| Great work although the Hazaraspids where a kurdish dynasty they are even depicted as such in CK3 |
-
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.
Not making a comment about who/how controls Ani city/state/region but just adding a source about it: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ataunigsed/issue/2568/33087
- 2
The Ilkhanate IO - Spheres of Influence
The below custom map represents the spheres of influence of each claimant to the Ilkhanate. The custom map also includes states which recognized their "overlord's" claims only nominally, such as the Kurdish tribes and Armenian principalities, who could be likened more to tributaries/military access, rather than vassals.
You will notice a stark difference to the current in-game map, which represents the "idea" of an Ilkhanate, and not necessarily the politics of the time. Most of the states had practically zero interaction with the civil war factions, although some of them would be drawn into the civil war through later diplomacy, such as the Muzaffarids of Yazd aligning with the Chobanids, conquering Kerman and Fars, and being "granted" said territories by the Chobanids.
So it is clear, you shouldn't need to conquer 75% of the current in-game Ilkhanate IO to form the Ilkhanate.
You should only need to defeat the other claimants, and to conquer the central pastures (and capitals) of Arran, Mughan, Tabriz and Soltaniyeh. As a claimant, you're reclaiming the throne, not conquering the empire. Reclamation of the peripheries should come afterwards, not before.
This would ideally then allow the Ilkhan to demand fealty (as vassals or tributaries) from the remaining members, who can decline, leaving the IO and giving a subjugation CB to the Ilkhan.
And below is what the starting diplomatic WAR-mapmode should look like (from the Qasarid/Hüleguid perspective). I have included only the states which we know from sources were actively involved, or can assume to have been involved through their subject-relation to their overlord.
Togha Temür Ilkhan (Qasarids) and Musa Ilkhan (Hüleguids) had struck a temporary truce, and essentially became co-belligerents against the powerful Hasan Buzurg (Jalayirids), and Hajji Taghay (Sutayids), who had sided with Hasan Buzurg from the start.
In April 1st 1337 (game start), Togha Temür & Musa have gathered their forces at Soltaniyeh, captured from the Jalayirids only recently. In June 1337, they would advance towards Tabriz and meet Hasan Buzurg in battle at Maragheh, just south of Tabriz. So it is likely that Hasan Buzurg's forces are raised near Tabriz at game start.
Personally, I think the Qasarids and Hüleguids should be depicted as being in two separate wars with the Jalayirids, but with both countries' armies starting at/near Soltaniyeh and sharing military/food access. After all, they were both still rival claimants to the throne, and Togha Temür likely betrayed Musa by withdrawing early at Maragheh and leaving him surrounded.
Last edited:
- 6
- 4
- 3
It would be helpful to have more sources of information about the situation in the city of Ani in the years 1300-1337, but it is likely that it was under some Mongol control.
The sack of Ani was probably in 1239?
Later, in 1239, during the reign of Ogeday (1129-1241), Ani, which was captured by the Mongols, was easily conquered and destroyed by the army led by the Chingizids' governor-general of Iran, Charmagan-Noyan, but finally, peace was restored when the queen of Georgia, Rusudan, announced that she was ready for an agreement. Despite this, the Chingizids caused great damage to the buildings and people in Ani. Kirakos of Ganja writes about the conquest of Ani by Charmagan-Noyan (Carmagun) as follows.
But this man was probably a subject of the Zakarids rather than the Mongols, so these territories are still property of the Zakarids.
It is also possible that the Zakarids became Mongol vassals.
Սահմադին - Վիքիպեդիա
hy.wikipedia.org
Միջնադարյան Հայաստանի հայտնի մեծահարուստները. Ավետենց Սահմադին և Տիգրան Հոնենց
Պատմական նյութերի ուսումնասիրող Խաժակ Սիրեկանյանը ֆեյսբուքյան իր էջում գրել է. «Միջնադարյան Հայաստանի հայտնի մեծահարուստները /օլիգարխները/Ավետենց Սահմադին և Տիգրան Հոնենց 1. Ավետենց Սահմադին... • Կենտրոն • Նորություններ և լուրեր Հայաստանից և Արցախից
kentron.am
Շահնշահ Ա - Վիքիպեդիա
hy.wikipedia.org
Inscriptions and Authority in Ani
Redaktion: Stefan Albrecht (RGZM) Satz: Claudia Nickel (RGZM) Gestaltung: fuhrer visuelle gestaltung oeg, Wien Coverfoto: Rüçan Arık Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese
www.academia.edu
Shahnshah II Zakarian - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Khoshak Zakarian - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani)
Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
The Principality of Ani was probably ruled by Zakare IV and later in 1340 by Shahnshah III
Shahnshah II Zakarian - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Zakarid dynasty - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
მხარგრძელები - ვიკიპედია
ka.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
- 1
I was playing Imperator for the first time in months and I noticed something
The devs haven't changed the subject-overlord colours in 5+ years
(and yes I was playing Iberia, how stereotypical of me)
The devs haven't changed the subject-overlord colours in 5+ years
(and yes I was playing Iberia, how stereotypical of me)
- 9
Forgot to mention, but the conclusion is that to form the Ilkhanate, you shouldn't need to conquer 75% of the members' lands.
You should only need to defeat the other claimants, and to capture the summer/winter pastures/capitals in the central region (Arran, Mughan, Tabriz, Soltaniyeh). You're reclaiming the throne, not conquering the empire. Reclamation of the peripheries should come afterwards, not before.
This would ideally then allow the Ilkhan to demand fealty (as vassals or tributaries) from the remaining members, who can decline, leaving the IO and giving a subjugation CB to the Ilkhan.
Last edited:
- 8
- 2
Given rebellions are their own tags in EU5, this gives me a bunch of ideas. One is that during civil wars, vassals should get an event to choose a side, neutrality or independence. Furthermore, parts of one's country (determined partially by control, partially proximity, partially acceptance of local cultures and partially randomly) ought to become neutral zones which don't support either side. These can be invaded by both sides, and will tend to flip quickly towards whoever invades, though specific conditions like being close to a revolt or joining the opposite side will cause them to actively do such. The longer the civil war drags on, the faster revolt type factions in the neutral zone progress. If the Civil War ends before they pop, knowing the odds of victory are lower they lose the extra progress. If the rebels pop during the war, they end up in a defensive war with both factions of the civil war.
What do people think?
Last edited:
Ideally vassals would have a great window to break free during a civil war.
While the Ilkhanate in real terms is a civil war, I don't think it can be represented in-game using the current civil war mechanics. So instead each faction is their own tag and play within those rules.
As the factions fought eachothers and depleted eachothers resources, the vassals broke free of the "Ilkhanate" pretty much without a fight, such as the Eretnids and Kartids.
- 1
I wasn't intending my suggestion apply to the Ilkhanate; given it's happening at game start, it's logical for it to get special treatment for both fun and accuracy.
I was intending for that sort of thing to be able to happen in other civil wars as a subset of the vassal neutrality option; I hadn't articulated that so I've edited the post.
@Ispil from your readings, do you have an idea of how accurate the current distribution of development is in the Kurdish zone? To me it looks very odd.
I'm feeling like starting to work on a general development map
- 1
- 1
Personally, I also took issue with such a depiction of "Kurdistan" upon first sight, but as 1. I am not even remotely knowledgeable about the region in the time frame, and 2. I didn't find the Georgian part of the map disagreeable, I didn't write more about it myself.
As a total layman: I feel as though the regions of Isfahan and Tabriz/Soltaniyeh (Iranian Azerbaijan) should be significantly more developed, at the expense of the Zagros and Upper Mesopotamian regions. Eastern Persia looks fine. Transoxiana is very underdeveloped, though that may be deliberate, perhaps done to represent the devastation caused by the Mongol conquests.
In Georgia, the development is nearly perfectly done. Though perhaps Kakheti-Hereti should be bumped up a little, along with Tao-Klarjeti (province of Meskheti). Tskhumi (location of Sukhumi) was also a very busy port, and the seat of the Genoese consulship, so maybe it should be bumped up as well.
- 3
- 2
Nusaybin was in ruins. Sanadajah was effectively nonexistent (the Kurdish tribe currently occupying it were effectively described as "squatters"; it wouldn't flourish until seized by Ardalan). Kermanshah declined severely during the Ilkhanate period to the point of being described as a mere "village" by the end of it.
I'd say that the development map is more apt of trade and development at the very outset of Mongol rule. In reality, we should see development instead focus away from Baghdad in general.
- 4
- 2
I traced over the map from the Historical Atlas of Georgia and overlaid it onto the locations map from the thread.
I aligned the map to the locations to the best of my abilities. As you can see, it's far from perfect, but I digress.
I think this map serves as a useful tool to see which locations need adding, splitting, or remodelling. Most notably, Nakhichevan, Syunik, and Khachen in Armenia, and southwestern Dagestan to the north.
I hope this can be of some use to the developers. Thank you.
I aligned the map to the locations to the best of my abilities. As you can see, it's far from perfect, but I digress.
I think this map serves as a useful tool to see which locations need adding, splitting, or remodelling. Most notably, Nakhichevan, Syunik, and Khachen in Armenia, and southwestern Dagestan to the north.
I hope this can be of some use to the developers. Thank you.
- 4
- 1
On the zoomed location map of Caucasus, you can see the river running through Surmali, Igdir and Khor Virap. I quite liked the border I drew along it for the zoomed in Caucasus.
Last edited:
- 2
I think it would be a good idea to change the name of the Surmali location to Tuzluca. Tuzluca is famous for its salt mines and this location should produce salt.
- 3
Here is a preliminary map of the reworked development of Iran and the peripheries, including a map of towns & cities:
I used Mustawfi's contemporary accounts on infrastructure and revenues, to index the different locations and surroundings in comparison to Tabriz, the biggest city of the region. For Arabia I mostly used the existing development, cuz I don't know much about the region. Keep in mind that Mustawfi himself admitted that he is no expert, but was encouraged by friends to write his work.
Feel free to give any suggestions to the maps
New development compared to the Old development:
Justifications: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ersia-caucasus-feedback.1733834/post-30311111
Towns & Cities:
Locations:
Last edited:
- 10
- 6
- 1
I have revised my Armenia map suggestion one last time
I improved the impassable areas by widening them a bit and reducing them in other places.
 (1).png "Zrzut ekranu 2025-03-21 200003 (1) (1).png")
.png "Locations2 (1).png")
The Yernjak/Alinja location should be under the control of the Orbelian dynasty/Proshyan dynasty? or the Jalayirid dynasty.
The capital of the Proshyan princes was probably the Proshaberd/Boloraberd fortress in 1337.
The capital of the Orbelian princes:Yeghegis/Smbataberd
I improved the impassable areas by widening them a bit and reducing them in other places.
Ararat Plain - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Yernjak/Alinja location should be under the control of the Orbelian dynasty/Proshyan dynasty? or the Jalayirid dynasty.
ՀՍՀ/ԵՐՆՋԱԿ ԳԱՎԱՌ — Վիքիդարան
hy.wikisource.org
Ернджак — Википедия
ru.wikipedia.org
Алинджакала — Википедия
ru.wikipedia.org
The capital of the Proshyan princes was probably the Proshaberd/Boloraberd fortress in 1337.
Proshaberd - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Սրկղունք - Վիքիպեդիա
hy.wikipedia.org
Vernashen - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Smbataberd - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yeghegis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
What are your criteria for towns and cities?
I also think you should export your maps to a more programmable format. Like a table „location name“ - „development“. For at least the most important cities. I think even if map is great at visualising it is extremely hard to act on in this case. Also in the table you can post in a third field for areas/provinces/locations general/specific argumentation on why you assigned such values.
Last edited:
- 3
Criteria is how the locations were described in the accounts of Mustawfi and others, and trying to align it with how Paradox has decided on towns and cities in the glimpses they have shown, which is basically haphazardly.
For development, I filled in the locations that Mustawfi talks about, and filled in the rest using information from elsewhere or just filling irrelevant locations with likely development.
Drawn from "THE GEOGRAPHICAL PART OF THE NUZHAT-AL-QULUB COMPOSED BY HAMD-ALLAH MUSTAWFI OF QAZWIN IN 740 (1340)":
Tabriz is index of 100, due to being the largest city of the region at the time, and is hence the reference point for all the rest. (Tabriz isn't max development in-game wise, only the max development of this region).
| Factor | Weight | Source inside Mustawfī |
|---|---|---|
| Urban scale & monuments | 40 % | walls, citadel, Friday mosque, colleges |
| Fiscal strength | 40 % | tax figure when given; if not, ratioed from “towns of like type” (his own phrase) |
| Strategic / commercial role | 20 % | location on royal roads, ports, silk-road crossings |
Last edited:
- 5
- 4
- 1