Shouldn't we have Agnatic-Cognatic or Semi-Salic succession for Muslims?

[Pte Baldrick]

I'm hoping that agnatic-cognatic or semi-salic laws should be available to Muslims with the DLC. Adding in India will introduce Razia al-Din who ruled the Delhi Sultanate from 1236-1240, after all. Her father, Shams-ud-din Iltutmish, who founded the Delhi Sultanate, designated her as his heir.

What followed was a bigger series of faction wars than what currently happens in 1066 starts. A group of court nobles refused to have a female ruler, and so put her eldest brother, Rukn-ud-din Firuz on the throne, with his mother as regent. In just 6 months, Firuz was disposed with, and a faction put Razia on the throne. Four years was not a long period to rule, by any means, but in just four years, she had managed to turn various rebel factions against each other, kept the court who opposed her in the first place busy, and opened multiple schools and academies during her reign.

Her favouritism of an Ethiopian Siddi advisor drew jealousy from the Turkic nobility. Another rebellion lead to Razia being replaced with another brother, Muiz ud din Bahram. To keep her life, she agreed to marry Malik Altunia, a childhood friend of hers. Later, however, the two organised a rebellion against Bahram, to replace him with Razia. Sadly, however, the rebellion failed, and their armies deserted. The two were later robbed and killed. Bahram, however, was replaced by yet another faction, which put her nephew, Nasir-ud-din-Mahmud on the throne.

Raziyya al-Din (1205 – October 13, 1240) (Urdu: رضیہ سلطانہ‎, Hindi: रज़िया सुल्ताना), throne name Jalâlat ud-Dîn Raziyâ (Urdu: جلالۃ الدین رضیہ‎, Hindi: जलालत उद-दीन रज़िया), usually referred to in history as Razia Sultan, was born in *Budaun and was the Sultan of Delhi in India from 1236 to May 1240. Like some other Muslim princesses of the time, she was trained to lead armies and administer kingdoms if necessary.[1][dead link] Razia Sultana was the only woman ruler of both the Sultanate and the Mughal period, although other women ruled from behind the scenes.[2] Razia refused to be addressed as Sultana because it meant "wife or mistress of a sultan". She would answer only to the title "Sultan". Razia had all qualities of a great monarch.

 

[Mr_jon3s]

Sure but then they should increase the opinion malus to -50 for being a female ruler as a muslim and heir.

 

[Thure]

Not to forgot Arwa al-Sulayhi

 

[Pte Baldrick]

Not to forgot Arwa al-Sulayhi

Frustratingly, though, Arwa al-Sulayhi isn't in the game, instead the entire al-Sulayhi dynasty is replaced with a bunch of randomly-generated Rassids. Thankfully, CK2+ adds her entire dynasty in, with a few corrections to borders and vassalhoods. (Yes, it was me who made that addition.) Still, the lack of a Kingdom of Yemen means it's still impossible to represent the situation.

Shajar al-Durr, Sultana of Egypt, is in the game, at least.

 

[casapi]

well, if they address correctly the decadence that be enough for me.




and on another note, I think a better upcoming dlc than china, would be one of the rise of islam.

 

[Thure]

well, if they address correctly the decadence that be enough for me.




and on another note, I think a better upcoming dlc than china, would be one of the rise of islam.

There was already a DLC for Islam. It would be annoying if the make another one. What should it add?

 

[VienLa]

Agnatic-cognatic wouldn't work. As you said, she had an older brother.

How about ability to designate a heir, like a patrician? Subject could hate you for it, and if you managed to get through because you were designated, you'd still be hated for several years, too.

 

[casapi]

There was already a DLC for Islam. It would be annoying if the make another one. What should it add?

I mean the "rise", that would imply an earlier start for the game, maybe 300 years earlier, 567. So we could see a grander east roman empire, a more united Christian church, a Sassanid empire,

so the campaign would go like, mahoma uniting all the arab provinces, the swooping all of the levant, north Africa, south of Iberia, the Caucasus, Persia and land beyond there, (central asia, etc.).

and maybe fine tune the decadence mechanic, if they don't get It right now.

 

[Thure]

I mean the "rise", that would imply an earlier start for the game, maybe 300 years earlier, 567. So we could see a grander east roman empire, a more united Christian church, a Sassanid empire,

so the campaign would go like, mahoma uniting all the arab provinces, the swooping all of the levant, north Africa, south of Iberia, the Caucasus, Persia and land beyond there, (central asia, etc.).

and maybe fine tune the decadence mechanic, if they don't get It right now.

No! The game can't handle migration etc. This time should be a own game, because it would have a different focus then CK2... And Mohammed as playable Character in this game would be problematic I think.

 

[VersusAllOdds]

Agnatic-cognatic wouldn't work. As you said, she had an older brother.

How about ability to designate a heir, like a patrician? Subject could hate you for it, and if you managed to get through because you were designated, you'd still be hated for several years, too.

How do you designate your heir in a republic?

 

[casapi]

hehehe,


isee, but I think another game would be problematic, another conversion tool etc., I dunno I may be wrong.

besides I think IF rome 2 gets a conversion tool at the end maybe with the fall of rome 453?,


a good continuation would be from there on to ck2.

 

[zafarnama]

I mean the "rise", that would imply an earlier start for the game, maybe 300 years earlier, 567. So we could see a grander east roman empire, a more united Christian church, a Sassanid empire,

so the campaign would go like, mahoma uniting all the arab provinces, the swooping all of the levant, north Africa, south of Iberia, the Caucasus, Persia and land beyond there, (central asia, etc.).

and maybe fine tune the decadence mechanic, if they don't get It right now.

This would be awesome, I can't think of any strategy game set about the time of Mohammed and the Islamic conquests, that and it would make the span of this game roughly a 1000 years, plus it was afterall a defining part of this period that is oddly absent.

As someone has already stated, the migration mechanic needs refining.

 

[Sugary]

This is all very interesting

 

[Thure]

hehehe,


isee, but I think another game would be problematic, another conversion tool etc., I dunno I may be wrong.

besides I think IF rome 2 gets a conversion tool at the end maybe with the fall of rome 453?,


a good continuation would be from there on to ck2.

The Fall of Rome 453 would be a very bad start/end date. It would cut the game within the Age of Migration directly. But the dark ages worked completly different than CK2 or a game focused on Imperial/Republican Rome.

 

[Khezef]

Yeah I think it's against islamic religion to play Mohammed. I dont know how they would go around that.

 

[JJDXB]

Yeah I think it's against islamic religion to play Mohammed. I dont know how they would go around that.

I'm not sure about that, but I do know you can't depict Mohammed, at least in Sunni Islam. I think Shi'a Islam is a lot less strict about depictions of Mohammed, but since Sunnis are the majority... Yeah, bad, bad idea.

 

[Thure]

Yeah I think it's against islamic religion to play Mohammed. I dont know how they would go around that.

The problem is more... You could kill him. Castrate him. blind him... rape him as a women... make him vasall of a Jewish duke...

 

[casapi]

The Fall of Rome 453 would be a very bad start/end date. It would cut the game within the Age of Migration directly. But the dark ages worked completly different than CK2 or a game focused on Imperial/Republican Rome.

so are you saying like rome 2 should no end there?, if so what would be a more appropriate finish date>?


iirc the barbarian mechanic was fine for rome 1, maybe too static?, but how would you like it implemented,

it comes to my mind the rome total war barbarian invasion, that stuff was crazy how where you supposed to play without hitting pause, hahahaha

 

[Thure]

so are you saying like rome 2 should no end there?, if so what would be a more appropriate finish date>?


iirc the barbarian mechanic was fine for rome 1, maybe too static?, but how would you like it implemented,

it comes to my mind the rome total war barbarian invasion, that stuff was crazy how where you supposed to play without hitting pause, hahahaha

Around 350 would be a good start date I think. Before the migration and circa at the start of the Fall of Roman Empire.

And in EU: Rome I the Barbarians weren't good to play... In a Dark Age game tey should be the major players who have the chance to conquer Roman lands (Spain, Brittania, Gallia, italia)

 

[casapi]

Around 350 would be a good start date I think. Before the migration and circa at the start of the Fall of Roman Empire.

i see,


i thought you'd accept the age of migration could be represented inside of rome 2, i understand

hehe, as for me id even take my friends the mongol doomstack as good enough to represent these migrations and then open this interesting part of history just to mess around if pds was up for it. you know with mahoma and the sassanids.:happy: