Ethiopian Kingdoms

Mad King James · Sep 25, 2004

AMHARA:

The most powerful of the Ethiopian kingdoms, it would suffer greatly under the Somali invasions of the 16th century, and over the ensuing centuries fragment into several different states.

Code:

# Amhara #

country = { 
    tag = ETH 
    colonialattempts = 0 
    colonialnation = no 
    major = no 
    colonists = 0 
    cancelledloans = 0 
    extendedloans = 0 
    treasury = 200 
    inflation = 0 
    merchants = 0 
    religion = { type = orthodox }
    culture = { type = ethiopian }
    diplomacy = { 
    } 
    knownprovinces = { 
    	743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 1516 1517 1518 1519 1588 1589 1590
	}
    ownedprovinces = { 
        753 1516 1517 } 
    controlledprovinces = { 
        753 1516 1517 } 
    nationalprovinces = { 
        753 1516 1517 1518 } 
    city = {         fortress = { level = 1 }  
        population = 8000
        location = 753
	name = "Aseb"
        }
    city = {         fortress = { level = 1 }  
        population = 30000
        location = 1516
	name="Axum"
        capital = yes
        }  
    city = {         fortress = { level = 1 }  
        population = 10000
        location = 1517 
	name="Dese"
        } 
    technology = {
      	stability = { level = 2 value = 42 }
      	infra = { level = 0 value = 10 }
      	trade = { level = 0 value = 70 }
      	land = { level = 0 value = 50 } 
      	naval = { level = 0 value = 0 } 
    } 
}

WALAYTA: (Tigray)

Walayta was the border kingdom to the north, and usually an ally. The biggest threat facing Walayta was the Ottoman Empire.

Code:

# Walayta #

country = { 
    tag = ??? 
    colonialattempts = 0 
    colonialnation = no 
    major = no 
    colonists = 0 
    cancelledloans = 0 
    extendedloans = 0 
    treasury = 200 
    inflation = 0 
    merchants = 0 
    religion = { type = orthodox }
    culture = { type = ethiopian }
    diplomacy = { 
    } 
    knownprovinces = { 
    	743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 1516 1517 1518 1519 1588 1589 1590
	}
    ownedprovinces = { 
        752 } 
    controlledprovinces = { 
        752 } 
    nationalprovinces = { 
        752 } 
    city = {    
	fortress = { level = 1 }   
        population = 7000
        location = 752 
	name = "Asmara"
        capital = yes
        }
    technology = {
      	stability = { level = 2 value = 42 }
      	infra = { level = 0 value = 10 }
      	trade = { level = 0 value = 70 }
      	land = { level = 0 value = 50 } 
      	naval = { level = 0 value = 0 } 
    } 
}

KEFA:

The Kingdom (later empire) of Kefa was often an ally of the Amhara kingdom when facing foreign invasion. Kefa suffered the most out of all the Ethiopian kingdoms from the Oromo invasion, yet in the end managed to remain one of the larger kingdoms, despite losing a good half of their eastern territory. Kefa suffered from technological backwardness, being in 'the boonies' so to speak.

Code:

# Kefa #

country = { 
    tag = ??? 
    colonialattempts = 0 
    colonialnation = no 
    major = no 
    colonists = 0 
    cancelledloans = 0 
    extendedloans = 0 
    treasury = 200 
    inflation = 0 
    merchants = 0 
    religion = { type = orthodox }
    culture = { type = ethiopian }
    diplomacy = { 
    } 
    knownprovinces = { 
    	743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 1516 1517 1518 1519 1588 1589 1590
	}
    ownedprovinces = { 
        1588 1589 } 
    controlledprovinces = { 
        1588 1589 } 
    nationalprovinces = { 
        1588 1589 } 
    city = {         fortress = { level = 1 }  
        population = 10000
        location = 1588
        name="Bonga"
        } 
    city = {         fortress = { level = 1 }  
        population = 15000
        location = 1589
        capital = yes
        name="Shadda"
        } 
    technology = {
      	stability = { level = 2 value = 42 }
      	infra = { level = 0 value = 10 }
      	trade = { level = 0 value = 70 }
      	land = { level = 0 value = 50 } 
      	naval = { level = 0 value = 0 } 
    } 
}

BALE:

Bale was a muslim vassal kingdom of Ethiopia, and Adal made many attempts to change this situation, to no avail. With the declining power of the Ethiopian state in the 16th century, Bale slipped out of the fingers of Ethiopia.

Code:

# Bale #

country = { 
    tag = ??? 
    colonialattempts = 0 
    colonialnation = no 
    major = no 
    colonists = 0 
    cancelledloans = 0 
    extendedloans = 0 
    treasury = 200 
    inflation = 0 
    merchants = 0 
    religion = { type = sunni }
    culture = { type = ethiopian }
    diplomacy = { 
    } 
    knownprovinces = { 
    	743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 1516 1517 1518 1519 1588 1589 1590
	}
    ownedprovinces = { 
        1590 } 
    controlledprovinces = { 
        1590 } 
    nationalprovinces = { 
        1590 } 
    city = {         fortress = { level = 1 }  
        population = 5000
        location = 1590
        name="Goba"
        capital=yes
        } 
    technology = {
      	stability = { level = 2 value = 42 }
      	infra = { level = 0 value = 10 }
      	trade = { level = 0 value = 70 }
      	land = { level = 0 value = 50 } 
      	naval = { level = 0 value = 0 } 
    } 
}

DAWARO:

Dawaro was a Muslim vassal of Amhara, who like Bale slipped from the weakening grasp of Amhara.

Code:

# Dawaro #

country = { 
    tag = ??? 
    colonialattempts = 0 
    colonialnation = no 
    major = no 
    colonists = 0 
    cancelledloans = 0 
    extendedloans = 0 
    treasury = 200 
    inflation = 0 
    merchants = 0 
    religion = { type = sunni }
    culture = { type = ethiopian }
    diplomacy = { 
    } 
    knownprovinces = { 
    	743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 1516 1517 1518 1519 1588 1589 1590
	}
    ownedprovinces = { 
        1519 } 
    controlledprovinces = { 
        1519 } 
    nationalprovinces = { 
        1519 } 
    city = {         fortress = { level = 1 }  
        population = 2000
        location = 1519
        name="Dolo"
        capital=yes
        } 
    technology = {
      	stability = { level = 2 value = 42 }
      	infra = { level = 0 value = 10 }
      	trade = { level = 0 value = 70 }
      	land = { level = 0 value = 50 } 
      	naval = { level = 0 value = 0 } 
    } 
}

SHOA:
Following a dynastic dispute, a new kingdom was created in Shoa
Created in province 1517

AWSA:
In 1734, the Afars slipped from the imperial grasp with the declining power of the Amharan state, and the Afars founded their own sultanate.
Created in province 753

The Oromo:
The Oromo should be an event, to be honest...

unmerged(31425) · Sep 25, 2004

Mad King James said:
Ethiopia is supposed to start out relatively unified, with merely the kingdoms of Kefa and Walayta in the north and south respectively being independent.

However, by the end of the game, Ethiopia should have completely fragmented into a mess of one-provvers.

At game start, Amhara (Ethiopia) should own Keren(City=Aseb), Welo(City=Gonder, capital) and Shewa.

In Massawa(city=Axum), a new country called Walayta should be allied to Amhara.

In the south(Kefa, Bale and Gonder) the kingdom of Kefa. While large, they should be overall poorer and advance slower than the Amharans and Walaytans.

Dynastic squabbles in the late game should break Shoa off of Amhara, and the Afars in Keren should break away in the late 18th century to form the Sultanate of Awsa. The Oromo migrations into Kefa and then into Shewa should also mean the Oromo chiefs becoming independent in Bale as well.

