• 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.

Travis_Bickle

Colonel
27 Badges
Dec 30, 2012
1.191
2.913
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
Does Erdogan give Paradox money? Because there's no other explanation for why the Ottomans are so overpowered.

If the Austria gets an early PU over Hungary then yes, they struggle. But if that doesn't happen, they can do as they've done in my game and just eat everything. Right now they're in Krakow, Vienna and Tuscany.

I've had enough. I'm uninstalling and removing this game until Paradox fix this. It's a joke. They should be nerfed come 1700s per history.
 
Last edited:
  • 101
  • 59Haha
  • 4
  • 3Love
  • 1Like
Reactions:
They where the worlds superpower in this time period. However there is mechanics in the game that make their power become less about from 1650 and after that europeans is stronger. Especially France.
 
  • 21Like
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
They where the worlds superpower in this time period. However there is mechanics in the game that make their power become less about from 1650 and after that europeans is stronger. Especially France.

Look no offence, but I know they were a world superpower. I know, I've read history. But what happens is they just keep snowballing till they have 500k + men and can eat wherever they want in Europe. It doesn't matter if other European nations become stronger if they've eaten anyone who can oppose them. It's a joke and Paradox should get off their arses and fix this.
 
  • 57
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
The Ottomans have been very weak in all of my campaigns on the current patch. Granted, one of those campaigns I was Russia, so I was personally responsible, but they seem to have a tendency to ally AQ and limit their expansion avenues.
 
  • 11Like
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Look no offence, but I know they were a world superpower. I know, I've read history. But what happens is they just keep snowballing till they have 500k + men
Yes, that's what empires do when their opposition is ineffective.

The AI is more reluctant to dogpile than it should be, so a blob can overextend militarily in relative comfort.

It is impossible to enter a coalition against a country with less than 50 AE.

The AI has no real sense of "I will be next".

The AI won't cancel rivalries to save its own skin.

Even if the AI does dogpile, it can't make quick wins because completing sieges can be painfully slow.

Truce timers are enormous, and even if they were short, the penalties for trucebreaking are so high that the only correct way for the AI to behave is "never break a truce for any reason".

Winter is allowed to be just another campaign season, and the mechanics are, effectively, designed around the assumption that it always will be.

The player base has irreconcilable viewpoints about how the AI should behave, such that you can't improve things for one set of players without alienating another set.
 
  • 27
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Some people complain that the Ottomans are too powerful and others complain that they are too weak. It is impossible to satisfy both positions. I personally think that they are a good endboss and I wouldn't mind them being even stronger.
And historically they are too weak or did you ever see them with these borders in 1566?:
OttomanEmpire1566.png


As long as eu4 doesn't have a mechanic that limits expansion for big empires which also hinders the player in the same way, I don't think that the late game Ottomans should be made weaker. But I don't think that many players would want a game where your empire breaks apart when it becomes too big.
 
  • 35Like
  • 15
  • 2
Reactions:
As the player, you have ways to limit their growth in most campaigns. If you are a power, allying or guaranteeing the Mamluks will box them in. If you aren't big enough to be a deterrent, you might be able to ally a power, then no cb and vassalize Byz.

On the other side of that, if you attack Austria, Hungary, Poland, or the Mamluks, that creates a power vacuum and it is only natural that the Ottomans would expand as a result.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
But I don't think that many players would want a game where your empire breaks apart when it becomes too big.
I suspect many of the ones who would want such a game have a Dunning-Krugered sense of history.
 
  • 6
  • 2Haha
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yes, that's what empires do when their opposition is ineffective.

The AI is more reluctant to dogpile than it should be, so a blob can overextend militarily in relative comfort.

It is impossible to enter a coalition against a country with less than 50 AE.

The AI has no real sense of "I will be next".

The AI won't cancel rivalries to save its own skin.

Even if the AI does dogpile, it can't make quick wins because completing sieges can be painfully slow.

Truce timers are enormous, and even if they were short, the penalties for trucebreaking are so high that the only correct way for the AI to behave is "never break a truce for any reason".

Winter is allowed to be just another campaign season, and the mechanics are, effectively, designed around the assumption that it always will be.

The player base has irreconcilable viewpoints about how the AI should behave, such that you can't improve things for one set of players without alienating another set.

I'm not talking about the AI generally, I am talking about the Ottomans. I have never seen Castile, France or England go this wild. Nor Russia, nor the PLC, nor Austria. Only the Ottomans can go this insane. The Ottomans should have some late game events that make the events that happened in real life possible.
Some people complain that the Ottomans are too powerful and others complain that they are too weak. It is impossible to satisfy both positions. I personally think that they are a good endboss and I wouldn't mind them being even stronger.
And historically they are too weak or did you ever see them with these borders in 1566?:
OttomanEmpire1566.png


As long as eu4 doesn't have a mechanic that limits expansion for big empires which also hinders the player in the same way, I don't think that the late game Ottomans should be made weaker. But I don't think that many players would want a game where your empire breaks apart when it becomes too big.

Yeah except they are way bigger than that in my save now. If they were as big as this map I'd be fine. And guess what? They eventually got scaled down. In my game that just won't happen. They're on the borders of France.

As the player, you have ways to limit their growth in most campaigns. If you are a power, allying or guaranteeing the Mamluks will box them in. If you aren't big enough to be a deterrent, you might be able to ally a power, then no cb and vassalize Byz.

On the other side of that, if you attack Austria, Hungary, Poland, or the Mamluks, that creates a power vacuum and it is only natural that the Ottomans would expand as a result.

I didn't attack any of them and in fact, my France was on good relations with Austria.
 
  • 16
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
As a general rule, if France is having a good campaign, then Austria is having a bad one. The Ottomans do pretty well in most of my French campaigns, but I don't see that as a big deal because my armies are stronger than theirs.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
The Ottomans should have some late game events that make the events that happened in real life possible.
The events that happened in the 17th and 18th centuries in real life happened in a context where the Ottoman Empire had stopped expanding – in some directions, by as early as the mid-16th century. Compare the Ottoman borders of 1566 to the Ottoman borders of 1683.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
More than likely, you as the player will have to be the one to scale them down. That being said, the Ottomans can fail, especially early game.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The events that happened in the 17th and 18th centuries in real life happened in a context where the Ottoman Empire had stopped expanding – in some directions, by as early as the mid-16th century. Compare the Ottoman borders of 1566 to the Ottoman borders of 1683.

I know.

Look, at some point there has to be a limit at how reasonable Ottoman expansion is. If they get to France is that too much? What if they invade England? What if they invade Sweden? at some point a line has to be drawn about how powerful is reasonable for the Ottomans.
 
  • 26
  • 7Like
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not shocked this topic is once again gracing these forums, but am a bit surprised it is coming from a player who must have tons of EU4 experience judging by the forum badges you have.

The current Ottomans are probably at their weakest point I have seen them since buying the game somewhere around Art of War. Remember when they started with a CORE on Constantinople? Or before the mission system when they could ally AQ or QQ and not be blocked by missions?

I think any snowball problem is a result of the money changes from 1.25 or whatever and current bugs causing alliances to be useless so despite the Ottomans themselves being in debt, anyone they declare on has paper alliances.
 
  • 19
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
EUIV is ill-equipped to simulate real historical reasons as to why empires expanded and fell.

The Ottomans have a bunch of modifiers early game, which has worked well in the past barring Ottoman expansion into Russia. Now though the Ottomans can get really stomped or locked, which is wierd as an EUIV player to realise.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Remember when they started with a CORE on Constantinople?
Can't say that I do.

I can remember when they started with cores on all the anatolian minors, though :)
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Each game has its own path... so maybe you were unhappy about something in your last game(s).

Yup. I’d even say that the Ottomans very often grow to be strong and difficult to handle size would be an entirely defensible statement. But I fired up the game for the first time in a while today out of curiosity based on the complaint that the Ottomans were somehow always a Europe eating powerhouse. So far, so normal rate of expansion. i.e. tons of sitting around at peace despite having a juicy Serbia/Moldavia right next to them. Hungary weak. Poland local noble.
 
I'm not shocked this topic is once again gracing these forums, but am a bit surprised it is coming from a player who must have tons of EU4 experience judging by the forum badges you have.

The current Ottomans are probably at their weakest point I have seen them since buying the game somewhere around Art of War. Remember when they started with a CORE on Constantinople? Or before the mission system when they could ally AQ or QQ and not be blocked by missions?

I think any snowball problem is a result of the money changes from 1.25 or whatever and current bugs causing alliances to be useless so despite the Ottomans themselves being in debt, anyone they declare on has paper alliances.

Look, I am not going to make a complaint for the sake of making a complaint.

I'll try and be fair. Yes, I have seen the Ottomans struggle. But I've also seen them go insane. When they do go insane, there seems to be no barrier to how insane they can go.

Let me put it like this, my earlier point stands, English expansion seems largely limited to where they historically expanded (uniting the British isles and colonising in the Americas) and occasionally I've seen them pick off a small Asian nation or two. But they've never gone insane. Furthermore, they often suffer at least two built in mechanics (in the forms of civil wars). Castile, the same. France, the same.

When the Ottomans go nuts, they really go nuts. In fact, when they go the most nuts is when they focus on Europe and don't bother that much with the Mamluks or anyone else because they conquer high development land and show no opposition.

In my save, they're now bordering my France because they ate North Italy and Switzerland. Does that not sound at least a bit extreme to you? I keep hearing the same regurgitated nonsense like I've never played EU before or read a history book. I know the Ottomans were strong, I know you optimally need to eat them early, I know I need strong allies and to expand elsewhere, but I shouldn't be sharing a border with them as France.

I'm fine with them not being so weak at the start but I am totally not fine with there being seemingly no barriers to how strong they can get.
 
  • 23
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: