Zirids never united anyone, and the Almoravids and the Almohads only had Morocco and southern Spain. When I'm talking about the Moors I am talking about a culture group. Moors =/= Berbers; the Moors represent the Andalusians, Almoravids, Almohads and the Nasirids as well, all controlled bits of Spain at one point (not the Zirids). The Moors would control Morocco and Spain and would be a good early enemy for both the Spanish and the Portuguese to fight against, and they would populate Morocco all the way down to Mali (at one point the Moors conquered Mali). But of course you would need to push back the Spanish spawn date to 1085 (the year Toledo fell to the Castilians). And whats nice about Toledo is that in the 15th-16th century you could have its name change to Madrid.Nah, he didnt start working on it yet, i asked him before. But Turk remember they are trying to represent all berber group (just like the celts represent all celtic tribes and cities). I think we should stick with this unless you have a better idea to settle all the important cities in North Africa. (besides there were a few berber kingdoms that united alll of North Africa like the Almorovids, Almohads, and the Zirids. To me it makes sense.
If you want Tunis and Algiers to spawn, HAVE them spawn! No one is stopping Leoreth from having them spawn as independents! Not to mention, if they do spawn as independents they'll be easier to conquer by the Arabs and later the Europeans. This makes more sense to me.
What Linkman says is true, honestly speaking, Poland would be MUCH easier to implement, so I would have to encourage Leoreth to first implement a Poland. Because currently this whole thing with Germany settling the Ukraine, is just weird.Honestly Poland should be implemented before any Berber/ Moorish kingdom. It would help game balance a LOT more.
And talking about Zirids, please add Palermo Leoreth!