I think "warriors dont read books" is the worse possible event in the history of EUIV . . . maybe ever
The Crimean Khanate event is still the worst in the game
- Thread starter durbal
- Start date
-
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.
Read the thread title.
Also, I'm going to raise comet sighted as an awful event.
I can get around -1 stab events by spending 100 admin. Ottomans taking a ton of dev for free on a dice roll 50 years into a campaign is just dumb.
To get the March for free the Ottomans need to control all of the Anatolia before the first ruler of Crimea dies. With the reorganization of states I think that a few more provinces have been added.
Also doing it recklessly would give them enough AE that Delhi is in a coalition against them. Just saying.
There's nothing historical about the Burgundian Inheritance unless you squint really, really hard. Both the Burgundian and the Crimean events could use a lot of work to make them more enjoyable, more context dependent, and more historically plausible.
I guess the event isn't perfect but in all of my singleplayer games it just ends up being a constant flashpoint between the Ottomans and Russia. It seems to limit their expansion and that's ok by me. Usually by the time one side has completely won then its too late in the game for them to exploit their new strength. Does anyone elses games always seem to work like this or is it only me?
The problem to me is the Ottomans always break the March. Historically they last till almost the end of the EU period because they are a march. Oh, and even if they do keep them as a march, they like to expand into the Hordes and Central Asia keeping the land for themselves in some sort of border gore orgy.
I've seen it happen like that, and I've also seen an Ottoman-Russo alliance despite the shared border and claims a few times. It's hard to say how anything will turn up in Eastern Europe. Even The Ottomans aren't as consistent since this new patch.
For me I've never found it a problem because I approach my games in a roleplay style. Events like this may be OP but I always just take it as part of the game dialogue. If there's a mega strong ottoman empire in the east then that's something that I will end up having to beat or getting beat by.
But I can see coming from a different perspective especially if you're trying to do an achievement or playing an mp game that this event is a bit stupid.
I think someone always mentioned it but probably fleshing out the vassal system to make it harder to annex subjects would easily fix it.
Maybe even changing the event to make Russia/Muscovy contest the Ottomans so it's way harder to win against Crimea might balance it a little.
But I can see coming from a different perspective especially if you're trying to do an achievement or playing an mp game that this event is a bit stupid.
I think someone always mentioned it but probably fleshing out the vassal system to make it harder to annex subjects would easily fix it.
Maybe even changing the event to make Russia/Muscovy contest the Ottomans so it's way harder to win against Crimea might balance it a little.
Historically Crimean Khanate is neither a vassal nor a march of Ottomans.
Crimea was an independent state under Ottoman protectorate.
I am saying "independent" due to the way of Turkic-Islamic state tradition. Here we have important signs of independece
1.Hutba as an Islamic term is a religious/political instruction given by an official administration to the people in a specific region. The head of state or the imam granted by the political leader are the only authotirites who are allowed to give Hutba. It is given before Cuma Pray in every week. According to state tradition name of the ruler is said and this is the strongest indepence sign for a ruler in all Islamic/Turkic states.
2.Money the authority to coin own money is the another important sign. A dependent ruler was never allowed to coin money in his name.
3.Title The title of KHAN expresses indepences by itself. Except late Turkic-Persian titles in Azerbaijan and Armenia, Khans were always independent. Ottoman Sultans also hold Khan title.
In Ottoman-Crimean relations
- Crimea never paid tax to Ottomans.
- Ottomans had to give Crimea's share from spoils of wars.
- Crimea had authority to act independent in external affairs:
*Crimea could declare war to any state without Ottoman permision
*Crimea could sign a peace treaty unless the opponent was not in a war with Ottomans.
*Crimea could make alliances according to Ottomans' regional strategy.
*Crimea could have its own vassal ot protectorate states.
-Crimean Khans were the substitute bloodline for the throne if any Ottoman male didn't exist to inherit. (This is intresting)
-Crimea had to send its army to Ottomans' wars if Sultan demanded.
-Crimea could directly take taxes from other states (Poland and Russia FE)
-Ottomans Sultans gave permission to new Crimean Khans before succeding throne.
-The lands under Giray rule called "Kırım Mülkü" (Crimean Lands) not "Osmanlı Mülkü" (Ottoman Lands)
This looks like an alliance instead of being vassal. Yet in this alliance Ottomans were undoublty the supperior one. Crimean Khans never allowed to act against Sultans' will. They always stated that they were in "Sultan's command" to the new Sultan. In return the Sultan stated that the Khan was his brother. Not subject.
Crimea was an independent state under Ottoman protectorate.
I am saying "independent" due to the way of Turkic-Islamic state tradition. Here we have important signs of independece
1.Hutba as an Islamic term is a religious/political instruction given by an official administration to the people in a specific region. The head of state or the imam granted by the political leader are the only authotirites who are allowed to give Hutba. It is given before Cuma Pray in every week. According to state tradition name of the ruler is said and this is the strongest indepence sign for a ruler in all Islamic/Turkic states.
2.Money the authority to coin own money is the another important sign. A dependent ruler was never allowed to coin money in his name.
3.Title The title of KHAN expresses indepences by itself. Except late Turkic-Persian titles in Azerbaijan and Armenia, Khans were always independent. Ottoman Sultans also hold Khan title.
In Ottoman-Crimean relations
- Crimea never paid tax to Ottomans.
- Ottomans had to give Crimea's share from spoils of wars.
- Crimea had authority to act independent in external affairs:
*Crimea could declare war to any state without Ottoman permision
*Crimea could sign a peace treaty unless the opponent was not in a war with Ottomans.
*Crimea could make alliances according to Ottomans' regional strategy.
*Crimea could have its own vassal ot protectorate states.
-Crimean Khans were the substitute bloodline for the throne if any Ottoman male didn't exist to inherit. (This is intresting)
-Crimea had to send its army to Ottomans' wars if Sultan demanded.
-Crimea could directly take taxes from other states (Poland and Russia FE)
-Ottomans Sultans gave permission to new Crimean Khans before succeding throne.
-The lands under Giray rule called "Kırım Mülkü" (Crimean Lands) not "Osmanlı Mülkü" (Ottoman Lands)
This looks like an alliance instead of being vassal. Yet in this alliance Ottomans were undoublty the supperior one. Crimean Khans never allowed to act against Sultans' will. They always stated that they were in "Sultan's command" to the new Sultan. In return the Sultan stated that the Khan was his brother. Not subject.
Thats why i think that the tributary system would fit the ottoman-crimean relation at most.