Mecca Event

[Morogath90]

I'm all for a good challenge, but the new event for the holder of Mecca and the other holy cities just plain sucks. Every few years you get the lovely option of choosing between -20(!) % taxes or a -1 stab hit and -10% clergy loyalty. How come it takes a fith of the entire tax income of an empire, no matter how large, to keep the holy shrines of one city intact? If you're a smaller nation in the area, it's better to just give the cities to a vassal now, since you either get drained of admin points or money.
Shouldn't the number be a little more set in stone? I mean the shrines aren't growing, unlike my income. Why isn't it just a one-time payment of ducats like every other 20 years? Trying to play as Karaman was an absolute nightmare, because you already need loans to beat the Ottomans, so I had to take the stab hits every three years.
(Screenshot from a testrun as the Mamluks)

 

[Dman1791]

That is one harsh event, especially if it's so frequent. Looks to me like it should be a province or area modifier, not a national one. Do the stab+clergy hits still happen if you're holding another religion's holy city? IE a christian holding Mecca or something.

 

[Fanstar1]

15 years of -20% tax? that is way too much for a major power holding mecca

 

[neondt]

I've noticed this event being particularly punitive and frequent too. I agree with @Dman1791, this should be province/state modifier.

 

[CelticWarrior95]

well the point is that the holy shrines are supposed to be held by an vassal ruler, IMO

maybe they could add an option to give away mecca and medina to a vassal in return for a modifier like "protector of the holy shrines" giving +1 diplo slot and +1 diplo rep

otherwise, you could control it directly for the triggered modifier and maybe some other goodies (+1% missionary strength and +1 ToTF?) and a smaller tax penalty (-10%?)

but the way this event is is just punishing

 

[Fanstar1]

well the point is that the holy shrines are supposed to be held by an vassal ruler, IMO

maybe they could add an option to give away mecca and medina to a vassal in return for a modifier like "protector of the holy shrines" giving +1 diplo slot and +1 diplo rep

otherwise, you could control it directly for the triggered modifier and maybe some other goodies (+1% missionary strength and +1 ToTF?) and a smaller tax penalty (-10%?)

but the way this event is is just punishing

10 is still to much for an empire
it should be a provincial modifier

 

[Dman1791]

I think provincial is a bit too weak of a penalty (if we even want a penalty in the first place, that is). Area would make much more sense.

 

[CelticWarrior95]

honestly, it's not. if you get +1% missionary strength and +1 ToTF in return it's pretty reasonable.

especially considering that you are not supposed to keep the cities for yourself. even when the ottomans conquered them they left . the sharifs of mecca and medina were in charge of the cities ever since the abbassid era. a muslim who's not the sharif taking them over directly should be seen as unorthodox as a catholic taking rome over.

and if you look it up, the ottomans spent a great deal of money trying to protect the cities and helping pilgrims. -10% taxes is only fair, as long as you get some boni in return and you have another, more historical, option in the sharifate as a vassal.

 

[Dman1791]

1% missionary strength and 1 tolerance is nothing compared to 20% tax. Especially in large empires. If it should be like taking Rome as a Christian make it a relations hit and some other penalties in line with others disliking you, not some inexplicable national income loss. A negative tax and manpower modifier for the area would make more sense, and could be alongside relations hits and such.

 

[Fanstar1]

1% missionary strength and 1 tolerance is nothing compared to 20% tax. Especially in large empires. If it should be like taking Rome as a Christian make it a relations hit and some other penalties in line with others disliking you, not some inexplicable national income loss. A negative tax and manpower modifier for the area would make more sense, and could be alongside relations hits and such.

why would people hate you if you are Hedjaz?

 

[Morogath90]

That is one harsh event, especially if it's so frequent. Looks to me like it should be a province or area modifier, not a national one. Do the stab+clergy hits still happen if you're holding another religion's holy city? IE a christian holding Mecca or something.

Haven't actually tried that one yet.

 

[Me_]

1% missionary strength and 1 tolerance is nothing compared to 20% tax. Especially in large empires. If it should be like taking Rome as a Christian make it a relations hit and some other penalties in line with others disliking you, not some inexplicable national income loss. A negative tax and manpower modifier for the area would make more sense, and could be alongside relations hits and such.

This is positively absurd. Only Catholics get penalized for holding Rome and only because in Catholicism there is this thingy called the Papacy. The Muslim event is supposed to represent the costs of taking the responsibility of caring for Mecca not some ahistorical enmity against its custodian.

Edit: I mean specifically the relations penalty. The Sharifate isn't really comparable as it was always a subject of someone, meanwhile independence has been big for the Papacy for a long time (which is why Catholics get punished for having a vassal Pope).

 

[CelticWarrior95]

This is positively absurd. Only Catholics get penalized for holding Rome and only because in Catholicism there is this thingy called the Papacy. The Muslim event is supposed to represent the costs of taking the responsibility of caring for Mecca not some ahistorical enmity against its custodian.

what I suggested was merely a way to avoid getting that nasty -20% taxes AND that was historically plausible.
technically speaking, in NO muslim empire the holy shrines were a direct dependency of the central power. they were always administered by a special political entity, vassal to the central power, called sharifate of mecca. in 1444, that's exactly how the game portrays the situation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharifate_of_Mecca

nor the mamluks, nor the ottomans ever took over directly the city. the first secular ruler in the region after the abbassid caliphate (if you can say so) was the saudi kingdom in the early 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharifate_of_Mecca

the sharifate's position and independency varied greatly during the game period, but it is only logic to encourage the player to have the sharifate as a vassal rather than annexing the holy shrines directly, because the sharifate was ruled by the hashemites (direct descendants of the prophet) and thus were considered legitimate rulers of the cities.

 

[Me_]

Edit: my mistake, I got two posts confused

I do agree that the huge tax penalty makes little sense. As for vassal Sharifate 90% of the map should be covered in vassals throug most of the game (dukes, princes, etc.), although it might make for an interesting mechanic.

 

[CelticWarrior95]

. the sharifs of mecca and medina were in charge of the cities ever since the abbassid era. a muslim who's not the sharif taking them over directly should be seen as unorthodox as a catholic taking rome over.

I said it should be seen as unorthodox, because it's highly ahistorical. not that it should suffer similar penalties. learn to read, ffs.

 

[Me_]

I said it should be seen as unorthodox, because it's highly ahistorical. not that it should suffer similar penalties. learn to read, ffs.

Sorry, I confused you with the guy I was quoting because you attacked me for disagreeing with his/hers idea. It did not occur to me that you might have done so despite us both disagreeing with him/her so I did not check the names.

For the record, of the earlier post I disagree that

honestly, it's not. if you get +1% missionary strength and +1 ToTF in return it's pretty reasonable.

20% or even 10% tax can be a huge pain early game (more managable later) and it can actually be worse the larger you get as it severly hinders getting any income from non-state provinces. Meanwhile +1 ToTF and +1%missionary is only good for large empires. This is not a very balanced tradeoff.

 

[CelticWarrior95]

20% or even 10% tax can be a huge pain early game (more managable later) and it can actually be worse the larger you get as it severly hinders getting any income from non-state provinces. Meanwhile +1 ToTF and +1%missionary is only good for large empires. This is not a very balanced tradeoff.

please re-read carefully all my posts. it is not really relevant whether it is balanced or not because the player should be dissuaded from holding mecca directly. mecca should be held by the sharifate, and the player should enjoy greater benefits in having them as vassals. the protector of the holy shrines triggered modifier should be changed in this sense too.

 

[Fanstar1]

please re-read carefully all my posts. it is not really relevant whether it is balanced or not because the player should be dissuaded from holding mecca directly. mecca should be held by the sharifate, and the player should enjoy greater benefits in having them as vassals. the protector of the holy shrines triggered modifier should be changed in this sense too.

doing that as catholic on rome is worse than just holding it.

 

[CelticWarrior95]

I know. but the sharifate is supposed to be a vassal, the pope is not.

 

[JonSnow]

its not only mecca there is also kerbela and najaf please fix this