Nooo Fatimid AI Jihad on Aragon makes no sense!!!

[keynes2.0]

Would the fatamids even have had the logistical capacity to launch a war in the mountains of northern spain anyway?

The thing that really irritates me is that there's nothing to represent that a patch of land is independent for a reason. Sure the Fatamids could have invaded Ireland or Galicia or Iceland in 1066 and probably gotten away with it. But they would have faced a challenge a lot worse then swatting aside a tiny army in the field with a doomstack. They would need to raise a round the clock occupation force and station it in a hostile country for decades against guerilla warfare. And they just didn't have the capacity for that.

When the Ummayyads invaded France at the battle of Tours they launched such an invasion because they had a professional army to hold the ground. When Alp Arslan invaded Armenia he had not just an army of levies but a population of migrating turks to hold the land. When the crusaders launched their crazy bid to conquer a distant shore there were tens of thousands of Europeans who felt invested enough to make a journey to fight there.

You can always make up a causus belli but you can't pull a population migration out of a hat. That's the thing that should really be the limiting factor. The Fatamids should in theory have the ability to launch an invasion anywhere on the map. But it should cost them thousands of gold to do it and be a drain on their treasury for years. If they launch an invasion and their treasury runs dry later then they lose their grasp on their conquests and the spanish come down from the hills and retake the land.

 

[unmerged(464016)]

I really don't know what the historical situation was back then , i know that the Catholics were well in control of Iberia in the time period , but HISTORY aside , im concerned about gameplay here even more so.




As someone else mentioned can you imagine the HRE being able to call Crusades for its own personal gain? that would be utterly ridiculous. I don't see why the Arabs are able to do it but that aside , i agree with many others that they should be targetting places closer to home. Seems like the Shia's always target the FAR west of the catholics , and never go after realistic targets. I say this from a game play perspective (its alot of hassle to take and hold land that is very far from the capital). But certainly , for the history nuts out there , it seems very unlikely the Shia's could have realistically called a Jihad , and claimed a Kingdom like Aragon , specifically with such a strong Sunni influence in the area.

 

[ArmchairGenera1]

Well, it's not only Fatimids. Every large kingdom is much stronger and more consolidated than it really was. Ppl simply play Christian nations and are upset when the huge Muslim blob comes and tears them a new one. But it's the same with every large kingdom, HRE and France including. I've seen HRE wage large wars in Iberia, France owning N. African coast, Hungary conquering steppes or inheriting counties inside Byz Empire. Even Denmark fighting Iberian taifas, how historical is that? Now imagine playing as one of the Iberian emirates, creating a strong regional power, and suddenly 40k HRE blob comes down all the way from Rhine and wipes the floor with you. All this is wired stuff and should be dealt with.

Bottom line is - it should be nigh impossible to have high CA in vast kingdoms and it should be extremely hard to wage wars or rule so far away from home regions.

 

[liamgamer55]

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.

And the muslims being close neighbours of christendom in sicily as well.

 

[Emre Yigit]

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.

Not to mention that, oh, yes, Egypt was pretty much christian before it was conquered. And the rest of North Africa. Where was it that Augustine hailed from?

The muslims expanded everywhere: Iberia, Sindh (yes, they went east, too), Central Asia. But I do agree that the Fatimids to seem a little too vibrant for this stage of their history, which is what the original poster is most worried about (I think).

 

[ArmchairGenera1]

Fatimids should be nerfed for other reasons, not for waging jihads and wars. Shia was declining in Egypt and they were ruling mostly Sunni provinces. Simple solution - make most Fatimid provinces and many vassals Sunni, like it really was. But with that Seljuks need a buff. Fatimids now is the only Muslim power capable of fighting Byz and huge Christian kingdoms. If it's nerfed and no other Muslim kingdom is buffed, we'll see even more ridiculous HRE/Denmark/England or France conquests in core Muslim lands.

Actually, all large kingdoms should receive some nerf. There were reasons why Medieval age was age of fragmented small counties, not age of vast empires and huge armies.

 

[unmerged(362834)]

Once, I witnessed a Seljuk jihad againt Galicia while there was a crusade against jerusalem. If I'm a really good seljuk muslim, I would help muslims in Palestine instead of going to Galicia!

Of course, the Seljuks won... and the game was screwed.

This is why I suggested to include in the 1.07 patch that religious wars should prioritarly aim at reconquering newly lost regions, or at helping fellow-believers under holly attacks.

 

[liamgamer55]

Maybe there should only be one religious war (of the crusade/jihad kind) allowed on at a time?

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

Fatimids should be nerfed for other reasons, not for waging jihads and wars. Shia was declining in Egypt and they were ruling mostly Sunni provinces. Simple solution - make most Fatimid provinces and many vassals Sunni, like it really was. But with that Seljuks need a buff. Fatimids now is the only Muslim power capable of fighting Byz and huge Christian kingdoms. If it's nerfed and no other Muslim kingdom is buffed, we'll see even more ridiculous HRE/Denmark/England or France conquests in core Muslim lands.

Actually, all large kingdoms should receive some nerf. There were reasons why Medieval age was age of fragmented small counties, not age of vast empires and huge armies.

+100

 

[unmerged(362834)]

When the Ummayyads invaded France at the battle of Tours they launched such an invasion because they had a professional army to hold the ground.

According to some historical sources, the Ummayyads army invaded the duchy of Aquitaine and Toulouse (France didn't exist at the 8th century). Their army was mainly formed by arab cavalery and berber infantarymen volunteers from north africa.

It wasn't that professionnal compared for example to the Roman army.

They were winning till the Duke of Aquitaine called for Charles de Martel, the king of francs. The muslim army withdrew after the battle of Poitiers where their Emir was killed.

By the way, The church of that era was unconfortable with the victory of Charles de Martel, since he was an unlawful son of the former king and he didn't care that much about the church!

Muslims also didn't need a big army to "hold the ground" since at that time, people didn't care about the religion of their governors as long as they are fair to them and tolerant with their religion (Yes! muslims was tolerant). Wars were between kings.
The muslim army that invaded Spain in 709 was a lot smaller than the Wisigoth army... it didn't stop them from conquering a huge territory in very few years.

 

[Dakk]

They were winning till the Duch of Aquitaine called for the franc king Charles de Martel.

Well, Charles Martel was well aware of the muslim threat - and had been preparing for it - for the better part of a decade. He had even declined helping the duke (Odo) before the battle of Toulouse unless he got something out of it. At that time Odo beat the muslim anyway, but when they came back for another go, 11 years later, he was soundly beaten outside Bordeaux and at the battle of river Garonne. After that, he swore fealty to Charles who promptly brought his Frankish army (which would succeed at Tours/Poiters, with reinforcements from duke Odo).

 

[Octavio]

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.

first and second waves of arabic expansion excluded of course: those were offensives that actually made sense, geopolitically, because it was a continuous expansion. and it was no jihad but just the militaristic expansion of a caliphate that marked the golden age of the arabs. while they practised religious tolerance, we (from the first crusade on) were starting massacres (especially the french if i remember correctly)

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Why does this remind me of the development (patchwise) of CK1....but i wouldnt want a hardcoded limitation. It made sense in CK1 but did break immersion as well, the mediterranian expansion limit i mean.
On the OT here, the muslims massacred as well here and there, while the frankish definitely were a bit harsher in this regard. Please lets not play this "this culture/that culture" game again.

Restrictions on holy wars, crusades and or jihads seem appropriate. Better targeting, well stuff like that.
Maybe there another naval system could help , along with different costs regarding naval transportation that would make you and the AI think twice before going on long naval journey. Ah well.....
Right now the journeys with ships are too cheap and without a real risk. Wouldnt only fit history but gameplay as well.

 

[Portal]

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.

Stupid question, I've been playing this game a while but I cannot find in the diplomacy screen or anything how to find everybody else's opinion of a particular person. Help? Did you just check him for bad traits? Or is he landed and did you see if his vassals / court hated him? Help, amigo!

 

[Octavio]

i didnt want to say that islamic cultures were more tolerant/peaceful than christianity, i just wanted to say that there was no potential in the muslim world to start a djihad as crazy as the first crusade (or an invasion of the sultanate of egypt to spain, which is crazy too). thats why i said that we should disable jihads until a first crusade has been called

but yes i do believe that there was no such confrontation between islam and christendom. here are some reasons:
spanish medieval kings for example voluntarily dressed in muslim fashion, there were settlements in christian spain changing their names to muslim ones, adopting their way of life.
very importantly, there are many historians in spain saying that there was never a reconquista, arguing that it is an invention of the liberal government in the 19th century to establish a modern spanish nationalism. in fact, there was only one spanish kingdom proclaiming a holy war and that was in the 15th century during the conquest cordoba iirc. the previous wars were declared as common disputes between two lords, which actually makes sense if you consider that there were also christian-muslim alliances (Noble claimants used the help of their southern neighbors to force a legal heir to give up his claim, Galicia working together with the muslims to weaken frankish influence in northern spain, etc.)

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

But the war on the ERE is kind of a jihad as well regarding the korans prophecy , so does it mean its even between christendom and islam ? (rethorical question)
Gosh, really i dont care as its stuff regarding the issue of "my culture is better than your culture" and its totaly OFF TOPIC.


By the way, one jihad and crusade at a time , as mentioned before by other posters, could solve the problem a bit as well methinks.

 

[Octavio]

i dont think its off-topic. christendom was also peaceful before the crusades started! for instance, dont know which lord it was, but once a king of england had to employ lots of priests in order to make up for his sins and go to heaven. after the start of the crusades though, redemption was much more easier by simply killing infidels.

what i am saying is that things escalated because of the crusades, so thats why we need the jihads to be disabled until there has been a crusade.

but im by all means no expert regarding religion, so i might be wrong of course. one might argue that the crusades are a response to muslim aggressions (the arabic golden age beeing too far in the past though), but afaik, the first crusade was more an opportunistic idea of the pope that also helped the lords get rid of bored and troublesome knights

 

[grisamentum]

I am so tired of all these ridiculous threads about X conquering Y or not being able to conquer Y by year Z.

Guys we have an entire sample size of ONE in real life. If reality were to play out 1000 times we have no idea what "should" have happened. This is like if you played a single game of CK2 and based all your perceptions about what "should" happen in CK2 based on that one game.

On top of it, this thread is really about the OP being bad at the game. He was WINNING the jihad and then suddenly lost? Yeah, because he was dumb enough to send his ruler into a battle that he lost, the ruler got captured, so he lost the war. That's the only explanation how you go from winning 70% to losing instantly. How about don't make awful mistakes and the game won't punish you?

I notice there was no complaint by the OP that his ruler wasn't the actual historical Aragonese monarch from 1100, or that the Fatimid ruler wasn't the actual historical Fatimid ruler from the time. So let's get this straight: every character in the game is only vaguely based on real life, and by 1100, are probably completely fictitious characters any way (1-2 generations removed from 1066) but somehow they're expected to do exactly the same things that real life people might have done, for reasons we can't even really be sure of because we don't have the best records of all of their actions and their surrounding circumstances?

Is this some kind of joke? Why the hell would you expect it to be the same? You're mad because you're bad: get better and you won't have to deal with losing jihads. When I played my last taifa game I ended up sultan of Aquitaine and spent the next 100 years fighting off repeated crusades for Aquitaine. This is what happens when you play the game.

 

[grisamentum]

i dont think its off-topic. christendom was also peaceful before the crusades started! for instance, dont know which lord it was, but once a king of england had to employ lots of priests in order to make up for his sins and go to heaven. after the start of the crusades though, redemption was much more easier by simply killing infidels.

what i am saying is that things escalated because of the crusades, so thats why we need the jihads to be disabled until there has been a crusade.

but im by all means no expert regarding religion, so i might be wrong of course. one might argue that the crusades are a response to muslim aggressions (the arabic golden age beeing too far in the past though), but afaik, the first crusade was more an opportunistic idea of the pope that also helped the lords get rid of bored and troublesome knights

This might be one of the most ignorant posts to ever show up on these forums.

 

[Octavio]

@girsamentum: care to explain why? as i said, im no expert in religious matters, so please share your wisdom

btw i agree with you that this game is about showing potential historical outcomes, but even if taking in account the ideological and militaristic potential of the sultanates, i think that there should be a crusade before there is a jihad

edit: as i said, playing as galicia, the fatimid declared war on me in 1083 and i only took the emirate of beja and badajoz by force (historically, castille did better yet there was still no muslim response from a sultan more than 10.000 km away). how do you explain that? am i a bad player too, just because im not able to defend against 50.000 troops in 1083, playing an isolated kingdom in spain?