Since AoW came out, I've been playing a lot, including taking half-a-dozen games into the late 16th, early 17th centuries, as well as starting a few more that ended in dismal failure (mainly due to me not understanding how to deal with the new rebel system) and with one exception, where they got hit by massive Persian rebellions, the Timurids have remained a stable empire and even gone on to expand. Now, I'm not one for rigid historical railroading, but the Timurids should not consistently be doing this.
While the starting ruler, Shahrukh Mirza did reasonably well holding onto a decent size empire for a considerable period of time (he did suffer some territorial losses and rebellions, but overall the nation was relatively stable for length his long reign and, frankly, I feel his stats in the game are rather low given what he achieved), he only came into power as a result of a major succesion war, and once the empire had passed onto his son, Taragay (aka Ulugh Beg), it rapidly collapse into rebellions and further succession wars due to the latter's deficiencies as a ruler and his subsequent murder at the hands of his son. The rest of Timurid history followed in a similar pattern before falling completely as a c at the beginning of the 16th century (yes, a Timurid did found the Mughals, but that was after the collapse of what remained of the Timurid Empire).
In game, once Mirza dies, Ulugh Beg takes over, then due to his age, dies either heirless or with a young son, leading to "no child can become Khan" and a strong adult ruler taking over without any trouble. You see the odd uprising, but nothing like the empire spanning succession wars that typified the Timurid dynasty in history. There are usually some rebellions in Persia - either nationalists or Shias - but they're no match for the Timurid army. The nations which historically invaded them - Qara Quoyunlu and later Aq Quoyunlu and the Uzbeks - likewise cannot match their armies.
Essentially, there's very little to actually make one of the most unstable states in 1444 undergo anything like a historical collapse. And while I don't mind them occasionally thriving - it's not implausible that, with a couple of strong leaders in succession they could have stabilised, albeit likely at the cost of some regions, such as Persia, in the short term at least - to see them almost always doing so is both implausible and frankly, unfun, as there's no variety in playing in that part of the world.
I do find it rather amusing that, despite the nerfs to horse in 1.8, the one horde that really needed a nerf still horribly overperforms on a regular basis compared to history.
While the starting ruler, Shahrukh Mirza did reasonably well holding onto a decent size empire for a considerable period of time (he did suffer some territorial losses and rebellions, but overall the nation was relatively stable for length his long reign and, frankly, I feel his stats in the game are rather low given what he achieved), he only came into power as a result of a major succesion war, and once the empire had passed onto his son, Taragay (aka Ulugh Beg), it rapidly collapse into rebellions and further succession wars due to the latter's deficiencies as a ruler and his subsequent murder at the hands of his son. The rest of Timurid history followed in a similar pattern before falling completely as a c at the beginning of the 16th century (yes, a Timurid did found the Mughals, but that was after the collapse of what remained of the Timurid Empire).
In game, once Mirza dies, Ulugh Beg takes over, then due to his age, dies either heirless or with a young son, leading to "no child can become Khan" and a strong adult ruler taking over without any trouble. You see the odd uprising, but nothing like the empire spanning succession wars that typified the Timurid dynasty in history. There are usually some rebellions in Persia - either nationalists or Shias - but they're no match for the Timurid army. The nations which historically invaded them - Qara Quoyunlu and later Aq Quoyunlu and the Uzbeks - likewise cannot match their armies.
Essentially, there's very little to actually make one of the most unstable states in 1444 undergo anything like a historical collapse. And while I don't mind them occasionally thriving - it's not implausible that, with a couple of strong leaders in succession they could have stabilised, albeit likely at the cost of some regions, such as Persia, in the short term at least - to see them almost always doing so is both implausible and frankly, unfun, as there's no variety in playing in that part of the world.
I do find it rather amusing that, despite the nerfs to horse in 1.8, the one horde that really needed a nerf still horribly overperforms on a regular basis compared to history.
