• 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.
Welcome to the 24th development diary for our empire building game Europa Universalis IV and today we turn our eyes to one of the most interesting nations and a favorite because of its location and variety – The Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman Possibilities

When your story begins in the Grand Campaign, the Empire prospers under the rule of a line of committed and effective Sultans. In fact, we take our starting date from the dramatic Ottoman victory over an alliance of Christian monarchs at Vama in November, 1444. The Ottomans have flourished economically due to their control of the major overland trade routes between Europe and Asia. The Ottoman Empire is one of the most powerful states in the world – a multinational, multilingual empire.

Will you be able to reign and expand your empire over three continents? Will you be able to become a dominant naval force, controlling much of the Mediterranean Sea as well as become a major player of the European continental political sphere? Will you become the only power with a just claim to the title of universal ruler?

Or will your military and bureaucratic structures come under strain after a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. Will you fall behind the Europeans in military technology as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism? And will the discovery of new maritime trade routes by Western European states allowed them to avoid the Ottoman trade monopoly unless you take over the trade routes?

Choose, and choose wisely. Let the game begin.

Most players make an immediate move to eliminate Constantinople, the capital of a now tiny and irrelevant Byzantine Empire. Turkish missions push you in this direction, too, and it’s a natural opening act (once the Western border is secure). Taking this rich city means controlling all traffic to the Black Sea, greater ability to limit European land incursions into the core Turkish provinces in Anatolia, and a chance to move the capital to the greatest city on earth.

But Turkish expansion is a double-edged sword no matter which direction you go. If you continue to move into Europe, you will add Orthodox and Catholic provinces to a realm already teeming with non-Muslim citizens. Expand west to consolidate your holdings in Asia and you risk alienating Muslim rulers that would be better as allies. And to the South you have the Mameluks, a potential rival for power over the Levant.
The Ottomans start in 1444 with a lot of assets, some in the form of ideas and missions we’ll get to in a bit. They also have a navy that competes only with Venice for power in the Eastern Mediterranean, a starting Sultan of great ability and – for the moment – military superiority to or parity with the European monarchs that wish to drive Islam of the continent.

Ottoman Dynamic Historical Events
As a major power throughout this period, we have written quite a lot of events for the Ottoman Empire, but there are two event series that truly stand out.

The Provincial System
The Empire contains numerous provinces and vassal states, and many were under the control of Beys, provincial governors that ruled over these districts as a general would on the battlefield. Historically, this worked well to keep the Empire running smoothly with local initiative to handle local problems in a land too varied for a one-size fits all policy. But it also depended on a Sultan that knew how to rein them in. In Europa Universalis IV, local Beys, especially in far-off provinces, may demand more autonomy in form of a Provincial System to stay loyal to the Sultan. If they are given too much autonomy, though, you might have problems with corruption of the Beys or revolts from unhappy soldiers that don’t respect the system in place. But then suppression has its own cost if the Beys band together to simultaneously rise against the Sultan...It’s a balancing act that comes into play if the Empire grows too large.

The Janissaries
The Janissaries were the heart of the Ottoman army, and through reforms and granting them more and more rights, the player as Sultan may build up his Janissaries into the elite infantry they represented historically. But beware! Granting them too much power might lead to their decadence, or worse, becoming a threat to the Sultan. Palace Coups or revolts might follow, and in the end, disbanding them might be the only alternative. Can you risk weakening your army in the short term while you find new sources of power?
Both of these event series represent the core problems facing the Ottoman Empire through this period. With a strong Sultan, you can make up for more inefficient government or a slightly weaker infantry, since you can spend your Monarch Power Points to shore up problems caused by a multinational, dispersed and devolutionary government. But a series of weak rules in an Empire that needs to constantly reinforce its legitimacy will face grave repercussions.

