Religious changes to the Middle East(and some religious changes)

[Clausewitz_]

Edit: Title sound clunky, a better one would be: Religious changes to the middle east, and religion mechanic changes in general
To be blunt, present-day Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Iran should not be Shia in 1444. They should start Sunni, as that is what they were. The Safavid dynasty was the one that forced/brought(depending on your point of view) Shi'ite Islam to Iran/Iraq/Azerbaijan, and forcefully and frequently violently converted the population to be Shia. "One of Shah Ismail's most important decisions was to declare that the state religion would be the form of Islam called Shi'ism, that at the time was completely foreign to Iranian culture." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/safavidempire_1.shtml)
Additional source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safav...easons_for_Ismail.E2.80.99s_conversion_policy

Upon the formation of Persia, which should start Sunni, an event should pop up giving 2 options:
1. Convert to Shia: gain 2 stability, lose -100 relations with all neighboring Sunni nations, and gain the following modifiers:
Until 1821: -2 tolerance of heretics(there were many many massacres and oppression of Sunnis), +2% missionary strength against heretics(almost everything Persia touched turned Shi'ite, just look a a map of the empire and a modern day map of Islam).
For 50 years: +10% morale of armies(the conversion led to extremely zealous armies determined to fight against the heretics), +.5 yearly legitimacy(another reason was to distinguish themselves from the ottomans, and to establish themselves as a true ruling dynasty).
Although no-one knows how estates will play out, the creation of a strong and loyal clergy would also emerge from this
2. Stay Sunni: lose 1 stability, gain +25 relations with all neighboring Sunni nations
This should lead to a slight hit to noble(or whatever they will be called) loyalty as well, due to some of the Turkish warriors going to the Ottomans.

If Persia becomes Shia, an event should also happen for the Ottomans based on the outlawing of Shia Islam by Sultan Selim I in response to the rise of the Qizilbāshes. There are already Shi'ite rebellions represented, but the widespread persecution of Shi'ite's are not represented.
1. Fight back against this heresy
Until 1821: -2 tolerance of heretics(lots of Shi'ite's were slaughtered in the empire, +1% missionary strength against heretics
Gain clergy and nobility(they now had legal precedent to kill Shi'ite's) loyalty and clergy strength.
2. Let them be
Until 1821: +1 tolerance of heretics, -1 tolerance of the true faith, -1% missionary strength against heretics.)
Lose Clergy loyalty

Also, @AndrejK has created a compilation of religious changes to the middle east, most of which I agree with. I am not going to cite all the changes made as he has made a very convincing argument with well researched facts. Here is his thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/improving-religious-map.876015/
I have included these in my new religious map.
Here is what I think the middle east and Anatolia/Balkans should look like in 1444:

Other Religious Changes:
Changes to Piety:
Conversion strength should be removed from being pious, and instead replaced with tolerance of the true faith(+1, +2 maybe at max)Clergy strength and loyalty should be ticking up with this
Being Impious should result in downward ticking clergy strength and loyalty, and also give a +1 tolerance of heathens
Conversion:
These ideas came to me when going through a Bahmanis campaign, and i was astounded at how easy it was to covert my hindu subjects while being fully pious and having humanist ideas.
Here is a simple solution to help with that: Have tolerance of heretics/heathens lower missionary strength in their respective categories. A 1:1 seems ideal. For example, if i have +3 tolerance of heathens as Bahmanis, i should lose 3% missionary strength against heathens. Tolerance means leaving minorities alone, not them being happy with you trying to convert them.
In general, i think missionary strength is massively over-inflated. As stated before, i think missionary strength should be removed from pious bonuses, and i also think many of the decisions Christians get to boost missionary strength should go away. Ideally, without religious ideas it should be hard to convert others, and a decent struggle even with religious ideas.

Another Idea: Low religious unity should cause the clergy to lose loyalty, positive tolerance of heathens/heretics should cause the clergy to lose power and loyalty.

Next idea: Rebels should always automatically occupy and province they spawn from.
Not only will this make rebels much more of a threat(as they should be), if religious rebels control a province, even if it is the same religion, it should get the religious zeal modifier. Additionally, while this might be unpopular and it might very well be dumb, i think a cool and more immersive factor that should come into effect is a permanent religious strength reduction similar to religious centers, but less powerful. If a religious revolt spawns, if they control the province for more than 6 months, a -1% provincial modifier should appear. For each consecutive revolt that lasts more than 6 months, an additional -1% should be added. I know this will immediately get flak from mass conquerors, but that is kind of the point. IMO is is way too easy to convert people right now, and this makes blobbing into foreign religions much easier than it should be. Well that's it for my long ass post, thank you for reading it if you got this far. Feel free to criticize this all you want, as long as it's backed up by game play or historic fact. After all the best ideas spawn from debate

Edit 2: As i have no idea how the estates are going to be truly implemented, the points i make about the clergy and such are pure speculation.

 

[Clausewitz_]

Another idea here: Get rid I the -1 tolerance of heretics for Catholicism and -1 tolerance of heathens for Shinto. These religions were not inherently less tolerant than other religions. Replace Catholicism's negative with -5% tech cost(see buff Catholicism) and replace Shinto's with fort defense. These religions became intolerant through actions of rulers and religions figures. The counter-reformation and the various inquisitions should hike up intolerance in catholic countries, and the decision to close Japan should do the same for Shinto. This is #2 on racial/religious paradox fuck-ups for me, #1 being African unit spirits.

 

[Aythne]

I like the post. The only thing I'm leery about is basically tying the rise of Shia Islam to a tag that doesn't always spawn/conquer much if at all. Maybe a regional event such as the Oromo migrations in Ethiopia might work better?

 

[Clausewitz_]

I like the post. The only thing I'm leery about is basically tying the rise of Shia Islam to a tag that doesn't always spawn/conquer much if at all. Maybe a regional event such as the Oromo migrations in Ethiopia might work better?

Well I would argue that the rise of shia Islam is absolutely heavily tied to the rise of the safavids, but I see your point. Shi'te activity was already on the rise so maybe the safavids were simply one of many ways it could have been shown.

 

[Aythne]

I mean, I don't disagree with the historical importance of the Safavids. But you could probably make similar arguments for why the HRE should always be the start of the reformation. In practice, there is almost always a CoR there, and in practice with the right regional event Persia would be at the forefront of the Shi'ite cause; but if Khorasan, Afghanistan or even Timmy is kicking around the area instead, then I'd rather have them pick up Ali's banner rather than not.

 

[Clausewitz_]

I mean, I don't disagree with the historical importance of the Safavids. But you could probably make similar arguments for why the HRE should always be the start of the reformation. In practice, there is almost always a CoR there, and in practice with the right regional event Persia would be at the forefront of the Shi'ite cause; but if Khorasan, Afghanistan or even Timmy is kicking around the area instead, then I'd rather have them pick up Mohammed's banner rather than not.

Good point. I would call it Ali's banner though

 

[Aythne]

Good point. I would call it Ali's banner though

Done.

 

[Sousuke123]

I've been many times rising this issue but for some unknown reasons there was no answer from devs or any visible intent to implement. Moreover I wanted to divide Shi'ism into branches Twelver, Ismaili/Nizari and Zaydi. Devs did some changes like giving Shiite provinces in Yemen but nothing more.
Piety losing strength missionary makes no sense, Muslims are only religous group in game which don't have permanent missionary strength decision, two of their decisions requires BS like dip 5 ruler for Islamic center of scholarly and 3? adm for sheih-ul-islam. and you lose during regencies, so doing like Deconquista would be nightmare without piety. Overall all piety system makes no sense and most of their event are almost insulting from where you gaining piety or losing it. Moreover they lost their special decision din-i-llahi around AoW i guess to Hindus which is high class BS, so no more nerfing would be nice.
Religous rebels giving missionary strength upon sieging makes no sense since after dealing with rebels there would be a lot of dark things happening to these people, at best half of them would be slaughter and rest of them would be subject of resettlement policy, at worst... everyone can imagine, so there is no need for treating rebelled provinces as special snowflakes.

 

[Chamboozer]

To be blunt, present-day Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Iran should not be Shia in 1444. They should start Sunni, as that is what they were. The Safavid dynasty was the one that forced/brought(depending on your point of view) Shi'ite Islam to Iran/Iraq/Azerbaijan, and forcefully and frequently violently converted the population to be Shia. "One of Shah Ismail's most important decisions was to declare that the state religion would be the form of Islam called Shi'ism, that at the time was completely foreign to Iranian culture." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/safavidempire_1.shtml)
Additional source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safav...easons_for_Ismail.E2.80.99s_conversion_policy

Kind of, but it's not that simple. Not outside of Iraq, anyway, which was indeed Sunni outside of the shrine cities of Karbala and Najaf.

Iran (and most of Anatolia as well) were not Shi'ite in 1444, but neither were they really Sunni. Representing Iran as either one or the other is historically inaccurate, but within the limitations of the game it is better for them to be Shi'ite. After the Mongol conquest the whole region underwent a great deal of upheaval, as the old religious order lost its influence and Sufi organizations stepped in to take their place in civil administration, militia organizaiton, and of course - the provision of religious authority. The Safaviyya were far from hardline Sunnis before Ismail I declared Shi'ism to be the state religion, and they were only one of countless organizations across Iran who were actively proselytizing and spreading heterodox Sufi influence. Others were even establishing their own states before Timur came and reset everything.

Reverence for Ali was everywhere. Belief in the spiritual authority of the twelve imams was everywhere. Iran was already leaning heavily in a Shi'ite direction when Ismail's army took Tabriz in 1501. All it took was the state support that he provided to establish an official, organized, and legalistic Shi'ite religious hierarchy. People's religious beliefs were already heading in the right direction. The Spanish couldn't convert their Muslim minority over the course of a hundred years and ultimately had to expel them, yet some people believe that Ismail and his successors were magically able to forcibly transform the entirety of Iran from completely Sunni to Shi'ite in a couple generations.

The reasons for it don't even make sense. Look at what that Wikipedia link has to say:

• One of the main reasons why Ismail and his followers pursued such a severe conversion policy was to give Iran and the Safavid lands as distinct and unique an identity as was possible compared to its two neighboring Sunni Turkish military and political enemies, the Ottoman Empire and, for a time, the Central Asian Uzbeks — to the west and north-east respectively.
• The Safavids were engaged in a lengthy struggle with the Ottomans — including numerous wars between the two dynasties — and this struggle continuously motivated the Safavids to create a more cohesive Iranian identity to counter the Ottoman threat and possibility of a fifth-column within Iran among its Sunni subjects.

Total nonsense, and they clearly come from a nationalist backwards-reading of history. So he changed his religion to give Iran (most of which he didn't yet control) a unique identity - as if Ismail was thinking of Iran in terms of a modern nation-state in need of formation! Of course this wasn't the case.

Or, most backwards of all - "to counter the possibility of a fifth-column within Iran among its Sunni subjects". Best way to do that? Not be Shi'ite.

Ismail converted to Shi'ism because most of Iran had already become Shi'ite or were heavily leaning in that direction. Plain and simple. He aimed to win support from elements within Iran who would look upon the establishment of his rule with favor. His conversion policy merely involved the elimination of what Sunni elements still remained.

You can read more about this in the Cambridge History of Iran.

Also, @AndrejK has created a compilation of religious changes to the middle east, most of which I agree with. I am not going to cite all the changes made as he has made a very convincing argument with well researched facts. Here is his thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/improving-religious-map.876015/
I have included these in my new religious map.
Here is what I think the middle east and Anatolia/Balkans should look like in 1444:
View attachment 142623

That guy is mostly citing Wikipedia and nearly every post of his is full of serious errors. The amount of times he uses nineteenth and twentieth century sources as evidence for the situation five hundred years earlier is just shameful and ridiculous as a means of historical methodology. Sorry, but it has to be said.

I won't comment on that map except to say that Ottoman survey records show that no region of Western Anatolia was majority Christian during this time period. That's not to say that there weren't Christian populations, but that they didn't constitute a majority in any province as defined by EUIV.

 

[ywxiao]

Another idea here: Get rid I the -1 tolerance of heretics for Catholicism and -1 tolerance of heathens for Shinto. These religions were not inherently less tolerant than other religions. Replace Catholicism's negative with -5% tech cost(see buff Catholicism) and replace Shinto's with +10% morale of armies or fort defense. These religions became intolerant through actions of rulers and religions figures. The counter-reformation and the various inquisitions should hike up intolerance in catholic countries, and the decision to close Japan should do the same for Shinto. This is #2 on racial/religious paradox fuck-ups for me, #1 being African unit spirits.

While your opening post warrants a bit of consideration, this makes me wonder if you took the time to glance at these religions.

Shinto:
Tolerance of heathens: -1
Local missionary strength: -2%
Morale of armies: +10%

 

[Clausewitz_]

While your opening post warrants a bit of consideration, this makes me wonder if you took the time to glance at these religions.

Shinto:
Tolerance of heathens: -1
Local missionary strength: -2%
Morale of armies: +10%

Yep I screwed up. Honestly I was just restating grand historians ideas here, and since I've never played Shinto forgot they already had that. My bad.
@Chamboozer ill reply to you once I get home to a computer.

 

[Grand Historian]

I can't say I'm a big fan of your proposed changes to Piety or Missionary Strength, and, while I personally like your idea behind Persia converting to Shiite, if only for the way the game is made, would prefer Greater Iran to simply stay Shiite at gamestart (this has been commented on by the devs a few times, who've said that in-game limitations have them preferring Iran/Iraq as Shiite).

As for your suggested Map Changes:

Albania - I can agree, but it really needs some new provinces.
Western Anatolia - Chamboozer pretty much sums it up, but to paraphrase, Timur happened.
Eastern Anatolia - While, again, thanks to Chamboozer's insight, I highly doubt Sinope was Pontic/Orthodox during this time, it is quite possible Canik was (though I'm iffy on it, I don't really see how it would screw up gameplay that much if it is switched). Ezrurum could possibly be Armenian/Coptic, and I don't think it would really screw up gameplay that much. Erzincan and Mush I can't make a judgment on, but I can't say I'm as enthusiastic about them. I don't have anything to say about the Shia provinces.
Levant - I can't say much about the Shiite province, but I'm pretty sure Antioch wasn't Orthodox during this period (Baibars pretty much massacred/enslaved the entire population of the city two centuries ago), and if Adana was still Armenian during this period, it was Coptic, not Orthodox (and even then I highly doubt it).
Egypt - Sources are pretty scarce on the religious make-up during 1444, but according to the few we have, the anti-Christian riots of the fourteenth century did their job and the region, which was formerly on a balancing act between Coptic and Sunni, shifted heavily to Islam (Openly practicing Copts were around 10% of the population). However, it is undeniable there was still a noticeable presence in Egypt, the question remains of which provinces it was centered at (undeniably, most, if not all of them, were in the south. Alexandria's iffy).
Greater Iran - Again, it should remain Shiite for gameplay reasons, but I don't really know what to say about the second Zoroastrian province.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Not very sure about that Iraq full sunni, south Iraq is the holy center of Shiites since early Islam from what I know, some Shia presence there should be rapresented

 

[bbqftw]

For 50 years: +10% morale of armies(the conversion led to extremely zealous armies determined to fight against the heretics), +.5 yearly legitimacy(another reason was to distinguish themselves from the ottomans, and to establish themselves as a true ruling dynasty).

persia with yet another morale booster is scary (defensive + pious + Shia + NI + this)

but its cool so I approve

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You are overestimating missionary strength. Max piety is the highest you ever get as Islamic countries, and as Bahmanis you're not converting Sunni land in non-accepted cultures fast. As it stands, it is only possible for conversions to keep up with conquest for Abrahamic nations with religious + multiple holy cities. Non-Abrahamic quite literally can't keep up with a decent expansion pace, even if they gouge strength with stacking decisions of different faiths and have religious.

I agree on the starting religion situation though. Persia in general is handled really poorly in this game, so are the Timurids in general. The difference between how nations like Poland and merchant republics are treated in the game and how Timurids are treated is laughably one-sided.

 

[hashinshin]

I'd just like for QQ to gain some events that allow them to actually form Persia. Persia falling out of the Timurids is one thing, but Persia should really be being created for a much more historical map.

 

[Clausewitz_]

Just a couple of things until I can create a formal response.

That guy is mostly citing Wikipedia and nearly every post of his is full of serious errors. The amount of times he uses nineteenth and twentieth century sources as evidence for the situation five hundred years earlier is just shameful and ridiculous as a means of historical methodology. Sorry, but it has to be said.

So first, I used BBC as my main source and Wikipedia as a secondary source that I didnt quote at all. Second, I would estimate ~90% of my posts are related to elimination threads, so I struggle to see how they can be "full of errors". Also, I cannot remember doing a proposal like this before, outside of proposed changes to the counter-reformation which was more of a mechanic change supported with historical evidence. But I'm flattered you took the time to go through all my posts even if I cant understand how you came up with such a wack conclusion.
On topic here, I will go more in depth for my research later, but I think it cannot he debated that the religious struggles and violence of the early safavisds are not represented at all. That was my main point in creating this thread. For the other changes, they were from another thread that seemed to be backed up strongly. Nom-Muslim religions are under represented in the middle east imo.
As for my missionary strength changes, my point is to make conversion a more difficult task, as right now I feel like it is wayyy to easy, especially between the abrahamic faiths. As long as your not TMIT making Rome an

 

[Clausewitz_]

No offense @TheMeInTeam its the kind if blobbing that you are somewhat famous for is what the missionary changes are trying to address. If you couldn't tell by now, I'm pretty anti-blob.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No offense @TheMeInTeam its the kind if blobbing that you are somewhat famous for is what the missionary changes are trying to address. If you couldn't tell by now, I'm pretty anti-blob.

This game is designed around blobbing though. It seeps out of the pores of every mechanic. Shanking the missionary strength without essentially making a new game really damages its flow. Suddenly Hindu becomes the god tier faith and everyone just runs around with humanist, Ottomans are even more broken etc. The game is designed to allow for these kinds of conversions, blocking them makes the tolerant nations overwhelmingly more competitive.

 

[Clausewitz_]

This game is designed around blobbing though. It seeps out of the pores of every mechanic. Shanking the missionary strength without essentially making a new game really damages its flow. Suddenly Hindu becomes the god tier faith and everyone just runs around with humanist, Ottomans are even more broken etc. The game is designed to allow for these kinds of conversions, blocking them makes the tolerant nations overwhelmingly more competitive.

Good points. I agree the game is too blob oriented. Hopefully with estates we see some of that taken away. Yes the missionary changes would have to come at a time where expanding and war arent the only things to do.