Unstoppable Hispania (Umayyad)

[Robert II]

Nah. I see them disintegrate permanently often enough.

My personal favorite is the Knights of Caltrava blob that sometimes forms in Hispania. That's always fun,

Now there's a blob I've not heard in a long time. I've not seen them do anything in quite a while.

 

[The Duke of GTFO]

It's pretty funny to see the Knights of Calatrava pwn everyone, considering their historically low numbers and minimal impact on history. They are probably best remembered for losing Calatrava, as well as losing generally.

 

[Secret Master]

Now there's a blob I've not heard in a long time. I've not seen them do anything in quite a while.

Approves

 

[plainsfox]

As a thought, how much would making holy wars the prerogative of the highest liege lord help? I've experienced the thirteen vassals spam holy wars on me too. I've also had holy wars waged against me when the top liege lord was the same religion as me and his vassals were other religions.

 

[szmik]

When you holy war muslim country one of big boys is going to come to help your target, when you're Christian attacked by holy war... tough luck, no one seems to care. Might be because they're in constant rebel wars.

 

[StarSword]

As a thought, how much would making holy wars the prerogative of the highest liege lord help? I've experienced the thirteen vassals spam holy wars on me too. I've also had holy wars waged against me when the top liege lord was the same religion as me and his vassals were other religions.

In a similar vein, the truce could bind vassals of the liege who declared the war in addition to the liege (but still expire based on the time limit or death of either party). In my experience vassals don't tend to declare many external wars unless they're player characters, so this wouldn't hamper expansion much.

 

[Shebaloso]

The DLC bookmarks have nothing to do with it. When Sword of Islam came out, one of the most common complaints was that an Emir in Al Andalus would eventually start an invasion for Aquitaine and he would always win.

The Muslims get bored because they're too stable. They're too stable because Muslim traits causes every Muslim who has them to be loved by every other Muslim.

-Mujahid gives you +10 opinion with all Muslims and +30 with everyone who also has the trait (this stacks, so it's +40 with everyone who shares the trait)
-Hajjaj gives you +10 with all Muslims
-Hafiz gives you +5 with all Muslims
-Sayyid gives you +10 with all Muslims
-Mirza gives you +5 with all Muslims
-Ashari gives you +25 with everyone who also has the trait
-Mutazilite gives you +25 with everyone who also has the trait

THIS is why Muslim realms never fall apart. It gets even more ridiculous when the Caliph is being controlled by a human who can manipulate jihads so that every vassal and all of their kids get the Mujahis trait, creating a unified empire of love for at least a generation.

-Mujahid is the same as Crusader. No advantage
-Hajjaj is the same as Pilgrim. No advantage
-Sayyid and mirza is only available to specific dynasties and characters, with mirza being useful for a single character and not being inherited
-Ashari and mutazilite do give +25 with the same trait, but you forgot the -25 with the opposite trait, so the net opinion benefit is null. No advantage

Muslims have, at best, a +15 opinion advantage over christians, and that is not even considering the huge opinion maluses related half brothers and demesne maluses related to high decadence (which are almost ubiquitous when we are dealing with large realms, which are coincidentally those blessed by the sayyid trait).

The point is, muslim stability has NOTHING to do whatsoever with their traits (which, as i just demonstrated, provide no significant advantage over the christians), but everything to do with their inheritance laws. Turkish open is probably the best inheritance law in the game and is decisive in keeping muslim realms from fracturing. Add the absence of Elective demanding factions, and we have the real reason for muslim dominance in this game

 

[Rationalsanity]

-Mujahid is the same as Crusader. No advantage
-Hajjaj is the same as Pilgrim. No advantage
-Sayyid and mirza is only available to specific dynasties and characters, with mirza being useful for a single character and not being inherited
-Ashari and mutazilite do give +25 with the same trait, but you forgot the -25 with the opposite trait, so the net opinion benefit is null. No advantage

Muslims have, at best, a +15 opinion advantage over christians, and that is not even considering the huge opinion maluses related half brothers and demesne maluses related to high decadence (which are almost ubiquitous when we are dealing with large realms, which are coincidentally those blessed by the sayyid trait).

The point is, muslim stability has NOTHING to do whatsoever with their traits (which, as i just demonstrated, provide no significant advantage over the christians), but everything to do with their inheritance laws. Turkish open is probably the best inheritance law in the game and is decisive in keeping muslim realms from fracturing. Add the absence of Elective demanding factions, and we have the real reason for muslim dominance in this game

Pilgrimage is locked to a certain focus though. And you are ignoring the edge they get from piety.

 

[Mackus]

Easy fix. Make Ummayads start with decadence ~60, just like Fatimids in 1066 start. Give Asturias event troops, like Karen and Rurik got in 867 start.

 

[Robert II]

Easy fix. Make Ummayads start with decadence ~60, just like Fatimids in 1066 start. Give Asturias event troops, like Karen and Rurik got in 867 start.

That fixes nothing. Decadence means nothing the vast majority of decadence revolts are crushed easily and the ai most of the time does not have a large demense. The event troops would be lost in a war or 2 also so we would still get a crushed Asturias and catholic MA just 1 or 2 wars later.

 

[Mackus]

That fixes nothing. Decadence means nothing the vast majority of decadence revolts are crushed easily and the ai most of the time does not have a large demense. The event troops would be lost in a war or 2 also so we would still get a crushed Asturias and catholic MA just 1 or 2 wars later.

Thats dumb. How exactly you decided troops would be lost in a war or two? I didn't give you a number. Perhaps I meant to give them 50000 troops. Maybe I meant 500. How exactly did you calculated how fast troops would be lost, if you didn't knew how many troops they would be given?
Fine. Give Asturias 60000 troops then. Then they would last more than two wars. I am serious. If you want predetermined outcome, give more troops. Is 60000 troops not enought? Give them 80000. Still no good? Rinse and repeat.
I do not want predetermined outcome, the point is not to give Asturias "I Win" and Umayyads "KO", but to slightly even the odds.
You said troops would be lost in two wars. Okay. That's still handing Asturias two victorious wars, and most importantly it makes them less likely to be attacked in the first place, since event troops are taken into calculation by AI choosing targets to attack.

 

[Robert II]

Thats dumb. How exactly you decided troops would be lost in a war or two? I didn't give you a number. Perhaps I meant to give them 50000 troops. Maybe I meant 500. How exactly did you calculated how fast troops would be lost, if you didn't knew how many troops they would be given?
Fine. Give Asturias 60000 troops then. Then they would last more than two wars. I am serious. If you want predetermined outcome, give more troops. Is 60000 troops not enought? Give them 80000. Still no good? Rinse and repeat.
I do not want predetermined outcome, the point is not to give Asturias "I Win" and Umayyads "KO", but to slightly even the odds.
You said troops would be lost in two wars. Okay. That's still handing Asturias two victorious wars, and most importantly it makes them less likely to be attacked in the first place, since event troops are taken into calculation by AI choosing targets to attack.

You said like Karen and Rurik. Karen gets 3 or 4k and Rurik even less. 4000 troops is nothing compared to the ummayads even in the Charlie start. Even if you give them enough to survive some defensive wars or even go on the offensive odds are it will fall to Gavlekind splitting it into 3 kingdoms before losing all their gains. Open succesion v gavlekind is just not fair for the ai.

 

[Silversweeeper]

Something that might nerf the Umayyads in particular would be a -50 vassal opinion "Lost the Caliphate" modifier that is inherited and lasts for 50-100 years. Of course, it would have to be removed if they somehow regain the Caliphate, but that is fairly unlikely unless the Abbasids go heretic. It would also be possible to give the ruler of Asturias a levy boost for some number of years; though of course the AI might use said levies to invade Brittany or some other foolishness.

Regarding event troops, I personally think the AI handles them incredibly stupidly in general. It wouldn't surprise me if Asturias sent their event troops into random stacks of revolters when helping their allies in unrelated wars, or waste them fighting costly offensive wars against the Umayyads that leave them in a position where they are weaker than before the war despite winning a duchy.

 

[Mackus]

You said like Karen and Rurik. Karen gets 3 or 4k and Rurik even less. 4000 troops is nothing compared to the ummayads even in the Charlie start. Even if you give them enough to survive some defensive wars or even go on the offensive odds are it will fall to Gavlekind splitting it into 3 kingdoms before losing all their gains. Open succesion v gavlekind is just not fair for the ai.

I don't know how much event troops Karen got. It doesn't matter how many they got, because we discuss Asturias, not Karen. I gave Karen as an example: "look, there is this thing where some rulers get extra armies", not a "do it exactly like them".

 

[Dahoota]

Something that might nerf the Umayyads in particular would be a -50 vassal opinion "Lost the Caliphate" modifier that is inherited and lasts for 50-100 years.

A penalty that steep (or any penalty at all) since the opinion rebalancing is just going to result in them imploding sooner and being taken over by a different dynasty.

 

[Robert II]

I don't know how much event troops Karen got. It doesn't matter how many they got, because we discuss Asturias, not Karen. I gave Karen as an example: "look, there is this thing where some rulers get extra armies", not a "do it exactly like them".

Ok then how many event troops fix this?

 

[Shebaloso]

Ok then how many event troops fix this?

Didn't you hear him? 60000-80000. Actually more soldiers than probably the first 20 strongest nations in 769 combined. That's some good reasoning right there

 

[Silversweeeper]

A penalty that steep (or any penalty at all) since the opinion rebalancing is just going to result in them imploding sooner and being taken over by a different dynasty.

Well, the actual value could be changed as needed to balance it. Not sure what else would weaken just the Umayyads, and big changes to all Muslims would likely cause other issues in other parts of the map.

 

[StarSword]

Okay, so it looks to me like the Umayyads' stability actually has several causes that together make them blobby.

• Iqta government makes them rich with no apparent disadvantages, since secular rulers can hold temples without penalty.
• Muslims don't have to deal with turbulent priests withdrawing taxes and levies, unlike Catholics. The AI isn't as good at managing opinion as the player.
• Political stability of Islamic states compared to other countries due to inability to change succession style without changing government type. The Turkish succession as implemented is far less chaotic than it was in real life: it was even the source of the Sunni/Shi'a split for crying out loud!
• The Catholic realms other than Lombardy are tiny and weak. In particular everybody in Francia hates Charlemagne so much that France always blows apart without player intervention. See also the Vikings, who are no serious threat to Hispania but are a big problem for isolated single counts and dukes.
• Islamic religious CBs are much more powerful than Catholic ones.
• Sunni Islam I believe starts out with control of all its holy sites, whereas Catholicism starts with four and regularly loses Santiago and sometimes Cologne. Meaning Sunni rulers have to deal with heresy a lot less.

One way to handle the succession problem in particular would be to make other types available so they have to deal with faction revolts like Christians do. I think they could also do with an amplification (not extension) of short reign penalties for Turkish open to make succession wars more likely.

 

[Thrake]

The point is, muslim stability has NOTHING to do whatsoever with their traits (which, as i just demonstrated, provide no significant advantage over the christians), but everything to do with their inheritance laws. Turkish open is probably the best inheritance law in the game and is decisive in keeping muslim realms from fracturing. Add the absence of Elective demanding factions, and we have the real reason for muslim dominance in this game

Indeed. Early starts are more subject to this as everyone is locked into gavelkind and there are no holy orders. In the other hand, there is no real increase in strength for Muslims over time (beyond more troops and more techs obviously) so Muslims start at full power while it takes about two centuries for Christian to start rolling, getting out of gavelkind, converting East European Pagans and unlocking the many Christian holy orders. I'm pretty sure that a setup similar to Charly set in say 1100 would not be as imbalanced as it is in 769. Makes me wonder if it is an oversight or a voluntary move.