Should Muslims be as OP as they are in the game right now?

[Dunerat]

Forgot about dev bias viking powerfantasy, look at this:

SS1: Infinite resources and an army of 124k before 1200;
SS2: Ash'ari Sunni Islam about to invade India (lol) and creeping into the edges of modern day China borders

Now I do have basic historical literacy to know that this time period was generally speaking the Golden Age of the muslim world. But my concern is whether or not it is overblown in the game, and/or if multiple boosted factors all synchronize together to result in a power that is greater than the sum of its parts (for example - the combination of internal alliances due to Polygamy and Clan, close and powerful Holy Sites to benefit from /Medina & Mecca/, high starting Development that is only going to increase, naturally etc etc)?
Note the lack of any serious size of opposive Faiths within the same Islam Religion wing, nor emerge of Heresies that, atleast in theory and by game design, should emerge once One singular Faith grows way too big. The Ash'ari school runs unopposed here, sitting at some decent ~70sh percent Fervor most of the time. On that note, based Karmatians were a historically important happening, but in this timeline, they never even bleeped on the radar.

To be fair I do believe certain other elements are over-represented aswell. Khuzarite in particular are stronger than one would think....because....ofcourse they would be, it is what it is. But atleast that is not as overwhelming from a gaming perspective as the Muslim Snowball is, which happens often in my games.

Forget about the to-come Khan, The Damascusid Caliphate is probably going to solo them the moment the Mongols emerge.

Thoughts?

 

[Herennius]

In how many of your games does this happen? In every game, the majority of your games, sometimes...or is it just the way one game took? If it happens regularly, are we talking on an unmodded game?

 

[Delterius]

Muslims aren't any more OP than anything else other than Viking prowess nonsense. That's just an 867 caliphate that hasn't collapsed yet. Realm stability changes a lot depending on game settings and what patch we're in. Things changed since CK2, the real OP stuff isn't on religion anymore it's on hybridizing cultures.

 

[Dunerat]

In how many of your games does this happen? In every game, the majority of your games, sometimes...or is it just the way one game took? If it happens regularly, are we talking on an unmodded game?

I suppose the answer would be "more than half". Majority of my games are/were as Bulgaria.
My "conspiracy theory" is that because as Bulgaria you sort-of need to either destroy the Byzantines entirely or at least weaken them enough and keep them around as a buffer state (as is the case in this time around's screenshots), that causes the Muslims below them to get even bolder. Sometimes the muslims eat up the Byzantines that I've weakened prior, sometimes they pool over to the east (like this one) or through the caucassus in the north.
If you don't destroy or cripple the Byzantines then they will forever be a threat with "Desires the Kingdom of Bulgaria" as KoB is part of their De Jure Empire :/

Eventually I pick a fight with the Muslim Superpower as well, to grab Jerusalem and Antioch. But they are often the last target on my list because of how strong they had become by that point of the game, even with my own powerful economy and massive multipliers on my army choices. Sometimes I will even take on the Papacy first over them.

Muslims aren't any more OP than anything else other than Viking prowess nonsense. That's just an 867 caliphate that hasn't collapsed yet. Realm stability changes a lot depending on game settings and what patch we're in. Things changed since CK2, the real OP stuff isn't on religion anymore it's on hybridizing cultures.

Yes but why hasn't it?
The Caliphate covers half the playable map, barely has any Heresies popping up, and its ruler rivals the Pope in wealth.

 

[Blk82]

The Kuzarite North Eurasia is a lot worse than the Neo-Abbasid Caliphate blobbing into Steppe in the late game. And, that empire isn't quite as big as it looks. The average county size is physically larger outside of Europe, and especially in the central Asian desert and steppe provinces.

 

[Delterius]

Yes but why hasn't it?
The Caliphate covers half the playable map, barely has any Heresies popping up, and its ruler rivals the Pope in wealth.

Heresies aren't a problem ever, full stop. And AI nations aren't really fated to collapse. The exact thing can happen with the HRE if you play on 1066.

There really isn't anything specific to islam that would make it stand out from the rest of religions. It just so happens that in 867 the AI is gifted with a large caliphate. In a way it's similar to CK2 where the starting board really, really matters.

 

[Dunerat]

The Kuzarite North Eurasia is a lot worse than the Neo-Abbasid Caliphate blobbing into Steppe in the late game. And, that empire isn't quite as big as it looks. The average county size is physically larger outside of Europe, and especially in the central Asian desert and steppe provinces.

I'm using its physical size more of a punchline.
What truly matters is their 124k army, 2k gold in treasury and virtually always highest or second-highest Level of Devotion. Tangible power, that I can't help but feel a bit overboard for not even in Late Medieval yet.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Is it faith, or is it empire-level title stability?

 

[Rubidium]

Personally, I'm thrilled that Islam is able to invade India in CK3. Muslims conquered most of India during this time period. In CK2, you'd more frequently see random Hindu kingdoms conquering the Middle East.

 

[klopkr]

I always found the Muslim systems more stable in both CK3 and Ck2 (Decadence aside). I think it's just an inherent outcome of having a billion alliances and allying your vassals.

I wouldn't say it's too bad though. They definitely aren't that far ahead. It would be interesting to have a bit more chaos around Muslim succession.

 

[Eltener]

I could list the rulers at the fringes of the Muslim world at that time period and their extents but a map tends to be a way better form of presentation and CK2's bookmarks did tend to get the broad strokes right. From "The Alexiad" bookmark (1st of April 1081):

So, your Damascusids aren't THAT much bigger than the Seljuks, North Eastern India being Muslim looks about right given the Ghaznavids and historically we'd soon see the Ghurids who'd punch into the heart of Northern India. Islam creeping into the steppe also seems to align and the Uyghurs starting to become Muslim in Xinjiang/East-Turkestan also aligns with the process beginning historically in the 10th century. Islam seems to have done a bit better in East Africa than it would have by now historically but conversely, there's no Muslim realm in Anatolia (Rum). A bunch of Egypt turning Orthodox Christian in your game doesn't seem to align with the whole Muslims are OP narrative either.



As far as the Ashari monolith, I recall one of the Devs saying on a post about the Seljuks how they are planning to make them Maturidi (historically they were Hanafi who would be represented by Maturidi in the game). I presume that they will go through and change the faiths of more historical Sunni Muslim rulers and their subjects to reflect the actual school they followed rather than the blanket Ashari treatment most of the map has at the moment which should do a lot to break it up.

 

[Byzantium2000]

I just saw the fractured Iberian Muslims with only half of Iberia in my 1066 start defeat a Crusade with no effort.... but that just shows the complaints about Crusades are true lol.

I mean historically the Abbassids shouldn’t be expanding at all by that point, the Late 9th and 10th centuries saw the complete collapse of the Arabic/ Persian worlds into competing States, The once great Damascus turned into a war torn ruined city, hence the 936 Iron century having a fractured Middle East. The Arabs never build a massive empire again in CK3s timeframe.

Since they start with a lot more territory in CK3, they tend to do a lot better than I saw them in CK2.

Hmm I don’t know if I’d blame Muslim or the fact Muslim armies start out with too high a tech advantage, like what just happened in them crusade I saw or playing any game in Iberia or the Caucuses lol

Also I see it’s pulling the classic blob into the steppes tactic all CK empires do, that’s what makes it look worse.

Also I agree with the others that seeing Muslims make any progress in India is a good thing. Just again it should be Turks not Arabs and Iranians doing it.

 

[Byzantium2000]

I could list the rulers at the fringes of the Muslim world at that time period and their extents but a map tends to be a way better form of presentation and CK2's bookmarks did tend to get the broad strokes right. From "The Alexiad" bookmark (1st of April 1081):View attachment 942651
View attachment 942652
So, your Damascusids aren't THAT much bigger than the Seljuks, North Eastern India being Muslim looks about right given the Ghaznavids and historically we'd soon see the Ghurids who'd punch into the heart of Northern India. Islam creeping into the steppe also seems to align and the Uyghurs starting to become Muslim in Xinjiang/East-Turkestan also aligns with the process beginning historically in the 10th century. Islam seems to have done a bit better in East Africa than it would have by now historically but conversely, there's no Muslim realm in Anatolia (Rum). A bunch of Egypt turning Orthodox Christian in your game doesn't seem to align with the whole Muslims are OP narrative either.



As far as the Ashari monolith, I recall one of the Devs saying on a post about the Seljuks how they are planning to make them Maturidi (historically they were Hanafi who would be represented by Maturidi in the game). I presume that they will go through and change the faiths of more historical Sunni Muslim rulers and their subjects to reflect the actual school they followed rather than the blanket Ashari treatment most of the map has at the moment which should do a lot to break it up.

Tbf thats also the Peak of the Turkish Conquers Seljuks though who start declining a decade later.

And I don’t think bringing up Egypt is valid when it’s him as player Bulgaria intentionally expanding there to contain them lol.

 

[Eltener]

Tbf thats also the Peak of the Turkish Conquers Seljuks though who start declining a decade later.

And I don’t think bringing up Egypt is valid when it’s him as player Bulgaria intentionally expanding there to contain them lol.

1 dissolution war and the blob could explode

 

[Rubidium]

I just saw the fractured Iberian Muslims with only half of Iberia in my 1066 start defeat a Crusade with no effort.... but that just shows the complaints about Crusades are true lol.

I mean historically the Abbassids shouldn’t be expanding at all by that point, the Late 9th and 10th centuries saw the complete collapse of the Arabic/ Persian worlds into competing States, The once great Damascus turned into a war torn ruined city, hence the 936 Iron century having a fractured Middle East. The Arabs never build a massive empire again in CK3s timeframe.

Since they start with a lot more territory in CK3, they tend to do a lot better than I saw them in CK2.

Hmm I don’t know if I’d blame Muslim or the fact Muslim armies start out with too high a tech advantage, like what just happened in them crusade I saw or playing any game in Iberia or the Caucuses lol

Also I see it’s pulling the classic blob into the steppes tactic all CK empires do, that’s what makes it look worse.

Also I agree with the others that seeing Muslims make any progress in India is a good thing. Just again it should be Turks not Arabs and Iranians doing it.

Crusades are broken for AI reasons, not because Muslims are overpowered. If you watch the AI, they will wander around like a headless chicken and get destroyed. The same happens with most crusades, even ones for places like Denmark or wherever.

And while the Abbassids shouldn't expand too much more, we're about to hit the time of the great Turkish conquerors like the Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Ghurids, etc., who certainly did. Not to mention the expansion of Islam into Africa.

After all, the OP's map was from 1175, and Byzantium is also far healthier in it than it would be historically at that time (to say nothing of whoever "West Slavia" is). It's more a function of blobs being extremely stable if they don't fall to dissolution factions (and note that in the image, the Damascusid ruler is 75 years old, so probably has a huge "long reign" bonus).

 

[Byzantium2000]

Crusades are broken for AI reasons, not because Muslims are overpowered. If you watch the AI, they will wander around like a headless chicken and get destroyed. The same happens with most crusades, even ones for places like Denmark or wherever.

And while the Abbassids shouldn't expand too much more, we're about to hit the time of the great Turkish conquerors like the Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Ghurids, etc., who certainly did. Not to mention the expansion of Islam into Africa.

After all, the OP's map was from 1175, and Byzantium is also far healthier in it than it would be historically at that time (to say nothing of whoever "West Slavia" is). It's more a function of blobs being extremely stable if they don't fall to dissolution factions (and note that in the image, the Damascusid ruler is 75 years old, so probably has a huge "long reign" bonus).

Exactly We’ve already passed that time in his game it’s 1175. All the great Turkish conquerors who should be doing the actual blobbing never came or failed.

Again he’s player Bulgaria and you have to be goofing me, Byzantium was at the peak of the Komnenean restoration in 1175, meanwhile they literally don’t own Constantinople on his map, which having Anatolia next to a Arab blob doesn’t make up for, realistically their territory would have broken into 3 separate states if that happened but I digress.

I agree on Crusades though, them running around like headless chickens while the defender uses a single doom stack is the biggest issue.

And yeah West slavia is goofy too lol.

 

[Rubidium]

Exactly We’ve already passed that time in his game it’s 1175. All the great Turkish conquerors who should be doing the actual blobbing never came or failed.

Because they aren't programmed to appear (unlike CK2). So the Abbasids have to fulfill that function if you start in 867 (which is the 9th/10th century period of conquests I was referring to).

Again he’s player Bulgaria and you have to be goofing me, Byzantium was at the peak of the Komnenean restoration in 1175, meanwhile they literally don’t own Constantinople on his map, which having Anatolia next to a Arab blob doesn’t make up for, realistically their territory would have broken into 3 separate states if that happened but I digress.

I agree on Crusades though, them running around like headless chickens while the defender uses a single doom stack is the biggest issue.

And yeah West slavia is goofy too lol.

He is playing Bulgaria, so I ignore player conquests (same way as I don't count Bulgarian Egypt as an example of Muslim failure), which includes Constantinople and environs.

Byzantium in his map still controls far more of Anatolia than they realistically should even at the Komnenoi's height, as well as holding on to a large chunk of Sicily

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

They're not slapping Byz around, so they're not penetrating into "core player lands" (Christian, as usual.)

So no.

I heavily disagree with Crusade mechanics dissatisfaction. Always bear in mind the First Crusade only really succeeded due to internal turmoil and outright fracturing in these large Middle Eastern realms during the campaign. It is not the gold standard of success a Crusade should be held up to. Had the Crusaders faced even an iota of organized resistance as they did in later Crusades, the attempt failed hard. At best it was a stalemate.

Direct your complaints at weak Crusades towards how stable large realms (including the player's) are. Buffing Crusade strength just causes disastrous results as seen in CK2, where Holy Fury DLC and 5+ Holy order advantage allows Crusades to easily smash the entirety of a unified Fatimid to take Egypt or Seljuk to take Syria. Taking it, spawning ridiculous deathstacks, and in doing so blowing up any semblance of balance between Shia, Sunni, and Orthodox in the region.

Holy Fury was a disastrous DLC for map balance, don't ask for a repeat.

 

[Byzantium2000]

They're not slapping Byz around, so they're not penetrating into "core player lands" (Christian, as usual.)

So no.

I heavily disagree with Crusade mechanics dissatisfaction. Always bear in mind the First Crusade only really succeeded due to internal turmoil and outright fracturing in these large Middle Eastern realms during the campaign. It is not the gold standard of success a Crusade should be held up to. Had the Crusaders faced even an iota of organized resistance as they did in later Crusades, the attempt failed hard. At best it was a stalemate.

Direct your complaints at weak Crusades towards how stable large realms (including the player's) are. Buffing Crusade strength just causes disastrous results as seen in CK2, where Holy Fury DLC and 5+ Holy order advantage allows Crusades to easily smash the entirety of a unified Fatimid to take Egypt or Seljuk to take Syria. Taking it, spawning ridiculous deathstacks, and in doing so blowing up any semblance of balance between Shia, Sunni, and Orthodox in the region.

Holy Fury was a disastrous DLC for map balance, don't ask for a repeat.

Bruh I’ve seen 3 Crusades in my current game against the Taifas in Iberia and they’ve all lost, tell me your historical justification for that. The Crusade AI is flatout broken, they don’t combine their armies when the ai does it in every other type of war.

You bring up the first Crusade every time this convo has come come up for years, yet the First Crusade was against the Sultanate of Rum, Fatimids and Seljuks. That they didn’t work together is irrelevant when the ingame Crusades can’t even beat one of them by themselves.

The Crusades were broken over powered in CK2 that completely ruined game balance by immediately targeting Egypt and destroying the strongest power on the map with minimal effort.

Now they’re broken under powered by their inability to even handle mid tier realms who don’t even have allies as the balance of power doesn’t factor in their broken ai.

Because they aren't programmed to appear (unlike CK2). So the Abbasids have to fulfill that function if you start in 867 (which is the 9th/10th century period of conquests I was referring to).

He is playing Bulgaria, so I ignore player conquests (same way as I don't count Bulgarian Egypt as an example of Muslim failure), which includes Constantinople and environs.

Byzantium in his map still controls far more of Anatolia than they realistically should even at the Komnenoi's height, as well as holding on to a large chunk of Sicily

Then there no point bringing them up cause it’s just not historical or realistic from 867.

The Turks were the decisive factor in reuniting the Middle East, rolling over the existing power structures/rivalries and bringing with them militarized migratory populations. Without them the Arab and Persian world would have remained divided and a easy punching bag for the Fatimids and Byzantines who were continuously expanding untill the Seljuks started attacking them in the late 1040s.

This has convinced me we need those Turk adventurers back badly blobbing aside.

 

[greywulfos]

I think this kind of hits on a point that's actually sort of meaningful in that tbh, I don't think the Abbasids should be as centralized as they're depicted in game at the moment. In general, all realms shouldn't, but it's bizarre that a war at the Caliphate's borders immediately brings in the personal armies of the Caliph

The abbasids did not have that much central authority