Weak Egypt in 1836

[Naselus]

OK, how's this:

We give Egypt all the reforms it should have, but also a modifier that nerfs it's Research output to next to nothing initially. This is removed when the crisis ends. If the crisis ends in victory, this should allow Egypt to civilize within about 5-10 years. If it results in Egypt losing, we rip out 6-8 reforms, and still remove the modifier. That puts Egypt back a several decades, and leaves it in more or less the state of the other uncivs.

Hell, I'd even suggest we tag the RP nerf onto Ali's reforms modifier - give it a mobilization boost and some economic benefits, at the expense of stopping RP growth for ten years.

[Rylock]

OK, how's this:

We give Egypt all the reforms it should have, but also a modifier that nerfs it's Research output to next to nothing initially. This is removed when the crisis ends. If the crisis ends in victory, this should allow Egypt to civilize within about 5-10 years. If it results in Egypt losing, we rip out 6-8 reforms, and still remove the modifier. That puts Egypt back a several decades, and leaves it in more or less the state of the other uncivs.

Hell, I'd even suggest we tag the RP nerf onto Ali's reforms modifier - give it a mobilization boost and some economic benefits, at the expense of stopping RP growth for ten years.

We don't need to apply a time limit to the reforms modifier-- it is automatically removed when the crisis ends, one way or the other.

So, yes, we can apply a negative research % to the reform modifier if we like. It's normally applied in 1838 (or immediately if the crisis starts sooner), but we can apply it whenever.

I can make the changes, if I know exactly what you'd like them to be. (I'm back from San Diego now.)

EDIT: Okay, I added the reforms mentioned (bringing Egypt up to 75% civilized at the game start) and adjusted the Muhammad Ali's Reforms modifier to give -60% RP plus a boost to mobilization and land org/org regain (plus it builds a fabric factory, as otherwise that never happens if the country just starts with the reform... although I suppose we could just add the factory in the history file instead). If Egypt loses, then it loses 6 random reforms (3 economic and 3 military) and always loses the modifier as soon as the crisis ends.

[Hibernian]

Sounds good.

[Naselus]

Leave the fabric factory part out - I'll add it in the history files and give them some craftsmen.

[ayafox]

Great! I can't wait to see all of these changes implemented in 3.09.
But I also suggested a Russio-Turkish alliance and switching OE 1836 ruling party to conservative. No need to be discussed?

[Straigthtsilver]

The problem with a Russo-Turkish alliance is that the game has the tendency to have alliances last an extremely long amount of time, and not take into account historical enmity between nations (hence Hapsburg Austria's love of allying with the Ottomans in-game, rather than just begrudgingly stonewalling the Russians as happened historically).

The Ottoman Empire already is prone to being allied with half of Europe, and making its chief rival and main instigator for the Crimean War/Congress of Berlin event chain means that the chances of those events firing drops to nearly nil.

[ayafox]

The problem with a Russo-Turkish alliance is that the game has the tendency to have alliances last an extremely long amount of time, and not take into account historical enmity between nations (hence Hapsburg Austria's love of allying with the Ottomans in-game, rather than just begrudgingly stonewalling the Russians as happened historically).

The Ottoman Empire already is prone to being allied with half of Europe, and making its chief rival and main instigator for the Crimean War/Congress of Berlin event chain means that the chances of those events firing drops to nearly nil.

What I want to emphasise is that Russo-Turkish alliance is a short-term alliance, which will reach it's end once Egypt is defeated in crisis. Actually Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi was signed in the year when the first Egyptian-Ottoman War was over. For this reason, obviously the alliance was built up to defend OE from increasingly strong Egypt. At least it's one of the reasons. That's why Russia should have a high tendency to stand on the OE side when OC break out. In APD Oriental Crisis event, OE's alliances of great power are more likely to help OE in crisis. In the present version, most time OE will ally to UK instead with Russia. Then Russia will not interfere the crisis and even help Egypt against OE, which is so strange. By making a short-term Russo-Turkish alliance, Russia's decision will be closer to history. It will definitely not effect the game after crisis is over, for the reason that we have severed it forcebly through the final part of Oriental Crisis Events.

[Naselus]

That's deterministic. I don't like events which are basically just used to force the AI to do things which may not even be in it's interest at the time. The OC happens because it was more or less certain to happen - the same cannot be said of the GP's various stances to it, as by the time it rolls around Russia might have CBs on the OE, might be engaged in an arms race with it... It's too tactical a decision to go around forcing like that.

[ayafox]

That's deterministic. I don't like events which are basically just used to force the AI to do things which may not even be in it's interest at the time. The OC happens because it was more or less certain to happen - the same cannot be said of the GP's various stances to it, as by the time it rolls around Russia might have CBs on the OE, might be engaged in an arms race with it... It's too tactical a decision to go around forcing like that.

Just add some codes like this one.

#Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi 

alliance = {
	first = RUS
	second = TUR
	start_date = 1833.7.8
	end_date = 1841.7.13
}

And do nothing else. no enforcing, AI Russia can end this alliance at any time. I played a game of APD 3.07 recently with such modification. Then I found AI Russia was willing to keep this alliance for more than a decade. Looks like the alliance is in AI Russia's interest. So, this is why I suggested this idea, even AI agrees on the idea.

[Naselus]

Yes, I know how to add an alliance to the diplomacy file, thank you :P

Having Russia and the OE allied early will likely result in Russia failing to attack the OE later on, tho. Given that Russia's overarching strategy toward the OE from 1650 onward was more or less' poke it with a stick til it falls over', and the AI isn't bright enough to know that, meddling in the area's initial politics is likely to end up hurting more than it helps.

[ayafox]

Yes, I know how to add an alliance to the diplomacy file, thank you :P

Having Russia and the OE allied early will likely result in Russia failing to attack the OE later on, tho. Given that Russia's overarching strategy toward the OE from 1650 onward was more or less' poke it with a stick til it falls over', and the AI isn't bright enough to know that, meddling in the area's initial politics is likely to end up hurting more than it helps.

You are partly right. Under the Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi, Russia was more in favour of allying to OE rather than attacking it. But that's just what the history was like in 1830s, a short time when Russia gave up its' more aggressive policy to control OE. Russia will hold this policy for the reason that it's just what it want instead of AI problem. So why did Russia turn to aggressive policy later? It's not simply for Czar changed his mind, it's because of other great powers didn't like that. I believe this alliance policy would continue without other great powers' interfering.

But in the game, AI GPs are not able to negotiate with Russia to require it to end the alliance like what they truly did in history. We can help them by adding a new event called London Straits Convention. This event will have a chance to fire from 1836, but the chance of it will be much lower until Oriental Crisis has ended. After Oriental Crisis, the event will fire inevitably. Once event fire, Russia will have to choose to whether leave the alliance or not. If Russia leave the alliance, OE will ally to Britain instead. If Russia refuse to do so, than Russia's relationship with other GPs will be affected. AI Russia will definitely choose the former one so that the game can go on normally.

[Naselus]

You are partly right. Under the Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi, Russia was more in favour of allying to OE rather than attacking it. But that's just what the history was like in 1830s, a short time when Russia gave up its' more aggressive policy to control OE. Russia will hold this policy for the reason that it's just what it want instead of AI problem. So why did Russia turn to aggressive policy later? It's not simply for Czar changed his mind, it's because of other great powers didn't like that. I believe this alliance policy would continue without other great powers' interfering.

I seriously doubt that, given that expansionism was pretty much the only unchanging pillar of Russian diplomacy in the period, and they'd been fighting the Ottomans on and off for decades by this point anyway. From at very least Catherine the Great onward, taking territory from the Turk was a staple Russian policy - some might even argue the Treaty itself was simply a means to protect future Russian lands from outside aggression, akin to SOIing a future invasion target.

But in the game, AI GPs are not able to negotiate with Russia to require it to end the alliance like what they truly did in history. We can help them by adding a new event called London Straits Convention. This event will have a chance to fire from 1836, but the chance of it will be much lower until Oriental Crisis has ended. After Oriental Crisis, the event will fire inevitably. Once event fire, Russia will have to choose to whether leave the alliance or not. If Russia leave the alliance, OE will ally to Britain instead. If Russia refuse to do so, than Russia's relationship with other GPs will be affected. AI Russia will definitely choose the former one so that the game can go on normally.

Just no. Drop it.

[ayafox]

I seriously doubt that, given that expansionism was pretty much the only unchanging pillar of Russian diplomacy in the period, and they'd been fighting the Ottomans on and off for decades by this point anyway. From at very least Catherine the Great onward, taking territory from the Turk was a staple Russian policy - some might even argue the Treaty itself was simply a means to protect future Russian lands from outside aggression, akin to SOIing a future invasion target.

Well, if you think so. But Russia indeed firmly supported the OE for fear of fall of it, which lasted from 1833 to 1841 when the menace of Egypt was finally eliminated. Since you have rejected any possibility of making an alliance, I have no idea how to make this policy reflected in the game. I only want to see Russia will aid OE in Oriental Crisis more likely.

Besides, I suggested a modification that was changing OE's ruling party from Reactionary Nizam-i Alem to Conservative Hükumet-i Hümayun. The modification should be in no doubt.

[Naselus]

Besides, I suggested a modification that was changing OE's ruling party from Reactionary Nizam-i Alem to Conservative Hükumet-i Hümayun. The modification should be in no doubt.

Yup, that one's fair enough - tho a note of caution. No change is ever 'not in doubt'. I fully reserve the right to ignore history for the sake of game balance, and if the OE needed to be reactionary for some reason, then it'd stay reactionary. We are NOT seeking to just recreate history here - some players like determinism, others really ,really don't, so we try to strike a balance between the two.

[Rylock]

Well... I can think of one difference going from Reactionary to Conservative government: the TUR conservative government has Pluralism as its religious policy, as opposed to Moralism for reactionary. Isn't that going to have significant effects on promotion/demotion for the OE with all its religious minority pops?

[moldeh]

Well... I can think of one difference going from Reactionary to Conservative government: the TUR conservative government has Pluralism as its religious policy, as opposed to Moralism for reactionary. Isn't that going to have significant effects on promotion/demotion for the OE with all its religious minority pops?

Wait... religious policies actually affect something? Is this for real? I thought it was just for assimilation/conversaion

[Naselus]

Wait... religious policies actually affect something? Is this for real? I thought it was just for assimilation/conversaion

It effects all sorts of stuff, from demotion to issues. Of course, we can quite easily just change the Conservative government's religious policy to the one we want for balance anyway; I'm fairly certain ayafox is adamant about the change because of the party name and not a lot else (though IRL Mahmud II was actually quite progressive, so it's not really fair to saddle him with reactionary ideology).

[Son of a Duck]

I agree, compared to the huge armies the Ottomans can raise, Egypt has a very hard time, especially when France and the UK often decide to declare war on Egypt as well

[Rylock]

It effects all sorts of stuff, from demotion to issues. Of course, we can quite easily just change the Conservative government's religious policy to the one we want for balance anyway; I'm fairly certain ayafox is adamant about the change because of the party name and not a lot else (though IRL Mahmud II was actually quite progressive, so it's not really fair to saddle him with reactionary ideology).

The party's only called that because that's what the Ottomania mod called it (I assume).

Insofar as changing the conservatives-- should we just change the religious_policy to moralism? That means the difference between conservative and reactionary is then interventionism (vs. state capitalism) and pro_military (vs. jingoism). If we're fine with that, then cool. I'll include it in the next drop.

[Rylock]

I agree, compared to the huge armies the Ottomans can raise, Egypt has a very hard time, especially when France and the UK often decide to declare war on Egypt as well

The problem isn't that Egypt has a hard time. It should have a hard time if and when other European powers come to the OE's defense. The problem is the Ottomans not having difficulty dealing with Egypt even without European help.