EU4 - Development Diary - 19th of September 2017

[Gouda_boy]

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.

I understand, I myself try to learn what I can from this game, but there are certainly things in this game that should be obvious were never real IRL, which is why the Caliphate, if made an option as I said, should be a long and difficult mechanic to open up and begin using (The caliphate would not be a starting mechanic but rather a formed mechanic, which would provide a compromise to help people understand that there was a lingering desire and possibility for a renewed Caliphate, but one that never came to fruition, but It could with AI luck or player interference.

and same can go to Moscal, it is not necessarily in the title itself that I am fighting for, but rather, the mechanism OF the title, which is why it would be so strenuous to achieve. But I understand that many nations CLAIMED the title of Caliph, but none were taken all that seriously. However, this can be rerouted by showing military prowess in wars to gain foreign acceptance, perhaps a special CB to "remove X nations Caliphate claims" proving yourself against all other claimants, you were the better, stronger claimant, meaning you must be the true Caliph (in guidance to begin forming the Caliphate)

 

[moscal]

was a lingering desire and possibility for a renewed Caliphate, but one that never came to fruition,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokoto_Caliphate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate#Abbasid_Caliphate_of_Cairo_.281261.E2.80.931517.29

 

[Old Tercio]

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.

I agree pdx are making people believe that Prussia was a machine, while its history it had humiliating defeats and their war machine didn't start until post EUIV era, many people learn from this game and take the notion that EUIV is a game where everything is based on accurate historical facts.

 

[caedussl]

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

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

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.

I don't think that is incompatible with the position I outlined. Ottoman's never exercised effectively control over these areas. "Annex" is a very poor word choice by those historians. Subjugated is better, given that all those "annexed territories" maintained either their dynasties/governance structures, etc. It's especially apparent when you compare these events to the conquests after the mid-15th century, where the Ottoman's displaced existing leaders. What they did in the late 14th century amounts to subjugation of lesser-lords, and the fact such subjugation lasted so briefly points to lack of effective Ottoman control of these areas.

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.

Solid France is ahistorical but done so for gameplay reasons. I can understand the reasoning in that case, but I cannot understand the reasoning for a similar analogue to be true for the Ottomans. I believe it's less historical to have autonomy represent the late and shortlived conquests as "autonomy". Yes, the late 14th/early 15th century has a very different conception of a state than we know today, but the game if rife with examples of places where one nation exercised some control, but otherwise were de facto run by another.

I agree, the map is right under that definition, but I believe it's too simplistic and not the one appropriate for our purposes. Most people who see that map aren't going to stop and think that territory represents something different back then. They're going to look at it and think that the Ottoman's effectively controlled all their territory, when the reality is they didn't. There is a reason the conquered beyliks quickly resumed full control after Timur routed Bayezid. If there is an argument for the Ottoman's to have cores because of these conquests, then England should have quite a few more cores on France.

As I said originally, events is my preferred way of giving claims back to the Ottomans, ideally after the City of World's Desire Mission is complete. In this sense, it's both historical (because the Ottoman's pursued full and true annexation after this) and logical. Permanent claims should represent some sort of legitimacy over an area. With Russia's, they are the empire of all the Rus, and get claims appropriate. For Mandate of Heaven permanent claims, it again makes sense because the nation that holds the mandate has legitimacy to hold all of China. By taking Constantinople, the Ottomans have a legitimate claim to all the beyliks.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

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

What about "Outlander"? Aren't all Scots chiseled, sexy gods among men who valiantly fight for the Stuart?

 

[petertel123]

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.

You can't expect video games or movies to accurately teach people about history. They will always be full with inaccuracies because their main goal is to entertain, rather than to educate.

 

[Chamboozer]

You can't expect video games or movies to accurately teach people about history. They will always be full with inaccuracies because their main goal is to entertain, rather than to educate.

So? I can still encourage them to aim for accuracy. My point is that the choices Paradox makes have real consequences for historical education. The fact that the game has and always will have many inaccuracies does not mean that there is no use in trying to correct it.

Like it or not, Paradox games are not only games, they are also an educational tool. Paradox is vastly superior to most companies with regard to its care for historical accuracy and, ironically, it's precisely this fact which makes their presentation of history more important than most. People trust them to get things right, and probably assume whatever they see in EUIV is more likely to be historically accurate than most other given video games out there. I'm only trying to encourage that accuracy.

