Which of my suggested changes has something to do with Savoy or Piemont?
-
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.
Which of my suggested changes has something to do with Savoy or Piemont?
your wiki link, Nice was SAV lands , which is how SAV supplied ships for the Lepanto campaign. Actually , provencal should be SAV lands and the access of FRA to the TUR would be west of that
That would be an ahistorically huge Savoy. Provence and Marseille should definitely be french at that point in time. however my question was only if FRA shold grant TUR military access as historically both had combined operations on sea and land. If they are at war with Savoy they can march there anyway without military access. The question is only if turkish ships and troops should be able to use french ports and march through french provinces.
Cores as in national cores? Never. The Ottomans never ruled any part of Spain so no event - not even an ahistorical b choice - should give them national cores on any province in Iberia.
However with the new "lesser" cores that FtG invented I could imagine an event that grants them claimcores - under severe restrictions and with a follow-up event to remove those cores again. Event 301044 option a would be good for that.
If all you want is a casus belli against spain there already is event TUR 301000 that grants the Ottomans a CB against Spain if Granada as been annexed.
For gaining claimcores simply already owning Cyprus should not be enough. The Ottomans would need to be in at least their historical strong position. That means they should e.g. already have annexed the mamlucks (because Granada would ask MAM for help as long as those exist), becom Khalifa, and generally have all their normal cores before going for ahistorical cores that may lead to additional wars that may weaken them to the point they might not perform historically.
Edit: Speaking about 301000 - the event is not waterproof. It checks that SPA exists and that GRA has vanished - but not that SPA actually OWNS Granada and Gibraltar. Giving TUR a CB on SPA is pointless if someone else should have ahistorically annexed GRA.
I could see more than one option to make it better:
1) The historical check: Simply add that SPA needs to own Granada OR Gibraltar. Works in most games for historical result but fails if someone else conquers Granada.
2) The general check: Remove "exists = SPA" from the trigger and simply give TUR the new CB claims on Granada and Gibraltar. Gives TUR a CB on ANYONE who might have conquered Granada´s two provinces. CB-core can be removed with option a in event 301044
"command = { type = addcore_casusbelli which = x }
Makes x a casusbelli core province."
And I would suggest to add a stability check to the trigger. TUR should not only be not involved in any wars but should not suffer from internal revolts too.
Code:
#(1492-1550) Recognition of the Moriscos
#by Garbon
event = {
id = 301000
trigger = {
atwar = no
exists = SPA
[color=yellow]stability = 0 #stabiltiy 0 or higher [/color]
NOT = { exists = GRA }
}
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME301000" #Recognition of the Moriscos
desc = "EVENTHIST301000"
#-#For ages, the Moriscos of Spain petitioned the Ottomans for the support they needed to break free of Catholic Spain. The Ottoman Empire had become a major power in the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Mediterranean during the course of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Unfortunately for the Moriscos, as such a power, the Ottomans were up to their shoulders in wars. An Ottoman Empire free from such struggles may have chosen to liberate the Moriscos.
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1492 }
offset = 1500
deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1550 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME301000A" #We care not for them!
command = { type = relation which = SPA value = 30 }
command = { type = infra value = 10 }
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME301000B" #Recognition gives us a perfect oppurtunity!
command = { type = casusbelli which = SPA value = 36 }
command = { type = inf which = -2 value = 5000 }
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
command = { type = relation which = SPA value = -150 }
command = { type = sleepevent which = 166003 } #FEZ: The Moriscos Request Aid
command = { type = sleepevent which = 232011 } #MOR: The Moriscos Request Aid
command = { type = sleepevent which = 300000 } #TUN: The Moriscos Request Aid
}
}
Last edited:
In the Janissary decadence event I wonder about the slider changes. The event describes the decision to have more or less Jannisaries which sounds as if option a is chosen the number would increase and the quality/quantity slider should be changed. However the offensive/defensive slider is used.
Is that intentional?
Is that intentional?
Code:
#(1540) Janissary decadence I
#by Fodoron
event = {
id = 301104
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME301104" #Muslims admitted to the Janissary
desc = "EVENTHIST301104"
#-#The janissaries (from Yani Ceri or new army) were the elite of the Ottoman army. They were recruited as children from the Christians, from raid prisoners and through the devshirmeh, a children tax levy imposed on the Christian subjects. Their training was very hard and their quality outstanding. After the first revolt of the janissaries in 1449 they started to acquire power and prestige and some Muslims found the way for their sons to be admitted. After the great wars of Selim and Suleyman, Muslims started to be admitted openly to increase the size of the Janissary beyond what the devshirmeh could provide. This apparently innocuous measure changed the peculiar status of the Janissary breaking the balance of power in their favor. The slow decadence of the Janissary was only one of the factors in the Ottoman decline, but a fine ruler could steer the Empire even if he takes the historical decisions.
date = { day = 1 month = february year = 1540 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME301104A" #More janissaries are surely better for the country
command = { type = land value = -1000 }
command = { type = naval value = -500 }
command = { type = domestic which = OFFENSIVE value = -1 }
command = { type = domestic which = INNOVATIVE value = -1 }
command = { type = technology which = orthodox }
command = { type = inf which = -1 value = 5000 }
command = { type = sleepevent which = 301116 } #TUR: The destruction of the Janissary
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME301104B" #Better keep the elite corps small and under control
command = { type = domestic which = OFFENSIVE value = -2 } #small janissary
command = { type = domestic which = ARISTOCRACY value = 1 }
command = { type = trigger which = 301115 } #TUR: Muslim uproar for the closure of the Janissary
}
}
Bringing this over from EU2 forum (submission #1132)
Can't implement as currently designed as both events now lead to perpetual revolt risk in Tunisia. I've a hard time believing that's what was desired.
Can't implement as currently designed as both events now lead to perpetual revolt risk in Tunisia. I've a hard time believing that's what was desired.
That perpetual RR is only part of the B choice. In both events (the original and my suggested alternative when Karlowitz did not happen) the historical a choice is simply give up Tunisia and have them become independant.
In the original event the b choice gave global RR in the whole OE and several immediate revolts in Tunis. As there are several revolt events for TUR to release their vassals after Karlowitz I find global RR the wrong way and suggested instead a provincial RR.
In case that Karlowitz happened as historical IMO that is intended to be perpetual until Tunisia is released or revolts away. As Tunis is usually muslim +5 RR is not crippling for a OE that choses B - but it shouldn´t be easy to keep Tunisia part of the Ottoman Empire for the last 100 years of the game when the OE lost Karlowitz.
In case of my alternative suggestion when Karlowitz has been avoided by the OE: It should still not be easy to keep Tunisia but +5 RR until the end of the game could indeed be changed. How about removing the national core and granting a claimcore instead of the +5 provincial RR?
Oh I completely understand why you made the change - in fact, I might even push it up to +15 or +20 to have it actually be a pain. However, I think that perhaps after 25 years or so there should be an event that brings the revoltrisk back down.
Rather than after 25 years such an event should check that the tunisian revolt event (either of them) had happened and TUR controls Tunis again for 25 years with the controlchange trigger.
Code:
#(1703-[color=red]1710[/color][color=yellow]1820[/color]) The Tunisian Rebellion
event = {
id = 3391
trigger = {
[color=yellow]OR = {
event = 301015 #Treaty of Karlowitz happened
NOT = { stability = 0 } #stab i
NOT = { owned = { province = 819 data = -1 } } #Malta
NOT = { owned = { province = 740 data = -1 } } #Tripolis
} [/color]
owned = { province = 739 data = -1 } #Tunisia
[color=yellow]control = { province = 739 data = -1 } #Tunisa is a must else someone could have sieged it only to lose it.[/color]
NOT = { exists = TUN
[color=yellow]event = 301140[/color] }
}
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME3391" #The Tunisian Rebellion
desc = "EVENTHIST3391"
#
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1703 }
offset = 1000
deathdate = { year 1820 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3391A" #Accept a free Tunisia
command = { type = remove_countryculture which = delaware }
command = { type = removecore which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = independence which = TUN }
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = -1 }
command = { type = trigger which = 300015 } #TUN: The Tunisian Rebellion
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3391B" #Crush the rebels
command = { type = remove_countryculture which = delaware }
command = { type = removecore which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = revolt which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = revolt which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = revolt which = 739 } #Tunisia
[color=red]command = { type = revoltrisk which = 36 value = 4 }[/color]
[color=yellow]command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 739 value = 10 } #Tunis[/color]
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}
}Text:
-#In the first decades of the 18th century the Beys and Deys (Janissary leaders) of Northern Africa were in a rebellious mood in the wake of the Peace of Carlowitz between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy League. In 1705, Hussein bin Ali Agha of Cretan origin staged a coup and founded the Husseinic dynasty which ruled Tunisia until 1957. Tunisia did not become truly autonomous at once, but it gained a large measure of independence.
I don´t mind a revolt in Tunisia or even a larger revolt due to an ahistorical strong position - but as my Ottoman Empire has shown no weakness yet I would like to propose an enhanced trigger and a second event with a more generic text if that trigger is not met and a chance in the b choice to keep the core on Tunis and maghrebi culture of a few more years until the Algerian/Tripolis/Egypt revolts.
The historical changes that lead to the semi-independence of Tunisa happened because the Empire was defeated in Hungary by the Habsburgs and started losing ground in Europe and was unable to succed in taking Malta despite besieging it and so failing to expand it´s naval superiority into the whole Mediterrenean. So I suggest to use a trigger that checks if the OE did get the Karlowitz event or are unstable enough to allow rebels in Tunis a reasonable chance of getting away (stab 0 or lower) or have as historically not managed to conquer Malta or have lost tripolis so that they have no landconnection to Tunis.
In the b choice I don´t see fighting rebels in Tunis causing revoltrisk in ottoman Nubia, Hungary, Iraq or Bulgaria - wouldn´t it be better to use a high provincial revoltrisk in Tunis instead of an empirewide revoltrisk of 4?
The current trigger checks that the event only fires if TUN does not exist - but what if TUN exists and TUR owns Tunis? Then nothing happens?
The current event explicitely states that Tunisia did NOT become fully independent - yet the events releases TUN as vassal and immediately triggers TUN to break that vassalage to become immediately independent...?
Code:
#(1703-[color=red]1710[/color][color=yellow]1820[/color]) The Tunisian Rebellion #ahistorical strong Empire
event = {
id = 301140
trigger = {
owned = { province = 739 data = -1 } #Tunisia
control = { province = 739 data = -1 } #Tunisa is a must else someone could have sieged it only to lose it.
stability = 0 #stability 0 or higher
NOT = { exists = TUN
event = 3391 #historical Tunisian revolt
event = 301015 } #Treaty of Karlowitz happened
}
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME3391" #The Tunisian Rebellion
desc = "EVENTHIST3391"
#-
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1703 }
offset = 1000
deathdate = { year 1820 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3391A" #Accept a free Tunisia
command = { type = remove_countryculture which = delaware }
command = { type = removecore which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = independence which = TUN }
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = -1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3391B" #Crush the rebels
command = { type = revolt which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = revolt which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = revolt which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = revolt which = 738 } #provinces bordering Tunisia
command = { type = revolt which = 740 } #
command = { type = revolt which = 819 } #Malta works only if TUR own it
command = { type = revolt which = 351 } #Vienna works only if TUR own it
command = { type = religiousrevolt which = -1 }
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 739 value = 10 } #Tunis
command = { type = removecore which = 739 } #Tunisia
command = { type = addcore_claim which = 739 } #Tunisa
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}
}#Historically in the first decades of the 18th century the Beys and Deys (Janissary leaders) of Northern Africa were in a rebellious mood in the wake of the Peace of Carlowitz between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy League. In 1705, Hussein bin Ali Agha of Cretan origin staged a coup and founded the Husseinic dynasty which ruled Tunisia until 1957. Tunisia did not become truly autonomous at once, but it gained a large measure of independence.
Edit: I forgot two } in the modified trigger. Now the game starts with both events above added.
Edit: Added control trigger. If TUR does not control Tunis then releasing TUN will spoil whoever had control over the province.
Edit: As the Beys became vassals instead of provincial governours and stayed so for the rest of the game´s time the death date be moved back to 1820.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Tunisia#Husaynid_Beys
I reduced the stability hit in the b option from - 2 to -1 and replaced the global revoltrisk with a higher provincial revoltrisi and more local revolts.
Edit: Changed ID of new event to 301140 as 301133 was already in use by my own TUR otranto event.
Forgot "year =" when I entered 1820 so that the game crashed, now that it´s added the event works.
Last edited:
why is Banat the only national province that the TUR has in Hungarian lands ny 1526?
fact is in 1529 the TUR was siging Vienna, it nevers happens in our game. I suggest around 1500, all hungarian lands plus craotia and krain be cores of the TUR
fact is in 1529 the TUR was siging Vienna, it nevers happens in our game. I suggest around 1500, all hungarian lands plus craotia and krain be cores of the TUR
What do you mean here?
TUR can gain cores on all of Hungary and on Vienna/Austria with event 19022 in 1526 so years before the historical siege of vienna:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_vienna
The event chain starts with event HUN 19013 on August 23, 1526.
Edit: I suggested a minor change to those events here in this thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...man-Empire&p=12634226&viewfull=1#post12634226
Last edited:
thats not good enough, how do you expect the TUR to gain cores in 5126 and be nex t Vienna by 1529?
The AI needs 15 to 20 years notice
We AGCEEP used to give core events earlier than the real date to combat this, I do not know why we changed. sure keep non core events to historical dates and later, but core was earlier wirh historical date being the last opportunity
There is no change here.
The ottomans still get cores on provinces early that they actually conquered - but as they never successfully captured Austria/Vienna that core is only a way to push them into war so that they are able to wage war and perhaps besiege Vienna. The core on Vienna is not meant to be in time that the AI manages to actually conquer the province and destroy HAB/Austria (as Austria is their capital) by 1529 as that never historically happened.
The cores on Hungary are a different matter: TUR is not supposed to conquer all of Hungary but to receive part of it as vassals. There are events that under conditions make Hungary and later Siebenbürgen/Transsylvania vassals of the Ottoman Empire. Those cores are not intended for the AI to conquer the land to rule it as part of TUR but only as a way to get the area if the provinces are ruled by someone else than the vassals.
That the core on Banat comes a few years earlier is explained in the events text: That the plan at that time was to prevent that Hungary would fall into the sphere of influence of the Habsburgs by putting pressure on Hungary and that "the seizure of a few border forts" would be enough that Hungary would comply.
I'm not sure if this has been proposed or changed already, but shouldn't Ottoman cores in events be claims? They can remain as cores in the scenario files as they will become cores after fifty years anyway.
To change the core on Vienna/Austria from a national core to a claim is part of my submission because the OE never ruled Austria.
However the expansion of the OE is sometime problematic and risking that they don´t expand as they did historically by giving them nationalism and less manpower (the claimcore means that you don´t get full manpower from a province and still have the nationalism revoltrisk as opposed to the nationalcore) is not something I would want.
We should not go to the extreme that we ONLY grant claimcores for any province that has to be conquered - after all some conquests went smoother than others and sometimes (as in Hungary) a sizeable part of the nobles decided that the Ottomans are less of a threat for Hungary than Habsburg rule.
My personal rule of thumb is that every state who conquered and ruled a province historically for 100+ years should get a national core on it before the conquest to direct the AI. If only a part of the province was ruled or the province was lost again in less than 100 years then only a claimcore should be given.
Last edited:
Actually, I'd downgrade Vienna to a CB core. Would Vienna have ever been viewed as rightful Ottoman territory if they had conquered it?
Given enough time and a powerful OE? Sure, just like Jerusalem and Byzanz. ;-)
As the treaty of Karlowitz event in most AI games will remove that core again (even if it would have become a national core until then) between 1699 and 1780 the core should be no problem for the game.
As the claimcore essentially is a CB core - unless the province is conquered and ruled for 30 years, which would require that the OE in that game actually destroys HAB/Austria as Austria is their capital - I would not want nor do I see the need to downgrade it all the way from a full national core to a mere CB core.
So we agree that Vienna should be less than a national core for TUR - just not how much less.
Last edited:
TUR has a core on Banat earlier (September 1520 with the "Suleyman demands the keys of Hungary" event) so it is able to declare war to Hungary without penalties - if the AI decides so.
The whole event chain was established on the basis that the battle of Mohacs in 1526 was the crucial point in the conquest of Hungary and THEN the national cores are handed out to TUR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_(medieval)#Ottoman_wars
However having a national core on Croatia or Krain in 1512 is too early as both provinces resisted ottoman conquest for many years after 1512. Even in 1527 there still is Croatia and only then did they historically submit to the Habsburgs as Kings for protection and still did not fall to the Ottoman Empire. So *if* we would give TUR a core on Croatia before the battle of Mohacs event then it can´t be a national core but only a claimcore and even that should only be handed out at the start of the 1520 scenario earliest.
The Mamluck uprising in Egypt delayed the conquest of Hungary further and it could be a problem for the AI to be already in a war in Hungary when the rebels appear.
The "conquests of Suleyman I" triggers in 1520 so TUR gains cores on "Ragusa" and Dalmatia, Jedisan, Iraq and several other provinces so that the AI is up to it´s shoulders in casus belli against neighbours.
If croatia and Krain resisted the TUR from 1512, does that not indicate that a core is required?...how else will they resist if TUR does not have a trigger to invade.
maybe, but we are speculating. Also land level for TUR at this time is 100% 11 and they would cope with all other nations who hover between 5 and 8
you still fail to establish how the TUR was at the gates of Vienna in 1529 without any cores encouraging them that way.
We took away the war command to change policy of advanced core event and now you want to deny this as well. ...........you do remmeber we had war on HUN and war on HAB
Btw I do not care what core it is
When historical is taken the AI only select A ..........are you sure some events do not need changing,
YOU do know in 1526 HAB get national cores on all HUN ,croatia etc etc ...........why the 2 different reasoning between HAB and TUR
Last edited: