Project SYNTHESIS

[J. pride]

8) They're already collapsing like there's no tomorrow. I'll think about it

For the Byzantines or for the Arabs; I strongly recommend that u somehow let the Arabs retain Baghdad. Although on the maps it shows Baghdad to be part of Seljuk Territory I would like to point out that they were definitely not. Their relationship to the Seljuks was like Papal states to HRE or France.

Here is my idea; As soon as the Seljuks conquer Baghdad; the Abbasids collapse but Baghdad respawns the same turn as a vassal state to the Seljuks exercising control of Baghdad and its surroundings while Seljuks control everything else.

 

[Linkman226]

Uh... I'll think about that in a bit. In the meanwhile, I just figured out how to change what happens when cities are conquered. Well here are the two ideas I'm toying with:

1) When Seljuks conquer cities, the population doesn't drop

2) When a Middle Eastern city gets conquered, it only has a 25% chance of its population dropping (50% if Mongols are the invaders)

I'm leaning towards the latter, considering the sheer number of invasions the Middle East has experienced.

 

[J. pride]

2) When a Middle Eastern city gets conquered, it only has a 25% chance of its population dropping (50% if Mongols are the invaders)

If you want to be realistic 15% for the Seljuks and 80% for the Mongols. Historically the Mongol conquest resulted in upto 70% of the population of the middle being destroyed (they destroyed each and every major ciy and massacred the population) while the Seljuk invasion might have even led to a population increase. Your right that the middle east has had many invasion but only two of them were bloody enough to cause demographic changes; Mongol and Timurid Invasion a (im talking about post islamic era).Well here is my counter idea:

-Seljuks don't destroy any property or population when conquering cities in Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia, Levant, Egypt (if they get there). Notice Anatolia is not included.

-The Mongols on the other hand do considerable damage and remove alot of population. If they conquer Mesopotamia this should actually result in disappearance of some resources as Iraq was never able to recover from it. The sheer number of canals, cities, agriculture destroyed was able of be rebuilt until the Modern Era.

 

[J. pride]

Here is the map with Damascus added.

600 AD

1000 AD (Mali Spawn)


Some might be concerned that Baghdad and Damascus are too close but Damascus only takes 3 food and 1 hammer from Baghdad; while Kuwait takes 6 food and one commece and Isfahan takes the spices and wheat. This is why i think i think Kuwait should be taken out and Esfahan founded lader.

Leoreth: If you are looking at these, add Damascus to DOC to since having Antioch makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Leoreth]

Leoreth: If you are looking at these, add Damascus to DOC to since having Antioch makes no sense whatsoever.

Not true.

 

[J. pride]

Not true

.

How is Antioch more important than Damascus? Or did u mean something else?

 

[Leoreth]

Antioch is not completely insignificant is what I'm saying.

 

[The Turk]

Antioch is not completely insignificant is what I'm saying.

Although I agree with you Leoreth, that Antioch was an important city, compared to Damascus, it was nothing. In fact the Arabs can should have a chance of changing their capital to Damascus or Baghdad, but preferably Damascus first.

We can also still keep Antioch easily, just move it one tile north (so one tile east of the mountain), and then move Ikonion (Konya) one tile West. Currently Anatolia is a bit bare, so having Ikonion moved one tile west, would make the map look a lot better, plus you would gain one of the most important cities of Dar al-Islam or the Muslim World.

 

[Linkman226]

Leoreth, what was the original reason Antioch was preferred over Damascus again?

 

[Leoreth]

- sea access
- doesn't intrude on Baghdad that much
- makes more sense under Turkish control where it'll ultimately end up

 

[J. pride]

- sea access
- doesn't intrude on Baghdad that much
- makes more sense under Turkish control where it'll ultimately end up

1) Point Taken; but to be fair Damascus grow just like Antioch and even has a little bit better more hammers with the changes that i made.
2) Barely intrudes Baghdad; one flood plain and a desert. Kuwait which ahistorical anyways tends to intrude Baghdad alot more; if u remove that city it will be even as it was before.
3) Not really; as u can see from the map. Ottoman conquest of Damascus, Aleppo and Antakya took place in 1516. Furthermore Damascus was the capital of the Elayat of the Arabs (Southern Syria) while Aleppo was the capital of the Elayat of Syria (Northern Syria). Antiooch under no time in Ottoman history was given this privilege. From this you can clearly note that Antioch did not occupy (compared to Damascus) an important status in the Ottoman Empire.

This is one of those times where you can implement a great deal historicity without affecting gameplay at all.

 

[The Turk]

This is a simple way you could do it.

As you can see here I moved Antioch up, and I moved Konya one tile west.

Also other things I changed/added, was I added Zoroastrianism to Ctesiphon, I would remove the stone underneath Ctesiphon (I believe thats an error you forgot to take out), and I added Buddhism to Merv and Samarkand, which was wrongfully missing from those two cities.
Also don't forget move the wine (which is underneath Antioch now), one tile south; and I would add wheat one tile west of Damascus and perhaps one more fish to the Levant as well.

 

[Leoreth]

My point in (3) is that Antakya is still a rather well known Turkish city today.

And no, the stone under Ctesiphon is there on purpose. Zoroastrianism in that city also barely makes sense because it gets removed when it flips to Arabia anyway.

 

[Linkman226]

I like The Turk's setup, personally, with respects to city placement. But what Leoreth brought up is a good point, and adding Buddhism to Central Asia is bad in the (fairly common) event that the Arabs don't get there.

 

[The Turk]

My point in (3) is that Antakya is still a rather well known Turkish city today.

And no, the stone under Ctesiphon is there on purpose. Zoroastrianism in that city also barely makes sense because it gets removed when it flips to Arabia anyway.

Ok, so my proposal includes both Antakya and Damascus.

What purpose does it serve, other than to annoy the player? Currently there is a stone one tile west of it, why have one right underneath it as well? It makes no sense.

So what does it hurt to include it? In fact if Damascus is added, Damascus should be made into the capital, right after the city flips to them. Also Orthodox Christianity should stay in the Middle East, which it was still the majority religion in the Levant and parts of Egypt, right up until 900 AD or so.

@Linkman, why would adding Buddhism there be a bad idea? If the Arabs don't get there, they stay Buddhist, thats it, I don't see it as a threat to them, but as alternate history if anything

 

[Linkman226]

I'm definitely rethinking the Arab UP. Something like "The Power of the Jiziya" or along those lines

 

[Leoreth]

I'm definitely rethinking the Arab UP. Something like "The Power of the Jiziya" or along those lines

To what effect? The current Arabian UHV would definitely be a loss, considering how it helps shaping the Middle East religiously.

 

[The Turk]

I'm definitely rethinking the Arab UP. Something like "The Power of the Jiziya" or along those lines

Well I think the current Arabian UP is fine, in fact I think its great, but instead of wiping out all religions it conquers, it should instead have the religion disappear after a while. Also please keep Orthodox Christianity high in Egypt and the Levant, it really shouldn't disappear.


Also there should be no Zoroastrianism Holy City in the 600 AD start, but should just be present in Sirajis (which I think should be changed), without the Holy City.

 

[Linkman226]

Leoreth- Because the Arabs traditionally did not just wipe out all local religions. The new UP would still spread around Islam and auto build Islamic buildings, but it wouldn't kill off all the other religions.

The Turk, I like your suggestion but once I improve the inquisitor AI, I don't see how the Arab UP would be powerful at all.

 

[Linkman226]

On another note, Shia Islam makes the Arab Shrines UHV hilariously easy, leaving you only to build the Shia and Sunni shrines as well as conquering Shiraz. A human can easily get 6 shrines with just two prophets and conquering. This needs to be revised.