Ridiculously high Tolerence of Heathens - Indian Sultanate

[SantoshKashyap]

Indian Sultanate have been designed with very high tolerance of heathens. This is one of the reason the sultanate states don't fade out as no Hindu Kingdom revolts forming separate state from them. (Marathas never happen).

Historically Sultanate never had such high tolerance for Hindus. Mughals had high tolerance during Akbar, Jahangir, Shah-Jahan, but after Aurangzeb ascended around 1650, the tolerance moral of Mughals had faded leading to multiple Hindu revolts and subsequent rise of Maratha.

I suggest following be improved in gameplay:

First, the sultanate kingdom have a rather peaceful realm which should be changed into events triggering Hindu revolts forming states.
Second, The Mughal Empire don't form or even come closer to forming one. Attention is required.
Third, Even if Mughal empire is not formed, Sultanate rulers should not exist as strong as in the game. They should break into multiple hindu states.
Fourth, A prominent Hindu kingdom from Central/South or even north India should dominate to counter take Mughal/Sultanate states like Maratha. It could be any.
Fifth, advent of European Powers and tug of war among them for lucrative domination in India.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Peaceful? They don't have a peaceful time in game, they're constantly at war.
Now, answer the question I asked. Since you're saying so much about sultanates being unstable-why should they be.[/QUOTE

Peaceful not from War perspective....Internal peace. That what had been my argument since.

 

[grommile]

The Sultanate ideas are... weirdly overcooked. +3 heathen tolerance or +50% RU, fine. Both? That's a bit much, especially on top of -1 global unrest.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Suppose Mughals had not come could you expected Delhi Sultanate to exist. No way. Small Hindu nobilities had already revolted against them. They fought against Sultanate in 1526.

You are taking it other way. All I am saying they have been awarded ridiculously high tolerance of heathen which they were NOT. And in the game play they enjoy a very peaceful time without getting into any religious break-out. Why?

 

[Noel84]

Peaceful not from War perspective....Internal peace. That what had been my argument since.

You are taking it other way. All I am saying they have been awarded ridiculously high tolerance of heathen which they were NOT. And in the game play they enjoy a very peaceful time without getting into any religious break-out. Why?

But you've yet to provide any examples other than Delhi of a sultanate having real problems with rebels, despite being asked the question why should they be unstable directly multiple times.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

The Sultanate ideas are... weirdly overcooked. +3 heathen tolerance or +50% RU, fine. Both? That's a bit much, especially on top of -1 global unrest.

In no other period so many Hindu & Buddhist Temples were destroyed as they were during Sultanate.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

But you've yet to provide any examples other than Delhi of a sultanate having real problems with rebels, despite being asked the question why should they be unstable directly multiple times.

Good, At least you seem to be over over Delhi. but where did you pick the word Unstable in my argument. I am saying revolts.

 

[Noel84]

Good, At least you seem to be over over Delhi. but where did you pick the word Unstable in my argument. I am saying revolts.

in what world does a stable revolt happen? What even is a stable revolt? Do the rebels and former overlords just get together and set up an entire order of how everything will happen or something like that?

 

[Noel84]

Good, At least you seem to be over over Delhi. .

what do you mean?

 

[SantoshKashyap]

But you've yet to provide any examples other than Delhi of a sultanate having real problems with rebels, despite being asked the question why should they be unstable directly multiple times.

Riots and mutinies by Hindus kept erupting in various parts of the Sultanate, ranging from modern Punjab to Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh, Bengal. These riots were crushed with mass executions, where all men and even boys above the age of 8 were seized and killed.
Will Durant states that Hindus were historically persecuted during Islamic rule of the Indian subcontinent.The total number of deaths of this period, are usually attributed to the figure by Prof. K.S. Lal, who estimated that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million.
I don't want to get deeper into these only the worst things will come out of it. All I am saying is the Sultanate were not tolerant to Heathens.

 

[Noel84]

Riots and mutinies by Hindus kept erupting in various parts of the Sultanate, ranging from modern Punjab to Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh, Bengal. These riots were crushed with mass executions, where all men and even boys above the age of 8 were seized and killed.
Will Durant states that Hindus were historically persecuted during Islamic rule of the Indian subcontinent.The total number of deaths of this period, are usually attributed to the figure by Prof. K.S. Lal, who estimated that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million.
I don't want to get deeper into these only the worst things will come out of it. All I am saying is the Sultanate were not tolerant to Heathens.

You still didn't answer the question, I said real problems with rebels, not occasional riots.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Riots and mutinies by Hindus kept erupting in various parts of the Sultanate, ranging from modern Punjab to Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh, Bengal. These riots were crushed with mass executions, where all men and even boys above the age of 8 were seized and killed.
Will Durant states that Hindus were historically persecuted during Islamic rule of the Indian subcontinent.The total number of deaths of this period, are usually attributed to the figure by Prof. K.S. Lal, who estimated that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million.
I don't want to get deeper into these only the worst things will come out of it. All I am saying is the Sultanate were not tolerant to Heathens.

But you've yet to provide any examples other than Delhi of a sultanate having real problems with rebels, despite being asked the question why should they be unstable directly multiple times.

Well you can't have other examples for other Sultanate were soon eaten by Mughals and earlier too they were constantly taken over by Delhi Sultanate during various dynasty.
But, whichever the Sultanate be their treatment to Hindus or Buddhists were same inviting revolts and mass massacre.
you are simply not getting the essence of it for you are looking at a province from rulers perspective ignoring the masses. Its a lame gameplay with Sultanate Mod.

 

[Noel84]

Well you can't have other examples for other Sultanate were soon eaten by Mughals and earlier too they were constantly taken over by Delhi Sultanate during various dynasty.
But, whichever the Sultanate be their treatment to Hindus or Buddhists were same inviting revolts and mass massacre.
you are simply not getting the essence of it for you are looking at a province from rulers perspective ignoring the masses. Its a lame gameplay with Sultanate Mod.

Just provide one sultanate other than delhi that had significant rebel problems, it should be easy because you're saying they were all unstable.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

You still didn't answer the question, I said real problems with rebels, not occasional riots.

Where are you getting with this....High tolerance is non historic and lame....

 

[Noel84]

Where are you getting with this....High tolerance is non historic and lame....

in EU4 instability = revolts. Minor instability such as riots aren't represented. However, you keep saying the sultanates were all unstable, so it should be extremely easy to provide at least one example of one of them besides delhi having rebel problems.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Where i have said they were unstable. You have kept saying that I have kept saying so.
My argument is on their tolerance level wrongly represented.

I have suggested that Sultanate should break thats what happened historically. How can a less tolerant ruler keep ruling for centuries. So after 1707, Very few Muslim rulers remained and india was divided into multiple Hindu Kingdom. (if there is event for Mughals to timurids then why not for Marathas).

If you really want an example apart from Delhi, you won't get for other Sultanates were short lived and too small.

 

[Noel84]

i have said they were unstable.

all of these quotes imply instability

Peaceful not from War perspective....Internal peace. That what had been my argument since.

You are taking it other way. All I am saying they have been awarded ridiculously high tolerance of heathen which they were NOT. And in the game play they enjoy a very peaceful time without getting into any religious break-out. Why?

Well you can't have other examples for other Sultanate were soon eaten by Mughals and earlier too they were constantly taken over by Delhi Sultanate during various dynasty.
But, whichever the Sultanate be their treatment to Hindus or Buddhists were same inviting revolts and mass massacre.
you are simply not getting the essence of it for you are looking at a province from rulers perspective ignoring the masses. Its a lame gameplay with Sultanate Mod.

how about since they were stable but intolerant we replace their tolerance with -10 unrest and -75% cost to raise stab. Or maybe with just keep the abstraction[/QUOTE]

 

[SantoshKashyap]

in what world does a stable revolt happen? What even is a stable revolt? Do the rebels and former overlords just get together and set up an entire order of how everything will happen or something like that?

still you are not getting and taking it other way......Hindu revolts......as in the game...

 

[SantoshKashyap]

all of these quotes imply instability





how about since they were stable but intolerant we replace their tolerance with -10 unrest and -75% cost to raise stab. Or maybe with just keep the abstraction

[/QUOTE]
I am not sure of workability...why you want to keep such high tolerance...which never had been...help me understand...

 

[SantoshKashyap]

One needs to check playability, i fear if tolerance of heathens be removed from them, they may grow unstable....

 

[Trin Tragula]

Short version:
I feel the Sultanate ideas serve their purpose of making the Sultanates stable despite being ruled by a minority.
No Sultanate fell to religious unrest in the period covered by the game (the Marathas certainly expanded far and wide but after achieving independence they did so through conventional military means, not mass revolts). The Sultanates also made very little effort to convert the Hindu population historically (and with the exception of Bengal such conversions did not really take place on the scale the game shows).
If the Tolerance is removed both will become untrue. The Sultanates will attempt to convert their populations right away and those that fail will quickly fall to religious rebels (this was after all how this region used to play out in EU3).

Longer version:
The Sultanates certainly did vary a lot in how they treated their Hindu subjects but they all had to live with the fact that the Muslim population was outnumbered drastically compared to Hindus and India's other religions and they all did so without fragmenting (perhaps with the exception of Malwa). Most had to run their states in pretty unorthodox ways to accomplish this. Some incorporated Hindus and Hindu customs to a pretty big degree such as the Deccan Sultanates like Bijapur or Golconda not to mention the Mughal Empire itself.
In the game this means an increase of tolerance to the base negative one. With a negative tolerance you'd have religious rebels popping up regularly and hundreds of years of Muslim rule would in many areas be rolled back during the first 20 years. This is why this aspect of their idea set is necessary.
It should also be taken into account that most of these Sultanates did experience very harsh and sometimes successful revolts in this turbulent time in history. Almost all of these revolts came from groups that did not dislodge the Muslim states but instead replaced them with new ones. This is therefore what should be the most common outcome in the game as well. Separatists should be the most common rebel in India (and separatists *will* create states that are Hindu in many cases), not religious zealots that try to convert the state itself.

The current situation does make the first 200 years play out a lot more realistically than without the tolerance. Muslim hegemony tends to be a lot more total and lasting than in real life however mainly due to two things:
1. The Sultanates don't fight each other enough. Historically they did not gang up on the Hindus. Instead as they where generally the bigger powers in their areas they spent most of their time fighting each-other, often with Hindu allies on both sides. There where also cases of Muslim states with Hindu overlords in the south. In the game the states in this region ally according to religion lines to a greater degree than they did historically. Vijayanagar historically had no problem allying itself with Muslim states for instance, something that's not really common in the game.
2. I certainly do agree that would be good to better model the rise of the Marathas. The events we have date back to the pre AoW era when India wasn't very developed in level of detail. The game has the means to do this in the forms of the map and tags, adding more here is something that I'd love to do at some point.
Ultimately the Marathas should be able to rise in a situation where India is dominated by Sultanates as that's what they did historically. Back in the 17th century when their polity was young India was almost entirely dominated by the Mughal Empire and the remaining Deccan Sultanates.

When it comes to the internal balance of these states the new Dhimmi estate in Cossacks really makes it possible for the Indian Sultanates to be more diversified. The Estate will allow Sultanates to decide to what extent they want to make the non-Muslim population part of the running of their state. If the Dhimmi (ie Hindus) end up with very high influence they will be splitting off from the Sultanate and forming new states.
Keeping them loyal will also will also mean reacting to various events where the non-Muslims ask for rights such as the abolishment of discriminatory taxes, the right to hold certain offices, protection against power misuse, etc.
The Dhimmi estate is much more powerful in states where the Muslims are in minority and will expect to be granted lands, etc just like the Muslim Amirs would for instance. This is a rule that was added with India and to some extent South East Asia specifically in mind (in states where the Dhimmi is not in majority they will not expect to be granted lands).


Last of all one thing needs to be clear and will thus be repeated:
It is not the view of anyone here that religious oppression did not happen in India in this era. Temple destruction was of course inexcusable. Hindus and other non-Muslims where also discriminated against through a variety of laws and taxes specifically aimed at them and we're not pretending otherwise. Much of this is actually referenced in the in game flavor events for these countries as it is.
However if you play Orissa and fight the Bengal or Jaunpur sultanates you should not be helped by a massive uprising of thousands of angry co-religionists, those wars where fought historically by Kapilendra and something like that never happened. The tolerance boosts are not meant to signify that everything was rosy and harmonious either they just try to make the game play challenges faces more akin to those historically present.