Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 30 - Four more countries and even more..

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81874 EUIV: Bug Reports 441 EUIV: Suggestions 19142 EUIV: Technical Support 6713 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Is there any particular reason Persia is theocracy (as opposed to despotic monarchy), other than the fact modern Iran is theocracy?
Safavids werent any more theocratic than their contemporary muslim monarchies. Or even christian ones, for that matter.
Doesn't Persia being theocracy results in them having no dynasty or heirs mechanic, AND make their Shah being called Ayatollah?
 
Oman could be interesting if it's made to really work (with the AI) as it did, and becomes a late-game regional power. IRL, they ejected the Portuguese from their northern E African possessions. That never happens with the AI in the game now.
 
The Mamelukes looks to be a real power house regarding trade and has bonuses to the land army too! They start with 25% Trade Steering and get +25% Trade Income when they’re maxed out! Looks like Turkey has a real enemy with the Mamelukes this time!

Oman has +0.5 to Naval Morale and a huge -50% to Naval Maintenance right at the start! Talk about having a potential for a powerful navy which gets even better later on with stuff like 20% cheaper Light Ships and +2 Naval Maneuver for captains to protect its trade interests!
 
Last edited:
Mackus said:
Is there any particular reason Persia is theocracy (as opposed to despotic monarchy), other than the fact modern Iran is theocracy?
Safavids werent any more theocratic than their contemporary muslim monarchies. Or even christian ones, for that matter.
Doesn't Persia being theocracy results in them having no dynasty or heirs mechanic, AND make their Shah being called Ayatollah?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it has been mentioned a lot, so I don't have a clue why they still have PER as a theocracy.
 
Blaaat said:
Technically no, it doubles the chance of getting a new heir. :p
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on how the numbers are intepreted by the game, which is why I ask.:) 100% chance = guaranteed after all.
 
billt568 said:
Im confused, I thought Persia was split up into feuding dynasties until the Safavids created a monarchy.
Click to expand...

The state of Persia was formed in the early 16th century.
Click to expand...

It ain't there at the earliest Start Date: you can select it in a later Start Date or you can form it
 
I imagine the rationale for a Theocratic Persia is the whole "forced Shia conversions" thing and association with Sufism. Still should be a monarchy though, I agree.

Otherwise: Looks kinda awesome! Especially the Mamelukes, hopefully they won't be picked to pieces by the Iberians. I always enjoy playing as them.

1 thing though: the tiers thread says that Persia and the Timurid-Mughals are tier 2. Has this been changed now, then?
 
Nikolai said:
I guess that depends on how the numbers are intepreted by the game, which is why I ask.:) 100% chance = guaranteed after all.
Click to expand...
My guess is that you have a certain numerical chance of getting an heir, then the game adds bonuses or maluses to that in terms of a percentage. +100% chance would then mean you have twice the normal chance of getting an heir.

This makes more sense than there being a set percentage chance of getting an heir at any given moment and that bonuses can somehow make it more than 100% possible to get an heir. You probably have a chance of getting an heir every now and then rather than there being a system which counts up to 100% then gives you an heir, thats not how Paradox have made these features in the past.
 
billt568 said:
Im confused, I thought Persia was split up into feuding dynasties until the Safavids created a monarchy.
Click to expand...

Sort of like England at the start?
 
Is there any particular reason Persia is theocracy (as opposed to despotic monarchy), other than the fact modern Iran is theocracy? Safavids werent any more theocratic than their contemporary muslim monarchies. Or even christian ones, for that matter.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you that Persia should not be a theocracy, their founder was clearly a more religious figure compared to other contemporary monarchic leaders.

Looks like Turkey has a real enemy with the Mamelukes this time!
Click to expand...

Ironically Ottomans didn't call themselves "Turkey", while the Mamlukes did (because their ruling class were mostly Turkic).

Also it's Kızılbaş = Qizilbash from kızıl = red and baş = head.
 
Balor said:
Persia is a (...) Theocracy in the game.
Click to expand...

Why? Does the decision to form Persia still impose archbishopric government as it did in EU3?
 
Safavid Iran was a theocracy, but it was also a monarchy. Much of the nobility were also Mujtahid, but that role is as much a lawyer as a priest. With no real distinction between clergyman and scholar, the Safavid bureaucracy can only through force and arbitrariness be designated as theocratic.

Europe wasn't that different. The first Safavid was only a generation before Henry VIII who similarly made himself head of the church in his realm, clergymen dominated much of the French government. But in Europe its pretty clear than theocracies are limited to prince bishoprics and monastic states and that any state with a hereditary government is a monarchy. The Safavid state was just as dynastic as the Ottoman one, who went a step further than the Safavid's and claimed the caliphate.

Oman was ruled by an Imam and while dynastic the succession was not strictly hereditary. Despite being head of state the Imam's power base was among the desert tribes and the cities (which the national ideas are clearly representing) might as well have been independent. Oman has more justification to be a merchant republic or a theocracy than Persia has.
 
It's too bad secularity isn't a scale independent of government type (or looking back on EU3, independent from "innovation"). That way you could have sultans who were very irreligious among those who better practice the "political aspect" of Islam, and kings who are fanatical Christians alongside those who are better in step with the Enlightenment's ideals.
 
Beylerbeyi said:
Ironically Ottomans didn't call themselves "Turkey", while the Mamlukes did (because their ruling class were mostly Turkic).
Click to expand...
Right but it’s good to see the Mamlukes was given a boost so we basically have 2 nations who want to be the main power in the area and have control of the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back