Safavid Persia

[Garbon]

I'm going to suggest that that source is dubious at best, seeing as how it has no cites and the English is quite suspect.

Yes, renewed would probably be the best word.

And no, I'm not really sure who would have renewed the treaty, seeing as how Persia was divided up amongst several competing factions at the time.

Lastly, in the historical treaty it doesn't really seem that the Ottomans ceded lands to Persia but rather stopped controlling (game-wise) lands that had been Persian.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Is this source more reliable:

Conflict between Iran and Turkey has deep historical roots. Wars between the Ottomans and the Safavids in 1635 culminated in the Treaty of Kasri Sirin, signed by Sultan Murat IV in 1639, in which essentially the present day border between Iran and Turkey was drawn. The Ottomans received seven cities, including Baghdad, and Iran three. The Ottoman and the Persian empires maintained an adversarial position during that time with wars occurring in 1639, 1723-27, 1730-37, 1743-46, 1775, and 1821-1823. In 1733 the Persians battled the Ottomans for Baghdad and seized the Turkish post until 1746 when the Zand Dynasty signed a treaty with the Turkish empire.

In 1775, Persia broke it when it laid siege to Basra until 1821 at which time the Ottoman Empire and the Qajar Dynasty of Persia resumed their battling for two more years until they signed the First Treaty of Erzurum.

We have a problem... Iraq province is not included in the exchange currently.

 

[Garbon]

That's much better as it even highlights out who renewed the treaty.

Of course, that source also doesn't agree entirely with this lessening of hostilities line.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

That's much better as it even highlights out who renewed the treaty.

Of course, that source also doesn't agree entirely with this lessening of hostilities line.

Who wrote something about the lessening of hostilities?
However when the Ottomans lose their cores on Azerjaijan and Dagestan and
those provinces are exchanged that the other side has cores on then no side owns cores of the other side.
Lacking cores no side can demand provinces from the other side at half WS.
That means it becomes less likely that the established border heavily shifts after the treaty.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Well, 80 years of peace are not exactly 80 years of war. Armed peace perhaps but still.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

According to post #182, shouldn't Iraq (i.e. Baghdad) be included in the the secede commands of Safavids?

 

[Garbon]

Who wrote something about the lessening of hostilities?

The event text.

 

[Garbon]

According to post #182, shouldn't Iraq (i.e. Baghdad) be included in the the secede commands of Safavids?

Yes, I think both Iraq and Basrah would fall under that.

I guess on some level, I wonder why this particular border is what we're settling upon. After all, it was hardly set in stone, even for most of the 16th century, where the border was going to play out. I'm not sure why this massive exchange of provinces should go down, if it doesn't accurately reflect what is happening in game. If the Ottomans have successfully beaten the Safavids back and own Tabriz, Hamadan, and Awhaz...why should they be "penalized" and forced to hand them over? That's the worst sort of determinism.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Yes, I think both Iraq and Basrah would fall under that.

I guess on some level, I wonder why this particular border is what we're settling upon. After all, it was hardly set in stone, even for most of the 16th century, where the border was going to play out. I'm not sure why this massive exchange of provinces should go down, if it doesn't accurately reflect what is happening in game. If the Ottomans have successfully beaten the Safavids back and own Tabriz, Hamadan, and Awhaz...why should they be "penalized" and forced to hand them over? That's the worst sort of determinism.

It is only a massive exchange of provinces if actually all of those provinces are owned by the other side. How often do you see the *whole* african or arabian or anatolian possesions of the Ottoman Empire owned by the Safavids? Never? That is how often "a massive exchange of provinces" is going to take place

While the list of provinces to be *potentially* exchanged is huge - the number of provinces that actually are handed over is rather small in most of my games at least. How many provinces have been exchanged in your games?

However to come a (small) step towards your position Garbon: We could simply add a countrysize = 6 trigger in event 3387 (post 146 in this thread by Yoda). That is the same minimum size demanded of the Ottomans to get the inheritance of Trebizond and could represent here the minimum size of the OE to successfully negotiate such a treaty with another empire.

 

[Garbon]

You're still not answering my question. Why are we "forcing" (which we are as AI will almost never opt out and only and only a savvy Ottoman human player will no better than to accept the treaty) this particular set of boundaries. Again:

If the Ottomans have successfully beaten the Safavids back and own Tabriz, Hamadan, and Awhaz...why should they be "penalized" and forced to hand them over? That's the worst sort of determinism.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

You're still not answering my question. Why are we "forcing" (which we are as AI will almost never opt out and only and only a savvy Ottoman human player will no better than to accept the treaty) this particular set of boundaries. Again:

If the Ottomans have successfully beaten the Safavids back and own Tabriz, Hamadan, and Awhaz...why should they be "penalized" and forced to hand them over? That's the worst sort of determinism.

Noone is forced to do anything - there is always the b or c choice in that particular event.
Only a savvy Ottoman player? I expect from myself to read through the events text when I have a choice and perhaps even through the follow-up events - but when "full reconciliation" is not clear enough as "give to them their cores/claims and get back ours and forfeit our unjustified claims" then it could be explicitely mentioned in the events description that core provinces the other side holds are to be exchanged when following choice a in the follow-up-event.

If the Ottomans hold Tabriz/Hamadan/Awhaz - so what? The Safavids/PER actually have several events dealing with the historical relocation of the capital to a safer disctance to the turkish threat (from Tabriz to Quazvin later to Isfahan - and yet in that same history where the capital was threatened
they still came together with the Ottoman Empire and negotiated this treaty.

The trigger has already been slightly improved from the earliest version where both parties only needed to exist = PER to the neighbour = PER condition. And it could be simply improved further by the countrysize = 6 condition to prevent a tiny OE to gain more than it deserves.

 

[Garbon]

Noone is forced to do anything - there is always the b or c choice in that particular event.

The AI is virtually forced to pick to sign the treaty as it is programmed to pick choice a, the vast majority of the time.

Only a savvy Ottoman player? I expect from myself to read through the events text when I have a choice and perhaps even through the follow-up events - but when "full reconciliation" is not clear enough as "give to them their cores/claims and get back ours and forfeit our unjustified claims" then it could be explicitely mentioned in the events description that core provinces the other side holds are to be exchanged when following choice a in the follow-up-event.

You'd fall under the savvy Ottoman player then. The average player shouldn't have to read the event file to know what pitfalls to avoid. Also, I don't think adding that to the description makes sense seeing as historically, that's not what the treaty did.

If the Ottomans hold Tabriz/Hamadan/Awhaz - so what? The Safavids/PER actually have several events dealing with the historical relocation of the capital to a safer disctance to the turkish threat (from Tabriz to Quazvin later to Isfahan - and yet in that same history where the capital was threatened
they still came together with the Ottoman Empire and negotiated this treaty.

The Safavids aren't forced to give up lands in the capital moves. Also, those relocation events (in their current form) have triggers take into account whether or not a relocation makes sense. The same can't be said for these treaty events as they don't really factor in anything and serve simply as a crutch to push in historical borders (Both you and YM have suggested that as a reason for their usefulness).

The trigger has already been slightly improved from the earliest version where both parties only needed to exist = PER to the neighbour = PER condition. And it could be simply improved further by the countrysize = 6 condition to prevent a tiny OE to gain more than it deserves.

A simply countrysize trigger is not going to rectify the problem. I repeat again, why should an expansive Ottoman nation be most likely to cede a large swath of provinces to the Safavids? If anything, some other sort of boundary should be drawn with perhaps Azerbaijan and Tabriz lost as core Safavid territories. If we want to have events that tidy up borders in that chaotic region, they should conform to the actual situation at the time, not what the Ottoman & Persian situations were in our timeline. Otherwise, you really are forcing history as greater than >80% this band aid for ahistorical behavior will be applied.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I guess on some level, I wonder why this particular border is what we're settling upon. After all, it was hardly set in stone, even for most of the 16th century, where the border was going to play out. I'm not sure why this massive exchange of provinces should go down, if it doesn't accurately reflect what is happening in game. If the Ottomans have successfully beaten the Safavids back and own Tabriz, Hamadan, and Awhaz...why should they be "penalized" and forced to hand them over? That's the worst sort of determinism.

I fully understand you concern about penalization and determinism. There is no real problem for a player and it could be easy to understand that Persian provinces will be lost in exchange with Turkisn ones with enhanced descriptions.

I already suggested a modification of the trigger of the starting point (TUR event). Enhanced proposal:

Conditions for the treaty not to happen (Turks failed in conquests or Safavids were the first):
1. 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.
2. Because of this, we could test if Safavids own at least two ports on the Mediterranean coast from Adana to Alexandria.
3. as an extension of first condition, we could test if any Turkish minor is still in game (=> situation is not settled yet with only OE and Safavids).

Conditions for the treaty not to happen (Safavids are not a problem for OE)
1. Safavids don't own a province west to Azerbaijan (historical border precisely)

Conditions for the treaty not to happen (OE is not a problem for Safavids)
1. OE doesn't own a province east to Azerbaijan (historical border precisely)


Other suggestions?

A simply countrysize trigger is not going to rectify the problem. I repeat again, why should an expansive Ottoman nation be most likely to cede a large swath of provinces to the Safavids? If anything, some other sort of boundary should be drawn with perhaps Azerbaijan and Tabriz lost as core Safavid territories. If we want to have events that tidy up borders in that chaotic region, they should conform to the actual situation at the time, not what the Ottoman & Persian situations were in our timeline. Otherwise, you really are forcing history as greater than >80% this band aid for ahistorical behavior will be applied.

I agree three provinces exchanged on each side should be the maximum. But I'm not sure how to do this without a very big trigger.

 

[Garbon]

I agree three provinces exchanged on each side should be the maximum. But I'm not sure how to do this without a very big trigger.

Three separate sequences which only one of which can fire (with the TUR event being the gatekeeper). In the first sequence we'd test to see if the Ottomans have a large presence in Persia. If so, the Ottomans gain more in the sequence/Persia loses cores on said territories. Exactly the flipside for Persia with a large influence west of the historical border (with the potential for Ottoman core loss in Basrah, Nuyssaybin as well). And then of course, we'll have the historical version where neither side is particularly dominant which will also be the default in the case that neither of the other two sequences occurs. The main reason to do so, is to keep the AI, or knowledgeable player, from making a silly disadvantageous peace.

I think the key territories to look at in determining which sequence to have fire are the "border" territories: Group (1)Tabriz, Hamadan, Awhaz; Group (2)Azerbaijan, Kirkuk, Iraq; and Group (3) Syria, Nuyssaybin and Kurdistan.

If the Safavids own most of group 1 and the Ottomans have none (or perhaps only 1) of group 2, then the Safavids win big. If Ottomans have most of group (3) and the Safavids none(or perhaps only 1) of group (2) than the Ottomans win big. If neither is true than the historical peace sequence fires.

Of course we should probably have some stop gaps as in the case that one of the two powers controls all of the border territories and a lot of the rivals cores (Persia in Anatolia or the Ottomans in Khorasan) then no peace events should fire; seeing as how one empire is going in for the kill.


This is all just off the top of my head in the last 30 minutes, so it can do with a bit of polishing.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Three separate sequences which only one of which can fire (with the TUR event being the gatekeeper). In the first sequence we'd test to see if the Ottomans have a large presence in Persia. If so, the Ottomans gain more in the sequence/Persia loses cores on said territories. Exactly the flipside for Persia with a large influence west of the historical border (with the potential for Ottoman core loss in Basrah, Nuyssaybin as well). And then of course, we'll have the historical version where neither side is particularly dominant which will also be the default in the case that neither of the other two sequences occurs. The main reason to do so, is to keep the AI, or knowledgeable player, from making a silly disadvantageous peace.

I think the key territories to look at in determining which sequence to have fire are the "border" territories: Group (1)Tabriz, Hamadan, Awhaz; Group (2)Azerbaijan, Kirkuk, Iraq; and Group (3) Syria, Nuyssaybin and Kurdistan.

If the Safavids own most of group 1 and the Ottomans have none (or perhaps only 1) of group 2, then the Safavids win big. If Ottomans have most of group (3) and the Safavids none(or perhaps only 1) of group (2) than the Ottomans win big. If neither is true than the historical peace sequence fires.

Of course we should probably have some stop gaps as in the case that one of the two powers controls all of the border territories and a lot of the rivals cores (Persia in Anatolia or the Ottomans in Khorasan) then no peace events should fire; seeing as how one empire is going in for the kill.


This is all just off the top of my head in the last 30 minutes, so it can do with a bit of polishing.

I don´t understand the reasoning behind that proposal.

First you complain that a peace treaty that exchanges provinces from OE to PER and back is forced upon player and AI - while every player is able to select B or C and even the AI can do so in 5% of games and while historically it happened and in a normal game won´t even result in a massive exchange of provinces but in an exchange of scattered conquests across both countries.

And now you desire 3 events of which 2 will ensure that *ahistorical* conquests of either the OE or PER will be easier kept due to loss of cores with action a being the ahistorical choice making the diversion from history a fact in the game by removing cores that both countries never gave up within their history.

Removing cores on provinces that historically never were given up in the timeframe of EU2 is -as far as I understand it- not the intent of our efforts in AGCEEP.

This concept may take into account the actual situation in the individual game but in my opinion it must not lead to either OE or PER regardless if AI or player to lose cores that the countries never gave up in history.

 

[Garbon]

I don´t understand the reasoning behind that proposal.

This concept may take into account the actual situation in the individual game but in my opinion it must not lead to either OE or PER regardless if AI or player to lose cores that the countries never gave up in history.

Well you say that you don't understand the reasoning behind my proposal but you seem to express understanding of it, in the last bit of your post.

My originally complaint is that we unfairly penalize nations for performing better than historically by "forcing" (I think it is forcing when it isn't clear to the Ottoman player what he might be giving up and the AI has near a 90% chance of giving away provinces) them to give up ahistorical conquests. For me the point of this existing sequence is to fix up the possibly messed up borders between the Safavids and Ottomans and to provide the basis for more cordial relations between the two.

Given that the boundaries drawn by the historical treaty, largely had to do with what lands were controlled by whom at the time, I don't see why we should have one sequence that ignores what is happening in game and simply enforces the historical boundaries. That smacks of gross determinism and a lack of recognition of how the treaty came about.

I'm also concerned about having sequences that no sensible player would agree to. As an expansive Ottoman player, the only path that makes sense is to refuse the treaty. Why should we have a sequence where the only sensible choice is to refuse the historic path? Related to this, why should an AI Persia that has taken most of the Middle East&Egypt agree to cede all of those provinces to the Ottomans? A human player would never do so, so why do provide such an option to the AI, which can't perform the calculations to recognize that ceding the Middle East and Egypt isn't in it's best interests?

My proposal was created to address these concerns. First off, it prevents the situation where the AI or player is presented with events that have choice b/c as optimal paths, by preventing illogical treaties. Instead, the treaty terms have been generated to conform better to the situation at hand. No longer would the AI foolishly give up provinces that no human player would consider giving up.

While determinism still exists in my proposal (the various treaties still have fixed terms) there is more fluidity as to the outcome of the treaty. This makes sense considered the conditions around the historical treaty and will prevent player frustration and an AI exploit.

Lastly, the goal of improving relations between the two powers is still maintained.

Removing cores on provinces that historically never were given up in the timeframe of EU2 is -as far as I understand it- not the intent of our efforts in AGCEEP.

As it stands the Safavids have many provinces that are historically given up but they never lose cores on. Additionally, the Safavids already have an event that can cause them to lose historical cores on Khorasan if they chose an ahistorical course of action. If a state is deviating significantly from what occurred historically, why should we trap it to only historical actions? In this Safavid/Ottoman case, the historical trend we desire is less hostilities. If the Ottomans own more than their historical share, should we penalize the victor and make him choose actions that no nation would have ever chosen (let's cede everything away that we just fought for!) or should we penalize the loser (the Safavids who prior to this peace had been historical pushed further and further east) with core removals to keep the peace? Given the nature of this simulation, the latter course of action has a less bitter taste for me.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Well you say that you don't understand the reasoning behind my proposal but you seem to express understanding of it, in the last bit of your post.

No. I just acknowledge that even if I´m opposed to your suggestion that it still might become an event.

My originally complaint is that we unfairly penalize nations for performing better than historically by "forcing" (I think it is forcing when it isn't clear to the Ottoman player what he might be giving up

No problem. I understand your reason here: The ottoman player (and also the persian/safavid player) get "Kasr-i-Sirin"-event and can choose a/b/c and in that event itself the a-button does not show them what they will secede/removecore because that is in the follow-up-event. In that case we should add another sentence in the events text so that every player fully understands that the option a (full reconcialiation) means "In case we want to establish better relations in the future and fully reconcile with OE/PER we have to secede all provinces that belonged to them. In case they agree they will do the same for those of our provinces they currently own."

...
My proposal was created to address these concerns. First off, it prevents the situation where the AI or player is presented with events that have choice b/c as optimal paths, by preventing illogical treaties. Instead, the treaty terms have been generated to conform better to the situation at hand. No longer would the AI foolishly give up provinces that no human player would consider giving up.

I would not say it´s foolish by the AI. Those provinces that are *potentially* (because in the current event noone knows what and how much provinces of the other side one owns, sometimes that are 0 provinces, sometimes only the cores both share) given up are generally non-core, most wrong-religion AND wrong-culture provinces.

However removing historical cores due to ahistorical successful conquests is not something that I would like to see. It´s against the very concept of *core* provinces - those provinces are meant to be a fighting cause for those that have a core on it.
If either the OE (or PER/Safavids) would refuse to give up their ahistorical conquests and would refuse to return the others core provinces - then IMO I can´t see a "treaty of Kasr-i-Sirin" happening because no common understanding about a border would be established when that border would mean loss of cores for either side.

Take the 1871 french-german war as an example. Bismarck warned against using the opportunity to get Alsace back from the french and wanted moderation to establish cordial relations as back when he established similar relations after the prussian-austrian war without demanding large territory despite their defeat. Bismarks warning was not heard, Alsace taken and the french were ready at the first opportunity to demand "Revanche!".

Kasr-i-Sirin would be the opposite example. Both sides return the others core provinces (in case they actually own them) because they both understand that else there would be no peace for more than a few years.

In case of:

Ottoman player/Safavid AI: No problem. We add another line to the events text "blabla we will give away their cores and get back ours in case they own such". A player understands what that means and either goes historical (all cores are exchanged) or ahistorical (keep the provinces but that means the next war will come sooner). The PER AI then can no longer choose full reconciliation and it will be only the b or c choice left due to the events structure. The human player decides what is fun for him. All is good

Ottoman AI/Safavid player: No problem. The AI decides in 90% to go historical and offer to exchange provinces. Nothing bad happened yet, the player can either confirm that (here in the follow-up-event the additional text "blabla secede their cores, get back ours..." needs to make things clear. If t the player decides full recon he knows what he is doing if he doesn´t want that he can cancel the full trety and go with b or c.

If both are players then both can accept full recon - and both have the option to prevent the full treaty.

The only problem left is if BOTH countries are AI and the player is playing someone else. In that case TUR/OE will take the historical choice in 90%? and then it´s to the PER/safavids AI to select the historical choice in 90%. So even two AI´s have two chances that the treaty won´t happen. But IF it happens then the AI will shed away only wrong-culture, most wrong-religion, onlyl non-core provinces. As the AI is not supposed to go for a worldconquest (as in that case players won´t want to lose a single province) is that really a problem?

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Portugal in the red sea

Copy&past from the Portugal&indian sea thread:

Originally Posted by ConjurerDragon
Should the Safavids be involved?

In the wikitext it mentions that the portugues were driven out of Ormuz with persian aid. Perhaps an event that grants them a CB on POR in case POR owns 505 after 1600?

Edit: This PER event even currently mentions the conquest of the portuguese bases in the red sea. Would simply adding a CB on POR in the a choice of this event be sufficient? Or would a new event be needed in case 3565 had happened and POR owns 505?

Better have a new event. How many years for a temporary CB since we decided to not add a core on Bahrein province?

As PER/Safavids should be involved I put it here for discussion.
Should there be a new event for PER that gives them a temporary CB on POR in case that POR owns Al Kharam (POR has an event inheriting the state of Ormuz and gains a core on province 505)?

According to english wiki POR lost Ormuz around 1622
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ormuz
and Muscat in 1649
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscat,_Oman#History

I noticed while reading through the event file that the Safavids already have a very similar event but that event does not take into account if the Portuguese actually control anything in the area.

Would it be still better to have a new even before this existing event that checks if the POR own Al Kharam or Maskat or should better the existing events startdate move to 1615 to combine the CB´s for throwing the POR out of Ormuz/Al Kharam and Maskat?

#(1621-1780) Persian Attack on Hormouz
#by sturmvogel
event = {
	id = 254022
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 535 data = -1 } #Hormouz
		control = { province = 535 data = -1 } #Hormouz
		exists = POR
	}
	random = no
	country = PER
	name = "EVENTNAME254022" #Attack on Hormouz
	desc = "EVENTHIST254022"
	#-#Shah Abbas was outraged by the Portuguese attack on the Persian garrison on the island of Qeshm to secure the local wells for their waterless island of Hormouz. He ordered the Portuguese expelled from Qeshm and Hormouz even though he had no navy. He offered trade privileges and reduced customs taxes to the English East India Company as well as custody of the castle of Hormouz itself for their assistance with the subtle reminder that the Dutch might agree if the English refused.

	date = { day = 7 month = may year = 1621 }
	offset = 3600
	deathdate = { year = 1780 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME254022A" #This insult cannot be tolerated!
		command = { type = casusbelli which = POR value = 60 }
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = -100 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 164097 } #ENG: East Indian Company Attacks Portuguese Hormouz
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME254022B" #We don't have enough money
		command = { type = vp value = -5 }
	}
}

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Qeshm island is not on he map but we can consider that it is part of Hormuz province (link).

According to this source:

In January 1619, Ruy Freire de Andrade left Lisbon for the Persian Gulf with orders to disperse the English, who had established a factory at Jâsk in 1616 (Boxer, p. 58), and to put pressure on the Persians, in part by dislodging the Persian garrison on Qeshm and building a Portuguese fort there (Boxer, p. 71; Slot, p. 107; Steensgaard, p. 312). Two thousand Portuguese soldiers, supported by 1,000 Hormuzi troops, landed on 7 May 1621. They drove off the Persians; and over the next five and a half months, they constructed a strong fort (Boxer, p. 72). Beginning in the winter of 1621/22, however, Emâm-qoli Khan of Shiraz for nine months blockaded the Portuguese garrison (but not their flotilla), under the command of Ruy Freire, in their recently constructed fort on Qeshm. His intention was to cut off water and supplies for Hormuz, the real object of the attack (Wilson, p. 144). The timely arrival at Jâsk on 24 December 1621 of an English East India Company squadron, due to collect silk for export, provided Emâm-qoli Khan with willing partners to assist in the expulsion of the Portuguese, in return for sole English custody over the castle of Hormuz, among other things (Boxer, p. 74). On 2 February 1622 five English guns were landed; and after fruitless negotiations between Ruy Freire and Edward Monnox, the English bombarded the fort. The garrison surrendered; Ruy Freire was sent off as prisoner in the Lion to Surat; and a Persian force was installed on the island (Boxer, pp. 77-78). The Arctic navigator, William Baffin, was killed in this action (Wilson, p. 146).

Since Al Kharam was lost in 1622 and Mascate in 1649, and because of the support of 1,000 Hormuzi troops we can consider Portuguese ownership of Al Kharam or Mascate is mandatory. But date of the Persian event should be 1621.

 

[sturmvogel]

Qeshm island is not on he map but we can consider that it is part of Hormuz province (link).

According to this source:

Since Al Kharam was lost in 1622 and Mascate in 1649, and because of the support of 1,000 Hormuzi troops we can consider Portuguese ownership of Al Kharam or Mascate is mandatory. But date of the Persian event should be 1621.

I think that YodaMaster's revision of 260093 and addition of 248008 adequately handle the removal of the core on Al-Kharam. And 254022 should check for Portuguese presence in Oman.

#(1621-1780) Persian Attack on Hormouz
#by sturmvogel
event = {
	id = 254022
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 535 data = -1 } #Hormouz
		control = { province = 535 data = -1 } #Hormouz
		[COLOR=YellowGreen]OR = {
			owned = { province = 504 data = POR } #Mascate
			owned = { province = 505 data = POR } #Al Kharam[/COLOR]
			[COLOR=SandyBrown]owned = { province = 506 data = POR } #Quatar
			owned = { province = 507 data = POR } #Damman
		}
		exists = ENG[/COLOR]
	}
	random = no
	country = PER
	name = "EVENTNAME254022" #Attack on Hormouz
	desc = "EVENTHIST254022"
	#-#

	date = { day = 7 month = may year = 1621 }
	offset = 3600
	deathdate = { year = 1780 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME254022A" #This insult cannot be tolerated!
		command = { type = casusbelli which = POR value = 60 }
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = -100 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 164097 } #ENG: East Indian Company Attacks Portuguese Hormouz
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME254022B" #We don't have enough money
		command = { type = vp value = -5 }
	}
}