Muslims and Long-Range Sea Invasions

[unmerged(1047)]

Just a bit of (much-needed) historical accuracy here...

I've seen Muslim powers execute rather long-range sea invasions, which should not be possible, especially outside the Mediterranean. In 1.02, I saw Muslim invasions of England, Normandy, etcetera, and in my limited experience with 1.03 I've already seen the Emirate of Zaragoza (after conquering Castile and Navarra) invade Brittany by sea.

Historically, except for short-range operations such as crossing the Strait of Gibraltar or island-hopping across to Italy, I am not aware of any case in which *any* Muslim power even attempted a sea invasion which (on the CK map) would require crossing more than 2-3 sea provinces.

My suggestion would be to limit Muslim army by-sea transport to a maximum of 2-3 sea provinces, if possible, and possibly even different limits inside and outside the Mediteraanean (with a longer limit inside and a more strict 1-2 province limit outside).

 

[Elmokki]

I fully agree. I really hate to find those religious enemies swallowing little independent countries from the north.

 

[NeilJT]

I think this is generaly acknowledged as an example of ignoring history for gameplay purposes... Otherwise there would be no disadvantage to crusading from a 'I might lose some land' perspective for a northern king/duke/count.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

That would open all kinds of neat exploits for an inventive player AND it would in the end mean only that when Fatimid wants invade England, he walks first to Gibraltar through North Africa, then crosses Gibraltar, walks through Iberia and France to English Channel and then crosses the Channel.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Except that in order to do so, the areas they were crossing would have to either be at war with, or already conquered by, Muslim powers - in which case a crossing from Normandy into England might be reasonable. A sea invasion of Normandy directly from Morocco, or a direct invasion of Hampshire from Lisbon, (just two of the examples I've seen) are not.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Except that in order to do so, the areas they were crossing would have to either be at war with, or already conquered by, Muslim powers - in which case a crossing from Normandy into England might be reasonable. A sea invasion of Normandy directly from Morocco, or a direct invasion of Hampshire from Lisbon, (just two of the examples I've seen) are not.

No they don't need. If you are at war with moslem, you can go through neutral moslem territory and if you are at war with pagans, you can go through neutral pagan territory. Unless this was changed 1.03.

Also I believe it's more hassle and trouble than it's worth to make moslems unable to sail long trips. Also one thing Ebbesen said comes into my mind, going along these lines (not exact wording): "It's good when AI plays by same rules as player".

 

[unmerged(1047)]

That first paragraph doesn't make sense to me - I expected that Muslims can go through neutral Muslim territory, but as far as I know (and the point I was making) is that they cannot go through neutral *Christian* territory.

 

[richvh]

That first paragraph doesn't make sense to me - I expected that Muslims can go through neutral Muslim territory, but as far as I know (and the point I was making) is that they cannot go through neutral *Christian* territory.

You're wrong. Christians at war with Muslims can pass through neutral Muslim counties, and Muslims at war with Christians can pass through neutral Christian counties. Only when Muslims are at peace with all Christians can they not pass through Christian territory.

 

[Grosshaus]

I'd call this a discussion instead of a bugreport

 

[TheArchMede]

Just a bit of (much-needed) historical accuracy here...

I've seen Muslim powers execute rather long-range sea invasions, which should not be possible, especially outside the Mediterranean. In 1.02, I saw Muslim invasions of England, Normandy, etcetera, and in my limited experience with 1.03 I've already seen the Emirate of Zaragoza (after conquering Castile and Navarra) invade Brittany by sea.

Historically, except for short-range operations such as crossing the Strait of Gibraltar or island-hopping across to Italy, I am not aware of any case in which *any* Muslim power even attempted a sea invasion which (on the CK map) would require crossing more than 2-3 sea provinces.

My suggestion would be to limit Muslim army by-sea transport to a maximum of 2-3 sea provinces, if possible, and possibly even different limits inside and outside the Mediteraanean (with a longer limit inside and a more strict 1-2 province limit outside).

Historically, while there were not invasions, there were rather more seaborne raids by moslems on christians in these areas than vice versa. It wasn't that they couldn't get there, they just preferred looting to conquest. If anything, it is the christian sea transport capability that is out of whack.

