+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 188

Thread: Ottoman Empire Question

  1. #121
    Hiberian, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
    For Mother Russia: Scourge of the East! для мати Россия: бедствие востока Read The AAR of the rising Russian Empire.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernian View Post
    No, they really are just mistakes. You could make that argument with the Nubians maybe, the Devs may just have forgotten about them or thought they were not worth adding (although they included way smaller groups than that) and made them Misri Arabs for convenience. But the distribution of the Sudanese and Beja POPs is just mistaken. I mean, they obviously went to the trouble to create the Beja ethnic group but ended up putting them in only like three provinces (and mostly the wrong provinces at that). These are simply mistakes, hence I'm proposing to simply correct them.

    This is nothing at all similar to tiny Amazon tribes or the Hadza, we're talking about distinct ethnic groups which today have millions of people in them (certainly a few hundred thousand in 1836). To me, to not have them in the game at all is the same as saying "Let's just not have Slovenes, to save overhead, because there're not that many of them, so they don't really matter". And as for overhead, you do realise that the old VIP mod for VIC2 1 had even more distinct cultures and POPs then what I'm proposing? That was with computers from like 8 years ago, and yet we managed fine.

    And you know, I really just don't think it's a bit thing to ask Rylock to change like two measly cores. I mean, come on you tell him to rewrite entire event chains all the time!



    Are you kidding me? After you just told me I could do them? I've already been doing loads of it last night and today. I did the Algeria, Libya, Mauritania and Tunis files (both 1836 and 1861). There's no way I'm just going to drop it now and let all that effort and research go to waste.

    Fine, I'll stop doing them for now a focus on the terrain stuff, but I intend to come back to this.
    We'll include stuff that doesn't conflict with other stuff. That's an end to it, I can't be bothered having these same bloody arguments between the pair of you every time, where Rylock says 'but that will mean we have to rewrite X and Y and Z' and then you quote an article saying they were there, and then Ry once again says 'but that will mess up X and Y and Z' and you quote another bloody article. As he says, 'It was there' is NOT enough of a justification in itself. You have to be flexible enough to adapt things to the game somewhat.

    Part of the problem here is that you tend to propose changes which impact, well, everything else, often with incredibly minor advantages, which then require us to rewrite huge chunks of the game. I don't actually enjoy spending a whole weekend rewriting the economy, which your additions have caused me to do more than anyone else's (including my own). This means that we generally end up re-doing the same blasted thing over and over again in order to get back to pretty much exactly the same place we were before in a lot of cases. When you've contributed something important and valuable, like the new map, that's not a problem... but when it's because you insist we need to include some OPM to be at war with Russia on day 1, that's a massive distortion to the economy for a war which would end within 3 months 90% of the time.

    Let's just take a look at what you've proposed to do here, shall we? You want to add three cultures and change some POPs around. That's OK, generally speaking. However, the knock-on effects you've already found from this are:

    * You want to remove a load of cores
    * You want to change the starting ownership of half a dozen provinces
    * You want a whole set of events re-written
    * You want a state that presently belongs to an underpowered nation de-colonized

    That's a lot of knock-on effects. Now, just tell me; what, exactly, are the GAMEPLAY advantages of having the additional three cultures, and re-arranging the ones who are present? If the answer is 'none, but they were there at the time', then you fit them in without screwing up other events/decisions and requiring us to redraw the map of Africa, even if that means there's Sudanese people in a province next door to where they are anyway, or that a country ruled by a Maghrebi elite has Maghrebi aristocrats in places where the map claims they aren't.

    Quite simply, if Rylock requests that you ensure there's people of a culture somewhere for a set-piece event, then leave some people of that culture there. Even if it's 25 aristocrats, then leave them there. I don't care if Harvard says they didn't move into the area until later; I don't care if the Oxford History of Africa states that the (totally un-censused) population in the area at the time was probably all Bedouin. Having 25 POPs who are of the wrong culture for the period of time is less hassle than having to rethink an entire event chain, or redraw a dozen borders - especially when the borders don't map onto actual ethnic distributions very well anyway.
    For every subtle and complicated question, there is a simple and straightforward answer, which is wrong.

    Creator of PDM:PoD for Heart of Darkness: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ownload-thread
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Creator of '1792' for March of the Eagles: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...69074-1792-mod

  3. #123
    Field Marshal Rylock's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria 2

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    8,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Naselus View Post
    Rylock says 'but that will mean we have to rewrite X and Y and Z' and then you quote an article saying they were there, and then Ry once again says 'but that will mess up X and Y and Z' and you quote another bloody article. As he says, 'It was there' is NOT enough of a justification in itself. You have to be flexible enough to adapt things to the game somewhat.
    That's where I get frustrated. I ask for justification, and the response is evidently that having found a reference to something online (never mind if it's even contradicted elsewhere) is justification enough-- and that gameplay considerations are irrelevant and should work around whatever those changes are.

    Which I would be totally fine with-- if there was something interesting about the addition.

    Add Assyrian culture? Awesome. Are we adding a country tag for it? There was evidently nationalism in the era, so it'd be justified-- but if not? Then why do it unless we're worried that the Mashriqi states there are too homogenous. Just having some non-primary pops there called "Assyrians" does nothing interesting in the game. Even the fact that they'd be of a different religion is pretty trivial in a game that trivializes religion. No, wait, now I bet we should add a whole bunch of events to MAKE it non-trivial, despite the lack of scripting hooks. We (meaning me) should do all that work... for the Assyrians, who nobody missed.

    Add Nubian pops into northern Sudan? Awesome. Are we adding a country tag for it? No? Then they can be lumped in with the other pops there. What, now you want to reduce Sudan's cores, and justify it by pointing to a map which shows an incredibly vague area controlled by Egypt at the time? Never mind that, according to that map, Egypt should also be controlling Hail, Nejd, Hedjaz and Zaydi as well-- and we all know that the area controlled by the OE seems to change in every single source. Never mind what "control" might be to that source or how well that control could actually be modeled in Vic2. Never mind considering how Anglo-Egyptian Sudan could have come to be-- in game terms-- or how the game actually treats nationalist rebels or how Egypt really does not need to be weaker than it already is.

    No, these concerns are irrelevant. I should do more work to try to make the game shape itself around the changes, which if I ask if what those changes actually add to the game to justify my time (it's not as if I don't have other things to do) I just get directed to a website reference. Tell me that's not frustrating. I should, however, just take a chill pill, shut up and rework the gameplay-- because evidently whatever time I put in now or later once the repercussions of those changes start being felt is unimportant, I should just stay quiet and suck it up because someone wants them in.

    And now the Ottoman Empire thread has been completely derailed. And we're evidently going to have this conversation again later, because Hibernian doesn't actually think my concerns or even Naselus' amount to more than a hill of beans. How utterly thrilling.
    Last edited by Rylock; 02-08-2012 at 20:30.

  4. #124
    Colonel the_Hussar's Avatar
    Rome GoldVictoria 2

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by Naselus View Post
    They're not necessarily 'mistakes', Hib. Some cultures weren't included not due to oversights, but because they're really not worth the effort of adding in.
    This makes total sense. A lot of times I'm asked to add things into real life projects from our marketing/sales people, and realistically, they have no clue what it would entail, or even did marketing research as to if it makes a difference. They don't understand that I have more important things to attack. LOL.

    Thanks for doing all this grunt work and time you spend on it.

  5. #125
    Field Marshal Rylock's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria 2

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    8,624
    Naselus-- any chance you could clear up some PM space? I'd like to bring up something privately, but currently cannot communicate with you at all outside of the public forum.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Rylock View Post
    Naselus-- any chance you could clear up some PM space? I'd like to bring up something privately, but currently cannot communicate with you at all outside of the public forum.
    Cleared, fire away.
    For every subtle and complicated question, there is a simple and straightforward answer, which is wrong.

    Creator of PDM:PoD for Heart of Darkness: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ownload-thread
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Creator of '1792' for March of the Eagles: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...69074-1792-mod

  7. #127
    Scholar Laskaris's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedEU3 Collectors Edition

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Constantinople, Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    589
    I'm a historian and a fan of historical accuracy, but I also don't see the point of just adding cultures for the sake of it. The game works with abstractions, and as long as these abstractions work well in terms of what makes the gameplay interesting, that's great. No need to add extra bulk for no noticeable gameplay benefit.

    I mean, having only the "North German" and "South German" culture for all of Germany and Austria proper is a significant abstraction, but it's all we really need for Victoria 2. Having "Bavarian", "Prussian", "Saxon", "Swabian", "Rhineland" etc. cultures would not add anything interesting or exciting to the game.

  8. #128
    Field Marshal Rylock's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria 2

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    8,624
    Okay, Naselus, the new OE events are in the latest batch. Some things to note:

    I ended up putting the three "end" states in decisions. I tried them as events, but it seemed strange to be forced into the reforms-- and offering up a "do this or don't" choice also seemed odd. I think the plusses and minuses of the current layout are pretty obvious, and a player can elect to take the middle road decision even if they've picked all three of one side's cultures. All three decisions can be turned into events fairly easily, if need be.

    Essentially the "European Empire" decision removes OE cores from all Mashriqi and Bedouin areas but turns you into a liberal HMS Gov with some additional reforms. The "Islamic Empire" removes all European cores outside of Thrace, but adds Misri as accepted and adds cores on much of Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia-- as well as making you a reactionary Absolute Monarchy and removing reforms. The "Constitutional Era" decision is the middle road, changing no cores but giving you Landed Voting if you don't have it and Limited Minority Rights if you don't have it.

    The "Hatt-i-Humayun" decision requires R&CR and has a different effect depending on which version you are. For the "European Empire", it adds Greek & Romanian accepted if you own any province with a majority of either, adds cores on any owned Greek & Romanian cores and adds the Ottoman Reforms modifier (reducing non-accepted militancy). For the "Constitutional Era" version, it adds Albanian, Misri, Bosniak and Azerbaijani if you own any provinces with a majority of those cultures and adds the Ottoman Reforms modifier. For the "Islamic Empire" it adds the "Islamic Rule" modifier (reducing core militancy and CON and increasing suppression points) and reduces Sunni militancy and con.

    Everything after that point is pretty much the same, with the Arab Revolt locked out for the "Islamic Empire" OE and the Congress of Berlin locked out for the "European Empire" OE.

    You'll need to evaluate for yourself if I've overpowered (or underpowered) these things-- I gave it my best shot.
    Last edited by Rylock; 03-08-2012 at 09:19.

  9. #129
    Colonel the_Hussar's Avatar
    Rome GoldVictoria 2

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    834
    When the cores are lost in Europe, does that reduce the conflicts the Turks will have with the Balkans, being that the OE no longer has cores there? Thanks.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by the_Hussar View Post
    When the cores are lost in Europe, does that reduce the conflicts the Turks will have with the Balkans, being that the OE no longer has cores there? Thanks.
    Should do, yeah.
    For every subtle and complicated question, there is a simple and straightforward answer, which is wrong.

    Creator of PDM:PoD for Heart of Darkness: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ownload-thread
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Creator of '1792' for March of the Eagles: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...69074-1792-mod

  11. #131
    Colonel the_Hussar's Avatar
    Rome GoldVictoria 2

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    834
    Is that what we really want then? Historically, wouldn't there still be that tension with the Balkans ... or does the decision tree to give up those European cores reflect a major ideological and political shift away, making it palatable?

  12. #132
    Scholar Laskaris's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedEU3 Collectors Edition

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Constantinople, Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by Rylock View Post
    Okay, Naselus, the new OE events are in the latest batch. Some things to note:

    I ended up putting the three "end" states in decisions. I tried them as events, but it seemed strange to be forced into the reforms-- and offering up a "do this or don't" choice also seemed odd. I think the plusses and minuses of the current layout are pretty obvious, and a player can elect to take the middle road decision even if they've picked all three of one side's cultures. All three decisions can be turned into events fairly easily, if need be.

    Essentially the "European Empire" decision removes OE cores from all Mashriqi and Bedouin areas but turns you into a liberal HMS Gov with some additional reforms. The "Islamic Empire" removes all European cores outside of Thrace, but adds Misri as accepted and adds cores on much of Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia-- as well as making you a reactionary Absolute Monarchy and removing reforms. The "Constitutional Era" decision is the middle road, changing no cores but giving you Landed Voting if you don't have it and Limited Minority Rights if you don't have it.

    The "Hatt-i-Humayun" decision requires R&CR and has a different effect depending on which version you are. For the "European Empire", it adds Greek & Romanian accepted if you own any province with a majority of either, adds cores on any owned Greek & Romanian cores and adds the Ottoman Reforms modifier (reducing non-accepted militancy). For the "Constitutional Era" version, it adds Albanian, Misri, Bosniak and Azerbaijani if you own any provinces with a majority of those cultures and adds the Ottoman Reforms modifier. For the "Islamic Empire" it adds the "Islamic Rule" modifier (reducing core militancy and CON and increasing suppression points) and reduces Sunni militancy and con.

    Everything after that point is pretty much the same, with the Arab Revolt locked out for the "Islamic Empire" OE and the Congress of Berlin locked out for the "European Empire" OE.

    You'll need to evaluate for yourself if I've overpowered (or underpowered) these things-- I gave it my best shot.
    I'm late to the discussion, so please don't read my response as a request to rewrite the entire thing just after you have finished it. I'm just giving feedback.

    From a gameplay perspective, I like the three choices. They lead to markedly different paths, and on a first reading, none of them seems OP. They all have advantages and drawbacks.

    From a historical perspective, I have my doubts. I don't think it's very plausible for the OE to voluntarily give up a chunk of its cores either way. A move like that would probably have been seen as weakness and, if anything, encouraged the drive of the other peoples of the empire towards independence. I'm especially doubtful about the "European Empire" option. I tend to believe that, given the strong nationalist movements of the Balkans peoples that were already well under way in the early 19th century, the Ottomans holding on to their European possessions was always a lost cause.

    Austria tried to solve its nationality problems by elevating the Hungarians to the status of co-rulers in the Ausgleich, but that ended up only exacerbating the problem - with the other non-German peoples clamouring for the same privileges and autonomies the Hungarians now had. Austria-Hungary inevitably drifted more and more towards disintegration in the late 19th and early 20th century, despite the fact that it did not have the Muslim / Christian and Asia / Europe cultural divides that plague the Ottomans in addition to the ethnic / language differences. If Austria-Hungary could not manage to hold together, I see even less of a chance for the Ottoman Balkans.

    I see a somewhat bigger plausibility for the "Islamic Empire". The Turks and Arabs at least had a common religion, and Arabic national sentiments did not become significant until the very late 19th / early 20th century. Still, giving the OE cores on much of Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia strikes me as over-powered. I think it's unlikely that any of these areas would have accepted Ottoman rule during the 19th century. Especially not Egypt, which had just broken free and was aiming to become a power in its own right.

    Personally, I tend to believe that the only somewhat realstic chance for multi-ethnic empires like Austria or the Ottomans to hold together longer than they did historically would have been to give all of their minorities very wide-ranging autonomies. The result would have been a confederation of separate states, with the monarch as a figurehead, and perhaps a common army and foreign policy, but total autonomy in internal affairs. In game terms, it would be a system of vassals or substates rather than remaining one country.

    Anyway, those are my two cents. And having said all of the above, the options you came up with are definitely an improvement over vanilla, so thank you very much for your work!

  13. #133
    Sergeant Kugyi's Avatar
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesHearts of Iron III Collection
    Sword of the StarsSupreme Ruler 2020 GoldVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Mount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Laskaris View Post
    I'm especially doubtful about the "European Empire" option. I tend to believe that, given the strong nationalist movements of the Balkans peoples that were already well under way in the early 19th century, the Ottomans holding on to their European possessions was always a lost cause.
    Exactly my opinion.
    By 1836 Montenegro became independent, Serbia is about to become. The Ottoman Empire was the common enemy for the Serbs/Greeks/Bulgarians ect, they wouldn't like to remain under Ottoman rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laskaris View Post
    Austria tried to solve its nationality problems by elevating the Hungarians to the status of co-rulers in the Ausgleich, but that ended up only exacerbating the problem - with the other non-German peoples clamouring for the same privileges and autonomies the Hungarians now had. Austria-Hungary inevitably drifted more and more towards disintegration in the late 19th and early 20th century, despite the fact that it did not have the Muslim / Christian and Asia / Europe cultural divides that plague the Ottomans in addition to the ethnic / language differences. If Austria-Hungary could not manage to hold together, I see even less of a chance for the Ottoman Balkans.
    The Balkan was much worse than Austria ethnicity clash-wise. Wars and massacres happened quite often there. In Austria the only one was in '48-'49. Austria-Hungary was a really promising state, her economy was booming. Sure, the Hungarians wanted a personal union, the other nationalities wanted autonomy, so decentralisation was inevitabile, but the majority of the non-germans wanted to remain in the Empire, only a few radicals wanted independence. The state collapsed beacuse of the Great War not beacuse of the multiethnicity. But yeah it should be next to impossible for the Ottomans to keep the Balkan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laskaris View Post
    I see a somewhat bigger plausibility for the "Islamic Empire". The Turks and Arabs at least had a common religion, and Arabic national sentiments did not become significant until the very late 19th / early 20th century. Still, giving the OE cores on much of Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia strikes me as over-powered. I think it's unlikely that any of these areas would have accepted Ottoman rule during the 19th century. Especially not Egypt, which had just broken free and was aiming to become a power in its own right.
    I think Arabia is OK. Tunesia and Egypt might be a bit too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laskaris View Post
    In game terms, it would be a system of vassals or substates rather than remaining one country.
    Yeah, vassals and substates could be used nearly everywhere, too bad they are broken.

  14. #134
    MM Prime Minister in Exile Vishaing's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMarch of the Eagles
    EU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,196
    I am assuming that when Rylock says it adds cores to much of Egypt he means only parts of Egypt the Ottoman Empire owns at the time. If it also adds cores on all of Egypt, even an Independent Egypt, then I agree that I think that is waaaaaaaaaay too much.
    Imperium in Imperio -:- EUIV Edition CKII Edition

    Vishaing's Idea Corner -:- EUIV Modding Tools, Areas of Interest, Free Relations, Simple Character System, Re-Re-Thinking Ideas, War and Peace, Simplified Population System, Reforming Monarch Points, Fixing Rotten Attitudes

    NOTE: Your Definition of 'soon' Might differ from Mine.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Kugyi View Post
    Exactly my opinion.
    By 1836 Montenegro became independent, Serbia is about to become. The Ottoman Empire was the common enemy for the Serbs/Greeks/Bulgarians ect, they wouldn't like to remain under Ottoman rule.
    It's not like having the Balkans as accepted cultures will prevent them from ever breaking off, you know. The 'European Empire' doesn't mean that the Balkans will suddenly become firmly pro-Ottoman - it just means that the Empire is concentrating it's resources on trying to keep the Balkans under control, and is easing up on the anti-Christian stuff. This means that it gets some accepted cultures, and that the Russians don't have an excuse to launch the Berlin Conference... but it also means they don't get the juicy Arab cultures.
    For every subtle and complicated question, there is a simple and straightforward answer, which is wrong.

    Creator of PDM:PoD for Heart of Darkness: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ownload-thread
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Creator of '1792' for March of the Eagles: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...69074-1792-mod

  16. #136
    Sergeant Kugyi's Avatar
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesHearts of Iron III Collection
    Sword of the StarsSupreme Ruler 2020 GoldVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Mount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    87
    I'm fine with possible Albanian and Bosniak cultures, but Serbian or Greek as an accepted culture sounds a bit bizarre. Gameplay-wise without the Berlin Conference the Ottomans will keep the Balkan under their control without human intervention about 90% of the time. Sure the Europian Empire way should give them more chance to keep the Empire together but not that much. Maybe if Russia and maybe Austria can still use the Free the Balkan CB.

  17. #137
    Russia could get a CB, but Austria shouldn't get one.

  18. #138
    Major Yasko's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneSemper FiSupreme Ruler 2020 GoldVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House Divided500k club

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    KizilElma
    Posts
    798
    I think you should start to kick in Ottoman decline with Treaty of Balta Limani signed 1838 between Ottoman Empire and Britain which transformed the Empire more less to a economic protectorate of Britain. Ottomans signed this becouse they really needed British support against Egypt and later Russia. A nicely coded event here could force Ottomans into later financial troubles they faced later. Is it for example possible to set maxlimit for tariffs via events? That could cripple the economy pretty good.

    As for the Balkan revolts&nationalism etc. It should be connected to the economical state of the Empire, a strong empire could allways supress those with ease(well untill 1920s it is) but a weak one should be broken under it. I think Ottoman player in the begining should be forced to choose in the begining, Treaty of Balta Limani, or getting his a** handed to it by Egypt and Russia the first 20 years.

    Another great financial problem was that the tax system which was very, very backwards, the Empire got a working system with Duyun-u Umumiye after that the state was bankrupt and a "state within the state" was formed in late 19th century. It had 7 members, 1 english or dutch, 1 french, 1 german, one austrian, one italian and one ottoman member. The last member was one of the big state bond owners. This new commission also ment that the Ottoman economy become even more depended(owned) by foreing interests. It was a modern comitee which did improve the tax collecting vastly, but it was more interested in preserving the interest of foreingers than the Ottoman state.
    Last edited by Yasko; 07-08-2012 at 21:49.
    "Beşiktaş fans call themselves Çarşı and there is no doubt which turkish team have the best and most strident and endearing songs"
    ...........................The Guardian.......................

    "Beşiktaş is the underdog, the working-class team, known for the ardor of its fans. The language of Beşiktaş is characterized both by over-the-top profanity and by the poetry of longing and love. One of the most important Beşiktaşfan clubs is called Çarşi."

    ..............newyorker website................

  19. #139
    Second Lieutenant Aegisthus's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3Divine WindHearts of Iron III Collection
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    183
    I'm very curious to see how this works out. I think I'll have to play my next game as the Ottomans to see how things go.

    Personally I hate to see too much determinism in the game. The Ottoman, Austrian and Russian regimes fell due to a mix of internal weakness and external pressure. The less deterministic events we need to see these weak powers collapse the better.

    I''m very reluctant to allow the Ottomans Christian cultures as accepted cultures. How likely is it for peace and love to break out in the Balkans? (Hippies weren't even invented before 1966 and you need a lot of hippies for that!) Much the same can be sad for the Arabs. I really feel that multi ethnic empires such as the Ottomans and Austrians but also the Russians should face major ethnic troubles and the choice between two options: repression with increased militancy and turmoil or apeasment with ever increasing demands for more minority rights inevitable ending up with independance.

    The Ottomans, Austrians and partially the Russian lost their empires in the Vic2 timeframe after they suffered heavily in wars and were unable to military stop national independence movements. The British, French and Dutch experienced the same thing outside the Vic2 timeframe. I'd prefer some way of non national pops gaining militancy in wars quicker and revolts spreading quicker or being triggerd by losing wars. Although we should take a look at all the work Rylock put into the Otto's before we start all over.

  20. #140
    Austria didn't lose its empire, it was dismantled after ww1, there's a big difference. And Russia ended up becoming one of the two strongest powers in the whole world until the very end of the century; it only lost small bits.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts