#(1466-1700) Crimean Khanate seeks Ottoman support
event = {
id = 152060
trigger = {
OR = {
AND = {
neighbour = RUS
exists = TUR
}
AND = {
neighbour = TUR
OR = {
exists = RUS
exists = MOS
}
}
}
[COLOR=Yellow]NOT = { countrysize = 5 }
NOT = { vassal = { country = TUR country = CRI } }
NOT = { vassal = { country = CRI country = TUR } }[/COLOR]
}
random = no
country = CRI
name = "EVENTNAME152060" #Crimean Khanate seeks Ottoman support
desc = "EVENTHIST152060"
#-#
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1466 }
offset = 500
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1700 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME152060A" #Offer our vassalage to the Ottomans
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = diplomats value = -1 }
command = { type = relation which = TUR value = 50 }
command = { type = trigger which = 301050 } #TUR: Crimean Khanate seeks Ottoman support
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME152060B" #We can stand on our own
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}
}
Good idea.YodaMaster said:About vassalization of Crimea by OE, I see too many times OE diplo-annexing a big Crimea. Is vassalization so important historically speaking? Maybe Crimea could be weak "enough" in order to ask for OE support.
Test it and see if it doesn't hurt the AI of OE. If it only leads to OE breaking the vassalage to be able to DOW, then we shouldn't. Or will Morea dare to break the vassalage in time?Toio said:Are we going to start Morea as a vassal of the OE as per history???
A second vassalation around 1425 and a third around 1446, all historical.
Fine.Toio said:I will also write an event for the kladas revolt from 1478 to 1490 if morea is under the OE.
Toio said:meaning of suzerainity
Suzerainty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Suzerainty (soó-zer-en-tee, -ze-rayn'-tee) is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy but controls its foreign affairs. The more powerful entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the head of state of that more powerful entity, is called a suzerain. The term suzerainty was originally used to describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its surrounding regions. It differs from sovereignty in that the tributary has some (limited) self-rule. As well a suzerain can mean a feudal lord, to whom vassals must pay tribute.
Although it is a concept which has existed in a number of historical empires, it is a concept that is very difficult to describe using 20th- or 21st-century theories of international law, in which sovereignty either exists or does not. While a sovereign nation can agree by treaty to become a protectorate of a stronger power, modern international law does not recognize any way of making this relationship theoretically irrevocable by the weaker power.
going by this, then the OE never had any vassals, so we should use the term of suzerainity for OE as it basically means the same thing.
bobtdwarf said:under that definition they would not have vassals either, they would have provinces with lowered tax value representing the taxes going to local government.
Technically you can view the United States, who has 50 separate sovereign-lite political units with a Federal authority as the suzerain....
A vassal is a far more independent then above described relationship. It comes across as more the difference between being an employee and being a serf.
Toio said:what u describe In the USA (basically same for australia) its called federation. or you can use confederation
Garbon said:OT but that's not really true. I mean, perhaps when the U.S. was under the Articles of Confederation...but now days I think that would be putting too much power in the hands of states. Makes it sound as if they can voluntarily leave.
#(1710-1730) The Algerian Rebellion
#by chegitz guevara
event = {
id = 3897
trigger = {
owned = { province = 737 data = -1 } #Al Djazair
NOT = { exists = ALD }
}
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME3897" #The Algerian Rebellion
desc = "EVENTHIST3897"
#-#
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1710 }
offset = 300
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1730 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3897A" #Grant limited autonomy
command = { type = remove_countryculture which = delaware }
command = { type = independence which = ALD }
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = -1 }
command = { type = removecore which = 734 } #Orania
command = { type = removecore which = 737 } #Al Djazair
command = { type = removecore which = 738 } #Kabylia
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3897B" #Crush the rebels!
command = { type = remove_countryculture which = delaware }
command = { type = removecore which = 734 } #Orania
command = { type = removecore which = 737 } #Al Djazair
command = { type = removecore which = 738 } #Kabylia
command = { type = revolt which = 734 } #Orania
command = { type = revolt which = 735 } #Atlas
command = { type = revolt which = 736 } #Aures
command = { type = revolt which = 737 } #Al Djazair
command = { type = revolt which = 738 } #Kabylia
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 36 value = 4 }
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
}
}
ALD = { #Algiers
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1510 }
expirydate = { year = 1820 }
minimum = { 737 736 738 }
extra = { 735 }
capital = 737
group = muslim
ai = "SmallTrade1.ai"
}
command = { type = independence which = MOR }
#(1800-1820) Serbian Independence
event = {
id = 3399
trigger = {
owned = { province = 355 data = -1 } [COLOR=Yellow]#Serbia[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Yellow]NOT = {
AND = {
owned = { province = 354 data = -1 } #Banat
owned = { province = 364 data = -1 } #Bosnia
owned = { province = 366 data = -1 } #Croatia
}
}[/COLOR]
NOT = { exists = SER }
}
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME3399" #Serbian Independence
desc = "EVENTHIST3399"
#-#
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1800 }
offset = 3000
deathdate = { year = 1820 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3399A" #Accept a free Serbia
command = { type = removecore which = 355 } #Serbia
command = { type = removecore which = 363 } #Kosovo
command = { type = independence which = SER }
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = -1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3399B" #Crush the revolt!
command = { type = removecore which = 355 } #Serbia
command = { type = removecore which = 363 } #Kosovo
command = { type = revolt which = 355 } #Serbia
command = { type = revolt which = 355 } #Serbia
command = { type = revolt which = 363 } #Kosovo
command = { type = revolt which = 364 } #Bosnia
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
}
}
SER = { #Serbia
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419 }
expirydate = { year = 1820 }
minimum = { 355 }
extra = { 363 354 }
capital = 355
group = orthodox
ai = "SmallTrade1.ai"
}
YodaMaster said:...
About Serbian Independance, I don't see the point of this event if OE is strong enough and owbs Bosnia, Banat and Crotia. Otherwise, Serbia is released in a green ocean.
My suggestion:
#-#The Serbian independence movement grew strong under Karageorge and Milos Obrenovic in the first two decades of the 19th century. The two men hated each other, and Milos probably had Karageorge murdered in 1817. After the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-29, Serbia finally became an internationally recognized principality under Turkish suzerainty and Russian protection.Code:#(1800-1820) Serbian Independence event = { id = 3399 trigger = { owned = { province = 355 data = -1 } [COLOR=Yellow]#Serbia[/COLOR] [COLOR=Yellow]NOT = { AND = { owned = { province = 354 data = -1 } #Banat owned = { province = 364 data = -1 } #Bosnia owned = { province = 366 data = -1 } #Croatia } }[/COLOR] NOT = { exists = SER } } random = no country = TUR name = "EVENTNAME3399" #Serbian Independence desc = "EVENTHIST3399" #-# date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1800 } offset = 3000 deathdate = { year = 1820 } action_a = { name = "ACTIONNAME3399A" #Accept a free Serbia command = { type = removecore which = 355 } #Serbia command = { type = removecore which = 363 } #Kosovo command = { type = independence which = SER } command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = -1 } } action_b = { name = "ACTIONNAME3399B" #Crush the revolt! command = { type = removecore which = 355 } #Serbia command = { type = removecore which = 363 } #Kosovo command = { type = revolt which = 355 } #Serbia command = { type = revolt which = 355 } #Serbia command = { type = revolt which = 363 } #Kosovo command = { type = revolt which = 364 } #Bosnia command = { type = stability value = -2 } } }
According to revolt.txt:
Don't we lack an event to release Kosovo (363) then?Code:SER = { #Serbia date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419 } expirydate = { year = 1820 } minimum = { 355 } extra = { 363 354 } capital = 355 group = orthodox ai = "SmallTrade1.ai" }
And what about Bosnia (364)? I see no removecore for this province...
#(1800-1820) Serbian Independence
event = {
id = 3399
trigger = {
owned = { province = 355 data = -1 } #Serbia
[COLOR=Yellow]NOT = {
AND = {
owned = { province = 354 data = -1 } #Banat
owned = { province = 364 data = -1 } #Bosnia
owned = { province = 366 data = -1 } #Croatia
[COLOR=YellowGreen]OR = {
owned = { province = 356 data = -1 } #Bulgaria
owned = { province = 363 data = -1 } #Kosovo
}[/COLOR]
}
}[/COLOR]
NOT = { exists = SER }
}
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME3399" #Serbian Independence
desc = "EVENTHIST3399"
#-#
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1800 }
offset = 3000
deathdate = { year = 1820 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3399A" #Accept a free Serbia
command = { type = removecore which = 355 } #Serbia
command = { type = removecore which = 363 } #Kosovo
command = { type = independence which = SER }
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = -1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME3399B" #Crush the revolt!
command = { type = removecore which = 355 } #Serbia
command = { type = removecore which = 363 } #Kosovo
command = { type = revolt which = 355 } #Serbia
command = { type = revolt which = 355 } #Serbia
command = { type = revolt which = 363 } #Kosovo
command = { type = revolt which = 364 } #Bosnia
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
}
}
yeah a Federation would come close to that relationship which is what I said.Toio said:there is no other alternative except vassal in EU2 and as per the last paragraph says, there is no modern cocept in explaining it.
what u describe In the USA (basically same for australia) its called federation. or you can use confederation
post Civil war that is the prevailing view. But prior to it the prevailing legal opinion was that any state was free to leave unmolested at any time. Lincoln had to take the extraordinary measure of reaching to the declaration of independence to come up with a veil of legitimacy, but all of that was rendered moot upon the firing on FT Sumter.Garbon said:OT but that's not really true. I mean, perhaps when the U.S. was under the Articles of Confederation...but now days I think that would be putting too much power in the hands of states. Makes it sound as if they can voluntarily leave.
the US governors can do that as well. The only thing that they are truly forbidden to do is make war in the aggressive sense. But 25 of the 50 states maintain separate armies from the Federal government (and I am not talking about the national guard here, they are Federal forces loaned to the States since IIRC '33). Most of them presently are set up to support the guard and to do disaster relief, but by law they are required to maintain arms sufficient to arm them according to their TOE at least to a cadre strength. Which makes the California defense forces quite interesting since it has a TOE of a mechanized infantry division with an attached armored brigade. New York is set up as conventional infantry and even maintains a naval element inclusive of marines.Toio said:well then , australia is different in the sense that a premier of a state can make his own trade agreement with a foreirn power as long as it does not effect the nations foreign policy, thats maybe why lombardy and veneto are looking at the australian model for federation within italy.
bobtdwarf said:the US governors can do that as well. The only thing that they are truly forbidden to do is make war in the aggressive sense. But 25 of the 50 states maintain separate armies from the Federal government (and I am not talking about the national guard here, they are Federal forces loaned to the States since IIRC '33). Most of them presently are set up to support the guard and to do disaster relief, but by law they are required to maintain arms sufficient to arm them according to their TOE at least to a cadre strength. Which makes the California defense forces quite interesting since it has a TOE of a mechanized infantry division with an attached armored brigade. New York is set up as conventional infantry and even maintains a naval element inclusive of marines.
There is a parenthesis too much with the operator OR. I think the trigger is correct anyway, as it is expected to work.YodaMaster said:Ok then, but does my addition in trigger make sense?
Slight change:
Just to see area not "isolated" from OE mainland.Code:#(1800-1820) Serbian Independence