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

[Grubnessul]

Nice stuff, Johan, but this is the first time I've heard "Timur" and "tolerance" together. Just not his usual style.

Not TIMMEH's style, but the style of his Mughal successors.

The good thing is that I now finally look forward to play outside Europe. The horrible troops always made me not want to. Now we just have to hope non-Europeans get shafted that badly again this time...

 

[anubisfike]

Ya but this is 1444, completely different situation, especially as the Timurds are in full retreat. How do the Persians spawn; and how often are we going to see them?

I seem to recall you could form Persia as Ak Koyunlu in EU2 so there might be something to that. I don't think this is entirely historical, however.

 

[Fintilgin]

Well, the Mamluks already do kind of control, and are based in Egypt... Though, quite a few people have been suggesting that in such cases, the nation should display the dynasty name, and when it becomes a Republic, it uses the name of the nation, so if the Mamluks had a republican revolution, it could display as 'Egypt.'

Yeah, I'd also like a chance to become 'Egypt' if the Mamluks lose power. Seems like switching to a more 'modern' form of government ought to change your name.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Nice, a DD with information about Oman!
So they are rapresented as shiites, without Ibadism. Ibadi could have been a cool "trading" option branch of islam for Oman. (Like can be cool a coptic church for Ethiopia)

No screenshot today?

Well, the Mamluks already do kind of control, and are based in Egypt... Though, quite a few people have been suggesting that in such cases, the nation should display the dynasty name, and when it becomes a Republic, it uses the name of the nation, so if the Mamluks had a republican revolution, it could display as 'Egypt.'

Is a nice idea

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.

Probably there is a gameplay reason beyond that, but I agree with you, especially becouse in Islam the limit beetween political power and religious one, was has always been more subtle than in the West

 

[anubisfike]

Nice, a DD with information about Oman!
So they are rapresented as shiites, without Ibadism. Ibadi could have been a cool "trading" option branch of islam for Oman. (Like can be cool a coptic church for Ethiopia)

Totally this. It would have been excellent as an alternative version of Islam even if it was limited in history. Both Sunni and Shiites still have the same boring bonuses as EU3 (plus the heir thing), I hoped for much more.

 

[Grubnessul]

Totally this. It would have been excellent as an alternative version of Islam even if it was limited in history. Both Sunni and Shiites still have the same boring bonuses as EU3 (plus the heir thing), I hoped for much more.

Well, Islam also has the piety mechanism, they covered in an earlier DD. (Unless they removed that, which would be sad)

 

[anubisfike]

Well, Islam also has the piety mechanism, they covered in an earlier DD. (Unless they removed that, which would be sad)

Yeah that is true actually, how did that work again? You gain piety by fighting heathens? Hopefully it will be something interesting and not just tedious.

 

[Grubnessul]

Yeah that is true actually, how did that work again? You gain piety by fighting heathens? Hopefully it will be something interesting and not just tedious.

Being impious gives tech advantages, being pious gives moral advantages, IIRC.

 

[Mirza Khan]

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?

Well, the founder of the Safavid dynasty was also the head of the Safavid Shia order (which, uniquely among Shia orders, had evolved into a religious-military type of thing remenescent of the Teutonic Knights in some ways*), and had a serious messiah complex. After him, though...the Safavids pretty much functioned as a monarchy. A particularly religious monarchy that didn't much care for Sunnis, but a monarchy. As in, their leaders were hereditary, they made royal marriages, they were called Shahs (Persian for "Emperor" or "King"), and all that. Seeing Iran with the same government as an HRE archbishopric, with an Ayatollah rather than a Shah as its leader, is always really jarring. The game starts in 1444, not 1979.

*There were some big differences though. The biggest one being that the head of the Safavid Order, unlike the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knighs, was not celebate and could marry and have legitmate kids. Consequently, succession had become de facto hereditary even before the Safavids took over Iran. After they took over Iran, "head of the Safavid Order" became one of the Shah's titles.

 

[Namm]

Manpower bonus for the the Hordes, why is that? The Hordes were typically outnumbered. To make up for low provincial manpower? Not really an "idea" if you ask me. Seems bland.

Quality, not quanitity, characterized the steppe armies. One could say quantity was the main reason to the decline of the horse nomads in the time period covered by the EU games; increased use of massed infantry equipped with gunpowder weapons that took little time to master (quantity) compared to skilled warriors on horseback (quality). It's quite important that this aspect of the game is handled in a well thought-out manner since it for instance was crucial for the rise of Russia, and it affected the Ottoman Empire, India and China. A pretty huge chunk of the world, but hey ... why not just continue treating the steppe nomads as clichés.

 

[Sir Tornado]

Not TIMMEH's style, but the style of his Mughal successors.

The good thing is that I now finally look forward to play outside Europe. The horrible troops always made me not want to. Now we just have to hope non-Europeans get shafted that badly again this time...

Just 1 Mughal successor (Akbar) was actually tolerant. Most of them weren't, and in case of Aurangzeb, it's actually a joke to call him "tolerent". The problem for them was the population of India was too large to even try to forcibly convert... (not that they didn't try and succeed to some extent)

I suspect this idea is to make it possible for them to rule India at all.

 

[Grubnessul]

Manpower bonus for the the Hordes, why is that? The Hordes were typically outnumbered. To make up for low provincial manpower? Not really an "idea" if you ask me. Seems bland.

Quality, not quanitity, characterized the steppe armies. One could say quantity was the main reason to the decline of the horse nomads in the time period covered by the EU games; increased use of massed infantry equipped with gunpowder weapons that took little time to master (quantity) compared to skilled warriors on horseback (quality). It's quite important that this aspect of the game is handled in a well thought-out manner since it for instance was crucial for the rise of Russia, and it affected the Ottoman Empire, India and China. A pretty huge chunk of the world, but hey ... why not just continue treating the steppe nomads as clichés.

I think it's to represent that the steppe hordes could draw upon a much larger % of their men than any sedentary society can.

 

[Ulyanov]

These national ideas finally makes Mameluks an interesting nation for me. They have something going for them (trade) rather than just being a large country with too many provinces up for grabs for the Ottomans. Never found an inherently good reason to play them in EU2, nor in EU3 even though I didn't play the latter game much.

 

[Me_]

What if Persia was given a unique government? Milan has one and it's only tier 3, just like Persia. It could be a "theocratic monarchy" with heirs and legitimacy, like any other monarchy but with +2 tolerance of own religion and -2 tolerance of heretics, like a theocracy.

 

[Grubnessul]

What if Persia was given a unique government? Milan has one and it's only tier 3, just like Persia. It could be a "theocratic monarchy" with heirs and legitimacy, like any other monarchy but with +2 tolerance of own religion and -2 tolerance of heretics, like a theocracy.

Not a bad idea

 

[turnad]

What if Persia was given a unique government? Milan has one and it's only tier 3, just like Persia. It could be a "theocratic monarchy" with heirs and legitimacy, like any other monarchy but with +2 tolerance of own religion and -2 tolerance of heretics, like a theocracy.

As far as I'm aware, Milan doesn't get a unique government, it just gets an easier path to become a republic.

 

[Grubnessul]

As far as I'm aware, Milan doesn't get a unique government, it just gets an easier path to become a republic.

The dev diary says so:

In Europa Universalis IV, if Milan has a regency or low legitimacy you can choose to institute the Ambrosian Republic in Milan. This action will give some large neighbor’s a Casus Belli (Just cause for war) on you so they can restore the monarchy, while you get a unique government form that gives you increased morale for your soldiers and greater tax income.

 

[Alerias]

The dev diary says so:

Yes but the unique government there, the Ambrosian Republic, isn't there at any point unless that dynamic event triggers. It requires a regency/low legitimacy, as written.

 

[delra]

How does war impact on trade?

 

[lemonsquid]

Iv never bothered playing nations in the middle east, but the Mamelukes look like they may end up being my first choice when the game is released and hopefully becomes a favorite in mp just because they look awesome in game from the screenshots iv seen. Im hoping that they can reform themselves into something like Egypt or perhaps a mod will get that going.