• 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.
Toio said:
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 25 }

No, value = 25 is unacceptably high. A 25% revolt risk means every province has a 25% chance of rebelling every year. It means half of the provinces are going to rebel due to this event. It is worse than a civil war.

1-4 could be considered moderate risk (mild revolts)
5-7 could be considered significant risk (bad revolts)
8-12 could be considered high risk (extremely bad revolts)
13-15 could be considered dangerous risk (Dutch revolts)

Do you have proof that those revolts took place? Because the Celali revolts are already in the folder. If it is just logical that there would be unrest, but proof is lacking, then a moderate value should be used.
 
Fodoron said:
No, value = 25 is unacceptably high. A 25% revolt risk means every province has a 25% chance of rebelling every year. It means half of the provinces are going to rebel due to this event. It is worse than a civil war.

1-4 could be considered moderate risk (mild revolts)
5-7 could be considered significant risk (bad revolts)
8-12 could be considered high risk (extremely bad revolts)
13-15 could be considered dangerous risk (Dutch revolts)

Do you have proof that those revolts took place? Because the Celali revolts are already in the folder. If it is just logical that there would be unrest, but proof is lacking, then a moderate value should be used.

Ok , thanks,

then are 4 would suffice
 
Basically, if I get an event with text like that, saying that such and such a course of events happened, I'd expect to be able to have a crack at going the other way - the HYW, for example, repeatedly allows you to option_b stuff.
 
Toio said:
I only printed what was on the net, which confirmed with my books.
I figured that. But alot of those statements are over-generalizations, that distort how it really happened. Not exactly a rare phenomonen in overview histories like that.
 
|AXiN| said:
Basically, if I get an event with text like that, saying that such and such a course of events happened, I'd expect to be able to have a crack at going the other way - the HYW, for example, repeatedly allows you to option_b stuff.

Of course, options_b are there to give choice. But you do not always have an option because events unravel from a previous choice. You might have a choice about raising taxes or not, but if you do you don't have a choice about rebellions. In this case you had a choice about getting Janissary under control. If you did not, then you are no longer capable of defeating them, as they have become more powerful than you. I see no problem with this and Osman did die due to the Janissary rebellion. In fact the text is showing the effects of the Janissary decline, while the commands are the deepening of the problem as time goes by. The text provides a nice explanation for Osman's short reign. Probably the death of Osman had worse effects in OE, I don't really know.

I don't see an option_b as very logical. What could it be? that Osman triumphed? That was extremely unlikely. The Janissary were still very powerful militarily. That Osman did not try? That is more plausible, but he did try and in any case he dies unless the monarchs are changed (at least 3 monarchs must be changed).

If the player doesn't want to suffer from Janissary problems he can say so by option_b in previous events. If he wants to go historic, does not need option_b. The AI should behave historically. I don't see an outstanding need for an option_b for the remaining events except as a backdoor to get an easy way out, while the AI stays to face the dance.

However if most people believe that all the events should have an option_b, then I'll redo them. But all the options_b added should be worse than option_b in event VIIb.
 
It was not impossible for Osman to triumph. Basically, the Janisaries figured out why Osman was going on the hadj, which was to gather an army in Syria and Egypt and then march on Constantinople to destroy the Janisaries. If he had successfully left the city, it's possible history might have turned out differently.

In the long run, only economic revolution of the sort going on in NW Europe could have saved the OE. This would have required more than the will of a strong sultan, but the empire might have been spared thirty-forty years of political instablity, possibly having the capacity to intervene decisively in the Thirty Years War.
 
chegitz guevara said:
It was not impossible for Osman to triumph. Basically, the Janisaries figured out why Osman was going on the hadj, which was to gather an army in Syria and Egypt and then march on Constantinople to destroy the Janisaries. If he had successfully left the city, it's possible history might have turned out differently.

There are too many ifs... Osman was not an experienced military leader, was young and impulsive (2, 1, 1, 0 perhaps?). The military centralization of the Empire ment that there was no good army waiting to be picked up, just the scattered garrisons, and high officials personal troops. The recruitment was very problematic and the quality of the recruited troops dubious. And then against them they would have the best equipped and trained troops in the empire. Extremely motivated because they were fighting for their lifes and privileges. I would say his chances were zero. This type of things only work in the movies.

It took Mahmud 10 years of careful moves to be able to do it, and this was in 1826, when the Janissaries had hit the bottom of their military capability.
 
I disagree. The Janisaries would only be able to count on themselves, and there were only 25,000 to 30,000 Janisaries scattered through the empire at this time (most them in the capital, though). Murad IV was able to reduce their numbers to 17,000 at the time of his majority (having reached 40,000 before that). Against this, Osman, as bad as he was, would have been able to muster at least half his forces, possibly as many as 100,000 troops.

By this time, the Janisaries were no longer the feared martial force they once were, with European military experts noting that they now fled easily. Their primary power lay in the fact that they were able to seize control of the capital, sultan, and his officials with little effort. It was so hard for the sultan to move against them because he was, essentially, their captive. Even attempts to create additional specialized units were met with resistence, since they would be a threat to the Janisaries.

Far from their being too many ifs, there's only one. If Osman could escape Istabul . . .
 
Islamization of Albania

Found this article on Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia that explain about albania anomali than other balkan nation.

"During four centuries of extensive rule, the Ottomans failed to control all of Albania. In the highland regions, Ottoman power was weak, and the Albanians refused to pay taxes or perform military service. The Albanians staged several rebellions, partly in defense of their Christian faith. At the end of the 16th century, the Ottomans began a policy of Islamicization (conversion to Islam) as a way of preventing future unrest. By the end of the 17th century, about two-thirds of the population had converted to Islam, many to avoid the heavy tax levied against Christians. The Ottomans also extended their control through a feudal-military system, under which military leaders who were loyal to the empire received landed estates."
 
chegitz guevara said:
Far from their being too many ifs, there's only one. If Osman could escape Istabul . . .

All this is obviously highly especulative. But if you want to fight Osmans battles, it shouldn't be easy at all. Introduced an option_b, new leader and new monarch in post 88.

You guys are making me work too much ;)
 
And these are the last two janissary events. I would swear that by now no option_b is required, but... :confused:

Code:
# Janissary decadence VI #
event = {
	id = ????
	random = no
	country = TUR
	name = "Janissaries oppose reforms"
	desc = "With the admittance of the sons of Janissaries, the former rigorous and harsh training that had guaranteed the quality of the corps had entered decadence, as the fathers did not want to impose on their sons the almost brutal training that the Janissary academy, the acemi oglan, required in the past. During the war against Venice, and while the janissaries deposed and killed sultan Ibrahim, attempts were made to improve the training and increase its duration, but the cadets at the acemi oglan rebelled twice, in 1657 and 1659, to oppose such changes. As a result, while the western armies were introducing the reforms pioneered by Maurice of Nassau, of the Netherlands, and Gustav Adolf of Sweden, the Ottoman army remained in the past, ignoring the military revolutions introduced since the Italian wars."
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = april year = 1658 }

	action_a ={
		name = "We are falling back."
		command = { type = land value = -3000 }
		command = { type = naval value = -1000 }
		command = { type = domestic which = INNOVATIVE value = -1 }
	}
}


# Janissary decadence VII #
event = {
	id = ????
	trigger = {
		AND = {
			domestic = { type = innovative value = 1 }
			NOT = { domestic = { type = aristocracy value = 9 } }
		}
	}
	random = no
	country = TUR
	name = "End of the devshirmeh"
	desc = "Despite their obvious decadence, the Janissary, allied to the Bektashi order of dervishes (muslim monks) and the Ulema (learned), as defenders of the old tradition, conserved and increased their reputation, associated by people with the former glory of the past Muslim victories, and resisted any reformation attempt until their end in 1826. During the disastrous war against Austria and Poland of 1683-1698 the rules of admission were suspended, and the janissaries doubled their size. The devshirmeh or Christian boys levy was gradually abandoned. From then on, only sons of the janissaries, family members or those who bought admission could enter this social elite. For all practical purposes the Janissary had become hereditary, and their numbers continued to increase."
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = april year = 1683 }

	action_a ={
		name = "The old ways are tried and true."
		command = { type = land value = -3000 }
		command = { type = naval value = -1000 }
		command = { type = domestic which = OFFENSIVE value = -1 }
	}
}
 
Last edited:
About the Osman event - I don't think option B should give quality or add to land research - you're more removing impediments to increasing them than actually increasing them. Also, I'd suggest that the losebuilding and at least one each of the revolts and desertions should be -2 - the Janissaries were strongest in the capital, and it isn't necessarily Thrace.

Event VI - "Maurice of Nassau of Netherlands" sounds forced, I'd suggest "Maurice of Nassau, of the Netherlands" Also, "impose their sons with the almost brutal training" could probably work better as "impose on their sons the almost brutal training"

Event VII - "associated by people to the former glory of the Muslim victories of the past" should be "associated by people with the former glory of the past Muslim victories"
 
|AXiN| said:
About the Osman event - I don't think option B should give quality or add to land research - you're more removing impediments to increasing them than actually increasing them.

Implemented

|AXiN| said:
Also, I'd suggest that the losebuilding and at least one each of the revolts and desertions should be -2 - the Janissaries were strongest in the capital, and it isn't necessarily Thrace.

The losebuilding targets the barracks, that more or less represents the acemi oglan (I guess) and helps them in the first period. This doesn't get moved with the capital (perhaps should). The desertions will follow the armies wherever they are, this avoids minor cheating that we all tend to do, and in the case of the AI the many times when there are no armies in the capital. Some revolts do target the capital

|AXiN| said:
Event VI - "Maurice of Nassau of Netherlands" sounds forced, I'd suggest "Maurice of Nassau, of the Netherlands" Also, "impose their sons with the almost brutal training" could probably work better as "impose on their sons the almost brutal training"

Event VII - "associated by people to the former glory of the Muslim victories of the past" should be "associated by people with the former glory of the past Muslim victories"

Thanks. It is very nice to have somebody actually reading the events :) , I recently posted about 10 events in another thread and did not get a single comment :(
 
Fodoron said:
The losebuilding targets the barracks, that more or less represents the acemi oglan (I guess) and helps them in the first period. This doesn't get moved with the capital (perhaps should). The desertions will follow the armies wherever they are, this avoids minor cheating that we all tend to do, and in the case of the AI the many times when there are no armies in the capital. Some revolts do target the capital

I'm just concerned about those times when the AI chooses to stay out of Constantinople, and those when the Army reforms trigger before the capital moves. Perhaps the move of capital event could include losing the barracks in the old capital and building one in Thrace.

I'm happy to help, the Ottomans are probably my all-time favourite state to play.
 
|AXiN| said:
I'm just concerned about those times when the AI chooses to stay out of Constantinople, and those when the Army reforms trigger before the capital moves. Perhaps the move of capital event could include losing the barracks in the old capital and building one in Thrace.

I'm happy to help, the Ottomans are probably my all-time favourite state to play.

I'll check if by stating which = -1, the event looks for the only province with a barrack. That would make the event more versatile. IMHO changing the capital to Istanbul should change also the barracks there, but that is beyond the scope of these events.
 
The last event of the series is the big economical crisis of the Ottoman Empire, that made all the rest look small.

Code:
#Economical crisis#
event = {
	id = ????
	trigger = {
		AND = {
			owned = { province = 359 data = -1 } # Hellas
			owned = { province = 355 data = -1 } # Serbia
			neighbor = RUS
			size = 25
		}
	}
	random = no
	country = TUR
	name = "Hyperinflation and nationalism"
	desc = "In 1780, under finantial constrains after the Russian war over Crimea, the Ottoman government started to resort to currency debasement. The resulting inflation and the rebellions that it caused, together with more wars prompted more debasements until 1850 creating a massive hyperinflation of 1,200 to 1,500% leading to the replacement of the Akche by the Kurus, at a rate of 120 to one, and exacerbating every problem in the Ottoman Empire. Eventually even the British Pound was affected by this crisis that led to lack of foreign credit by the Ottoman government and temporary foreign finantial control of the debt administration in 1881. This long economical crisis marks the lowest point of the Ottoman Empire, and coincides with a period of extreme difficulty characterized by Anatolian and Balkan uprisings, Greek and Serbian independentism and wars against Russia, Iran and Egypt. Given the evident decline, strong attempts at reformation were made in the XIX century, but they came too late for the Empire."
	style = 3

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1780 }
	offset = 300
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1819 }

	action_a ={ 
		name = "Rats!"
		command = { type = treasury value = -1000 }
		command = { type = loansize which = 200 }
		command = { type = inflation value = 15 }
		command = { type = stability value = -3 }
		command = { type = losemanufactory which = -1 }
		command = { type = losemanufactory which = -1 }
		command = { type = losemanufactory which = -1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION  value = -2 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 120 value = 3 }
		command = { type = infra value = -5000 }
	}
}

With this event the series is complete. I will conduct thorough testing and report the results in due time.
 
Last edited:
zacharym87 said:
This last event seems pretty harsh, especially the mega-cash hit, that could easily bankrupt an AI or a human who isn't actively reading ahead to plan for events.

Well, that is the idea. This event is copied from one of the Spanish bankruptcies and it should actually produce a bankruptcy (I'll have to test it). Although several countries went bankrupt in the XVII century, Spain and the Ottoman Empire were probably the two most hardly hit, because their economies were very improductive in relative terms, and were both in the decline, with expenses way above their incomes. But in EU2 bankruptcies are not that harsh ;), many of us start a game with a couple of them, and by 1780 every player has inflation zero and governors everywhere.
 
Fodoron said:
All this is obviously highly especulative. But if you want to fight Osmans battles, it shouldn't be easy at all. Introduced an option_b, new leader and new monarch in post 88.

You guys are making me work too much ;)

I don't disagree, but I'm still working on getting the 1st century fixed. I hadn't intended to get to the 17th Century for a while. I think that tossing three centuries worth of Ottoman events into one thread is simplly asking for a shitload of stuff to get lost in the shuffle. Furthermore, I'd like to get actual history fixed before we start on speculative history.
 
chegitz guevara said:
I don't disagree, but I'm still working on getting the 1st century fixed. I hadn't intended to get to the 17th Century for a while. I think that tossing three centuries worth of Ottoman events into one thread is simplly asking for a shitload of stuff to get lost in the shuffle. Furthermore, I'd like to get actual history fixed before we start on speculative history.

Absolutely. I am an adament defender of real history taking the front seat in AGCEEP. However the XV century Europe gets about 60% of the events and it still performs very poorly. I believe we should get things done and working properly now, even if later we need to fill gaps, refine and rework some events. Too many good threads filled with proposals end in nothing.