Playing as a Muslim Faction

Hi all. It may sound odd, but after all these years of playing MTW, I've never played as a Muslim faction...until last night.
Boy, what I've been missing! I picked the Egyptians in MTW 1.1, and am really surprised at how good they are(I can just imagine what they're like in XL/Tyberius!).
Camel archers and warriors are truely inspiring. Although 'light' on solid infantry in Early, their desert archers in mass are a force to be reconned with.
As an aside while fighting the Byzantines in the desert, they were getting so tired chasing my nimble footed camels that I thought I could hear them 'sizzling' in their heavy armor...
Anyway, think I'll get back to my campaign and see if I can 'roast' some more Kataphratoi, he,he,he.
Cheers
Alex

Welcome to the org and the Main Hall.

Precisely, you ve been missing a whole new world. Muslims play differently than Catholics/Orthodox as you ve discovered. Thats part of the beauty of it. And wait till you try out the Turks or when the Mamelukes come about...

Yes!

You must try fighting those same camels with a few Turcoman Horse!
Although my strategy was incorrect, I found the Turks to be very difficult to lead to success in a war with the Fatimids.
I have never succeeded with any muslim faction, and I have never succeeded against one.

Notice how few are the islamic AARs!

The mosque is a muslim faction's best friend- to train ghazis, and to give a needed morale boost to saracen infantry. Saracens, archers, ghazis and a few camels can put to flight almost anything if uitilized properly.

Turcoman Horce, Saharan Cavalry, Mameluk Cavarly, Armenian Heavy Cavarly, Ghulam Cavalry and Kwarazmian Cavalry, Ottoman Sipahis, Mameluk Horse Archers and Faris are the attributes i love the most in Islamic factions.

Of course there are the Almohad Urban Militias, the Janissaries, Nubian Guards, Ghazis, Desert Archers, Turcoman Foot, Futuwas, Nizaris, African Spears, Saracen Spears and Muwahids too, to bring Crusaders to their knees.

And for sandy desert provinces a few surprises...:laugh4:

In early I'm planning a 3 pronged assault on Byzantine Anatolia. My large army in Antioch will act as the shield to protect my provinces as Byzantium and the Turks are locked in a see saw battle for the eastern half of Anatolia.
I've decided to pursue a strategy that is one I would normally not consider, but see an opportunity to sweep the eastern Mediterrainian sea's with my fleet while simultaneously landing 3 armies in Cyprus, Rhodes and Crete. From there strike the soft underbelly of western Anatolia and sandwich the Byzantine armies there between myself and my allied Turks(lets hope they don't see an opportunity to turn on me).
Cheers, and away to the battle.
Alex

Nice - good luck with your plans - may Allah the almighty guide your steps...

Well done, Aleksandros, you shall conquer your empire from the opposite end now!

But do not allow yourself to be fooled by the idea of a muslim alliance..

The Turks and the Fatimids are only ever allied long enough to ensure that Christianity stays on that side of the Hellespont.

Be prepared to march north from Antioch..

You seem to speak quite exotically often Mr Glenn - are you a historian or linguist/letterist?

O Mr. Gollum, let not the topic stray!
(I am qualified for neither, though I study linguistics, the old languages and prepare for university.)

AlexandersForlornHope, if the Byzantines are weaker than the Turk, I would in your position ally with them and destroy the green Turks before they equal you in strength, then you may easily thwart the Byzantine.

Sorry Mr Glenn (i knew i was right!:laugh4:)
And now (dont) stray topic, (dont) stray...:burnout:

Allah hu-akbar!!

The Muslims rule, dude, dontcha know.

Rain death upon all your enemies, as nearly everyone in your army has a bow and the wherewithall to use it!

Laugh wildly, as the foe attempts to chase down your incredibly-annoying Turcomen Horse!

Giggle with sadistic glee while your disciplined militia systematically chew through the opponent's carefully-contructed front line.

Stand tall with pride, watching your loyal Bedouins make a mockery of expensive Catholic knights.

Highlights: Nizaris, Hashishin, Turc Horse, Armenian Horse (+2 valour), Janissary Heavy Immortals and, of course, the indomitable, insane, armour-piercing (and cheap-as-chips) Ghazis!

Welcome to the best half of the game, brah.

Don't forget those Ottoman Infantry. Not the best melee stats, but easy to tech up to and pay for, and with a +1 if raised in Rum, which actually makes them start as better archers than your fancy Nizaris and Janissary Infantry. Of course those other units are great too, just in different ways.

By the way, has anyone found a use for Janissary archers? Seems to me that your regular Jannisary infantry are about as easy to get, shoot as well, and are more useful in close combat. I just don't see the point in making JAs.

Janissary Archers are probably the most pointless unit in the game. There is nothing they can do that some other unit can't do better, and they have absurd training reqs. I doubt that there'd be anyone on this forum who has even trained one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

*snip*...your fancy Nizaris and Janissary Infantry. Of course those other units are great too, just in different ways.

---

Agreed. Nizaris are great in every way that involves slamming the flank of a rock-hard army and sending them all squealing like bedwetting Mama's boys.

Hello BB,
JAs are theoretically faster to tech up to since they only require the master bowyer that you can build on the Citadel level, while the JI require the master swordsmith as well that needs the Fortress. They have decent melee stats for the occasional flanking and they can operate behind the main line inflicting casualties to the enemy in crucial units (Knights and the like) from afar.
All in all the JAs are one of the best archer units in the game stats wise IIRC (together with the longbows that also have good melee stats and AP attack IIRC).

The JI on the other hand melee units with a bow - their shooting abilities while welcome arent the essence - their melee abilities (that the Turks otherwise generally lack in their units) are.

Generally after all Janissary units are available i make stacks with 2 JA 2 JI 2 JHI, plus whatever other.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

They have decent melee stats for the occasional flanking and longer range than other archers IIRC that comes very handy in inflicting casualties to the enemy in crucial units (Knights and the like) from afar.

---

I'm sure that JA are armed with the standard bow and not the longbow. The game only has three bows: The bow, mounted bow and longbow. The only unit with the longbow is the Longbowmen unit. The various Horse Archer types use mounted bow and all other units use the standard bow. The mounted bow is simply a less accurate version of the standard bow.

Then IDRC (i didnt remember correctly) ~D

EDIT
I am aware of the three bow types in vanilla - memory may be confused with Ghulam archers in Medmod that uses the same info card as the Ja and has indeed longer range.

I'm aware that you're aware of the three bow types in vanilla.

The JA info pic is entirely wrong. The actual sprites on the other hand are very good and look how they're supposed to look. In reality factions like the Turks and Mongols should have had longbows from the start (to represent the powerful composite bows used by these peoples). In fact if you look at the internal naming of the mounted bow it is referred to as a "mounted longbow". This does point to CA originally intending to give the horse archer units decent bows - though this would have made them far too dangerous.

I've never found any use for JA either. Of the Janissaries I mostly train JI.

I'm aware that you're aware that i was aware of the three bow types in vanilla :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caravel
The JA info pic is entirely wrong. The actual sprites on the other hand are very good and look how they're supposed to look. In reality factions like the Turks and Mongols should have had longbows from the start (to represent the powerful composite bows used by these peoples). In fact if you look at the internal naming of the mounted bow it is referred to as a "mounted longbow". This does point to CA originally intending to give the horse archer units decent bows - though this would have made them far too dangerous.

---

Indeed - actually many units in the info pic are shown with composite bows and others like the Tribizond archers are mention to carry composite bows in the UnitInfo text. It would have been great to give them some extra attribute in order to allow their factions them to play without crossbows/arbalests.

:bow:

EDIT
Ironically for the Trebizond Archers the opposite is true - the InfoPict is right and the sprite is awful and wrong. The PoM adressed that quite well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Agreed. Nizaris are great in every way that involves slamming the flank of a rock-hard army and sending them all squealing like bedwetting Mama's boys.

---

:2thumbsup:

Tell me - how do these little holy-warmongers fare when they are fighting in... Tyrol, for example?

It is not as silly a question as it sounds; once a muslim power is risen in the east, can they easily conquer central Europe?
I have never seen it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

Tell me - how do these little holy-warmongers fare when they are fighting in... Tyrol, for example?

It is not as silly a question as it sounds; once a muslim power is risen in the east, can they easily conquer central Europe?
I have never seen it happen.

---

The muslim factions can fare well in Europe when controlled by the player. The AI muslim factions usually do less well, because they cannot compete in autocalced battles against high and late era catholic units.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

It is not as silly a question as it sounds; once a muslim power is risen in the east, can they easily conquer central Europe?
I have never seen it happen.

---

Really? I see the Almos do it all the time. Turks tend to get massacred in every campaign. Because the simulated battles only account for meele stats and the turks are very dependant on hybrids (hello, heavy Jedi katatank purple army thingies)?

About the JA. Only reason I see for choosing them over JI is that they're cheaper. But the tactical advantages of having JI instead of JA are quite huge. So huge, as a matter of fact, that I would bet my house that you'll lose money on sheer troop production due to higher casualty rates if using JA rather than JI.

Believe it or not - I prefer TFS to JA. Their support cost is significantly lower and at the point that you're using Jennies you should have a master bowyer in Anatolia (otherwise: start playing the sims instead). This means that you'll have a fast and armored (+ a small shield) archer unit with 1 atk and 4 def after +2 valor. Morale shouldn't be a factor either at this point. "Yeah, but you can only get these TFS from Anatolia!" So? You can only get JA from one province also - the one with the military academy. And, I might add, this will most likely not be Georgia (where you get a valor bonus to the JAs) but rather Rum or Constantinople. Bulgaria if you're truly bad ass.

To fix this. Simple! JAs get the longbow and more ammo. That's as good incentive as any.

The Almoravids are exempt from this, being in the West.

The Fatimids and the Turks, though I have seen them rise to supremacy in the holy land, have never in my campaigns sought conquest beyond the Aegean stables.

The Muslims suffer from poor stack composition - they could do well in autocalc and so in campaigns if that is fixed (by modding).

Only the Almohads have AUM and MS from the Muslim factions ie decent melee units easily available (keep/Town_watch2). This is often why they fare better. In v1.1 the Almohads were often a true dinosaur devouring the Spanish quickly and then ravaging Europe. In VI its the other way around teh Spanish kill off the Almohads too quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bondovic

Believe it or not - I prefer TFS to JA. Their support cost is significantly lower and at the point that you're using Jennies you should have a master bowyer in Anatolia (otherwise: start playing the sims instead). This means that you'll have a fast and armored (+ a small shield) archer unit with 1 atk and 4 def after +2 valor. Morale shouldn't be a factor either at this point. "Yeah, but you can only get these TFS from Anatolia!" So? You can only get JA from one province also - the one with the military academy. And, I might add, this will most likely not be Georgia (where you get a valor bonus to the JAs) but rather Rum or Constantinople. Bulgaria if you're truly bad ass.

---

I couldn't agree more. I train a lot of TF and use them as my main archer units with Futuwwa as a backup/flanking unit. The best thing about TF is the armour and shield. This makes them great in defensive battles especially against the mongols with their numerous horse archers. Where Futuwwa or Desert Archers would soon fall under the constant volleys, the TF can stand their ground.

:bow:

Granted that the availability of TF, together with the fact that they are the best (pure) archers in teh game, makes them more attractive than JA - however JA have much higher morale and will not run away when things get hot.

The problem in vanilla with the Janissary units is that they all become available at the same time. Historically speaking the janissary corps evolved from pure archers to hybrid archers to an organised army with its own structure and command including arquebusiers, archers, heavy infantry.

This is represented in the game with the three units the JA JI and JHI. All in all personally for me in vanilla both JA and JI are somewhat redundant since they are becoming available together with JHI. The Turks have plenty of other units in their stead and they only lack a heavy infantry unit really (and all the more if it can skewer armored+mounted targets).

Imho its best to;
mod JA in high only
mod JI in high late
mod JHI in late and make them 2 turn trainable.

It would be nice also to give JAs longbows as in many other eastern missile units, reduce the lethality of arbalests and make them available in late only and make crossbows/arbalests available only to the Almohads (that lack bow units).

Such an arrangement balances out the missile strengths/weaknesses between east and west and makes them more unique without cutting out potential.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Granted that the availability of TF, together with the fact that they are the best (pure) archers in teh game, makes them more attractive than JA - however JA have much higher morale and will not run away when things get hot.

---

I've never found their morale to be a factor when trained in Anatolia with Ribat, Mosque and led by a decent general. They are not good in melee anyway (poor charge, poor melee and poor morale) so if the battle gets to the stage where they're fighting hand to hand, then you're doing something wrong. I don't see morale as the most important factor in archers either and the TF are really archers not hybrids like the Futuwwa, JI, OI and Nizari etc, despite their defence and armour.

You are exactly right. Thats their achilles heel, like with all pure archer units. They unbalance the army composition (detract from average stack melee capacity). Thats why the JA are a plus in this point - after you make them emptry their quivers carefully (ie without participating directly in the missile duel and take many losses) you can use them as reserves. JA are meant as the cherry in the pie not bread and butter like TF/xbows.

TF on the other hand are made exactly for the missile duel as you say - because of the armor. Yet not only they cant melee after it but also they cant be used like crossbows/arbs that can dissuade enemy units from reaching them with mass coordinated volleys in the end phase.

They are a weak unit in that respect, and they need quite some teching up to get (Castle/bowyer3). Its only their cheap maintenance cost that still makes them useful in high as archer substitutes. But by high in vanilla, most (pure) archer units are semi-obsolete - xbows are cheaper to recruit and maintain and much more useful (volley mass/armor penetration). I recruit 1 or 2 units of archers in high per stack and 3-4 crossbows. Since the xbows work as the main missile component adding more missiles is only worth it if they can melee too. Hence prefer Nizaris and JA and much less Futuwas and TF.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

You are exactly right. Thats their achilles heel, like with all pure archer units. They unbalance the army composition (detract from average stack melee capacity). Thats why the JA are a plus in this point - after you make them emptry their quivers carefully (ie without participating directly in the missile duel and take many losses) you can use them as reserves. JA are meant as the cherry in the pie not bread and butter like TF/xbows.

---

I have a problem with this. The meele stats of the JA's are not terrific, especially when compared to the +2 valor TFS. Either way - to use them as "reserves", as you suggest, leaves a lot to the imagination. As flankers? Or anti-line infantry?

For flanking purposes the +2 valor TFS perform on par, I'd say, with the JAs because of their speed that makes up for a slightly lower atk value. But the bonuses to the atk value for a flanking unit are so rampant that even peasants make decent flankers against most but the heavier foes.

As for the other option - to use them as anti-line - I just never go there unless I really need to. Anyways, the JA are crap at this, just like the TFS are.

I think this started out as a debate on wether JAs are redundant due to the JI. If they use the same bow then, yes, they are. Because not only can the JI do everything that the JA can, but they can do a hell of a lot more. Even go anti-line.

Hello Bondovic,
thats exactly right, imagination - you name it, they (JA) do it; when your melee line is faltering they plug the gap, when the enemy line is faltering they give it a push to tip it over, when your general is fighting a vicious cavalry melee with some nasty knights/HC they flank the enemy and give him a breather, when the two sides are exhasted they sit a top a hill fresh and claim victory by a glorious downhil charge to the enemy tired and depleted infantry, when enemy slow heavy infantry is caught between them they shoot it before ambushing it (with the aid of TH or BGs), when conditions allow they do the occasional flanking and more according to the situation.

Your arguments about +2 valor on TF sound persuasive.

For my part i play a home-mod of vanilla that takes out all province valor bonuses, all armor bonuses all weapon bonuses and all morale bonuses so added valor isnt a factor. But thats just me.

You are right that JI make JA redundant when they appear in vanilla. Theoretically however you can tech up faster to JA and JHI that take the master bowyer and spearmaker that usually are built anyway. The JI need the full swordsmith building line too that takes a lot of time, is expensive and relatively useless for the Turks (other than for Futuwas that i am not particularly fond of due to their abominal defence). So you can stick with JAs and JHI combo as i do - just another way to combine the janissary units.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

(other than for Futuwas that I am not particularly fond of due to their abominal defence).

---

On the other hand I love Futuwwa, but they have to be combined with Saracens and TF. I've lost count of how many times Futuwwa units have saved the day with a timely flank charge. Unlike Ghazi infantry Futuwwa have a bow which makes them much more useful. I also find a use for Ottoman Infantry believe it or not.

I love Ottoman infantry too. Not only they are easily available and cheap - but they have an armor piercing attack - the perfect cheap hybrid for late. The reason i dislike Futuwas is the same reason i dislike Nizaris - they take a lot of casualties from missiles and in the melee. They win you battles but you need a new stack to continue the campaign. However as the Egyptians there is no alternative - but not to worry, the Egyptians can train arbalasters~D

Futuwwa often charge without orders, as with Ghazi, and this can be quite devastating. I totally agree with your criticisms of them, i.e. their poor defence etc, but I enjoy trying to utilise units that have specific strengths and weaknesses. The trick with Futuwwa is to deploy them so that rhe enemy are focusing their missile fire on your better armoured units (Saracens and Turcoman foot). So the Futuwwa should be bringing up the rear.

The big difference between JA and these others is the elite status. This means you won't see them running along with the non elite units. IIRC there is no other elite pure missile foot unit?

Nizari are like souped up Ghazi with bows - minus the AP bonus. The problem there is the defence, as with Ghazi it's extremely poor. Even Futtuwa have better defence, which makes them more useful if they get stuck in melee.

Indeed. Futuwas are the archetypical flanker unit, fast, lightly armored, with great attack, good morale and low defence. They are good for hammering anviled battle lines as you say, as well as taking advantage of high angles of attack by virtue of their high morale that enables them to travel away from the main army in smaller groups. The fact that they have bows, just makes them even more deadly and flexible.

:bow:

I rate Futuwwa above Ottoman Infantry. OI have shocking morale and can let you down badly. Poor Morale is fine for a unit like TF, because you would only deploy them in Melee against broken or routing units anyway, but with those axes, OI are asking to be sent in as flankers - but their morale combined with their poor charge and morale stats, make them worse than Futuwwa IMHO.

And congratulations on your promotion to member AlexandersForlornHope.

:bow:

Indeed - however the AP bonus shines if you include OI in stacks led by a good general. They also can be built more easily allowing to replenish stacks while advancing in enemy territory to complement xbows.

Congratulations AlexandersForlornHope.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Hello Bondovic,
thats exactly right, imagination - you name it, they (JA) do it; when your melee line is faltering they plug the gap, when the enemy line is faltering they give it a push to tip it over, when your general is fighting a vicious cavalry melee with some nasty knights/HC they flank the enemy and give him a breather, when the two sides are exhasted they sit a top a hill fresh and claim victory by a glorious downhil charge to the enemy tired and depleted infantry, when enemy slow heavy infantry is caught between them they shoot it before ambushing it (with the aid of TH or BGs), when conditions allow they do the occasional flanking and more according to the situation.

---

All right, I suspected as much. Daddy is not convinced, however. Mainly because: out of the jobs you so eloquently describe there isn't really anything there that the TFS actually aren't better at. This is not only based on experience but also on actual numbers. The only task I'd choose JA over TFS for is flanking. This because of their slightly higher atk (I[!]IRC). Regarding gap-plugging I give the nod to the TFS because of their substantial edge in def over the JA.

I'd love to dwell further into this subject, but I really have to get on with RL. Stay tuned...

Big Mamma isnt convinced either Bondovic :laugh4:

Good luck with RL and return soon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Nizari are like souped up Ghazi with bows - minus the AP bonus. The problem there is the defence, as with Ghazi it's extremely poor. Even Futtuwa have better defence, which makes them more useful if they get stuck in melee.

---

I think that, given the Nizaris' cost, high speed, charge and attack, it would be a crime to use them as anything BUT a shooting flanker.

No unit in the same class does it better, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

I think that, given the Nizaris' cost, high speed, charge and attack, it would be a crime to use them as anything BUT a shooting flanker.

No unit in the same class does it better, though.

---

Exactly. Which is why they have been hamstringed defensively. If Nizari had decent defence, they're be extremely overpowered.

:bow:

Well not extremely, they d be a kind of Warrior Monk (as they were) - units that are lightly armored can always be shot and resisted by high armor/defence units. But i agree - they are better as they are:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Well not extremely, they d be a kind of Warrior Monk (as they were) - units that are lightly armored can always be shot and resisted by high armor/defence units. But i agree - they are better as they are:2thumbsup:

---

The point is that if they were better defensively they'd be anti-line as well and you'd have to slap them with nothing but the elite of the elite of your roster. It's this dual role capability that would make them overpowered. If the intended use for them is shooting flankers you have to reflect the exaggerated attack stats of theirs with lower defensive ones. This makes them harder to use, but more streamlined for the intended role.

