Ottoman Empire Question

[Aegisthus]

The Austrians had an empire in 1918. They didn't have one in 1919. That's losing it in my book and I don't see a big difference. The allies did not demand the dismantlement of the Austrian empire. The allies forced tha Austrians to demobilise their army. The Austrians could have used it to stop their empire from falling apart. The end result was the same.

True. the Russian empire did not fully collapse but it lost plenty of territory after WW1. Poland, the Baltics, Finland. All nations that managed to become independent because the Russian were too weak to keep control. And yes, they came back with a vengeance later on.

All I'm saying is that multiethnic empires should face a much more real internal minority problem. If they're weak then small or big pieces should break off or the whole thing should be able to collapse. Accepting a forced disarmament, losing a war or having a high WE should trigger (massive) national revolts for non accepted cultures, especially if the imperial government is repressive. If it's liberal the non accepted minorties will probably demand independence too but they might do it peacefully first.

[Yasko]

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.

Didnt every central powers including Ottomans send an army to save Austria during WWI? It was pretty broken to begin with.

[Kugyi]

The Austrians had an empire in 1918. They didn't have one in 1919. That's losing it in my book and I don't see a big difference.

Well, let's say there's a building. If it collapses on its own then it was a faulty design. If it collapses beacuse of an artillery strike then it wasn't nescessarily the architect's fault.

So there is a difference I think.

[flame7926]

Well, let's say there's a building. If it collapses on its own then it was a faulty design. If it collapses beacuse of an artillery strike then it wasn't nescessarily the architect's fault.

So there is a difference I think.

It still has collapsed either way. Loosing an empire isn't putting blame on the leaders of the country, just saying that they no longer control a large part of the territories they formerly did.

[Naselus]

Once again, keep it on topic guys.

[Aegisthus]

I´m trying Nas. I had a long post that got lost when I tried to post it.

To keep it short. It would be nice to not need a lot of nation specific events to mimic the possible collapse of all the empires.

Most peoples should have the possibility to revolt successfully and form there own nation. Successful revolts should be more likely the stronger the minority is and the bigger trouble the ruling empire is in. How oppressive or how liked an empire is should play a role too.

[EMT0]

I'm going to stay out of the mechanics and just chime in on which cultures are probably best to add for accepted cultures; I'm simply going to say how probable I think it'd be for a culture to become accepted depending on what path the Empire takes

Before I'd begin, I'd like to remind people that Ottomans' economic and political heart was in the Balkans, nationalism aside. Anatolia was an economic and political backwater to the Turks, despite being the area they were best entrenched in. Anatolia was good for soldiers and settlers to populate the Balkans when depopulated due to war or famine, nothing more, in the eyes of the Sultans.

I'd also like to offer my apologies to Rylock; I think my complaints made your work that much more difficult, and for that, I'm sorry. I just want fun historical realism



Anyways;

Bulgarian - Bulgaria was the economic heart of the empire, and was on its way to becoming its industrial heart as well, before the Russo-Turkish war. They're also too close to Constantinople and too populous to not have rights. A sustainable Balkan Empire needs the Bulgarians as its lifeblood so as to not be cut down. If the Empire is either Western or Moderate, Bulgarians should have the chance to become an accepted culture.

Armenian - Armenian were administrators and high officials in the empire, before this time period. I could even give a half-reasonable argument as to why they should start as accepted, but yeah, Armenians were the Empire's favorite Christian subjects, and are likely to receive elevated status. I'd say the same as the Bulgarians, either in a Western or Moderate Empire.

Albanian - While Muslim, Albanians were based in Europe and were honestly not treated all that different from Turks. They served in all positions of the Empire, because the Empire was not a Turkish Empire but a Muslim Empire first. Albanians would be the the basis of a Turkish Balkans. Albanians are the only culture I'd say should almost always become accepted whether Liberal, Moderate, or Islamic, if not from the start.

Greek - Despite rebelling, Greeks had a long history of being in high positions in the Empire and for a lot of its history, the Turks relied heavily on the Greeks. The Greeks of Constantinople had some rights above other Greeks, but if, and ONLY IF, the Empire were to re-annex Greece, should this become an option for them to accepted, via event that fires if the Turks own Athens. It should be an option only for the Liberal Empire.

I'd say that if the Turks occupy Athens, an event should fire with the option to re-annex, puppetize, or leave them alone and each one should come with consequences. Annexing being basically giving France, the UK, and Russia a free CB on you, so as to not make annexing Athens a time-consuming headache in terms of taking 2+ wars to do so.

Arab Cultures - Even if the Turks go west, it would be suicide to not favor one group in the Levant above the others. I'd say Syrians are the ones most 'Western' in their eyes, so maybe giving them an event if militancy and consciousness is low enough that gives them the option of favoring Bedouins, Egyptians, Syrians, or Iraqi Arabs, adding only one of them as an accepted culture? It should be an option for all variants of the Empire, with the amount accepted dependent on how conservative the Empire is.

Azerbaijani - If and only if the Turks take Russian or Persian Azerbaijan should this become an option, as they would lean heavily on this population to maintain their rule there in any form. Should be an option for all 3, but much harder for the Liberal Empire, IMO, yet not sure how you could manage that. Maybe the Liberal Empire has to hold all Azeri territories?

Kurdish - Despite being a population the Turks leaned heavily on, they're conservative and were considered backwards by the more liberal elements of the Turks, so Moderate and Islamic only.

Romanian/Serbian - Only for Liberal, and only if Serbia/Wallachia and Moldavia don't exist. The Turks should have the option to forcibly integrate Wallachia and Moldavia at the risk of drawing Russia and Austria into a war as well, IMO.

Bosniak - Honestly, Bosnia was always a small periphery of the Empire, so maybe only Liberal, if only because the other two paths wouldn't have enough of a focus on the Balkans to justify having Bosniaks as an accepted culture. On the other hand, all 3 would lean on the Bosniaks to maintain rule in the Balkans as Bosniaks are also Muslim. Make it an option for all 3, but I'd say make it a very random event not tied to the path the Turks take.


I think the only path that should gain cores should be the Islamic one, on the entire Arab peninsula, and Egypt, should it have been re-annexed. The Western one should lose all cores in Egypt, but not lose the ones in the Levant, while the Moderate path should keep cores as-is. I also am not advocating that the Moderate Empire gain every culture I listed as an option to become accepted, since that'd be horribly broken. I'm just listing them as options the Turks can take.

I'd try to look at the paths as trade-offs the Turks can take, but would also avoid trying to penalize the player unfairly. Losing cores just because is one of them, IMO. It's also worth noting that all of these paths assume a strong Empire; a weaker Empire should have less accepted cultures, obviously.



The way I see it, the Liberal path gives you the chance to keep and annex lands in the more populous and literate Balkans, so it'd be the ideal path for an economically-minded Empire, at the cost of expansion in the Muslim world.

The moderate path gives you a free hand to have a bit of the best of both worlds, but you receive no gains from choosing this path at all. Some cultures on both sides of the Empire would become accepted, albeit more in the East. The trade-off is that these POPs are illiterate and are a drain until later in the game, and your hold in the Balkans is weaker and expansion there is a near non-option.

The Islamic path should be for a more militarily-focused empire, since the Balkans are very unstable, and as a result, so is your economy. The trade-off is that all Muslim cultures in the Middle East as far as Algeria, Yemen, and Azerbaijan (should) be able to become accepted and expansion in the Middle East should be cheap, infamy-wise.


This is how I'd imagine the accepted cultures would line up, IMO, and what I think you guys are trying to achieve with the 3 different paths. I like Naselus' idea on principle, but am not all that fond of Rylock's harsh penalizations on each path. Yeah, there should be a cost, but losing all cores? The Turks have controlled those lands they hold for centuries at this point, so I can't see them not holding cores there.

[Connor Mulhern]

I'm going to stay out of the mechanics and just chime in on which cultures are probably best to add for accepted cultures; I'm simply going to say how probable I think it'd be for a culture to become accepted depending on what path the Empire takes

Before I'd begin, I'd like to remind people that Ottomans' economic and political heart was in the Balkans, nationalism aside. Anatolia was an economic and political backwater to the Turks, despite being the area they were best entrenched in. Anatolia was good for soldiers and settlers to populate the Balkans when depopulated due to war or famine, nothing more, in the eyes of the Sultans.

Agreed, that is the reason the turks fought so hard, the sultans were not STUPID, they just were ineffective, there is little reason that the turks would have fought for their hold on their balkans so hard if it was not important to them during the berlin conference, I mean they certainly did not want to go to war with Russia for the 15th time that week.

I'd also like to offer my apologies to Rylock; I think my complaints made your work that much more difficult, and for that, I'm sorry. I just want fun historical realism

The turks are hard to represent, although I would avoid arguing about this too much, unless rylock and nas start to see this as a new Germany.


Anyways;

Bulgarian - Bulgaria was the economic heart of the empire, and was on its way to becoming its industrial heart as well, before the Russo-Turkish war. They're also too close to Constantinople and too populous to not have rights. A sustainable Balkan Empire needs the Bulgarians as its lifeblood so as to not be cut down. If the Empire is either Western or Moderate, Bulgarians should have the chance to become an accepted culture.

Western, it needs to be, moderate, it should be possible, but only if they resolve the issues in the Balkans well.

Armenian - Armenian were administrators and high officials in the empire, before this time period. I could even give a half-reasonable argument as to why they should start as accepted, but yeah, Armenians were the Empire's favorite Christian subjects, and are likely to receive elevated status. I'd say the same as the Bulgarians, either in a Western or Moderate Empire.

However, they did not serve in the army, this is why I wish there was more than just accepted and primary, they would not serve in the army, but they would never really assimilate.

Albanian - While Muslim, Albanians were based in Europe and were honestly not treated all that different from Turks. They served in all positions of the Empire, because the Empire was not a Turkish Empire but a Muslim Empire first. Albanians would be the the basis of a Turkish Balkans. Albanians are the only culture I'd say should almost always become accepted whether Liberal, Moderate, or Islamic, if not from the start.

I agree with this statement, the Albanians and Turks still have close relations today, and I had a maid from the country who’s primary language was Turkish. I would at Turkish as an accepted culture to Albania, at least

Greek - Despite rebelling, Greeks had a long history of being in high positions in the Empire and for a lot of its history, the Turks relied heavily on the Greeks. The Greeks of Constantinople had some rights above other Greeks, but if, and ONLY IF, the Empire were to re-annex Greece, should this become an option for them to accepted, via event that fires if the Turks own Athens. It should be an option only for the Liberal Empire.
I'd say that if the Turks occupy Athens, an event should fire with the option to re-annex, puppetize, or leave them alone and each one should come with consequences. Annexing being basically giving France, the UK, and Russia a free CB on you, so as to not make annexing Athens a time-consuming headache in terms of taking 2+ wars to do so.

Agreed, maybe throw in an Austrian like restore empire for them for a bit of infamy, but piss of the Russians and Austrians. Athens should be moved to the confu region, and have a lot of confu uprisings because that was historically the heart of Greek nationalism. But there still should be some infamy, and no cores.

Arab Cultures - Even if the Turks go west, it would be suicide to not favor one group in the Levant above the others. I'd say Syrians are the ones most 'Western' in their eyes, so maybe giving them an event if militancy and consciousness is low enough that gives them the option of favoring Bedouins, Egyptians, Syrians, or Iraqi Arabs, adding only one of them as an accepted culture? It should be an option for all variants of the Empire, with the amount accepted dependent on how conservative the Empire is.

There are no separate cultures for the ottoman cores and I don’t think nas is going to add them, but the Syrians were the most western looking, so maybe that area stays cored in the western empire type event

Azerbaijani - If and only if the Turks take Russian or Persian Azerbaijan should this become an option, as they would lean heavily on this population to maintain their rule there in any form. Should be an option for all 3, but much harder for the Liberal Empire, IMO, yet not sure how you could manage that. Maybe the Liberal Empire has to hold all Azeri territories?

I don’t get why they are not either the same culture or accepted at the start, I can literally understand azeri with no difficulty, although their vowel harmony is “off” and they use less sophisticated words

Kurdish - Despite being a population the Turks leaned heavily on, they're conservative and were considered backwards by the more liberal elements of the Turks, so Moderate and Islamic only.

Agreed

Romanian/Serbian - Only for Liberal, and only if Serbia/Wallachia and Moldavia don't exist. The Turks should have the option to forcibly integrate Wallachia and Moldavia at the risk of drawing Russia and Austria into a war as well, IMO.

Only in the western empire case, cause some militancy jump, otherwise it would be kind of cheap.

Bosniak - Honestly, Bosnia was always a small periphery of the Empire, so maybe only Liberal, if only because the other two paths wouldn't have enough of a focus on the Balkans to justify having Bosniaks as an accepted culture. On the other hand, all 3 would lean on the Bosniaks to maintain rule in the Balkans as Bosniaks are also Muslim. Make it an option for all 3, but I'd say make it a very random event not tied to the path the Turks take.

Of all countries the bosiaks could have fled to during the Yugoslav wars, it was turkey, they are culturally Turkish, just linguistically Serbian, so I would just have them be accepted at the start

I think the only path that should gain cores should be the Islamic one, on the entire Arab peninsula, and Egypt, should it have been re-annexed. The Western one should lose all cores in Egypt, but not lose the ones in the Levant, while the Moderate path should keep cores as-is. I also am not advocating that the Moderate Empire gain every culture I listed as an option to become accepted, since that'd be horribly broken. I'm just listing them as options the Turks can take.

I disagree, the western empire should have cores on parts of Arabia, but nothing outside of Saudi Arabia today. The middle route has no cores on Egypt, and the western empire should lose cores on all but Syria, the moderate one should just have static cores, with many the exception of Azerbaijan.

I'd try to look at the paths as trade-offs the Turks can take, but would also avoid trying to penalize the player unfairly. Losing cores just because is one of them, IMO. It's also worth noting that all of these paths assume a strong Empire; a weaker Empire should have less accepted cultures, obviously.

I like this idea, the worse the empire is, the less of an opportunity it would have for accepted cultures, don’t know if it would work in gameplay terms, though

The way I see it, the Liberal path gives you the chance to keep and annex lands in the more populous and literate Balkans, so it'd be the ideal path for an economically-minded Empire, at the cost of expansion in the Muslim world.

A player is still going to expand into that area, it just has to be harder to hold onto them, maybe make them into colonies or something if the liberal route is taken?

The moderate path gives you a free hand to have a bit of the best of both worlds, but you receive no gains from choosing this path at all. Some cultures on both sides of the Empire would become accepted, albeit more in the East. The trade-off is that these POPs are illiterate and are a drain until later in the game, and your hold in the Balkans is weaker and expansion there is a near non-option.

Again, the player will find a way

The Islamic path should be for a more militarily-focused empire, since the Balkans are very unstable, and as a result, so is your economy. The trade-off is that all Muslim cultures in the Middle East as far as Algeria, Yemen, and Azerbaijan (should) be able to become accepted and expansion in the Middle East should be cheap, infamy-wise.

It is cheap already, no use adding in extra CBs

This is how I'd imagine the accepted cultures would line up, IMO, and what I think you guys are trying to achieve with the 3 different paths. I like Naselus' idea on principle, but am not all that fond of Rylock's harsh penalizations on each path. Yeah, there should be a cost, but losing all cores? The Turks have controlled those lands they hold for centuries at this point, so I can't see them not holding cores there.

I think cores should be reduced by the extreme route, but not totally stripped, greater turkey should be where cores basically remain static.

[Rylock]

First off, there are three events where the player must choose between one accepted culture and another-- one which inches them closer towards Western (to use your terminology), and one which inches them closer to the Caliphate. Just providing a list of which cultures should or should not be accepted is not very helpful. There is no condition under which accepted cultures are going to just be added to the OE.

So if you can suggest a change that should be made to the events, as in the choice the player needs to make, that's great.

Insofar as the effects of the two extreme paths-- the player not losing cores on the Levant in the Western version would make it so that the only place the OE would lose cores is Iraq. They don't have cores in Egypt. Losing cores in Iraq is not much of a trade-off... and there does indeed need to be a trade-off. I'd need to see some negatives on each side, and if losing some cores isn't one of them then not having something else which is just as serious isn't going to be a credible option.

[EMT0]

First off, there are three events where the player must choose between one accepted culture and another-- one which inches them closer towards Western (to use your terminology), and one which inches them closer to the Caliphate. Just providing a list of which cultures should or should not be accepted is not very helpful. There is no condition under which accepted cultures are going to just be added to the OE.

So if you can suggest a change that should be made to the events, as in the choice the player needs to make, that's great.

Insofar as the effects of the two extreme paths-- the player not losing cores on the Levant in the Western version would make it so that the only place the OE would lose cores is Iraq. They don't have cores in Egypt. Losing cores in Iraq is not much of a trade-off... and there does indeed need to be a trade-off. I'd need to see some negatives on each side, and if losing some cores isn't one of them then not having something else which is just as serious isn't going to be a credible option.

I'd probably leave the Turks with cores in Syria, but yeah, you're right, only Iraq isn't fair. Maybe leave the Turks with cores in major cities such as Baghdad, Jerusalem(I know it was a backwater, but it's important in a religious manner), Aleppo, Damascus, Basra, etc. but take away all cores outside of these cities? It'd more accurately represent the situation; the Turks would most likely treat those cities as outposts in a Western Empire scenario, areas of civilization while considering everything else in the Levant a colony. Hell, you could even do this in parts of Southeastern Turkey, seeing as it wouldn't be looked at that much differently from the Levant in the eyes of Western-leaning Turks.

As for how to go about adding cultures dynamically, I'm thinking we could do something like this;

Keep the 3 paths event on game start, but then get rid of the either-or decisions. Dedicate an event to each culture that'd trigger on specific triggers; say, for example, Bulgarian. I haven't looked at V2 code in a while, so my brainstorming may be a little bit off in terms of what's actually possible, my terminology whacky, but here's what I'd envision in a best case scenario.

I'm not sure if you can outline different requirements based on whether the liberal or moderate flag is up and doing individual events based on a flag could get tedious, real fast, and also act as a drain on resources. Although, I'd be willing to help write out each event if that was what was decided.


Anyway, Bulgarian; We could have it only trigger based on if the flag for 'Western' or 'Moderate' is up with a MTTH varying based on which flag is up, to start with. I'm fairly certain you can't assign a MTTH for each flag though, so break this idea into two events, mentally.

If the 'Western' flag is up, we could give the event a MTTH of 10-20 years that would require that the Turks own all of Bulgaria and Rumelia. For the 'Moderate' flag, we could give it a MTTH of 40-50 years and require a militancy of 2.0 or less globally, own all of Bulgaria AND Dobrudja as a buffer, and have a prestige of X. Once the event fires, you could choose to add Bulgarian to accepted cultures, at a cost of infuriating all moderates and lowering Bulgarian consciousness and militancy, or not do so, and give Bulgarians a BIG militancy and consciousness boost and boosting separatism, while lowering the militancy and consciousness of of Turkish POPs. The amount of consciousness/militancy could be scaled so that it more appropriately fits whatever government path the Turks are following.

My big concern with this though, is that it's impracticable and adds too much bloat. Rylock, your verdict? Otherwise I think the original idea is the best way to do so, while giving a few cultures(Greeks, Azerbaijanis) some dedicated events.

I'm also still advocating that Albanian be added to accepted cultures from the start.

[Connor Mulhern]

I'd probably leave the Turks with cores in Syria, but yeah, you're right, only Iraq isn't fair. Maybe leave the Turks with cores in major cities such as Baghdad, Jerusalem(I know it was a backwater, but it's important in a religious manner), Aleppo, Damascus, Basra, etc. but take away all cores outside of these cities? It'd more accurately represent the situation; the Turks would most likely treat those cities as outposts in a Western Empire scenario, areas of civilization while considering everything else in the Levant a colony. Hell, you could even do this in parts of Southeastern Turkey, seeing as it wouldn't be looked at that much differently from the Levant in the eyes of Western-leaning Turks.

They would be able to reclaim the entire province with one core, so that is a bad idea

As for how to go about adding cultures dynamically, I'm thinking we could do something like this;

Keep the 3 paths event on game start, but then get rid of the either-or decisions. Dedicate an event to each culture that'd trigger on specific triggers; say, for example, Bulgarian. I haven't looked at V2 code in a while, so my brainstorming may be a little bit off in terms of what's actually possible, my terminology whacky, but here's what I'd envision in a best case scenario.

I'm not sure if you can outline different requirements based on whether the liberal or moderate flag is up and doing individual events based on a flag could get tedious, real fast, and also act as a drain on resources. Although, I'd be willing to help write out each event if that was what was decided.


Anyway, Bulgarian; We could have it only trigger based on if the flag for 'Western' or 'Moderate' is up with a MTTH varying based on which flag is up, to start with. I'm fairly certain you can't assign a MTTH for each flag though, so break this idea into two events, mentally.

If the 'Western' flag is up, we could give the event a MTTH of 10-20 years that would require that the Turks own all of Bulgaria and Rumelia. For the 'Moderate' flag, we could give it a MTTH of 40-50 years and require a militancy of 2.0 or less globally, own all of Bulgaria AND Dobrudja as a buffer, and have a prestige of X. Once the event fires, you could choose to add Bulgarian to accepted cultures, at a cost of infuriating all moderates and lowering Bulgarian consciousness and militancy, or not do so, and give Bulgarians a BIG militancy and consciousness boost and boosting separatism, while lowering the militancy and consciousness of of Turkish POPs. The amount of consciousness/militancy could be scaled so that it more appropriately fits whatever government path the Turks are following.

It would be nice, but a lot of coding would be required, if you want to try and learn coding like I am though, feel free

My big concern with this though, is that it's impracticable and adds too much bloat. Rylock, your verdict? Otherwise I think the original idea is the best way to do so, while giving a few cultures(Greeks, Azerbaijanis) some dedicated events.

I'm also still advocating that Albanian be added to accepted cultures from the start.

Well in all honesty, I would like to see azeri be added if the turkish nationals win, or it becomes western, as the caliphate really did not like the shia heretics, but yeah, some more greek events would be nice

[Rylock]

I'd probably leave the Turks with cores in Syria, but yeah, you're right, only Iraq isn't fair. Maybe leave the Turks with cores in major cities such as Baghdad, Jerusalem(I know it was a backwater, but it's important in a religious manner), Aleppo, Damascus, Basra, etc. but take away all cores outside of these cities? It'd more accurately represent the situation; the Turks would most likely treat those cities as outposts in a Western Empire scenario, areas of civilization while considering everything else in the Levant a colony. Hell, you could even do this in parts of Southeastern Turkey, seeing as it wouldn't be looked at that much differently from the Levant in the eyes of Western-leaning Turks.

Having a core in each of those provinces means that the OE could use "Acquire Core State" on the entire region. So, no, I don't think that's a good solution. We're not talking about the Turks that you know, but rather the Turks if they had made a conscious decision to be a European power. They'd still own the Levant, and very likely the Levant would still be colonial if they re-took it from Egypt, but it would be treated as every other colonial possession. If they didn't own it, they'd make no effort to retake it any longer.

I could leave the cores on the Levant and instead remove cores from any Kurdish core province (the southeast that you mention), but I imagine there'd be much more protest regarding that from the resident Turk nationalists. We're currently talking about an OE that is focused on Thrace and Anatolia as the center of its Empire.

As for how to go about adding cultures dynamically, I'm thinking we could do something like this;

Keep the 3 paths event on game start, but then get rid of the either-or decisions. Dedicate an event to each culture that'd trigger on specific triggers; say, for example, Bulgarian. I haven't looked at V2 code in a while, so my brainstorming may be a little bit off in terms of what's actually possible, my terminology whacky, but here's what I'd envision in a best case scenario.

I'm not sure if you can outline different requirements based on whether the liberal or moderate flag is up and doing individual events based on a flag could get tedious, real fast, and also act as a drain on resources. Although, I'd be willing to help write out each event if that was what was decided.

I don't know what liberal or moderate flags you're talking about. If you mean the Wester/Moderate/Caliphate flags, they're not set until after the events are made. And if the events pop up and the player isn't choosing between two things, it won't work-- if you get an event saying "do you accept the Bulgarian culture or not?"... well, why wouldn't you? A player doesn't necessarily have any idea that there's another option.

My big concern with this though, is that it's impracticable and adds too much bloat. Rylock, your verdict? Otherwise I think the original idea is the best way to do so, while giving a few cultures(Greeks, Azerbaijanis) some dedicated events.

If you think the original idea is the best way to go, why are you suggesting changes?

Ultimately, the three events are meant to simulate the Tanzimat Era while strengthening the Empire and preparing them for the end result: the Ottoman Constitutional Era. What that Constitutional Era is going to be will depend on the path they've chosen. The best I could see, based on your feedback, is to separate the acceptance of cultures from the Tanzimat Era and instead make the three decisions between two other things, and then have accepted cultures come up after the path is chosen.

But we're also needlessly complicating it. Right now, the OE gets three additional accepted cultures. If someone's envisioning a path where the OE will get a heap-ton of accepted cultures just because they can produce records that people of those cultures were used in government positions or what-not, that's really not going to happen. There is a gameplay effect to consider here, as well. I also think there are other things to move onto rather than creating even more events/decisions for the OE.

[Connor Mulhern]

snip

Yeah, the Ottoman Empire is quickly becoming the new germany. I think what he was saying by the accepted culture events though is rather than saying you cannot have those cultures period, you take them through reaching certain conditions, some would be hard to achieve for all (for example, the kurds), others would be plain impossible for some (azeris in the eastern calipahte should not be possible, for example). But that would require a ton of coding, and except in the case of streching logic (eastern capliphate and azeris) are not really worth working on too hard

[Rylock]

Yeah, the Ottoman Empire is quickly becoming the new germany.

Not really. The events are done, and I've no allergic reaction to simply discussing them yet.

I think what he was saying by the accepted culture events though is rather than saying you cannot have those cultures period, you take them through reaching certain conditions, some would be hard to achieve for all (for example, the kurds), others would be plain impossible for some (azeris in the eastern calipahte should not be possible, for example). But that would require a ton of coding, and except in the case of streching logic (eastern capliphate and azeris) are not really worth working on too hard

Then I don't know what we're talking about. Editing the three lead-up events in the Tanzimat Era (or the three results) is one thing... adding new events/decisions for accepted cultures is something else. The latter I won't entertain, the former I will.

[Naselus]

There is a gameplay effect to consider here, as well.

This. The present setup appears to be working quite well... so unless that changes, I'm not really looking for any new ideas on this. There's better things we can spend time on that re-designing working event chains that have just been implemented.

[Connor Mulhern]

Not really. The events are done, and I've no allergic reaction to simply discussing them yet.



Then I don't know what we're talking about. Editing the three lead-up events in the Tanzimat Era (or the three results) is one thing... adding new events/decisions for accepted cultures is something else. The latter I won't entertain, the former I will.

Hey, I am just translating. As I currently understand though, Azeri is currently a possibility for the eastern caliphate. That simply does not make a ton of sense, as the majority of azeri are shia, and there was a TON of problems with the lack of shia integration within the OE

[Rylock]

Hey, I am just translating. As I currently understand though, Azeri is currently a possibility for the eastern caliphate. That simply does not make a ton of sense, as the majority of azeri are shia, and there was a TON of problems with the lack of shia integration within the OE

Not sure why you think that, as it's not true. Azerbaijani is a possible culture for the Moderate OE, provided they own Azerbaijani provinces when the Hatt-i-Humayun decision is passed. Otherwise it's only possible as part of the "Greater Turkey" decision available to a fascist Turkey.

[Connor Mulhern]

Not sure why you think that, as it's not true. Azerbaijani is a possible culture for the Moderate OE, provided they own Azerbaijani provinces when the Hatt-i-Humayun decision is passed. Otherwise it's only possible as part of the "Greater Turkey" decision available to a fascist Turkey.

Ok, I am still not that familiar with the changes, I thought that was the option, but even for the moderate one (which was the historical route) it is still questionable, as there was descrimination against all non-sunni minorities, rather than just muslim

[Naselus]

Ok, I am still not that familiar with the changes, I thought that was the option, but even for the moderate one (which was the historical route) it is still questionable, as there was descrimination against all non-sunni minorities, rather than just muslim

Before you critique something, make sure you know what it is you're critiquing. Being told we should change things which we haven't actually included in the first place is very irritating - as it being told we should include stuff that's already been included. I'd suggest you actually play a game as the OE using the new system before you suggest any changes to it.

[Aegisthus]

I don't agree with what's being said about the Ottomans gaining cultures. Sure most of the minorities participated in the governing of the empire but did the fast majority of these pops feel at home in the empire? As the ideas of nationalism spread I believe the answer is more and more likely to be 'no'.

Then again I don't think there's any reason to change things if the Ottoms are having a hard time most games. The whole culture concept in Vic2 is far from optimal.