impossible to make mugah's; no wonder ai can never do it either

[unmerged(51332)]

Because it was totally ahistorical. Babur never ruled an Empire stretching from Samarkand to Delhi. He went to Delhi because the situation in Samarkand was hopeless.

Also, you're wrong about the breakaway states. Balkh and Ferghana should be independent for centuries. Khorsan was independent for 50+ years and there was no real reason that it couldn't have lasted longer (although Uzbeks and Persia are helped with conquest).

On things you said earlier, I actually see a strong Persia most of the time. A few versions ago, Persia used to do damage to the Ottomans until we curbed them in.

You are making the assumption that Babur would not of moved into India even with Samurkand. You simply do not know that. There should always be the possibility for an ahistorical option, because the game does not always follow history, it goes off the rails. We cant assume what every leader would have done given xx variable, the best we can do is try to force history through events. If history does not meet perfectly, there should still be the option.

 

[Garbon]

You are making the assumption that Babur would not of moved into India even with Samurkand. You simply do not know that. There should always be the possibility for an ahistorical option, because the game does not always follow history, it goes off the rails. We cant assume what every leader would have done given xx variable, the best we can do is try to force history through events. If history does not meet perfectly, there should still be the option.

I'm making the assumption that Babur wouldn't have formed the Mughal Empire but would remained the Timurid Empire...and I think it is a pretty damn good one based on two things:

1) Timur did got India but there was never any chance of his moving his capital there. Transoxiana was familiar, India was not.
2) Similarly, when Babur conquered India, the majority of his men actually thought that it was just a plundering tour. Many men, including some of his best generals, left India to return to Kabul when Babur stated that he was going to found a new empire in India. Babur settled for an indian empire as the majority of his youth was spent trying to take Samarkand (which he accomplished but then would quickly give up). If you read Baburnama or anything about the period, it is quickly evident that the turko-mongols were not at all pleased with India and longed for Transoxiana.

Bottom line: Babur wouldn't have moved his capital to Delhi if he had control of Samarkand...and an empire ruled from Samarkand is not the Mughal Empire as historical events would portray. Therefore it makes no sense to have the tag switch or the historical events that trigger off of the Mughals being in India. As the Timurid Empire, the player is welcome to go into India, but he should recognize that he's altered history enough that he will not be the Mughals.

 

[unmerged(51332)]

I'm making the assumption that Babur wouldn't have formed the Mughal Empire but would remained the Timurid Empire...and I think it is a pretty damn good one based on two things:

1) Timur did got India but there was never any chance of his moving his capital there. Transoxiana was familiar, India was not.

Whether Babur moves his capital to India or not is irrelevant. Had he kept a firm grip on India, it is more than likely his decedents would be forced to become more and more Indian, and move their capital there in order to ensure their domains.

2) Similarly, when Babur conquered India, the majority of his men actually thought that it was just a plundering tour. Many men, including some of his best generals, left India to return to Kabul when Babur stated that he was going to found a new empire in India. Babur settled for an indian empire as the majority of his youth was spent trying to take Samarkand (which he accomplished but then would quickly give up). If you read Baburnama or anything about the period, it is quickly evident that the turko-mongols were not at all pleased with India and longed for Transoxiana.

Again, that doesn't matter. Whether they preferred their homeland over a foreign area is not relevant. The fact is, with Samarkand in his possession, it is entirely plausible Babur would have conquered India and focused on holding those domains for a long period. It is equally possible that his decedents would have followed a road similar to history. There are too many what ifs to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Bottom line: Babur wouldn't have moved his capital to Delhi if he had control of Samarkand...

Really, you are basing this on nothing. Babur may have preferred Samarkand but in the end he was a leader, and a leader has to make tough choices. There is no saying he would not have moved the Administrative capital to Dehli. In the hypothetical situation that Babur held both Samarkand and Dehli, Dehli is more important. His domains in India held more worth, so a move was still possible. He may not have, he may have. We can never be sure.

and an empire ruled from Samarkand is not the Mughal Empire as historical events would portray.

An empire ruled from Samarkand could be temporary, future Emperors could put more and more emphasis on India

Therefore it makes no sense to have the tag switch or the historical events that trigger off of the Mughals being in India. As the Timurid Empire, the player is welcome to go into India, but he should recognize that he's altered history enough that he will not be the Mughals.

You haven't really given any argument to show how the altered history has any bearing on a possible future.

 

[Garbon]

Whether Babur moves his capital to India or not is irrelevant. Had he kept a firm grip on India, it is more than likely his decedents would be forced to become more and more Indian, and move their capital there in order to ensure their domains.

Huh? If Babur was in Samarkand and took what he historically took of northern india, his domains outside of India would have been larger than his domains in India. You might see a capital move to Kabul in there, but there certainly would have been no need to become Indian.

Again, that doesn't matter. Whether they preferred their homeland over a foreign area is not relevant. The fact is, with Samarkand in his possession, it is entirely plausible Babur would have conquered India and focused on holding those domains for a long period. It is equally possible that his decedents would have followed a road similar to history. There are too many what ifs to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Just because there are many ways things can go, doesn't mean that all possibilities are equally plausible. It is a lot less plausible that the Timurids firmly established in Samarkand would have decided to move to India...than that they would have continued to rule from either Transoxiana or Kabul. In terms of preference: Transoxiana, Afghanistan and Persia all ranked higher than India. I can't really see Babur & descendants moving to India if they are firmly established in their homelands that they viewed as better than India. After all, it was a Mughal ambition for a longtime to be able to retake Samarkand. So if there was barely a drive to remain in India when that's really all they had...why would they move to India when they had more?

Really, you are basing this on nothing. Babur may have preferred Samarkand but in the end he was a leader, and a leader has to make tough choices. There is no saying he would not have moved the Administrative capital to Dehli. In the hypothetical situation that Babur held both Samarkand and Dehli, Dehli is more important. His domains in India held more worth, so a move was still possible. He may not have, he may have. We can never be sure.

No, Delhi was not more important. Delhi's importance lay in the fact that it was a great staging ground for forming an empire in India. However, in that hypothetical situation, Babur would already have an empire in a land that was culturally familiar. I don't see why you are so quick to see an unfamiliar and culturally hostile city as better than the capital Babur already had. If anything, if Babur was firmly established in Samarkand he would have looked to west to Persia. He had legitimacy as those lands were historically Timurid and the added bonus of cultural similarity as many Timurid practices were strongly influenced by persian culture.

An empire ruled from Samarkand could be temporary, future Emperors could put more and more emphasis on India You haven't really given any argument to show how the altered history has any bearing on a possible future.

Because Delhi wasn't the great prize that you see it as? Look at what I've now said in this post. A strong Timurid state in Samarkand would have been more concerned with regaining Persia and less about the possibilities of empire in India. After all, if Delhi was such a prize, why did Timur decide to leave it in the hands of a vassal? There simply was no desire to rule in India...except as a last resort.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

I'm making the assumption that Babur wouldn't have formed the Mughal Empire but would remained the Timurid Empire...and I think it is a pretty damn good one based on two things:

1) Timur did got India but there was never any chance of his moving his capital there. Transoxiana was familiar, India was not.
2) Similarly, when Babur conquered India, the majority of his men actually thought that it was just a plundering tour. Many men, including some of his best generals, left India to return to Kabul when Babur stated that he was going to found a new empire in India. Babur settled for an indian empire as the majority of his youth was spent trying to take Samarkand (which he accomplished but then would quickly give up). If you read Baburnama or anything about the period, it is quickly evident that the turko-mongols were not at all pleased with India and longed for Transoxiana.

Bottom line: Babur wouldn't have moved his capital to Delhi if he had control of Samarkand...and an empire ruled from Samarkand is not the Mughal Empire as historical events would portray. Therefore it makes no sense to have the tag switch or the historical events that trigger off of the Mughals being in India. As the Timurid Empire, the player is welcome to go into India, but he should recognize that he's altered history enough that he will not be the Mughals.

man, that is a lot of reasoning( even if i am sure you right in historical facts wich have NO conclusion other then supposition of course or interpretations or whatever one wants to call it). that makes no sense to the issue BROUGHT here; we can assume the very same thing for A LOT and MOST of other countries , if not all...;(

you, ,me, and anyone else simplly do NOT KNOW WHAT COULD-WOULD HAVE HAPPENED; i give up arguing here there is no point to do so, i reccomend to anyone just take off the requierment "own saralmanka" condition( if want to have an enjoyable game of course);bottom line is that a simple highlight and backspace does the trick

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Huh? If Babur was in Samarkand and took what he historically took of northern india, his domains outside of India would have been larger than his domains in India. You might see a capital move to Kabul in there, but there certainly would have been no need to become Indian.



Just because there are many ways things can go, doesn't mean that all possibilities are equally plausible. It is a lot less plausible that the Timurids firmly established in Samarkand would have decided to move to India...than that they would have continued to rule from either Transoxiana or Kabul. In terms of preference: Transoxiana, Afghanistan and Persia all ranked higher than India. I can't really see Babur & descendants moving to India if they are firmly established in their homelands that they viewed as better than India. After all, it was a Mughal ambition for a longtime to be able to retake Samarkand. So if there was barely a drive to remain in India when that's really all they had...why would they move to India when they had more?




No, Delhi was not more important. Delhi's importance lay in the fact that it was a great staging ground for forming an empire in India. However, in that hypothetical situation, Babur would already have an empire in a land that was culturally familiar. I don't see why you are so quick to see an unfamiliar and culturally hostile city as better than the capital Babur already had. If anything, if Babur was firmly established in Samarkand he would have looked to west to Persia. He had legitimacy as those lands were historically Timurid and the added bonus of cultural similarity as many Timurid practices were strongly influenced by persian culture.


Because Delhi wasn't the great prize that you see it as? Look at what I've now said in this post. A strong Timurid state in Samarkand would have been more concerned with regaining Persia and less about the possibilities of empire in India. After all, if Delhi was such a prize, why did Timur decide to leave it in the hands of a vassal? There simply was no desire to rule in India...except as a last resort.

looking at the base of your argument( could not help not to read what possiblly you could have replyed to "skull"), the only think that might make SENSE is for mugah to retain its old capital and not move to delhi. everything else is deeply flawed at best and i can not believe you still INSIST on it :rofl:

there is absolute no valid reason for timurud not to become MOG.there is NO WAY a leader like babur( very similar to napoleon in his thoughts and "grand" objective) would have settled down and not go on a rampage quest

i think and observe that you simmplly want to create an opponent for safidis no matter what... again "balance" issues :rofl: at least say so and everyone could go with it since it might make sense from a game "balance" perspective...but to make suppositions( even if they might make sense)...well anyone can do that

 

[Garbon]

man, that is a lot of reasoning( even if i am sure you right in historical facts wich have NO conclusion other then supposition of course or interpretations or whatever one wants to call it). that makes no sense to the issue BROUGHT here; we can assume the very same thing for A LOT and MOST of other countries , if not all...;(

So should we have an option for England to become Spain if it takes all of the Iberian peninsula? After all, Spain would have been the more important place.

you, ,me, and anyone else simplly do NOT KNOW WHAT COULD-WOULD HAVE HAPPENED;

This is exactly my position! It isn't logical to assume that we'd see anything like the Mughals as they were in our timeline(/our event files) and so we shouldn't force that occurrence (or even allow for it...considering that nothing in the historical past of the Timurids suggests such an occurrence...but in fact as I've stated rather suggests the opposite).

 

[Garbon]

looking at the base of your argument( could not help not to read what possiblly you could have replyed to "skull"), the only think that might make SENSE is for mugah to retain its old capital and not move to delhi. everything else is deeply flawed at best and i can not believe you still INSIST on it :rofl:

Huh? It's flawed to guage plausible outcomes by what historically the Timurids thought and did? I'd say it's flawed to assume that the Mughals should come to existence simply because the Timurids have Delhi.

there is absolute no valid reason for timurud not to become MOG.there is NO WAY a leader like babur( very similar to napoleon in his thoughts and "grand" objective) would have settled down and not go on a rampage quest

i think and observe that you simmplly want to create an opponent for safidis no matter what... again "balance" issues :rofl: at least say so and everyone could go with it since it might make sense from a game "balance" perspective...but to make suppositions( even if they might make sense)...well anyone can do that

Timur went on a "rampage quest" and didn't form the Mughals.

Babur hardly went on a "rampage quest". His actual empire wasn't even that large and was completely lost and then regained by his son. Perhaps you were thinking of Akbar?

Anyway, neither you or IronSkull have shown why any of the events that we have for the Mughals would make sense in the proposed alternate timeline. As you said, there is no knowing what could have happened.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

So should we have an option for England to become Spain if it takes all of the Iberian peninsula? After all, Spain would have been the more important place.



This is exactly my position! It isn't logical to assume that we'd see anything like the Mughals as they were in our timeline(/our event files) and so we shouldn't force that occurrence (or even allow for it...considering that nothing in the historical past of the Timurids suggests such an occurrence...but in fact as I've stated rather suggests the opposite).

huh!? from where to where did you come UP with such comparassion you are just AVOIDING the issue yet again unlike babur , england never intended to INCORPORATE spain in their empire :rofl: , beat them yes, but there is not one logical aspect to this.

to the second paragraph it seems you getting lost within your own thoughts . you confusing BEFORE with AFTER history is ONLY BEHIND OF US AND NOT AHEAD

 

[Garbon]

Anyway, beregic, you've already made it known that you don't really care for the historical bent of this mod...so I'm not really sure why you bother...?

 

[Garbon]

huh!? from where to where did you come UP with such comparassion you are just AVOIDING the issue yet again unlike babur , england never intended to INCORPORATE spain in their empire :rofl: , beat them yes, but there is not one logical aspect to this.

I was suggesting something also could have happened although wasn't likely. It is a matter of historical record that Babur conquered India because he couldn't have Samarkand. Not much more to say there.

to the second paragraph it seems you getting lost within your own thoughts . you confusing BEFORE with AFTER history is ONLY BEHIND OF US AND NOT AHEAD

Haha. Well then, I don't think this is a mod for you. We allow for alternate possibilities that plausibly stem from the history that occurred prior. So far you've given me no plausible reasons why the Timurids should switch to the Mughals...only that you'd like that to happen as you think the Mughals events and cores would be more interesting.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Huh? It's flawed to guage plausible outcomes by what historically the Timurids thought and did? I'd say it's flawed to assume that the Mughals should come to existence simply because the Timurids have Delhi.





Timur went on a "rampage quest" and didn't form the Mughals.

Babur hardly went on a "rampage quest". His actual empire wasn't even that large and was completely lost and then regained by his son. Perhaps you were thinking of Akbar?

Anyway, neither you or IronSkull have shown why any of the events that we have for the Mughals would make sense in the proposed alternate timeline. As you said, there is no knowing what could have happened.

alternate timeline!? yest AGAIN you changing the subject! who said such a thing!? i certanlly did not, just remove the condition for timuruds to become mog. no "ifs" and "buts" and arguments with philosophical stuborness
and please stop using and twisting my words just to fit your argument not cool

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Anyway, beregic, you've already made it known that you don't really care for the historical bent of this mod...so I'm not really sure why you bother...?

that's more like "shut up"
aha, so now you "label" me , to be able to point fingers . i like agceep exactlly becouse it is historical, but ever once in a while there someone that would only like to implement his own points of view it is ok man, everyone has human weaknesses and we understand

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Anyway, beregic, you've already made it known that you don't really care for the historical bent of this mod...so I'm not really sure why you bother...?

i have NEVER states the above! show me WHERE, or call off your "mistake"

 

[Garbon]

alternate timeline!? yest AGAIN you changing the subject! who said such a thing!? i certanlly did not, just remove the condition for timuruds to become mog. no "ifs" and "buts" and arguments with philosophical stuborness
and please stop using and twisting my words just to fit your argument not cool

Our timeline: Babur conquered Delhi because he couldn't manage to keep Samarkand.

Alternate timeline (also known as the possibility you want to allow for): Babur retains Samarkand and also decides to take Delhi.

I didn't twist anyone's arguments at all...and I'm still waiting for your reasonings as to why the Timurids should become the Mughals as long as they have Delhi. I've yet to hear anything...other than it would be fun.

 

[Garbon]

i have NEVER states the above! show me WHERE, or call off your "mistake"

Acutally, you're right. I've confused you with someone else (in another thread.) My apologies.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

I was suggesting something also could have happened although wasn't likely. It is a matter of historical record that Babur conquered India because he couldn't have Samarkand. Not much more to say there.



Haha. Well then, I don't think this is a mod for you. We allow for alternate possibilities that plausibly stem from the history that occurred prior. So far you've given me no plausible reasons why the Timurids should switch to the Mughals...only that you'd like that to happen as you think the Mughals events and cores would be more interesting.

my opinion is that there is no way anyone could give you plausible resons since YOU personally have already made your mind up . i will continiu to play agceep, this IS the mod for me, will just simplly need to edit out certain things i do not agree with; but you can go ahead and enjoy your own version

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Acutally, you're right. I've confused you with someone else (in another thread.) My apologies.

accepted
intreasting how fast it came, more like "if" this i say this, "if that i will say that :rofl:

regardless you doing a good job, at least by still beeing active on this mode and keep it alive

 

[Garbon]

my opinion is that there is no way anyone could give you plausible resons since YOU personally have already made your mind up . i will continiu to play agceep, this IS the mod for me, will just simplly need to edit out certain things i do not agree with; but you can go ahead and enjoy your own version

So the cop-out argument? You've decided that I'm unmovable from my position and so you don't even need to provide logical reasoning for the change you want?

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but I'm not the only person running this mod...so even if I were as stubborn as you posit me to be (which is rather unfair as you are constantly making personal attacks on me with regards to how stubborn I am, or how big an ego I have), it isn't just up to me. Thus lay out your reasoning. Even if you can't convince me, you might sway others. At this point though, you've not really given a reason.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

So the cop-out argument? You've decided that I'm unmovable from my position and so you don't even need to provide logical reasoning for the change you want?

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but I'm not the only person running this mod...so even if I were as stubborn as you posit me to be (which is rather unfair as you are constantly making personal attacks on me with regards to how stubborn I am, or how big an ego I have), it isn't just up to me. Thus lay out your reasoning. Even if you can't convince me, you might sway others. At this point though, you've not really given a reason.

the reason are at the start of the thread but they do not seem good enough for you so you try to bypass them with arguments that do not adress a logical outcome.if you look carefully, your first response is always "defensive" as someone is out there to get you :rofl: more like making sure you keep the argument from evolving. the reasoning IS layed out in a very logical manner , wich should go GREAT with anyone making a LOGICAL programm (game,update,betas, you name it). i am sorry i am not able to satisfy you and make long arguments just so to seem "solid". point of fact is that life is very simple. so are the arguments needed to have in order to survive. now i am making an exception, i admit, but generally i try be as much to the point as possible and not create arguments and "conditions" just for the sake of doing so

there are soo many threads where you literally DISCARD everyone's argument from start : such as "this will be easy to prove"(when nobody asked you to), etc. maybe it looks like i am "picking" on you, and maybe is true; the question should be WHY i do so? why i do not pick on anyone else. while i could be wrong, just as much as anyone could and i adress the possibility, i reccomend for you to do the same regarding WHY you a "target"

"The power to fit in with one’s social peers can be irresistible. To a human lemming, the logic behind
an opinion doesn’t count as much as the power and popularity behind it. " Norman Livergood
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculeed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it
is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

regarding insinuated personal atacks:

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

...you again are "putting words in my mouth" especially the "constantly" part :rofl: