Random Events.

[Norrefeldt]

You mean

		OR = {
			religion = sunni
			religion = [COLOR=gold]shiite[/COLOR]
		}

aren't you?

Yes, thanks. Changed it.

 

[Garbon]

Not that I know of a way around it, but does one province of hindus really equal a large population?

 

[Norrefeldt]

Not that I know of a way around it, but does one province of hindus really equal a large population?

No, but I guess the event should happen to everyone with a hindu minority.

 

[Khephren]

So, I suggest all events on this topic is replaced by only one event:

event = {
	id = 910088
	trigger = {
		OR = {
			religion = sunni
			religion = shiite
		}			
		provincereligion = { province = -1 data = hindu[COLOR=DarkRed]ism[/COLOR] }
		continent = asia
		domestic = { type = innovative value = 2 }
		NOT = { domestic = { type = innovative value = 10 } }
	}
	random = yes
	name = "Enforcement of Jizya"
	desc = "Islam in South Asia often dropped or did not enforce the imposition of Jizya, a tax on Zimmis, non-believers who are protected by the state. Instead, in order to smooth relations with the dominantly Hindu populations, they classified them as Musta'min, protected non-Muslims exempt from Jizya. In history, however, there was always a movement from conservative factions to impose Jizya. Imposing it would bring revolts, and refusing to do so would build trust with the Hindu community, while losing it with elements of the Islamic elite."
	style = 0
	action_a = {
		name = "Don't enforce Jizya"
		command = { type = provincetax which = -3 value = 1 }
		command = { type = trade value = -100 }
		command = { type = infra value = -100 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 1 } 
		command = { type = missionaries value = -1 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Listen to the clerics"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = treasury value = 50 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -1 } 
		command = { type = religiousrevolt which = -3 }
	}
}

Just pointing out another boo boo

 

[unmerged(2456)]

You could probably remove the upper innovativeness restiction. On another look even at extreme (10) still gives some benifits.

The reverse isn't true and only gives 50 gold which is a pittance for what you'd also be getting.

 

[Toio]

You could probably remove the upper innovativeness restiction. On another look even at extreme (10) still gives some benifits.

The reverse isn't true and only gives 50 gold which is a pittance for what you'd also be getting.

Don't you think they should also have in the trigger a start year? seems a little hars so early in the game.

 

[Garbon]

Don't you think they should also have in the trigger a start year? seems a little hars so early in the game.

I don't think it should. Unless of course such practices phased in during the period, but I don't really think that is the case.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Thanks for the comments. I'll fix my errors and parse it. Most of the SE Asian nations that are sunni but with hindu provinces become sunni by event in the 16th century, and therefore wont be affected before that.

 

[Garbon]

Thanks for the comments. I'll fix my errors and parse it. Most of the SE Asian nations that are sunni but with hindu provinces become sunni by event in the 16th century, and therefore wont be affected before that.

It'll hit all of the muslim nations in India though. Not that it matters but just wanted to point that out.

 

[Norrefeldt]

It'll hit all of the muslim nations in India though. Not that it matters but just wanted to point that out.

As I understand it, that is what we want. Since it got to find a hindu province for the trigger, it will be unusual. I have to try it this weekend, to see if it actually work as intended.

EDIT: Wikipedia has a long article about it, where it says:

In India, Islamic rulers imposed jizya starting in the 11th century. Aurangzeb, the last prominent Mughal Emperor, levied jizya on his mostly Hindu subjects in 1679.[17] The imposition of jizya, after it had not been collected by previous emperors for 117 years, created enormous opposition and sectarian strife which started the decline of the Mughal Empire.

One of the references of the article is:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Mughals/Aurang3.html

From theses two sources, even if it's only internet sources, it seems the event is something of a simplification, in the Indian case at least, as the imposition of Jizya changed with time, suggestiong that there should be two events with switched options from late 17th century onwards. I know too little to actually suggest that, and for now I think the simplified solution fix most of the problem.

 

[Sute]{h]

Why would not enforcing a tax bring increased income? Especially since option a is basically keeping the status quo if I understand the event text correctly. Also why come option a seem better than option b. Option a gives a long-term advantage, while option b gives a symbolic amount of money.

 

[Norrefeldt]

You are absolutly right, I was stuck in the notion of changing as little as possibly. Better to make it historically more correct while we are at it.
What about this?

event = {
	id = 910088
	trigger = {
		OR = {
			religion = sunni
			religion = shiite
		}			
		provincereligion = { province = -1 data = hinduism }
		continent = asia
		domestic = { type = innovative value = 2 }
	}
	random = yes
	name = "Enforcement of Jizya"
	desc = "Islam in South Asia often dropped or did not enforce the imposition of Jizya, a tax on Zimmis, non-believers who are protected by the state. Instead, in order to smooth relations with the dominantly Hindu populations, they classified them as Musta'min, protected non-Muslims exempt from Jizya. In history, however, there was always a movement from conservative factions to impose Jizya. Imposing it would bring revolts, and refusing to do so would build trust with the Hindu community, while losing it with elements of the Islamic elite."
	style = 0
	action_a = {
		name = "Don't enforce Jizya"
		command = { type = trade value = 100 }
		command = { type = infra value = 100 }
		command = { type = missionaries value = -1 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Listen to the clerics"
		command = { type = provincetax which = -3 value = 1 }
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -1 } 
		command = { type = religiousrevolt which = -3 }
	}
}

Keeping the status quo now doesn't give a more innovative society, while enforcing Jizya would make it more narrowminded, and hereby increase the chance for conversions by event (conversions was the reason to institute it in India).

 

[Garbon]

As I understand it, that is what we want. Since it got to find a hindu province for the trigger, it will be unusual. I have to try it this weekend, to see if it actually work as intended.

Yea, I guess my post was really more of a, why it shouldn't have a date that prevents it from firing in the 15th century.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Pehaps we should with historic ones for India and make a more general one for any muslim nation with non-muslim provinces (probably 2 seperate ones, one for chrisitan province and one for non-chrisitan/non-muslim province)?

Also the province tax should be replaced with gold influx (enough to offset the penalties and balance the choice). These taxes were by muslims for non-muslims, so if the province went to a non-muslim hand or was converted, the value would dry up. Since this is not possible to do for random events, use of it as a 1-time levy is imo better.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Pehaps we should with historic ones for India and make a more general one for any muslim nation with non-muslim provinces (probably 2 seperate ones, one for chrisitan province and one for non-chrisitan/non-muslim province)?

AFAIK Christians always payed Jizya. If that's actually the whole truth there shouldn't be an and event for it.

Also the province tax should be replaced with gold influx (enough to offset the penalties and balance the choice). These taxes were by muslims for non-muslims, so if the province went to a non-muslim hand or was converted, the value would dry up. Since this is not possible to do for random events, use of it as a 1-time levy is imo better.

That make sense.

provincereligion = { province = -1 data = hinduism }

This doesn't work, it's not even possible to load the game with it. I guess the only choice we have is to make a list of eligable countries, with all possible muslim tags (that had hindu/sikh minorities) in Indonesia and India. Arggh.

 

[Garbon]

provincereligion = { province = -1 data = hinduism }

This doesn't work, it's not even possible to load the game with it. I guess the only choice we have is to make a list of eligable countries, with all possible muslim tags (that had hindu/sikh minorities) in Indonesia and India. Arggh.

I wonder if this random event is really worth all of that.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I wonder if this random event is really worth all of that.

No, probably not. Random events shouldn't be that complicated, and it's sort of included in "Raise new tax". I wouldn't mind having the entire event removed.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I wouldn't mind it removed, but we have so few non-christian events already and we're now striking down another without a replacement in the foreseeable future.

The idea isn't to lopside random events even more in favor of christians...i've asked people to come up with more, not remove the few we have.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I wouldn't mind it removed, but we have so few non-christian events already and we're now striking down another without a replacement in the foreseeable future.

The idea isn't to lopside random events even more in favor of christians...i've asked people to come up with more, not remove the few we have.

The event "New tax" can happen to any country, so in this case it's not a problem. It's harder to write events for muslim countries since they are much more different (spanning from Morrocco, to Chagatais, from Zanj to Ottomans and to Indonesia and India) than the homogenous catholic/protestant groups.
I agree, we need more working muslim events.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

After renumbering random events as proposed above, Aegnor found these problems:
968005 is supposed to be for AI only (8 after 96) but it is not.
969003 and 969004 are supposed for human only (9 after 96) but they are not.

Wad or bug?
if bug, corresponding condition should be added in trigger
if wad, ids should be reworked