Events that did happen that rarely or never happen in game

[Antediluvian Monster]

And picking in your example (Russia and Ottomans), if you put a relation malus between them, then explain why that shouldn't be made for every nation that never allied with each other in the game's timeframe.

Russians and Ottos weren't "never allied". They were bloody rivals from Ivan the Terrible until the end of both empires. They had a conflict of religion with Russia being de-facto head of orthodoxy and Ottos holding much of the orthodox lands outside Russia, a competing claim to imperial prestige of Byzantines (adoptation of which is explicitly represented in-game with decisions, both technically optional), and competing interests on Pontic Steppe with, to put it bluntly, the Sultan sheltering guys who kidnapped orthodox Russian sex-slaves for him (Steppe raiding could have better representation to give more incitive to pacify the hordes by annexing or subjugating them, though that's something that should have been done with Cossacks already).

I'm confused why you clicked disagree on my condition based, non-railroaded, non-arbitrary sequence for enabling historical rivalry modifier between Ottos and Russia. It's not like counter-reformed catholics and protestants don't have ideological schism in the game, and in that case too there is cause and effect.

 

[grommile]

I'm confused why you clicked disagree on my condition based, non-railroaded, non-arbitary sequence for enabling historical rivalry modifier between Ottos and Russia. It's not like counter-reformed catholics and protestants don't have ideological schism in the game, and in that case too there is cause and effect.

And in that case, alliances remain possible across the divide. There is no permanent diplomatic penalty between a CR'd Catholic country (which is to say: most of them) and a Protestant or Reformed country.

Now, one thing that would make sense - just generally - is if taking Religious Ideas amplified the size of the opinion penalties for mismatched religion. Muscovy certainly should be taking Religious Ideas (in the event that it routinely fails to do so, that would say to me that the AI weightings for idea groups are wrong).

 

[Mudcrab]

Mughal Empire.

 

[zukodark]

There are some reasons why in-game (specially in mid to late game) "history" takes different paths. The AI will not make stupid and dumb decisions that historical leaders took. The AI will evaluate analistically the situation, instead of going mental because of prejudices, personal prides, and personal animosities, that historical leaders based to take decisions. You can't code the (ir)racional thinking of historical leaders in the game's AI, because if you do, then you'll get a even more stupid and predicable AI.
And picking in your example (Russia and Ottomans), if you put a relation malus between them, then explain why that shouldn't be made for every nation that never allied with each other in the game's timeframe. That's a non-sensical railroading that will act as a forcing hand to keep every game in one single track, from which it can't jump out from.
The game is not about getting to 1821 with a historical outcome. It's impossible to do that. Every nation had tenths of leaders, each with his own abilities, his own way of thinking, his own personal goals, his own vision for his nation. There's only one AI, that "thinks" and "judges" exactly the same way througout the 376 years of the game.

They tried to emulate the differences between rulers somewhat with ruler personalities, and just see how much some people already are complaining. The AI can't emulate historical rulers, but I'd say events and missions can at least make something recognizable, especially in regions such as Asia, where the AI really doesn't suit.

(Not disagreeing with your post, just wanted to continue with my views)

 

[LS22]

I'm confused why you clicked disagree on my condition based, non-railroaded, non-arbitrary sequence for enabling historical rivalry modifier between Ottos and Russia. It's not like counter-reformed catholics and protestants don't have ideological schism in the game, and in that case too there is cause and effect.

Because you're assuming that the history in the game must be same as the real one. I don't. The rival/friendly modifiers in the game are absolutely non-sensical. Why does the game forces 2 nations to being friendly or rival? It could make sense for nations that did engaged in wars against each other in the 50 years before 1444-11-11. But other than that, it's a forcing hand that won't let the game flow naturally. In the case in hand, if the PLC blobbs as it usually does, it makes perfect sense that Russia and Ottomans ally each other to face that emerging threat. But no. Let's just put a modifier so that PLC never has to face both in a war. Non-sensical, imo

 

[LS22]

They tried to emulate the differences between rulers somewhat with ruler personalities, and just see how much some people already are complaining. The AI can't emulate historical rulers, but I'd say events and missions can at least make something recognizable, especially in regions such as Asia, where the AI really doesn't suit.

(Not disagreeing with your post, just wanted to continue with my views)

I see your point, and the ruler traits do go in that direction, but you still have RNG rulers, with RNG stats, and RNG traits. And ruler traits only go so far. You don't have traits that increase/decrease the efficiency/clever ruling of a nation.

 

[grommile]

I see your point, and the ruler traits do go in that direction, but you still have RNG rulers, with RNG stats, and RNG traits. And ruler traits only go so far. You don't have traits that increase/decrease the efficiency/clever ruling of a nation.

There are movements in that direction. Ruler traits affect what options are available in events, and also (IIRC) how the AI approaches the subject of declaring war and signing peace treaties.

 

[Rabid]

The fall of the Timurid Empire is by far the most significant event which almost never happens in a historically plausible way. This has huge repurcussions on the Ottomans and North India, and subsequently leads to underperforming or nonexistant Persia (who should be the primary barrier to Ottoman eastward expansion) and Mughals. The Timurids were almost certainly doomed by 1444 and there should definitely be some kind of Timurid Civil War event chain which usually results in TIM just totally imploding.

Re: Mughals I'm fine with them often not existing but Delhi really could use some love as their actions heavily shaped the poltical landscape in North India which allowed Babur to be successful. There should often be a hegemonic state based around the Indo-Gangetic plain.

After that probably lack of early European involvement in the Indian Ocean and beyond, followed by China stuff (if the Ming collapse, a new dynasty should form, and long periods of competing states in China should be rare; if the Ming manages to last it should usually be because it actually reformed or in EU terms embraced various institutions)

 

[grommile]

The Timurids have an event that tries to make them explode on the death of Ulugh Beg if his successor is bad (but of course his heir might die first and be replaced with someone competent), and an event that tries to make Iran break free.

They just... don't work very reliably. It doesn't help that the Timurids have access to all the normal game mechanics for dealing with rebels, up to and including fighting them; 1.18 has almost certainly aggravated the latter point with its changes to siege relief battles (meaning that all those Iranian mountain forts are now deathtraps for the besieging rebels).

And of course, the normal game mechanics guarantee that the historical route for Iran's formation will never happen.

 

[Rabid]

Yes I know that exists, but just putting loads of RR in some provinces is exactly what isn't going to break up the Timurids in a historically plausible way. Even if revolts do happen, the states which come out are split along cultural lines, which is totally wrong. They should be Uzbek cultured territorial states based around individual major cities to represent the power bases of various factions fighting one another, with the typical result being that these states do a lot of infighting and get conquered from the outside (historically as by the Black / White Sheep Turcomans and Shaybanids). One of the Timurid successors should be able to reunite empire but only by conquering the majority of the major cities of the region (off the top of my head this would be Herat, Samarkand, Bukhara, Merv and probably more)

This should have the potential to happen any time the Timurids have a succession with a weak heir, unless they reform out of Horde government type.

And since I didn't mention it explicitly earlier, to really do North India justice in the time period shortly after 1444 we need some railroading to let the Lodi dynasty do its thing. There's already events for them which basically never happen unless you actually play as Delhi and let the rebels win.