Why I hate Sword of Islam

[ArmchairGenera1]

I tend to agree that Iberian Muslims need a slight nerf. In my Saxon England game it's around 1085 and only Castille is alive, but dieing. Some African emirs made an encroachment to Apulia but were smacked by HRE. France was in a huge civil war and didn't help Iberians, that's why they've fallen apart in no time at all. When holy orders arrive there will be no one left to defend in Spain.
On the other hand France, HRE and Fatimids needs their nerfs too. I've yet to see Fatimids in action myself, but a lot of ppl say they are too strong. France and HRE kill off Iberian Muslims and expand in all wired directions, I think ability to introduce high CA should be tied to amount of land and legalism. It should be easy for a count to introduce absolute CA in his tiny realm, but it should be nearly impossible for Calif, HRE emperor or French king without serious breakthroughs in legalism.

Also agree that Slejuks need to be buffed. If I don't start after Manzikert they only can hope of getting white peace. In my latest game (not that I have too many ) Seljuks white peaced with Byz, but Fatimids called Jihad on Anatolia and got the score to 67%. I guess the emperor will be surrendering soon. Seljuks are indeed too unstable, prolonged war with Byz always causes craploads of civil wars. On the other hand Fatimids and HRE are too stable, facing only minor revolts that they stomp without effort.

 

[Merci357]

In my games I always have Jihad for Armenia. I think the game already starts with it, but the Byzantines always win, then some years later: "Jihad for Armenia". Also, my Pope(after always losing the crusade for Jesusland) loves to declare Crusade for the Iberian peninsula.

In my view, the Iberian balance of power is quite better since 1.06b. However, my latest game was a rather short one. I tried my hands at playing Aragon, and it was quite easy, since you have tons of de jure CB's to expand early on. By ~1080 I had the Duchy of Aragon under my control, plus Urgell, Lleida, Taragona. Then the (shia) Jihad for Aragon was called, and despite all christian Iberia (plus Britanny) coming to my aid, it was a quick game over against a 20k doomstack...

I've no idea how I'm supposed to defend against an early Jihad against yourself - unless I'm allied with the HRE, and there was no relative of the Kaiser available for marriage. Believe me, I've tried. Why don't they call Jihads against "Infidels" (far) closer to home? There are plenty to choose from in any case.

 

[Tormodius]

In my experience, this issue was even worse before SoI though, and the developers are aware of it.

Yeah, when i played England before SoI i declared holy war all the time and beat them, while the AI european kingdoms lost.
Pope declared crusades in Iberia and I mostly went on his crusades, so that way I got 3 kingdom titles in Iberia as well as many other places and became mega-powerful. So it can be fun nevertheless, still its unbalanced and not fun if you play independant count or duke.

 

[Agnitio Ex Mach]

In doing some research, the Fatimidsto be unstable enough that the Seljuks can take Syria. After all, by around 1200 AD, their dynasty was outed and the Mamlaka took Egypt. My point is that the Fatimids are historically supposed to be nerfed by the time the game starts.

 

[Morwys]

If anything, Iberian Muslims are at a severe disadvantage since they don't have a Jimena Bros pact and there isn't some country like France next door who keep joining Iberian religious wars to paratroop second biggest army of Catholics. And in last patch Iberian christians got buffed even more.

I disagree. As has been said here, France is too busy declaring Holy Wars in Sardinia and fighting revolts to be of much use; and the "Jimena Bros pact" also means that they declare war against each other all the time, since they have strong CBs against one another.

The problem is that Jihads and Invasions are NOT programmed to let the defenders ask for help or recieve help from large neighbors like France simply because they aren't next door. You'd think that more Christian nations would jump on defending the true religion from infidel forces trying to remove Christianity. That's why the Shias are able to effectively conquer Italy as soon as the retarded AI starts to rebel with a greater enemy right next to them.

In fact, in my current Grand Campaign Shia Caliphate run, I effectively own the entirety of the Middle East only 50 years in. I could literally, single-handedly destroy any Christian nation with my 100k army (I am not kidding you).

Very well said.

In my games I always have Jihad for Armenia. I think the game already starts with it, but the Byzantines always win, then some years later: "Jihad for Armenia". Also, my Pope(after always losing the crusade for Jesusland) loves to declare Crusade for the Iberian peninsula.

I've never seen a Crusade declared against a iberian muslim, even after a too common jihad for Galicia is successful.

The issues mentioned here are already addressed to a large extent in 1.06b.

The Jimenas are stronger and the Seljuk get a big early boost with their 0% decadence start for Alp Arsan.

Crusade mechanics are mostly okay though the new patch's requirement to have a crusade weight value to get a Crusade at all produced a few oddities because places where Crusades should be likely like Egypt will never get targeted. But still, easily fixed. It ought to be possible to earn the Crusader trait when defending against Jihads too, I think.

They are "adressed" but they are nowhere near to being fixed, or even adressed to a large extent as you say, as most of the comments here show.

I don't see why it should be a given that in every game, Christian Iberia prevails. Of course it happened irl, but if the game was so fixated with following the historical account of what happened then there would be very little reason in playing it because you couldn't change history. If you want the Spaniards to conquer Iberia, then play as (or assist) the Spaniards.

No one ever said that. The problem is not that the christians should win every time in Iberia; the problem is that they always lose.

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.

True.

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

Indeed. But I must say it's still a very good game, to be fair.

In my view, the Iberian balance of power is quite better since 1.06b. However, my latest game was a rather short one. I tried my hands at playing Aragon, and it was quite easy, since you have tons of de jure CB's to expand early on. By ~1080 I had the Duchy of Aragon under my control, plus Urgell, Lleida, Taragona. Then the (shia) Jihad for Aragon was called, and despite all christian Iberia (plus Britanny) coming to my aid, it was a quick game over against a 20k doomstack...

In a nutshell, this is the whole problem with Iberia.

I've no idea how I'm supposed to defend against an early Jihad against yourself - unless I'm allied with the HRE, and there was no relative of the Kaiser available for marriage. Believe me, I've tried. Why don't they call Jihads against "Infidels" (far) closer to home? There are plenty to choose from in any case.

That's a very good question. That's why I say that Jihad for Galicia is my new most hated phrase.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

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?

Past the first day in, the game is ahistorical.

Nothing of the sort. In the game, Muslims do not even hold Sicily. They have still have foot in Spain, something like two or three counties. The rest is in the hands of Christian nations.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

I've no idea how I'm supposed to defend against an early Jihad against yourself - unless I'm allied with the HRE, and there was no relative of the Kaiser available for marriage. Believe me, I've tried. Why don't they call Jihads against "Infidels" (far) closer to home? There are plenty to choose from in any case.

If you are a duke or lower, independent, you might swear fealty to the HRE emperor, the french King etc Since security against an enemy is a primary concern to pledge oneself to a liege...

After checking (started a new game as king of Aragon), in 1.06, a relative providing an alliance to the HRE is available.

You try to revoke a vassal of yours to escape dethroning.

More interestingly, you might try to secure the future of your dynasty (and not of your holdings since it is a dynasty game) by marrying in a sort that your heir will inherit a position from his mother, securing by thus your dynasty no matter what happens later and opening a way to an thrilling playthrough with the center objective: growing strong enough to reclaim the land of your first character in the game.

 

[Bad_Haggis]

Can't beat em join em, bocome muslim .

 

[xnao]

In doing some research, the Fatimidsto be unstable enough that the Seljuks can take Syria. After all, by around 1200 AD, their dynasty was outed and the Mamlaka took Egypt. My point is that the Fatimids are historically supposed to be nerfed by the time the game starts.

diaf

 

[iamjmph]

well, just my small contribution. I started my first 1.06b games as Cadiz. With a very slow build and some luck(my grand vizier fabricated claims on an emirate rather than the sheikdom) i finally started expanding in 1086. 20 years in game to build up cash and what not. By that time, the christian kingdoms were not only going strong, but Castille and Barcelona(who France helped every time) had spread. After i took over the emirate of sevilla and algrave, Barcelona Holy Warred Granada and Took over. Murcia fell to castille, and Genoa holds the islands(the ones right off the coast,i cant remember their name). I had just enough money left to keep the mercs i hired for a Holy war to take back Granada...

Id say since all thats left in spain is three emirs(me, toledo, and badjoz), with all the christian kingdoms still around and france and genoa helping out, the issue was fixed...

edit: the only Jihad called by 1092 was the Shia Jihad for Anatolia.... and ive yet to see an invasion cb, only Holy War and Conquest (and fabricated claims of course). Is their a level requirement (like only sultan or above can use it?)

 

[dragoon9105]

Ive seen it goes both ways Really depends on when the Jinemas time their holy war, Player involvement also has a huge difference since usually a player will never lose a war since a player knows when to white peace out when the Moors join in. The Ai kings will happily suicide their entire armies into the emirates in the opening weaken themselves and never recover.

 

[Morwys]

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.

I don't want a deterministic game, where history is followed every time: but I do want a historical game, where the starting conditions emulate history. I too have no issues with bizarre things happening in the game, when they are historically plausible. The muslims conquering Iberia should be possible, sure. But not likely.

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...

Indeed. Many mistake the complaint that the game does not emulate historical conditions accordingly as if one is claiming that the whole game experience should follow history by the letter.

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.

Again, the fun of the game to me is not randomness. And in your own example, as silly as it may be, he almost always wins, as it should be. That's exactly what I'm talking about: could the saxon lords eventually implode the english kingdom? Yes. Was that equally probable? No.

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?

I must point out that I didn't said any historical results where impossible: I merely am yet to see them, that's all. And, as many have stated, yes, it's possible that I'm unlucky and in all my games I get ahistorical scenarios. But, after almost two dozen games, a few modded, others without any mod, and I can say that I'm yet to see the Iberian christians survive to the end of the game without player cheating - even with AI France, they simply can't do it. And I'm yet to see the Seljuks conquer Anatolia, or survive long enough to conquer anything.

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

Unfortunetelly, I agree entirely.

 

[Amadeu of Savoy]

stuff

Welcome back, my compatriot. Where have you been in the last 4 months?

 

[SewrRatt]

Keep in mind that since at least 1.07, Jihads can't even be declared until 1185. And I don't think the big muslim states ever really use the invasion CB on Iberia.

 

[TheLionHeart]

I agree with just about everything in this post, kudos to you. I really hope that the Islamic powers are balanced but no totally nerfed.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

That Jihad nerf is encouraging, but in general, it looks like most of the problems in this thread can be solved by:

Improve Jihad AI (though probably less necessary now)
Improve invasion AI/restrict it (make Muslims focused on neighbors, or just ban it against distant realms)
Nerf Fatimids (perhaps by penalties for owning so many wrong-religion provinces?)
Make it harder to restore depleted levies
Couple this with greatly increased warscore from army annihilation
Weaken Taifa bonds, and in general encourage Muslims to fight/scheme against each other. As I recall was supposed to be one of the main balance features intended to be added to SoI, but it appears the new CB's are mostly used as a safer alternative to Holy War against Christians.

 

[Talq]

While work still needs to be done, I probably shouldn't encourage thread necromancy by saying it here.

 

[yezhanquan]

Well, judging from PDR1987's comments, the issues in the thread before being raised again are apparently still valid. I reckon we can continue to discuss them.

In other news.... ouch, the more I read about the DLCs, the more I'm thinking of just getting the vanilla game alone. That, by Paradox standards, is bad news.

 

[Cuthuthulu]

Well, judging from PDR1987's comments, the issues in the thread before being raised again are apparently still valid. I reckon we can continue to discuss them.

In other news.... ouch, the more I read about the DLCs, the more I'm thinking of just getting the vanilla game alone. That, by Paradox standards, is bad news.

Having the DLC or not won't make any diffrence whatsoever.

 

[Effixel]

I vote for a "remove invasion CB for Muslims". They have a huge technological advantage at start, Jihads, and the classic "fabricate claim". That's enough for them to rule already. Christians can't claim a whole kingdom in one war except through Crusade, which happens once in a while only.