PEASANT ARCHERS THEY CANT KILL US CHARGE. meanwhile the general facepalms or charges with them. Discipline was always an issue with them that and tactics. Horns of hattin.....

 

[Talq]

Picking specific battles can be problematic because frequently one side or the other has made poor strategic decisions that then contribute to losing the battle even if only by damaging morale (eg Hattin featured a Christian army dehydrating which along with the dissention among the leadership contributed to its lack of discipline). We could also gush about Doryaelum during the first crusade where a Turkish army got defeated because it failed to scout out one of the two crusader columns.

Strategically, the crusader states depended for their survival on the Muslim states around them being disunited (when they were, under Saladin & Baybars, the crusader states became a lot smaller very quickly.) They also depended on the Italian republics sea dominance (not in the game) and to a large extent manpower from overseas (which the holy orders sort of fulfil, but with no guarantees they are available).

Of course the popes first crusade invariably fails because a) he attacks a united fatamid state that is probably at peace & invariably stable b) no holy orders, but the hashinin are out c) doesn't check that HRE/France/England are at peace, so all he can bring are a bunch of Irish counties. d) large slabs of Europe dont have advanced units anyway. The pope not declaring it until the first Fatamid Sultan is dead would help a bit.