AGC-EEP Ottoman Empire & Asia Minor

unmerged(40707) · Oct 25, 2006

That's why we should not forget core and hitlist if sequence is created.

Toio · Oct 26, 2006

A 14 and 15 century nations site in a fairly detail 200 page site

http://www.vanishedwood.org/castle/library/book.php?id=CrusadesIII

nations included are

OE
Mamuluks
hussites
morea
byzantine
aragon
knights of rhodes
morocco
etc

enjoy

unmerged(40707) · Oct 28, 2006

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. My suggestion:

Code:

#(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 }
	}
}

#-#While Russia managed to overtake the other Khanates of the European steppe in the 16th century, the Khanate of Crimea lasted well into the 1700s. A major reason for this longevity was the support of the Ottoman Empire.

Toio · Nov 1, 2006

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.

I also suggest that VEN has NO core on Morea until morea gets annexed by the OE, the small coastal VEN towns (apprx 8) only played a major part from that time that morea fell to the OE and the OE was then placing pressure on the VEN towns.

I will also write an event for the kladas revolt from 1478 to 1490 if morea is under the OE.

Norrefeldt · Nov 1, 2006

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.

Good idea.

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.

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?
Why reinforce the vassalage 1425? I'm also sceptical about reinforcing the vassalage 1446 as this can be done in-game (OE can vassalize instead of annexing after winning a war). Besides, if we want a historical take-over 1460, we shouldn't make a new vassalage 1446.

If it turns out to work well in one or two tests I think it's a good idea with vassalage at start at least.

Toio said:
I will also write an event for the kladas revolt from 1478 to 1490 if morea is under the OE.

Fine.

unmerged(36449) · Nov 2, 2006

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.

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 · Nov 2, 2006

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.

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

Garbon · Nov 2, 2006

Toio said:
what u describe In the USA (basically same for australia) its called federation. or you can use confederation

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.

unmerged(54293) · Nov 2, 2006

I also want to draw your attention to this discussion where I argued to the contrary that Morea should be no vassal of the Ottoman, but of the Byzantine Empire in 1419.

unmerged(62201) · Nov 2, 2006

Hey hey, I want to tell something important, IN 1419 Osmalı Teke is vassal of Ottomans, and Ottomans were neighbour with Akkoyunlu and Karakoyunlu... My english isnt good sorry, I want to tell more.

I think Hungarıy, Serbia, Wallachia, and Moldovia should be ally against Ottomans.

Toio · Nov 3, 2006

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.

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.

unmerged(40707) · Nov 4, 2006

I have a problem with this event:

Code:

#(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 }
	}
}

#-#In the first decades of the 18th century the Beys and Deys (Janissary leaders) of Northern Africa were in a rebellious mood in the wake of the Peace of Carlowitz between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy League. In 1710, it was the turn of the Bey of Algiers to begin to start down the road to independence.

In action_b, five provinces are present for revolts but according to revolt.txt:

Code:

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"
}

only three are involved in action_a. What should happen to 735 and 734? Currently, they stay Ottoman.

Another problem, if OE expanded in Morocco (diplo-annexation for exemple), OE still owns corresponding provinces while Algiers revolts. With Arabic culture split, event 3897 states OE loses Maghrebi culture and Tunisia, Tripolitania and later Egypt gain independence (well they often end diplo-annexed 10 or 20 years after but this is another story).
With this in mind, why Morocco shouldn't be "ahistorically" affected in 3897? I suggest:
1) add in action_a:

Code:

command = { type = independence which = MOR }

2) add an extra triggered event in action_a to secede 734 and 735 to ALD (or what about Tlemcen?) and 805 and 1595 to MOR
3) add revolt for all possible MOR provinces (733 732 806 and extra 805 1595) in action_b

Is it non-sense?

About diplo-annexation of released vassals, I have no real idea: what about reducing relations in corresponding events? Breaking vasselage is certainly too much.

unmerged(40707) · Nov 4, 2006

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:

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 }
	}
}

#-#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.

According to revolt.txt:

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"
}

Don't we lack an event to release Kosovo (363) then?
And what about Bosnia (364)? I see no removecore for this province...

ConjurerDragon · Nov 4, 2006

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:

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 } } }

#-#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.

According to revolt.txt:

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" }

Don't we lack an event to release Kosovo (363) then?
And what about Bosnia (364)? I see no removecore for this province...

Kosovo and Bosnia?
Kosovo should turn to Albanian provinceculture sometime during the Ottoman occupation and it should not be given to Serbia when Serbia becomes independant. See this map for example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Balkan-Halbinsel_(Doppelseitige_Farbkarte).jpg

And Bosnia stayed Ottoman until it was slowly taken over by Austria 1878 (Kondominium) so I see no need to remove the core during the EU2 timeframe.

unmerged(40707) · Nov 4, 2006

Ok then, but does my addition in trigger make sense?

Slight change:

Code:

#(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 }
	}
}

Just to see area not "isolated" from OE mainland.

unmerged(36449) · Nov 4, 2006

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

yeah a Federation would come close to that relationship which is what I said.

The various sovereign members of the Federation willfully join or accept the suzerainty of the Federation government over their own. In the case of the US that means that lose the ability to engage in a separate foreign policy, make war, or to maintain ships of war in peace time. But they maintain the right to an army, make their own laws as long as they fall within the range granted by the Federal constitution etc.

The second reich of Germany would be another example except where it covers Bavaria which had a lot more autonomy as she maintained the right to a separate foreign service, army, navy, and air force.

unmerged(36449) · Nov 4, 2006

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.

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.

If the South Carolinians had not done that the Northern government would have been hard pressed to come up with a reason to force the states back into the union when that would violate their constitutional right of free association...

unmerged(36449) · Nov 4, 2006

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.

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 · Nov 4, 2006

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.

well, in australia, the states cannot have armed forces , but have their own police force.

So, the conclusion is that suzerainity in the times of the OE was based on:
nation A will pay a tribute to OE yearly
nation A has their own armed forces
nation A can ally with whoever they want
nation A cannot attack a nation which also pays a tribute to the OE.
nation A will not attack an alliance member of OE

these are simplified rules which was used by the OE for its "vassals".

case in question is:
morea was vassal of OE, athens was vassal of OE in 1444
morea attacked athens and forced athens to pay a tribute to morea.
On loss of tribute from athens by morea, OE invaded morea and placed morea back on its suzerainty plus with a "lesson" with losses of 60000 morean slaves and 20000 morean dead.

conclusion is that suzerainity is a form of vassalation for us in the EU2 game.

Bordic · Nov 4, 2006

YodaMaster said:
Ok then, but does my addition in trigger make sense?

Slight change:

Code:

#(1800-1820) Serbian Independence

Just to see area not "isolated" from OE mainland.

There is a parenthesis too much with the operator OR. I think the trigger is correct anyway, as it is expected to work.

But why a -1 centralization if Serbia is released? I'd suggest either a +1 in action a or a -1 in action b (the latter is better when OE is at 10).

AGC-EEP Ottoman Empire & Asia Minor

Just call me Yoda in private!

Field Marshal

Just call me Yoda in private!

Field Marshal

Porphyrogenitus

Major

Field Marshal

Sultan d'Afrique

Second Lieutenant

Private

Field Marshal

Just call me Yoda in private!

Just call me Yoda in private!

Generalissimus

Just call me Yoda in private!

Major

Major

Major

Field Marshal

Magister Militum