Well, given the multitude and toughness of cavalry in MTW i would prefer for foot flanker units like Futuwas and Nizaris to have been melee oriented units instead (even with smaller attack but higher defence). In order for them to flank safely you have to advance often a unit to protect them from counter-attack/charge from heavy cavalry (usually) enemy units and this is often risky as you might end up the covering unit and the flanker too if the enemy guards the flanks with enough numbers. Cavalry is much more suited to flanking in any case since they are faster and tougher. You get to do effective flankings with foot units only when you outnumber the enemy in units do they cannot cover all units you bring behind their line.

However as they are they still have a lot of uses - the only problem being that you cannot use them in large proportion as they take a lot of casualties from getting shot and meleeing as i mentioned elsewhere.

:bow:

By the equestrian Poseidon!

I have a question!

Is it possible to play as either the Fatimids or Turks and maintain an alliance with your eastern muslim counterpart?
Is there a way to dissuade the AI from war with those of his own zeal?

Sometimes I have chosen the Turks or Fatimids with a view to locking shields with my good brethren and staving the French, swearing never to allow Antioch to turn a funny blue, red or yellow colour.
I have however always been bitterly disappointed.

Has anyone ever experienced a campaign with a Turko-Arabic alliance lasting longer than the rise or fall of Byzantium?

There is Mr Glenn;
go to your main MTW folder.

In there, in the campaign folder, you will find 3 txt files entitled EARLY, HIGH, LATE. Click the one you play, and scroll down. Once you found the AI faction personality column set the Turks/Egypts from MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST to MUSLIM_PEACEFUL.

Then the Turks/Egypts will keep their part of the deal:2thumbsup:

Faith does not seem to have much bearing on alliances. It may seem that it does influence the forming of alliances because the Turks, Almohads and Egyptians all seems to ally early on - but this is probably down to proximity. If you look at the western catholic theatre there is plenty of inter faith conflict there, so I don't think faith has any bearing whatsoever.

-Edit: Yes changing the AI behaviour type will make factions more or less aggressive and alter other aspects of behaviour, but there is no rule that makes muslims side with muslims or choose the muslim ally in a conflict. Thre is only one way to ensure united muslim factions and that is to play as the Turks and conquer the other two. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

Is it possible to play as either the Fatimids or Turks and maintain an alliance with your eastern muslim counterpart?
Is there a way to dissuade the AI from war with those of his own zeal?

---

- Form alliances with his allies.
- Don't go to war with his allies.
- Send a princess or high-valour emissary to seal the deal.
- Maintain good garrisons on your borders with him to discourage invasion.
- Don't hold any of his homelands or GA goals.
- Don't get too big.

Nothing is certain, though.

Whoops. Muslims don't have princesses.

The abovementioned points are good general guidelines, though.

Bottom line is, however, if you want to expand, you're gonna make some enemies along the way. Quite often you have little control over the making or breaking of alliances.

The muslims control alot of land, but what I hate about them is that they have no decent troop that can easily be made.

For example:

Danes: Vikings, I'm pretty sure all you need is a fort
Byz: Byz infantry, all you need is a swordsmith.
Germans,Italians,English,French,Spanish (I'm missing a few): Feudal swordsman, swordsmith.

See what I mean, troops like these are what help me make large conquests, keep loyalty high, and control rebellions. Plus you don't have to spend extra florins and time on all of those buildings.

The only thing I like about the muslim factions are the Almohad urban militia or else I stay away from Muslim factions because I hate sitting around planning out my structures, I'm not very patient :sweatdrop::wall:

Egyptians:

Fort => Camels

That's all you need

:bow:

More seriously - if you're too impatiant to build two structures to train units, then I cannot imagine you could finish a campaign.

Examples of good muslim troops:
Mosque + swordsmith: Gazi inf.
Spearmaker upgrade: Muhawid spearmen, saracen spearmen
Horse breeder in africa: saharan cav.
Swordsmith: Arab inf. is a inferior unit compared to catholic heavy inf. But muslim armies should be able to persevere using other methods, especially desert troops on defence or horse archers everywhere...

/KotR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzd07

The only thing I like about the muslim factions are the Almohad urban militia or else I stay away from Muslim factions because I hate sitting around planning out my structures, I'm not very patient :sweatdrop::wall:

---

Try the Tyberius add-on for XL. It significantly reduces the time required to construct buildings.

Byz infantry are in my opinion sub-decent,they suffer from low morale,at least in my experience. I never use them in my field armies or as anything below a garrison as with the Tyberius add-on for XL, I have more opitions that I can rely on not to cause a mass chain rout at the most crucial time..