VIP - Balkans

[unmerged(5323)]

If you look at the maps from 1876 you can see that a giant Bulgaria did spring up (it's not 1914, the name of the file is wrong)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_boundaries_1914.jpg
but it lasted for less than a year, and it's doubtful that there was any organized army presence in the western parts.

I stumbled accros this map earlier and I don`t know what it represents, but it certainly doesn`t represent anything that ever existed. The revolt in 1876 was put down quickly and Ottomans granted no autonomy or anything on the Conference of Constantionple or earlier (even demands of GPs on CC did not push for such Bulgaria, but divided into two pieces) so what imaginary 1876 Bulgaria this is I don`t know. Such Bulgaria never sprung up. It includes even Nish and Dobruja that weren`t even part of San Stefano Bulgaria.

__________

Of course there is going to be only one event for San Stefano and Berlin Congress. When Russia knocks on the door of Constantinople and Ottomans sign peace Russia gets an event to stick with Great Bulgaria and San Stefano or accept Berlin revision of San Stefano.

(Multiplayer dynamism can stil be achived by later extra events where say Great Britain decides wheather to signal to Russia that they will be bitchy if they go with San Stefano and so on. Multiplayer dynamism is nice enough, but for a single player games deterministic historicsm is much better than having AI randomly choose among imaginative events.)

 

[Dibo]

I stumbled accros this map earlier and I don`t know what it represents, but it certainly doesn`t represent anything that ever existed. The revolt in 1876 was put down quickly and Ottomans granted no autonomy or anything on the Conference of Constantionple or earlier (even demands of GPs on CC did not push for such Bulgaria, but divided into two pieces) so what imaginary 1876 Bulgaria this is I don`t know. Such Bulgaria never sprung up. It includes even Nish and Dobruja that weren`t even part of San Stefano Bulgaria.

__________

Of course there is going to be only one event for San Stefano and Berlin Congress. When Russia knocks on the door of Constantinople and Ottomans sign peace Russia gets an event to stick with Great Bulgaria and San Stefano or accept Berlin revision of San Stefano.

(Multiplayer dynamism can stil be achived by later extra events where say Great Britain decides wheather to signal to Russia that they will be bitchy if they go with San Stefano and so on. Multiplayer dynamism is nice enough, but for a single player games deterministic historicsm is much better than having AI randomly choose among imaginative events.)

This map was a proposal by the Great powers turned down by the Ottomans. It was based on the 1871 Bulgarian church dioceses.

 

[OHgamer]

Of course there is going to be only one event for San Stefano and Berlin Congress. When Russia knocks on the door of Constantinople and Ottomans sign peace Russia gets an event to stick with Great Bulgaria and San Stefano or accept Berlin revision of San Stefano.

But that isn't the correct sequence. You have the Russians knocking on the gates of Istanbul by Feb 1878, Turks sign San Stefano on 12 March, Austria & Britain blow a gasket when the terms are announced and call for changes (March & April 1878), Bismarck finally intervenes to prevent a wider war (May 1878) and the result is Congress of Berlin (June 1878). That makes a 3 month gap between San Stefano and Berlin - they were definitely not simultaneous peace term offers. What I'd recommend is an event for San Stefano that creates "Big Bulgaria" and then an event triggering a bit later for the UK and Austria to then protest, starting the chain for Congress of Berlin. In general it should be more than just Russia being able to decide whether or not San Stefano will stick or be rewritten. At most, if it is decided to give the choice only to Russia, the result if they persist in San Stefano should be war with Britain and Austria - neither would have accepted Russian domination in the Balkans and Straits that San Stefano would have resulted in.

 

[unmerged(5323)]

But that isn't the correct sequence. You have the Russians knocking on the gates of Istanbul by Feb 1878, Turks sign San Stefano on 12 March, Austria & Britain blow a gasket when the terms are announced and call for changes (March & April 1878), Bismarck finally intervenes to prevent a wider war (May 1878) and the result is Congress of Berlin (June 1878). That makes a 3 month gap between San Stefano and Berlin - they were definitely not simultaneous peace term offers. What I'd recommend is an event for San Stefano that creates "Big Bulgaria" and then an event triggering a bit later for the UK and Austria to then protest, starting the chain for Congress of Berlin. In general it should be more than just Russia being able to decide whether or not San Stefano will stick or be rewritten. At most, if it is decided to give the choice only to Russia, the result if they persist in San Stefano should be war with Britain and Austria - neither would have accepted Russian domination in the Balkans and Straits that San Stefano would have resulted in.

Of course there is going to be a war if Russians persist on San Stefano. Have a little faith in me for God`s sake.

The 3 month gap is short. Russians anyway never in their right mind though San Stefano would not be revised, they were just surprised at the scale of the revision. Having more events in for Germany, GB and Austria to protest just means more chances for Russia to get away with San Stefano. Historicaly anybody knew they would protest anyway.

Also it is not like Russians are always going to sign an armistice with Ottomans on 31st January 1878. It might as well be a year later or six months earlier. So we can have San Stefano in 1879. What about that gap?

 

[OHgamer]

Of course there is going to be a war if Russians persist on San Stefano. Have a little faith in me for God`s sake.

The 3 month gap is short. Russians anyway never in their right mind though San Stefano would not be revised, they were just surprised at the scale of the revision. Having more events in for Germany, GB and Austria to protest just means more chances for Russia to get away with San Stefano. Historicaly anybody knew they would protest anyway.

Also it is not like Russians are always going to sign an armistice with Ottomans on 31st January 1878. It might as well be a year later or six months earlier. So we can have San Stefano in 1879. What about that gap?

If the triggers for the Congress event are set that Bulgaria exists AND has control of the "Big Bulgaria" outer provinces then it will not matter about the gap if the war doesn't start until 1879 or 1899 for that matter, date/deathdate would take care of that. I really don't consider a three month gap all that short - if it was a week between San Stefano and Berlin then I could see conflating the two into one making sense, but three (actually almost 4) months is a fairly significant piece of time in this game and for events as important as San Stefano and Congress of Berlin, with their very different outcomes, to blend them into one event hinging on the choice of one nation is I think problematic because it will likely in the end make the decision for a wider war in Europe over the Balkans more likely. In this series I think it is much better to have more events than less. With your model if the Russian player or AI chooses to keep San Stefano (5% chance) then the response by the UK or Austria would be 5% each to NOT try to stop them and preserve the peace. I would much rather see a situation where the UK and Austria have events for official protests against San Stefano, Bismarck calling the conference, present the Berlin revision, have the UK and Austria accept it and then have Russia either accept or decline, with a decline leading to events for war. It may seem more circuitous, but it reflects the actual chain of events and should reduce the chance for a war breaking out over the Balkans in 1878. Especially in a multiplayer situation better to give everyone fair warning that the disputes are growing more strident than to have the war break out with somewhat less warning.

 

[unmerged(5323)]

If the triggers for the Congress event are set that Bulgaria exists AND has control of the "Big Bulgaria" outer provinces then it will not matter about the gap if the war doesn't start until 1879 or 1899 for that matter, date/deathdate would take care of that. I really don't consider a three month gap all that short - if it was a week between San Stefano and Berlin then I could see conflating the two into one making sense, but three (actually almost 4) months is a fairly significant piece of time in this game and for events as important as San Stefano and Congress of Berlin, with their very different outcomes, to blend them into one event hinging on the choice of one nation is I think problematic because it will likely in the end make the decision for a wider war in Europe over the Balkans more likely. In this series I think it is much better to have more events than less. With your model if the Russian player or AI chooses to keep San Stefano (5% chance) then the response by the UK or Austria would be 5% each to NOT try to stop them and preserve the peace. I would much rather see a situation where the UK and Austria have events for official protests against San Stefano, Bismarck calling the conference, present the Berlin revision, have the UK and Austria accept it and then have Russia either accept or decline, with a decline leading to events for war. It may seem more circuitous, but it reflects the actual chain of events and should reduce the chance for a war breaking out over the Balkans in 1878. Especially in a multiplayer situation better to give everyone fair warning that the disputes are growing more strident than to have the war break out with somewhat less warning.

It was 3 months (almost 4), but general guidelines were agreed on earlier and the Congress itself was about working out the details.

Acctually I was going to set the ai_chance for Russian to accept the revision on 98%. Also even events that you described would not make Berlin Congress trigger 3 months afterwards. If the San Stefano triggers international protests and they trigger Berlin Congress, they will all fire on the same day.

Most games that are played are stil single player. And for them it is best not to confuse the AI with too many events.

 

[OHgamer]

It was 3 months (almost 4), but general guidelines were agreed on earlier and the Congress itself was about working out the details.

Acctually I was going to set the ai_chance for Russian to accept the revision on 98%. Also even events that you described would not make Berlin Congress trigger 3 months afterwards. If the San Stefano triggers international protests and they trigger Berlin Congress, they will all fire on the same day.

Most games that are played are stil single player. And for them it is best not to confuse the AI with too many events.

Using the offset = 60 or 90 would create the desired time delay potential, would not necessarily trigger immediately upon creation.

Events confusing AI? Not exactly sure what you mean by that - properly written events should have no major affect on the AI system in and of themselves and in fact can be used to modify the AI as necessary to fit to new realities. Considering the Russians were rebuked strongly at Berlin, one could argue a new AI for Russia post 1878 to last through the Russo-Japanese war would make sense to replicate the shift in Russian foreign policy focus from the Balkans to East Asia.

 

[Tunch Khan]

My view is also in favor of building up two seperate events, Berlin being triggered by San Stefano. I guess it is much better and easier to stick to historical facts. Of course we can add multiple options to either agreements, adding certain flavors that the player can actually change if he/she desires.

 

[Kelvin]

I agree with Tunch, Bosnia needs a Bosnian cultue, however I'm not sure how to represent the Croats and Serbs in Bosnia, are they ortodox Bosnians, or ortodox Serbs?
There are several reasons to go either way, or even to mix it both. (the solution I would choose)

Well, Muslims in Bosnia are Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs that converted to Islam, the rest are/were Croats/Catholic (Livno and Mostar, to some degree Tuzla) and Serbs/Orthodox (eastern part and Banja Luka).

That would be a start...

 

[Tunch Khan]

Well, Muslims in Bosnia are Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs that converted to Islam, the rest are/were Croats/Catholic (Livno and Mostar, to some degree Tuzla) and Serbs/Orthodox (eastern part and Banja Luka).

That would be a start...

Yes but we'd have to convince some people that Bosnian/Bosniak is a different culture than Serbian. There is a lot of of resistance against Bosniaks in these threads.

 

[Ivan Bajlo]

Yes but we'd have to convince some people that Bosnian/Bosniak is a different culture than Serbian. There is a lot of of resistance against Bosniaks in these threads.

We got Dixie and Yankee, South and North Germans and Italians etc. and these people are want to now the difference????

Can someone tells me difference between those cultures or are they there simply for gaming purpose???

 

[Kelvin]

Just point them to a reliable (aka unbiased and informed) source on the war in Bosnia and herzegovina in the 1990s.

Today's Muslims in Bosnia are really a mix, mostly of people who lived there and partly immigrating Croats (to a larger degree, they found life much easier under Ottoman rule than the Hungarian/Habsburg rule) and Serbs (less inclined to conversion, they placed faith over economic benefits).

 

[Grosshaus]

Just point them to a reliable (aka unbiased and informed) source on the war in Bosnia and herzegovina in the 1990s.

Today's Muslims in Bosnia are really a mix, mostly of people who lived there and partly immigrating Croats (to a larger degree, they found life much easier under Ottoman rule than the Hungarian/Habsburg rule) and Serbs (less inclined to conversion, they placed faith over economic benefits).

No need to mix things that happened 70 years after the end of the game to Victoria. Rather show the difference of the cultures at the time.

 

[Tunch Khan]

Maybe we should point out their differences from Serbs, Croats, Turks and Albanians.

 

[unmerged(23747)]

Hi guys,

I wanted to follow up with you on the proposals I made in post #272 in this thread...

Hrast - I think you can make the best decision on the Eastern crisis events - I hope that I gave you some input from the Bulgarian side. I only wish that the deathdates for the Bulgarian uprising and the CC were later than 1876 - the social and political issues that governed them IMHO were in place long before and after 1876 and I can give you my rationale for it if you want. If not - that's allright I do not plan to bother you with any more discussions on topic

Mishko - I never got it if you plan to consider my Proposal#2 from post #272 about the Balkan war events I'll appreciate it if you give your say on that

Thank you in advance

and oh yeah -

Cheers/Nazdrave

 

[Kelvin]

No need to mix things that happened 70 years after the end of the game to Victoria. Rather show the difference of the cultures at the time.

Things that happened 70 years after Vicky time are simply a consequence of those differences, short-range migrations and conversions. There was always a large number of Bosnian Muslims who were adamant that they were nor Croats nor Serbs, while the rest were converted Croats and Serbs. Even before the Ottoman incursion, the culture of the Bosnian inhabitants was distinct from the Croatian or Serbian.

 

[felixs]

I have posted some parts (balkans and western anatolia) of my work I finished on the ottoman census of 1881, in ottoman pops thread in pops, I tried to get them arranged according to the province boundaries we have in the game map. And yes I have heard that some doesnt find them reliable or some simply just didnt like the results, but I think they can be useful to make the game more playable, at those times they didnt publish the results of the census in papers or post them on the net, like a us presidential primary, very time a national group wins a province , they were made for administrative purposes, to calculate the military personnel and amount of tax goverment collect, census are made by counting the people and the ottoman were the only ones who did that at that time, other estimates usually doesnt have any concrete evidencence for their figures, these numbers are not perfect and I accept there can be some prejudice against some minorities but in my opinion they shouldnt be ignored alltogether.

 

[unmerged(5323)]

...
Hrast - I think you can make the best decision on the Eastern crisis events - I hope that I gave you some input from the Bulgarian side. I only wish that the deathdates for the Bulgarian uprising and the CC were later than 1876 - the social and political issues that governed them IMHO were in place long before and after 1876 and I can give you my rationale for it if you want. If not - that's allright I do not plan to bother you with any more discussions on topic
..

I am aware conditions for a Bulgarian uprising were there all along and that it was only a crisis in which Ottoman Empire found itself then what made the planners speed up the preparations and rise up (somewhat prematurley as it was demonstrated by succesful choking of the rebellion by the Turks). However the revolt happened when there was trouble in the capital (they changed two sultans and a few constitutions), bankrupcy and rebellion in BiH and although all of this can not be predeterministicaly set to happen then, alot (with a healty amount of triggers) can be. I mean if somebody makes events for turmoil in Istanbul also, then when 1875 comes around, Ottoman player should get very scared... (-And all that becouse in 1874 there was a bad harvest in Bosnia.)

I appreciate your views (infact after a long consideration I decided to go with your proposal for CC calling for a big and undivided Bulgaria (although partialy becouse of technical unability to corectly simulate verticaly divided BUL)), but Bulgarian Uprising with a randomised date would technicaly complicate things too much for me (and anybody who would later perhaps want to write events for coups in Istanbul and would want to link them with the trouble of Eastern Crisis). Instead of nice normal events with a date line, there would have to be events with a huge offset cheking weather it has already happened (although it would have some of own charm with not knowing when the Eastern Question would be re-opened). And all historical corelation with BiH rebellion would be lost. So I think I can not go with your wishes this time.

 

[unmerged(25941)]

BOSNIANS ARE BOSNIANS, they have existed for almost a 1000 years under that name (or slight variations like Bosniaks, Bosnjani etc). We were never Serbs or Croats. B4 the ariaval of Turk most Bosnians were of some cristian faith and out of those most were of a faith deemed by the Vatican as a heretic version of catolicism (known to us later as Bogumils).
Serbs were brought to Bosnia by the Turks as cheap labour. Orthodox Chrisitan Bosians never considered them selfes Serbs b4 Serb politics from accross the border convinced many of them to do so during the 1800s (late) and 1990s. SAme was with Bosnian Catholics - Croatian propaganda has done the same. However there are stil many Christians in Bosnia that consider themselfes Bosnians no matter what (as well as other religions such as Jews, Protestant or whateva).

http://www.kakarigi.net/manu/briefhis.htm

 

[Dibo]

B4 the ariaval of Turk most Bosnians were of some cristian faith and out of those most were of a faith deemed by the Vatican as a heretic version of catolicism (known to us later as Bogumils).

Bogomil herecy originated from Bulgaria. They were not Catholic heretics. They were Orthodox heretics. They spread the herecy from Bulgaria where it appeared in 10th century to Bosna and even as far as France (see Cathars for example).

http://www.historytoday.com/index.cfm?articleid=916
http://www.bartleby.com/65/bo/Bogomils.html
http://www.truechristian.org/great_falling_away/10bogomils/10bogomils.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomils
http://faq.macedonia.org/history/the.bogomils.html
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/brockett/bogomils.htm
http://89.1911encyclopedia.org/B/BO/BOGOMILS.htm
http://www.nullens.org/freemasons/chapters/Section_A/a6.htm
http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/dualist.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/bogomils.html