Solving the Fatimid Problem

[unmerged(463186)]

I've played a fair number of games in the south eastern section of the map, and I really think there's tons of fun to be had, but...

Dem Fatimids. They simply over-power every other faction in the area. The Seljuks? Well, you not only have the Hashashins to bolster your forces, but the Byzantines will likely step in to try to take back land after the (almost guaranteed successful with the terrible Byzantine AI) invasion of Armenia. The Fatimids will probably come out on top. The Byzantines? Here, the Fatimids are fighting an enemy roughly as powerful as them (assuming the loss of Armenia), with the bonus of having a Shi'a holy order to throw around. The North African states? They'll just get devoured, as they lack any mechanism to guard against the Fatimids. The Crusaders? Early game crusades that SHOULD have the largest ratio of success, with future crusades failing more and more often, often fail due to the Fatimids' number of bodies to throw around.

That's the problem. The Fatimids receive too many bonuses to ensure their survival when the Fatimids' AI should, for the majority of the games, err on the side of failure. The Hashashin are not the real problem. Yes, the Fatimids are the only Shi'a faction at the game start, and will monopolize use of the Hashashin holy order, but the real issue is how the Mamluks are handled; the owner of the county of Cairo gets a massive, cheap, Mamluk mercenary group that only they have access to (while Mamluks were trained in Cairo, they later had responsibilities to their owners, correct?). Their effects are especially noticeable during the first century or so, what with the massive amount of heavy cavalry and horse archers they can throw around in the 1100s.

What is arguably worse is that ANYONE who controls Cairo - Muslim, Christian, Pagan, THE FRIGGIN' POPE - has access to this powerful group. That's...odd. That's wrong, especially when you consider that the Mamluks' captain is always Muslim - why would any and all leaders accept him as a vassal?

We need to do something about this. Why not change the Egyptian cultural building to be something along the lines of a "Mamluk Homestead," or a "Mamluk Barracks" that give heavy cavalry and horse archers? From my understanding, the Mamluks were something of a cultural and political anomaly, unique to the Egyptian area. It seems really odd to think that these local slave-soldiers would be adopted by foreign leaders, and even odder to think that the Mamluks would serve them. In addition, this would remove quite a bit of the Fatimid's early-game power base, giving something of a chance to the first crusaders.

No, I don't think this perfectly emulates history, but I think it could serve as a solution to a problem. Fellow forumites, doth thou agree? Disagree-ith? Let me know, and post some suggestions of your own!

(But seriously, agree with me.)

 

[Swxpert]

Wait all I have to do to get control of the Hashashin is take over Cairo?

 

[DominusNovus]

Wait all I have to do to get control of the Hashashin is take over Cairo?

You may want to re-read that long paragraph; he's talking about the Mamluks.

 

[unmerged(463186)]

Wait all I have to do to get control of the Hashashin is take over Cairo?

No, the Mamluks. I can see where some confusion might be, so I'll my polish my post a bit.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

The Mamluks were a Circassian slave warrior hierarchy. They were neither Arab nor native to Egypt; they certainly shouldn't be Egyptian cultural units. Ideally the Mamluks should be Turkish or Cuman (Kipchak) and Shi'a, as well as try to overthrow the Fatimids. Being an Egyptian vassal mercenary outfit is fine, and quite accurate.

 

[unmerged(463186)]

The Mamluks were a Circassian slave warrior hierarchy. They were neither Arab nor native to Egypt; they certainly shouldn't be Egyptian cultural units.

I do not recall saying that they were Egyptian, nor do I think being a cultural unit would assume the ethnicity of the unit in question is Egyptian (although I do think plenty of my Mamluk captains in the past have been Egyptian).

Ideally the Mamluks should be Turkish or Cuman (Kipchak) and Shi'a, as well as try to overthrow the Fatimids. Being an Egyptian vassal mercenary outfit is fine, and quite accurate.

But...it isn't fine. The Mamluks as they currently stand will serve ANYONE who owns Cairo. Additionally, as unlanded vassals, they never seem to join factions and revolt (something you think they should do). It is fine if you disagree with my solution, but I doubt you are "fine" with the current system of vassal mercenaries who serve whoever owns a specific section of land.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

That the Fatimids are absurdly OP is a known issue and has been for some time. Your specific point about the Mamluks is flawed as it suggests they ought to be available only to the Fatimids as opposed to any Muslim ruling class in Cairo -- why? They served later families such as the Ottomans, just as the Varangians did not remain loyal to a single imperial dynasty.

Also, why would you propose a cultural unit not of that region's culture or indeed anywhere near it? The Mamluks were employed precisely because they weren't Arabs, and therefore were permitted to be kept as slaves. This was also true of the Nubians, hence the Baqt.

 

[unmerged(463186)]

That the Fatimids are absurdly OP is a known issue and has been for some time. Your specific point about the Mamluks is flawed as it suggests they ought to be available only to the Fatimids as opposed to any Muslim ruling class in Cairo -- why? They served later families such as the Ottomans, just as the Varangians did not remain loyal to a single imperial dynasty.

No. It suggests that they ought to be available to Egyptians. At the start of the game, the Mamluks still primarily served in bands that owed their allegiance to local lords. The current mechanic does not reflect this. If later start dates wish to use a different mechanic as Egyptian lords start being replaced, that is totally alright with me. I am not discussing later start dates.

Also, why would you propose a cultural unit not of that region's culture or indeed anywhere near it? The Mamluks were employed precisely because they weren't Arabs, and therefore were permitted to be kept as slaves. This was also true of the Nubians, hence the Baqt.

While the Mamluks also served lords in the Levant and Syria, and other areas in the Middle East, they are primarily associated with the Egyptian area. Again, the Mamluks are not Egyptian themselves - I realize this. However, they are a part of Egyptian noble culture during this time period. From where I am sitting, they fit.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

To adopt a tired cliché, we'll agree to disagree. The Fatimids and East Africans certainly do need rebalancing in some way, though.

 

[unmerged(463186)]

To adopt a tired cliché, we'll agree to disagree. The Fatimids and East Africans certainly do need rebalancing in some way, though.

It does seem rather appropriate, if trite. XD

I'm glad you can politely disagree - it's a rare trait on the internet, and one that deserves recognition. Out of curiosity, do you have any ideas that might help the area? There's no right or wrong answer. Forumites brainstorming can only help Paradox - at the very worst, they just ignore us, and at best we come up with some clever ideas.

 

[Hackworthy]

This mod: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?640348-Mini-Mod-Nerfed-Fatimids-and-a-makeshift-Baqt. works well. Unfortunately the creator appears to have abandoned it, it does however work with the latest patch just fine.

 

[Theddude]

I like these ideas. About the Mamluks, I think they should be represented well or not at all. Maybe they can fix it somehow, but the Fatimids should definitely be the least of the three Eastern great powers.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Another issue with the Fatimids that doesn't come up as often is that the Fatimid Caliph starts the game with more titles than his demesne will allow - thus, he often gifts sheikdoms and emirates to his vassals, giving them a large opinion boost, and preventing any possible large faction revolt against him (this is why the Seljuks often collapse into civil war after beating the Byzantines (or even during the war), while the Fatimids don't). In my own mod-indevelopment I first tried giving the Fatimid vassals almost all of the Claiph's titles except for the Emirate of Cairo and the counties under it (meaning the Fatimid Cailph starts with 4 counties directly under his rule instead of 12). Even doing this, he still give out 2-3 of those counties to his vassals. I'm going to try now to see what happens if I give all his counties (except for Cairo) to his vassals.

Note that I did all this even with an artificial -25 opinion modifier.

My point is that another major problem is that Fatimid vassals are one big happy family, which is far from the case historically - the Fatimids were in fact on the decline and facing seriuos internal problems in 1066.

 

[unmerged(463186)]

This mod: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?640348-Mini-Mod-Nerfed-Fatimids-and-a-makeshift-Baqt. works well. Unfortunately the creator appears to have abandoned it, it does however work with the latest patch just fine.

That mod certainly has plenty of good things going for it - I particularly like the idea of keeping the Mamluks as mercenaries, removing them as vassals of the Kingdom of Egypt, and making the forces smaller. Additionally, to represent the fact that numerous local lords had their own cadre of Mamluks, perhaps several small bands of, say, 1,500 troops could be available with several possible ethnicities for the captains (Cuman, Georgian, etc.).

I do not know how the mercenary coding works (I'm rather ignorant on the technical end in general), but this might work well if lords who had access to the Mamluks (limit it to several specific duchies, perhaps?) could only hire one group at a time, balanced by the fact that several lords in that area could still hire one of the remaining groups - a grand total of 4,500 troops seems to be a reasonably large force overall, especially considering the large ratio of quality troops. Any thoughts?

 

[grumphie]

if anything, its ruler is its problem:L its almost a saint, with a long reign bonus. while he rules, no problems for the fatamids. his ridiculous health ensures that he lives for quite a long time. by then, most internal problems have cooled down and egypt has reached a critical level where it simply brushes aside AI defences. give him some bad traits, give him a opinion modifier, anything, just dont atack the mamluks. thyre not the real problem. its the fact that thyre so a-historically stable.

EDIT: sclaing the mamluks and ghizman of the seljuks a tad down(i believe theyre like 7000 men or so currently) to about the size of the varagian guard would also help though. them as vassels to whoever controls egypt is fine tho.

 

[BritNavFan]

Historically, the Mamluks just shouldn't exist in the Fatimid period. While there was a military unit known as the Mamluks in service with the Egyptians in 1066, it had nothing to do with the later Mamluks, as (from what I've read) it was disbanded in 1077. The Mamluks, as the institution we all think of when we hear the name, were formed towards the end of the dynasty founded by Saladin.

The Assassins also shouldn't be a unit of holy warriors, just a Muslim theocracy.

Delaying the entrance of the Mamluks into the game would help play balance. Removing the Assassins holy order would, mostly, hurt it. (I say "mostly" because in my current game I noticed the Yemenis hiring the Assassins for an invasion of Ethiopia, which is pretty thoroughly completely unhistorical.) But play balance in this part of the world needs a comprehensive review anyway.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

I posted this in the mod thread, but I figure it'll get more visibility here:

Disable all Muslim holy war and invasion versus African Miaphysites, and vice versa. The two groups shared amiable relations since the time of Muhammad, and so more is warranted than just a forced peace between Egyptian Shiites and Makuria.

If the Fatimids really were in so much trouble, then 60% decadence seems light, especially given how easily you can burn off decadence with the kind of major wars the Fatimids are prone to get caught up in.

Invasion CB should still be kingdom-level, as such conquests did happen. However, they should be much more costly, only wageable against neighbors, and issue calls-to-arms to co-religionists of the invadee, assuming that they're of a different religion than the invader.

As for the Mamluks: Perhaps they should be strengthened, rather than weakened? Given a few landed holdings in Cairo and maybe other regions where they were historically employed, accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the regional levies. That way, they will provide a major boon to whoever controls them, but if you screw up (high decadence, low relations, lose wars/territory), you not only lose the backbone of your army, but face a revolter in the heart of your realm, a revolter who is more likely than not to have a larger and more skilled army than you, who will be spawning this army right on your capital, and who has an invasion CB that will let them take your entire kingdom.

This would not only weaken the Fatimids, but also allow something like the historical Mamluk state to arise, and make playing in Egypt more interesting in general. You'd have the choice of either relying on this amazing cheap mercenary army, or spending the money to develop your levies and retinue so that you're not at the mercy of these upstart slave-soldiers.

 

[A_Dane]

as far as I can tell, the Fatimids are OP for several reasons, one of thse most larger kingdoms/empires suffers from - they can raise too many levies from vassals. They can at all times, with the few exceptions where the ruler is borderline retarded, deploy most of their armies everywhere. The HRE suffers from the same, as do the Byzzies and France. (And the player ofcourse). Them basically having monopoly on 2 quite monstreous mercenary companies really dosn't help.

A lot of it has been brought up already, but in my own game, I've modded it so that it costs 2000 piety to call an invasion. It stopped them until Jihads were enabled, and then they just went on to do their usual thing. Gonna try the Miaphysite - Shia holy war addition, because it really dosn't help that they get to gobble up the entirety of eastern africa. But I'm also strongly considering 2 things: A) Simply removing invasion from the shiite roster and let them keep Jihad. Or B) remove Jihad and let them keep invasion, but only letting Invasion target duchies as has also been suggested.

Another thing that makes them a bit OP, is that there really isn't enough infighting between the muslim religious groups & the Seljuks simply fall apart in all my games. It should, In my opinion, be changed so that the Muslims have considerably more opportunities to fight amongst the different religious groups.

Decadence could also use a look at. It's great that there is a mechanic to replace the ruling dynasties like that, but it also hampers the disentegration of the Fatimids quite a bit. - The fatimids will usually blob early game unless something extreme happens (succesful crusade etc.), and then when things finally start to get interesting, revolts, assassinations etc. an invasion triggers. The Fatimids are demoted and a new ruling dynasty takes over and blobs a bit more.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Change Muslim Invasion to target Duke-level titles. Problem solved.

 

[generalolaf]

Here's what I think should happen, based mostly on ideas I've heard from others here:

-Muslim Invasion CB should be removed or nerfed to target Duchies rather than Kingdoms.
-Fatimids' initial Decadence should be increased - this is historical as well as they were unstable and indebted in 1066.
-Some sort of representation of the Baqt.
-Decadence revolts should break up the polity that they target more.

Any combination of, say, two of these four changes would, I believe, significantly improve the situation in that area of the world.