You guys do realize that they were more powerful than any European power at the time?
Fix Fatamids
- Thread starter Zohrath
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The fatimids? They might very well have been, but they were unable to project that power anywhere, and were quickly ousted as the dominant force in the middle east, by the seljuks. Something which dosn't happen very often in this game..
The Seljuks always implode often due to decadence.Fatimids just need a chance to do so also see my other thread about Fatimid starts in 1066 and 1081.The Fatimid Caliph is too good a ruler.He can absorb having 6 provinces over the desmesne limit.Has a pet Mercenary unit.etc.
His Vassals......treat him like Pharoah!
His Vassals......treat him like Pharoah!
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.
Give them loads of decadence. The Fatimids were already in 1066 considered very decadent. Could also help creating civil wars there, since the Fatimids IRL had a few of them in the late 1000s.
My fatimids keep imploding after 100 or 200 years, they get too much decedence and some random family just takes its place
I tried a Latin empire game and the Abbysids have most of what the Fatamids had in 1066, They were going quite strong for awhile, only my intervention as Latin emperor kept them and their vassals from retaking Kingdom of Jerusalem and they expanded up into Anatolia and eastward, they even won a jihad for mesopotamia agaisnt the Illkhanite, but they became seemingly permanently crippled after a decadence revolt which succeed, but then was overthrown . Since then they've been in permanent collapse/civil war as it seems like every duke has a claim to the throne. It seems like for some reason the shiites handle decedence better most of the time. Course in my Latin Empire game, the Illkhanite steamrolled them, but then converted to shiite.
But not nearly as aggressive. I haven't heard of Fatimid invasions of Greece, for example. From what I understand they, and their successors, spent most of their time defending their borders against Crusaders and Seljuks, not invading the Balkans every 10 years.
By the game's timeframe the Fatimids had entered terminal decline. Granted, Seljukid hegemony in the middle east was rather short-lived as well, but it shouldn't be so definitive that the Seljuks implode while the Fatimids turn into a massive behemoth.
That's why the Fatimids should start with a shitload of decadence.
I know it's not a direct fix for the Fatimids, but as a sort of flip side of the coin I have suggested this (at the bottom of that post).
It's because the Seljukes and them NEVER fight in game and the Fatimids in game are for some reason extremely stable while in game they imploded. Perhaps make the Youfsid leader (Syria vassal) Sunni so that he wants to rebel or make all the dukes/counts north of Egypt in the levant the levant culture group instead of Egyptian?
Honestly, barring all the historical "it was like this, it could be like that" arguments, the Fatamid/Muslim Empire problem is just not fun. What makes the game interesting, for me at least, is manipulating the dynasties and seeing how the kingdoms shake out. But with the Fatimid empire, and Iberia to some extent, 4/5 times the only ruling dynasties reliably left in continental Europe by mid-1100s are the rulers of France, HRE, Poland, Hungary, Scandinavia, and a petty Russian kingdom. Sometimes you'll see a Balkan state rise from the ashes of the Byzantine empire, but they'll be crushed before they even get started. The Kingdom of Sicily almost always forms and has a good chance of taking most of their de Jure kingdom, but then they'll just get crushed by the Fatamids. Mediterranean islands that manage to secure independence... crushed! Italian States that break free of the HRE... crushed! Ibera, well they can't survive with their mainland allies rushing about trying to save Italy and other holdings along the Med.
I've tried playing as Hungary and can keep the front strong, but that means I can't concentrate on Iberia and they get crushed. If I play in Spain, it's the same deal. Sure, I can march my armies around Europe, dodge Fatamid doomstacks and build [insert kingdom empire here] that stretches from the Atlantic to the Volga, but that's just a boring click-fest. What's the point of marrying dynasty members to Sicilian kings if they're just going to get the Fatamid hammer 99.999% of the time? Likewise, why bother marrying a Jiménez in Spain as a power play if they'll just get crushed while you are busy stabilizing against the Fatamid empire.
My opinion, I don't see any Muslim power plays like I do with European vassals. Playing as a Muslim isn't even fun, as managing your decadence means you never have to deal with rebels and can just march across the map. The game is fun when you lose and say, "Holy hell, I didn't see that one coming," it's boring when you're like "yup, here come the Fatamids, game over." So I say forget any historical arguments about who should have what and when, and just figure what the different players need to make the game interesting and dynamic, because right now it's a pretty static system. Fatamid Empire will crush Greece and Italy every time!
I've tried playing as Hungary and can keep the front strong, but that means I can't concentrate on Iberia and they get crushed. If I play in Spain, it's the same deal. Sure, I can march my armies around Europe, dodge Fatamid doomstacks and build [insert kingdom empire here] that stretches from the Atlantic to the Volga, but that's just a boring click-fest. What's the point of marrying dynasty members to Sicilian kings if they're just going to get the Fatamid hammer 99.999% of the time? Likewise, why bother marrying a Jiménez in Spain as a power play if they'll just get crushed while you are busy stabilizing against the Fatamid empire.
My opinion, I don't see any Muslim power plays like I do with European vassals. Playing as a Muslim isn't even fun, as managing your decadence means you never have to deal with rebels and can just march across the map. The game is fun when you lose and say, "Holy hell, I didn't see that one coming," it's boring when you're like "yup, here come the Fatamids, game over." So I say forget any historical arguments about who should have what and when, and just figure what the different players need to make the game interesting and dynamic, because right now it's a pretty static system. Fatamid Empire will crush Greece and Italy every time!
With their inbuilt strenght and holy war CBs on absolutely everyone, they could shed that decadence easily.
I'd instead have lots of angry vassals, reflecting the fact that their army was rebellious and factionalized.
When I get home I'll screenshot my current 1.08 game. It's the mid 12th century & the Muslims from northern Africa (Almoravid I think) have taken the entirety of France (so from the English Channel all the way south is a lurid neon green colour). ERE is hanging on against the Fatimids though but I reckon it's a matter of time before they get crushed.
One more example of the problem that the Fatamid Empire is only a symptom. In previous game versions we'd have HRE or ERE or even France or other powerful kingdoms occasionally roll North Africa or other "a-hystorical" places, and it would be interesting and dynamic fun. But when every game ends up being my little corner of European Christendom surrounded by one or more Muslim empires occupying the rest of Europe it just gets old. I can only have so many kissing cousins in my family before I click resign.
Maybe Paradox can finally make the conclusion to their Seven Deadly Sins videos, where the King resigns because after murdering his nephew and plotting against his wife's family, he realizes the only people left to bask in his glory are [insert Muslim empire here].
Increase the Sejuks power and decrease the fatimids, everything else is kind of off topic. Why nerf all Jihads to help adjust one country 
. Jihads themselves are actually interesting as they make the game less static, it's just identifying which kingdoms need tweaking (not massive changes, just tweaks) and I can list them here again.
HRE - Fatimids - ERE, (In fact + all Empire Level Domains)
. Jihads themselves are actually interesting as they make the game less static, it's just identifying which kingdoms need tweaking (not massive changes, just tweaks) and I can list them here again.HRE - Fatimids - ERE, (In fact + all Empire Level Domains)
I recently started up the 1081 scenario and within 10 years the Fatimids had invaded and conquered all of Greece, which is exactly what happens if you start at the 1066 scenario. I'd say Fatimids conquering Greece happens in 90% of the games I've played (that weren't me as Byzantine Empire). I can't account for the failed invasions of Greece if they ever happened so it's possible the % for invasion attempts is even greater. It seems like the Fatimids are "hard coded" to invade Greece in just about every game (why wouldn't they? they always seem to win it), or that the triggers for the aggressive invasions are almost always present and the AI Fatimid just does what it's supposed to do, ie conquering Greece and Sicily.
I like the possibility of them being able to do so but not necessarily every game almost without fail.
I like the possibility of them being able to do so but not necessarily every game almost without fail.
I think the Seljuks should start at war with the Fatimids from the start. IIRC, they were at war by 1066.