 

[Chaingun]

I think this is generaly acknowledged as an example of ignoring history for gameplay purposes... Otherwise there would be no disadvantage to crusading from a 'I might lose some land' perspective for a northern king/duke/count.

It would once you actually got some land down in the Holy Land.

Anyhow there has been at least two major threads on this issue before; I suggest you look them up.

 

[Fredward]

Otherwise there would be no disadvantage to crusading from a 'I might lose some land' perspective for a northern king/duke/count.

Well, isn't that somewhat historical? So the problem here (and it IS a problem) is that Muslims are too weak (at least in the Holy Land, Middle East and North Africa). So they should be able to repel a Christian attack, well, at least BETTER than they can now, but shouldn't be able to go capture a province in Sweden or something similar. That would be much more accurate.

Of course, it's also inaccurate that the count of Osterbotten or something would go on a crusade against a North African or Middle Eastern sheikdom. Personally, I think that transport should be more restricted for Muslims AND Christians. (well, and Pagans, too I guess, but that isn't the point )

 

[Charlie Serf]

I think this is generaly acknowledged as an example of ignoring history for gameplay purposes... Otherwise there would be no disadvantage to crusading from a 'I might lose some land' perspective for a northern king/duke/count.

The disadvantage of crusading for northerners should be the huge expense and losses through attrition, not the danger of losing land. It is currently only any good for gameplay if you are quite powerful, if you are a lowly count then having a huge muslim kingdom declare war on you because your liege declared war on them is effectively game over and there's nothing you can do to stop it - this happened to me as Count of Angus in early C12 despite me never declaring war on anybody, but King of Scotland had got himself into some unwinnable war in Iberia and next thing you know 30000 muslim soldiers are conquering one Scottish county after another and then they dow me, with my 2500 men I didn't stand a chance. It was ahistoric, unbalanced and not fun

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Whoa, Grosshaus more or less accidentally revived a thread that had been dead and gathering dust inside bug reporting for almost two months.

Still, if moslems can't sail to England, they walk there and then we get complaints about how unrealistic that is. :wacko:

 

[tombom]

He did it to about 10 threads. His crusade is a bit... excessive.

I don't really mind this. It doesn't make much difference to humans. But I suppose it can be annoying with the AI.

BTW, I didn't know Scotland held presidential elections.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

He did it to about 10 threads. His crusade is a bit... excessive.

I think it means they are tidying up Bug Reporting to do the final touch and checking for next patch. (whoo, a new patch!)

 

[Cagliostro]

The other problem with long-range sea invasions by Islam is that it makes it easier to conquer them if you're prepared. If you have an army waiting to invade when you declare, just wait for them to leave as they try to invade Scotland, and then walk into their undefended land. The AI would be better off trying to defend itself instead of trying to make historically implausible assaults.

 

[daedalus]

The other problem with long-range sea invasions by Islam is that it makes it easier to conquer them if you're prepared. If you have an army waiting to invade when you declare, just wait for them to leave as they try to invade Scotland, and then walk into their undefended land. The AI would be better off trying to defend itself instead of trying to make historically implausible assaults.

No opposing muslim invasion my self, I have to more or less agree with these paragraph.

From my side, I have rarely seen muslims conquering northern lands, although I have seen the pretty active in southern France and Italy.
At the same time, the players is no going to play by this "historical" rules. What stops the player conquering baltic pagan lands from france? I think forcing the AI to be less agressive will tilt the game balance to much. If the AI is desprotecting herself by attacking too much, that can be a problem even if there is not sea transport involved. IE. It is a different problem than what it is been discussed here.

 

[Cagliostro]

I almost always see counties in northern France that have been conquered and converted, living happily side by side with Christians. I frequently see Islamic counties in Scotland. I've yet to see them invade Norway, but I frankly wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Damocles]

This was probably the most annoying, deliberate gameplay decision. I hate it.

The muslims and pagans should focus on defending their provinces to the best of their ability and to fighting provinces that they are directly connected to by land.

Cyprus was a safe haven that was inaccessible to the muslims. Yet they can walk over there just as easily as next door. It sucks.

Maybe if the AI was more focused on defending itself to the best of it's ability, we'd see more century long stalemates (Like it is supposed to be) instead of an entire kingdom going down in a year.

Geez. It took the Normans TWENTY years to conquer Sicily.