-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
YodaMaster said:
Which is weird as why would Oman be happy that Persia ignored it's Imam's cries for help?
YodaMaster said:
Yea, this event is bizarre.
YodaMaster said:
Wow, I wouldn't have thought it worth a tag. Maybe we should look at reworking some events so that it's not just a revolter and will vassalized by various powers over the course of the game by event. Of course we'd probably need periodic independence or revolt events to prevent, or at least punish, anyone who DA'd the place.
Lord Grave said:
In my current game (still 1.53) the Safavids have a core on Iraq, probably because they formed from Kara Koyounlu.
With Kasr-i Sirin, OE secedes all provinces east of Azerbaijan (and thus Persian rich provinces) but Persia could still own some important OE cores, especially in Anatolia.
Proposed changes:
#-#The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin, signed between the Ottoman Empire and Persia in 1639, established borders that have changed little to this day. Hostilities between the two great empires decreased remarkably following the treaty as their relations steadily improved until 1722 when war broke out again. However, the treaty was dusted off and renewed in 1747.
#-#The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin, signed between the Ottoman Empire and Persia in 1639, established borders that have changed little to this day. Hostilities between the two great empires decreased remarkably following the treaty as their relations steadily improved until 1722 when war broke out again. However, the treaty was dusted off and renewed in 1747.
New events:
And TUR cores on Daghestan and Azerbaijan will have to be removed in 1648 scenario.
EDIT: further changes according to discussion
Proposed changes:
Code:
#(1639-1700) The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin with Persia
event = {
id = 3387
trigger = {
neighbour = PER
NOT = {
war = { country = TUR country = PER }
}
}
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME3387" #The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin
desc = "EVENTHIST3387"
#-#
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1639 }
offset = 180
deathdate = { year = 1700 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3387A" #Full Reconciliation
command = { type = trigger which = 254020 } #PER: The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3387B" #Moderate Treaty
command = { type = relation which = PER value = [COLOR=Red]100[/COLOR][COLOR=Yellow]50[/COLOR] }
[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = trigger which = 301127 } #TUR: A moderate treaty is signed[/COLOR]
}
action_c = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3387C" #No Treaty
command = { }
}
}
Code:
#(1639-1700) The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin with [COLOR=Red]Persia[/COLOR][COLOR=Yellow]Ottoman Empire[/COLOR]
#by Bordic
event = {
id = 254020 #triggered by TUR_3387 A
random = no
country = PER
name = "EVENTNAME3387" #The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin
desc = "EVENTHIST3387"
#-#
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3387A" #Full Reconciliation
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = DIP which = 2 value = 24 }
[COLOR=Yellow]#Anatolia
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 474 } #Sivas
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 475 } #Trabzon
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 476 } #Angora
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 477 } #Anatolia
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 478 } #Smyrna
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 482 } #Konya
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 483 } #Adana
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 1609 } #Kastamonu
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 1610 } #Antalya
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 1611 } #Taurus
#Syria[/COLOR]
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 485 } #Aleppo
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 490 } #Syria
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 491 } #Lebanon
#[COLOR=Yellow]T[/COLOR]he rest of the [COLOR=Yellow]Mediterranean[/COLOR] and [COLOR=Yellow]R[/COLOR]ed [COLOR=Yellow]S[/COLOR]ea coast
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 488 } #Kirkuk
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 492 } #Samaria
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 493 } #Judea
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 494 } #Sinai
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 495 } #Jordan
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 496 } #Arabia
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 497 } #Medina
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 498 } #Mekkah
[COLOR=Red]command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 499 } #Yemen[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Yellow]#Africa
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 734 } #Orania
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 735 } #Atlas
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 736 } #Aures
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 737 } #Al Djazair
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 738 } #Kabylia
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 740 } #Tripolitania
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 741 } #Cyrenaica
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 742 } #Quattara
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 743 } #Cataract
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 744 } #Alexandria
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 745 } #Delta
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 746 } #Egypt
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 747 } #Nile
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 748 } #Batn al Hajar
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 749 } #Nubia
command = { type = trigger which = 254021 } #PER: Consequence of the Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin[/COLOR]
command = { type = trigger which = 301092 } #TUR: The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin is signed
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3387B" #Moderate Treaty
command = { type = relation which = TUR value = [COLOR=Red]100[/COLOR][COLOR=Yellow]50[/COLOR] }
[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = trigger which = 301127 } #TUR: A moderate treaty is signed[/COLOR]
}
action_c = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3387C" #No Treaty
command = { }
}
}
Code:
#(1639-1700) The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin is signed
event = {
id = 301092 #triggered by PER_254020 A
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME301092" #The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin is signed
desc = "EVENTHIST301092"
#-#We must honor our part of the treaty accepted by Persia.
action_a = {
name = "GOOD_NEWS"
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = DIP which = 4 value = 48 }
command = { type = dynastic which = PER }
command = { type = relation which = PER value = 300 }
[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = removecore which = 471 } #Daghestan
command = { type = removecore which = 487 } #Azerbaijan[/COLOR]
#Everything east of Azerbaijan
[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 471 } #Daghestan
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 487 } #Azerbaijan[/COLOR]
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 525 } #Elbruz
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 526 } #Meched
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 527 } #Kerman
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 528 } #Lut
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 529 } #Tabaristan
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 530 } #Tabriz
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 531 } #Hamadan
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 532 } #Awhaz
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 533 } #Isfahan
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 534 } #Fars
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 535 } #Hormouz
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 536 } #Mekran
}
}
Code:
#(1639-1700) A moderate treaty is signed
event = {
id = 301127 #triggered by PER_254020 B or TUR_3387 B
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME301127" #A moderate treaty is signed
desc = "EVENTHIST301092"
#-#We must honor our part of the treaty accepted by Persia.
action_a = {
name = "GOOD"
command = { type = relation which = PER value = 50 }
command = { type = removecore which = 471 } #Daghestan
command = { type = removecore which = 487 } #Azerbaijan
}
}
Code:
#(1639-1700) Consequence of the Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin
event = {
id = 254021 #triggered by PER_254020 A
random = no
trigger = {
core = { province = 499 data = TUR } #Yemen
NOT = { exists = U18 } #Yemen
OR = {
owned = { province = 499 data = -1 } #Yemen
owned = { province = 500 data = -1 } #Aden
}
}
country = PER
name = "EVENTNAME254021" #Consequence of the Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin
desc = "EVENTHIST254021"
#-#We must honor other parts of the treaty we accepted.
action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 499 } #Yemen
command = { type = secedeprovince which = TUR value = 500 } #Aden
}
}EDIT: further changes according to discussion
Last edited:
YodaMaster said:
I suggested to include the secede commands in the first change because it not only made sense for a full reconciliation, but because in my last games the Ottomans had lost their landconnection south to Egypt because of the Safavids - and so included those provinces that gave TUR the coast provinces and a landway to Egypt.
I agree that we could add more secedecommands, however if we do so why not go the full length and include all Ottoman cores, e.g. on Egypt/Algier/Africa/Aden in case the Safavids run amok?
When we first discussed Kasr-i-Sirin I did include only provinces to be seceded that were not disputed (where not TUR and PER both had a core).
The text of event TUR 301007 (year 1574) which I read now adds turkish cores on Azerbaijan and Dagestan mentioning that these provinces were held only for 20 years. Should we use Kasr-i-Sirin to remove the turkish cores on those two provinces, too?
Which first change?ConjurerDragon said:
IMHO, Yemen and Aden should be seceded only if OE has still a core on them (i.e. TUR_301103 never happened). We need another PER event triggered byConjurerDragon said:
PER_254020 A for this.
Why not for other cores.
Good idea. I suggest TUR_3387 B (moderate treaty) and TUR_301092 for the removal of the cores.ConjurerDragon said:
Azerbaijan and Dagestan will be seceded to Safavids then but only in TUR_301092.
EDIT: post #146 amended.
Last edited:
Randomness for the date of this event:
#-#After destroying his Afghani enemies, Karim Khan turned to rebuilding the country. While technically in charge of the country, he used Ismail III, the last representative of the Safavid dynasty, as a puppet ruler. During his reign, Karim Khan managed to bring order and prosperity to Persia. The roads, only a few years ago infested by gangs of all kinds, were now the safest in the region to travel, and the economy (and especially agriculture) destroyed by the rampage of Nadir Shah and 10 years of instability that followed his death, was finally on the rise.
Code:
#(1756) Karim Shah
event = {
id = 65055
trigger = {
monarch = 0104524 #Ismail III
}
random = no
country = PER
name = "EVENTNAME65055" #Karim Khan
desc = "EVENTHIST65055"
#-#
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1756 }
[COLOR=Yellow]offset = 300
deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1756 }[/COLOR]
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME48024A" #Appoint him
command = { type = ADM which = 4 value = 204 }
command = { type = MIL which = 3 value = 204 }
command = { type = DIP which = 3 value = 204 }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = -1 value = courthouse }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = -1 value = courthouse }
command = { type = infra value = 500 }
command = { type = trade value = 500 }
command = { type = stability value = 2 }
}
}I must say, that I still have never understood this The Treaty of Kasr-i Sirin sequence. Seeing as how it is rather unlikely that the Safavids and Ottomans will stop warring after this sequence, why exactly do we have this extremely deterministic sequence?
Garbon said:
We have it because historically the Ottomans and the Safavids agreed on a treaty 1639 at Kasr-i-Sirin in which they negotiated a border between their empires that has little changed till today?
With the exhcange of core provinces and the removal of common cores the potential for conflict is somewhat lowered. It can´t be removed due to the permanent CB because of sunni/shiite religion.
It will guide the AI in creating historical borders following a historical treaty while the player is free to do something entirely else.
ConjurerDragon said:
Which as I said, doesn't matter in-game as the Ottos and Safavids will still be free to war on one another in game.
ConjurerDragon said:
It isn't a guide when you forced border changes. Simple core removals can be considered part of guiding but ceding provinces back and forth isn't guiding...that's strait jacketing.
They are free but don't do it frequently if both AI, and especially because OE becomes a very peaceful country (war = -75 starting in 1620, too early for Cretan wars, but this is another story...). Borders are very stable after this sequence in most of my tests.Garbon said:
With such war value after 1620, OE is unable to DoW Safavids and try to take its cores back. OTOH, OE is often too powerful for Safavids to dare to DoW and try to canquer/take back Persian provinces owned by OE and some are taken by OE against Timurids successors before the formation of Persia, while OE is allied to Ak Koyunlu, for example.
I saw many times OE owning Isfahan and/or Fars and/or Hormouz while Safavids own Trabzon and/or Sivas and/or Adana.
I agree it isn't a guide but both countries (especially players) can avoid ceding provinces. This is not what I call strait jacketing. Choice is given, even for AI.Garbon said:
And this event is the only exchange of provinces between Safavids and Ottomans. With the example I provided, I don't think this exchange is detrimental to both countries.
Last edited:
YodaMaster said:
Both AIs have very little chance to avoid the exchange of provinces as the AI will primarily choose the first option.
I don't think the cession of provinces is detrimental but potentially detrimental to the mod. First off, where are the contextual triggers for this event? It basically will occur at any point that the two countries are neighbors and not at war. That's a rather scant trigger for an event involving such a large exchange. Why should the Ottoman AI be likely to opt for a province exchange if the Safavids are two provinces strong? What of the condition where one of the nations is vassal of the other? Why in such a case would the peace treaty go down as scripted?
Beyond the simple lack of contextuality, don't you think this is a dangerous precedent? Why bother attempting to guide history when we can just have events that create historical borders?
Garbon said:
No I don´t think it dangerous.
Compare it to the "Treaty of Karlowitz" event for the Ottomans.
THERE they only get their cores removed nothing else, no secedecommands.
I would understand the fundamental difference between those event and that of Kasr-i-Sirin in that at Karlowitz the Ottomans historically were declining but lost their land due to wars - losing the cores will allow the wars to have them lose their provinces faster. If we would want it deterministic they should secede those provinces at Karlowitz - but we leave it to the wars of the gameenige to lose their provinces.
At Kasr-i-Sirin two empires negotiated a peace that lasted for years and agreed upon a common border that lasted even longer than the peace.
Now if you want to say they only agreed on THAT border because neither side had the strength to push the border farther into the others direction and they would have done so if they would not have been nearly equally strong: that´s just fine - then we indeed would need at least three Kasr-event-sequences checking vassalage and countrysize of either side.
However I see the treaty as an understanding that peace and a stable border are more important than owning one or more (wrong-religion, wrong-culture) provinces that the other side claims.
