Mughal Questions for 1.5

[Mrath]

So after reading a bit on the forums and playing some myself in 1.5, I think a Timurid->Mughal game is in order, especially as a way to honor the coming RoI expansion for CK2. I've played this start once in 1.3 and had a couple of questions...

1. Moving the capital to Delhi, is it worth it? The culture you wind up with as your primary only constitutes like 3 provinces and you are in a junk trade node. I suppose it does wind up with good base tax and is centrally located but still.
2. Speaking of culture, is it generally worth it to convert culture of the provinces or with your unique ideas should you have enough tolerance to keep rebellions to a minimum? I've recently been playing a highly successful Sweden game and told myself I wasn't going to convert any of the Danish culture provinces, but I got so tired of Halland rebelling that I eventually did. India seems like it could be a lot worse..again depending on how well the Mughals ideas work.
3. Since by and large I'll be focusing my conquering on the Indian subcontinent, is westernization worth it? If i want to force vassalize and annex it may not be worth it until very late...

 

[Alpinia]

So after reading a bit on the forums and playing some myself in 1.5, I think a Timurid->Mughal game is in order, especially as a way to honor the coming RoI expansion for CK2. I've played this start once in 1.3 and had a couple of questions...

1. Speaking of culture, is it generally worth it to convert culture of the provinces or with your unique ideas should you have enough tolerance to keep rebellions to a minimum? I've recently been playing a highly successful Sweden game and told myself I wasn't going to convert any of the Danish culture provinces, but I got so tired of Halland rebelling that I eventually did. India seems like it could be a lot worse..again depending on how well the Mughals ideas work.

Why did you have problems with Halland rebelling in your Sweden game? With non-negative stability, good/average legitimacy and same religion even non-accepted culture shouldn't be giving you any rebel problems.

 

[Mrath]

Might have been after I had an heir inherit that fire the -20 claim strength event as I was pretty much always above 0 stability. I did also have since high war exhaustion at one point and a ton of loans in a war with Russia but stability should have still been good. That's what was strange, I didn't think that one little spit of land should rebel so much.

 

[Alblaka]

Delhi definitely isn'T worth it. The minor gain in basetax and manpower doesn't even remotely offset the trade you gain from samarkand vs delhi. The culture change might be useful, but only later on if you actually hold vast india territory.

 

[gajop]

So after reading a bit on the forums and playing some myself in 1.5, I think a Timurid->Mughal game is in order, especially as a way to honor the coming RoI expansion for CK2. I've played this start once in 1.3 and had a couple of questions...

1. Moving the capital to Delhi, is it worth it? The culture you wind up with as your primary only constitutes like 3 provinces and you are in a junk trade node. I suppose it does wind up with good base tax and is centrally located but still.
2. Speaking of culture, is it generally worth it to convert culture of the provinces or with your unique ideas should you have enough tolerance to keep rebellions to a minimum? I've recently been playing a highly successful Sweden game and told myself I wasn't going to convert any of the Danish culture provinces, but I got so tired of Halland rebelling that I eventually did. India seems like it could be a lot worse..again depending on how well the Mughals ideas work.
3. Since by and large I'll be focusing my conquering on the Indian subcontinent, is westernization worth it? If i want to force vassalize and annex it may not be worth it until very late...

1. Yes, you get nice bonuses you really need in the early game, and no one is forcing you to change your culture. Indian cultures suck in general - there isn't one culture group for the entire India.
2. No you shouldn't be converting cultures, save diplo for peace deals, and diplomatic/explo ideas.
3. Don't westernize until after you have full control of India, China and Indochina. That should be about 1600, and after that you should westernize to be able to take on Europe (fast).

 

[ciadude2]

My Timurid>Mughals game was one of the most challenging I've played in EUIV. I failed the first time, with my empire succumbing to rebellions just as I managed to form the Mughals.

1. It is worth it if you hold lots of Indian land, which is recommended as it's the richest area around really.
2. Rebellions tend to decline as Indian culture becomes tolerated. I say save the diplomat points.
3. Westernization helps, but becoming the Mughals automatically jumps you up from steppe to Muslim, making you the most advanced major country in the region, so you will have that edge over the Indians even if you choose never to westernize. Russia may become a problem later on as they expand into Siberia, but allying with the Golden Horde/Uzbek/Crimea can slow their advance considerably.

 

[LarryLeica]

1. DoW QQ for your cores ASAP.
1a. RM Ottomans - they have heir issues, possible PU, but beware, you have same issue.

2. Release Persia, and/or convert to Shiite.

3. Take religious ideas.

4. Get provinces you need for Mughals, and form them.

5. Take the hordes to the north so you can cut the Russians off.

6. Win game.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

So after reading a bit on the forums and playing some myself in 1.5, I think a Timurid->Mughal game is in order, especially as a way to honor the coming RoI expansion for CK2. I've played this start once in 1.3 and had a couple of questions...

1. Moving the capital to Delhi, is it worth it? The culture you wind up with as your primary only constitutes like 3 provinces and you are in a junk trade node. I suppose it does wind up with good base tax and is centrally located but still.
2. Speaking of culture, is it generally worth it to convert culture of the provinces or with your unique ideas should you have enough tolerance to keep rebellions to a minimum? I've recently been playing a highly successful Sweden game and told myself I wasn't going to convert any of the Danish culture provinces, but I got so tired of Halland rebelling that I eventually did. India seems like it could be a lot worse..again depending on how well the Mughals ideas work.
3. Since by and large I'll be focusing my conquering on the Indian subcontinent, is westernization worth it? If i want to force vassalize and annex it may not be worth it until very late...

Playing one now, successful (though not iron man, and I'd do a few things differently knowing what I know now).

(1) I moved the capital to Delhi (via the decision of course), and, while it hasn't stopped me from massive expansion, if I had to do it again I probably wouldn't. Note that, contra one of the other responses, you have no choice but to take the culture change if you take the decision (moving it there the normal way would make no sense of course). And, also contra other posts, most other Indian Cultures are NOT accepted, because there are at least 2, and, if I recall (game not open at the moment) three different cultural groups in India. From a trade perspective, I'm not sure Samarkand is ideal either; if I was min/maxing, I probably would have moved my capital to one of the better trade nodes.
(2) Do not convert culture. There will be a lot of stress on your diplo points as it is, even lagging behind in diplo tech, because of peace deal and idea groups.
(3) Late westernization is indeed worth it, even necessary. I westernized prematurely (finished in 1590) because of, in hindsight, exaggerated fear of a blobbing Ottomans, so I missed out on a few pieces of Asia. At a minimum, though, you'll want all of India and China owned or vassalized before you westernize. Of course I assume that you know how to get all of China for no coring cost and very little AE via three vassals. On that note, don't delay too long or you'll lose the Xi cores.

Also, I would definitely take some time to cut of the Russians early. I did it non confrontationally by heading north through the Uzbeks and colonizing. They have left me alone the entire game so far.

Oh, and perhaps stating the obvious, but form Moghuls ASAP to avoid even one succession crisis. Two wars will do it. Your monarch starts out fairly old, but he should live long enough for two wars & coring time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. DoW QQ for your cores ASAP.
1a. RM Ottomans - they have heir issues, possible PU, but beware, you have same issue.

2. Release Persia, and/or convert to Shiite.

3. Take religious ideas.

4. Get provinces you need for Mughals, and form them.

5. Take the hordes to the north so you can cut the Russians off.

6. Win game.

I mostly agree with this, but AI QQ tends to overextend itself or wind up in wars that screw it over, so it might be easier on your resources=faster to conquer softer targets initially. As long as you DoW before your cores expire, you can release Persia and still declare on them whenever, such as when they're at war with the Mamluks, GH, or Ottomans.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

One other point about China - I'm not sure that this is optimum for other reasons (you really should be able to have all of China before westernization), but you can avoid some diplo point expenditure by having all three China vassals before you westernize, but NOT completing feeding them. This assumes of course you have completely filled out expansion. Because the relevant CB, which of course you can't use until westernized, give no diplo cost for cores returned to a vassal, whereas the Cbs you have available before then do carry a diplo cost.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

One other point about China - I'm not sure that this is optimum for other reasons (you really should be able to have all of China before westernization), but you can avoid some diplo point expenditure by having all three China vassals before you westernize, but NOT completing feeding them. This assumes of course you have completely filled out expansion. Because the relevant CB, which of course you can't use until westernized, give no diplo cost for cores returned to a vassal, whereas the Cbs you have available before then do carry a diplo cost.

It will help, but not much. The trick in China is to mostly let your vassals take the land, and give it to them (vassals will get occupation credit on their own cores), which also costs you 0 dip.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

It will help, but not much. The trick in China is to mostly let your vassals take the land, and give it to them (vassals will get occupation credit on their own cores), which also costs you 0 dip.

Yeah, I was able to get about 1/5 of the provinces this way (and another 1/5 from the CB, as I had not finished feeding my third vassal when I westernized). The problems with getting more - mainly other vassals take provinces, also, since you can gobble up the provinces for the first two so quickly, waiting for the proper vassal to take the proper province can mean long wars and and/or more wars.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Don't bother with proper provinves, just give them whatever they take...should be minimal trouble getting near 100% WS in most cases.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

Don't bother with proper provinves, just give them whatever they take...should be minimal trouble getting near 100% WS in most cases.

But the vassals that don't have a core don't take them for themselves, they take them for the overlord - so that doesn't work. Unless I am misunderstanding you. Your tactic works only when a vassal with a claim or core on a province takes that province. At least in 1.5, and, I am pretty sure, 1.4. I don't recall for 1.3, and didn't have the game prior to that.