That's grossly unfair. Christian, Shiite, Sunni, or Hindu, Timur was equally willing to build mountains of skulls out of them all.Nice stuff, Johan, but this is the first time I've heard "Timur" and "tolerance" together. Just not his usual style.
Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 30 - Four more countries and even more..
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- Start date
-
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.
Sure.. yet nothing prevents a similar event for Persia (start as theocratic, fulfill some condition to become theocratic monarchy). And nothing says that Persia could not start with it anyway.
Quite interesting NIs for the major islamic powers.
This seems like a good solution, other than the Persia government type though this looks really good and will make lands outside of Europe far more interesting.
Perisan Theocracy? Again? Now I gotta prevent Persia from ever forming in this game too...
Maybe the Devs improved the likelihood that Persia will switch to Despotic Monarchy?
Maybe the Devs improved the likelihood that Persia will switch to Despotic Monarchy?
The requirement to have this government type should also be: 1) is shiite and 2) is persian.
Any hope for the Kingdom of Ormuz (conquered by the portuguese before the rise of Oman)? Or the timurid civil war in 1447 after the death of Sharrukh, between the kigdoms of Fars , Khorasan and Transoxiana(it will be divided in four emirates by 1469...)?
Last edited:
Please change Persia from a Theocracy. As it was, in EU3 it was nonsense because the heirs and rulers given to them didn't work properly. You'd start with a king, but your successor would be a typical theocracy leader.
The theocratic monarchy suggested above would be a wise move.
The theocratic monarchy suggested above would be a wise move.
Persia was a Shiite monarchy (Shah) with a Turkish Safavid elite. So it should be Despotic Monarchy instead of theocracy.
I thought of that, but really it would basically just be 'empire'. The Safavids were basically a mix of everything, a little bit of feudalism and provincial governors, a bit of meritocratic bureaucracy, a bit of theocracy, a lot of religiously based education, a theoretically absolute monarch. That's basically France once you throw away the exoticism, the only difference is in the precise balance, which admittedly in effect can be quite a lot.
I must say I don't like the fact that the Mughals simply have the same ideas of the Timurids. The Mughal Empire was quite different from the Timurids, and given its importance it should have a separate set of ideas.
I have one concern, mainly for Oman and the Mamluks. It seems to me that Portugal, or anyone who wants to expand into the African route to India, will have to savage these 2 countries militarily to counter their trade steering bonuses. Looks like Portugal will want to help the Ottomans conquer Mamlukes to eliminate their trade bonus, and conquer Oman themselves.
Whyyyy
Safavid Iran got its legitimacy from its support of the Shi'ite ulema, but after Ismail the dynasty quickly lost its own personal religious authority (and in the second half of the 17th century, even became hostile to the Sufis). Getting drunk frequently was essentially a requirement to be a dynasty member.
Haven't read the thread so I don't know if this has been covered, but it's Qizilbash/Kizilbash, not Qizibash.
Last edited:
And conversely Venice et al. will want to support the Mamluks, in order to keep that trade route. Which is historical.
And don't forget that the Mamluks, at least, will have to split their naval resources between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, while Portugal will be able to focus lots of their resources at the juncture (and probably pick up a few minor colonies/outposts along the way). Oman may be more of a threat to Portuguese dominance, but once again that's historical.
It's an interesting example of trying to use the national ideas to subtly nudge things in the historical direction, without making it overly scripted.
I sense you know more about Persia than most, Historian? or lucky guess at something pretty accurate?
Yes, that's right, but the point is that the dynasty was more concerned with maintaining the trappings of Iranian kingship rather than taking charge of religious affairs.
True of course, but wasn't that even truer of the Qajars in the 18th-19th centuries?
You mispelled Byzantium pretty bad
Well since we got french and russian dev diary, which are 2 most important nations, then we should at last get polish dev diary, since it is third most important nation... Byzantium can wait, it is like 399 in my list of important nation... propably after chimu.