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

[unmerged(51332)]

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.

Ambition would of lead his conquests in India, there was potential riches there. That was not true in the West. And of course, Babur or their decedents may lose Samarkand in the future.

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.

Human ambition drives conquest. Why the hell would Babur let the opportunity pass himself by?

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.

Except that Persia was entirely lost, and there was no hope for Babur to ever compete with the Safavid empire. Transoxiana and Afghanistan would be staging grounds for a more expansive empire, and if you cant go West, you go East. That is human nature, that is what happens. There is no question expansion would of been sought after, and there is no question they would have failed miserably [i.e being obliterated] in any attempt to head West.

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?

If they captured large tracts of Northern India, and continued expansion therein as it was there only route to further power and glory, India would eventually take precedence over their homeland.

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.

What makes you think Persia would have seen any success? What makes you think Babur would not have known this? The whole reason he lost Samarkand the second time was because of his own actions, which were a result of fear borne from the Persians. An empire founded on Afghanistan and Transoxiana- and very likely not even the entirety of Transoxiana either- has little to no chance to make progress against Persia. Again, you are making the assumption on the course of history. This mod is suppose to induce historical results, but it is still a game, why so absolute? Why is there not an ahistorical creative option for certain situations, that are entirely possible, and entirely too complex and variable to make a solid claim on, one way or the other?

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.

I never said Delhi was a prize, I said expansion is always wanted. The more you conquer, the more population you have in one region, the more your economy and way of life is dependent on that region, the more you adapt. Persia was a potential attempt for Babur and his descendents, but considering the low chance of making any progress against a far more powerful and stable empire [the conquest of Samarkand hardly means the Uzbeks have given up contention over the issue], it is just as likely Babur or others would have stricken out on a different path.

 

[Garbon]

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

Your reason is that the AI can't make the Mughals on its own? I think I've already answered to in that as the map currently is, it is pretty much impossible for the Mughals to do what they did historically. However, despite my earlier statement, I am still trying, as can be seen from the regional thread on the Mughals. Also, we generally don't try to encourage ahistorical occurrences unless we've exhausted all options...and even then we have tendency to still continue to try.

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"

You might have a better argument if I'd actually discarded your arguments (as this everyone is a false shield - you cited an example of what I've said to you ) as providing refutation isn't discarded an argument. It isn't discarded if I take the time to explain with thought experiments/data why what you've stated is mistaken.

 

[Garbon]

Ambition would of lead his conquests in India, there was potential riches there. That was not true in the West. And of course, Babur or their decedents may lose Samarkand in the future.

There weren't potential riches in the west? What exactly were the Uzbeks doing then when trying to capture Khorasan?

Human ambition drives conquest. Why the hell would Babur let the opportunity pass himself by?

For one, India wasn't a dazzling attraction nor was it an easy conquest. Why during the reign of Sher Shah (kicked out Humayun) the idea of a Mughal Empire was ludicrous. Also, how exactly was Babur to have convinced his men to settle in Delhi? He barely got many of them to settle in Delhi when living in Kabul was the only option.

Except that Persia was entirely lost, and there was no hope for Babur to ever compete with the Safavid empire. Transoxiana and Afghanistan would be staging grounds for a more expansive empire, and if you cant go West, you go East.

I think you are making a fundamental error here. Why exactly was Persia so untenable? Why 1524, when 10 year old Tahmasp became shah of the Safavids, would have been a perfect time to attack. It wasn't as though Tahmasp's empire was very stable or quite established (it had only been pieced together about a decade ago - and recall what happened when Timur died). Why concerted efforts by Babur + the Ottomans and Uzbeks (which happened to some extent historically) could have been just what was needed to break up the Persian empire. After all what happened in 1722?

That is human nature, that is what happens. There is no question expansion would of been sought after, and there is no question they would have failed miserably [i.e being obliterated] in any attempt to head West.

Oh? What empire are you trying to form?

And no, I do raise a question as, like I've said above, Persia wasn't the be all state you posit it as. Newly formed states (especially in Central Asia) are quick to crumble.

If they captured large tracts of Northern India, and continued expansion therein as it was there only route to further power and glory, India would eventually take precedence over their homeland.

Sounds like, and I thought about this as I drove home, that then at a later date (maybe around the time of historical Akbar) the Timurids should become the Mughals. After all, it would be a gradual thing that India would become more important and certainly not something that would have happened under Babur. That said, I still find it a little distasteful, but it isn't any different from our other attempts to get history back on track once it has changed radically.

What makes you think Persia would have seen any success? What makes you think Babur would not have known this? The whole reason he lost Samarkand the second time was because of his own actions, which were a result of fear borne from the Persians.

What are you talking about? Babur lost Samarkand the first time because of his duplicitous relatives. The second time he lost it because Shaybani forced him out of the city. The third time he lost it because of the Uzbeks, yet again. Babur was in Samarkand the third time because he became a vassal of Ismail and accepted Persian aid.

An empire founded on Afghanistan and Transoxiana- and very likely not even the entirety of Transoxiana either- has little to no chance to make progress against Persia.

Really? Might want to relay that to the Hotaki dynasty. Also why wouldn't he have had the entirety of Transoxiana? Wouldn't capturing that be a natural course of action in order to provide a buffer for Samarkand? It wouldn't definitely be odd to run to attack India when your capital isn't even secure.

Again, you are making the assumption on the course of history. This mod is suppose to induce historical results, but it is still a game, why so absolute? Why is there not an ahistorical creative option for certain situations, that are entirely possible, and entirely too complex and variable to make a solid claim on, one way or the other?

Except that you are also trying to force history. You are trying to force the formation of the Mughal state even when the conditions aren't quite right for its formation. Can you deny that there would likely be changes if the Mughal Empire started with a capital in Samarkand that gradually shifted to Delhi? That's going to change a lot of the character of the Timurids and so why should we straightjacket them into events that happened to an empire that formed differently?

I never said Delhi was a prize, I said expansion is always wanted. The more you conquer, the more population you have in one region, the more your economy and way of life is dependent on that region, the more you adapt.

Really? This is the first post that you've mentioned expansion.

Persia was a potential attempt for Babur and his descendents, but considering the low chance of making any progress against a far more powerful and stable empire [the conquest of Samarkand hardly means the Uzbeks have given up contention over the issue], it is just as likely Babur or others would have stricken out on a different path.

You've made a fundamental flaw here. Persia under Tahmasp wasn't the bastion of stability that you posit. Also, if it is just as likely, who are we to force them to form the Mughals?

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Your reason is that the AI can't make the Mughals on its own? I think I've already answered to in that as the map currently is, it is pretty much impossible for the Mughals to do what they did historically. However, despite my earlier statement, I am still trying, as can be seen from the regional thread on the Mughals. Also, we generally don't try to encourage ahistorical occurrences unless we've exhausted all options...and even then we have tendency to still continue to try.



You might have a better argument if I'd actually discarded your arguments (as this everyone is a false shield - you cited an example of what I've said to you ) as providing refutation isn't discarded an argument. It isn't discarded if I take the time to explain with thought experiments/data why what you've stated is mistaken.

could be just me, but why i feel like you "confused" on purpose here!?( by "begining " i mean the posts above as a direct result of game GETTING KILLED becouse some odd CHOICE to make . and then elaborate a bit more in posts ahead) is not that so obvious for someone that LOVES arguments!? what a heck...

"skull" , for the third time EXPLAINS the same thing i was trying to do so just before . someone is starting to sound like a "broken record" here . maybe it is ME or maybe it is YOU . i guess we will never know for sure or even worse, we both are :rofl:

about able to "sway" others : while technically you right, in practise you not... last time i did a "reality check" each member of the "high council" seems (or is) responsable for a specific region/or countries. and is in human nature to DEFEND something that he/she has created, simply becouse he/she feels entitled to do so. nothing wrong there of course, but knowledge can make one to feel superior and resume everything to an ideology of some sort or another. and then he/she keeps having the impression of beeing "personally atacked", simplly becouse all the arguments are suppose to reflect his/her reasoning. more to the point, what i mean is that you keep using OVER and OVER the historical aspect ONLY as the last resort without trying to consider ANY other ideological aproach that MIGHT bring practical reasoning.

even if this mod has a HISTORICAL objective, it ends up killing CREATIVITY at times like this. for example there is a "fantesy" option for IBERIA or BYZHANTUM or granada,, and a few others "hidden" within files( there are so MANY events that state "ahistorical" in their titles!). that is oonly becouse
many people like the idea of fantesy and is a popular "if" question for such countries that do have that OPTION. but when it comes to MOG or timuruds you simplly REFUSE to even AKNOLADGE such discrepancies in formulating a STRATEGY that follows other designs of allowing player's CHOICE to make a diffrence.

i am repeating myself here: why have such nice events for MOG, etc if the player simplly is not allowed to get/use them!?!?!? u REFUSE that by invoking history that simplly has NOT happened YET when the player gets "babur" as leader. so all of a sudden , as a player , i am not the "guiding" emminance behind the scenes simplly becouse GOD(you) refused that possibility and forceing me to apply your logic here ONLy.

but as i said, all this can be avoided by a simple edit in removing the event's condition. so in the end this whole conversation is pretty much pointless and can only resume to "personal atacks"( i do not consider accusations as beeing attacks, simplly becouse that is all just a matter of perception(S). for example ,if you call me names i might not like it i guess, but i know it is A PERCEPTION you would have about me and will remain as such, without affecting my inner "peace" or LOGICAL personal observations ."personalizing" something only creates a point and NOT a law...

 

[Garbon]

i am repeating myself here: why have such nice events for MOG, etc if the player simplly is not allowed to get/use them!?!?!? u REFUSE that by invoking history that simplly has NOT happened YET when the player gets "babur" as leader. so all of a sudden , as a player , i am not the "guiding" emminance behind the scenes simplly becouse GOD(you) refused that possibility and forceing me to apply your logic here ONLy.

The player can use them. You either give up Samarkand (which is done via revolt or invasion at this time, although I have promised to script a choice event) or you reload as Kabul. Not too hard really.

What's even more amusing in this, is that we don't even have Babur as a monarch in the Timurid file.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

The player can use them. You either give up Samarkand (which is done via revolt or invasion at this time, although I have promised to script a choice event) or you reload as Kabul. Not too hard really.

What's even more amusing in this, is that we don't even have Babur as a monarch in the Timurid file.

ok this is anything but historical then

 

[Garbon]

about able to "sway" others : while technically you right, in practise you not... last time i did a "reality check" each member of the "high council" seems (or is) responsable for a specific region/or countries. and is in human nature to DEFEND something that he/she has created, simply becouse he/she feels entitled to do so. nothing wrong there of course, but knowledge can make one to feel superior and resume everything to an ideology of some sort or another. and then he/she keeps having the impression of beeing "personally atacked", simplly becouse all the arguments are suppose to reflect his/her reasoning. more to the point, what i mean is that you keep using OVER and OVER the historical aspect ONLY as the last resort without trying to consider ANY other ideological aproach that MIGHT bring practical reasoning.

Simply put that's not really how it works. Various members (high council and otherwise) tend to focus on specific areas as that is what they know or are interested in researching. I've worked on a variety of different areas that people have come through an updated at various times (since EEP, I've worked on Granada, Morocco, West Africa, East Africa, India, Central Asia, Persia, Anatolia, Spain, France, The Netherlands and a variety of small fixes here and there). People have come in and made lots of changes to the way that I once had things implemented. So you are pegging me wrong if you think I feel superior and am unwilling to see things change. (I'm not even totally against the formation of the Mughals in an ahistoric way - which can be seen in my suggestion that the Mughals can form more gradually i.e a later date, if they still have Samarkand when they take Delhi.)

What's happening here is that you want a change made that completely disregards history for the sake of gameplay. A change that encourages the player to act in an ahistoric manner. The only places that really happens is in , what you later went on to list, our fantasy scenarios that aren't actually even officially supported (the onus of upkeep of fantasy scenarios falls on the scenario maker).

 

[Garbon]

ok this is anything but historical then

That last bit was made to simplify things. It's rather hard, given eu2's monarch system, to accurately represent a person who skipped around so often. Otherwise we'd be seeing:

-Babur starts in Ferghana
-Ferghana annexes Timurid Empire and becomes Timurids with Babur as leader.
-Shortly after Babur flees Timurid Empire (different Timurid prince rules) and Ferghana is released with Babur as ruler.
-Next up, Ferghana annexes Timurid Empire again and becomes Timurids with Babur as ruler.
-Within a few months, Uzbeks annex Timurid Empire. Babur is a monarch of nothing at this time as relatives prevent him from reclaiming Ferghana.
-Revolts happen in independent Afghanistan to simulate Babur's take over. -When rebel controlled, Afghanistan becomes Kabul. If it owns Kanadahar, Afghanistan is released in Kandahar as Babur hadn't conquered it yet.
-Kabul annexes Afghanistan
-Kabul attacks Uzbek and takes Samarkand (capital move/perhaps becomes Timurid Empire). Kabul attempts to take Bukhara but fails.
-Uzbeks capture Samarkand and force Kabul's capital to move back to Kabul.
-Turing away from Transoxiana, Kabul makes several inroads into India including attacking provinces that are currently PTI before taking Delhi and found Mughal Empire.

The chances that history would be supremely fucked up and never look like that historical sequence are a bit too high to chance.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

That last bit was made to simplify things. It's rather hard, given eu2's monarch system, to accurately represent a person who skipped around so often. Otherwise we'd be seeing:

-Babur starts in Ferghana
-Ferghana annexes Timurid Empire and becomes Timurids with Babur as leader.
-Shortly after Babur flees Timurid Empire (different Timurid prince rules) and Ferghana is released with Babur as ruler.
-Next up, Ferghana annexes Timurid Empire again and becomes Timurids with Babur as ruler.
-Within a few months, Uzbeks annex Timurid Empire. Babur is a monarch of nothing at this time as relatives prevent him from reclaiming Ferghana.
-Revolts happen in independent Afghanistan to simulate Babur's take over. -When rebel controlled, Afghanistan becomes Kabul. If it owns Kanadahar, Afghanistan is released in Kandahar as Babur hadn't conquered it yet.
-Kabul annexes Afghanistan
-Kabul attacks Uzbek and takes Samarkand (capital move/perhaps becomes Timurid Empire). Kabul attempts to take Bukhara but fails.
-Uzbeks capture Samarkand and force Kabul's capital to move back to Kabul.
-Turing away from Transoxiana, Kabul makes several inroads into India including attacking provinces that are currently PTI before taking Delhi and found Mughal Empire.

The chances that history would be supremely fucked up and never look like that historical sequence are a bit too high to chance.

well good that you used the word "f" just before I was about to do so, becouse you lost me( and i am sure everyone else as well) at about third or forth "sequence" :rofl:
yet again another ereason to ditch history here as a main approach( wich you agree is not possible) and just use good old fashion logic and game play aspects; about time

 

[Garbon]

well good that you used the word "f" just before I was about to do so, becouse you lost me( and i am sure everyone else as well) at about third or forth "sequence" :rofl:
yet again another ereason to ditch history here as a main approach( wich you agree is not possible) and just use good old fashion logic and game play aspects; about time

Not at all, seeing as how not allowing the Timurids to turn into the Mughals if they have Samarkand is quite simple. Unlike that sequence that I just layed out.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Not at all, seeing as how not allowing the Timurids to turn into the Mughals if they have Samarkand is quite simple. Unlike that sequence that I just layed out.

this is not going anywhere obviouslly ; no point to discuss it further, we are not compatible :rofl: u do what you want to do and i CHOOSE if it makes sense or not, i just have to keep in mind to check events beforehand so i do not have unpleasent surprises as did here with an extreme wiered logic( again regardless if it is historically correct or not , that is not the point of any game.period....or else call it a simulation but NOT A GAME. i dislike miss-advertising but that is just me maybe ) ; i better stop arguing with you and let you get back to work