Ottoman Regency 1444 Forgotten?

[Equilibrius]

As some of you may know, the Ottomans start day 1 with a leader sent down from heaven itself and begins trampling absolutely everything in the region, if you border them in any way you end up having to devise weird strategies and whatnot to survive at all.

Now, the leader at the beginning (Mehmet II) is 12, and according to knowledge at the time he was being taught under religious teachers, why isn't there an admin proficient regency in place to give everyone around the ottomans a 4 year break before the 5/5/6 kid is unleashed on them all?

 

[Rain Envy]

This is already in play except for a few nations. Everyone starts out with a Truce with the Ottomans.

 

[jonnydesperado]

What I just gathered from a short visit to Wikipedia is that his father Murad II officially abdicated his throne to his son in 1444. And while the ability of a 12 year old to rule alone is questionable, especially depending on individuals, it's still questionable for 16 year olds or 38 year olds. Historically, Mehmet II also only ruled for two years before his father took the throne again, something that isn't really modeled, either. Apparently Murad II just had enough of the Sultan business; that Mehmet II is too young to rule "normally" maybe should just be accepted as one of the many exceptions in history that are difficult to model in a game.

 

[jonnydesperado]

This is already in play except for a few nations. Everyone starts out with a Truce with the Ottomans.

As the intro of the starting date says, the Ottomans just won the Battle of Varna against basically everyone who was interested in the overall region and in stopping their advance.

 

[Equilibrius]

It can be annoying to know for some that the EU4 Ottomans are actually a bit too powerful, since they are very stable (no related event) and the kid is pumping out points like no tomorrow at his age.

Would be nice with something to occupy (not weaken) the Ottomans with at the start.

 

[jakt]

it should be a regency; they shouldn't be able to start any wars. and actually, they shouldn't be at war with albania, either, because of that fact. the kids father came and led the troops at varna (the crusade was launched because the emperor was 12), but he was not the ruler at that time. the kid was. who was 12. the truce is in place because it is november 11th, 1444, and they all just lost. they launched the crusade, so the 12 year old was defending. but he shouldn't be able to declare war

 

[orthezuma]

Murad II left the rule to his son at August 1444 so he can leave the wordly things and be closer to God. He was summoned by his son when crusader armies passed Danube to lead the army. Even after the battle of Varna he did not take the throne back until August 1446 when some janissaries rebelled in Edirne. So at the start of campaign, Mehmet the Conqueror was the ruling sultan no matter his age, if you put a regency, what'll you do between 1446-1451 where Murad II ruled again?

As for points, i'm surprised he's not 6/6/6 really, not many rulers achieved what he did at such a young age. Ottomans are too powerful because they were too powerful. In fact, eu4 is the -only- game i've seen where Turks aren't the "sick man of Europe", which attracted me to it in the first place.

 

[jakt]

have an event that could fire to restore Murad II to the throne, which causes stability hit, but allows the ottamans to start conquering again. have it so it has a decreasing chance to fire over the years

 

[orthezuma]

Just for 5 years? And a stability hit? Makes no sense whatsoever. Too much hassle for too little a thing.

 

[hwoosh]

Portugal also starts with an underage ruler not in a regency in 1444.

 

[Equilibrius]

Also, what happened to the soft culture in anatolia? In EU3 greek and turkish had a much easier time converting each other there.

 

[jakt]

Just for 5 years? And a stability hit? Makes no sense whatsoever. Too much hassle for too little a thing.

it might be a hassle but i think it makes sense.

albania withstood the ottomans for twenty four years after the start of the game in real life. yet i don't think there is a game where albania withstood more than a year. sure, now that's difficult to model, but keeping them in a regency at the beginning i think makes sense because aside from the instance of ottomans and portugal at the start if your ruler is 15 and younger you have a regency (maybe others, don't know, but it's at the start of the game). and murad reigned in his second reign until his death; i think he can be restored as the sultun whenever, just increasingly diminished

what makes no sense is that the rules are the same throughout the whole game except for the start of the game, when someone didn't do the the initial set up correctly and allowed underage children into places they do not belong. this should be fixed.

 

[I Walk Aardvark]

Just a little fun fact, the Ottomans actually referred to themselves as Emirs not Sultans during the initial time period. They didn't adopt the title of Sultan till after the capture of Constantinople when Mehmet the Conqueror more or less decided they had achieved the necessary (for lack of a better word) prestige for the title to be considered legitimate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Sultan also considered more of a semi-religious title and did not translate directly over into the western version of a king? Whatever the case, it still is a convenient equivalent if true.

 

[jonnydesperado]

Just a little fun fact, the Ottomans actually referred to themselves as Emirs not Sultans during the initial time period. They didn't adopt the title of Sultan till after the capture of Constantinople when Mehmet the Conqueror more or less decided they had achieved the necessary (for lack of a better word) prestige for the title to be considered legitimate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Sultan also considered more of a semi-religious title and did not translate directly over into the western version of a king? Whatever the case, it still is a convenient equivalent if true.

Arguably, "King" was also an (at least) semi-religious title. Arguably, everything was (at least) semi-religious. Many separations we are accustomed to think nowadays have been created in a long process. One might argue that the thought of separation itself is a symptom of modernism.

 

[Talq]

Would be nice with something to occupy (not weaken) the Ottomans with at the start.

The Ottomans had just been 'occupied' by smashing the final crusade at Varna. You could technically occupy them a bit more by letting Byzantium (via the same campaign that lets them start with Athens as a vassal in 1444) or Karaman annoy them - except well, in both cases, they are going to finish up as munchies.

Just a little fun fact, the Ottomans actually referred to themselves as Emirs not Sultans during the initial time period. They didn't adopt the title of Sultan till after the capture of Constantinople when Mehmet the Conqueror more or less decided they had achieved the necessary (for lack of a better word) prestige for the title to be considered legitimate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Sultan also considered more of a semi-religious title and did not translate directly over into the western version of a king? Whatever the case, it still is a convenient equivalent if true.

Check out the number of 'kings' in the HRE and places like Brittany. Unique titles for tags are not yet a standard feature.

 

[Saladin Osmanli]

Just a little fun fact, the Ottomans actually referred to themselves as Emirs not Sultans during the initial time period. They didn't adopt the title of Sultan till after the capture of Constantinople when Mehmet the Conqueror more or less decided they had achieved the necessary (for lack of a better word) prestige for the title to be considered legitimate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Sultan also considered more of a semi-religious title and did not translate directly over into the western version of a king? Whatever the case, it still is a convenient equivalent if true.

No, they did refer to themselves as "Sultan" as early as Osman I's founding of the Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century. You're probably talking about them taking up the titles "Padishah" and "Kayser-i Rum" after conquering Constantinople.

 

[Darkath]

I don't see why kid kings shouldn't be in Regency in 1444. This is how the game works. When the ruler is under 16 a regency council is the actual ruler. Paradox could give those starting regency council high stats or equal stats to the ruler when it applies, but it should still be a regency.
Regardless of what happened historically.

 

[mattkunz]

albania withstood the ottomans for twenty four years after the start of the game in real life. yet i don't think there is a game where albania withstood more than a year.

This isn't a specifically Ottoman problem, so it shouldn't have a specifically Ottoman solution. Minors are extremely easy to conquer for majors in the game.

 

[Brucesim2003]

My current game as the Ottomans had a brilliant start, ruler-wise. Mehmet II ruled untill 1514. and in about 1490 the heir was killed in a hunting accident and was replaced with a 6-6-6. Who ruled until about 1540. Considering this is my 1st game, I was kinda blown away.