Unstoppable Hispania (Umayyad)

[Helios Panoptes]

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.

I mean, that's pretty accurate. 769 Islam had just conquered half the world while Christendom was still a bunch of squabbling post-Roman barbarian kingdoms and the hard-pressed ERE. If not for Constantinople, the Caliphate would've kept rolling over Europe; in the West, the Battle of Tours was only forty years prior.

 

[Jia Xu]

-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

-Crusader is not the same as Mujahid. Crusades are called by the AI while it's possible for Jihads to be called by the player. Also, most Christian denominations can't even use Crusades. Crusades don't help the Orthodox Byzantine emperor at all.

-Hajjaj and Pilgrim are not the same. If you have WOL active, a Christian pilgrimage requires the theology focus which the AI almost never takes. Every Muslim ruler has access to the Hajj decision, regardless of focus, creating far more Hajjis than pilgrims. This is easily observable in the game. Look around the map and see how many Christian rulers actually have the pilgrim trait.

-Ashari and Mutazillite give a deceisive advantage because the ruler can manipulate other characters into switching to their side. Furthermore, Ashari characters don't generate decadence, so if you've been spreading that around your family, you've neutralized the one mechanic that's supposed to keep Muslim blobs in check.


As someone who has played many Sunni games, yes, the traits are very much to blame. Like I said before, a player can easily call a jihad to stack the entire realm with the Mujahid trait. In the case of Catholicism, you have to hope RNG is on your side and that the Pope doesn't call a crusade for India (which many people have been reporting) with you being a ruler in wetsern Europe.

 

[Shebaloso]

-Crusader is not the same as Mujahid. Crusades are called by the AI while it's possible for Jihads to be called by the player. Also, most Christian denominations can't even use Crusades. Crusades don't help the Orthodox Byzantine emperor at all.

-Hajjaj and Pilgrim are not the same. If you have WOL active, a Christian pilgrimage requires the theology focus which the AI almost never takes. Every Muslim ruler has access to the Hajj decision, regardless of focus, creating far more Hajjis than pilgrims. This is easily observable in the game. Look around the map and see how many Christian rulers actually have the pilgrim trait.

-Ashari and Mutazillite give a deceisive advantage because the ruler can manipulate other characters into switching to their side. Furthermore, Ashari characters don't generate decadence, so if you've been spreading that around your family, you've neutralized the one mechanic that's supposed to keep Muslim blobs in check.


As someone who has played many Sunni games, yes, the traits are very much to blame. Like I said before, a player can easily call a jihad to stack the entire realm with the Mujahid trait. In the case of Catholicism, you have to hope RNG is on your side and that the Pope doesn't call a crusade for India (which many people have been reporting) with you being a ruler in wetsern Europe.

-why does the crusade/jihad caller even matter? Put your characters on a micro stack, land them on the target BAM there's your trait. If you actually think that a human player as caliph is any true advantage, i guess you haven't had the Pope as a vassal yet...no, crusader is VERY similar to mujahid. And please. Are you really saying that the byzantines are underpowered in the traits area? Born in the purple, August, castration, blinding, having the patriarch as a vassal right from the start... I would concede the point for other orthodox rulers, though. Still the autocephalous aspect of orthodoxy is VERY good.

- your point does make sense, but to think that a mere +5 opinion bonus to SOME rulers is actually the reason for their successes is a bit of a dumb conjecture

Summarizing, the actual bonus associated with with muslim denominations are at best +10 for the VAST majority of rulers. The penalties for half brothers (which are extremely numerous due to the multiple wives). Having the sayyid trait means a +10 bonus, but they are tied to already large dynasties which suffer from high decadence right from the start.

The problem with muslims is that they start on their highest potential right from 769. Their inheritance laws, which cannot be changed not even through factions, the free duchy revokation and the casus belli from certain cultures, which, when tied with islam, becomes very overpowered. When they are matched against the small and instable realms of early Europe, they're obviously going to be at an advantage

Just look a the problem here. The problem is not muslim rulers in general. The problems are the early starts, very specifically the situation in the iberian península. The byzantines are more than a match for any eastern sultanate (after the last patch, i'm actually yet to see them lose their war against the seljuks in the 1066 start). The speed with which the iberian kingdoms take land from the emirs in the 1066 start is astonishing, being very frequent to have a finished reconquista by 1100

No, the problems with the muslims are definitely not the traits. I don't even think that there is something inherently wrong with them. The problem here is having their best pitched against christianity's worse at very specific date and in a very specific region

 

[Jia Xu]

-why does the crusade/jihad caller even matter? Put your characters on a micro stack, land them on the target BAM there's your trait. If you actually think that a human player as caliph is any true advantage, i guess you haven't had the Pope as a vassal yet...no, crusader is VERY similar to mujahid. And please. Are you really saying that the byzantines are underpowered in the traits area? Born in the purple, August, castration, blinding, having the patriarch as a vassal right from the start... I would concede the point for other orthodox rulers, though. Still the autocephalous aspect of orthodoxy is VERY good.

- your point does make sense, but to think that a mere +5 opinion bonus to SOME rulers is actually the reason for their successes is a bit of a dumb conjecture

Summarizing, the actual bonus associated with with muslim denominations are at best +10 for the VAST majority of rulers. The penalties for half brothers (which are extremely numerous due to the multiple wives). Having the sayyid trait means a +10 bonus, but they are tied to already large dynasties which suffer from high decadence right from the start.

The problem with muslims is that they start on their highest potential right from 769. Their inheritance laws, which cannot be changed not even through factions, the free duchy revokation and the casus belli from certain cultures, which, when tied with islam, becomes very overpowered. When they are matched against the small and instable realms of early Europe, they're obviously going to be at an advantage

Just look a the problem here. The problem is not muslim rulers in general. The problems are the early starts, very specifically the situation in the iberian península. The byzantines are more than a match for any eastern sultanate (after the last patch, i'm actually yet to see them lose their war against the seljuks in the 1066 start). The speed with which the iberian kingdoms take land from the emirs in the 1066 start is astonishing, being very frequent to have a finished reconquista by 1100

No, the problems with the muslims are definitely not the traits. I don't even think that there is something inherently wrong with them. The problem here is having their best pitched against christianity's worse at very specific date and in a very specific region

Obviously having control of a Crusade is very, very important for highly obvious reasons. If you're the King of Ireland and the Pope calls a Crusade for Cumania (again, all kinds of people have been reporting the Pope calling crusades against the most illogical targets), you're going to have a problem. When that crusade fails, the timer activates on the CB, you won't have another crusade for a generation, and you get to play with heresies when your moral authority takes a dive. Compare this to jihads where you can specify the target yourself by being the Caliph and you can not only spread the Mujahid trait around, but you can also make sure that you'll definitely be the one who gets the lands. If you get all of the land at the end, you can hand them out to new vassals who will love you very much because you gave them titles, again further stabilizing the realm.

Boot up a Charlemagne start and see how many Christian vassals are content with their liege from the start. Then do the same for Muslims. It's just not even. You can say that +5 isn't much, but it's not just +5 because it stacks with other traits. The AI determines its position against you based on your power which is very much connected to the exact opinions of your vassals. Every little bit helps.

You say that the 769 start is unfavourable to Christians, but the 769 start is the Charlemagne start. This is the bookmark where Charlemagne grabs most of Europe through events. Even if he the AI doesn't go favourably on all events, he's almost certain to still get the best running start. So if Charles has the biggest blob, why does he lose? Again, think about what I said about traits. If you have Ashari spreading through your family, you're going to have no problems hitting 0 decadence. What are the bonuses for zero decadence? A fat boost to income and combat morale. By lowering decadence, the Muslims gain a powerful combat advantage over everyone else.

 

[Shebaloso]

Obviously having control of a Crusade is very, very important for highly obvious reasons. If you're the King of Ireland and the Pope calls a Crusade for Cumania (again, all kinds of people have been reporting the Pope calling crusades against the most illogical targets), you're going to have a problem. When that crusade fails, the timer activates on the CB, you won't have another crusade for a generation, and you get to play with heresies when your moral authority takes a dive. Compare this to jihads where you can specify the target yourself by being the Caliph and you can not only spread the Mujahid trait around, but you can also make sure that you'll definitely be the one who gets the lands. If you get all of the land at the end, you can hand them out to new vassals who will love you very much because you gave them titles, again further stabilizing the realm.

Boot up a Charlemagne start and see how many Christian vassals are content with their liege from the start. Then do the same for Muslims. It's just not even. You can say that +5 isn't much, but it's not just +5 because it stacks with other traits. The AI determines its position against you based on your power which is very much connected to the exact opinions of your vassals. Every little bit helps.