Ottoman National Ideas
The Ottoman Empire starts with a 10% bonus to its army discipline, and creates core provinces 33% faster and more cheaply.
  1. Ghazi: +33% Religious Unity & increase manpower when fighting religious enemies.
    Ghazi is a title given to great Muslim warriors, analogous to Khan or Caesar or Johan. It was also a term given to Ottoman warriors that spearheaded Turkish invasions and raids into non-Muslim land. Fight the enemies of Muhammad, and the nation will rally around you.
  2. Timariot System: +15% cavalry power.
    The Timariot Sipahi cavalry were, with the Janissaries, an elite core of troops within the Ottoman army. Tightly connected to the bey system, Timariot soldiers were given land in return for service, ensuring their loyalty.
  3. Autonomous Pashas: -3 Max War exhaustion.
    Powerful and respect governors and generals became known as Pashas. It came with great honors and responsibilities and those given control of territory within the empire became great lords that would work hard to preserve their privileges.
  4. Ottoman Tolerance: +3 Tolerance Heretic, +3 Tolerance Heathen.
    As was customary in many Muslim empires of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, non-Muslims were not forced to convert not were they regularly harassed beyond the occasional higher tax. In Europa Universalis IV the Ottomans have a much lower chance of religious revolts because of this tolerance.
  5. Law code of Suleiman: +10% Tax Income.
    Suleiman is one of the great rulers of history – a soldier, a lawmaker and a reformer. In fact, where the West knows him as Suleiman the Great or Magnificent, in his homeland he is called The Lawgiver. A central part of his reforms was re-examining the taxation of Turks, especially taxes levied on Jews and Christians, taxes for manufactured goods and anti-corruption measures.
  6. Tulip Period: +10% Trade Income.
    Named for the high priced flower that became a symbol of refinement, the Tulip Period was an early 18th century attempt to Westernize the Empire. A strong viziers and a time of peace allowed the Ottomans to focus on new trade relations and greater experimentation with foreign art and architectural styles. It was also a decade of decadence and distraction, in the eyes of many Turks, and subsequent failures on the battlefield ended this period of innovation and garden parties.
  7. Imperial School of Naval Engineering: 20% cheaper ships.
    Always a major naval power in its region, the Ottomans didn’t found a proper naval academy until the 1770s. Naval engineering was one of the centerpieces of the curriculum.

When the Ottoman Empire has reached it full capabilities and unlocked all of its National Ideas, it also get a +20% bonus to manpower recovery speed. With these ideas, they are a really expansionist military country, that have far fewer problems with holding a realm with diverse religion. Lower war exhaustion and stronger religious unity in the early game will help greatly with the rapid growth the Ottomans need to keep from falling too far behind its Western neighbors.
attachment.php


Bonus Detail: Westernization

Experienced players are now thinking about how to goose the Ottomans so they can remain a dominant military and technological power. As you know, the Western tech group gains knowledge faster than others, and as the Ottomans do not belong to it they will eventually trail them.

In the original version of Europa Universalis III, you could sometimes get a random event (if the stars aligned) and you could upgrade into a better technology group. With later expansions this was transformed into a set of complex decisions and events that worked fine for the power user that understood all the consequences, but had severe drawbacks for new users and the AI. Westernization should be an option, but it should also be a clear statement of policy, not something you stumble or exploit your way into.

In Europa Universalis IV, Westernization is a completely defined feature, integrated in the technology system. If you don't belong to the Western technology group, you will now always see whether you have the chance to “level up”.

To start the westernization process, you need to have a neighbor of the Western tech group that is a fair number of levels ahead of you in technology, and you also need to have +3 stability. When you start the process, your stability drops to -3 and all your monarch power is wiped. You have switched to the western technology group, but you paid a heavy price for undoing centuries of tradition.

Then, each month, your progress towards being fully Western goes either forward or backwards. It can never go below 1%, but when you reach 100% you end the process, and get western units as well. So how does the progress work? Well, every month, your current stability is added to the progress. And there are fun events giving you -1 stability or hurting you somewhere else. Westernization should not be a decision taken lightly, especially for large empires. Your nobles and people will often resist and you may need to slow down your progress from time to time to avoid larger pains.

And yes, as a New World nation you can switch directly to western once the Europeans show up, but you have a fair amount of catching up to do anyway.
 

Attachments

  • eu4_16.png
    eu4_16.png
    2,5 MB · Views: 47.389
In terms of secular rule, Russia never had a serious claim on the heritage of Rome. They ruled what during the glory days of the Roman Empire had been largely uninhabited woods and steppes. Their only claim came from the fact that one of their viking warlords had once married a Byzantine princess. After the fall of Constantinople and the deterioration of Imperial rule in the HRE the Ottomans indeed were the only ones left who could claim that they united a significant portion of what had once been ruled by the likes of Octavian, Traian, Marc Aurel and Constantine under their rule and had thus inherited Rome's position in the books of history (and on the map).

In terms of the Christian church however, Moscow's claim to the title of "Third Rome" actually has/had some meat on the bone: After the Popes of the First Rome forsook their legitimacy (through a long process of alienation from Eastern Christianity, but excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople broke the camel's back), Constantinople became the Second Rome, the center of "true" ("orthodox") Christianity that Russians followed. A Patriarch who is under the secular rule of heathen Sultans - even if they are very tolerant of Christianity - is no fitting spiritual leader, however, and therefore the glory of Rome passed to the Patriarchate of Moscow, the largest orthodox Patriarchate not under heathen rule.
 
A Patriarch who is under the secular rule of heathen Sultans - even if they are very tolerant of Christianity - is no fitting spiritual leader, however, and therefore the glory of Rome passed to the Patriarchate of Moscow, the largest orthodox Patriarchate not under heathen rule.

Christian church existed in the Roman Empire under pagan rulers for centuries before it became the official religion of the country. The Ceasar being a Christian is not a requirement in determining which head of church is a "fitting spiritual leader".
 
Christian church existed in the Roman Empire under pagan rulers for centuries before it became the official religion of the country. The Ceasar being a Christian is not a requirement in determining which head of church is a "fitting spiritual leader".
In the 15th century, Christianity had been a minority religion in a heathen empire for less than the first 400 years - but the state church of Christian empires for more than the last 1000 years. Therefore, "Rome" - the notion of spiritual leadership of Christianity combined with the secular power of a Christian emperor - had passed to Moscow after the fall of Constantinople. At least in the eyes of the Moscovites. All I wanted to say was that IMO this claim to spiritual successorship of "Rome" isn't as far-fetched as any alleged claim of the Russian Czars about being spiritual successors to the Roman Empire.
 
That's why I avoided using the expressions "Second/Third Rome". :)

But I've no problem with the idea that Byzantium (referring to the Greek-speaking post-Heraclius state) was the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire set up by Diocletian.

That is a distinction which is entirely a modern invention. I find it baffling that so many people are hung up on this wholly arbitrary label created centuries after the state in question had ceased to exist.
 
That is a distinction which is entirely a modern invention. I find it baffling that so many people are hung up on this wholly arbitrary label created centuries after the state in question had ceased to exist.
There was a huge difference between the Empire of Justinian and the Empire of Heraclius and his successors. Political, cultural, demographic, military, linguistic, social factors - all totally different. Using the specific labels ERE and Byzantium to distinguish between them might be a modern invention, but the distinction was always there.
 
But I've no problem with the idea that Byzantium (referring to the Greek-speaking post-Heraclius state) was the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire set up by Diocletian. I only have trouble when people then attempt to deny that Charlemagne, who was acclaimed Emperor of Rome by the People of Rome while visiting the City of Rome - which he ruled over - was not "really" a Roman Emperor because, uh, I'm not sure.
Charlemagne's claim on the Imperium Romanum was legitimate for at least some values of legitimate that would have been acknowledged during his era (he did rule an awful lot of its former territory, including one of its traditional capitals), but the stated premise of his coronation as Imperator Romanorum was out-and-out fraud.
 
Charlemagne's claim on the Imperium Romanum was legitimate for at least some values of legitimate that would have been acknowledged during his era (he did rule an awful lot of its former territory, including one of its traditional capitals), but the stated premise of his coronation as Imperator Romanorum was out-and-out fraud.
The stated premise of his coronation was that he was acclaimed by the Roman people as Emperor - while in Rome, at the head of his victorious army. How is that fraudulent? It's the exact same justification used by dozens of previous Roman emperors.

In case you're not aware, the Pope only crowned him after he'd been acclaimed emperor by the Populum Romanum. It was only about a century later that Popes started to claim that it was their authority that made someone into an emperor... and that was a blatant power-grab by the Papacy. As far as Charlemagne and his immediate successors were concerned, being crowned Emperor by the Bishop of Rome was no different to being crowned King of the Franks by the Bishop of Reims or King of the Visigoths by the Bishop of Toledo.
 
The stated premise of his coronation was that he was acclaimed by the Roman people as Emperor - while in Rome, at the head of his victorious army. How is that fraudulent? It's the exact same justification used by dozens of previous Roman emperors.
Ah, I'd got him confused with one of his successors. Thank you for correcting me.
 
There was a huge difference between the Empire of Justinian and the Empire of Heraclius and his successors. Political, cultural, demographic, military, linguistic, social factors - all totally different. Using the specific labels ERE and Byzantium to distinguish between them might be a modern invention, but the distinction was always there.

The same could be said of any state that was around long enough. I don't see why this particular state deserves a unique distinction.
 
The same could be said of any state that was around long enough. I don't see why this particular state deserves a unique distinction.
Because the distinction was extremely large. We distinguish between Ancien Regime France and the French Republic and Empire, or between Tsarist Russia and Soviet Russia, or between England and the United Kingdom; so why not between the Imperium Romanum Orientale and the Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων ?
 
Ottomans seem fun i think ill play them first! hopefully westernization will not be too painful :p