Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AI Turkey is not agressive enough

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.
I think the problem are the inheritances that Austria gets. Hungary by itself is not too much problem for the Turks - well they have a chance anyway. Austria-Hungary-Bohemia is a monster, especially if they end up with the Burgundian Low Countries as well.

I'd prefer if the the inherit Hungary event had a trigger which was that Hungary did not own a string of its core provinces. Let it last a 100 years or so as well. Then if Hungary gets boshed by anyone early on then we could assume a Mohacs (that was the battle when half of the hungarian nobility got killed wasn't it?) has happened and that Hungary is weak enough for the Austrian inheritance to occur.

Seeing a resurgent Hungary suddenly give itself to a puny Austria is not realistic in my opinion as why would the Hungarian royal line have died out if they were winning?

Derek
 
Yes, it was the Battle of Mohacs.

I agree with you that Austria inheriting big mean Hungary seems a bit out of wack. One of the things I keep seeing is Austria turning into this huge sprawling empire simply due to huge inheritances.

A similar case could be made for Burgundy. The standard choice for Burgundy's inheritance gives Bourgone to France, and everything else to Austria. Well, sometimes that everything else includes half of France thanks to Burgundy's excellent performance in wars. A reworking of that event might be in order to, for what happens there is that when that inheritance is combined with Hungary and Bohemia, Austria effectively rules half of Europe.

This would be one reason why Austria ends up getting into bad boy wars, which gives Austria chances to annex HRE minors. Thats a bit OT, but the Ottoman problem is dynamically linked to the Austria problem, I feel.

After all, has anyone seen Austria threatened at all by the Ottomans? Unless you were playing them yourself?
 
Ottoman manpower

One thing that comes to mind is that the Ottomans seem to have fairly pitiful manpower ,at least compared to what it was historically compared to western europe of the era, particularly in the early half of the game. So basically they'll kill themselves trying to maintain big enough armies to do the job. If they routinely have to handle some austria+hungary+etc alliances having a grand total of 25k troops just doesnt cut it. And of course, they rarely have allies one can honestly call helpful.
 
Re: Ottoman manpower

Originally posted by tijlehto
One thing that comes to mind is that the Ottomans seem to have fairly pitiful manpower ,at least compared to what it was historically compared to western europe of the era, particularly in the early half of the game. So basically they'll kill themselves trying to maintain big enough armies to do the job. If they routinely have to handle some austria+hungary+etc alliances having a grand total of 25k troops just doesnt cut it. And of course, they rarely have allies one can honestly call helpful.
Click to expand...

I agree very much with the allies part. If they would get allies that actually contributed to the war-effort the problem might be less.

Ironically in my latest game me as Austria only inherited a 1-prov Hungary. The ottomans had actually swallowed the rest.
 
Re: Ottoman manpower

Originally posted by tijlehto
One thing that comes to mind is that the Ottomans seem to have fairly pitiful manpower ,at least compared to what it was historically compared to western europe of the era, particularly in the early half of the game. So basically they'll kill themselves trying to maintain big enough armies to do the job. If they routinely have to handle some austria+hungary+etc alliances having a grand total of 25k troops just doesnt cut it. And of course, they rarely have allies one can honestly call helpful.
Click to expand...

And being high quality doesn't quite help either ...
 
Yeah you are probably right. I´ve heard some complaints about similar thing from others taht have played other balkan nations. They seems to have very small manpower values even afetr becoming bigger.
 
I believe that another difficulty is that the mamelukes are too strong - they start off by gobbling the single province turk states and tunisia at the start b4 turkey does, and once they ally with persia, the turks don't have a chance. (Well, not till i helped them out with 20K worth of cavalry from my city in Goa playing as Brunei :D )

The only way turkey succeeds is through human influence.
 
Originally posted by Secret Master
Maybe, rather than killing the quality of their army, the manpower of their starting provinces should be raised?

I would think killing the quality of their army would be counter-productive to the problem at hand.
Click to expand...

I totaly agree...
 
Originally posted by Xplorer
I don't know about Turk vs Austria/Hungary because they can't seem to even take the Mameluks or Venice down. The AI is bad at taking Crete,Corfu,Egypt,and Syria. Better use of seaborne invasions is required.

Xplorer
Click to expand...

Yes and this is also required because France should attack England after invading it's continental territories!!
 
Originally posted by Xplorer
I don't know about Turk vs Austria/Hungary because they can't seem to even take the Mameluks or Venice down. The AI is bad at taking Crete,Corfu,Egypt,and Syria. Better use of seaborne invasions is required.

Xplorer
Click to expand...

Well unlike EU1 the AI isn´t a complete incompetent in assaulting islands. I´ve seen the turkish AI assult and take all the islands in the eastern Meditteranian but it only does when it holds an crushing advantage on land first. And since that doesn´t happen much well the islands are very likely to stay in the original owners hands.
 
Well unlike EU1 the AI isn´t a complete incompetent in assaulting islands. I´ve seen the turkish AI assult and take all the islands in the eastern Meditteranian but it only does when it holds an crushing advantage on land first. And since that doesn´t happen much well the islands are very likely to stay in the original owners hands.
Click to expand...

This points to a general problem with the AI, and something not specific for just the Ottomans.

The AI is very bad at handling anything involving the transportation of troops by sea to fight a conflict. This is one of the glaring reasons why Spain can't seem to crush the Aztecs and Incas, and governs the problems relating to the Turks beating the Venetians.

Bear in mind, the Ottomans, in my games at least, often have naval superiority in terms of numbers. Yet, they fail to deliver enough troops to siege and assault fortifications. They also fail to crush enemy naval resistance, resulting in sieges being lifted by relief forces.

Now, against the one province minors, such as the Knights and Cyprus, the AI does well. I suspect this is because any one province minor is easy to annex once you get rid of their allies and pour enough troops into the conflict. I suspect, when it comes to sacking multiple islands AND negotiating a good settlement, the AI simply can't do it very well.

This problem is further illustrated by what happens when I play the Ottomans or Byzantium. It seems, once I grab Cyprus, Crete, Corfu, etc, Venice can never get them back. She rarely sends enough troops to siege, and even then attrition wipes them out and she fails to reinforce. Yes, I know Venice also has to deal with monster Austria, but even with that factored in, she should still be able to sack those islands quickly. Venice starts with heavy defensive doctrine, meaning her sieges should go quickly. But, simple failures to land reinforcements result in continued losses of her island possessions.

It seems clear that the AI's inability to conduct naval invasions as good as we can contributes to the Ottoman's problems, though its not the primary cause. Now, if the AI could be trained to do much better with seaborne invasions and transporting troops to distant locations to fight, we might actually see a big mean Spain eating up America, and a big mean Ottoman Empire threatening Christian Europe. After all, historically, the Ottomans did pillage around Italy on more than one occasion, but as it stands now, the Pope has nothing to fear from the Ottoman threat.

And niether do we.
 
Also, if Turkey picks the Naval Reform event (which they do about 50% of the time, just to drive me nuts (I like a strong Turkey)) then they advance extremely slowly.

Also, Turkey NEVER uses missionairys. They have them, but don't use them. I'm getting sick of editing the save file to make Anatolia sunni. Its getting ridiculus.
 
In 1.02, I see alot more missionary use. Turkey often uses one in Anatolia, and Venice in its islands.

I definately think that Hungary needs to be taken down a big notch. I've heard people say that their leaders were very good during this time ... is it possible to weaken hungary's internals (dp settings, manpower, tax revenues) but improve its leaders so it can hold its own for a while, and then be crushed by the Turks?

If Austria is going to inherit Hungary, it should be much less likely if Hungary is still living large. Maybe an alternate event, if Hungary hasn't lost territory, where the default option is to go with a local notable (with very bad stats) instead of the Habsburgs, and then check again in 20 years? Maybe that would help Turkey.

driftwood
 
originally posted by Driftwood
I definately think that Hungary needs to be taken down a big notch. I've heard people say that their leaders were very good during this time ... is it possible to weaken hungary's internals (dp settings, manpower, tax revenues) but improve its leaders so it can hold its own for a while, and then be crushed by the Turks?

If Austria is going to inherit Hungary, it should be much less likely if Hungary is still living large. Maybe an alternate event, if Hungary hasn't lost territory, where the default option is to go with a local notable (with very bad stats) instead of the Habsburgs, and then check again in 20 years? Maybe that would help Turkey.
Click to expand...

Your suggestion of further weakening Hungary is nonsense. Actually Hungary is probably one of the countries, which was already weakened way to much (for the sake of game-balance????) compared to the real historical situation of 1419. Paradox included an independent Transsylvania (which obviously did not exist), the same for Croatia, they put it in the orthodox tech-tree, and above all just take a look at the cultural settings only 3 out of the 9 provinces (not to mention Transsylvania) have other culture than magyar, which is really a joke, as the majority population was indeed Hungarian at that time.

Furthermore, no matter what happens Austria is inheriting Hungary in 1526 anyway (which is again, quite ahistorical) thus I do not really get it.

True the Turkish AI is not performing that brilliantly, but for God sakes, You should not weaken other countries in order to make them look good. As the saying goes: "Two wrongs do not make one right".

Besidedes, I am still puzzled about the original intentions of the game designers. I thought, here You have a game, which tries to represent the real historical situation of 1419 (in Hungarys case oobviously not) and allows us to replay the what ifs of history. As far as I understand it, this game was not designed to replay history as it happened, but let us choose some alternative scenarios, if possible.

My 2 cents,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back