Comments - The_Turk

Yes, I was going to ask why the emphasis on "multiplayer remake", is this mod more geared towards MP than SP? Or there is no functional difference?

Bug: After the Oriental Crisis is won by the Ottomans (not enforcing the puppet CB though), the Egyptians do not give "Egyptian Aleppo" as part of the Levant to the Ottomans. So whilst the rest of the Levant returns to the Ottoman Empire, Antep & Afrin continue to be Egyptian.

All states violently centralised during this time period - and sparked rebellions. Should the Ottomans and France be totalitarian as well? Totalitarianism is the state intervening and guiding every aspect (in theory) of their citizens lives. That is not Mexico under Santa Anna in 1836. Save Totalitarianism for actual mass mobilisation politics in the late 19th/early 20th c.

Is Mexico really supposed to be "totalitarian" in 1836...? Unitary sure, Santa Anna tried to centralise the state, but "totalitarian" means something completely different, not very appropriate for a form of centralisation that reads about "fascism and communism".

I'm seeing some odd AI behaviour. The US annexed a random part of Japan (Chubu province), instead of even trying to sphere the Japanese daimyo. Is this WAD?

What is the correct checksum?

What a profoundly strange mini-mod :P

I'm guessing .01% of games are played as Poland?

Approaching *from* the East.

Otherwise looks good!

Why is Egypt grouped with Makuria?

Is this mod dead?

You have Zoroastrianism, but not Ismailism? "Shia" doesn't actually mean anything. There are Twlever Shi'ite, Ismailis, Nizari Ismailis, Zayidis etc. Zayidis are not even Shi'ite, in that they don't believe a successor of Ali needs to be Caliph. Ibadism is truely marginal in this timeframe. But how you could have Zoroastrianism, but not some of the other Shi'a branches is bizarre.

I would remove Zoroastrianism, and at least split up Shi'ism into Ismailism and Twlever Shi'ism (at the very least).

The game begins in 1212, so this is Khwarezmid Iran, nothing to do with Ancient Iran. In fact the country would not be called "Iran" until the Mongols conquered in 1260. In this time period, from 750 onwards, it was just called: "Iraq-i-Ajam". The Sun and Lion motif is tied to the Safavids (1501-1736).

Would have been better if you added Ismailism (instead of portraying them as solely Shi'ite). Then you could add all the Nizari Ismaili castles in Syria, Eastern Iran, and of course Alamut. I presume the map is big enough to accommodate it anyway.

Why would absentee king give -1 loyalty? Angevin Kings employed Justiciars to rule in their stead. If anything many English nobles enjoyed the more distant Kingship. The problems only began when John lost (almost) all of his holdings in France, and returned to rule directly in England, removing the position of Justiciar.

*Influence* should be what gets a malus. Ruling a transmarine Empire, meant that English Kings could not influence events far and wide.

Iraq and Syria are modern countries, but culturally one cannot say that all the people of Arabia and the Mashriq (Iraq/Syria) identify as one (especially if you have Egyptians as separate). Urbanized people from the Arabian peninsula (Yemen/Hejaz), really should be different culturally from the urbanized populations of Syria/Iraq. This is to say that the Mashriq group really should be broken up between "Bilad al-Sham" and the Arabian peninsula.

As for Shi'ites v. Sunnis, that would be pointless, since these divisions themselves are more modern than anything. Plenty of Sunni's practice what are today "Shi'ite" customs, and vice-versa, the line is very often is not clear, and Shi'ites are not a homogenous group either.

Why does Yemen have the same culture as Syrians/Iraqis, when Egypt has a completely separate culture? Hejazi's, Yemenites, and other urbanized Arabian peninsula peoples, should have their own culture, outside of "Bedouin". Already linking "Syrians" with "Iraqis" is a bit tenuous.

Once again, fantastic work. But....

>Elephants were one of the staples of Indian militaries and the Muslim dynasties quickly adopted them.

This simply isn't true. The advantage the Ghurids and later Muslim dynasties had over their Indian counterparts, was a monopoly on horses, which using feign tactics of horse archers, was able to decimate elephant armies. In fact after the Ghurids, followed a long decline of the usage of elephants in ALL Indian armies. I'm not saying that elephants were never used again, but to make them a staple part of the Ghurids, or later Delhi Sultans, would be wrong. Horses are simply better than elephants (except in lugging artillery pieces), in terms of breeding them for war and the mobility they offer on the battlefield.

Source: New Cambridge History of Islam: Eastern Islamic World

Why the mixed naming policy? Some are in English, some in Modern Turkish, some in Ottoman Turkish. If you are not naming the French units in French, can you just call: Yeni Sari's: Janissaries. I don't see the appeal in putting names for any faction in a language people cannot understand. Not to mention that lack of standardization leaves a lot of confusion.

Just use what is commonly used in academia, or in English.

I'm sure a few did, but so did the Pope. Should we make the Pope the general for Papal armies? I hope not. As I said, old men don't travel well on 15th century roads. The Unit picture looks great, but it's going to be rather immersion breaking if I'm having the Doge himself accompany me on sieges of Crete...

Did the Doge ever lead an army, outside of a few sparse occasions? I was under the impression that it would be mercenary generals (condottieri or the like). Old men don't move around on 15th century "roads" so easily...

Looks great, but two problems:

1) I've never read anywhere about Daylamites fighting on horseback, what is your source for that? They were exclusively soldiers who fought on foot, and especially with javelins with large shields (as you have already). The New Cambridge History of Islam notes that they relied on other people (Turks or other Iranian dynasties for example) for their horsemanship.

2) Hormuz Pirates, why not just call them Hormuz Marines? A Pirate is something very specific, like a Viking (ie. raider). Marines just means soldiers who traditionally fight on the sea. This is just a naming grievance, but it seems strange to have a on-land fighting force called "pirates". Might as well call them raiders, but that wouldn't make sense either. So Marines is a good term for them.

Shouldn't it be a Shahdom, instead of an Empire? Hence the Khwarezm Shahdom? It would be like calling the Abbasid Caliphate the Abbasid Empire, doesn't seem right, since the title is Caliph and not Emperor. Same with the Khwarezm Shahs.

Very interesting, and very sad at the same time. I really hope they expand modding tools eventually, otherwise I won't be able to play your mod! :(

Hi, just to be clear, this mod does not work with AoE2 HD? Are there any plans to make it work with the HD version?

No campaign game yet, right? I'll wait until you finish that. Looking forward to it!

Happy to see the changelog. Nice changes overall. However I did prefer the old Central Asia setup... Marv seems way too big, when in reality it controlled a small sliver of land, which straddled a river (from the Amu Darya), surrounding it was desert which the government had no control over.

If you can changeup the Tarim Basin, from the 3 blob provinces that it currently is, that would be great.

Also why does Muhammad Ali's Reforms give negative Research (-40%)? This must be a bug.

>'d also ask to avoid posting questions in the download page. I usually delete old versions when a new one comes out, so your question might be lost forever. I'd rather that didn't happen.

Where would you prefer people post comments or questions?

Also I'm guessing by the picture of the event "Kassa Hailu" you added some new features. Will you put up a changelog later to illustrate the roll-back measuers you took?

By the way, when you get the Taiwan concession from China, you don't get Taipei. When you were reorganizing the provinces, you forgot to include Taipei in the Taiwan concession.

Not sure how to contact you, but again, please remember to fix the Iran events which are currently non-sensical (tobacco revolt without tobacco?), and please lower the Karakums life rating to 10 or 15; renaming the province to Marv or Karakume would be nice. I was also thinking you could redo the Tarim Basin provinces, to show the fertile rim areas, and the large Takla Makan desert in the middle. Currently it is just 3-4 large bloc provinces, all are desert; very ugly indeed.

That is too bad, because now Russia 'colonizes' Turkmenistan, and envelopes the states of Khwarezm & Sogdiana (Khiva/Bukhara). Perhaps lower the life rating there; it is not like the Karakum desert is very hospitable anyway (much like the Namibian desert). And if you have the Karakum, why not clearly show the Kyzl *** desert as well? These two deserts are what separates Khwarezm/Sogdiana from the Russians to the North and the Iranians to the South. It is one of the reasons why the Russians failed to take Khiva in the 1840s (at the same time the British failed to last in Afghanistan).

Also looking at the Iranian events, I'm getting the Tobacco Revolt (historically 1890s) in the 1860s and before I have Tobacco... I understand you took these from another mod, but you should take a closer look at them.

"Fundamentalist" law makes sense in 21st century lingo, but does not make sense when talking about the Ottoman, Qajar, Moroccan etc states in the 19th century. The decision clearly says "to adopt Islamic Law as civil law".... but if you are only 'now' adopting it, what was civil law made up from, BEFORE? In actuality the Sharia, was the legal code for these states. The Ottomans and Qajars saw fit to also add in lasting royal decrees of equal value; abrogating Sharia, and allowing them to amass more power. It is only with secularization however, that that power becomes unchecked, and the Ottoman Empire quickly descends into a police state under Abdul Hamid II, and then the CUP. See Dr. Richard Bulliet, you has a series on Modern Middle East history on iTunesU. Otherwise the New Cambridge History of Islam will tell you the same if you can get a copy.

If you want to add "Fundamentalist" law for the Saudi Wahhabis, that would make sense. But no state in this time period followed a fundementalist understanding of Islam. This decision shows little understanding of the region's history. I've already reached out to you by message, and I'm still willing to help you improve your decisions/events for the region.

EDIT: Also I advice you to rename Bereket to either Karakum (desert) or Marv. Bereket is an insignificant city. Marv is an older and far more important city in the region.