But I understand that many nations CLAIMED the title of Caliph, but none were taken all that seriously. However, this can be rerouted by showing military prowess in wars to gain foreign acceptance, perhaps a special CB to "remove X nations Caliphate claims" proving yourself against all other claimants, you were the better, stronger claimant, meaning you must be the true Caliph (in guidance to begin forming the Caliphate)

It's not that states claimed the title and weren't taken seriously by others, its that the title wasn't being used in a universal sense. When the Ottomans referred to themselves as caliph in the 15th century, it wasn't a claim to superiority over other Muslim rulers. They weren't saying "I am the Caliph, and the Abbasid guy in Cairo is not the Caliph", they were just using it as a rhetorical device. That's what I mean when I say that it had an entirely different sense during this period. Its meaning changed over time and meant different things to different people, of course, but it was only ever one of many legitimizing rhetorical tools used by the Ottomans, it was never on its own the basis of an enforceable claim to universal authority over the Muslim world.

Now, maybe if a dynasty founded by a descendant of the Prophet somehow established a powerful empire in the Middle East, things might have turned out differently. I don't think it would have been impossible for the classical concept of the Caliphate to have been somehow revived during this period. However designing a mechanic around it gives too much weight to something which, in reality, never happened despite the Ottomans meeting the conditions which people who put forth ideas for this sort of thing often use as its basis. In reality, Ottoman legitimacy was derived from its dynastic authority based on Turkic and Iranian conceptions of kingship, and its ability to carry out religious functions such as upholding the Sharia and protecting the pilgrimage routes to Mecca. The Caliphate didn't really figure into it. It just wasn't very important and it didn't hurt Ottoman legitimacy at all to have other rulers using the title too. Who cares if some other ruler is calling himself Caliph? The Ottomans were the ones who made sure pilgrims were safe, and that's what really mattered to people.

 

[Gouda_boy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokoto_Caliphate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate#Abbasid_Caliphate_of_Cairo_.281261.E2.80.931517.29

I mean a lingering desire for the "true" Caliphate, these were certainly claims that were taken more seriously than others, but the existence of the actual Caliphate was lacking from these nations and they more so relied on the titles of Caliph and Caliphate, rather than being proclaimed as such. The Ottomans claim had support from taking the holy cities (which i should add to my previous post), but the claim was fairly weak before then. I don't even need to get into Sokoto, as it formed (as a caliphate) at the end of EU4's timeframe, and again, it was done for the title, which I argue once again, a CB to remove other nations claims to the title could reroute the issue, Foreign recognition of the Caliph comes to down to a multitude of things, and stronger support comes from owning any of the cities that were considered important in the early Caliphates (though I don't know about Tabriz or other cities I did not list), and strengthening your own claim, to which Sokoto never owned any of them, making their claim as the "true" Caliph, well... dumb.

As for the Abbasids, they WERE a "true" Caliphate, whose existence was muddied under the Mamluk Sultanate, and their Claim as Caliph was dying, thus to revive it, remove other claims and stengthen your own.

 

[Thaif]

@DDRJake So now that the Tribal Federation government is becoming a unique government type and those that don't have it are left with a binary choice of Tribal Monarchy or Tribal Despotism would it be reasonable to make it so that the Tribal Democracy government was made available from the government switching screen(since it isn't there right now) like Tribal Federation was.
I don't think it would drastically change things for the most part and would offer an interesting alternative by reforming into a Oligarch Republic straight away from a tribal government, something people would undoubtedly like to play around with.

Tangentially to that the bonuses for an Oligarch Republic are a bit...weird and anemic(+5% National Tax and -5% Stability cost) compared to the other republican governments. Why is that? Giving them a +5% to both of those would seem more in line with the rest in the group, especially since they lack a unique mechanic in of themselves.

 

[Gouda_boy]

It's not that states claimed the title and weren't taken seriously by others, its that the title wasn't being used in a universal sense. When the Ottomans referred to themselves as caliph in the 15th century, it wasn't a claim to superiority over other Muslim rulers. They weren't saying "I am the Caliph, and the Abbasid guy in Cairo is not the Caliph", they were just using it as a rhetorical device. That's what I mean when I say that it had an entirely different sense during this period. Its meaning changed over time and meant different things to different people, of course, but it was only ever one of many legitimizing rhetorical tools used by the Ottomans, it was never on its own the basis of an enforceable claim to universal authority over the Muslim world.

Again, I must say, which is why opening the mechanic and reviving the Caliphate would be a long and painful task. it isn't so much in the title itself, but the mechanics of the title. But seeing what you say, would it be considered at all to hold missions that are meant to bring back what the title meant? like a, title revival? to make the world see that the Caliph title should mean "I have power over all the Muslim World!". There are plenty of other ways around these issues, but does this make sense? Could it also be made similar to the Papacy, where the pope oversees the entire church, but is not in its entire control?


Though, you have a good point that such a mechanic that would rarely pop up is too much weight, perhaps there could be a simpler rework of the unification of Islam decision to incorporate the Caliphate. But a full mechanic is just a fun idea, don't you think? What, you wouldn't have fun with such a mechanic to do shenanigans with?

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

RIP White and Black sheep, who went from razing to grazing.

Very much this.

Both idea sets (and abilities) are pathetically weak by comparison with horde ideas/gov (and razing) which ofc makes these starts so much weaker and a (speed 5) snoozefest by comparison with 1.22.

I just hope Circassia is allowed to switch back to Tribal despotism in 1.23 or else they´ve just ruined yet another fun country.

 

[Kalderus]

It was their land and they lost after the battle of Ankara at 1402.

Then why doesn't Byzantium still have cores on land in Asia Minor + various Greek Islands it lost less than a century before 1444 (and in some cases, as recently as 1399)? There's no consistency on who has cores/claims on what and never has been (although for several patches, the running gag was to nerf Byzantium into the ground by removing its cores, because apparently Wiz hated seeing Byzantine separatists spawn and ressurect it in Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Naxos, Chios (or even Caffa) etc.).

 

[seriousgigi]

Then why doesn't Byzantium still have cores on land in Asia Minor + various Greek Islands it lost less than a century before 1444 (and in some cases, as recently as 1399)? There's no consistency on who has cores/claims on what and never has been (although for several patches, the running gag was to nerf Byzantium into the ground by removing its cores, because apparently Wiz hated seeing Byzantine separatists spawn and ressurect it in Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Naxos, Chios (or even Caffa) etc.).

but we still see the greeks who form greece in cyprus in 1500s there is a HUGE problem about sieging castles in islands so you can pick the knights and set game speed x5 then leave for a dinner for hours.

when you return you pretty much see your country still exists in 1700s

@DDRJake, are you gonna fix this?

 

[Emre Yigit]

Not all that overwhelmed by the ovine changes. And do the Ottos get claims now, does anyone know?

 

[fksahin]

Then why doesn't Byzantium still have cores on land in Asia Minor + various Greek Islands it lost less than a century before 1444 (and in some cases, as recently as 1399)? There's no consistency on who has cores/claims on what and never has been (although for several patches, the running gag was to nerf Byzantium into the ground by removing its cores, because apparently Wiz hated seeing Byzantine separatists spawn and ressurect it in Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Naxos, Chios (or even Caffa) etc.).

If you're comparing 40 years old cores to a century before ones (and even older ones), I just can send my congrats to you nothing else to say lol

And an addition to Byzantium situation in the 1444s, they were had only city of Constantinople and some castles around it. Even in the Morea there was several city states and brothers and cousins of current emperor were ruling these areas. So they didn't have any power or disire to have any core or demand on anywhere but just hold Constantinople.

 

[Anthedon]

Not sure that Ottoman nerf is not an elaborate ruse and next week it will be revealed that they get free cores on the whole planet.

 

[RedSpectre]

To be honest I agree there should be a negitive consequence for the tribal federation. Perhaps under 25 allegiance opens up a civil war disaster and zero allegiance will give you plus 1 unrest and -2 legitimacy? Those aren't even that hard in terms of nerfs but I do think it'd be more reasonable than pure buff

 

[1stcast]

Hurrah for minor Ottoblob nerf. They're still pretty easy claims with the missions, but I think it makes sense, if a core is meant to represent land that used to belong to the country. Permanent claims might still have be merited, I could understand them as a reward if Ottomans get City of World's desire.

Tribal Federation also sounds like a neat government type. Wonder if it fits any other country in the region? The Arabian tribes come to mind. Glad to see those changes are free.

they did used to own that land it was lost before the start of the game

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

Next week cannot come fast enough I cannot wait for PERSIA!!!!!!!!!!! This is the Dawn of the Lions, This is the Rise of Persia!"

 

[Demetrios]

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.

If you posted a map dated merely 10 years earlier in 1390, it would be quite different in Anatolia. The Ottomans captured Candar in 1391 (and even then didn't annex the state fully) and Karaman only in 1397. Those conquests were quite transitory in nature (11 and 5 years respectively) given that some are claiming they should be Ottoman cores. In game terms, would the Ottomans have had enough time and ADM (what would be Bayezid's ADM stat?) to have fully cored them before losing them again in 1402?