Am I missing something or is this game just broken?

[Peter Ebbesen]

Yet the thing is that EU used to have an event for Ottomans annexing Mamelukes when certain conditions were met during the war, it's not like it didn't happen in the history.

And it was a terribly bad event, allowing one country to go far beyond what the war mechanics of the game allowed merely because that particular conquest happened in our history, by saying essentially, "if you conquer all this, you get it because this happened historially - if you conquer all of something else, you will have to work for it." Just like the really old, "automatically inherit Hungary by event" and other relics of EU2, these events were terribly bad for gameplay.

The one great advantage of the event was that it made it more likely that an AI Ottoman would make the Ottoman Empire look vaguely "historic" regardless of how much sense it made in the particular alternative history that was being played out, which to many players is important. With EU4's improved AI, the AI is perfectly able of pursuing a mission goal of conquering a large number of provinces over several wars, removing the last justification for such draconian events.

 

[Hagbard00]

Annex Egypt was a bad mission in EU3 aswell and you facepalmed every time you got it. If you PU'd Mamluks it could take decades to inherit it and fulfill the mission. Annexation was generally a bad idea, because inheritance gave you cores and all buildings that AI built.

There are some funny missions in EU4 too. Like repair relations with Morocco while playing Portugal.

 

[Kyoumen]

And it was a terribly bad event, allowing one country to go far beyond what the war mechanics of the game allowed merely because that particular conquest happened in our history, by saying essentially, "if you conquer all this, you get it because this happened historially - if you conquer all of something else, you will have to work for it." Just like the really old, "automatically inherit Hungary by event" and other relics of EU2, these events were terribly bad for gameplay.

The one great advantage of the event was that it made it more likely that an AI Ottoman would make the Ottoman Empire look vaguely "historic" regardless of how much sense it made in the particular alternative history that was being played out, which to many players is important. With EU4's improved AI, the AI is perfectly able of pursuing a mission goal of conquering a large number of provinces over several wars, removing the last justification for such draconian events.

Why have the War of the Roses, then? Why have the Partition of Burgundy? Why have Protestantism appear? None of these things were guaranteed or even likely to happen at game start, and one of them is precisely for the purpose of making "vaguely historic borders regardless of how much sense it made in the particular alternative history that was being played out".

You should not have to do an ahistoric, piece-by-piece annexation of the Mamluks that takes decades and weakens your empire from overextension with the Ottomans, and it should not be functionally impossible for the AI to take them over. The Ottoman control over Egypt was vastly important and deserves representation in the game, and this is not it.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

There are some funny missions in EU4 too. Like repair relations with Morocco while playing Portugal.

That's one of the generic "repair relations with <random nation you have bad relations with>" surely, not a Portuguese specific mission. (And yes, the generic missions can at times seem rather silly.)

 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Thinking about Ottoman Egypt it always seems to have been at least partly autonomous. Perhaps in game terms this relationship would be best seen as a vassal or country in a PU with the Ottoman Empire rather than a core part of the OE.

 

[Hagbard00]

That's one of the generic "repair relations with <random nation you have bad relations with>" surely, not a Portuguese specific mission. (And yes, the generic missions can at times seem rather silly.)

Yes I know it's not country specific, but I found it funny, because Portugal and Morocco have really bad relations, so there is no way to fulfill that mission.

 

[Kyoumen]

Thinking about Ottoman Egypt it always seems to have been at least partly autonomous. Perhaps in game terms this relationship would be best seen as a vassal or country in a PU with the Ottoman Empire rather than a core part of the OE.

Even that would be something, at least. The game has special mechanics for Poland to get into a PU with Lithuania and form the Commonwealth, for pity's sake, but nothing for the Ottoman takeover of Egypt? How can anybody defend one and not the other?

 

[Heatth]

Why are you assuming that this should be catholic only? Some of the translations refer to the religious buildings in the text as monasteries, but is that really enough for you to go "since it uses a religion-specific name for religious buildings, it is surely a bug that it happens to other religions?" Is any of the translations so egregiously bad it states that event is catholic? If the latter, please specific which, so a minor text correction can be implemented.

It is actually a bit of the code that imply it should be only catholic. The event have more chance to happen if you have low relations with the Pope, which makes no sense for a Sunni nation. Assuming the event is suppose to be available to all religions, that bit of the code should be fixed. Maybe correlating the trigger to the other religion specific mechanics, like low papal authority for the orthodox or low piety for the Muslin.

Anyway, the OP experience is just a case of bad luck. I've done the same thing in my Ottoman game, but the Overextension penalties were nowhere as drastic. After a couple of years everything was cored already and I could go for the encore.

That said, I do agree the Ottomans should be able to annex the Mamluks in one war, as they did historically. Some DHE is needed for that, I think.

Yes I know it's not country specific, but I found it funny, because Portugal and Morocco have really bad relations, so there is no way to fulfill that mission.

Fortunately, this is not not EU3, where you can't chose your missions.

Also, I don't mind the mission of annex Egypt, even if it takes years to complete. It is an extremely useful mission, as it gives you claims all over the place, so I think taking longer than normal to fulfill it is a nice trade off.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

It is actually a bit of the code that imply it should be only catholic. The event have more chance to happen if you have low relations with the Pope, which makes no sense for a Sunni nation. Assuming the event is suppose to be available to all religions, that bit of the code should be fixed. Maybe correlating the trigger to the other religion specific mechanics, like low papal authority for the orthodox or low piety for the Muslin.

Ah, right, that block of MTTH modifiers probably should have an AND condition that the country be catholic in order to be applied.

EDIT: Or your suggestion.

 

[Delta107]

OP, how about you read the game manual and then start to whine? Those stickies contain a TON of resources. There are questions to be asked, but this stuff about overextension is explained in the manual and dev diaries. The game is not broken, OP, its just a bit more difficult than you thought it would be.

 

[Kyoumen]

OP, how about reading the game manual and then whine? Those stickies contain a TON of resources. There are questions to be asked, but this stuff about overextension is explained in the manual and dev diaries.

Because he shouldn't be overextended for trying to annex Egypt?

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

The OP raises an important point. The Ottomans DID conquer the Mamelukes one go within 2 years, not only that, but they were also supported by the local populace everywhere except for desert Bedouins (who were hated by everyone for looting settled lands and collaborating with the Mamelukes). But the muslim ruler's ability to annex large swathes of land from other muslim dynasties that have become decadent and inept at defending their lands is not present in the game AFAIK. You also get overextension for doing that.

 

[Saczva]

In real life large nations and empires weren't conquered and annexed in single wars.. this isn't stupid at all, you're just complaining that you can't grab insane and easy rewards.

 

[lokomoko]

Beside the point. It's not the event that matters (I'm fine with it given its triggers), but that that there is nothing to simulate one of the most important historical annexations in the area and it is in fact impossible in the game to replicate it. The event shouldn't have happened to OP not because the event is bad, but because he shouldn't have been overextended for trying to conquer the Mamluks.

I'm sure though historically the Ottomans did become overextended for conquering the Mamluks, as you can see Egypt/the Mamluks is a large area with many people living in it that don't want to be conquered by foreigners (Turks). Yes, the Ottomans did become overextended, but no they didn't lose 6 stability and collapse into ruin. This is how the game works, it does not replicate history exactly.

 

[Heatth]

Because he shouldn't be overextended for trying to annex Egypt?

Why? I do agree you should be able to annex Egypt in a single war, but I don't see why it should e overextension free either. I am not familiar to the history of the region, but was the conquest that smooth? Was the Empire running smoothly immediately after the war, with no issues? Overextension is dangerous, but it is not the end of the world either. In my Ottoman game, I went to 160% for 3 years and the sky did not fall over my head. I believe the Ottomans did not went to another major conquest immediately after the war, so I think some years of consolidations seems fair.

At most I would make the Ottoman get free cores on some key provinces, like Cairo and Alexandria, so the overextension is kept under a manageable lever, but they shouldn't get scot free.

In real life large nations and empires weren't conquered and annexed in single wars.. this isn't stupid at all, you're just complaining that you can't grab insane and easy rewards.

Except for the Mamluks. They were, indeed, annexed in a single war.

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

In real life large nations and empires weren't conquered and annexed in single wars.. this isn't stupid at all, you're just complaining that you can't grab insane and easy rewards.

Actually, they did.

I'm sure though historically the Ottomans did become overextended for conquering the Mamluks, as you can see Egypt/the Mamluks is a large area with many people living in it that don't want to be conquered by foreigners (Turks). Yes, the Ottomans did become overextended, but no they didn't lose 6 stability and collapse into ruin. This is how the game works, it does not replicate history exactly.

The Mamelukes themselves were Turks. Also the Levant and Egypt remained stable, the only parties that rebelled were the remaining Mamelukes who wanted to restore their rule and their Bedouin allies.

 

[Fjoelsvider]

you know why people are so pissy with you?

eu games tend to have a pretty solid fanbase. its very likely these games represent the favorite past time for many people here.

and then you come along, make an understandable mistake, but instead of reacting accordingly you call peoples favorite past time broken, implying parts of it are retarded and whatnot. of course people are going to be pissy. hell i was pissed off when i saw the thread name. i was even more pissed off when i read everything, showing you did something that to me(and others) was totally foreseeable and clearly "your mistake" and you still called my favorite pasttime "shit" basically...

so thats why people get pissy, this could have all been avoided by checking your attitude :/


now that aside:
you make several valid points. the game still doesnt do a good job at informing you about certain aspects. the tutorials have gotten much better, but a game with this scope? always gonna lack in instruction i feel

that event really is a bitch, and seeing how i am a person who doesnt go through the event files i can say i didnt know it even existed. dont get me wrong, i totally expected you to get shit on by one game mechanic or the other, i merely didnt know the specifics ^^ and yes its a really mean event, but _something_ has to happen if you do stuff that is supposed to be "too much" in regards o the game mechanics(im not one of the "OMG historical accuracy is all that matters"-crowd sorry :>).
i will agree thingsl ike that need to be kept in check constantly, maybe that event needs to be balanced, maybe not, but it certainly should be watched


the ai giving away your stuff is just plain silly. that shouldnt happen, you should always be informed if you give anyone the power to mess with your stuff. the game does not do that. thats a plain and simple oversight!


