Bug or WAD?: Mamluks don't lose stability on monarch death

[RichardOlcese]

From the Wiki:
An important advantage of this system is that the is no stability loss when a Monarch die, so it's far easier for Mamluks to have 3 stability and make monarchs generals have no real downside, so it's good if current ruler is bad

Mamluks - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

So, it's intentional. Furthermore, it is historically accurate. Some other EU4 colleagues have very wisely pointed out that Mamluks monarchs don't "die", but rather get replaced. While they do die, in this gov system the system itself is important, not much the Sultan holding supremacy at a certain time. It was a certain caste dominating system, in which slave-warriors (the Mamluks) dominated the Egyptian government. So, as long as there is another Mamluk succesor, there shouldn't be any stability loss, since the system is still working and there's no reason to be less stable. Another slave-soldier replaces the latter one, continuing the Mamluk supremacy over Egypt. I'd say the governing system gets even more stable after each succession, not less stable. A normal monarchy, in which the ruler's personality/family intrigues played a bigger role, can have a stability loss when the current ruler dies. But not the Mamluk system.

 

[EarlKonrad]

You can spend established mana of tri buttons, but can't get any new on month end, tested in recent game couple of weeks ago

That's what I was referring to.

From the Wiki:
An important advantage of this system is that the is no stability loss when a Monarch die, so it's far easier for Mamluks to have 3 stability and make monarchs generals have no real downside, so it's good if current ruler is bad

Mamluks - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

I wouldn't take these works as a proof of the Dev's intention because those words came from the mouth of the player base. Heck, for all that you know I may have been the one to write them shortly after CoC came out!

Point is, what is written on the wiki and isn't a direct quote from the game doesn't prove or disprove anything because they were written by the community.

 

[RichardOlcese]

That's what I was referring to.



I wouldn't take these works as a proof of the Dev's intention because those words came from the mouth of the player base. Heck, for all that you know I may have been the one to write them shortly after CoC came out!

Point is, what is written on the wiki and isn't a direct quote from the game doesn't prove or disprove anything because they were written by the community.

I explained in the next post the historicity of such feature.
And my dear good ol' friend EU4 fellow EarlKonrad, if you were the one who wrote that Wiki article, I would most certainly believe it's right. You're one of the most prestigious members of this community. Seriously, I like your answers in the forum and I usually learn something from them.

 

[Canute VII]

So, it's intentional. Furthermore, it is historically accurate. Some other EU4 colleagues have very wisely pointed out that Mamluks monarchs don't "die", but rather get replaced. While they do die, in this gov system the system itself is important, not much the Sultan holding supremacy at a certain time. It was a certain caste dominating system, in which slave-warriors (the Mamluks) dominated the Egyptian government. So, as long as there is another Mamluk succesor, there shouldn't be any stability loss, since the system is still working and there's no reason to be less stable. Another slave-soldier replaces the latter one, continuing the Mamluk supremacy over Egypt. I'd say the governing system gets even more stable after each succession, not less stable. A normal monarchy, in which the ruler's personality/family intrigues played a bigger role, can have a stability loss when the current ruler dies. But not the Mamluk system.

So you are saying there was no intrigue in the Mamluk state? No infighting? No factions battering at each other? I had a very different impression from my cursory study of their history...

And I don't know where this "do not die but get replaced" is coming from. It's not as if there were elections every few years. Elections are held at monarch death and this actually is historical.

Even the Wiki says so: "A Mamluk government does not produce heirs. Instead, the ruler of the sultanate is chosen by event when the preceding ruler dies. " https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Mamluks

 

[LukasYork]

Well, I wouldn't consider WIKI as a guideline what's intentional and what's not. It's not written by the devs, it's written by players so, you know, It just states the fact

 

[RichardOlcese]

So you are saying there was no intrigue in the Mamluk state? No infighting? No factions battering at each other? I had a very different impression from my cursory study of their history...

And I don't know where this "do not die but get replaced" is coming from. It's not as if there were elections every few years. Elections are held at monarch death and this actually is historical.

Even the Wiki says so: "A Mamluk government does not produce heirs. Instead, the ruler of the sultanate is chosen by event when the preceding ruler dies. " https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Mamluks

Exactly! No heirs. Someone from the same social category replaces the Sultan. Thus, no stability hit.

 

[EarlKonrad]

I explained in the next post the historicity of such feature.
And my dear good ol' friend EU4 fellow EarlKonrad, if you were the one who wrote that Wiki article, I would most certainly believe it's right. You're one of the most prestigious members of this community. Seriously, I like your answers in the forum and I usually learn something from them.

Well, thank you very much Mr. Richard but, truth be told, that bit of the wiki wasn't written by me, no, it predates me editing the wiki.

I read your following post and that could be the case for why the system was designed as such. With that said, I don't find these types of discussion very fruitful. By "that kind of discussion" I mean the community trying to justify, explain or find the rationale behind game design decisions. We the players can create any number of explanationa based on History to explain why so and so work the way they are and, thus, fulfill one's wish for historical accuracy -- or the contrary -- create any number of explanationa to justify why it isn't historically accurate enough.

At the end of the day, I think that, unless we can base our argument on something that was stated by one of the Devs (and here is where the DDs are truly valuable as the Devs will often argue their case of why so and so is being added) then the case, even if it is historically accurate, doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[makaramus]

I think reason of no stabilty lose is because they are NOT actually a monarchy? They are more akin to theocracy BUT with soldiers
mamluk rulers are once slave soldiers. When sultan dies a new soldier that was once slave becomes new mamluk ruler. Since succession is so diffrent from regular monarchies I think they decided there should be no stabilty hit like other monarchies.

Stabilty hits are when succession happens reflecting distrust on new ruler, people attempting to assume power and vassals tring to make their moves while balance is at its weakest
for mamluk... your new ruler is most likely the guy that did try to assume power anyway ... everything went according to his plan! Sure there were others but they cant start a rebelion to take over since they are not a vassal but just another soldier like you.(even worse, slave)

 

[Canute VII]

Exactly! No heirs. Someone from the same social category replaces the Sultan. Thus, no stability hit.

So you are saying heirs in a monarchy don't belong to the same social category as the king?

 

[Meglok]

The same could be said about my reasoning for expecting them to have stability loss
I guess I'm just going to file a bug report and see where this will be going.

Don't bother, this is WAD. The Mamluks government reform is a special government reform that allows several things, one of them is no stab loss. Another is no heirs. You have to blindly chose between several candidates with varying degrees of legitimacy and depending on their culture and the % of that culture in your nation you might get some small benefits if they live long enough.

The Mamluks are "balanced" to be an ai competitor to the Ottomans. Keeping their stab high is likely one of the game balances the devs implemented lone ago. Always remember the Golden Rule of PDS, game balance uber alles.

 

[master_kong]

So you are saying there was no intrigue in the Mamluk state? No infighting? No factions battering at each other? I had a very different impression from my cursory study of their history...

And I don't know where this "do not die but get replaced" is coming from. It's not as if there were elections every few years. Elections are held at monarch death and this actually is historical.

Even the Wiki says so: "A Mamluk government does not produce heirs. Instead, the ruler of the sultanate is chosen by event when the preceding ruler dies. " https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Mamluks

There was lots of fighting for succession in Mamluks, definitely above average. Devs didn't wanna handle all that succession wars every time maybe because it wouldn't be fun but on the other hand, there are Mamluks exclusive events regarding succession to reflect that.

Mamluks are a social caste that happened to gain a superior place in society. Ruler coming from that pool every time gave them flexibility and devs decided to try to reflect that with no stability loss on ruler death. It's a nice abstraction and flavor imo.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Can confirm because it's my go-to as monarchies. No regency chance and above average rulers (over time) w/o disinherit.

Usually you sit on the statist side so that you have smoothing stats over time (pick better candidate, when close pick statist, take statist in most events). Nerfing monarchist would be meaningless/encourage the already stronger option more.

 

[WJLIII3]

Always remember the Golden Rule of PDS, game balance uber alles.

You can start this game as Sultan Mehmet II, or as the bishop of Ulm, in their historical 1444 positions. I hardly think they put game balance over anything else. If anything, the mamluks are "balanced" to put up a good fight against the Ottoblob but ultimately fail most times. Not for any actual relative parity between their power levels, but to help the map develop along fairly historical lines.