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]

I am not sure of workability...why you want to keep such high tolerance...which never had been...help me understand...[/QUOTE]
why -10 unrest and -75% cost to raise stability...

 

[Noel84]

I am not sure of workability...why you want to keep such high tolerance...which never had been...help me understand...
why -10 unrest and -75% cost to raise stability...

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

because they knew how to make the minorities remain stable, which in eu4 is what tolerance represents.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Long Post

That was the general reply about why the Sultanates get so high tolerance, now for the specific points of the OP:

First, the sultanate kingdom have a rather peaceful realm which should be changed into events triggering Hindu revolts forming states.

IMO this is what we have now early on. But better rise of Marathas would be very nice rather than general Hindu revolts which is something that did not really happen.

Second, The Mughal Empire don't form or even come closer to forming one. Attention is required.

I agree. It's a fine line between railroading and still having a good possibility of a major player such as the Mughals being able to show up though.

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.

This is arguable. You could easily envision another state rising to Mughal like dominance IMO. Most of the time when the Sultanates fractured they did so into more sultanates.
With the Dhimmi estate it will be possible for Sultanates to fracture into Hindu states when it makes sense. It should absolutely be a challenge for a sultanate to rule a Hindu majority, something that comes at the cost of other things and that's what this estate will hopefully show in these countries.

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.

I won't disagree here, though Europeans showing up is more of an AI issue

 

[SantoshKashyap]

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.

Makes it a lot clear...thanks.....

 

[SantoshKashyap]

That was the general reply about why the Sultanates get so high tolerance, now for the specific points of the OP:



IMO this is what we have now early on. But better rise of Marathas would be very nice rather than general Hindu revolts which is something that did not really happen.



I agree. It's a fine line between railroading and still having a good possibility of a major player such as the Mughals being able to show up though.



This is arguable. You could easily envision another state rising to Mughal like dominance IMO. Most of the time when the Sultanates fractured they did so into more sultanates.
With the Dhimmi estate IMO Hindu fractures should be more possible when they make sense. It should absolutely be a challenge for a sultanate to rule a Hindu majority and that's what this estate will hopefully show in these countries.



I won't disagree here, though Europeans showing up is more of an AI issue

What exactly you mean by AI issue - AI programming......

 

[SantoshKashyap]

That was the general reply about why the Sultanates get so high tolerance, now for the specific points of the OP:



IMO this is what we have now early on. But better rise of Marathas would be very nice rather than general Hindu revolts which is something that did not really happen.



I agree. It's a fine line between railroading and still having a good possibility of a major player such as the Mughals being able to show up though.



This is arguable. You could easily envision another state rising to Mughal like dominance IMO. Most of the time when the Sultanates fractured they did so into more sultanates.
With the Dhimmi estate it will be possible for Sultanates to fracture into Hindu states when it makes sense. It should absolutely be a challenge for a sultanate to rule a Hindu majority, something that comes at the cost of other things and that's what this estate will hopefully show in these countries.



I won't disagree here, though Europeans showing up is more of an AI issue

Dhimmi system sounds an answer to the problem bringing it closer.

 

[Trin Tragula]

What exactly you mean by AI issue - AI programming......

Issue is not really the correct word there. I only meant that if the Europeans want to take land in India there's really nothing stopping them as it is. When a human does not that's his choice to which one cannot possibly object.
If an AI does not it's likely because it prioritizes something else more, which is both not my personal department and very hard to give an opinion about in general terms given how different various games may have developed by the 18th century. The AI has to play the game as it is and not just try to repeat history after all

 

[SantoshKashyap]

because they knew how to make the minorities remain stable, which in eu4 is what tolerance represents.

A balancing Imbalance...

 

[Noel84]

A balancing Imbalance...

why? It's just another abstraction like transport ships carrying 1k troops, tens of thousands of cannons per army etc.

 

[FleetingRain]

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.

Wasn't there any historical rivalry in India? I feel like at least *one* would help stopping the blobs allying each other by religion.

 

[BrokenSky]

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.

This is a problem in a lot of places really. Outside of 30 years war mechanic, the AI will almost never ally outside it's own religion. Perhaps this needs to be looked at?

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Wasn't there any historical rivalry in India? I feel like at least *one* would help stopping the blobs allying each other by religion.

There had been rivalry among Rajputana who would ally them to their advantage. But another important element that is missing in game is Succession War in Sultanate.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

There had been no definite law of Succession. So there followed a continuous war of succession after the death of almost every Sultan. Every Sultan had generally dozens of sons from his different wives who had nothing in common with each other except hatred and jealousy for each other. They fully knew their fate that after the death of their father they must get either of the two - throne or death and there was no third way out for them. Hence, there were continuous war of succession after death of every Sultan. It made the Sultanate weaker and weaker every day till it collapsed like house of cards to foreign invasion.