other than that i can only say, give it another try, maybe try to approach it differently. this may just be misinterpretation on my side, but it seems to me you are playing this very impatiently, and the mechanics this time around are meant to make you take your time a bit more. i agree it doesnt tell you clearly enough that it wants you to slow the eff down, but now you know

and please dont just go ahead and call peoples favorite passtime "shit" with other assorted negative things implied, i know its just a game, but most people here really care. at least i care a lot *massive fanboy*

 

[lokossus]

The game isn't an 'Ottoman Historical Conquest of Egypt' simulator. It has an internal logic that makes perfect sense. If you decided that, because the Ottomans did it in real life, it must mean you can do it in EU4, you're operating on a terrible assumption. Let's recap:

OP had an event fire that was based on high war exhaustion, high over extension, low manpower. It's a fairly brutal event, with a huge hit to your stability.

However, what is it simulating? The unhappiness of the peasantry with an incredibly costly and debilitating war, manifesting in a slow boiling civil conflict. It's not 'out of nowhere', it's just brutal. There are conversations to be had about the -6 Stability hit, but I'm totally on board with the need for an event like this: you just took your state through hell and back, and it's frayed at the seams. Spend time consolidating, while dealing with uprisings.

Historically, this is by no means unprecedented. I understand OP's frustration, but it is what it is.

 

[unmerged(783066)]

The Peasant's War is in no way intended to apply only to Catholics and it is not a bug that you were hit by it. It is an exceptionally nasty event that is always ready and willing to hit any monarchy regardless of religion before 1600, should that monarchy's manpower base fail it and be depleted to dangerous levels.

It is the event that teaches the player that living on the edge (via either loans, overextension, war exhaustion, or legitimacy) can be really nasty in conjunction with pissing away manpower in a government system based on control of the masses in a monarchial system..




Why are you assuming that this should be catholic only? Some of the translations refer to the religious buildings in the text as monasteries, but is that really enough for you to go "since it uses a religion-specific name for religious buildings, it is surely a bug that it happens to other religions?" Is any of the translations so egregiously bad it states that event is catholic? If the latter, please specific which, so a minor text correction can be implemented.

It was stated repeatedly on the 3rd page of this thread that it made references to the papal states, reading back to the event itself it has some mentioning of PAP_states, having no experience with the coding language apart from tweaking the occasional peasant revolt chance in CK2, I can only imagine that is what they're alluding to.
As far as the events readable text ingame, can't recall the specifics, just know the level of genericness made me facepalm, your entire stability get's decimated right at the moment where a peasant revolt would screw you the most and the game can't even be arsed to tell you anything but that the peasants are pissy? Nothing about what you did wrong, or how you could have avoided it, I vaguely recall something about the peasants wanting reforms? Which as I understand it is complete bull.
Now, I know the term fun doesn't mean much on this subforum, but does an entire empire exploding because of a couple of peasants make any sense history wise? Did peasants all keep in contact with their telepathic peasant senses? If I have godamn Spartacus leading my nation into ruin you better give me a better description then "The peasants don't like you too much" to spend the next 2 hours of my life fixing that randomly generated mess, and an event that triggers when you actually manage to overcome it to help you with the 2 hours you wasted doing nothing.

Funniest part is the reason my manpower got decimated wasn't even the Mamluks, their army was a joke, and after playing CK2, you become really paranoid about attrition, it was the retarded AI vassals attaching their stacks onto my 15k peasant clearing stack in the middle of Greece that was there during the war to fill it's rather obvious purpose, having had to dance the whack-a-peasant before, causing a constant trickle of attrition deaths.
Halfway down the war when I saw my manpower had plumited, I figured I'd split up the rebel clearing stack as it was 30k with vassals anyway, and send the stack that had the vassals to the front, the moment I took that stack and sent them to the Mamluks, the AI showed it's stupidity again and moved their vassal stack to my stationary stack.

If this is intended, it either forces the player to see vassals during wartime as a danger instead of a... Well, vassal, or leave your country open to get screwed over by any peasant, or if you're unlucky, nationalist revolt.

And it's nothing to do with the translation by the way, I play the english version.

Edit: Looks like Heatth already cleared up the part about the event and it's relation to catholics.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Actually, they did.

Yes, while most wars only resulted in minor land changes, huge tracts of land did occasionally swap hands in short wars when the military and diplomatic circumstances were right, and there are three possible solutions to that when writing a game:

1. Do not make it possible to conquer large amounts of land in single wars.
2. Make it possible to conquer large amounts of land in single wars.
3. Make it possible to conquer large amounts of land in single wars only for those particular cases where this happened historically.

#1 and #2 makes for logically consistent gameplay. #3 does not.