Are muslims easily slaughtered in this game? hope not!

[PurpleScotch]

Many people are mistaken that medieval muslims were easily slaughtered by a few knights..but i can say its not true, in m1tw muslims were soo weak i lost a whole army os saracen infantry to about 200 knights (i was way more than them) ..in real life muslims were brave men ready to die for god (allah in arabic) and their lands..they were pretty much the same power as euros..they had well built castles, well trained and most organised armies of the time..and had good weapons..and very brave.

In m1tw saracen infantry had low moral! Knights are over powered by any people..they werent gods riding horses for gods sake! Someone else also said that when muslims fought crusaders you would see a blood bath of muslims..and only a few dead crusaders!! I mean this coudnt be possible... !

Anyways the shortened question of all this would be are muslim units actually good in this game, not weak animals slaughtered by crusading gods?

[Chuffy]

I disagree, in the Early and High periods the Muslims were easily on par with any of the Christian factions. They had excellent cavalry (bow armed and many different lancers) and had some great infantry (Mmm, Almohad Urban Militia). Saying that Saracen Infantry had low morale and that is a problem is pretty silly...pretty much every infantry unit in the game, apart from some of the later ones, had low morale. Saracen Infantry with their good armour and spears could break any knightly charge.

And if you lost to 200 knights...well play better, simple as.

[PurpleScotch]

Actually muslims dont have a late era unit to replace saracen infantry (correct if im wrong, didnt play the game in ages) just some musket guys and cannons are new.

[CIaagent11]

I think they are pretty strong in the game. But are they at war with each others?

[PurpleScotch]

No, wars between the magreb (almohads) and the sultinate in egypt never existed, in m1tw you can attack them because of the changing history thing tw is specialized in..(like attacking france with scotland)

[Yosemite]

Then it makes the game more challenging! \o/ I like playing parth against a whole greek army composed of 80 % of pikmen. Arrows don't beat them from the front.

[DougyM]

Many people are mistaken that medieval muslims were easily slaughtered by a few knights..but i can say its not true, in m1tw muslims were soo weak i lost a whole army os saracen infantry to about 200 knights (i was way more than them) ..in real life muslims were brave men ready to die for god (allah in arabic) and their lands..they were pretty much the same power as euros..they had well built castles, well trained and most organised armies of the time..and had good weapons..and very brave.

In m1tw saracen infantry had low moral! Knights are over powered by any people..they werent gods riding horses for gods sake! Someone else also said that when muslims fought crusaders you would see a blood bath of muslims..and only a few dead crusaders!! I mean this coudnt be possible... !

Anyways the shortened question of all this would be are muslim units actually good in this game, not weak animals slaughtered by crusading gods?

You didnt pay much attention during mtw1 did you?

The muslim factions were hardly "weak" and easily slaughtered....

And btw... we know that knights arent gods on horses that can insta kill muslims.... were not retards.

[VALIS]

i hope so.

that way it will be realistic.

[KaerMorhen]

The only adventages to muslim facions in the early age of Crusades were better knowledge of local terrain and nearby areas and hot weather during summers. Comparing armour and weapon, medieval knights were far more advanced and well prepared. Sabres and various light armours were no match to fully and heavy armoured knights. However many of them died because of heat passing across Anatolia, almost baked inside their armours. The broadswords of crusaders did more damage than sabres of Turks and Arabs. So muslim armies were obviously weaker than christian knights, latter on in time Ottomans developed an really hard and tough armies to face what is displayed in MTW, for example: Sipahi of the Porte and all kinds of Jennissary infantry.

[Yosemite]

I hardly see a saber cutting an armor. It does not look as heavy as the euro swords.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Well the muslims were hardly a push-over in M1TW so I doubt they will be it now.

[militiaman]

Comparing armour and weapon, medieval knights were far more advanced and well prepared. Sabres and various light armours were no match to fully and heavy armoured knights.

That is a common misconception. Generally speaking, Middle Eastern armour technology was as good as or usually better than European armour technology. I think you would find that the Muslims were not the lightly armoured desert fighters that you always think of. I believe that Europeans only surpassed them once they started bringing in renaissance-y armour.

And I can hardly see how a sabre (which probably is another stereotype) would be so less effective than a normal straight edged sword.

[Mangalore]

The only adventages to muslim facions in the early age of Crusades were better knowledge of local terrain and nearby areas and hot weather during summers. Comparing armour and weapon, medieval knights were far more advanced and well prepared. Sabres and various light armours were no match to fully and heavy armoured knights. However many of them died because of heat passing across Anatolia, almost baked inside their armours. The broadswords of crusaders did more damage than sabres of Turks and Arabs. So muslim armies were obviously weaker than christian knights, latter on in time Ottomans developed an really hard and tough armies to face what is displayed in MTW, for example: Sipahi of the Porte and all kinds of Jennissary infantry.

Equipment was not more advanced, it was overall just heavier/stronger, however that is based on the climate and geography. Heavy chainmail was not good for desert warfare and high temperatures hampered the efficiency of European knights because their armor was generating too high temperatures in the environment. Also war doctrines were different with Europeans using shock cavalry and heavy infantry while the Muslims often used horse archery and lighter infantry.

As can be seen neither was really superior and within the few decades of Christian rule in Jerusalem both sides had pretty much evolved into very similar armies with Muslims using heavier armored cavalry to counter the European knights and the Europeans inroducing mounted archers to counter Muslim horsearchers.

The difference of broadsword and sabre is also in application. A broadsword is better in thrusting and thus piercing heavy armor (the likely defense of an European enemy) while sabres do worse damage to unarmored or lighter armored foes (the likely defense of their enemies).


The success of the first crusade was more based on sheer luck and local politics than some superiority of European armies which can be seen in the simple fact that the Crusaders could not repeat it.

In military tech (except siege warfare) both sides were pretty similar more or less developing their armies from Roman and their enemy's technology.

[Kaweh]

Actually, as far as I know, the saber has it's non-straight form, because it needs less force to slice up an opponant with a curved saber.

K.K

[KaerMorhen]

There is lots of descriptions of warfare between Crusaders and muslims in Sir Steven Runciman "History of the Crusades" including types of armours and weaponary.

[Skyhigh]

Many people are mistaken that medieval muslims were easily slaughtered by a few knights..but i can say its not true, in m1tw muslims were soo weak i lost a whole army os saracen infantry to about 200 knights (i was way more than them) ..in real life muslims were brave men ready to die for god (allah in arabic) and their lands..they were pretty much the same power as euros..they had well built castles, well trained and most organised armies of the time..and had good weapons..and very brave.

In m1tw saracen infantry had low moral! Knights are over powered by any people..they werent gods riding horses for gods sake! Someone else also said that when muslims fought crusaders you would see a blood bath of muslims..and only a few dead crusaders!! I mean this coudnt be possible... !

Anyways the shortened question of all this would be are muslim units actually good in this game, not weak animals slaughtered by crusading gods?

you're taking this WAY too seriously
im sure that the fact that the saracen infantry had "low morale" by the standards of a computer game was not intended or can even be percieved as an insult to Islamic culture

[Germanicus75]

Many people are mistaken that medieval muslims were easily slaughtered by a few knights..but i can say its not true, in m1tw muslims were soo weak i lost a whole army os saracen infantry to about 200 knights (i was way more than them) ..in real life muslims were brave men ready to die for god (allah in arabic) and their lands..they were pretty much the same power as euros..they had well built castles, well trained and most organised armies of the time..and had good weapons..and very brave.

Methinks the Muslim gentleman doth protest too much ;-)

What must be remembered about the Crusades is that the Muslims had the home advantage - almost always a major factor, they knew all the local territory, they were well used to the heat and the conditions, they had an almost unlimited supply of local men who were fanatical and willing to die for their cause, they had more mounted units than the Crusaders + camels as well, and they often used a style of fighting from a distance typical for Middle Eastern warfare of the period which sometimes made it hard for the Euros to get at them. In short, they had many advantages, and yet the Crusaders hung around for several centuries. The core of the Crusaders must have been exceptional men.

From what I remember MTW1 made a fair balance and showed the weaknesses and strengths of both sides quite well. In you find the Muslims underpowered you can always tweak them, but one assumes CA are doing their best to portray things as historically accurate ;-)

[Darkragnar]

you all seem to forget damacus steel , the best steel in that time can cut through even better then tolido swords.
And also the Arbi were great cavalier's too they were certainly better horsemen then the over eager knights.

[PurpleScotch]

Maybe i did exagurate a bit, but still muslims are sometimes underpowered, lol, just asking if anyone here knew if they balanced the muslims..but hey when the game comes out ill buy and see the answer, although if someone found out something telling us about muslim units in the game, he/she could post here.
If the game didnt balance them properly there's always an "Extended Eastern Mod" i could make to do the job, also to tweak byzantines if they had a problem too...anyways thanks for helping !

[Kanfoosh]

Muslims seem under-powered to you because you probably used them like a western faction, i never had any problems using them