I don't object to the premise of anything here. I am however concerned that chopping up Ethiopia is just going to make a behemoth Adal every game. I'd say currently Ethiopa gradually takes over much of Adal 2 thirds of the time and 1 third of the time it's the opposite. This is actually a very delicate balance. I think if any new countries are going to be added there then it ought to be playtested pretty good first.

If the engine can handle the changes, I for one am all for it being chopped up. No sense in not being more historically accurate if we can be. However if it can't handle it and suspect it can't, then I see no sense in being a little more historically accurate and screwing up one of the few regions of the game that is actualy working fairly well.

Man I apologize if I seem like I'm being too much on your case today. It's not my intention to be rude or insulting. It's just that it's better I say something about things I've observed before they get changed for the worse(if that is what will happen) and then it takes longer to correct it in the long run.

Mad King James · Sep 25, 2004

Well, being historically inaccurate for playbalance is never an excuse IMHO. If the setup is historically accurate, there should be historical outcomes. If there aren't historical outcomes, then something isn't accurate. (IE ahistorically strong / ahistorically weak)

Splitting up large kingdoms doesn't always make them weaker by the way. If the Ethiopians are allied with each other, they will have larger combined military assets, and the countries not being attacked can focus on offence.

unmerged(31425) · Sep 25, 2004

Mad King James said:
Well, being historically inaccurate for playbalance is never an excuse IMHO.

I don't agree with this, at least not to the furthest extent of it's implications. I have a hard time believing many others would agree with you here.

Mad King James said:
If the setup is historically accurate, there should be historical outcomes.

I'm afraid this statement is incompatible with my experience in playtesting. I doubt many others differ from me here too.

Mad King James said:
Splitting up large kingdoms doesn't always make them weaker by the way. If the Ethiopians are allied with each other, they will have larger combined military assets, and the countries not being attacked can focus on offence.

I'm afraid this is incorrect too. I'll explain. Say a group of small allied countries go to war with a larger one. Often the larger one will make peace settlements seperately before the war is concluded. Particularly if some of these allies have only 1 province.

Also if 1 decides not to honor the alliance or refusues to renew the alliance the dynamics of the factions can change rapidly. Through random events and diplo-annexation, ceded provinces in peace deals, etc the relations that made them best friend can change rapidly. The initial math of the setup agrees completely with your claim here however due to the random nature of the engine and changes that are possible with them, things get whacky and unbalanced pretty quick all too often.

See the thing is due to things like these the fact that we have so many countries in the AGCEEP makes our job to get some kind of historically consistent developement in the game of even just majors a very difficult task. There is an extremely delicate balance in the dynamics of historical developement in the game. Many changes which seem harmless on superficial inspection on closer look actually cause very unhistorical and unpredictable results and we wind up with a mod that starts off more historically accurate but even by 100 years of game time the vanilla already has a better claim to being more historically accurate than the AGCEEP.

It seems clear to me that in the past many of us AGCEEPers simply ignored these kinds of things but then Daywalker and mr_hormiga pointed out the folly of our way and shamed us into taking responsibility for making sure that each changes we make to the mod doesn't just make it more whacky and less historical. I was chastized by them too, albeit I was in fact paying more attention to how things effect the AI more than others almost right away even before this. Consequently since then I have very diligently payed attention to the effects of changes on the gameplay of this mod and pointed them out to everyone in this forum whenever I found it to be relevant. And this is why I am giving all these conditional objections etc. I'm not guessing if that's what it seems like. I'm simply speaking from observation. I have either seen exactly what I'm talking about when I make an objection or I've seen the exact same dynamics being played out in a different scenario in the game that is very similar or identical.

Mad King James · Sep 25, 2004

...And that's exactly why I'm losing interest in the project.

Our job is to create a historically accurate representation of the world and make it act in a reasonably historical way.

If you don't believe in that simple statement, you and I are diametrically opposed at the fundamental level.

unmerged(31425) · Sep 25, 2004

Mad King James said:
...And that's exactly why I'm losing interest in the project.

Our job is to create a historically accurate representation of the world and make it act in a reasonably historical way.

If you don't believe in that simple statement, you and I are diametrically opposed at the fundamental level.

I definitely agree with this statement here. What I have a problem with is when we force something historical into the game that the engine cannot handle well and still result in balanced and relevant gameplay. In cases where it simply cannot handle it without causing some detriment to gameplay I think it is absoulutely neccessary to interpret history rounded up or rounded down, "rough around the edges" so to speak, to get it to work.

This isn't just a map of the world in 1419. We have to consider historical developement. When historical changes cause too much ahistorical developement the net result is a loss of history not an increase of history in the game. Thus in the end, my approach embraces the maximum amount of history, not the minimum. And of course I don't want everything to play out perfectly historically accurate 100% of the time either. There ought to be a reasonably good sized element of historical plausibility in the game as well. It is after all still a game. But because of the randomness inherent in the engine and the fact that we have and will add so much to the game, we end up spending most of our times trying tot get the game to be more historical in developement as opposed to just opening more doors to whatif scenarios.

So you see I am all for maximum history being inserted into the game, I'm simply paying attention to every facet of the game I can think of, rather than just adding something historical and then just assuming it will stay historical without even paying attention to whether or not it will.

Mad King James · Sep 25, 2004

Well there is this simple fact: Ethiopia did not control anything south of Shewa. At all. To give them this control is grossly inaccurate.

Adal should have something of an edge against Amhara long-term. Only Portugese intervention stopped Adal from taking over Amhara.

unmerged(31425) · Sep 25, 2004

Mad King James said:
Well there is this simple fact: Ethiopia did not control anything south of Shewa. At all. To give them this control is grossly inaccurate.

The Incas and Aztecs didn't own all of their territory in 1419 either. Should we make a whole slew of minor kingdoms for them too?

Mad King James said:
Adal should have something of an edge against Amhara long-term. Only Portugese intervention stopped Adal from taking over Amhara.

I like the idea of Portuguese intervention but I'm not too sure that it can be done well enough to make a big difference. If Adal is huge by that time Portugal will just waste it's time and rack up inflation fighting a war it can't win.

Mad King James · Sep 25, 2004

idontlikeforms said:
The Incas and Aztecs didn't own all of their territory in 1419 either. Should we make a whole slew of minor kingdoms for them too?

Absolutely we should. I even put together a proposal for just this some time ago.

idontlikeforms said:
I like the idea of Portuguese intervention but I'm not too sure that it can be done well enough to make a big difference. If Adal is huge by that time Portugal will just waste it's time and rack up inflation fighting a war it can't win.

By the time Portugal is supposed to intervene, they owned half of East Africa, parts of India, Ormuz and Malacca, and were the richest sons of bitches on earth.

Dawkins · Sep 25, 2004

Mad King James said:
If the setup is historically accurate, there should be historical outcomes. If there aren't historical outcomes, then something isn't accurate. (IE ahistorically strong / ahistorically weak)

I know what you're saying, and I agree this approach would definitely be the one to adopt if you were designing a game from scratch - because it would produce a simulation most closely resembling reality.

However, when the code for the game engine has already been laid down, and if it obviously has many unrealistic elements, you have to change your approach. Given a perfectly correct historical start situation, there is no reason to believe the EU2 engine will produce realistic history.

If the aim is to make AGCEEP play in a highly realistic, historical manner, then allowances have to be made for the fact the EU2 engine isn't perfect.

Note though, I'm not suggesting anything about the Ethiopia situation because I know nothing about it

unmerged(31425) · Sep 25, 2004

Mad King James said:
Absolutely we should. I even put together a proposal for just this some time ago.

But this will use up alot of tags and add a very large random elements to these regions. It will be much easier to make an event sequence for Spain if these regions consistently are arranged roughly the same way. I think making a whole slew of minor countries here is going to make alot of ahistorical results.

I doubt many will be that interested in playing these other countries or the Incas and the Aztecs themselves as once these small areas are conquered they will just sit there and twittle their thumbs until they can maptrade with some europeans. It's alot of work as it will have to be playtested too because the Aztecs and the Incas will need to come out on top pretty consistently in these regions. It seems to me to be more worthwhile to work on more historically important regions than these.

Mad King James said:
By the time Portugal is supposed to intervene, they owned half of East Africa, parts of India, Ormuz and Malacca, and were the richest sons of bitches on earth.

Do you know how hard it is to get the Portuguese AI to pull off all this conquest? Besides they will still usually have to attack over sea and vs opponents with lots of provinces that can feild lots of troops this is almost impossible. Indeed one of the very neccessary ingredients in why my conquest sequence can even get decent results is that many neighboring minors have their alliances broken up via vassalization events. This bearly enables the Portuguese AI to overpower a few of them.

Garbon · Sep 26, 2004

In any event, new Ethiopian Kingdoms, which have long been given the go-ahead to be included needn't really be compared to the situation in the Americas.

I'm curious about this new Ethiopia setup, as it doesn't really seem to mesh with earlier proposals by you (MKJ) or I. Like this one? (Walayta) And then what of Tigray? And should Kefa really be that large?

unmerged(31425) · Sep 26, 2004

Garbon said:
In any event, new Ethiopian Kingdoms, which have long been given the go-ahead to be included needn't really be compared to the situation in the Americas.

Why not?

Cagliostro · Sep 26, 2004

idontlikeforms said:
The Incas and Aztecs didn't own all of their territory in 1419 either. Should we make a whole slew of minor kingdoms for them too?

If you did it would undoubtedly make playing a nation in that area a lot more interesting. And if in fact they were still fragmented by the time the Europeans got there, that wouldn't necessarily be a disaster - it might make it easier for them to be absorbed by European colonial powers.

Garbon · Sep 26, 2004

idontlikeforms said:
Why not?

Let us count the reasons, shall we?

1. This is a thread on Ethiopia, discussing whether or not the Americas should have more nations belongs in a separate thread.

2. Its already been decided in many other threads, that Ethiopia is to get an overhaul that includes the addition of other Ethiopian states. In fact, the addition of Adal was the beginning of this project, back when there was an insufficient number of free tags. Therefore, while comparing the situation to what should happen the Americas might be intellectually stimulating, its about as relevant as comparing apples and oranges, unless of course you are also willing to compare the current setups of the two aforementioned regions with respect to Europe. Which brings me to my third point.

3. Despite the fact that this game has the title of Europa Universalis 2, never has it been the aim of this particular project to slight or generalize across the board for Rest of the World. In fact, tag-wise, other parts of the world have increasingly become more detailed and interesting the the RotW regions in the vanilla campaign. So it hasn't really every been a goal to leave the RotW setup ahistorically for the advantage of European nations like Portugal. (See East Africa and Indonesia for proof of that) Thus setups, while they make take note of what the European nations should accomplish, rarely are made to fit what would be most beneficial for Europe.

4. Look at how off topic all of this is for a thread that was simply to be devoted to discussing which (not whether) new Ethiopian nations should be introduced.

Arturro · Sep 26, 2004

Ethiopian kingdoms are important just for players interested in that part of world. Why not to create "ethiopian kingdoms" option just like fantasy events or independent wales? Such options could work for other "far away" regions like pre-columbian America.

Twoflower · Sep 26, 2004

Arturro said:
Ethiopian kingdoms are important just for players interested in that part of world. Why not to create "ethiopian kingdoms" option just like fantasy events or independent wales? Such options could work for other "far away" regions like pre-columbian America.

Not true. An accurate representation of Ethiopia is important for anybody playing a nation that is in contact with Ethiopia in one way or another, and that would include the Ethiopian countries themselves, the East African countries, the Arabian countries, the Mameluks, the Ottomans and several European colonizers. Unless the setup is bad and unbalanced, they would not hurt anybody's game, either, so there is no need for an option.

unmerged(31425) · Sep 27, 2004

Cagliostro said:
If you did it would undoubtedly make playing a nation in that area a lot more interesting. And if in fact they were still fragmented by the time the Europeans got there, that wouldn't necessarily be a disaster - it might make it easier for them to be absorbed by European colonial powers.

I agree that it would make them more interesting to play in the short term but after it's been done a few times the appeal will go away. They are still isolated and considerably weaker than other countries in the game. If additional countries are added fine. But not without playtestingthat shows that both the Aztecs and the Incas can consistently conquer their historic lands. It doesn't have to be 100% of the time but it does have to be most of the time. Adding additional countries in these regions won't majically make this happen. It will have to playtested over and over and tweaks made here and there to ensure it's happening and that will consume alot more time than just scripting the new countries and adding them to the game. If people are willing to do that then fine I'm all for it.

unmerged(31425) · Sep 27, 2004

Garbon said:
Let us count the reasons, shall we?

1. This is a thread on Ethiopia, discussing whether or not the Americas should have more nations belongs in a separate thread.

2. Its already been decided in many other threads, that Ethiopia is to get an overhaul that includes the addition of other Ethiopian states. In fact, the addition of Adal was the beginning of this project, back when there was an insufficient number of free tags. Therefore, while comparing the situation to what should happen the Americas might be intellectually stimulating, its about as relevant as comparing apples and oranges, unless of course you are also willing to compare the current setups of the two aforementioned regions with respect to Europe. Which brings me to my third point.

It was used as an example to illustrate a point. You got to admit that is useful. Otherwsie we'll have to put a link and acomment that says something like "go to this new thread to look at an example of this etc." And that wouldn't be very efficient.

Garbon said:
3. Despite the fact that this game has the title of Europa Universalis 2, never has it been the aim of this particular project to slight or generalize across the board for Rest of the World. In fact, tag-wise, other parts of the world have increasingly become more detailed and interesting the the RotW regions in the vanilla campaign. So it hasn't really every been a goal to leave the RotW setup ahistorically for the advantage of European nations like Portugal. (See East Africa and Indonesia for proof of that) Thus setups, while they make take note of what the European nations should accomplish, rarely are made to fit what would be most beneficial for Europe.

Yes but we must evaluate historical results too. The setup may be more accurate but if the outcome is significantly less accurate than perhaps its not the greatest idea.

Mad King James · Sep 27, 2004

Garbon said:
In any event, new Ethiopian Kingdoms, which have long been given the go-ahead to be included needn't really be compared to the situation in the Americas.

I'm curious about this new Ethiopia setup, as it doesn't really seem to mesh with earlier proposals by you (MKJ) or I. Like this one? (Walayta) And then what of Tigray? And should Kefa really be that large?

Tigray's proper name should be Walayta, though it's not that innacurate to just keep calling it Tigray, or Tigrai. It's also a lot smaller than I made them initially, in 1419 Tigray was a very minor kingdom compared to Amhara.

As to the provinces south of Amhara I've given to Kefa, information is sketchy, but it seems that Kefa or Kefan successor kingdoms owned most of Bale, Kefa and Gonder provinces.

Ethiopian Kingdoms

Buzzkill Extraordinaire

Married Man

Buzzkill Extraordinaire

Married Man

Buzzkill Extraordinaire

Married Man

Buzzkill Extraordinaire

Married Man

Buzzkill Extraordinaire

Colonel

Married Man

Sultan d'Afrique

Married Man

Charlatan or Mystic?

Sultan d'Afrique

Second Lieutenant

Vile treacherous Judas

Married Man

Married Man

Buzzkill Extraordinaire