Why I hate Sword of Islam

[unmerged(464016)]

Its going to be very difficult to find a balance because the dev's basically made it so , by design , the Muslims are forced to either Snowball or Die.

The muslim invasion cb is probably the biggest issue here. The bigger you are , the easier it is to pull out the invasion CB and snowball even faster. Believe me when i say , i really do like the fact that there is a real threat out there (specifically for the Catholics who tend to settle in after awhile and be near impossible to dethrone. However its all or nothing , If the muslims win a war , you will basically die in one hit. If they can't win wars , they will usually get decadence and be deposed. I don't think Muslims should be conquering entire Kingdoms in the space of a couple of years. But likewise , perhaps atleast the AI could use some lee way with regards to decadence. Usually they handle it well , but as i said (see seljuk's) , once they start losing momentum , they tend to decline.

 

[Tolstoy]

I think one very minor change that could potentially really help stabilize the Iberian situation (and improve gameplay and historical authenticity) would be this: under Autonomous Vassals, vassals can form active marriage alliances with foreign powers and be inclined to join in their wars, just as if they were fully independent. Historically, it was French manpower from the pilgrim routes to Santiago de Compostela and marriage alliances with families north of the Pyrrennees that gave the Spanish kingdoms the strength they needed in the early years of the game, and for about two centuries Castille (and Portugal) was ruled by a Burgundian dynasty after Alfonso VI married his daughters to Burgundian nobleman.

 

[Fawr]

New game with 1.06b and the buffing of Christian Iberia I have seen them do ok. Only 2 that have disappeared are Barca and Aragon, rest have expanded somewhat.

IMO its the lack of christian holy orders before 1100 or so that kills christian Spain. If they can survive until then the muslims start having real problems winning any holy wars.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

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.

A fair point. As expected, the DLC forces deep changes on non DLC users.

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.

The question is the strain between stated expectations of players and unstated expectations of players.

The game is not a simulation of history. It shall allow very unhistorical scenarios to appear. I have zero issues with France being ruled by the King of England, Britanny under Muslim control etc
They are evidences the game works as it provides a variety of scenarios.

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.

It must come from the way of playing. I have only two full games and half under the belt and the muslims fare similarly.
1.06 makes the things a bit better when it comes to their strength. But in my games so far, including with 1.06, they got seriously booted, usually with the same scenario, France, HRE kicking them bad.

And it must say that in my current around 1300, I am having very little input on the wars against muslims and I declared independence from France with Burgundy, snatching one third of the French territory.

Probably it boils down to ways of playing with players taking more or less the same route through games and drawing similar results. Because Muslims do not fare well in my games.

Another remark: how does the alliance system work? A small state could try to secure giants' help through marriage.
What about calls to arms against muslims? While I have holdings in Spain, I have never been targeted by a holy war.djihad effort but was called to arms systematically by HRE (not France since I am trying to conquer them) to fight against muslims. The reverse does not work?

 

[keynes2.0]

Every time someone points out that the game balance makes the historical result impossible people shoot back that it's not a history book. Talk about determinism...

 

[Wallain]

I find these complaints about the Seljuk strange at best. In all my games of CK2 I have -never- seen them fall apart except if I systematically do it myself. And while they may not always win the battle against the Byzantine (although they certainly do quite often) then they always end up dominating the Muslim world and crushing the Mongols whenever they arrive. Do people want them to go more crazy than they already do? :/

 

[keynes2.0]

I've never seen them win against the Byzantines myself. Not a once in any patch. It's not stability that's the problem, it's that they are basically unable to win in a war that historically they were the stronger party in. Likewise the complaint about Spain is that historically the Spanish were the stronger party in 1066 but they're underdogs in the starting setup.

 

[Wallain]

It's not stability that's the problem, it's that they are basically unable to win in a war that historically they were the stronger party in.

But they are, and extremely stable. They do not have to win every time, that is the fun of the game. It is as silly as wanting William the Bastard to win every time.

 

[Laotze]

My experience with Iberia is that the Muslims start falling apart when decadence kicks in. The issue of them wiping out the Spaniards could probably be mitigated by giving the taifas higher starting decadence to kick off the implosion.

Also, I've never seen a successful Jihad that wasn't aimed at the Byzantines. In my last round they folded like a deck of cards, losing Armenia and then Anatolia to Jihads in reasonably quick succession. The Normans in Sicily oddly enough survived one.

Have to agree with this. The muslims in Spain need decadence cranked up. Historically it was the intervention from North Africa that made the reconquista take longer. What irks me is that seljuks and Fatimids don't fight each other much but rotate jihads on the ERE. Those two at least have religious differences and still don't fight each other. The best mods tend to restrict the holy wars in various ways and force the muslims and christians to slow down and earn their conquests over time instead of enourmous chunks at a time via holy war and invasion CBs or even worse Jihads/Crusades.

 

[fridabina]

But they are, and extremely stable. They do not have to win every time, that is the fun of the game. It is as silly as wanting William the Bastard to win every time.

I have yet too see the initial invasion go well for the Seljuks. And they arent stable at all, i usually see them stuck in constant civil war until the tribes comes in and kick them out.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

Every time someone points out that the game balance makes the historical result impossible people shoot back that it's not a history book. Talk about determinism...

What historical result is impossible?

The OP rules out that Christian nations can survive in Spain in 1.06. I am playing a game which shows different, with no direct input from me to achieve that result.

 

[keynes2.0]

What historical result is impossible?

The OP rules out that Christian nations can survive in Spain in 1.06. I am playing a game which shows different, with no direct input from me to achieve that result.

Personally, I was talking about starting Seljuk invasion of Armenia which the OP also mentioned.

But you are saying that your game doesn't have any ahistorical jihads? Or did the Fatamids just decide to go for Italy instead of Spain? How many decades in is this?

 

[justin6477]

What irks me is that seljuks and Fatimids don't fight each other much but rotate jihads on the ERE. Those two at least have religious differences and still don't fight each other.

I hadn't seen this either.

Then I played as a Muslim in Arabia and watched the Seljuks put the boots to the Fatimids after they (the Fatimids) had called a Jihad on Armenia.

It was glorious.

 

[Kyoumen]

The game has no significant logistics, and bigger is always better when fighting wars. As long as that is the case (and it is a problem in pretty much every Paradox game), you will never be able to replicate why the "Spanish" (odd choice of words, the inhabitants of Islamic Spain were also Spanish) kingdoms survived and eventually pushed back the Muslims without giving them ridiculous ahistorical bonuses (given that in 1066 it was by no means a done deal, and in fact were it not for some spectacularly boneheaded behaviour by the taifas it's hard to imagine the Christian kingdoms winning).

 

[Wallain]

I have yet too see the initial invasion go well for the Seljuks. And they arent stable at all, i usually see them stuck in constant civil war until the tribes comes in and kick them out.

Complete opposite for me. They expand and never really stop and when the Mongols come they swat them like flies.

 

[LP90]

In my current game the fatimids Jihad/Invade Cb every mediterranian State to ashes. At them moment theyre crushing tuscany. With several stacks abround 10k. You destroy one, they bring another.....In my opinion for Iberia it should be limited how many nations can join an attsacking holy war. AND THE FATIMIDS NEED A HUGE NERF!!!!

 

[RustyTurban]

It may be an AI problem. I was recently elected in my von Wittelsbach game as the HRE and when i took over the H.R.E was losing -50% to a Mauritanian invasion of Burgundy.
The previous AI HRE hadn't raised levies to defend at all, instead it ran between it and a rebelling province with 8k troops until Mauritania had occupied southern Burgundy. When the invading stack from the Muslims was defeated it would run away up north to fight rebels again, another stack would land about a month later and occupy more land repeat, repeat.
But when my man (Otto IV) came to the throne the H.R.E was clearly in a position capable of winning the invasion and shouldn't of ever been at -50%. I'm not sure the AI prioritized re-occupying land enough at all, or even prioritized a single Duke's 'war against the tyranny of' behind an invasion for 1/5th of the realm. And why wouldn't it raise all levies!!!??? It's a good job the previous Kaiser died in a suspicious accident.

 

[whosthebestcop]

IMO its the lack of christian holy orders before 1100 or so that kills christian Spain. If they can survive until then the muslims start having real problems winning any holy wars.

You are probably correct with this statement. If I am playing in Iberia I usually don't start till after 1094. I don't see the need to start in 1066 and wait 40 years for Holy Orders. Even if I am Ireland I start between 1075-1085 I like the makeup a little better. Think I only finished the entire campaign 3 twice. So Even if I start in 1125 I don't feel bad that I skipped 60 years of game time.

 

[Westernesse]

I've always wonder about 2 holy war types. One would be for one county and is unlikely to involve anyone defending it who isn't in a nearby duchy if your a duke or kingdom if your a king. The ducal level holy war (minimum piety of say 250 to start?) would attract a lot more defenders into it, but have much bigger payouts in terms of land. If nothing else if the Iberians favored county level holy wars it would take them till at least 1200 for muslim rule in Spain.

 

[Moltke]

CKII is the only Paradox game I can remember being amazing at launch and getting progressively worse with each iteration.