Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Muslim Dynasties

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(31994)

unmerged(31994)

Zardishar
Jul 15, 2004
1.085
0
Im still working on the Caliphate events, and once my computer is repaired , I will post them since Im writing them on my laptop.Anyway, Im basing alot of my work on the Ottoman Empire, well more or less, and developing some of the other events.

Anyway, I have been thinking about Cordoba and the Caliphate.

With the Abbasid Caliphate in the east (meaning the Abbasids survived, which is cool) I think some changes must be done.The names choosen for the Abbasid dynasty is not what they normally named, perhaps Ismael should be exchanged with Harun and Murad with Mutasim?its more better in my opinion.

As for Cordoba, I think the current dynasty changes are a bit silly.I know the history of al-Andalus well enough to say that if the events which I assume happened in abberation occured, Bani Ahmer or the Nasrids could never rise to assume the throne.The founder of the Nasrid Kingdom, Mohammed of Ahmer was a warrior/priest who wanted to unite the last Muslim towns against the Christians and with this event never occuring (merely the Muslims regrouping in the south and attacking again) I think I have a better sequence.

Let the Ummayed Dynasty survive longer, meaning that the Caliphate wasnt dissolved in 1031 by Hisham.The main enemy of the Abbasid dynasty in the west would be an excellent foe.It would also add more taste to the game, and plausible, since the current Nasrid dynasty makes no sense at all.
 
Calipah said:
Im still working on the Caliphate events, and once my computer is repaired , I will post them since Im writing them on my laptop.Anyway, Im basing alot of my work on the Ottoman Empire, well more or less, and developing some of the other events.

Anyway, I have been thinking about Cordoba and the Caliphate.

With the Abbasid Caliphate in the east (meaning the Abbasids survived, which is cool) I think some changes must be done.The names choosen for the Abbasid dynasty is not what they normally named, perhaps Ismael should be exchanged with Harun and Murad with Mutasim?its more better in my opinion.

As for Cordoba, I think the current dynasty changes are a bit silly.I know the history of al-Andalus well enough to say that if the events which I assume happened in abberation occured, Bani Ahmer or the Nasrids could never rise to assume the throne.The founder of the Nasrid Kingdom, Mohammed of Ahmer was a warrior/priest who wanted to unite the last Muslim towns against the Christians and with this event never occuring (merely the Muslims regrouping in the south and attacking again) I think I have a better sequence.

Let the Ummayed Dynasty survive longer, meaning that the Caliphate wasnt dissolved in 1031 by Hisham.The main enemy of the Abbasid dynasty in the west would be an excellent foe.It would also add more taste to the game, and plausible, since the current Nasrid dynasty makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

You can call your Caliphs whatever sounds best. I'm looking forward to see what you're doing with the Abbasids, as they're one of Abe's key powers, joining so many other regions together.

I thought the story in al-Andalus was that Cordoba fell and the Christians did reconquer most of the peninsula, but that one of the taifa states managed to somewhat reunite the Muslims, drive back the Christians and declare a new Sultanate. Trouble is, there's still a lot of bad blood from the taifa era, and so now that their position versus the Christians is secure, the Muslims start fighting each other again.

It would be interesting having the Umayyad Caliphate in play, but this would probably imply that Cordoba is internally secure; also it would mean the religious split with the Abbasids would be the old one of who is the true Caliph, rather than on religious differences. We could ditch the Age of Feuds and have Cordoba start stronger, but it might mess up the balance in that area. At the moment Cordoba seems about right strength-wise - the 'big win' in Occitania should definitely be an unusual occurence if Cordoba is AI-controlled, but OTOH getting smashed by the Iberians or the Irish shouldn't be too likely either.
 
The Umayads could very well have survived, but hada a hard time doing it. If we're gonna call the nation Cordoba, we could as well have the Umayads. Since the umayads have had a hard time surviving and maybe needed to hire foreign warlords and grant authonomy to regional princes in their strife to stop the reconquesta that at some points seemed hopeless, the now recovering Umayad Kaliphate of Cordoba is a decentralized nation, but the Kaliphas want to restore their power now, when the christian threat is minimized.

The beginning of the game for Cordoba could be about fighting warlords and local princes not happy about the centralisation process.
 
Perhaps, but if we reinstituted the Ummayed dynasty we can have a "reconquest of the old lands" for that dynasty.As we know, the Abbasids slaughtered the Ummayed dynasty completely with only a fraction of them surviving with Abdul Rahman the enterer who established the Emirate.Now if they did survive and reassumed control of al-Andalus, which emerges stronger than ever, wouldnt you consider they would TRY to restore their rule over Damascus?their ancestrial land?that would be quite intresting seeing a conflict rising over North Africa and Egypt, a struggle could make the game fun.The Mutazalite option and restoration of the Ummayed Caliphate could very well fracture the Muslim world.
 
You can call your Caliphs whatever sounds best. I'm looking forward to see what you're doing with the Abbasids, as they're one of Abe's key powers, joining so many other regions together.
Click to expand...
I'll make a new monarch file then.

