Tinto Maps #18 Persia & Caucasus Feedback

[Pavía]

Khorasani Turks seem extremely overrepresented now, I think they were already overrepresented in the original post but now you've made all of Iranian Khorasan Turkic!

I see Qashqai culture in the changelist but they are nowhere to be found on the map.

Disappointed at the lack of Tat and Udi cultures, though I suppose Udis as Lezgins is better than nothing.

Properly speaking the Adhari culture should speak Tabaristani not Persian, though Tats of course would speak Persian. This is one reason Tat culture should be separated.

Would like to see Central Asian Arabs, though I suppose they might not show up on the map.

Do the Jews of Kurdistan, Dagestan and Transoxiana have their cultures properly portrayed as Aramaic and Persian-speaking?

Not a fan of the Orthodox color change personally.

edit: grammar

Adhari and Talysh should definitely be separete from the Caspian language family they made,neither of them should be Persian.

I'm still bummed as why is Khorasani Turkic so over represented,Like they shouldn't even exist as a minority in 70% of the locations they are in right now.One quick way to fix it would be just Making Khorasani a Persian speaking culture and just have Turkmen representing Oghuz speakers in the region.Or just merging it to Tajik.

Yes, it is just ridiculous and I hope it is fixed before release. Many people have been confused by the 'Khorasani' culture, and now it seems the devs themselves are confused by it too

Dude,just look at this map of modern Persian speaking areas.Almost the whole area is Persian speaking expect for the northern parts where the historical Oghuz Turkmen community actually existed(plus some Kurds from Safavid tribal relocations that happened in the 16th century).I'm seriously starting to believe the devs are just confused by the "Khorasani" ethnonym.

You may say this map wouldn't be true for 1337,i say that the area has been continuously ruled by Oghuz dynasties and that only stopped after the Pahlavi dynasty.While there were Persian assimilation efforts by that dynasty there was no genocide,mass killings or relocations of ethnic groups,so it wouldn't make sense for this strong majority of Oghuz speakers to almost completely disappear after 50 years.

View attachment 1274489
Khorasani Turkic is really exaggerated, while Turkic penetration in Eastern Khorasan is evident in form of Aimaq and Hazara who, despite being persian-speaking by now, originate from Turko-Mongol population, Western Khorasan never was Turkified to such extent.

View attachment 1274497View attachment 1274498
Additionally, Adhari spoke language related to Talysh and Gilaki, their modern descendants are Iranian Tat language. The source of confusion is that there are two types of Tats. Caucasian Tats who speak language related to Persian and Iranian Tats who speak language related to Talysh.

It's been confirmed as an error; we'll fix it as soon as possible.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Unless you intend to show it in Friday's TF, would you mind posting the map of the SoPs and BBCs of the region @Pavía?

Thanks!

 

[mjaarafi]

Not yet in 1337. The moves towards that were done in 1340, though even then I wouldn't call it a theocracy. It was more that it co-opted religion for legitimacy, and that most of its leaders weren't actually religious figures in their own right (Mas'ud appointed one as co-ruler as a part of that co-opting religion, but he was the actual ruler).

My point is that calling the Sar-be-dars a republic is somewhat anachronistic. Being a republic is a concept often associated with European ruling systems, while they were more akin to a counselor order.

However, contemporary history scholars in Iran view the Sarbadars as one of the early roots of a Twelver Shi'ite religious state, which later evolved into the Safavid-style Shi'ite religious rule and even influenced the current Islamic Republic in Iran. Thus, I believe the Sarbadars deserve special recognition in terms of the flavor they receive or their specific government type.

 

[prinscky]

The ruler of Gurgan traced descent from a brother of Genghis Khan and still principally lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle, so it would make total sense. Same for the ruler of the Huleguids (in fact he was a direct descendent of Genghis).

The Jalayrids are more complicated. I'd have had them as a Perso-Mongol culture, to mark their greater integration into the Persian bureaucratic structure. But Mongol isn't inaccurate either.

Aren't the new game separated the culture from languages? So the Jalayrids could adopt Azeri culture as their primary while continue to speaking Mongolian language? As for the style of government, everyone can adopt that.

 

[Ispil]

My point is that calling the Sar-be-dars a republic is somewhat anachronistic. Being a republic is a concept often associated with European ruling systems, while they were more akin to a counselor order.

However, contemporary history scholars in Iran view the Sarbadars as one of the early roots of a Twelver Shi'ite religious state, which later evolved into the Safavid-style Shi'ite religious rule and even influenced the current Islamic Republic in Iran. Thus, I believe the Sarbadars deserve special recognition in terms of the flavor they receive or their specific government type.

Fair.

 

[SuperLexxe]

---

Here is a preliminary community feedback map. Information drawn from the previous thread and some recent additions. I will be adding names and close-ups sometime later.

Included the current in-game map, for ease of comparison and accurate patching.

You can use arrow keys to quickly compare the two as pop-ups.

---

Locations:

---

 

[ArVass]

Ah, oops. I maintain that I think that access to west African peppers should not affect the price of trade with India. You could say that the small number means that it won't affect the profitability of the Indian trade, but the Indian spice trade crosses an enormously longer distance. There may be fewer locations, but lets suppose I play in West Africa, and I develop huge population centres on a few of those tiles. How much price impact does this have? I don't know, and I'm not sure that I can unless we get word in from the devs confirming that the price difference across the distance being traded around the entirety of Africa actually merits the existence of the trade route, when the good can be found locally, albeit in a smaller quantity.


I don't actually think the similarity matters. What matters is the impact on the trade routes, mechanically. If something existing as a substitute good has significant price impact, then the result in terms of the actions of the countries and the attempts at establishing trade is ahistorical, even if the culinary use might be classified more accurately in some other fashion. The devs have chosen to split the goods up not by type, but by region, and that's so that the regional price difference merit the existence of inter-continental trade, and so encourage that trade by the player and the AI. I would place that as a very high priority.


The central thrust of my statement was not 'juniper is a substitution good for saffron'. It was,



And the geographic lumping of goods affecting trade. The fact that juniper (or any given single good that was traded) does not fetch the same price as saffron, or that it does not fill the exact use as saffron, I think is far less important than whether or not its existence as a 'regional luxury consumption good' that is used mechanically for the same inputs merits its inclusion.

I agree that Persia should have more saffron provinces, so that adjacent regions are incentivized to buy it more. But that doesn't mean that I think the good should, as you put it,

I'm pretty sure that the amount of pepper farmed in West Africa is neglible compared to those in India because of the much much lower development and population.

Speaking of African spices - it would be nice if there was an event to introduce Cloves plantations in Zanzibar.

 

[matfer13]

---

Here is a preliminary community feedback map. Information drawn from the previous thread and some recent additions. I will be adding names and close-ups sometime later.

Included the current in-game map, for ease of comparison and accurate patching.

You can use arrow keys to quickly compare the two as pop-ups.

---

View attachment 1275815 View attachment 1275816

Locations:
View attachment 1275817

---

Wikipedia says that Malatya was owned by the Eretnids in 1337

 

[matfer13]

Please rename the North Dravidian language to Brahui-Kurukh, I know it doesn't roll off the the tongue but it's way better than using cardinal points for language names, especially for Dravidian ones

 

[Cynicium]

Border of Xuzestan and Luristan Region seem too gory. They should get Behbahan Area from Fars Region and transfer Deh-e Kurd Area to Eraq-e Ajam Region.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

I avoided mentioning it in the previous thread, since it's a huge can of worms in its own right, but I have a question regarding your attitudes towards the localisation of dynastic names, or, to put it in another way: how do you choose which dynastic names to use, when there's more than one way to portray them?

For example, the dynasty most of you (who have heard of it) know as the Zakarids of Ani/Anisi were never called so until the early 20th century. Before that, they were exclusively known as the Mkhargrdzelis (Georgian, lit. long-armed) in both Georgian and Armenian epigraphic and literary sources. This dynastic name remains in use chiefly in non-American (Soviet-Russian, French, British) literature, but rarely in American ones, which use the Armenian-created historiographical term "Zakarid", made perhaps to emphasise their non-Georgian origins.

I hope it's clear that between the Zakarids and the Mkhargrdzelis, the former is much more anachronistic, but I still wanted to ask you guys about your stance on such matters. Is it possible for dynasties to have multiple versions of their name? So, for example, if a French Bourbon dynast becomes the Spanish king, will his dynastic name change to Borbón, without altering the original dynasty in France? Can dynastic names be dependant on their ruler's sovereignty or subjugation? Etc., Etc.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Bishweshwar]

For religions like Karachay-Balkar Pagan, is the "Pagan" at the end really necessary? Just "Karachay-Balkar" as the name of the religion would work better I'd think. Same thing for most other religions with "Pagan" at the end...

 

[ArVass]

Is Tbilisi supposed to be spelled like that? In Georgian and Old Georgian, it is Tbilisi, but on the map, it is currently Tblisi, with missing an i. That form of the name does not appear to appear anywhere I look

 

[GenericUsername1444]

On the map, I presume all the location and provincial localisations are still WiP, as a good third of Georgian ones still have foreign names, and another third are poorly transliterated.

In the event that none of my proposed location and province changes come into effect, (which I realise is very likely) I suggest making such localisations for Georgian provinces:

Note the large amount of diacritical marks, which in the current map are highly inconsistent.

I was unsure of the last, 28th entry, and thus marked it with a question mark. The Armenian "Spitak" and Georgian "Spetaki" are cognates, both calques from Parthian.

P.S.
In this map I didn't include Lazeti/Lazica because 1. there weren't any localisations required in the original locations (as made by PDX), and 2. I didn't want to insinuate that those two locations should be a part of the Georgian area, as I think some of my older maps may have led you to believe. It believe it should be a part of the Pontus region, preferably with an additional province, as I suggested.

Is Tbilisi supposed to be spelled like that? In Georgian and Old Georgian, it is Tbilisi, but on the map, it is currently Tblisi, with missing an i. That form of the name does not appear to appear anywhere I look

That's 100% a mistake. Lots of non-Georgians spell Tbilisi like that, I know it first hand.