This issue has been kicking around for a while now, and it's a multi-layer issue that involves historical accuracy and gameplay balance.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the Fatimids are too powerful. A large percentage of games, the Fatimids are able to use holy war and conquer Baghdad or beyond. Or they use Muslim Invasion to destroy the Byzantine Empire. Fatimid invasions of Greece are not uncommon and usually successful.
That's all gameplay issues. Here are the historical problems:
1. The Fatimids were not Sultans of Egypt. I know you'll argue that they rule all of Egypt, so it's the same thing, but really, it's not. Even in gameplay terms, being sultan of Egypt makes revolts less likely because the sultan of Egypt would be the de jure liege. Shi'a caliph should be a king-level title, and it should be the primary title the Fatimid caliph has, not Sultan of Egypt (and they shouldn't form the title). There was no sultan of Egypt until Salah ad-Din in 1171.
The effect would be to slightly weaken the stability of the Fatimid caliphate and it would be more historically accurate.
2. The Egyptian population at the time was not shi'a, it was sunni. Noticeably you guys immediately flip it over in 1171, as if Salah ad-Din converted the entire population one day. The historical fact is that the people were always sunni and the fatimids were shi'a Berber invaders.
Changing the counties back to Sunni would be more historically accurate and promote more revolts, which would weaken the Fatimid juggernaut.
3. The caliph wasn't even really the ruler. Most importantly, part of the reason the caliphate grew so weak was because the emirs were constantly fighting each other for control of the caliph, not unlike the Japanese emperor during the shogunates. The real power was in the vizier. I don't know how you can possibly handle that but maybe there needs to be a real Muslim version of "crown authority." Regardless, there simply shouldn't be such centralization in the hands of the caliph.
4. Finally, holy war/jihad/conquest/Muslim invasions etc - this all needs reform. Fatimid invasions of Greece are insane. There is just no way the Fatimids would have been capable of invading and conquering all of Greece. This is also a "naval" problem, but without getting into all of those issues, current CBs are just way too strong. Too much territory changes hands too quickly.
As a side-note, is there a problem with a shia jihad priority list? They seem to always pick Galicia for jihads. Doesn't make much sense.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the Fatimids are too powerful. A large percentage of games, the Fatimids are able to use holy war and conquer Baghdad or beyond. Or they use Muslim Invasion to destroy the Byzantine Empire. Fatimid invasions of Greece are not uncommon and usually successful.
That's all gameplay issues. Here are the historical problems:
1. The Fatimids were not Sultans of Egypt. I know you'll argue that they rule all of Egypt, so it's the same thing, but really, it's not. Even in gameplay terms, being sultan of Egypt makes revolts less likely because the sultan of Egypt would be the de jure liege. Shi'a caliph should be a king-level title, and it should be the primary title the Fatimid caliph has, not Sultan of Egypt (and they shouldn't form the title). There was no sultan of Egypt until Salah ad-Din in 1171.
The effect would be to slightly weaken the stability of the Fatimid caliphate and it would be more historically accurate.
2. The Egyptian population at the time was not shi'a, it was sunni. Noticeably you guys immediately flip it over in 1171, as if Salah ad-Din converted the entire population one day. The historical fact is that the people were always sunni and the fatimids were shi'a Berber invaders.
Changing the counties back to Sunni would be more historically accurate and promote more revolts, which would weaken the Fatimid juggernaut.
3. The caliph wasn't even really the ruler. Most importantly, part of the reason the caliphate grew so weak was because the emirs were constantly fighting each other for control of the caliph, not unlike the Japanese emperor during the shogunates. The real power was in the vizier. I don't know how you can possibly handle that but maybe there needs to be a real Muslim version of "crown authority." Regardless, there simply shouldn't be such centralization in the hands of the caliph.
4. Finally, holy war/jihad/conquest/Muslim invasions etc - this all needs reform. Fatimid invasions of Greece are insane. There is just no way the Fatimids would have been capable of invading and conquering all of Greece. This is also a "naval" problem, but without getting into all of those issues, current CBs are just way too strong. Too much territory changes hands too quickly.
As a side-note, is there a problem with a shia jihad priority list? They seem to always pick Galicia for jihads. Doesn't make much sense.
Upvote
0