alliance command seems not to work as intended though (or works as intended, depending on one's definition 
)
)-
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.
Originally posted by Crook
alliance command seems not to work as intended though (or works as intended, depending on one's definition
what i've always wondered about that command is if it will take parties away from an alliance to create the one specified... other than that, his event is inspired
Originally posted by stephanos
what i've always wondered about that command is if it will take parties away from an alliance to create the one specified... other than that, his event is inspired
It doesn't seem to do anything if both parties are in different alliances already
Should 89019 really be there, given 89021?
In 89030, not only do you want "orthodox" as pointed out already, but "provincereligion" instead of "religion". Also, 89031 will happen regardless of the choice made; 89030A should trigger another event, which 89031 includes in its trigger.
In 89030, not only do you want "orthodox" as pointed out already, but "provincereligion" instead of "religion". Also, 89031 will happen regardless of the choice made; 89030A should trigger another event, which 89031 includes in its trigger.
Hunh. You can sleep random events? Does this work?
And 89004 won't ever happen - it's not triggered by anything, and has no date.
And 89004 won't ever happen - it's not triggered by anything, and has no date.
Great suggestions James, just two things I'd like to say:
1) Albania becoming the Roman Empire doesn't sound right for some reason Maybe if the ruling Byzantine elite flees there and establish a "Despotate of Epirus" (culture: Greek / Albanian perhaps?) it'd make a more plausible event.
2) Sacking of Constantinople event suggests that the Ottoman state gained wealth through the pillaging of the City, which wasn't the case.
Ottomans used Sunni cannon law with a twist when it came to sieges. A city that was besieged was offered a chance to surrender, if the defenders accept, the city can not be plundered according to Islamic "tradition." Should they refuse, the city was looted for three days.
In the case of Ottomans, the ones who did the plundering were the "basibozuks." These regiments were not an integral part of the Ottoman army, they simply enlisted for the opportunity to plunder, and they were often not even given wages by the State.
It was these basibozuks ("ones with no order / leader" in Turkish)
who sacked Constantinople, and only for two days. Mehmed II was getting restless, entered the city after two days and put an end to plundering. I'm not suggesting that the Ottoman state gained no wealth through the capture of Constantinople, but whatever they got wasn't through plunder (that went to nomadic bashibozuks, as was their right)
1) Albania becoming the Roman Empire doesn't sound right for some reason
Maybe if the ruling Byzantine elite flees there and establish a "Despotate of Epirus" (culture: Greek / Albanian perhaps?) it'd make a more plausible event.2) Sacking of Constantinople event suggests that the Ottoman state gained wealth through the pillaging of the City, which wasn't the case.
Ottomans used Sunni cannon law with a twist when it came to sieges. A city that was besieged was offered a chance to surrender, if the defenders accept, the city can not be plundered according to Islamic "tradition." Should they refuse, the city was looted for three days.
In the case of Ottomans, the ones who did the plundering were the "basibozuks." These regiments were not an integral part of the Ottoman army, they simply enlisted for the opportunity to plunder, and they were often not even given wages by the State.
It was these basibozuks ("ones with no order / leader" in Turkish)
who sacked Constantinople, and only for two days. Mehmed II was getting restless, entered the city after two days and put an end to plundering. I'm not suggesting that the Ottoman state gained no wealth through the capture of Constantinople, but whatever they got wasn't through plunder (that went to nomadic bashibozuks, as was their right)
Originally posted by tuna
Great suggestions James, just two things I'd like to say:
1) Albania becoming the Roman Empire doesn't sound right for some reason
2) Sacking of Constantinople event suggests that the Ottoman state gained wealth through the pillaging of the City, which wasn't the case.
Ottomans used Sunni cannon law with a twist when it came to sieges. A city that was besieged was offered a chance to surrender, if the defenders accept, the city can not be plundered according to Islamic "tradition." Should they refuse, the city was looted for three days.
In the case of Ottomans, the ones who did the plundering were the "basibozuks." These regiments were not an integral part of the Ottoman army, they simply enlisted for the opportunity to plunder, and they were often not even given wages by the State.
It was these basibozuks ("ones with no order / leader" in Turkish)
who sacked Constantinople, and only for two days. Mehmed II was getting restless, entered the city after two days and put an end to plundering. I'm not suggesting that the Ottoman state gained no wealth through the capture of Constantinople, but whatever they got wasn't through plunder (that went to nomadic bashibozuks, as was their right)
1: Albania had a claim to the Roman Empire, and had they chosen to excercise it would have been recognized as legitimate, it's a non-historical choice though.
2: True, though perhaps I should lower the amount a bit then, and make totally trashing the city a non-historical choice.
Actually it is, I modified the City of Men's Desire events this is triggered by the turks breaking their agreements. I suppose I should have specified that...
It was a 'piece' of the Roman Empire, like Trebizond. In the event of a lack of a Roman Empire, it could take the name.
that's already been done; check any scenario after 1419 seriously, the successors to mehmet did style themselves as roman emperors for awhile; so, your suggestion doesn't need any more than a few extra lines in the 'city of men's desire' event.
stephanos
seriously, the successors to mehmet did style themselves as roman emperors for awhile; so, your suggestion doesn't need any more than a few extra lines in the 'city of men's desire' event.stephanos
Well that's just it, historically Albania recognized the Ottomans as the new Roman Empire, and Trebizond didn't
Simple, many Emperors was of Albanian(Illyrian) origin, such as the great Justinian I who almost conquered the old Roman Empire. Also, Skanderbeg took the double headed eagle as his nations flag and as his personal standard, seeing as Albania was the last standing point of the Roman Empire. Does that clear things up for you?
Also about Skanderbeg, it's a sad thing is that a man with such brilliance actually died because of a malaria infested mosquito while residing in Naples instead of fighting with his countrymen against the Infidel Turk
Originally posted by Skanderbeg
Simple, many Emperors was of Albanian(Illyrian) origin, such as the great Justinian I who almost conquered the old Roman Empire. Also, Skanderbeg took the double headed eagle as his nations flag and as his personal standard, seeing as Albania was the last standing point of the Roman Empire. Does that clear things up for you?
Also about Skanderbeg, it's a sad thing is that a man with such brilliance actually died because of a malaria infested mosquito while residing in Naples instead of fighting with his countrymen against the Infidel Turk
a moment of silence for mr. castrioti
Yes, and it's Kastrioti...
Albania should maybe get a CB on Constantinople if it conquers Kosovo, Hellas,Morea Macedonia or Ragusa or even Thrace itself. Or maybe a restoration of Illyria? Which could lead to several culture changes and thus enabling the rise of Illyrian might, making it several provinces no one but one nation can control
Albania should maybe get a CB on Constantinople if it conquers Kosovo, Hellas,Morea Macedonia or Ragusa or even Thrace itself. Or maybe a restoration of Illyria? Which could lead to several culture changes and thus enabling the rise of Illyrian might, making it several provinces no one but one nation can control
In #89000 both actions a and b trigger 89002. Probably an oversight where a should trigger 89001.
You seem to move a lot of population around at times. Would it be more historical to subtract some population from some other provinces when you e.g. add 100,000 inhabitants to Constantinople? Or would this be too much of a hassle? (I'm comparing it to the Chinese coastal evacuation events, I guess)
You seem to move a lot of population around at times. Would it be more historical to subtract some population from some other provinces when you e.g. add 100,000 inhabitants to Constantinople? Or would this be too much of a hassle? (I'm comparing it to the Chinese coastal evacuation events, I guess)
Nope, most Turks lived in the countryside, not in cities, so the huge numbers of people can come from 'nowhere'
But the basibozuks are not represtented in the game as cheap/free toops, so I find it reasonable that some money should go to the Ottomans.
Illyrian empire would make for a cool fantasy country.
Last edited: