Fatimids are no more powerful than any other big, powerful entity on the map. They will get big if you war against your neighbors and do not defend them in holy wars and jihads. If you do defend your neighbors then you can together beat back the Fatimids and eventually they will lose their religious authority and be overrun by heresy and the infighting that causes.
Nooo Fatimid AI Jihad on Aragon makes no sense!!!
- Thread starter Ciccillo Rre
- 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.
I have seen the Fatimids eat neighbors and be eaten by neighbors. It seems that things are declared OP if events do not go your way for just one campaign.
Fun thing that just happened in my newly started playthrough, the Turkish Invasion of Armenia completely failed because the Fatimids decided that Baghdad should be theirs.
Fatimids are jerks.
Fatimids are jerks.
I've only seen the formers thus far, four games played with SoI up to 1100 or 1200 ca. (in the two that were played up to 1100 the Fatimids had expanded the most, as the one mentioned above)
Well, this is another ridiculous thing, as historically the Fatimid Levant fell to the Seljuks
(but I can accept to see this sometimes, as long as the Fatimids are not too strong for the Seljuks to oppose them, which is what seems to me to be the case)
I had a similar problem in my current Sicilian campaign. My solution was to assassinate the Fatimid ruler after checking his heir's opinion with the other rulers, which in turn sent the whole Fatimid empire into chaos. I took Aragon and then hit them close to home in Cyrenacia although I was unable to hold Cyrenacia when they stabilized.
I agree with the post about this being unrealistic but lets be honest the Crusades were basically the same thing. So my question is why shouldnt the fatimid head to Aragon if they feel the need? Alot of French nobles went to the holy land, why not the other way around? Not realistic but maybe it could have happened had things been different.
I agree with the post about this being unrealistic but lets be honest the Crusades were basically the same thing. So my question is why shouldnt the fatimid head to Aragon if they feel the need? Alot of French nobles went to the holy land, why not the other way around? Not realistic but maybe it could have happened had things been different.
Well, I don't think Aragon holds any religious significance to the Fatimids, so it would make more sense if they Jihadded agianst someone closer to them.
This.
And if you want another justification for going all the time against Byzantium, there is a passage in the Quran about one Muslim who would have conquered Rome [Constantinople] and its Empire - or something like that - and it would have been reason for great prestige for a Muslim Ruler to actually achieve this, as it was IRL for Mehmed Osmanli. This is the best analog for the Crusades.
Targets for Jihads, which should start later in the game anyways, should be Jerusalem/Syria (if owned by Christians), then Armenia, Anatolia and Greece. Only go beyond them if all those targets are held. Possibly put Andalusia in between if held by Christians.
Granted, but I would think the ai could be "thinking" along the lines as they arent Shia so lets attack there. I would also think that closer to home would be better, but I think it comes down to the random factor of the game. So, and this is in my opinion only, I think the question I ask myself when this or other similar situations occur, is "Why shouldnt they be able to jihad aragon?" rather than "Does it make sense to jihad Aragon?" As I said just my opinion.
If the fatimids are overpowered, honestly, I don't know.
But I can't stand Jihads against Galicia, Aragon or Andaluzia, lead by them. It's non-sense, madness and annoying..
But I can't stand Jihads against Galicia, Aragon or Andaluzia, lead by them. It's non-sense, madness and annoying..
Last edited:
I doubt the sense of Jihads against religious locations that are not:
- holy places to Islam,
- former Muslim realms,
- home of particularly epic enemies (e.g. Constantinople).
This said, the problem here is that as long as there is a power which can wipe out any target at will single-handedly, human players can die semi-randomly in one sweep even. This type of game over is a problem in itself and a separate problem from the historical, political, military or common-sense plausibility of the way the war goes.
I suggest that perhaps if you're a king and get wiped out like that in a Jihad, then depending on your prestige, opinions with people etc. perhaps in some cases this or that European ruler should get an event and land a surviving member of your dynasty as a dount somewhere in his demesne. You'd no longer be a king but you'd still be in the game (with claims). Perhaps not a sure-fire but let's say if you have an ally or relative or there is somebody who really likes you or if you have a really huge prestige or piety or if you'd simply make a good count/advisor for someone who needs one (due to your stats). Just thinking.
- holy places to Islam,
- former Muslim realms,
- home of particularly epic enemies (e.g. Constantinople).
This said, the problem here is that as long as there is a power which can wipe out any target at will single-handedly, human players can die semi-randomly in one sweep even. This type of game over is a problem in itself and a separate problem from the historical, political, military or common-sense plausibility of the way the war goes.
I suggest that perhaps if you're a king and get wiped out like that in a Jihad, then depending on your prestige, opinions with people etc. perhaps in some cases this or that European ruler should get an event and land a surviving member of your dynasty as a dount somewhere in his demesne. You'd no longer be a king but you'd still be in the game (with claims). Perhaps not a sure-fire but let's say if you have an ally or relative or there is somebody who really likes you or if you have a really huge prestige or piety or if you'd simply make a good count/advisor for someone who needs one (due to your stats). Just thinking.
I'm playing Abyssynia. I'm in 1150s and I've just taken the Duchy of Nubia back from the Fatimids, while they are involved in a Civil War with their vassals. They are a tough nut to crack. You don't go making war without first preparing for Total War. As in, if you are small, build your economic base and your troop numbers while they burn their resources and their efforts making war on others. I know it sucks and I know its boring but if you are going to go 'toe to toe' with the big ones, you better be ready for a big fight. It takes work to take what you want from people who don't want to give it up to you and are more powerful than you. And they'll make you work for it so don't expect an easy payoff but once you break them, its oh, so sweet.
Unless the Fatimids off themselves, which happens in my games every now and then, the only way I've found to beat them is using lots of mercs running around their backyard taking counties to pump up my warscore while my stacks pick off any Fatimid that gets too far from the "herd."
Despite that, I don't think the Fat's really need to be nerfed. Just that the Crusade slash Jihad mechanic really needs some serious tweaking.
Despite that, I don't think the Fat's really need to be nerfed. Just that the Crusade slash Jihad mechanic really needs some serious tweaking.
Solution.
Only Sunni should have a jihad.
Also, compared to that, shia have a real small power, along with time, becoming less and less.
Only Sunni should have a jihad.
Also, compared to that, shia have a real small power, along with time, becoming less and less.
there are also reasons to generally disable jihads on iberian states: the almohad and the almoravid for example both started an invasion, but it was not a united effort of several muslim nations. historically, since the fall of the caliphate of cordoba, the new/other caliph in baghdad/syria (dunno) would have never declared a jihad on iberia due to cultural and even religious differences with the muslims in spain.
in my game, the jihad was declared on me at 1083 with me having conquered only badajoz and beja, playing as galicia :mellow:
but i reloaded and they didnt declare since then. edit: with more than 50.000 troops at 1110, the fatimid are still way too strong i think. maybe its historical this way, but a djihad on spain definitely feels weird
in my game, the jihad was declared on me at 1083 with me having conquered only badajoz and beja, playing as galicia :mellow:
but i reloaded and they didnt declare since then. edit: with more than 50.000 troops at 1110, the fatimid are still way too strong i think. maybe its historical this way, but a djihad on spain definitely feels weird
Last edited:
That would break the symmetry of the game's rules.
I'd say: more sensible targets, longer cooldown, holdings-based Egypt/Fatimid nerf
+1
More sensible targets and longer cooldown seems like a fair solution, and will avoid the major problems discussed here, like Fitimid Galicia or Aragon. Nerfing may not be that necessary, I'll let that to Paradox, and other players.
It seems strange that the weightings for Jihads are the same for Sunni and Shia. A simple solution would be to seperate them in the weighting, so the Sunnis care more about things close to them.
That said, I'm whooping Shia ass in my current game as Aragon. They would definitely have won if it wasn't for quite a few reloads though.
That said, I'm whooping Shia ass in my current game as Aragon. They would definitely have won if it wasn't for quite a few reloads though.
Except, you know, the whole invasion of France by the Moors in the 700s and Charles Martel halting their advance, marking the historic limit of Islam in Spain for hundreds of years. OTHER THAN THAT LITTLE EVENT, nope, the two usually ignored each other.
- 1