Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Ottomans need to be nerfed

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81984 EUIV: Bug Reports 568 EUIV: Suggestions 19176 EUIV: Technical Support 6741 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
I agree, predictability is bad for gameplay and replayability. France/England are pretty well balanced, with the latter occasionally maintaining or expanding the continental holdings. Without player intervention, it's extremely rare however to see Mamluk Anatolia - that definitely need to be more common.

IMO, 50% Ottoman Egypt, 20% Levant Stalemate, 30% Mamluk Anatolia would be a great point to aim towards. Persia should also play into it as a third more-or-less equal power, like Spain and HRE does in the Franco-English case. Mamluks and Ottomans were historically well matched, a key reason for why the Ottomans prevailed were due to the Mamluk-Portuguese wars that, in EU4 terms, bankrupted the Mamluks and made them very vulnerable to the subsequent Ottoman invasion and annexation. When they were militarily and financially stable, they held their own.
 
  • 14
  • 8
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
No you don't understand. Historically, the Ottomans where a total powerhouse.

They lost to Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Walachia, Bosnia and even such faraway countries as Portugal. They even lost to one province minors, such as The Knights. So they need to be able to defeat the top 10 largest countries in EU 4 combined, and be +12 years ahead of tech. Because of history.

Remember their historical peak when their entire army was obliterated by a stack of 4k cavalry? After months of trying to siege that city the French took twice in 5 years? Thats why Ottomans should also have ten star generals forever.
 
Last edited:
  • 23Haha
  • 15
  • 8Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
No one alone will have enough games to have the right numbers, but at least in my last games ottomans did poor in 4 in 5 . In One They were basically gone.
I would still assume they are powerful and i had really weird "luck"
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
The 15th and 16th centuries were the centuries when the Ottoman Empire was at its strongest.
Why do you want them to be weak?


I can send you a link to the burn cream.
 
  • 5Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I despised how strong the Ottomans were before the new mission tree because of how absurd their military and economic power was. However I feel like they are too weak now after the new mission tree (talking only about SP experience). They just blob less and as a great power I fear an untouched France more than I fear the Ottoman empire. When they joined the religious league it was a "Oh damn unless I put all my effort into it their side is an instant win", right now its an "another big power joined a side". [profanity moderated out]

I think that some buffs should be in order (or maybe they are just not aggresive enough?). I can´t pinpoint what exactly makes them feel...so weak right now. Also I think that Mamluks should become the great new menace as soon as the ottomans go south. Even when I play as byzantium and the mamluks manage to conquer 80% of Anatolia due to my intervention, they still feel weaker than europeans nations with way less development.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In my current campaign as France, the Ottomans lost a war to Austria and Albania (no other nations involved) in 1450, despite owning Constantinople. That doesn't seem too overpowered to me.

I decided I didn't need to ally them because they weren't strong enough to be worth it.
 
Workiwork said:
No one alone will have enough games to have the right numbers, but at least in my last games ottomans did poor in 4 in 5 . In One They were basically gone.
I would still assume they are powerful and i had really weird "luck"
Click to expand...
I think this is an important point that makes it difficult to really grasp the situation, as everybody only has anecdotal evidence.

My impression is also, that there is quite some diversity in the Ottomans performance, the most extreme case was a recent Florence run where they were completely slaughtered after losing a war they started to Albania + allies (I think Venice and Hungary mainly). The result in the early 1500s was Hungary almost reaching the adriatic, Byzantine turning Catholic - Latin Empire and regaining most but not all territory and Mamuluks eating all of southern and western Anatolia with the Ottomans soon losing the rest to Muscovy.
I see them fail without player intervention quite often, I would say more often than their regular (and historic) blobbing.

IMO there is much more diversity than in Western Europe, where in my experience France almost always reach its historical borders without player intervention and England almost always gets ousted from the continent. Sometimes France also takes huge chunks of Iberia and Italy quite quickly. How often do you see a France destroyed by the AI?

And yes, beating up France as a player is less tedious than the Ottomans. One of the main issues that I still is the broken Revanchism mechanic, which erases ALL WE = all Rebellions in countries like Ottomans / Ming on VH if they lose one 3 dev province and gives them huge boosts for centuries while you slowly eat them. I think it should be related to the size, so if you take 100 % Warscore from Ottomans / Ming they receive something like 2 % Revanchism, but if you reduce some small nation to an OPM they get something like 200 %. And it should leave WE in place, if anything a ticking reduction.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
st360 said:
No you don't understand. Historically, the Ottomans where a total powerhouse.

They lost to Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Walachia, Bosnia and even such faraway countries as Portugal. They even lost to one province minors, such as The Knights. So they need to be able to defeat the top 10 largest countries in EU 4 combined, and be +12 years ahead of tech. Because of history.

Remember their historical peak when their entire army was obliterated by a stack of 4k cavalry? After months of trying to siege that city the French took twice in 5 years? Thats why Ottomans should also have ten star generals forever.
Click to expand...
When did bosnia beat the ottos? Decadence stops the ottos being a threat forver if you last till late game
LAF1994 said:
The Ottomans are horrendously overpowered at the moment and need to be nerfed. They completely break the balance of the game.
Click to expand...
Its good they finally expand at a good rate again, their unique subjects are dumb tho and shouldve just been vassals
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I cringe every time I see Naples allying Epirus/Albania because I know it means when the Ottomans declare on them, they're going to somehow eat half of Naples (don't even know how they get away with that AE wise) and start chunking into Italy. Wish the devs would stop that happening.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Travis_Bickle said:
I cringe every time I see Naples allying Epirus/Albania because I know it means when the Ottomans declare on them, they're going to somehow eat half of Naples (don't even know how they get away with that AE wise)
Click to expand...
They are a lucky nation and lucky nations get reduced AE along with other bonuses,

Luck - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com eu4.paradoxwikis.com
 
  • 3
Reactions:
cuendillar said:
Persia should also play into it as a third more-or-less equal power, like Spain and HRE does in the Franco-English case.
Click to expand...
I think that Persia should in fact be able to own Anatolia in the event of a failing Ottomans over Mamluks. I may be a little biased though that they are my favourite tag colour. But regardless, it makes sense to me since Persia and Ottomans reached a stalemate along the mountains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back