But wait, I thought everybody hated Muslims dominating Iberia? I thought people would prefer a French Iberia to the alternative 
Keeping the HRE and France out of Iberia
- Thread starter psyghamn
- 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.
Are you sure? I just saw a documentary by an authoritative expert on the subject saying that there were mass conversions after 711 to Islam throughout the Peninsula, more so than the inhabitants staying christian.
The details are irrelevant. In real life Castile and Leon were finally united when Sancho II was assassinated in 1072. In-game that almost never happens; usually the kingdoms are united by accident or by military conquest. Yet nobody complains that they aren't united the same way as they were in real life.
Whether the HRE ends up controlling Iberia through marriages or whether it happens through conquest is pretty irrelevant. The details of real life will almost never ever ever happen in game.
I'm not sure your order of operations is right. You'll have to look in-game to figure it out.
Besides, "recently conquered" gives -100%, doesn't it? You have to look at the actual effect of jizya, not just compare it to a single other modifier. In reality jizya gives AI rulers virtually no bonus income because the AI proselytizes so relentlessly.
Iberia is fine. The real problem is the Fatimids, not who happens to rule Iberia from 1100 to 1250.
There were. In Iberia people converted back and forth pretty often.
If Paradox would actually make cultures different, instead of just making them have 1 different building each, then there would be modifiers like "Iberian cultures convert religions 50% faster." Instead we have a pretty pathetic representation of culture. There is literally no difference between French and German culture in the game, except that Germans can't form the Empire of Francia. It's really sad.
Well the Muslims didn't really care if you stayed Christian or Jewish in Muslim Spain. They respected all religions like what is told in the Koran. The only bad side to being a non-Muslim was you had to pay a higher tax then Muslims. Heck when Spain declared that all Jewish people were to be exiled from Spain, they fled to Granada and Moroco to avoid being persecuted, and the Muslims welcomed them with open arms. History shows that during the middle ages the Muslims treated other religious people better then the Christians. Charlemagne literally made a river run red with blood cause he executed thousands of pagans in one day. I'm not saying Christianity is intolerant to other religions now, but back then, holy crap they were! O_O
With any luck, the Aztec will land in Iberia and you won't have to worry about it! ^_^
Using Charlemagne as an example is not a great idea. He was out to build and unite an Empire that was wholly Christian, so I would imagine he wasn't afraid to slit a few throats here or there.
The tech and wealth advantage (Seville is especially powerful) combined with the fact that it ahistorically tends to be the Spanish kingdoms who spend more time infighting than the Muslim states tends to result in the Muslim success and hence the French/HRE intervention.
However if a few of the kings die in battle/get assissinated unifying some of the Kingdoms which isnt that uncommon then they seem to last much longer against the Muslims.
However if a few of the kings die in battle/get assissinated unifying some of the Kingdoms which isnt that uncommon then they seem to last much longer against the Muslims.
These forums always go round and round in the same way about pretty much every subject.
It always comes down to "this isn't historic because of X".
That in itself is fine (though redundant because this isn't a history book , the game is supposed to be dynamic not static) but no one ever talks about the game play effects , nor the very viable alternative history outcomes.
Personally from a game play perspective , I would rather see the HRE and France be more aggressive towards each other , and with England / Italian muslims before they go after Iberia. HRE ai seems very predictable.
First move ; Holy war the Pagans in the north.
Second move ; Holy war Muslims in the south.
Third move (while muslims are still in south) , Holy war Iberia.
Usually there will be a few independence revolts , religious defense wars and a few plots but nothing major.
For me its not that its not how history unfolded , its also not that there isn't suffcient possibility for Castille to win (it does some times) , for me its how repetitive and predictable the most influential factions of the Catholic faith are. HRE and France are predictable down to a T. The biggest variables are the norman invasion and the out come of Iberia. The only time I have seen an unpredictable HRE was when the emperor turned Heretic and started holy Waring people at random.
So while you people seem to want a more linear and static game , I actually want the reverse , I want a more dynamic and unpredictable game.
It always comes down to "this isn't historic because of X".
That in itself is fine (though redundant because this isn't a history book , the game is supposed to be dynamic not static) but no one ever talks about the game play effects , nor the very viable alternative history outcomes.
Personally from a game play perspective , I would rather see the HRE and France be more aggressive towards each other , and with England / Italian muslims before they go after Iberia. HRE ai seems very predictable.
First move ; Holy war the Pagans in the north.
Second move ; Holy war Muslims in the south.
Third move (while muslims are still in south) , Holy war Iberia.
Usually there will be a few independence revolts , religious defense wars and a few plots but nothing major.
For me its not that its not how history unfolded , its also not that there isn't suffcient possibility for Castille to win (it does some times) , for me its how repetitive and predictable the most influential factions of the Catholic faith are. HRE and France are predictable down to a T. The biggest variables are the norman invasion and the out come of Iberia. The only time I have seen an unpredictable HRE was when the emperor turned Heretic and started holy Waring people at random.
So while you people seem to want a more linear and static game , I actually want the reverse , I want a more dynamic and unpredictable game.
I'm all for dynamic, I just wish Spanish Christians came out on top a little more often is all. The Aftasid - Abbadid relationship is rarely logical considering their status as rivals at the start of the time frame.
This is what I've been given with Iberia in my first 1.08 game:
I think it's worth running some hands-off test games to see whether this is actually still an issue.
I think it's worth running some hands-off test games to see whether this is actually still an issue.
One thing. Jewish were expelled in 1492. The very same year Granada fell, so they didnt fled there. They want all over the Mediterranean mostly.
The problem with the HRE is that the Investiture controversy is a no go for an AI Emperor.Papacy asks you to implement Papal Investiture. It always says Yes and thats it.If Emperor get excommunicated(happened like 3 times total) He just uses the intrigue screen repent decisions.pays a lot of money, he's back in church.
AI NEVER USES an ANTI-POPE.
So HRE Emperor starts bashing the closest Heathens......(since in game it is more rewarding to fight infidels than others of same faith, once your a King or Emperor)
AI NEVER USES an ANTI-POPE.
So HRE Emperor starts bashing the closest Heathens......(since in game it is more rewarding to fight infidels than others of same faith, once your a King or Emperor)
Thats only going to speed up the Counter-Reconquista and maybe even buff it and leave France hopeless. The Jizwa tax modifier adds 25% more tax for muslims over heathen counties and they can still raise all the levies. The Reconquista only happened because the Christians were (more) co-operative (than muslims) towards each other, had support from crusaders from all over Europe and because the Morrocans only got serious centuries later. If not for that, we could have a Muslim Aquitaine today.
No problem with whoever wins in spain, I like to see the variety.
HRE just dominate everything in my games unless I physically step in, ERE do extremely well as well. Far too much blobbage imho, any mods that fix it?
It isn't in my games, just the luck of the draw.
HRE just dominate everything in my games unless I physically step in, ERE do extremely well as well. Far too much blobbage imho, any mods that fix it?
This is what I've been given with Iberia in my first 1.08 game:
I think it's worth running some hands-off test games to see whether this is actually still an issue.
It isn't in my games, just the luck of the draw.
Again, it's NOT ahistorical. Sancho II deposed his own brother and then was assassinated by his brother. There was LOTS of infighting among the Spanish kingdoms, and there would have been even more if the kingdoms hadn't been united through assassination.
Funniest thing I've seen in Spain? An independent catholic Andalusian Aragon ruled by an Andalusian member of the Capet family. Since I've restored Rome I could just reconquer them, but it's just too silly to ruin it do I've given them the immense privilege of not being crushed under the heels and hooves of my massive retinue armies
I would truly, truly appreciate it if the Holy War CB was changed so that it could only target neighboring duchies. At least that'd keep the HRE out of Iberia. As for France, the only way to accomplish that is to ensure that Barcelona doesn't fall easily -- since France seems to frequently use Barcelona as a stepping-stone into Iberia.
Very wrong. Historically the muslims beat the shit out of the spanish kingdoms and were stopped by Charlemagne who enacted the spanish mark in what was later Aragon. Hadn't the francs helped the spaniards back then, there wouldn't be any catholic spanish kingdoms at the 1066 start.
I think he meant in 1066. If we're talking in terms of all history, namely the 9th century -- then yes, he would be wrong. But since we're discussing CK2 balance, it's logical to assume that he's talking about the actual period that the game takes place.