• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 12th of September 2017

Welcome all to another fine Tuesday and its accompanying EU4 Dev Diary. In last week's diary we mentioned that we would take a look at changes to Islam in the upcoming expansion which will be released alongside update 1.23. As we have made clear, we're giving a lot of love to the Muslim world in 1.23 and as such let's look at changes we've made to Islam and Piety.

We'll start with looking at the Piety bar. As a mechanic, it has remained fairly untouched for EU4's existence. Few would doubt that the Piety bonuses are strong, but they can't be called the most engaging of the game's content. In 1.23, we've visually spruced up the Piety bar, introducing terms for both ends of the spectrum, with low Piety being called Mysticism and high piety being depicted as devotion towards Legalism. Additionally, Piety events have been rewritten to reflect different the types of piety (Mystic vs Legalistic) rather than trying to measure "how pious" a ruler was. We have also taken this opportunity to weed out some of the older events that were not up to our current standards, with book burning no longer being a Pious action.

piety bar.jpg


Additionally, for expansion owners your passive Piety bonus can be passed up in favour of one-off effects depending on your Pious leanings. At -75 piety or lower, you can call on Religious Followers to bolster your manpower, gaining 2 years' of manpower growth. At 75 or greater Piety, you are able to Enforce Faithful Adherence for an immediate loss of 2 corruption. These actions will push your piety back towards the centre by 50, so consider carefully if the one-time action is worth foregoing the Pious effect you have built up.

Additionally, each Islamic nation will follow one Muslim School of Law. The School that your nation adheres to is predetermined and cannot be changed, or for new nations/converts, chosen at your spawning/conversion. Each School grants its own bonus and has a relationship with each other school, ranging between Respect, Ambivalent and Hate. While Ambivalence grants no particular effect, nations from Schools with a mutual respect or hatered will find relations and diplomatic acceptance strengthened or shakier respectively. The relationships between schools are harmed by large scale and prolonged wars between larger nations of those schools, and conversely can be improved by longstanding, trusting alliances between them.

schools.jpg


Schools and their bonuses are as follows:

religious_schools = {
#Sunnis
hanafi_school = {
technology_cost = -0.05
}
hanbali_school = {
ae_impact = -0.1
}
maliki_school = {
development_cost = -0.1
}
shafii_school = {
merchants = 1
}
#Shias
ismaili_school = {
horde_unity = 1
legitimacy = 1
republican_tradition = 0.5
devotion = 1
}
jafari_school = {
shock_damage = 0.1
}
zaidi_school = {
shock_damage_received = -0.1
}
}

relations degrade.jpg


So while your own School is set in stone, we allow Islamic nations to Invite Scholars from other Schools. Assuming an alliance and high relations with another nation, you will be able to spend 50 Admin points to invite a Scholar who will give you an extra effect in addition to your own School's for 20 years.

invite scholar.jpg


Inviting a scholar from an opposing faith's School (Such as a Sunni nation trying to invite a Zaidi Scholar) will require low piety, although the Ibadis are exempt from this.

Additionally, as I like to do, let's have a look at Another region of the world and how trade goods have changed. In fact, let's just grab all of western/Central Europe!

W europe trade goods .jpg


With Piety and Muslim Schools covered today, we shall spend the next week sheepishly looking at two nations in particular who had a profound effect on the Middle East in the 15th Century.
 
Glass seems a bit common there? its almost as common as salt.

Dont worry, not all provinces are equal. Venice accounts for more glass than most of those together thanks to the Murano goods produced modifier...

Also there are 24 provinces producing salt in the continenat of europe but only 13 producing glass. There's only a handful of provinces outside of Europe producing glass at start making it a very rare tradegood.
 
Last edited:
Do you have examples of those actions being condemned as being impious?

Cause as I said earlier this feels like playing up the christians intolerant and Islam accepting.

Which is as silly as the opposite assertion

Yeah - take the Safavids as a famous example. When Shah Ismail conquered Iran at the beginning of the 16th century, he started a campaign of forced conversion against the Sunnis, fueled by the fanaticism of his Qizilbash followers, who were Shi'ites but far from orthodox. Once the Safavids began importing learned Shi'ite scholars from other parts of the Muslim world, those scholars put pressure on the Safavids to stop the forced conversions because they saw it as morally wrong and believed people should be converted only through logical persuasion.

However, considerable differences on theological issues and conversion tactics separated the Qizilbash and the ‘Amilis [imported Shi'ite Ulama from Lebanon]. The former firmly upheld the Safavids’ Sufi-engendered belief in the divine rule of the Shah and coerced conversions to Twelver Shi’ism, while the ‘Amilis promoted an urban ‘orthodox’ theological basis for Shi’ism and encouraged individuals to accept it, at least theoretically, through persuasion.

Rula Jurdi Abisaab, Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire (London: I.B. Taurus, 2004), 13.

In this case, we see that forced conversion was characteristic of heterodox Islam, wheras voluntary conversion was characteristic of orthodox, legalistic Islam.

The question of forced conversion wasn't even up for debate with regard to attempts to convert Christians and Jews to Islam - it was universally understood that as dhimmis, Christians and Jews were to be granted the right to live under Muslim rule in peace and to practice their religion freely, and their forced conversion then couldn't be seen as a pious act. That doesn't mean it literally never happened, of course, but the orthodox theological position on this issue was unambiguous.
 
Yeah - take the Safavids as a famous example. When Shah Ismail conquered Iran at the beginning of the 16th century, he started a campaign of forced conversion against the Sunnis, fueled by the fanaticism of his Qizilbash followers, who were Shi'ites but far from orthodox. Once the Safavids began importing learned Shi'ite scholars from other parts of the Muslim world, those scholars put pressure on the Safavids to stop the forced conversions because they saw it as morally wrong and believed people should be converted only through logical persuasion.




Rula Jurdi Abisaab, Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire (London: I.B. Taurus, 2004), 13.

This issue wasn't even up for debate with regard to attempts to convert Christians and Jews to Islam - it was universally understood that as dhimmis, Christians and Jews were to be granted the right to live under Muslim rule in peace and to practice their religion freely, and their forced conversion then couldn't be seen as a pious act.

So people thought of the ottomans and their janisary armies as impious?
 
So people thought of the ottomans and their janisary armies as impious?

Yes - it was indeed a sticky situation. Devshirme recruitment was very clearly contrary to the laws of the Sharia, which Ottoman lawmakers just conveniently ignored in this case, because having the devshirme was so practically useful for everyone's purposes.
 
It couldn't be that impious to them if they wouldn't criticize it

By the 16th century, the whole upper level of the state apparatus had been built upon the devshirme. Most major statesmen were devshirme recruits by origin. That the Ulema, who increasingly relied on the state for employment, refrained from criticizing the institution which underlay the Ottoman government doesn't imply that they would be ready to smile upon the mass forced conversion of the empire's dhimmi population. They probably recognized that society's continued stability was reliant upon the Sultan and his government's legitimacy, and writing tracts about how it was built upon an illegal foundation was not going to bring about any benefit.
 
By the 16th century, the whole upper level of the state apparatus had been built upon the devshirme. Most major statesmen were devshirme recruits by origin. That the Ulema, who increasingly relied on the state for employment, refrained from criticizing the institution which underlay the Ottoman government doesn't imply that they would be ready to smile upon the mass forced conversion of the empire's dhimmi population. They probably recognized that society's continued stability was reliant upon the Sultan and his government's legitimacy, and writing tracts about how it was built upon an illegal foundation was not going to bring about any benefit.

Which is the explanation for most of these events.

My point isnt to make a moral judgement, its the opposite what was going on in those times might be seen as impious as a whole or by opposing schools of thought like in your other cases but in the context of those societies clearly was seen as pious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is the explanation for most of these events.

That could potentially be an explanation for these events. You can imagine that a ruler who chooses not to stop a mob from targeting non-believers is, like Ottoman Ulema, ignoring what religious orthodoxy says is right, perhaps even because he personally believes that letting the mob go free is a pious act. The problem is that in the event that action is labelled as "pious", while actually following religious orthodoxy and stopping the mob is labelled "not pious", which makes no sense at all. The event is, inherently, choosing one course of action and labeling it "correct" in accordance with Islam, and labeling the other course of action "incorrect". You're a pious Muslim if you let the mob go, and an impious Muslim if you stop it. Even though, according to Islamic orthodoxy, rulers are required to defend their dhimmi subjects from harm, and thus it fits perfectly within the mainstream Islamic conception of piety to perform the action which, in the game, actually lowers your piety. It doesn't mean that rulers always actually did that, the trouble is simply how the event frames what piety means.
 
I'm surprised nobody commented on the gems in the baltic. I forsee the wars between nord, german, pole & russian getting even more heated over those.
Over a single gem province we have no idea how developed? I can't say I remember Köningsbergs being such a big deal in history. Meanwhile Gotland is supposed to be a big deal but never really is. It could use a more valuable trade good than wool or a centre of trade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do not publicly accuse fellow forum members of trolling, or indeed of breaking any forum rule. Just report the offending post and leave it to us.

Thank you.
 
Over a single gem province we have no idea how developed? I can't say I remember Köningsbergs being such a big deal in history. Meanwhile Gotland is supposed to be a big deal but never really is. It could use a more valuable trade good than wool or a centre of trade.

Gotland was not a big deal in this era, you're likely thinking of an earlier period. At start it is notable as the base for the deposed Erik who used it as a pirate base and that is also how it would later be used by the Danish navy. Commercially Gotland did not do well anymore at the start of our game (and had been declining for over a 100 year already) and it only got further worse over time.
To be completely honest it could be argued that the current starting development overvalues it as it is.

The Amber export in the Teutonic Order on the other hand was one of the bigger backbones of their economy (though it decreased in value after the reformation).
 
Gotland was not a big deal in this era, you're likely thinking of the earlier period. At start it is notable as the base for the deposed Erik who used it as a pirate base and that is also how it would later be used by the Danish navy. Commercially Gotland did not do well anymore at the start of our game (and had been declining for over a 100 year already) and it only got further worse over time.
To be completely honest it could be argued that the current starting development overvalues it as it is.
Well I know it's not the centre of trade in the Baltic any more (It really hasn't been since the birth of the Hansa in the 12th century, so really it has been declining for over 300 years). But considering that the baltic trade zone has only one important centre of trade, danzig, it would be nice with another one, and the only candidates are really Gotland or Kalmar. Well I guess Riga could do too but it's fairly close to Danzig and already a estuary (and also the LO doesn't need a buff).
Danzig being both an estuary and a ICT would obviously still be the most powerful province.

Really all wool provinces should get an event where they can flip to cloth if you develop them enough, it makes sense and also because wool is the second worst trade good in the game. Also allowing provinces to flip to cloth would mean you could have less cloth in 144 because that map you posed have more cloth and glass than grain.

The Amber export in the Teutonic Order on the other hand was one of the bigger backbones of their economy (though it decreased in value after the reformation).
And yet the Polish crown let the dukes of Prussia keep it. Granted amber wasn't centralized to Köningsberg so they probably had plenty of amber production themselves. Also part what made the TO so great at trade was working hand in glove with the Hansa something the polish couldn't do.
 
Last edited:
Niall Ferguson is famously biased and controversial as a historian, in no way can he and his arguments be taken at face value especially regarding the premodern period (before 1800), which is not his field of expertise. His position as a famous writer and political commentator makes his work veer sharply toward politically-motivated pop-history.


I'm genuinely curious about the role of printed information in the Middle East during this time period. I had seen similar points in other texts, not necessarily about complete rejection of Westernized concepts, but specifically about the slow adoption of printed technology in the Ottoman Empire. Did some more digging online and found this nice summary article http://exhibits.library.yale.edu/exhibits/show/arabicprinting/printing_history_arabic_world:

The establishment of the Arabic printing presses in the Ottoman Empire was delayed due to the fear of the sultans that some biased persons might tamper with the sacred religious texts. Hence, in 1485 Sultan Bayezid II (1447 or 8-1512) issued a royal decree prohibiting the use of printed books. A similar decree was issued in 1515 by the Sultan Selim I (1470-1520). However, these prohibitions were not applied to books printed by Dhimmis (or People of the Book, i.e. Christians and Jews). Hence, Presses for printing Hebrew books were founded at the end of the 15th century in Constantinople and other cities in the Ottoman Empire.

The first Arabic press to be established in the Ottoman Empire was founded in Constantinople, ca. 1720 during the reign of the Sultan Ahmed III...

Can someone please verify if those official decrees are correct? If so were they consistently upheld during that time period?

Based upon this and other articles I came across, would it be accurate to draw these types of conclusions on why printing was slower to adopt in the Muslim world?
  1. Arabic alphabet is calligraphic based and therefore not as easy to manipulate for move-able type print.
  2. Printed texts were not considered as beautiful as the elaborate handwritten texts by majority of Islamic scholars during this time period.
  3. Printing industry threatened the livelihood of the scribes who produced those elaborate document.
  4. Previous Arabic texts printed by the Dhimmis or Western print shops had inaccuracies, which prompted the sultans to ban it in order to stop the spread of misinformation.
  5. Even when print was finally approved it was still not allowed to print religious documents as this still provided employment for the scribe industry.

Also this may be specific to the OE but what about other Muslim nations (Safavids, etc) during this time period? Were there areas that adopted this printing technology?
 
I am glad to see cattle being the primary tradegood in Jutland, Denmark. Will we perhaps see a modifier related to this, giving a tad extra in-land tradepower or similar? I am thinking of the "Ox-Road" aka "Hærvejen (Army-Road). The Ox-Road was a large road going from northern Jutland to Schleswig, and was mostly used for tradesmen bringing their cattle down to Schleswig, and also as a way for the soldiers of the many different areas to easily get to southern Jutland in case of an invasion.
 
I'm sure it does. When you're given the anonymity to express yourself without the fear of a backslash in your social environment, it sure might feel more cathartic to express strong opinions instead of well adjusted, balanced thoughts. Also what does not help at all in platforms like Twitter for example, is the short amount of space you're given to make your statement.
anonymity does make many spill out their unfavorable opinion without fear
much more easy to tell who are the ones that can or worth to have a real conversation with
 
Well I'm not ending with "believe me" I'm ending with "I couldn't care less if you believe me or not". Look or don't it's all the same to me.
chill out dude. instead of being rude you can just say I do not want look for it at moment and direct him to the dev dairy you think it might be in or just say you do not remember which one.
 
Funny to see how people arguing about some things in history in the period when 90% of the history was fabricated. You should take pre-Napoleon history period with a grain of salt at best
 
Funny to see how people arguing about some things in history in the period when 90% of the history was fabricated. You should take pre-Napoleon history period with a grain of salt at best
I would say the opposite that history he have down fairly well because we have enough distance to it to have perspective it's the post napoleonic history that is really bad.