Ottomans 1419 - 1520

[Norrefeldt]

After listening for comments from Fodoron and Toio, I make a new suggestion.

Fodoron, this was introduced a while ago since reports told it was a serious problem. We haven't heard much of it since, but that's of course due to the old events, that worked sufficiently well. It was also deemed important that OE got a good historical start in at least 95% of our games, and that this was a main problem, and possible to fix, but not prevent in a normal way.

I have made it one option only, since it's only for the AI. That also removes all the problems with the war command against allies etc. Sunni nations, and those close to OE (Wallachia, Albania, Bosnia) should hand it over. I have removed the relation increase, since it will make DA more likely.

event = {
	id = 338009
	trigger ={
		exists = TUR
		ai = yes
		NOT = { 
			owned = { province = 357 data = BYZ }
			owned = { province = 357 data = TUR }
		}
		OR = {
			religion = sunni
			command = { type = relation which = TUR data = 100 }
			vassal   = { country = TUR country = -1 }
			alliance   = { country = TUR country = -1 )
			}
        }
	random = no
	province = 357
	name = "The Turkish Sultan demands Constantinople"
	desc = "Our friends the Turks are now agitating to add Constantinople to their empire."

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419}
	offset = 360
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = december year = 1820 }

	action_a ={ 
		name = "We will hand it over"
		command = { type = secedeprovince  which = TUR  value = 357 }
		command = { type = treasury value = 50 }
	}
}

 

[unmerged(49930)]

I am unhappy with this, BYZ had 8000 to defend constantinople and of those 8000 , 2000 were foreigners.

There fleet was also very small.

What do you suggest, for the numbers??

Well they should not be playable Otto capital should be in that province. In 1453 they should get the CoT, population and economic boost.

Other than that, if keeping BYZ is so important, Thrace should not supply a good manpower until the city of man's desire event like agung pasha suggested. (Around the numbers of Theodoros may be. 5000?) They can call mercenaries but they don't have any land to recruit people from. Also they should not have a navy more than 2 ships. But the conquest of the city also shouldn't be very easy if you are going to keep BYZ there.

OE is not strong in the beginning navalwise. Making Thrace an island like Venice and putting BYZ into an alliance with VEN may be? That way Venice may protect BYZ until TUR builds a decent sized navy. TUR capturing Constantinople before 1453 won't be ahistoric really. It was going to be conquered in 1396 if Bayezid didn't have to fight with the Hungarians. Then the defeat to Timur in 1402 just delayed it for a while.

But I don't know if it is meaningful to represent a state that had no chance. First thing BYZ must do to have a chance survival is to somehow recapture Thrace so that it will have some manpower for future wars. How can It do it in game when It is already holding Thrace on the map? Hmm.... You can give BYZ the manpower back if It defeats Ottomans in a war I guess, representing Thrace as a province back in Byzantine hands.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Where do you get the information on the navy? With the new map, there will be another province here, where OE actually had it's capital. I agree about the manpower though, and the new province (Bosporos) ought to have little. We could make your suggested change for now.

But I don't know if it is meaningful to represent a state that had no chance. First thing BYZ must do to have a chance survival is to somehow recapture Thrace so that it will have some manpower for future wars. How can It do it in game when It is already holding Thrace on the map? Hmm.... You can give BYZ the manpower back if It defeats Ottomans in a war I guess, representing Thrace as a province back in Byzantine hands.

AGCEEP strives to be an historical mod, noty a mod of "meaningful" events. thus, everything that can be modelled well with the engine we have is by definition "meaningful".

 

[unmerged(49930)]

AGCEEP strives to be an historical mod, noty a mod of "meaningful" events. thus, everything that can be modelled well with the engine we have is by definition "meaningful".

Sure. What I meant was it is going to be selectable country with absolutely no chance. It may be better represented by events since it does not even have the %95 of the province it is represented in and should have no chance of survival. Some small states are only represented by events.

In many of the situations the game engine and the map forces you to make a choice, and you pick the one which sounds most reasonable. In this case you have a province which should have two capitals and I am discussing how the situation could be modelled better.

 

[Norrefeldt]

It may be better represented by events since it does not even have the %95 of the province it is represented in and should have no chance of survival. Some small states are only represented by events.

No small states involved in wars and with a fair chance of historical behaviour are modelled by events.
In this case the outcome of the BYZ-TUR war can be affected by a player, of BYZ, TUR or anyone else.

In many of the situations the game engine and the map forces you to make a choice, and you pick the one which sounds most reasonable. In this case you have a province which should have two capitals and I am discussing how the situation could be modelled better.

Indeed, but in this case the new map will have a divided Thrace province, and it won't be an issue anymore.

 

[unmerged(29318)]

To me this is an unproblem :wacko:
both in agceep game and mymap game 99% OE conquer BYZ (with CoT)...
and very often in before the 1453 date...
Just in the Player games the life is easier than normal.

We talk about vanilla not MyMAP. Couse in MyMAP, i modified some situation like preventing Byz invade Aydin, reduce army quality etc.

 

[niceta]

even in Vanilla OE conquer 99% BYZ

 

[unmerged(29318)]

even in Vanilla OE conquer 99% BYZ

i know that but depend on your game setting, and too late that couse many event didn't fire. no wonder i often see till 1530 Bosnia still vassal of Otto.

 

[aylo1]

Cultures for the Ottoman Empire

I'm not sure if this has been discussed already, but what are everyone's views on the 'cultures' for TUR in 1419??

In my own opinion, I think they should only start off with the 'turkish' culture till the 'city of men's desire' event' this should add the greek, arabic & slavic cultures.

My reasoning behind this is til the conquest of constantinople, the Ottomans weren't really an empire & the bulk of their lands were in Anatolia. Sure they had Bulgaria, Macedonia etc aswell but according to my research, those lands weren't very stable, so the occasional uprising would be hist accurate.

Why i chose the 'city of men's desire event' to add the cultures? Basically the Ottomans began thinking themselves as the 'successors of Rome' & Europe began to take them seriously at this point. In addition, the Ottoman's greatest period of expansion happened after this from Mehmed II to Suleiman I.

What are your thoughts on this??

Aylo1

 

[unmerged(29318)]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed already, but what are everyone's views on the 'cultures' for TUR in 1419??

In my own opinion, I think they should only start off with the 'turkish' culture till the 'city of men's desire' event' this should add the greek, arabic & slavic cultures.

My reasoning behind this is til the conquest of constantinople, the Ottomans weren't really an empire & the bulk of their lands were in Anatolia. Sure they had Bulgaria, Macedonia etc aswell but according to my research, those lands weren't very stable, so the occasional uprising would be hist accurate.

Why i chose the 'city of men's desire event' to add the cultures? Basically the Ottomans began thinking themselves as the 'successors of Rome' & Europe began to take them seriously at this point. In addition, the Ottoman's greatest period of expansion happened after this from Mehmed II to Suleiman I.

What are your thoughts on this??

Aylo1

They will got poor provinces in half of empire. provs Income penalty 30% from wrong culture and 30% from wrong religion. opposite from real life
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4827086&postcount=614

 

[Toio]

After listening for comments from Fodoron and Toio, I make a new suggestion.

Fodoron, this was introduced a while ago since reports told it was a serious problem. We haven't heard much of it since, but that's of course due to the old events, that worked sufficiently well. It was also deemed important that OE got a good historical start in at least 95% of our games, and that this was a main problem, and possible to fix, but not prevent in a normal way.

I have made it one option only, since it's only for the AI. That also removes all the problems with the war command against allies etc. Sunni nations, and those close to OE (Wallachia, Albania, Bosnia) should hand it over. I have removed the relation increase, since it will make DA more likely.

event = {
	id = 338009
	trigger ={
		exists = TUR
		ai = yes
		NOT = { 
			owned = { province = 357 data = BYZ }
			owned = { province = 357 data = TUR }
		}
		OR = {
			religion = sunni
			command = { type = relation which = TUR data = 100 }
			vassal   = { country = TUR country = -1 }
			alliance   = { country = TUR country = -1 )
			}
        }
	random = no
	province = 357
	name = "The Turkish Sultan demands Constantinople"
	desc = "Our friends the Turks are now agitating to add Constantinople to their empire."

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419}
	offset = 360
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = december year = 1820 }

	action_a ={ 
		name = "We will hand it over"
		command = { type = secedeprovince  which = TUR  value = 357 }
		command = { type = treasury value = 50 }
	}
}

If this is the correct event for submission , then why the b choice in the submission thread ?

also change deathdate to 1601 as the movement of cot to thrace ends on the 1600

 

[Norrefeldt]

:wacko: Thanks, I submitted the wrong version! Fixed.

 

[Toio]

like to propose the following event

event = {
	id = 999999
	trigger = {
                  exists = KNI
                  atwar = no
                  }
	random = no
	country = MAM
	name = "Piratical Knights"
	desc = "By 1444, the Soldan of Egypt, Zaher Gaqmaq was so distraught with the loss of revenue between Aleppo and Alexandria by the piratical Latins, that he decided to capture the Island of Rhodes and put an end to the nest of pirates who harboured there under the protection of the Knights of Rhodes." 

	date = { day = 10 month = august year = 1444 }
	offset = 60
	deathdate = { day = 19 month = december year = 1454 }

	action_a = {
		name = "We need to curb the piratical Knights"
		command = { type = casusbelli which = KNI value = 60 } 
		command = { type = trade value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -50 }
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 5 }
		command = { type = transports which = -1 value = 5 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Rely on our fleet to safe guard the waters"
		command = { type = inflation value = 1 }
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 10 }
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -20 }
		command = { type = trade value = -300 }
	}
}

amended

 

[Norrefeldt]

Just curiousity, did he succeed in his plan? The piracy was common here, so an event for it is nice. I don't think A should raise MAM-TUR relations, since we have a big problem with them becoming allies. The inflation +2, and in combination with -500 in trade, makes B awfully bad.

 

[Toio]

Just curiousity, did he succeed in his plan? The piracy was common here, so an event for it is nice. I don't think A should raise MAM-TUR relations, since we have a big problem with them becoming allies. The inflation +2, and in combination with -500 in trade, makes B awfully bad.

seige went for 6 months, 4 of which was heavy and 2 more of a blockade.

agree with u on relations MAM-TUR.

what do you think inflation +1

the only thing this seige did was to prevent venetian citizens being pirates as the venetians wanted good rel with alexandria. I think Piero Marcello was the first VEN pirate to be strung up as an example by the Venetians in Aleppo.

in 1428 the MAM seige and destroyed Cyprus for the same thing, the king of Cyprus was paraded in cairo on a donkey for a while until the "crusader" states paid 200000 ducats for his release. The MAM did not stay on Cyprus , but did devastate it .

 

[Toio]

post 633, amended

 

[Norrefeldt]

There's still no balance. You get ships in both, slightly better ones in B. Apart from that everything in A is good, and all in B quite bad. Here's my suggestion:

event = {
	id = 999999
	trigger = {
                  exists = KNI
                  atwar = no
                  }
	random = no
	country = MAM
	name = "Piratical Knights"
	desc = "By 1444, the Soldan of Egypt, Zaher Gaqmaq was so distraught with the loss of revenue between Aleppo and Alexandria by the piratical Latins, that he decided to capture the Island of Rhodes and put an end to the nest of pirates who harboured there under the protection of the Knights of Rhodes." 

	date = { day = 10 month = august year = 1444 }
	offset = 60
	deathdate = { day = 19 month = december year = 1454 }

	action_a = {
		name = "We need to curb the piratical Knights"
		command = { type = casusbelli which = KNI value = 60 } 
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -50 }
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 5 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Rely on our fleet to safe guard the waters"
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 10 }
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -20 }
		command = { type = trade value = -300 }
	}
}

 

[Toio]

There's still no balance. You get ships in both, slightly better ones in B. Apart from that everything in A is good, and all in B quite bad. Here's my suggestion:

event = {
	id = 999999
	trigger = {
                  exists = KNI
                  atwar = no
                  }
	random = no
	country = MAM
	name = "Piratical Knights"
	desc = "By 1444, the Soldan of Egypt, Zaher Gaqmaq was so distraught with the loss of revenue between Aleppo and Alexandria by the piratical Latins, that he decided to capture the Island of Rhodes and put an end to the nest of pirates who harboured there under the protection of the Knights of Rhodes." 

	date = { day = 10 month = august year = 1444 }
	offset = 60
	deathdate = { day = 19 month = december year = 1454 }

	action_a = {
		name = "We need to curb the piratical Knights"
		command = { type = casusbelli which = KNI value = 60 } 
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -50 }
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 5 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Rely on our fleet to safe guard the waters"
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 10 }
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -20 }
		command = { type = trade value = -300 }
	}
}

you need transports to go and seige an island. ?
I still think this is applicable for action a
command = { type = transports which = -1 value = 5 }

would you not gain some monetary/trade relief in action a due to seigeing and controlling the waters around rhodes , be it only for 6 months?

 

[Norrefeldt]

Well, transports are good, but the gallyes can also have troops on them. Would you prefer changing to transports instead of galleys? I'm fine with that.
I agree it would give some relief for trade during the campaign, and to keep the balance the -300 could be removed from B and the +100 reinserted in A, and instead remove some merchants?

action_a = {
		name = "We need to curb the piratical Knights"
		command = { type = casusbelli which = KNI value = 60 } 
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -50 }
		command = { type = transports which = -1 value = 5 }
		command = { type = trade value = 100 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Rely on our fleet to safe guard the waters"
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 10 }
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -20 }
		command = { type = merchants   value = -3 }
	}

 

[Toio]

Well, transports are good, but the gallyes can also have troops on them. Would you prefer changing to transports instead of galleys? I'm fine with that.
I agree it would give some relief for trade during the campaign, and to keep the balance the -300 could be removed from B and the +100 reinserted in A, and instead remove some merchants?

action_a = {
		name = "We need to curb the piratical Knights"
		command = { type = casusbelli which = KNI value = 60 } 
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -50 }
		command = { type = transports which = -1 value = 5 }
		command = { type = trade value = 100 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Rely on our fleet to safe guard the waters"
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 10 }
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -20 }
		command = { type = merchants   value = -3 }
	}

If 5 transports equals 10 galleys in transporting troops then its best to have 10 galley instead for a , though with the KNI having an average of 15000 troops on rhodes, i find that we need to match this , else MAMs will not try to land troops there

my suggestion then

]action_a = {
		name = "We need to curb the piratical Knights"
		command = { type = casusbelli which = KNI value = 60 } 
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -50 }
                command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 5 }
		command = { type = transports which = -1 value = 5 }
		command = { type = trade value = 100 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Rely on our fleet to safe guard the waters"
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 10 }
		command = { type = relation which = KNI value = -20 }
		command = { type = merchants   value = -3 }