A player easily can select B or C to avoid the event if his intent is a world conquest or such. Even the AI can do it - sometimes. However the AI will gain more from the event than a player because the dumb AI will likely never rule the world through skill and outteching others and will benefit more from losing wrongculture/wrongreligion provinces than a player ever would.
Garbon, of course we could enhance trigger(s) of such sequence, especially comparing relative strength. We lack easy conditions for this but it is doable. Anyway, I always thought it was a treaty of friendship, whatever happened between the two countries before, (even if one could end being the vassal of the other). Doesn't it say borders are here for the rest of the time? Wasn't it proved right?
We model very well OE and Safavids not being enemies after the Treaty and provinces exchange helps for this (and reducing wrong culture penalty).
Formation of Safavids is chaotic for involved provinces but it always happens, thanks to the several modifications you made. Nevertheless, OE doesn't get some provinces because of this process and/or goes too far because of it, and involved alliances. There is nothing much we can do in avoiding presence of OE in one of the three Persian provinces I mentioned (when it happens) and Safavids being present in one the three Turkish ones because all begins here.
Problem with engine is that only wars can change this. Borders can be almost fine before the Treaty as the result of wars but it is rare (if both countries even try) and both of them are more focused on the other side (North Africa and Balkans for OE and remnants of Timurids for Persia).
This should remain an exception only because of all of these points and certainly not become a precedent.
We model very well OE and Safavids not being enemies after the Treaty and provinces exchange helps for this (and reducing wrong culture penalty).
Formation of Safavids is chaotic for involved provinces but it always happens, thanks to the several modifications you made. Nevertheless, OE doesn't get some provinces because of this process and/or goes too far because of it, and involved alliances. There is nothing much we can do in avoiding presence of OE in one of the three Persian provinces I mentioned (when it happens) and Safavids being present in one the three Turkish ones because all begins here.
Problem with engine is that only wars can change this. Borders can be almost fine before the Treaty as the result of wars but it is rare (if both countries even try) and both of them are more focused on the other side (North Africa and Balkans for OE and remnants of Timurids for Persia).
This should remain an exception only because of all of these points and certainly not become a precedent.
So you're basically saying that we need this event as it is impossible (or at least very improbable) to have things work properly?
Anyway, YM, it is only in retrospect that hostilities between the two empires lessened at this point. It wasn't as though the Ottomans and Safavids were establishing a boundary to stand for all time, simply a peace treaty that accounted for the fact that the Ottomans had taken Baghdad the year prior.
I'm also a bit curious about this bit "However, the treaty was dusted off and renewed in 1747." seeing as how there were no Safavids in 1747. :wacko:
I'm also a bit curious about this bit "However, the treaty was dusted off and renewed in 1747." seeing as how there were no Safavids in 1747. :wacko:
Very improblable is not exactly what I meant. No good reason for things working perfectly (and not properly) suits better.
But the main cause is the way Safavids form because of the engine and I don't see how we could enhance this. It works fine now.
Only problem is "collateral damages": OE ending with ownership of Isfahan for the most problematic.
I see the Treaty only as the final point of the process. In all of my tests, only two or three provinces on each side can be affected, almost always the same, even with the cores.
An important condition for the treaty not to happen could be the existence of Mamluks (or events triggering OE victory upon them). If they are still there around 1650 or OE didn't really achieved conquest, OE failed for sure and Safavids could even be the main cause of this failure if they reached Mediterranean Sea.
But the main cause is the way Safavids form because of the engine and I don't see how we could enhance this. It works fine now.
Only problem is "collateral damages": OE ending with ownership of Isfahan for the most problematic.
I see the Treaty only as the final point of the process. In all of my tests, only two or three provinces on each side can be affected, almost always the same, even with the cores.
An important condition for the treaty not to happen could be the existence of Mamluks (or events triggering OE victory upon them). If they are still there around 1650 or OE didn't really achieved conquest, OE failed for sure and Safavids could even be the main cause of this failure if they reached Mediterranean Sea.
You're right. And this is what can be observed in-game. After the Treaty, OE and Safavids have not much to dispute and they are more busy elsewhere. Even the religious permanent CB is rarely sufficient for a war.Garbon said:
But Persia/Iran was still there, no?Garbon said:
Sentence at this end of this quick reference matches. "Renewed" is not exactly the right term, "used again" could be more appropriate.