I thought the story in al-Andalus was that Cordoba fell and the Christians did reconquer most of the peninsula, but that one of the taifa states managed to somewhat reunite the Muslims, drive back the Christians and declare a new Sultanate. Trouble is, there's still a lot of bad blood from the taifa era, and so now that their position versus the Christians is secure, the Muslims start fighting each other again.
Click to expand...
I thought the Christians merely advanced on Cordoba and the Muslims moved the capital to Granada for a while.

It would be interesting having the Umayyad Caliphate in play, but this would probably imply that Cordoba is internally secure; also it would mean the religious split with the Abbasids would be the old one of who is the true Caliph, rather than on religious differences. We could ditch the Age of Feuds and have Cordoba start stronger, but it might mess up the balance in that area. At the moment Cordoba seems about right strength-wise - the 'big win' in Occitania should definitely be an unusual occurence if Cordoba is AI-controlled, but OTOH getting smashed by the Iberians or the Irish shouldn't be too likely either.
Click to expand...
Actually no, the Mutazalite faith can 'reinforce" the split even more as each Caliph will call the other a heretic.You see if both remained sunni, most Mosques in the Muslim world will still pray in the name of the Abbasid Caliph, however if there was a "Based' religious split that changes things, with each small Sultan and Emir trying to gain the patronage of either Baghdad or Cordoba.

Also I think Baghdad should have its ai changed, its warlike nature is a bit disturbing and I think that it should have a tad bit faster tech.
 
Calipah said:
Also I think Baghdad should have its ai changed, its warlike nature is a bit disturbing and I think that it should have a tad bit faster tech.
Click to expand...

These are related problems: Baghdad often techs slowly because of its conquest binges. Try turning the aggression down in the AI file, and see what happens. Also you could try adjusting the DP sliders a bit (either at the start or in events).

As to its warlike nature, I agree it's currently over the top, but the Caliphate does have enemies in the form of Jerusalem, Byzantium, the Il-Khanate and possibly Cordoba and co that it'll want to fight off. So I wouldn't make it too afraid to fight, especially early on. Multiple AIs may be the answer, with Baghdad getting an aggressive AI when it needs to fight, but a peaceful one once its enemies have been beaten.
 
I think the Khaliphat usually gets too huge for its own good. For example a local ruler from south eastern part should radically oppose the northwestern 'satrap' with his plans of NW conquest. He needs the resources for his own 'projects'. And you can only wonder what the people from the Arabian peninsula are thinking about this whole situation, how would northern expansion benefit them? I think all those people mentioned should even have some cultural differences, making the dialogue even more difficult.
 
When you're arguing about the Kaliphate and Cordoba, i might ask where the egyptians will fit in if Cordoba and The Kaliphate fight eachother, they're in the middle of that conquest and I just hate it when they never survive the 1500s.

Also the crazy conqusets of The Kaliphate must be halted, it usually end up as an überpower, but with no possibility of acting normal (crazy bb) and with no chance of advancing in tech, The Kaliphate have to rest from conquest once in while, can't wait to see if the rise of the New Pesian Empire will calm them down, even though I guess it will have the opposite effect.
 
yourworstnightm said:
When you're arguing about the Kaliphate and Cordoba, i might ask where the egyptians will fit in if Cordoba and The Kaliphate fight eachother, they're in the middle of that conquest and I just hate it when they never survive the 1500s.
Click to expand...

How about the egyptians getting an event to chose sides, a choice being Baghdad. If they chose Baghdad they keep sunni, better relations, become a vassal and increases stability (no real change in the country's policy really).

If they chose Corboda (b choice) they become the "new" islam religion, have a lot of changes in the DP sliders, loose stability, increase revolt risk, but they wont become vassals of Coroboda, simply allies and grant military access. Off course, Baghdad might not be keen on a heretic neighbour in Egypt...

C choice is to remain neutral.
 
HoChiMinh said:
How about the egyptians getting an event to chose sides, a choice being Baghdad. If they chose Baghdad they keep sunni, better relations, become a vassal and increases stability (no real change in the country's policy really).

If they chose Corboda (b choice) they become the "new" islam religion, have a lot of changes in the DP sliders, loose stability, increase revolt risk, but they wont become vassals of Coroboda, simply allies and grant military access. Off course, Baghdad might not be keen on a heretic neighbour in Egypt...

C choice is to remain neutral.
Click to expand...

or rebuilt Fatimid Shiite Caliphate
 
The Fatmids is already one of the Egyptian factions in the civil war (non of the factions are really doing anything useful). If Cordoba and The Kaliphate will fight all over Egypt, whichever faction succeeds (they acctually both seems quite unable to do that) will surely be crushed. The egyptians need a way to survive and then flourish once again, if they're going to be a major player. Maybe if the Fatimids win the civil war the egyptians will support Cordoba, but if the other faction win they will support the Kaliphate (of course they also should be able to remain neutral).
 
agung pasha said:
then just rebuilt Fatimid caliphate with no shiite. :p
. to make Fatimid dream came true. egypt dominated all of muslim word
Click to expand...

Either Kaliphate with all of it's cultures or Cordoba with spanish and south french and moorish and land tech best inthe world will have egypt quite easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back