Rapid Expansion of the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire Until 1536

[Yasko]

Still it is not good if countries with totally different ideologies can make strong and long alliances with each other. I mean the OE tried to conquer Europe entirely. Obviously no country in Europe would support them for long.

Ottomans had long alliance with France which lasted more than a century. Ottos also had alliances with various protestant countries against the Habsburgs. Realpolitik is one thing, fooling the dumb masses with religion/ideology is something else. Religion was important since you could use it to grab land from "infidels", but it did not stop Venice for example from forming alliances with Akkoyunlus against Ottos or Karamans.

In game religion should be very important when it comes to CBs and having lower infamy grabbing land from others, but it should only make diplomacy little more difficult, not impossible as its in EUIII.

The official reason why Ottos attacked Habsburgs and initiated second siege of Vienna was for example to help Tökeli İmre and his magyars against Austria, i.e. an alliance between protestant magyars and muslim turks.

[CanOmer]

Still it is not good if countries with totally different ideologies can make strong and long alliances with each other. I mean the OE tried to conquer Europe entirely. Obviously no country in Europe would support them for long.

There was no such goal. The most further goals was Rome and Vienna.

[rybka]

ABout Christian-muslim alliances. If memory serves me well, even Crusader states in Holy land allied some muslim states against other muslim states. I remember reading that knights from Europe, which visited Holy land were shocked by this, which lead to a lot of trouble.

[Urza]

Still it is not good if countries with totally different ideologies can make strong and long alliances with each other. I mean the OE tried to conquer Europe entirely. Obviously no country in Europe would support them for long.

But didn't (the kingdom of) France do exactly that?

(Nvm, too late. I agree with Yasko on everything.)

[Robmel]

In the Turkish rule, whole regions of Hungary was depopulated.

I don't think it was due to Turkish rule, but because of Hungary becoming battlefield, military frontier with little economic value for both sides (Turkish and Austrian/German).

[Konstantinos XV]

Habsburg-Safavid relations. Muscovy joining the Holy (Catholic) league. France and Protestant princes vs Catholics.

The problem with Alliances is that they are too unwieldy and too demanding. To the point of being an annoying burden (at least in EU). Besides, EU system doesn't really allow to represent the shifting nature of short-lived agreements. A system of defensive pacts (with an opportunity for long-lasting leagues to evolve into states in European case) and offensive "for this one war" leagues/pacts (for coordinated action vs a common enemy in a one single war) might've been much more flexible. For gameplay purposes there should be an opportunity to place troops under singular control (to prevent fewPMs from being bulldozed over one by one). Could be quite demanding on the AI though. (And naturally, powers involved in cross-religious agreements don't have to be major powers. As was already mentioned, there're numerous examples provided by the Holy Land and the Balkans.)

On the side note of diplomatic relations, alliances and personal unions. The Spanish monarchy couldn't get Aragonese to fight offensive wars and barely received any taxes from outside Castile. And that's 150 years following the union. *Generic Bill O'Reilly picture*

There was no such goal. The most further goals was Rome and Vienna.

Appetite comes when eating. What state wouldn't use an opportunity to expand further if possible?

[CanOmer]

Appetite comes when eating. What state wouldn't use an opportunity to expand further if possible?

True, but it is also possible almost everyone.

[Yasko]

When Konstantinos mentiones Muscovy, we can also mention Crimean - Musovy alliance against Lithuanian - Golden Horde axe. Maybe even Kazan-Muscovy alliance but it may have been vassalship.

Oh BTW, i dont know if its implemented. But alliances with heathens should give a monthly legitimacy and/or prestige hit as long as its maintained IMO.

[Konstantinos XV]

Ah yes. Crimean Tatars. Assisted Poland and Co at Grunwald. Assisted Zaporozhian Cossacks vs PLC.

[james24eagle]

Necessity is the mother of all... alliances.

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Necessity is the mother of all... alliances.

The consensus seems to be that the limitations of religion on diplomacy are exaggerated in EU3 and that it should be easier to maintain alliances with those of other religions. It sounds like a fair consensus-thingy to me!

[james24eagle]

The consensus seems to be that the limitations of religion on diplomacy are exaggerated in EU3 and that it should be easier to maintain alliances with those of other religions. It sounds like a fair consensus-thingy to me!

Possible to maintain, yes. Easier to maintain, not necissarily - just implemented differently perhaps. One ought to expect many diplomatic faux-pas, misunderstanding and unpopularity amoungst internal factions and perhaps even allies who are very pious. Not unlike the concept of having Jewish advisors at court - great benefit with a price.

[demanvanwezel]

maybe allow alliances with heathens between nations with low religious fervor?

[Merrick Chance']

maybe allow alliances with heathens between nations with low religious fervor?

Or have events where you need to pay ~50-100 ducats or accidentally insult your ally?

(that event sounds like an MMesque event)

[CanOmer]

maybe allow alliances with heathens between nations with low religious fervor?

Nice

[k_merse]

That wouldn't be a penalty big enough for a very liberal country.

[Alley]

Countries in the past were a lot more religious. You can't look at a historically correct game and expect it to behave the way modern society does.

[Zolotaya]

maybe allow alliances with heathens between nations with low religious fervor?

This would not work to recreate the Ottoman historical experience. The Ottoman society was very fervent (ie sponsoring and building many world famous mosques) at the same time that it was very involved with countries of other religions.

As I stated before, I am of the belief that the Ottomans deserve a system of their own - and an extraordinary ability to pursue alliances with christian states would be a part of this.

[Robmel]

As I stated before, I am of the belief that the Ottomans deserve a system of their own - and an extraordinary ability to pursue alliances with christian states would be a part of this.

Crimean Khanate, Golden Horde, Kazan, Persia, Granada (and other historical Muslim Iberian minors) frequently entered into alliances with christian neighbors or their christian enemies. To limit such feature only for Ottomans would be wrong.

Nontraditional alliances could be dependent on leader's (or his adviser's) diplomatic skill (who seeks alliance) and probably also some general religious fervor as it was already mentioned.

Obviously such alliances wouldn't be long lasting.

[CanOmer]

As I stated before, I am of the belief that the Ottomans deserve a system of their own - and an extraordinary ability to pursue alliances with christian states would be a part of this.

I think the caliphate system can be. OE was the strongest muslim country so it claimed the title of leader of muslim countries. Alternatively, if another muslim country be the strongest, then it would become caliph and gets some bonuses such as ability of better diplomacy options with christian states.

Another point is, as HRE was the continue of Western Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire was the continue of Eastern Roman Empire. IMO, this can be also use in your system.