• 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.
Well, heck, if we'll make an event out of it, shall we add a condition where it depends on whether or not the Kara Koyunlu still exist? I doubt the Qubt Shahs would have migrated to the Bahmanid Empire if they could still hold the same amount of power back home. That's not something I'd push for without further careful reading, but it's certainly the impression I got.

I will push ever so slightly on the Hyderbad turning Telugu though. I haven't come across anything to suggest it has been connected with Marathi culture as of yet, but plenty which suggests that it was one of the heartlands of Telugu culture. :D

So, yeah, add the event, change the province culture, change the nation's culture and we should be a step closer to making a better situation for the Deccan. Too bad we still have a long way to go! :)
 
ThanatosHelen said:
Well, heck, if we'll make an event out of it, shall we add a condition where it depends on whether or not the Kara Koyunlu still exist? I doubt the Qubt Shahs would have migrated to the Bahmanid Empire if they could still hold the same amount of power back home. That's not something I'd push for without further careful reading, but it's certainly the impression I got.

I'd opt not to have this change. After all, we can always just say that Quli Qutb Shah was exiled from the Kara Koyunlu.

Oh and to the rest, sounds good. Although just to further clarify, the province was probably Marathi as it includes Bidar which was more important early on and had a marathi population (/used marathi as one of its languages when it became a breakaway state).
 
Sound all well and good to me.

I'll have to take your word on the cultural status of Bidar, but if that is indeed the case, isn't it possible to just have Maharashtra (marathi province) include Bidar, rather than Hyderbad, given that currently it's on the far eastern border of the latter? It may be a little over-simplifying for history's sake, but it sounds like a reasonable approach to adopt until the new map comes out (which I see has Golconda and Bidar as separate). :)
 
Oh, I mean, I think we can still switch the culture to Telugu. I was just pointing out the likely reasoning. And no, we can't move Bidar as then that would move the Bahmani capital (Bidar in 1425) which would mess with subsequent events as Ahmadnagar in Maharashtra should break away from the Bahmanid Empire before the empire collapses. (currently the Bahmanid Empire transitions into Golconda, one of the later successor states).
 
ThanatosHelen said:
I know India often comes out to be an awful mess no matter what, but to edge it slightly towards a more historical path - Golconda should be Shi'ite, whether it's revolting or if it's coming out of the Bahmanid Empire by event.

Why does it feel like I'm always asking for things to become Shi'ite? :)

Don't know what you guys think we should do with their culture though. The rulers were Turkish, but spoke Telugu and Urdu. My suggestion would be to give them Telugu and Hindi culture, and not Marathi. Also, from what I've read, Hyderabad should be a Telugu province, not Marathi.

Besides... Though the dynasty might be a Turkish one, the general upper class wasn't neccessarily (I think).
About submission #1086, event is not made yet. How can you submit it? ;)
 
YodaMaster said:
About submission #1086, event is not made yet. How can you submit it? ;)
:eek:o

Well, at least I can submit the culture changes to the province and revolter! :)

As for the event mishap, I'll see if I can fix that up right now. If history is followed, and Golconda emerges from the Bahmani Sultanate, then Golconda should be Shi'ite. So my proposal is that we just ammend the Bahmanid event which makes them Golconda. The event already takes care of the culture change, but even revolters should have Telugu and not Mahrathi cultures.

Also, I think I found a bug anyway... There should be no reason that having less than 30 provinces will prevent the Golconda Sultanate from attaining meaningful independence.

Also, made a couple of historical description corrections, and changed the date to 1518. The exact date as to when the Bahmanid Sultanate became completely insignificant can be debated, so I chose the earlier date (1518) which I found from my sources.

