EU4 - Development Diary - 19th of September 2017

[Santos Valorion]

QQ into Poland for 108% cavalry combat bonus, oh boy.

 

[Itchel]

The "black and white sheep" nations are kinda scary now...

 

[zedyue]

I don't really like how only the arabian tribes /aqq and akk whatever got a rework and all the other tribal governments were left alone. Saving those tribes for later...?

 

[fksahin]

Is that what they teach in the Turkish textbooks? Lol, simply not true. The Ottoman's were the most powerful entity in Anatolia but to say they had control over Candar, Karaman, Ramazan, and Dulkadir before 1402 is misguided at best, outright wrong at worst (especially with respect to Karaman). All of these beyliks were either formally independent, or nominally aligned to the Ottomans. The dynasty that led Candar was under Ottoman protection but after 1402, Candar switched allegiance to Timur. Ramazan and Dulkadir were buffer states between the Mamluks and the Ottomans (both of switch existed before 1402). Karaman is where suggesting that land was Ottoman land is outright wrong. Karaman was the Ottoman's main Anatolian rival after the fall of Rum, and what 1402 did for Karaman was not "independence", but opportunity to challenge the Ottomans.



That map is wrong lol. Honestly, Turkish educational materials are up there with PRC and pre-2000 Japanese textbooks when it comes to reliability (that is to say, they're not reliable at all). It doesn't show Karaman, and it shows Candar as an integrated part of the Ottoman Empire when it wasn't.

@Trin Tragula should be able to give an informed opinion.

I'm disagree with you. You're saying everything is wrong that against what you're thinking. So where is your sources?

And can you tell me please why Tamerlane come so long way into the central Anatolia to defeat Ottomans? Can it be because annexed beyliks wanted his help and he didn't want a strong state behind him while he is planning to invade India? After the battle of Ankara almost all Anatolia where lost except old Karesi, Germiyan and Ottoman beylik era territories.

Educate yourself please.

 

[Masoud22volk]

This version is great. So when will it be released?

 

[withche.07]

This is Ottoman Empire in 1402. 40 years prior to game start. The map at 1444 is due to the loss to the Timurids in 1402. Now, if you don't lose core on provinces that you are forced to release, Ottomans should not lose those cores. Frankly I don't remember.

As I state giving claim by event or mission is better than giving free cores. Cores are too important in game mechanics, so removing to nerf was okay in my opinion.
But leaving it as it is now (zero Ottoman/Turkish influence) is bit wrong.

 

[caedussl]

I'm disagree with you. You're saying everything is wrong that against what you're thinking. So where is your sources?

And can you tell me please why Tamerlane come so long way into the central Anatolia to defeat Ottomans? Can it be because annexed beyliks wanted his help and he didn't want a strong state behind him while he is planning to invade India? After the battle of Ankara almost all Anatolia where lost except old Karesi, Germiyan and Ottoman beylik era territories.

Educate yourself please.

Where's your references suggesting the opposite of what I'm saying? Moreover, where's the sources to backup what you're saying? Don't get into a pissing match about sourcing when you're not prepared to the do the same thing. There's not much in English on the lesser known Anatolian beyliks, but the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire (2009) covers much of it. Poignantly, on page xxvii of the prelims, there is a map showing a timeline of Ottoman conquests from 1300 to 1683, showing the four beyliks in question (Candar, Karaman, Ramazan and Dulkadir) not coming until well after the 14th century (and they would have shown them earlier even if they lost them for a period of time). I can't post it here because the picture is copyrighted, but you can find the book easier enough if you google it.

Timur is irrelevant here. The point of contention is whether the Ottoman Empire effectively controlled the territory of the 1444 beyliks prior to 1402. You might make the argument that the beyliks were akin to EU4 vassals, or probably more closely tributaries, but to suggest they were formally part of the Ottoman state apparatus is akin to arguing that the HRE effectively

 

[Grunthex]

Totally minor nitpick that I meant to post last week:

I love the idea of more trade goods, but the icons for some of these (Gems, Glass, Paper) seem just a bit out of scale with the original goods. At a glance, it looks like they're 20-25% bigger than they should be to fit in with the rest.

