Tinto Flavour #12 - 4th of April 2025 - Ilkhanate & Persia & Chagatai & Rise of Timur

[ArVass]

View attachment 1276376
The counters for enemies kills and cities razed are there just for flavour, they don’t have any mechanical purpose.​

What about the killcount and raze count making Timur more dreaded? Countries more likely to surrender, lower opinion, less trust, etc. Sounds natural to me (or are those simply covered by basic game features? Like, I imagine killing and enslaving hundreds of thousands of people does already ruin a country's reputation in the game, no?)

 

[uncle sia]

Seriously? After all this time persia is still reduced to buzzwords of le culture and le crossroads and le carpets and then formed into a generic safavid state? Why does no one at pdx actually research iran/persia? Why must entire DLCs of it in other games be limited to less than wikipedia? Idk if it will anywhere but i must take some time to give you a very broad idea of what persia actually was, before and after islam and after the invasion.

The state of aryans

Ērānšahr, the state of iranians that the sassanid dynasty ruled was a ethnoreligious centered corporate society strcutured around zoroastrian iranian ethos, it was by no means an society of carpet riding, shisha smoking mystic poets. It was a society with stricts laws, systemic stratification and religious dogma, the king of kings reigned over an state of the ēr people(hence ēr+ān(plural)šahr(state, nation, kingdom etc))who were unified through blood and worship of ahura mazda and yazatas, who would fight to defend and expand their realm when necessary.

The Fall

When ērānšahr fell to islamic invasion, all of that was lost. The social structure of iranian people was broken, their customs removed and their believes taken away, only to be filled by the new religion. These people had somewhat kept their language and a bit of their heritage, but they no longer had their state and their sovereignty, they had became part of the ummah and subjects of the caliphate.

The sultanates

At some point, muslim governors of iranian descent under ummah who fought against other iranians seeking independence climbed the ladders of servitude to became emirs, powerful but still without sovereignty and subject to ummah and caliphate. Another type of governorship of ummah provinces was the sultanate, which had more power and priviliges compared to emirates but was still officially subject to the caliph. This started to change when the turkic sultanates of persia appeared, these sultans, while still religiously subject to the guidance from caliphate, started to slowly not derive their political legitimacy and identity from the caliph. They started to turn their title of sultan to a form of sovereign monarchy derived not from allah who doesnt allow it but from the realm they ruled and its old kings. They started to link their monarchy to iranian kingship before islam and so in a way, kept the state of iran half asleep, but not dead for the centuries to come. the society of iran at this point is at a crossroads, these iranian speaking muslims are both the subjects of ummah and also the turkic sultans who claim their legitimacy from the kings of ērānšahr, this era is when the confusions remaining from the intermezzo culminate in a mess of an identity that gives birth to this whole carpet, mystic poet, crossroads etc cliche picture.

Now we arrive at the era of the game which is when the nuances of a true and detailed persia of the agw must be fashioned.

The mongols, a paradox of people

The mongols who at first devastated persia and massacred its people, doubled down on what the turkic sultans started with even more emphasis on iranian political identity. They were mongols from mongolia, but politically they were iranian, they were muslims but not even religious subjects of any caliphate given that they themselves were the ones who destroyed it. So the identity of ilkhanates is a mess at this point, fitting given that they arent a very advanced people and historically they fracture and die out, but what if they didnt? If they stay and advance, they must take a more sophisticated stance no? So what path in front of them will they take to fashion their empie...or perhaps some alternative ones...? Please take these into consideration pdx and try to expand on the area than mere buzzwords.

A defeated, humiliated and broken people

The mongol onslaught took more than just lives and tolls on the iranian people, it broke its very soul. Before settling down and trying to integrate in and double down on the iranian political identity the mongols were not kind at all to these people they conquered, these people who already lived in an state of confused mixture now had even that robbed from them. They were broken and the agony of early mongol rule led to several different social phenomenons. Some started independence movements like sarbedaran, some mystic orders with wildly different cultic practices came to existence, some even mimicked the ways of the mongols, among other things. Also some militant cults such as the late shia safawiya which transformed from a sufi mystic order to a shia military force. historically the safavids came out of this and seemingly unified the iranian lands under an iranian state, but that is false since the safavid state was more of a shia caliphate in iran the same way there was shia caliphate of cairo and sunni caliphates of levant, baghdad etc and ruled by people who identified as iranian even less than regular muslims of iran, but for the sake simplicity we'll also count that as persia, the point is that the safavids were far from the only and main possible candidate for a persian formable state and also pretty far from the cliche images as well. There must be other and actually immersive paths for iranians, will the iranians claim the sovereign heterodox sultanate of persia for themselves, taking the title of shahs? Or even go deeper and try to restore the ērānšahr in its full glory? Or the exact inverse to form a persian centered sunni caliphate?

These and other potential outcomes, with immersive detail and build up to them would be the real and actual flavour for persia. So although there definitively be DLCs in the future as always that flesh out, please at the very least include such bare minimum of flavour for this important region

 

[Oglesby]

The name appearing here is a portal to access the tooltip explaining the game concept and is consistent with literally everything else in the interface where the category or concept something belongs to appears in the header under the name. I understand the dislike some people have for the name but that's not a good justification for breaking the consistency in UI design (something you are correctly calling for more of generally) or for not explaining the concept.

Everything we know about IO is it not a game concept or mechanics, but instead a game design tool. It needs a tooltip as much as 'tooltips' needs a tooltip or 'army sprite' or 'flag'. To me it would be like grouping building types, unit types, RGOs, temporary things like supply depots and calling them 'buildable objects' and then putting that in blue on all their tooltips instead.

While I do appreciate consistency in the UI, not all their tooltips contain subtitles. 'Claim the Ilkhanan", "End Requirements", "Select Khorasan" are examples in this TT of tooltips (or popups?) that do not have a subtitle.

And I don't understand the position some people have of IOs being so unique they're somehow unconnectable as a group concept. If your friend was new to the game or reading the TTs and asked "what's an International Organization?" you could explain the concept to them and distinguish it from other mechanics; Paradox can equally explain the game concept of IOs in a tooltip.

I would tell them International Organizations is a "scriptable and extendable dynamic system and its container that replaces and now contains hard-coded bespoke mechanics". Though I would imaging that would probably ask me what the HRE, Autocephalous Patriarchates, Unions, or the Tatar Yoke were in game and I could explain the game mechanics without referring to IOs (or other IOs unless they were directly related).

Yes, we did have some hard-coded systems in previous games, like the Holy Roman Empire, but what we have here in Project Caesar is a completely dynamic system, 100% scriptable and extendable for modders, which allows for many of these, and with far more flavor.

Reread the intro (or even the TT removing IO and see if it is less understandable. Does it have to be obvious that these bespoke mechanics and hard-coded or scriptable?

Today will be an interesting day since we will be taking a look at the content we have for the Persian/Iranian region, including the Ilkhanate, and also at the content related to the Rise of Timur situation, which includes the flavour for the Chagatai Khanate.

Let’s start a bit differently today by first looking at the Īlkhānān, the in-game flavour name of the most commonly used Ilkhanate:

I see nothing here that makes this worse or less understandable (I do feel I didn't see that both this and the original appear to leave open the possibility of more than one Ilkhanate).

"Control groups" are the standard name from RTS games (and some other strategy games) and should probably be kept for consistency, assuming it is indeed related to control groups in those games. I assume 3 is on the icon because it's the 3rd control group.

This mention of 'control groups' and it seems a little counter to what I felt was the 'rts' usage.

All IOs have a quick-access button, a feature we call control groups, with their own icon (which, in the case of unique IOs, is unique, as you may see).

Here it makes it appear that the button is the control group and not the assignable hot-key (which now that I look it probably just the 3). This is what made me feel it was not the appropriate name and led to the other questions.

It also begets more questions such as:

1. as I do feel the 3 is on the 'icon' or 'button' is the key that is bound to it, will all other icons also have their bound keys shown? At first that might be good while learning but becomes clutter once you get the hang of it.
2. Is this a control group where I can select a couple of armies is there now a new 'quick access button with its own icon' added to the ui?
3. What happens when I split the armies into smaller armies are they still part of the control group?

 

[Ekyman]

Everything we know about IO is it not a game concept or mechanics, but instead a game design tool. It needs a tooltip as much as 'tooltips' needs a tooltip or 'army sprite' or 'flag'. To me it would be like grouping building types, unit types, RGOs, temporary things like supply depots and calling them 'buildable objects' and then putting that in blue on all their tooltips instead.

I would tell them International Organizations is a "scriptable and extendable dynamic system and its container that replaces and now contains hard-coded bespoke mechanics". Though I would imaging that would probably ask me what the HRE, Autocephalous Patriarchates, Unions, or the Tatar Yoke were in game and I could explain the game mechanics without referring to IOs (or other IOs unless they were directly related).

We've been on opposite sides of this in multiple threads and I don't think we're gonna convince each other here so I don't want to belabor the point too much. But basically I think the idea that IOs can only be grouped as a concept with reference to backend game dev stuff is wrong and I agree with Bisonmask's quite succint summation from another thread:

They're baskets of tags with unique interaction sets between each other. Or just look up how they were originally described in the TT. I'm not sure where the idea that these entities have no common traits comes from given they were explained to us through their common traits

Turn that first sentence into something a bit more formal and a bit more detailed and you have a tooltip. For something more directly related to writing a tooltip, take a look at the tooltip for the Special Status game concept in this TT. That's a sub-mechanic of the general IO mechanic, it clearly can have quite varied effects in different specific IOs, and yet the tooltip is quite helpful and informative despite the potential variety. The tooltip for IOs themselves doesn't have to be any different.

This mention of 'control groups' and it seems a little counter to what I felt was the 'rts' usage.
Here it makes it appear that the button is the control group and not the assignable hot-key (which now that I look it probably just the 3). This is what made me feel it was not the appropriate name and led to the other questions.

It also begets more questions such as:

1. as I do feel the 3 is on the 'icon' or 'button' is the key that is bound to it, will all other icons also have their bound keys shown? At first that might be good while learning but becomes clutter once you get the hang of it.
2. Is this a control group where I can select a couple of armies is there now a new 'quick access button with its own icon' added to the ui?
3. What happens when I split the armies into smaller armies are they still part of the control group?

I agree it's not totally clear how close they are to RTS control groups. However Johan's introduction of them (conveniently in the IO TT) is more informative here:

We have “control-groups” like every PDS game has had since EU1, and Stellaris added icons for quick selects… The one for Project Caesar can be pretty much anything in the game, and if you start as a member of an organization, you get a control group for it from the start.

This tells us a few things that align them with RTS control groups:

1. The icon shows the bound key (many RTSes also do this, and make those icons clickable as a secondary method of using the control groups; even for experienced players it can be good visual reminder of what numbers you assigned things to - especially useful as you may have totally different IOs available each game in PC)
2. "Pretty much anything" can be a control group
3. The focus on IOs having control groups is intentional as something they think is useful, but not an indication of control groups being especially tied to IOs

 

[Linbot#6018]

I can't help but feel like this map could use some work:

I think it would be better if the three claimants had different colours in this map mode, as right now, they don't feel like they're challenging each other. If anything, they look like allies.

I think part of the problem is that all of the mapmodes in this game are set up to have shading around the borders between different colours, and this effect is applied to ALL mapmodes, no matter what information they are conveying. It works for the political map, but infamously it makes the terrain, development, and market mapmodes ugly and hard to parse. I would say that it's still a problem here as well.

The visual language of the map suggests that the three leading claimants represent a blob which is homogenous for the purposes of this mapmode, since the shading is absent along their shared borders, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Luperdye]

I'm not a big fan of the possibility that a CB could have different costs for the defender and attacker. It will feel very unfair if you are waging a big war but the opponents do not have as much on the line as you do. Especially in multiplayer this will be frustrating.

 

[DingoWalley]

Can't wait to make the Georgian Ilkhanate!/joke

 

[king.kaiser7]

According to his claims, he was descendent of a common ancestor of the Borgijin dynasty. But we could create an event so when Temür becomes a ruler, the Gurkahni dynasty could be created from him.

Yes this would be better, as it would be weird playing the game into the late game and forming the Mughals and being the Borjigin Dynasty.

Best solution I can see is have Timur be the new head of the Gurkani Dynasty (this is what the Timurid/Mughal rulers referred to themselves as) and have him have some special trait like "descendent from Genghis Khan" to symbolise his old dynasty.

 

[king.kaiser7]

He married into it, not claiming descent from it.

Ah now the dynasty calling themselves "Gurkani" makes so much more sense. It means "son-in-law". Because he was the son-in-law to the Borjigin Khans.

 

[Koppel235]

Yes this would be better, as it would be weird playing the game into the late game and forming the Mughals and being the Borjigin Dynasty.

Best solution I can see is have Timur be the new head of the Gurkani Dynasty (this is what the Timurid/Mughal rulers referred to themselves as) and have him have some special trait like "descendent from Genghis Khan" to symbolise his old dynasty.

I think there should also be a puppet Chagataid Khan since Timur could take the mantle himself and he did put puppet khans.

 

[matfer13]

I really hope that the Ilkhanate country jas the same colour that it has in EU4

It's one of the best shades of orange!

 

[Cry_Havok]

So, what happens/can you take control of the Ilkhanate as say, Armenia or Georgia? Is there anything special for reuniting the Ilkhanate as a non-persian or non-muslim?

 

[SuperLexxe]

Ah now the dynasty calling themselves "Gurkani" makes so much more sense. It means "son-in-law". Because he was the son-in-law to the Borjigin Khans.

Timur could technically call himself a Borjigin, but that term didn't actually meant anything at the time. He was a descendant of Bodonchar, a common ancestor, but not a descendant of Chinggis, or Chinggis' brothers, which were the only things that mattered.

If you were a "borjigin", IE, a descendant of Bodonchar, you were kind of whatever in Mongol society, every clan had a somewhat famous ancestor.

But if you were a descendant of the golden family, which was Chinggis and his brothers, you were permanently a level above every other Mongol, and among the only ones who could claim title of Khan.

 

[slupie]

Timur could technically call himself a Borjigin, but that term didn't actually meant anything at the time. He was a descendant of Bodonchar, a common ancestor, but not a descendant of Chinggis, or Chinggis' brothers, which were the only things that mattered.

If you were a "borjigin", IE, a descendant of Bodonchar, you were kind of whatever in Mongol society, every clan had a somewhat famous ancestor.

But if you were a descendant of the golden family, which was Chinggis and his brothers, you were permanently a level above every other Mongol, and among the only ones who could claim title of Khan.

Do you think it makes sense to change the golden family from being Borjigin to being Chinggisid? I've seen that notation in a few places, but I'm not sure if it was used to refer to his brothers' descendants as well.

 

[Metz]

Actually, we're simulating this dynamically. On the one hand, you can elevate your country to Empire rank, using the country rank feature. On the other hand, we have a disaster called 'Decline of Empire', used to simulate the instability and decline of historical empires under certain conditions; the illustration of the last Tinto Talks was the illustration of this disaster.

Are there specific institutions or values an empire can adopt to save itself from decline?

 

[SuperLexxe]

Do you think it makes sense to change the golden family from being Borjigin to being Chinggisid? I've seen that notation in a few places, but I'm not sure if it was used to refer to his brothers' descendants as well.

That's the thing. Chinggisid would not encompass his brothers, while Borjigin does.

There is ofcourse the "Altan Urug", the golden family, but doesn't sound that great as a dynastic name. So we're left with Borjigin, even if it doesn't make sense.

 

[Streamlet]

That's the thing. Chinggisid would not encompass his brothers, while Borjigin does.

There is ofcourse the "Altan Urug", the golden family, but doesn't sound that great as a dynastic name. So we're left with Borjigin, even if it doesn't make sense.

I think it would be fine to split into Chinggisid and Qasarid, from what I can tell being a descendant of Qasar was more "situational legitimacy" than the inherent legitimacy someone would gain by being descendant of Chinggis.

Note the "proposed naming him Khan" wording for Togha Temür. Güshi Khan was also a Qasarid who claimed the title "in defiance". I admit Wikipedia screenshots probably aren't the best example to use for this though lol.


Anyway, for game mechanics I think there could be something for steppe hordes which only allows them to upgrade to kingdom/empire rank (i.e giving them the title khan/khagan) if their dynasty is Chinggisid/Qasarid/etc. There could also be an "Invite Chinggisid to rule"/"Invite puppet khan" option to avoid the player being softlocked behind their dynasty.

 

[SuperLexxe]

I think it would be fine to split into Chinggisid and Qasarid, from what I can tell being a descendant of Qasar was more "situational legitimacy" than the inherent legitimacy someone would gain by being descendant of Chinggis.

View attachment 1278734

View attachment 1278735

Note the "proposed naming him Khan" wording for Togha Temür. Güshi Khan was also a Qasarid who claimed the title "in defiance". I admit Wikipedia screenshots probably aren't the best example to use for this though lol.


Anyway, for game mechanics I think there could be something for steppe hordes which only allows them to upgrade to kingdom/empire rank (i.e giving them the title khan/khagan) if their dynasty is Chinggisid/Qasarid/etc. There could also be an "Invite Chinggisid to rule"/"Invite puppet khan" option to avoid the player being softlocked behind their dynasty.

It could also work if EU5 uses the branch dynasty mechanic from CK3 or whatever. There is an overarching Borjigin dynasty, of which Chinggisid, Qasarid, Belguteid, etc. are a part of, with Timur part of the very distant Barlas branch.

Then you tie in the claim to khanate only for Chinggisids, Qasarids, etc. Barlas branch would be a distant relation, but no claim to khan.

 

[Nike2256]

All Steppe Hordes are ABCs.

Hordes being ABCs meaning they will no longer exist after their army will be stack wiped?

What about the locations they control, will they suddenly become colonize able?

 

[L1nk48]

What happens to a province if it loses all of its population — for example, if Timur’s army wipes everyone out?
Will it become an unclaimed province suitable for colonization?
Or will it remain under its current owner but suffer massive penalties?
Or could there be a resettlement mechanic?
Alternatively, could Timur have an event giving him the choice to either leave the province as a wasteland or repopulate it with part of his own people (Turks, Persians, or Mongols)?