• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 12th of September 2017

Welcome all to another fine Tuesday and its accompanying EU4 Dev Diary. In last week's diary we mentioned that we would take a look at changes to Islam in the upcoming expansion which will be released alongside update 1.23. As we have made clear, we're giving a lot of love to the Muslim world in 1.23 and as such let's look at changes we've made to Islam and Piety.

We'll start with looking at the Piety bar. As a mechanic, it has remained fairly untouched for EU4's existence. Few would doubt that the Piety bonuses are strong, but they can't be called the most engaging of the game's content. In 1.23, we've visually spruced up the Piety bar, introducing terms for both ends of the spectrum, with low Piety being called Mysticism and high piety being depicted as devotion towards Legalism. Additionally, Piety events have been rewritten to reflect different the types of piety (Mystic vs Legalistic) rather than trying to measure "how pious" a ruler was. We have also taken this opportunity to weed out some of the older events that were not up to our current standards, with book burning no longer being a Pious action.

piety bar.jpg


Additionally, for expansion owners your passive Piety bonus can be passed up in favour of one-off effects depending on your Pious leanings. At -75 piety or lower, you can call on Religious Followers to bolster your manpower, gaining 2 years' of manpower growth. At 75 or greater Piety, you are able to Enforce Faithful Adherence for an immediate loss of 2 corruption. These actions will push your piety back towards the centre by 50, so consider carefully if the one-time action is worth foregoing the Pious effect you have built up.

Additionally, each Islamic nation will follow one Muslim School of Law. The School that your nation adheres to is predetermined and cannot be changed, or for new nations/converts, chosen at your spawning/conversion. Each School grants its own bonus and has a relationship with each other school, ranging between Respect, Ambivalent and Hate. While Ambivalence grants no particular effect, nations from Schools with a mutual respect or hatered will find relations and diplomatic acceptance strengthened or shakier respectively. The relationships between schools are harmed by large scale and prolonged wars between larger nations of those schools, and conversely can be improved by longstanding, trusting alliances between them.

schools.jpg


Schools and their bonuses are as follows:

religious_schools = {
#Sunnis
hanafi_school = {
technology_cost = -0.05
}
hanbali_school = {
ae_impact = -0.1
}
maliki_school = {
development_cost = -0.1
}
shafii_school = {
merchants = 1
}
#Shias
ismaili_school = {
horde_unity = 1
legitimacy = 1
republican_tradition = 0.5
devotion = 1
}
jafari_school = {
shock_damage = 0.1
}
zaidi_school = {
shock_damage_received = -0.1
}
}

relations degrade.jpg


So while your own School is set in stone, we allow Islamic nations to Invite Scholars from other Schools. Assuming an alliance and high relations with another nation, you will be able to spend 50 Admin points to invite a Scholar who will give you an extra effect in addition to your own School's for 20 years.

invite scholar.jpg


Inviting a scholar from an opposing faith's School (Such as a Sunni nation trying to invite a Zaidi Scholar) will require low piety, although the Ibadis are exempt from this.

Additionally, as I like to do, let's have a look at Another region of the world and how trade goods have changed. In fact, let's just grab all of western/Central Europe!

W europe trade goods .jpg


With Piety and Muslim Schools covered today, we shall spend the next week sheepishly looking at two nations in particular who had a profound effect on the Middle East in the 15th Century.
 
This is so wrong.

There is no problem between madahib. This is not a historical thing.

The opposition mysticism vs legalism is wrong too.

Imam Malik (r) said, "Whoever studies jurisprudence [fiqh] and didn't study Sufism (tasawwuf) will be corrupted; and whoever studied tasawwuf and didn't study fiqh will become a heretic; and whoever combined both will be reach the Truth." This saying is mentioned and explained in the book of the scholar 'Ali al-Adawi with the explanation of Imam Abil-Hassan, a scholar of fiqh, vol. 2, p. 195.
 
Any way to represent the Islamic denial of greek philosophy and Western technolog? There was a death penalty for owning a printing press in the Ottoman Empire in the 1550s. Observatories were also torn down in the centuries after the Islamic Golden Age. Maybe it can be addressed by a slow institution spread.
 
I think most important thing to do in this content is reworking the issue of Caliphate, which is now one of the poorest things in the game. Becoming a Caliph is just a small decision that requires only some military skill. Its NOT enough to have high military skill to become a Caliph, don't believe ISIS leader al-Baghdadi at this matter! ;)
In current shape it is very ahistorical (there can be 32 Caliphs at one time, if your heir isnt military skilled than your nation temporarily loses Caliphate, etc.) Here's some modest sugestion how it should look like:
Decision should have high requirements: controlling Mecca, Medina, Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, having at least 1000 development, completing religious ideas. Should also be permament (not declared separately by each ruler!) Its outcome could be: Becoming a new nation with new ideas (you made it possible to restore Roman Empire, I think restoring Caliphate was far, far more likely)/changing government type/or even creating special system similar to the chinese empire. I would replace with this decision the current decisions to form Arabia (there was no such thing like Arabia with Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, there was a plan, but after wwII, its 100% sure that any Muslim leader who would fulfill the requirements to form Arabia would become a Caliph), or to unify Islamic World.
Please consider this, I think this issue is far more important for the Islamic World than reshaping political situation in Yemen.
PS: I know that some leaders in history declared themselves Caliphs without fulfilling these requirements, but that some african warlord like Askia Muhammad of Songhai (or al-Baghdadi nowadays) declares himself a Caliph, it doesn't mean anyone treats him seriously, more or less like spanish king holding title of king of Jerusalem or Caesar declaring himself son of Venus.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Someone at Paradox must really like Islam, because it's being buffed tremendously this patch. Conversion through nodes? More powerful piety systems? Free corruption decrease/manpower boost? Nation wide bonuses based on schools? Damn. Completely throws other OP religions like Nahuatl and Hindu off the list.

it is not close to most powerful piety system. let me say a thing for you, i've never seen that AI chooses those piety events with logic so whenever i look AI countries' piety is about center. (no bonus for anything) so they almost never get benefits from piety system.

i don't really understand paradox, when you do that for orthodoxes you added click and choose system but when you so-called improving piety in islam you still insist to continue with that ridiculous bar.

i expect a clickable piety system (like you did for all religions except islam) not the one changes along with the events. AI and most players can't even control this.
 
This is so wrong.

There is no problem between madahib. This is not a historical thing.

The opposition mysticism vs legalism is wrong too.

Imam Malik (r) said, "Whoever studies jurisprudence [fiqh] and didn't study Sufism (tasawwuf) will be corrupted; and whoever studied tasawwuf and didn't study fiqh will become a heretic; and whoever combined both will be reach the Truth." This saying is mentioned and explained in the book of the scholar 'Ali al-Adawi with the explanation of Imam Abil-Hassan, a scholar of fiqh, vol. 2, p. 195.

Historically, the fiqh schools were often in political and academic conflict with one another, vying for favor with the ruling government in order to have their representatives appointed to legislative and especially judiciary positions. Geographer and historian Al-Muqaddasi once satirically categorized competing madhahib with contrasting personal qualities: Hanafites, highly conscious of being hired for official positions, appeared deft, well-informed, devout and prudent; Malikites, dull and obtuse, confined themselves to observance of prophetic tradition; Shafi'ites were shrewd, impatient, understanding and quick-tempered; Zahirites haughty, irritable, loquacious and well-to-do; Shi'ites, entrenched and intractable in old rancor, enjoyed riches and fame; and Hanbalites, anxious to practice what they preached, were charitable and inspiring. While such descriptions were almost assuredly humorous in nature, ancient differences were less to do with actual doctrinal opinions than with maneuvering for adherents and influence.
 
This is so wrong.

There is no problem between madahib. This is not a historical thing.

The opposition mysticism vs legalism is wrong too.

Imam Malik (r) said, "Whoever studies jurisprudence [fiqh] and didn't study Sufism (tasawwuf) will be corrupted; and whoever studied tasawwuf and didn't study fiqh will become a heretic; and whoever combined both will be reach the Truth." This saying is mentioned and explained in the book of the scholar 'Ali al-Adawi with the explanation of Imam Abil-Hassan, a scholar of fiqh, vol. 2, p. 195.
Then the system represents when you put legalism ahead of mysticism, or mysticism ahead of legalism. Perhaps there should be benefits to striking a balance between the two, like Karma.
 

Then an internal competition. Of course juste in some places like Egypt (because North Africa, for example, always followed Imam Malik when sunni). I don't know why a country should hate another country just because they have different madhab. No true conflict because they all recognize each other.

If you absolutely want a conflict, then between Ahl Al Hadeeth and Ahl Al-Ra'y.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahl_ar-Ra'y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahl_al-Hadith
 

I agree with this
This is so wrong.

There is no problem between madahib. This is not a historical thing.

The opposition mysticism vs legalism is wrong too.

Imam Malik (r) said, "Whoever studies jurisprudence [fiqh] and didn't study Sufism (tasawwuf) will be corrupted; and whoever studied tasawwuf and didn't study fiqh will become a heretic; and whoever combined both will be reach the Truth." This saying is mentioned and explained in the book of the scholar 'Ali al-Adawi with the explanation of Imam Abil-Hassan, a scholar of fiqh, vol. 2, p. 195.

I agree. I personally am not aware of states politically having their relationships defined based on which Madahib they followed. Certainly the Shia-Sunni split was used during the timeframe of this game to serve geo-political causes, the most obvious example being the Safaviya and how they sought to entrench their position in Persia by way of converting the masses to Shiaism. However I am unaware of any instances where Hanafi rulers discriminated against Malikis or vice versa. Theologians are a different thing of course and they most certainly clashed, but states and the masses have never discriminated against each other based on the Madahib being followed AFAIK.
 
Norfolk is very flat and agricultural, and mostly definitely not industrial.

Norfolk is in a very weird state anyway in EU4. Only Gwynedd and Cumbria have lower development, when Norwich was the second largest city after London in England for a long time and an important trading hub for wool with the rest of Europe. As you mentioned Norfolk as a county was also important in agriculture, so either wool or grain would make much more sense as trade good
 
Looks like Theodoro is getting a new flag! I find them an interesting country because we know so little about Theodoro's culture and society...a lot of what we do know about them from second-hand sources.
 
Interesting DD; thanks.

Can you elaborate on how Ibadi nations differ from Shia and Sunni some more?

PS: Is the turban-wearing older man on one of the alerts in previous DDs related to Ibadi, maybe? :p
If you refer to the guy with red cap on his turban, that's a qizilbash headwear, so I assume something to do with azerbaijan region?
 
I agree. I personally am not aware of states politically having their relationships defined based on which Madahib they followed. Certainly the Shia-Sunni split was used during the timeframe of this game to serve geo-political causes, the most obvious example being the Safaviya and how they sought to entrench their position in Persia by way of converting the masses to Shiaism. However I am unaware of any instances where Hanafi rulers discriminated against Malikis or vice versa. Theologians are a different thing of course and they most certainly clashed, but states and the masses have never discriminated against each other based on the Madahib being followed AFAIK.
As far as the Madahib I agree as well that making it a diplomatic effect seems strange. Still, if it makes Muslim nations more fun and challenging to play and adds diversity to game play I'm willing to overlook that - we'll have to see how it works out in practice :)
 
I am 200% impressed with this. I totally didn't expect this revamp to Islam. Now buff Buddhism pls

Also, wouldn't this be an opportunity to add those CK2 Converter heresies? Yazidi, Zikri, Druze etc. Or they wouldn't fit in the School flavor?
 
As far as the Madahib I agree as well that making it a diplomatic effect seems strange. Still, if it makes Muslim nations more fun and challenging to play and adds diversity to game play I'm willing to overlook that - we'll have to see how it works out in practice :)
I'm just brainstorming here, but maybe the political effects could be affected by the legalism (or "piety") of the government: When a government/court supports high legalism, or "orthodox" practices, that could also signify the extent the state is using that certain legal school to justify it's existence/stance against another state. This way religion and the school of law is made a political tool to justify conflict and mobilize people... ?
 
I am 200% impressed with this. I totally didn't expect this revamp to Islam. Now buff Buddhism pls

Also, wouldn't this be an opportunity to add those CK2 Converter heresies? Yazidi, Zikri, Druze etc. Or they wouldn't fit in the School flavor?
Yazidi and Druze are different religions altogether, so they shouldn't be added to Islam for sure ;)

The Zikri branch of mysticism also goes beyond anything represented in the game, since as far as I'm aware they weren't much of a political influence (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdavia#Zikri_Mahdavis)