Tinto Maps #18 Persia & Caucasus Feedback

[GenericUsername1444]

Here is my feedback regarding the locations and provinces of Georgia:

I hope the addition of these locations is within the realm of possibility. Of course, all of this is not to imply that the game would be unplayable without these changes —of course not. It's just that the physical geography of this one region would be less accurate.

As I've already lined out in my extensive Raw Materials suggestion post, this would be the best way to split up the provinces, considering historical, geographical, and cultural lines.

@Pavía I hope this can be of some use to you.

Thank you.

 

[matfer13]

Basrah port was very important during the time period, the river should be made sailable up to it like you did for Seville

 

[Ispil]

There should be some Catholic pops in and about Nakhichevan. Apparently there was some conversion efforts going on there.

 

[Polesie Admiral]

consideing we know about the river map mode too, can we see it please?

 

[mjaarafi]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but I wouldn't call the Sarbadars a 'republic'; they were more of a theocracy or theocratic Republic at least.

 

[Inzano]

Here is my feedback regarding the locations and provinces of Georgia:

View attachment 1275079

I hope the addition of these locations is within the realm of possibility. Of course, all of this is not to imply that the game would be unplayable without these changes —of course not. It's just that the physical geography of this one region would be less accurate.

As I've already lined out in my extensive Raw Materials suggestion post, this would be the best way to split up the provinces, considering historical, geographical, and cultural lines.


View attachment 1275078


@Pavía I hope this can be of some use to you.

Thank you.

If there were that many provinces, Georgia could be divided into 2 or 3 regions. Maybe Imeretia (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), Kartlia (9, 10, 11, 12, 13) and Meskhetia (6, 7, 8)?

 

[GenericUsername1444]

If there were that many provinces, Georgia could be divided into 2 or 3 regions. Maybe Imeretia (1,2,3,4,5), Kartlia (9, 10, 11, 12, 13) and Meskhetia (6, 7, 8)?

Yeah, I actually already wrote about such a contingency in one of my older posts:

"If, however, such a change makes the Area too large, it can also be split in two, to reflect its past state as a divided nation during Mongol rule.

In that case, I suggest naming western and eastern Georgia Likht-Imereti (lit. that side of the Likhi) and Likht-Amereti (this side of the Likhi), respectively."

 

[Ispil]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but I wouldn't call the Sarbadars a 'republic'; they were more of a theocracy or theocratic Republic at least.

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).

 

[ibvfteh]

Here is my feedback regarding the locations and provinces of Georgia:

View attachment 1275079

I hope the addition of these locations is within the realm of possibility. Of course, all of this is not to imply that the game would be unplayable without these changes —of course not. It's just that the physical geography of this one region would be less accurate.

As I've already lined out in my extensive Raw Materials suggestion post, this would be the best way to split up the provinces, considering historical, geographical, and cultural lines.


View attachment 1275078


@Pavía I hope this can be of some use to you.

Thank you.

I fully understand your passion for your home country and region.

However, I disagree basing all provinces solely on Georgian history.

I can’t see why you want to go so far as to make Tuapse part of Abkhazia, because this area in a 100 years will be united into Circassian nation, and continue being part of it until Russian empire, nearly entire game timeframe.

Yeah, I actually already wrote about such a contingency in one of my older posts:

"If, however, such a change makes the Area too large, it can also be split in two, to reflect its past state as a divided nation during Mongol rule.

In that case, I suggest naming western and eastern Georgia Likht-Imereti (lit. that side of the Likhi) and Likht-Amereti (this side of the Likhi), respectively."

And here I also feel the same general vibe. Any province that was under Georgia is in Georgia area. But borders change and it is okay that they are not perfect for your view. It is a question of tolerance. You may upset a lot of people saying half of modern Armenia is Georgian, rather than in reverse. And I am 100% sure people will come back to your messages with other views and other sources.

Regions like this need extra care and multiple sources from all participating countries. Decisions should not be dictated by perspective of one nation.

Please take a look from other perspectives. Perhaps there are reasons to make things as they are done.

Again total respect for your efforts.

 

[L1nk48]

maps of seismic activity in the Caucasus

 

[L1nk48]

maps of seismic activity in the Caucasus

The maps are taken from a Russian website that, in addition to collecting information on recurring seismic activity in northern Eurasia and the Caucasus, also uses computer modeling of possible earthquakes.

 

[Aramenian]

Why do the lands of the Principality of Artaz still have Kurdish culture as the dominant one? The dominant culture should be Armenian culture and Kurds should be a minority.

Why do the lands between Karabakh and Zangezur have Azeri culture?

During the rule of the Safavid dynasty, the local Armenian population was displaced in order to weaken the connection between the Armenians of Karabakh and the Armenians of Syunik, and in their place were brought Kurds who became Turkicized and today speak only Turkish.

Kurdish Republic of Lachin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kurdistan Uezd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kurds in Azerbaijan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Likewise, the lands controlled by the Kchahen should not have had an Azeri minority, as they appeared there with the establishment of the Karabakh Khanate.

Джеванширы — Википедия

ru.wikipedia.org

Ganja, Barda and Lemberan locations should not have Armenian culture as dominant, Armenians should be a minority in these locations dominant culture should be Azeri or Udi culture

 

[Atromb]

I fully understand your passion for your home country and region.

However, I disagree basing all provinces solely on Georgian history.

I can’t see why you want to go so far as to make Tuapse part of Abkhazia, because this area in a 100 years will be united into Circassian nation, and continue being part of it until Russian empire, nearly entire game timeframe.

View attachment 1275092


And here I also feel the same general vibe. Any province that was under Georgia is in Georgia area. But borders change and it is okay that they are not perfect for your view. It is a question of tolerance. You may upset a lot of people saying half of modern Armenia is Georgian, rather than in reverse. And I am 100% sure people will come back to your messages with other views and other sources.

Regions like this need extra care and multiple sources from all participating countries. Decisions should not be dictated by perspective of one nation.

Please take a look from other perspectives. Perhaps there are reasons to make things as they are done.

Again total respect for your efforts.

Yes, agree with the message, provincial divisions shouldn't be based on the borders at the literal start of the game but rather, imo, about divisions that were the more prevalent during the entire duration of the game's timeframe.

 

[nswag]

Republic of Sarbadars, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbadars#:~:text=The Sarbadars had a form,is not universally held, however.

I have mixed thoughts about how best to portray the Sabadar form of government in game; They were a republic in the most literal sense of not having a king or the ruler legitimized through his descent, but that's because the Sabardars didn't really have any legitimate and formalized process for becoming the ruler. The wikipedia quote calling them a republic is a truncation of this far more cautious assesment by H. R. Roemer:

The designation "Sarbadar dynasty" is hardly adequate, given the absence of a hereditary succession, which is the characteristic feature of a dynasty. It would be possible, rather, to speak of an oligarchy and even, in a very limited sense, of a republic, if one is unwilling to retain the definition of "a kingdom without kings," which is most suited to the conditions of this period.

The ruler was whoever could strong-arm everyone else, which on average would last about 2 years until the opposing factions performed a coup or assassinated him. Honestly the closest EU4 succession mechanics would be hordes. The stronger, competent rulers, such as Mas'ud (1337-1344) and Ali Mu'ayyad (1362-1377) had comparatively lengthy reigns with nothing resembling re-elections. The form of government is difficult to portray, as it was a constant seesaw between rulers supported by the faction of the Bashtini gentry, the family of Mas'ud, & the ex-bandit army, and by the faction of the guilds and Mahdist dervishes located in Sabzawar.
Sabadar was never going to become the Florence of the Khorusan, which I worry making the tag a republic would suggest to players; the only possible ways the state could have stabilized would be the final domination of one of its faction over the other, either the aristocratic faction in the form of a monarch or the dervishes as a Shi'ite theocracy (whatever form of government PC gives the Safavids should also be a possible outcome); there were no elements tending toward the development of a stable republic; the dervishes were too uncompromising to ever form such a power-sharing agreement.

Here's my proposal for the easiest way to capture the essence of Sarbadar politics: there should be a difficult to remove government reform, maybe call it "a kingdom without kings," which weakens crown power significantly, and calls "elections" (in fact coups or assassinations) on ruler death or if either nobles or clergy loyalty drops below some threshold (and a pretty easy threshold to fall below), and sometimes causes a civil war with the losing nobles/theocrats. To remove this privilege, the country must become a monarchy or theocracy. Then give the (shiite) clergy a privilege, "Mahdists," which make them easily lose loyalty if the government isn't aggressively intolerant, but also increases clergy and burgher levies somewhat. I don't know what succession mechanics and estate privileges are already in the game, so maybe the right combination of existing mechanics could also work.
John Masson Smith Jr. wrote pretty much the only english study of the Sabadars, so I recommend that for anyone interested further.

 

[SuperLexxe]

Why do the lands of the Principality of Artaz still have Kurdish culture as the dominant one? The dominant culture should be Armenian culture and Kurds should be a minority.

Why do the lands between Karabakh and Zangezur have Azeri culture?

During the rule of the Safavid dynasty, the local Armenian population was displaced in order to weaken the connection between the Armenians of Karabakh and the Armenians of Syunik, and in their place were brought Kurds who became Turkicized and today speak only Turkish.

Kurdish Republic of Lachin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kurdistan Uezd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1275242

Kurds in Azerbaijan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1275259
Likewise, the lands controlled by the Kchahen should not have had an Azeri minority, as they appeared there with the establishment of the Karabakh Khanate.

Джеванширы — Википедия

ru.wikipedia.org

Ganja, Barda and Lemberan locations should not have Armenian culture as dominant, Armenians should be a minority in these locations dominant culture should be Udi or Adhari culture


View attachment 1275249

---

To be honest, Ganja (Arran in general) would most probably be Mongol majority, or atleast a significant minority.

The central Ilkhanate was garrisoned by 6 tümens, where the best pastures were Arran, Mughan, Tabriz and Soltaniyeh, which would have been reserved for Mongols.

1 tümen = 10k warriors accompanied by families = 50-60k nomadic pops

---

 

[Huskermax5]

Ty Pavia!

 

[Ispil]

I have mixed thoughts about how best to portray the Sabadar form of government in game; They were a republic in the most literal sense of not having a king or the ruler legitimized through his descent, but that's because the Sabardars didn't really have any legitimate and formalized process for becoming the ruler. The wikipedia quote calling them a republic is a truncation of this far more cautious assesment by H. R. Roemer:

The ruler was whoever could strong-arm everyone else, which on average would last about 2 years until the opposing factions performed a coup or assassinated him. Honestly the closest EU4 succession mechanics would be hordes. The stronger, competent rulers, such as Mas'ud (1337-1344) and Ali Mu'ayyad (1362-1377) had comparatively lengthy reigns with nothing resembling re-elections. The form of government is difficult to portray, as it was a constant seesaw between rulers supported by the faction of the Bashtini gentry, the family of Mas'ud, & the ex-bandit army, and by the faction of the guilds and Mahdist dervishes located in Sabzawar.
Sabadar was never going to become the Florence of the Khorusan, which I worry making the tag a republic would suggest to players; the only possible ways the state could have stabilized would be the final domination of one of its faction over the other, either the aristocratic faction in the form of a monarch or the dervishes as a Shi'ite theocracy (whatever form of government PC gives the Safavids should also be a possible outcome); there were no elements tending toward the development of a stable republic; the dervishes were too uncompromising to ever form such a power-sharing agreement.

Here's my proposal for the easiest way to capture the essence of Sarbadar politics: there should be a difficult to remove government reform, maybe call it "a kingdom without kings," which weakens crown power significantly, and calls "elections" (in fact coups or assassinations) on ruler death or if either nobles or clergy loyalty drops below some threshold (and a pretty easy threshold to fall below), and sometimes causes a civil war with the losing nobles/theocrats. To remove this privilege, the country must become a monarchy or theocracy. Then give the (shiite) clergy a privilege, "Mahdists," which make them easily lose loyalty if the government isn't aggressively intolerant, but also increases clergy and burgher levies somewhat. I don't know what succession mechanics and estate privileges are already in the game, so maybe the right combination of existing mechanics could also work.
John Masson Smith Jr. wrote pretty much the only english study of the Sabadars, so I recommend that for anyone interested further.

Keep in mind that most of the republics that exist in-game are also just "legitimization through consensus of the elites". Sarbadars are certainly less formal than the procedures that exist in, say, Venice for this sort of thing, but the basic principle of "different factions in government vying for control and each has a viable ability to take it in their own right" is best fitting of a republic compared to a monarchy.

Even if it's really just "a bunch of fighting factions battling for control".

 

[nswag]

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).

The difficulty is that in 1337 ever option seems problematic to represent their government: Abdurrazzak only captures Sabzawar, turning the robber band into a state, in that very summer (not sure what month the game starts in, but for complete accuracy, its possible they should be an ABC!) so the form of succession is not yet established. He titles himself Amir, and rule passes to his brother (through murder) which suggest monarchy or tribe more than republic, in PC terms.
After 1340, saying the state merely coopted religion for legitimacy is misleading; the various dervish co-rulers had real power and their own goals of establishing an islamic utopia, and operated as quite independent power bloc which caused the secular rulers much grief, which is why Mas'ud (probably) had their leader assassinated in 1342. And when the dervishes and their followers got the upper hand the state did take on a definite theocratic character: Shamsuddin Ali, who at the very least called himself a dervish, seized power from 1347-1351 and enacted a moralistic shi'ite program banning drugs and liquor, had 500 prostitutes thrown down a well, and set up an apparatus of secret informers to detect vice [Smith 131]. And the dervishes remained strong enough to stage another coup against the nobility in 1376 and once again implemented strict theocratic policies until their own overthrow in 1381.

A big reason republic does not appeal to me in game terms is that the main mechanical difference between forms of government in eu4 and likely PC is the type of legitimacy mana that supports the ruler. And of the options, Legitimacy, Republican Tradition, Devotion, Horde Unity, and Tribal Cohesion, the one form that least well represents what gave the Sarbadar rulers their legitimacy is Republican Tradition! They did not appeal to the laws of the republic, or the weight of the mores around electing rulers to maintain their authority, and such appeals would have availed them nothing. As soon as their enemies had a slight upper hand a coup would be performed, rather than wait for any sort of conclave or formal means for choosing a new ruler, because there was no sentiment of republican legitimacy to hold them back.

 

[Praetorian44]

This is something we track and balance regularly. For instance, here you have the starting Diplomatic Capacity of the Jalayirids:

What is the "Borjigin Blood (Age 1)?"

I understand what it represents, the rulers who are descendants of Bodonchar Khan (or perhaps more specifically, the descendants of Genghis and his brothers). But mechanically, what is this? A character trait? An advance? A government reform? And what is the (Age 1) part?

 

[Myxach]

And what is the (Age 1) part?

Maybe "Age" like "generation" ? The heir is Age 1, his heir is Age 2, and his heir is Age 3. And the bonuses will decrease with each heir.