Code:
#(15[COLOR=Yellow]18[/COLOR][COLOR=Red]26[/COLOR]) The End of the Bahmanid Empire
event = {
	id = 30346
	trigger = {
		NOT = { exists = HYD }
		[COLOR=Red]countrysize = 30[/COLOR]
	}
	random = no
	country = THE
	name = "EVENTNAME30346" #Death of the last ruler
	desc = "EVENTHIST30346"
	#-#
	
	date = { day = 1 month = december year = 15[COLOR=Yellow]18[/COLOR][COLOR=Red]26[/COLOR] }
	offset = 10
	deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 15[COLOR=Yellow]18[/COLOR][COLOR=Red]26[/COLOR] }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME30346A" #Rule from Golconda
		command = { type = flagname which = "" }
		command = { type = country which = HYD }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = 1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = land value = 1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = quality value = 1 }
		command = { type = infra value = 250 }
		command = { type = remove_countryculture which = marathi }
		[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = religion which = shiite }[/COLOR]
	}
}
#-#After the death of Shams ud-Din Muhammad, Bahmani Sultanate quickly fell into chaos and disintegrated into 3 smaller states. The last 3 sultans were kept in prison, and their Kwajas ruled for them. After Kalim ul-Lah went in exile and died disaffected, and his son disappeared on his way to Mekkah, the Bahmani dynasty came to an end.
 
Actually that isn't a bug (the size condition). If the Bahmanid Empire is large enough, it makes no sense having an event that declares the end of the empire. Golconda would be but an insignificant speck in such a condition. Basically that condition is to prevent a successful player (as the AI will rarely manage 30 provinces) from being told that his empire is collapsing.
 
ThanatosHelen said:
Well, at least I can submit the culture changes to the province and revolter! :)
Better wait for the event and I agree with Garbon: countrysize condition is needed.

About the date, we could keep 1526 as deathdate. Only problem now is there is no ruler for Golconda between 1518 and 1526 in monarchs.hyd. Or should Quli Qutb Shah's startdate be moved from 1526 to 1518? Does it make sense?

EDIT: and does it make sense for Golconda to be able to revolt before (date is 1419 in revolt.txt)?
 
Last edited:
Garbon said:
Actually that isn't a bug (the size condition). If the Bahmanid Empire is large enough, it makes no sense having an event that declares the end of the empire. Golconda would be but an insignificant speck in such a condition. Basically that condition is to prevent a successful player (as the AI will rarely manage 30 provinces) from being told that his empire is collapsing.

Actually, that's exactly what I figured you were doing and thus it is a bug, guys. You'd want that to be NOT over 30 provinces for Golconda to secede. :D

Anyhow, the problem with that train of thought (and this, again, is separate from the submission made) is that so would the other two sultanates - if a player reach such a size... Forcing secession in some cases and not others is a bit... well... gamey.
 
YodaMaster said:
Better wait for the event and I agree with Garbon: countrysize condition is needed.

About the date, we could keep 1526 as deathdate. Only problem now is there is no ruler for Golconda between 1518 and 1526 in monarchs.hyd. Or should Quli Qutb Shah's startdate be moved from 1526 to 1518? Does it make sense?

EDIT: and does it make sense for Golconda to be able to revolt before (date is 1419 in revolt.txt)?
Yes, Quli Qubt Shah's startdate should absolutely be moved, and it makes perfect sense - given that 1518 is when he gained control of Golconda in the first place.

As for Golconda being able to revolt before... er... Yes, but I can't see the Qubt Shah's ever becoming monarchs if Golconda emerged an independent power before the disintegration of the sultanate. This sort of creates continuity issues. For simplicity's sake, I'd say give the Golconda revolters the same start date as Ahmadnagar (1488) to roughly correspond with the Bahmanids decline. Maybe we could come up with something more intricate later on. Also, we should probably to the same to Bijapur.
 
ThanatosHelen said:
Actually, that's exactly what I figured you were doing and thus it is a bug, guys. You'd want that to be NOT over 30 provinces for Golconda to secede. :D
Yes. There is a bug but removing the condition was not the solution.
 
Ah, no sense of play...

Still, I do think the corrected trigger should be removed for the reason I stated. Or we could add the same trigger to the other two states...
 
ThanatosHelen said:
Anyhow, the problem with that train of thought (and this, again, is separate from the submission made) is that so would the other two sultanates - if a player reach such a size... Forcing secession in some cases and not others is a bit... well... gamey.

The difference is location and timing. Golconda is in the same province as the Bahmani capital.

Also, I'm not sure why the date should be moved to 1518, just because that is what you found in your sources.

Good catch on the trigger even if you didn't actually fix the bug. :p
 
Garbon said:
Good catch on the trigger even if you didn't actually fix the bug. :p
Oi! :p

Okay, as for the other stuff - this is a problem with the vanilla map's representation of the Deccan. You can't really say: Golconda is "closer" to the capital of the Bahmanids, and that is the reason why Golconda can't possibly secede while the other two can. The event actually rewards players for the most part... 30 provinces is a huge number for the Indian states. By the same logic, the other two shouldn't be able to secede either. My suggestion for the breakup of the Bahmani state is that we first assume history follows the right course, and then in future add more thoughtful conditions should the game/player achieve something other than what happened, based on what we and other testers experience and observe.

As for why the date should be moved "just because" I found that date in my sources, I'm not sure why that notion is confusing... :confused:

The advantage is that you wouldn't have an indepedent but weakened Bahmanid state act aggressively when it shouldn't, or be conquered by Vijayangar even though a more important power (Golconda) now exists in that region.

Hope that explains... something.
 
Actually the logic makes total sense. Golconda's capital is the same province as the Bahmanid capital. The other two states can try to break away without really effecting the Bahmanid player (just re-annex). Golconda is a different story as that forces a tag change. This won't be necessary on the new map, but we aren't there ye.
 
Let's summarize:
bugfix for countrysize in THE_30346 + shiite command
Hyderabad: Telugu province, not Marathi.
Golconda (HYD): Telugu culture, and not Marathi.

Not settled:
1518 for THE_30346 (and deathdate still in 1526)
date of Golconda as revolter: 1488? Anyway, no recorded monarch before 1518/1526...
 
YodaMaster said:
Let's summarize:
bugfix for countrysize in THE_30346 + shiite command
Hyderabad: Telugu province, not Marathi.
Golconda (HYD): Telugu culture, and not Marathi.
Perfect!

For the other stuff... It's logical in terms of the game, but not in terms of history. You're right that this won't be a problem when the new map comes out, but that just might not be for a very long time so we should do what we can now. That's why I think we should do away with that trigger altogether. It'd just be the Qubt Shahs seizing power from an increasingly unpopular dynasty, a dynastic shift. That trigger really will only affect players, and not having it will reward them anyway.

As for there being no ruler of Golconda for 1518, we do: here.
 
What I read is:
He conquered Golconda and became the Governor of Telangana region in 1518, after the disintegration of the Bahmani Kingdom into the five Deccan sultanates. Soon after, he declared independence from the Bahmani Sultanate, took the title Qutub Shah, and thus established Qutb Shahi dynasty of Golconda.

How many years do "soon after" represent?

But if you follow the link for the Deccan sultanates, Golconda appears in 1512. :confused:
 
It's totally messed up, I agree. So I suggested 1518, because that is the date that the first of the Qutb Shahs obtains any kind of power in Golconda (i.e. the earliest it can be independent). I say 1518 is better than 1512 (I've found non-wiki sources that have both dates for some reason too) because from what I've read, Mahmud Shah was a half-able ruler, as opposed to those who succeeded him who weren't even that.

And really, what purpose does a prolonged Bahmanid state serve? After the death of Mahmud Shah (in 1518), every Bahmani sultan ends up being caught up in very internal affairs. The state is so decentralized at this point due to court affairs that it shouldn't even be capable of doing anything at all in game-terms.

I guess I just don't consider Ahmad Shah IV and his descendents that important on a worldwide stage, whereas those who came before him were, as were the Qutb Shahs and the other breakaways. If you end up getting a different impression from your readings, let me know.
 
Last edited: