I've managed to do it so consistently that's it's core in my sp strategy. I can't emphasize enough that your main boom as the ottomans is your army size and quality at game start. You can't outcompete GPs via traditional eco loop, so just don't engage with it until the tech is avaible to you imho.
Tanzimat Troubles
- Thread starter DystopianAlphaOmega
- Start date
-
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.
This one is not only impossible but also bugged. I did it with console commands (level 5 education institution) and it didn't complete despite my literacy being 40%.
- 5
- 1
While the majority of Ottoman peasants would have been free, we have justified the existence of the serfdom law in the Ottoman Empire based on the historical chiflik system of land governance. Chiflik was essentially a manorial system where the peasants effectively toiled as serfs, being obliged to provide corvée labour to their manoral lord, and enjoying very limited legal rights vis-a-vis their landlords.
This system was mainly found in Rumelia, especially in the river valleys of Bulgaria and Northern Greece, where some 10% of the peasants worked under the chiflik system, the remainder being ‘free’.
This system was mainly found in Rumelia, especially in the river valleys of Bulgaria and Northern Greece, where some 10% of the peasants worked under the chiflik system, the remainder being ‘free’.
- 12
- 2
Hm, feels like those 10% of peasants, in a geographically rather limited part of the empire, are damning every farmer in the eastern Mediterranean.
Maybe tenant farming + a state modifier that can be resolved by completing the Tanzimat JE would be a better representation.
- 10
- 3
Chiftlik system did not bind the peasants to their land, it was simply corvée labour under a tenant farming system. Various corvée labour in tenant farms also existed in Austria which was only abolished in 1848 which does not start with serfdom. It's precisely because Ottomans did not have serfdom that something like Chiftlik system came to existence in certain areas.
Ottomans already start with traditionalism law, which should basically cover cases of corvée labour and does not prevent things like enacting Religious Schools which Ottomans did have in 1836. If one were to cover all cases of corvée labour with serfdom even US and France would have to start with serfdom as they had corvée systems that extended decades into game's timeframe.
Also none of it makes sense when contrasted with Persian Laws. Iran had even more widespread corvée labour and even more entrenched bureaucracy yet starts with more advanced laws in bureaucracy, army, land reform and education.
More importantly, as stated in the initial post of this thread, starting with serfdom basically makes it impossible to complete some of the journal entries even with perfect play and lots of luck.
Last edited:
- 12
- 1
Thank you for the explanation; however, as the Ottomans in the release version started with Serfdom Banned and only "gained" Serfdom in 1.3 when Serfdom was made the default for Land Reform, and this change was not noted in any patch notes, it feels more like an oversight that's been given a post hoc explanation than an intentional change.
- 8
- 2
- 1
Oh @PDX_Lufthansi, since we got your attention, and you seem to be involved in the topic: Maybe you could check this thread about problems with MENA starting laws.
- 3
So, a bit of an epilogue to this story. It's not really big enough for a full blown AAR, but it was at least interesting.
So there was a lot of diplomatic dancing and maneuvering that went on. At the high point, Ottomans had secured support from Russia, Sardinia, Britain, and Austria, with softer support from Prussia, Sweden, and USA and a promise of neutrality from France. Egypt claimed he would back down and then attack me every 5 years when the truce ran out.
There were some two more major rounds of peace talks to try and secure a Middle Eastern settlement, one mediated by Russia and the other a last minute innovative solution offered by Japan, but it was all for naught. Egypt secured the support of France and Spain while Britain flipped neutral. I had a lot of concerns he might have flipped Austria as well. There was a lot of backroom politicking. All a lot of fun, though a bit stressful. Thankfully France had been building up a bit of a coalition of his own with ambitious land claims all around the world, which helped sway some nations closer to my side.
Britain indicated he would intervene if one side became too imbalanced. So it sounded like the war would be contained to just Ottos/Russia/Austria/Sardinia (nations I'd directly negotiated with) vs. France/Spain/Egypt/Persia. If Britain joined though, the whole anti-France Coalition would probably get involved and it would become WWI. France and Spain both indicated they at least wouldn't support an aggressive war on Ottomans.
Game started and things mainly went well. Started getting my budlings up and running. For the first time in any of my test runs, had some really bad rolls on laws and failed getting appointed bureaucrats. Worse, I noticed Egypt, Persia, France, and Britain were engaged in massive military buildups.
When 1840 rolled around and the truce expired, I felt that (especially since France and Britain start with better mil tech than Austria and Russia), that the odds were against Ottomans in the Oriental Crisis. On the plus side, the massive war economy build-up of the Egyptian alliance didn't seem to be totally sustainable and eventually my allies would be able to improve mil tech/laws to catch up.
In 1841, Egypt decided to take the initiative and attacked the Ottomans with Persia and France. Sardinia was bogged down in wars on Italy, so got Sweden to join in his place. Spain and Britain did not join (which I at first thought was since it was an offensive war, but may have just been them trying to join late and missing the timer).
There was a new Austria player who originally wanted to stay neutral for Malta and Crete for some reason, but as I'd already ceded him Bosnia, he agreed to honour the deal and join the Ottomans (good since losing the military industries in Bosnia hurt more than I thought it would). Thus, it was Ottos/Russia/Austria/Sweden vs. Persia/Egypt/France.
Things were pretty much stalemated in the Levant and I made the call that we should hold that front and focus down Persia as the weakest link in the Egyptian alliance. Their army starts weak and unreformed, despite their defencive terrain. Unlike the Egyptians, they wouldn't have a French contingent right at was start.
The French navy cut off the Med, but I'd relocated my navy to the Red Sea before war start so that it wouldn't get bottled up in the Med and could hopefully disrupt Egyptian trade. Now though, I was able to blockade the Persian Gulf, helping starve out the poor Frenchmen stationed there. Egypt left the Libyan border open for some reason, so they created a nice distraction for a while, briefly occupying large areas of Egypt.
At this point, Spain and Britain started a separate play to declare war. At this, Prussia joined on the side of Ottomans. USA sent some much appreciated funds, but was busy with Mexican-American War. So now everyone was in who was coming in.
It was Austria/Ottos/Russia/Sweden vs France/Persia/Egypt
Prussia/Russia/Ottos/Austria vs Spain/Britain/Egypt
The double diplomatic play created some weird situations, though did let me add some more wargoals on Egypt. It did mean that, for example, France and Prussia were not at war, so France did not face a land war on home soil (other than a brief cheeky attempted naval landing by Swedish marines).
We'd managed to push a fair bit into Persia at this point, and with no war goals against them, they were forced out of the war. Britain and Spain sent a number of naval invasions at Ottoman land, but thankfully Austria and Prussia were able to rush in troops to defend the beachheads. In hindsight, the British army might have done more joining the main fronts.
With the main land front now being the Levant, and Prussian troops now in play, we began to make progress. The big war changer though was France losing enough men to be forced out of the war.
After this, the war was clearly going in favour of the Turks. France started some mischief in Belgium, trying to snipe them while Prussia was busy. By this point Prussia could pull back some forces though to deal with that (apparently ai offered him protectorate of Belgium for support). Allied troops were able to advance down the rest of the Levant and reached the gates of Cairo. Meanwhile, the mad lad Swedish marines had landed on the Red Sea side of Egypt (protected by the Ottoman navy) and were also making significant progress. It seemed like victory was imminent.
Courtesy of America, who wasn't at war so doesn't have all the armies displayed
Unfortunately, we were having some issues with resynchs/restarts being needed and the Egyptian alliance had gotten pretty salty by this point after their military build-up and pre-emptive war had failed. France, Britain, Egypt, and Persia dropped out, frustrated over a combination of losing and the diplomatic situation. Even though none of them had their nations irrevocably ruined (and France/Persia made it out scot free besides losses/expenses) It was later made clear they wouldn't be returning, even if the synch issues were fixed. We called it a session (with the war tragically unfinished) and tried getting replacements for the majors, but efforts proved fruitless. The French player started organizing a new game that poached some additional players and pretty soon there just weren't enough people for the existing game to be viable. So ultimately the original game was called there.
After the original game was called, most, though not all, of the players ended up joining the new France game. Pretty disappointed in how things had gone down though, I stayed out. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one played Ottomans and their situation after session 1 was very different.
Note that many nations were not being played by the same players (screenshot courtesy of one of the players who played in that session)
So, a bit anti-climactic, and not how I'd imagined things going, but, it was still a lot of fun. I think things could have gone differently with different decisions, like France protecting Persian convoys or more of the UK army going to major fronts instead of fruitless naval invasions of Anatolia, Istanbul, and St. Petersburg. Thanks for all who provided suggestions, strategies and input.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
I think the fact they all rage quit means you won lol
Obviously I don’t know the full situation but from your description not great sportsmanship on the France player’s part.
Thanks for the follow up that was a fun read. All of that diplomatic negotiations reminds me of the board game Diplomacy. Which can also lead to much rage among friends lol
- 3
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}