You say that the 769 start is unfavourable to Christians, but the 769 start is the Charlemagne start. This is the bookmark where Charlemagne grabs most of Europe through events. Even if he the AI doesn't go favourably on all events, he's almost certain to still get the best running start. So if Charles has the biggest blob, why does he lose? Again, think about what I said about traits. If you have Ashari spreading through your family, you're going to have no problems hitting 0 decadence. What are the bonuses for zero decadence? A fat boost to income and combat morale. By lowering decadence, the Muslims gain a powerful combat advantage over everyone else.

Dude, you are mixinig stuff here. We are not talking about crusade/jihad mechanics (and still, by the way you say it seems EVERY muslim ruler can delcare a jihad...the "supposed" advantage is only present if YOU are the caliph....now compare that with having the pope as a vassal...). We are talking about the respective traits. I've never seen the pope call a crusade for cumania. besides, even if this is true, this means that there are bugs with the crusade mechanics, not that the muslims are overpowered for not having them.

And you don't seem to be grasping the concept. Nobody here said the muslims are overpowered by themselves. The problem specifically is how AI deals with the iberian peninsula if left alone. The AI is NEVER going to go for the ashari thing (how does that work by the way? never even heard of that. i often lose more debates i win). The AI is NEVER going to go for the entire crusader court (the crusades only start in ~1100, there's no "mujahid" trait until well after the downfall of the ummayads). The opinion bonus for Muslim AI in relation to catholics is negligible. Charlie is hated because 3 of his dukes have the "hate" opinion modifier. It has nothing to do with personality traits. And you actually are arguing FOR me there. Charlie does make the largest blob in europe. Why does he lose? Simple. Gavelkind. He dies and his realm fractures. Exactly what i said in the last post. Give him an empire level title (or see him create it for himself if lucky) and you will se the absolute rape of the ummayads.

 

[dragoon9105]

There's no, one, cause for a Successful Umayyad Dynasty in the Charlie Start. Its a witches brew of Weak Catholicism, An often unstable Francia that cant defend Asturias. Byzantine Conquests of South Italy keeping Lombardy Weak, Lack of Ships in England where Asturias likes to find allies. All this in a situation where there is a Powerful Umayyad Dynasty ready to start pouncing on Revolting French States and Asturias, Once Hispania forms Asturias has officially lost.

However I have never seen the Umayyads advance up to K_France in recent memory, they stop usually with Aquitaine-Spain-North Africa and Implode from a combination of Crusades, Holy Orders and Internal Issues ripping them apart. Which of course is an issue for people who want to play characters within the Umayyad flood zone.

My issue with it is, its predictable I would much prefer if there was more of a ~50/50 Future for Spain, Between Muslim or Catholic with maybe a 5% chance of some Norse State carving out an Empire in Spain instead if they do well in Britain and Scandinavia. As it works right now, Catholicism always gets kicked out, waits 200 Years and because of the way Crusades work, once the 112th Crusade for Andalusia wins the Muslims lose. The Recontista wasn't assured to be successful in during that Time, the Balance should be less on making one side win every time and more on making it a fun region to play, Catholic or Muslim.

 

[DerMaulwurf]

There's no, one, cause for a Successful Umayyad Dynasty in the Charlie Start. Its a witches brew of Weak Catholicism, An often unstable Francia that cant defend Asturias. Byzantine Conquests of South Italy keeping Lombardy Weak, Lack of Ships in England where Asturias likes to find allies. All this in a situation where there is a Powerful Umayyad Dynasty ready to start pouncing on Revolting French States and Asturias, Once Hispania forms Asturias has officially lost.

However I have never seen the Umayyads advance up to K_France in recent memory, they stop usually with Aquitaine-Spain-North Africa and Implode from a combination of Crusades, Holy Orders and Internal Issues ripping them apart. Which of course is an issue for people who want to play characters within the Umayyad flood zone.

My issue with it is, its predictable I would much prefer if there was more of a ~50/50 Future for Spain, Between Muslim or Catholic with maybe a 5% chance of some Norse State carving out an Empire in Spain instead if they do well in Britain and Scandinavia. As it works right now, Catholicism always gets kicked out, waits 200 Years and because of the way Crusades work, once the 112th Crusade for Andalusia wins the Muslims lose. The Recontista wasn't assured to be successful in during that Time, the Balance should be less on making one side win every time and more on making it a fun region to play, Catholic or Muslim.

Here you go.

Ironman-game on the newest patch. Shortly after the screenshot Catholics started waging their third Crusade for Aquitaine. The first two failed, because none of the major christian powers signed up for it and this one is going to fail even if the remaining catholic kings would join (spoiler alert: they haven't).

The Umayyads took Aquitaine in series of holy wars and then just swallowed all of France with the Invasion CB. Abbablob thankfully exploded and there is even a strong Shia caliphate in Persia. But still three of the four largest armies are sunnite.

I'm also grateful for any ideas on how to break that blob apart. Because of all the wars Umayyad decadence is precisely at zero.

 

[dragoon9105]

Well it certainly helps the Umayyads if the Player Eviscerates the Other half of Catholicism Keep in mind

As for how you deal with that Blob, I assume your Norse, Declare conquest wars on EVERYTHING throughout Britain, Lithuania, Finland and possibly try to snipe off Crete, Malta and Corsica/Sardinia for Raiding Bases. Raid Italy for Extra Gold while you conquer everything that moves.

Once you got Scandinavia-Germany-Britannia should be more than enough to Solo the entire world really so long as your smart about what battles you take. If you dont wanna out Blob the Blob, i'd recommend just taking Britannia and Lithuania anyway, and releasing the Kingdoms to Dynasty members, Declare GHW's for Andalusia, France and Aquitaine, the Empire will crumble in a century.

 

[Silversweeeper]

@DerMaulwurf: To be fair, between your Germania, the ERE, and the Umayyads themselves, the Catholic world has lost enough land/men that they cannot hope to take on someone as large as the Umayyads, especially not as they are already about four times as powerful as the most powerful Catholic realm (holy orders will make a difference, but the Umayyads will get a massive opinion boost with their vassals and might receive foreign aid, so it won't be enough).

That said, I agree that they are something of a problem. I am not a fan of railroading the game so that something like that cannot happen from time to time, but right now it is rather frequent in the unmodded game and has been so for a long time. As for your next course of action, I hear that India is lovely this time of the century...

 

[DerMaulwurf]

To clarify the situation a bit: I didn't start warring on catholics until after their second failed crusade. And then I only took k_germany from them, as I got Bavaria from the Avars that conquered it before. I won't dispute that the 7 formerly catholic duchies strongly diminish the power of the catholics, but they lost part of that to another AI and the rest only after failing to deal with Hispania twice.

The main reason for catholicisms imminent extinction is that West, Middle and East Francia used to be elective and united under single rulers for most of the game and never participated in the crusades. That allowed the Umayyads to grow strong and kick them once that realm disintegrated. In fact of all catholic kingdoms only Lombardy participated once, while the others stayed out even when not occupied with other wars. So it might be helpful to increase the eagerness of the AI to join.

@dragoon9105 I need England for my achievement anyway and I don't think that the catholics will be a viable buffer anymore. So yeah, I think I'll try to eat into them before the Umayyads do. Anyway, those Umayyads are the strongest non-event AI realm that I've faced so far, so it'll be awesome .

 

[Tapio]

Here you go.
Ironman-game on the newest patch. Shortly after the screenshot Catholics started waging their third Crusade for Aquitaine. The first two failed, because none of the major christian powers signed up for it and this one is going to fail even if the remaining catholic kings would join (spoiler alert: they haven't).

Something like this almost always happens when I play Germanic, my conquests and especially raids weakening the Catholics.

I'm also grateful for any ideas on how to break that blob apart. Because of all the wars Umayyad decadence is precisely at zero.

If you intend to stay Germanic, raid them at the opposite end of their Empire when they are at war to draw their troops. Same thing works against HRE or Francia. Become a Fylkir and declare GHW on them when they are weak or fighting other Muslims. War against them when they are fighting other wars in general even if you aim for white peace.

 

[Rognvaldr19]

I believe you guys are just really looked down upon by RNGesus, for me it's the other way around, I play as somewhere in India, and the Umayyads implode and get eaten up by asturias, whereas I get the Abbasids and Taghlibids expanding into Northwest India.

 

[The Duke of GTFO]

Moral Authority as a mechanic for Islam needs to be reconsidered as well.

 

[StarSword]

I think I figured out another thing that's helping the Umayyads after Conclave: the new alliance mechanics. Unlike with concubines, Muslims can make NAPs through secondary wives, so the big badshahs (Umayyads and Abbasids both) are probably marrying within the realm and making their more powerful vassals unable to faction.

 

[keynes2.0]

Gavelkind makes the catholics split but the big problem is that a larger realm always wins against a smaller one baring some fluke. There are neglible problems with large realms and they can bring their entire might to bear against the county of podunk.

 

[Secret Master]

I believe you guys are just really looked down upon by RNGesus, for me it's the other way around, I play as somewhere in India, and the Umayyads implode and get eaten up by asturias, whereas I get the Abbasids and Taghlibids expanding into Northwest India.

This.

Maybe the RNG just likes me, but I see the Blobassids and Umads disintegrate with some frequency without any interference from me. In the last three games, the Blobassids lasted at most 200 years before collapsing due to a combination of decadence invasions and faction revolts.

In some cases, a new dynasty picks up the pieces and carries the torch, but sometimes no one fills the power vacuum, Christian or Muslim.

I think I figured out another thing that's helping the Umayyads after Conclave: the new alliance mechanics. Unlike with concubines, Muslims can make NAPs through secondary wives, so the big badshahs (Umayyads and Abbasids both) are probably marrying within the realm and making their more powerful vassals unable to faction.

Possibly. I know that the Umads and Blobassids like to marry in general. Even after I revolted from the Blobassids in one game, they kept marrying me alongside the Umads, giving me peace with the two largest powers on the map.

But to be frank, I see plenty of faction revolts in the Abbasids when I pay attention.

Gavelkind makes the catholics split but the big problem is that a larger realm always wins against a smaller one baring some fluke. There are neglible problems with large realms and they can bring their entire might to bear against the county of podunk.

Gavelkind does Catholicism no favors at the early start. If Charlemagne can't get everything together, western Christianity tends to fall into a swirling cesspool of infighting that poses little threat to the Muslims in Iberia.

However, I also think larger realms have some built in efficiencies that make them inherently better than smaller realms no matter what the law set up is or what techs are in play. The big one is the demesne bonus for higher tier titles. This is incredibly powerful even in the hands of the AI (we may have even talked about this before). Lieges with more demesne are less likely to face revolts (faction power issues) and have more of their own personal troops to use regardless of the vassal situation. Add in more revenue from holdings, and you have a recipe for considerable power over the years (especially if the liege holds the same high tech capital for a long time).

I've argued before that dropping the demesne bonus for higher tier titles is probably a smart move. It may have made sense in earlier versions of the game, but now it seems like a pointless bonus that just makes empires pointlessly overpowered. Vassalizing kings with claimants AND extra demesne? Sheesh.

 

[keynes2.0]

Dropping the liege realm bonus would be a step in the right direction but the bigger issue is that vassals shouldn't be delighted to go off and die for the liege to have another scrap of land. If the liege wants their support, he should have to bribe them. In the case of hispania, that would make conquering the north not worth the cost of mustering a 15k man army.

 

[Secret Master]

Dropping the liege realm bonus would be a step in the right direction but the bigger issue is that vassals shouldn't be delighted to go off and die for the liege to have another scrap of land. If the liege wants their support, he should have to bribe them. In the case of hispania, that would make conquering the north not worth the cost of mustering a 15k man army.

You could make opinion penalties for having levies raised for offensive wars harsher, I suppose.

I guess war declaration committee is supposed to provide a "bribe people to get a war they don't want" mechanism.

But lieges already just get 50% (minus whatever the laws say) levies from vassals now. It's certainly not as efficient as tribal vassals honoring a call to arms where they mobilize everything to fight alongside you.

 

[keynes2.0]

You could make opinion penalties for having levies raised for offensive wars harsher, I suppose.

Yeah but that's not going to do anything to keep them from winning the war. All it does is slightly irritate them after the fact. Everything is after the fact which is the problem. After the fact, you have already won the war and the losers have 0 chance of reversing things.

 

[Zolotaya]

This.

Maybe the RNG just likes me, but I see the Blobassids and Umads disintegrate with some frequency without any interference from me. In the last three games, the Blobassids lasted at most 200 years before collapsing due to a combination of decadence invasions and faction revolts.

In some cases, a new dynasty picks up the pieces and carries the torch, but sometimes no one fills the power vacuum, Christian or Muslim.

Not only this but all "evidence" shown is 200 years at most later. Most of the complainers in this community will never experience the melt-down because they don't play a long enough campaign.