 

[DDRJake]

Would you mind sharing some pics of some interesting results?

Good idea. I'll file that thought away for the next Dev Diary

The second Aq Qoyunlu idea made me think of this scene for some reason, is it semi-inspired by @DDRJake scottish heritage? UNITE THE CLANS!

Why is it always Braveheart? Let's see some love for the film with the most accurate portrayal of Scotland: Rob Roy

 

[DeerMan]

Amazing! Are the Turkish beyliks still iqta/normal monarchies? Will they get a similar government as they were kind of tribal?

 

[TheDungen]

Well thats nice but why arent tribes just an estate? Again you seem to be rethreading ground you already have a tool for. Improve tools find as ways to use them but don't make even more systems.
I take the reason is the comparability issue? Well I hope when eu5 rolls around at least that all these special governments get merged into estates.

 

[ratkus]

Or from a seriously different time zone.

it was written 12:30 CET (central european time), it could be -11 max in pacific or +12 in pacific too. but at that side no one except some extremely rare islands use it not even alaska

 

[Chamboozer]

The Ottoman's were the most powerful entity in Anatolia but to say they had control over Candar, Karaman, Ramazan, and Dulkadir before 1402 is misguided at best, outright wrong at worst (especially with respect to Karaman)

Well, no. They did annex Candar and Karaman and parts of Dulkadirid territory.

In 1397 he [Bayezid I] invaded Karaman, occupied Konya and executed Alaeddin. Alaeddin was also his brother-in-law and, when he marched south to lay siege to Larende, his sister, Alaeddin's widow, ordered the garrison to open the gates. With Alaeddin's death and the removal of his widow to Bursa, Karaman became an Ottoman territory and a base for further conquest. This involved Bayezid in conflict with Burhan al-Din of Sivas, whom he had first encountered in his Anatolian campaign of 1391. In 1398, he expelled Burhan al-Din from Sivas, annexed the small principalities near the Black Sea coast and occupied Sivas itself. Soon afterwards, he seized Malatya to the east of Sivas, a northernmost outpost of the Mamluk sultans of Cairo. By 1401, he had advanced along the Upper Euphrates valley to take Erzincan from its lord, Taharten.

Colin Imber. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power 2nd ed. (Palgrave MacMillan, 2009) 15.

there is a map showing a timeline of Ottoman conquests from 1300 to 1683, showing the four beyliks in question (Candar, Karaman, Ramazan and Dulkadir) not coming until well after the 14th century

That's because it shows the date of their definitive annexation, not the first time they were conquered as it was so brief.

About the cores, I don't care one way or another - the Ottomans did hold these areas but they held them for an extremely short period of time.

 

[seriousgigi]

Is that what they teach in the Turkish textbooks? Lol, simply not true. The Ottoman's were the most powerful entity in Anatolia but to say they had control over Candar, Karaman, Ramazan, and Dulkadir before 1402 is misguided at best, outright wrong at worst (especially with respect to Karaman). All of these beyliks were either formally independent, or nominally aligned to the Ottomans. The dynasty that led Candar was under Ottoman protection but after 1402, Candar switched allegiance to Timur. Ramazan and Dulkadir were buffer states between the Mamluks and the Ottomans (both of switch existed before 1402). Karaman is where suggesting that land was Ottoman land is outright wrong. Karaman was the Ottoman's main Anatolian rival after the fall of Rum, and what 1402 did for Karaman was not "independence", but opportunity to challenge the Ottomans.



That map is wrong lol. Honestly, Turkish educational materials are up there with PRC and pre-2000 Japanese textbooks when it comes to reliability (that is to say, they're not reliable at all). It's not surprising modern Turkish textbooks suggest the Beyliks were under formal control of the Ottoman's pre-1402, but it's wrong.

This map doesn't show Karaman, and it shows Candar as an integrated part of the Ottoman Empire when it wasn't.

@Trin Tragula should be able to give an informed opinion.

muh turkish books muh turkish education .....
dude are you aware that the PDX gave these free cores to ottoman empire since the release not the turkish educational system.

save your words to pdx

 

[Haydar]

I'm not that familiar with the timeline of changes to Ottoman dominions, but if they lost those provinces that are free beyliks in 1444, in 1402, that's 42 years or so.
Then we have to ask how long should those cores be there, or more so, what do the cores represent?
My first assumption was that a core represents the administrative structures put in place by the state to make that province an effective part of the land revenue etc.
How long should these structures, or other arrangements be in place after the province has been lost? 40 years sounds like a lot.

If I am not mistaken, in EU4 you lose a core if you don't attempt to regain your core for 50 years. So they should be still cores if they were already cored. I am thinking in game mechanics. The only argument would be "they were not cored yet when they were lost". Their control over the lands lasted 5-7 years.

Timur is irrelevant here. The point of contention is whether the Ottoman Empire effectively controlled the territory of the 1444 beyliks prior to 1402. You might make the argument that the beyliks were akin to EU4 vassals, or probably more closely tributaries, but to suggest they were formally part of the Ottoman state apparatus is akin to arguing that the HRE effectively

You do have a point (unlike your initial post; and it is easier to debate without the lols), but we also have a solid France in EU4 1444 you know. Candar and Karaman were both soundly beaten by Bayezid in the 1390s. He conquered Kastamonu and vassalized Candar limited by Sinop in 1395. He conquered Konya and Karaman in 1397 and executed the Karamanoglu Beg. You shouldn't take borders in historical maps claiming to be exact. A border in the 15th century is an approximation and show conquests mostly. States are not that much states as we know of either. Usually empires controlled some land, but couldn't effectively control all of it with full institutions, so instead they rented it to third parties (some sort of land lords) for some tax loss. That is represented in game by the autonomy mechanic. EU4 is making a compromise between historical notions (state, control, government) and a modern guy's understanding of it, which are actually a bit far apart.

Bayezid indeed conquered Malatya by 1399, so the map is right; but these conquests lead to the war with Timur and Malatya shouldn't be considered Ottoman land at that point, so you are right too.

Reconsidering my point, I agree removal of Ottoman cores from Karaman and Candar is not historically that unfair. It is better if they get claims by events.

 

[Baton793]

how many developer diaries should we expect before the update?

bout 20

 

[Grand Historian]

but we also have a solid France in EU4 1444 you know.

Something the majority of the forums agree should not be.

Nitpick aside, I agree with your and Chamboozer's posts wholeheartedly.

 

[Gouda_boy]

Looking at the all the DDs over the past weeks, I must say I am really excited for this upcoming expansion. The Near/Middle East never really piqued my interest, but you guys are really going all out to make this great DLC and patch. The whole region (including Caucasia) are going to be so much more exciting and diverse, it will certainly be a treat to experience.

LONG RANT WARNING:
Also, I personally feel the removal of cores for the Ottomans is not a bad thing, as there are most likely missions to add claims. Anyway, I feel part of the larger purpose of the game is not Hyper-Realism which everyone complaining about the Ottos is pretty much hinting at. Think of other regions! France doesn't always survive and can lose the 100 year war, Spain doesn't always form, Burgundy can become a Great Power, Teutonic Order can take over Poland. All of India always changes, Sometimes the Indian superpower is Vija, Bahman, Malwa, Delhi, Bengal, Orissa. Until of course 3rd Rome, Muscovy wasn't always super strong, and until MoH, Ming would sometimes Explode like a supernova (Muscovy/Russia and Ming should really be fixed too). This list represents the diversity of the game's PLAUSIBLE outcomes, and just like these, the Devs are making it so there will be other PLAUSIBLE outcomes in the Middle/Near East, instead of the Ottomans always being the breadwinner. Multiple different outcomes will be amazing to see among the AI, as it is always fun to see Austria conquer all of France.

This is not to say the Ottomans will never live up to their strength as it was in reality, but alternative worlds are MEANT to be possible. Just like all the other situations I mentioned, the Ottoman outcome will be the trending outcome (Trend Outcome: the most likely outcome, but does not always occur, just like Castile forming a union with Aragon and eventually forming Spain is the MOST LIKELY, but it doesn't always happen). It is more or less to diversify the game and certain outcomes. Using this logic, there should of course, be more plausible outcomes in places like the British Isles and the Indonesian Archipelago (Add another country or two dangit, it seems every game will probably convert Majapahit, Sunda, Kutai, and all of them to Sunni, but that is yet to be seen :/)

Lastly, with all the arguments about the Caliph, I side with there should be some kind of mechanic like this, perhaps similar to MoH mechanics, however no one starts as Caliph, and the path to becoming Caliph would be long and difficult, and other countries can rival this claim, but should be something that is achievable. People need to stop viewing EU4 as some game made directly from a bunch of history textbooks, but rather as a game that flows and changes based on whatever circumstances that occur within it.

Building some kind of Public Domestic Support and Foreign Support mechanic on a button like HRE and EoC button is not far from a possiblity. Domestic Support could be based on religious unity, Tolerance of the True Faith, converting provinces, as well as as Piety and even the culture of the nation (Pious nations have more Public Support). However, making the Public Support Mechanic would be a challenge, unless a general Population mechanic were put in place.

Foreign Support would simply be other Sunni or Shia nations that accept the Caliph as the true and rightful one. Foreign Support could be based on military strength, opinion of the country, and whether they share the same faith (normal rivals will never support the Caliph). These countries could be treated similar to those of tributary states. then if a nation desires to claim to be the rightful Caliph, Muslim nations can choose which Claimant to support (Either the Current Caliph, or the Rival Claimant) and if the Rival Claimant can garner more Foreign Support (Supporters of the Rival Claimant have HUGE opinion Malus with current Caliph, They become the new Caliph, while the previous Caliph will gain a CB to reclaim their lost title.

(P.S. the Rival Claimant will not have any Public Support, since they do not "own" the Caliph Title). You can only Claim the Caliph Title if you own Qurtubah (Cordoba), Tunis, Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, or Tabriz. Low Domestic Support would garner Civil wars and other drawbacks (Stability hits, Discipline and morale hits to military, opinion malusus from other nations (like "X's People do not desire a Caliphate" or something like that), trade reduction, production reduction (Basically low public support would give some of these drawbacks, but NO public support would grant all of these drawbacks)

I don't really have any ideas for decisions that could be made, but now I feel i should make this a proper suggestion :3....

One more thing! something should really be done about the divide of Sunni and Shia, they DO NOT GET ALONG! maybe add a -1 or even -2 tolerance of heretics to Muslim nations??

 

[Chamboozer]

People need to stop viewing EU4 as some game made directly from a bunch of history textbooks, but rather as a game that flows and changes based on whatever circumstances that occur within it.

Sure, to some degree, but people literally "learn" history from this game. Whatever Paradox puts in the game will impact how people view the past. So Paradox should put its effort toward exploring mechanics that represent things relevant to the time period. If they include consequential Caliphate mechanics, then many people will come to believe that competition for the title of Caliph was an important element of Muslim politics during this period, which is not true. They will learn false history and build incorrect ideas about the past.

 

[moscal]

Sultan of OE had caliph title but when Sultan call muslims to jihad against Tsardom - lack of reaction of russian muslims. Muslim folks of OE also ignored it (religious fervor was very weak). In this time world had many caliphes in this same time (eg. Sokoto and OE) but... this did not create problems

Mechanism of Caliphate don't have sense in EU4 time.