I have a new most hated phrase in CK2: "Jihad of Galicia".
It's simple really. SoI allows some pretty good games with muslims; I had a blast playing the Seljuks. But everything - and I do mean everything - that I hated about muslim AI behavior has been made worst or much worst. One could say that I regret buying the DLC/expansion, but since the patch 1.06 made some of those changes anyway, a better case could be made that I almost regret buying the whole game.
Note that I am not saying that these is set in stone and if you disagree you are wrong. It's just some gameplay choices that I hate. A few examples:
Muslims in the Iberian peninsula are too strong and too agressive. IRL, by 1066 they were merely taifa states, almost de facto vassals of the iberian princes of Castille, León and Aragón. Every single one of my games since 1.06 had every christian state of the peninsula wiped out by no later than 1250. SoI made it worst, making so that almost every time the first Jihad is agains Galicia, making the ol' fix of starting in 1076 not wotk anymore.
In contrast, the Seljuks are too weak and puny. They can't do shit on their own and only once in 6+ games I've seen them conquering Anatolia (and thats only because it was a Jihad, so they had allies with doomstacks). Why is that? In a great part because ERE is still too strong and stable. In the Near East, it's always the same: Seljuks eventually disappear because of internal struggles while the Fatimids expand everywhere. In my last game with Britanny, Italy, the Iberian peninsula, a good chunk of Russia (funny, the Golden Horde didn't last even a decade against them) and most of North Africa was in their hands. You what wasn't? Anatolia.
The Jihad thing, altough interesting, has made being an independent ruler in the mediterranean coast ridiculous: sooner or later, muslim doomstack will destroy you. Always. Sicily, Provence, Genoa... not one survives on their own.
Many people will say that a lot of thing were made for gameplay balance and everything, and to those people I reply: balance, shmalance. The game seems pretty unbalanced to me. I always thought that CK should more like V2 in terms of warfare (that is, that's not the point of the game, to conquer everything) and the sad fact is that I always defended Paradox, telling people who complain that there's no direct combat, or that the game is too difficult or dull, to stop whining and if they want action and board-game-style expansion, go and play Total War games, because they won't find those things here.
Well, now, they can. Except without the whole awesome combat.
It's simple really. SoI allows some pretty good games with muslims; I had a blast playing the Seljuks. But everything - and I do mean everything - that I hated about muslim AI behavior has been made worst or much worst. One could say that I regret buying the DLC/expansion, but since the patch 1.06 made some of those changes anyway, a better case could be made that I almost regret buying the whole game.
Note that I am not saying that these is set in stone and if you disagree you are wrong. It's just some gameplay choices that I hate. A few examples:
Muslims in the Iberian peninsula are too strong and too agressive. IRL, by 1066 they were merely taifa states, almost de facto vassals of the iberian princes of Castille, León and Aragón. Every single one of my games since 1.06 had every christian state of the peninsula wiped out by no later than 1250. SoI made it worst, making so that almost every time the first Jihad is agains Galicia, making the ol' fix of starting in 1076 not wotk anymore.
In contrast, the Seljuks are too weak and puny. They can't do shit on their own and only once in 6+ games I've seen them conquering Anatolia (and thats only because it was a Jihad, so they had allies with doomstacks). Why is that? In a great part because ERE is still too strong and stable. In the Near East, it's always the same: Seljuks eventually disappear because of internal struggles while the Fatimids expand everywhere. In my last game with Britanny, Italy, the Iberian peninsula, a good chunk of Russia (funny, the Golden Horde didn't last even a decade against them) and most of North Africa was in their hands. You what wasn't? Anatolia.
The Jihad thing, altough interesting, has made being an independent ruler in the mediterranean coast ridiculous: sooner or later, muslim doomstack will destroy you. Always. Sicily, Provence, Genoa... not one survives on their own.
Many people will say that a lot of thing were made for gameplay balance and everything, and to those people I reply: balance, shmalance. The game seems pretty unbalanced to me. I always thought that CK should more like V2 in terms of warfare (that is, that's not the point of the game, to conquer everything) and the sad fact is that I always defended Paradox, telling people who complain that there's no direct combat, or that the game is too difficult or dull, to stop whining and if they want action and board-game-style expansion, go and play Total War games, because they won't find those things here.
Well, now, they can. Except without the whole awesome combat.
