Are Ottomans more OP than usual this patch?

[Greene]

Ottomans are usually big and scary, but lately I've noticed they are even bigger and scarier than usual. Okay, I shrugged and moved on. New game, same thing. And same thing for several iterations. They chew up The Commonwealth (which is also pretty big btw they almost always eat Hungary) and are often half way to the Baltic Sea. So am I just imagining things or are they really stronger in 1.31 than they used to be?

 

[bennori]

In my recent games, Ottomans got regularly crushed by Austria-Hungary or multiple punitiv wars at the same time. Its probably as allways: Unless something goes terribly wrong, they will successfully consolidate in a prime position with three monuments ontop.

 

[Saat98]

I actually see Ottos less succesful this patch. As Austria usually goes for Hungary, Hungary is eaten by either Austria or Poland, and Ottos find a much more formidable oponent in Carpathia.

 

[jscaco]

In my current game the Ottomans have only managed to unite anatolia (i have had no interaction with them); they did not declare war on byz until around 1550 and only peaced out for money. Did not manage to annex Byz till 1570.

 

[Vin55]

There used to be a bug witch gave them one one one rulers. I have not expericend the newest version enough for me to know if it is fixed but it should be, was with most ruler events too like talented daughter being just a 333.

 

[moscal]

Ottomans are usually big and scary, but lately I've noticed they are even bigger and scarier than usual. Okay, I shrugged and moved on. New game, same thing. And same thing for several iterations. They chew up The Commonwealth (which is also pretty big btw they almost always eat Hungary) and are often half way to the Baltic Sea. So am I just imagining things or are they really stronger in 1.31 than they used to be?

In my games this is similar. But this is often RNG - if other AI-powers will be work better OTT will not be "unstopable snowball" or even will have collapse.

 

[Chazb5046]

I’ve played two games this patch and they’ve been wiped out both games

 

[Koopa]

whenever i play in asia they get terribly crushed by AI, whenever i tried prestor johann they reached the northsea and ate mameluks by 1445 (exaggeration might be contained)

to be serious, i see them fail more often than in the older versions, but they do fine most of the time.

*edit*
forgot the 1 1 1 bug... yeah.. that time was (is?) not a good time for them. more like free land in anatolia.

 

[RMS Oceanic]

The 111 bug really hit them, but that's fixed. Now I see they're more likely to ally someone like Tunis or Crimea than AQ 90% of the time, which is harder for someone like Byzantium to deal with and doesn't block their missions, so maybe it's just that.

 

[agonistes]

I love it when they ally Granada. That's always a situation with potential.

I'll say this: this 1.33/1.34 seems to have more fluctuation. I haven't had any games where the same outcome keeps happening over and over. I've seen Granada and Morocco beat Castille twice!

The only outcome I haven't seen yet is a powerhouse burgundy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Nope, same old Ottomans pretty much. Usually among the game's top 2 AI nations, sometimes dead.

 

[Delpheus]

Its amazing that people still say Ottomans are not overpowered.
Either they want them to never be nerfed as they should be, or to trick the devs into making them so strong they're utterly impossible to beat.

 

[elessar9]

Its amazing that people still say Ottomans are not overpowered.
Either they want them to never be nerfed as they should be, or to trick the devs into making them so strong they're utterly impossible to beat.

EU4 is a game with asymmetric starting positions. The term "overpowered" should only be used in relation to that. Ottomans have possibly the best starting position in the game. Them being #1 great power in the majority of games does not mean they are "overpowered".

Ottomans used to be stronger than they are now. They were not impossible to beat then, and they are not impossible to beat now.

 

[User29]

tbh they seem weaker to me, but that's from my own meddling. It's too easy to accumulate favors and just call ottomans into every war with your mutual enemies and give them 0 land, they can be blocked from taking egypt or going into the steppe indefinitely.

Maybe it's harder if I bought the DLC, but I cant bring myself to spend full price on the lowest reviewed product on steam

 

[petertju]

EU4 is a game with asymmetric starting positions. The term "overpowered" should only be used in relation to that. Ottomans have possibly the best starting position in the game. Them being #1 great power in the majority of games does not mean they are "overpowered".

Ottomans used to be stronger than they are now. They were not impossible to beat then, and they are not impossible to beat now.

IMO they have become weaker over the past few patches. Mamluks seems to be stronger this patch and Austria is gets their PU's a lot more often, with the attitude changing when they have a subjugate PU(which was an amazingly good change).

 

[blackbirdgriffi]

I find that they are significantly slower when It comes to the levant coastline and egypt itself (which I like as it is more historically correct) but still, except for a couple of welcomed occurences they do usually reach that Quantity + Ott ambitions which allows them to be very powerfull in the 16th and 17th century and crush their rivals. So I would say it is the otherway around. It feels really good when you see them in a tought war tho, they will often win but it'll cost them. IMHO the Austrian gunning for their PU's Is great I just hope they'll take that into account and fix the BI next patch.

 

[Vin55]

Ottomans are fine in the early stages of the game, it was a huge empire and it did win against the hungarians, poles and austrians, plus having been standing twice before vienna.
The issue though is that the desaster, the turning point of the empire is never adressed. The ottomans lost much momentum after their second loss before vienna and where pushed back time and time again loosing on all sides but Sudan and north aftica. The direct control of hungary was soon lost and of southern ucraine and crimea.
There should be an event with missions or withouth where one needs to stilize the land or there would be destasters like rise of the janischars, infefficient administration, religious tensions, a third of the total population was christian. Nationalism with supressed minorities, etc...
I think the age of absolutism would work best for this desaster, and one could link it with the spawing of cores for greece, armenia and other nations.

 

[elessar9]

I agree that EU could use more mechanics for destabilising large empires with strong religious/cultural minorities in the late game. I don't think it needs to be special for the ottomans, though.

 

[Vin55]

Well I do think it should be ottomans or mughals, beause the europeen empires where just beginning and becoming more efficient and better ruled than the turkish empires. The ottomans and mughals were on the decline and to this day I cannot understand the op government form of the mughals, that empire was so instable and
a mess, others would have deserved such a form more, like the British. ( I mean it was the biggest empire to ever exist.)

 

[JaxElite]

Ottomans have always been extremely volatile in eu4 since AI can't handle them. Their armies are so absurdely overpowered early game due to modifiers and strong generals (they easily stackwipe AI armies double their size if they chose a bad engage). If they get rolling no AI can ever put up a fight for the rest of the game and their final size is ONLY dependant on player actions and ruler personalities (if they don't get a militarist ruler they stay small).
On the other hand just like other AIs can't handle the absurd ottoman armies, the ottomans can't do it themselves. They could easily beat an AI Austro-Hungarian Empire for the first half of the game but don't declare the war cause of troop numbers. They could easily stop anyone from sieging them by simply walking in since in the early and midgame they can win fights against 2-5 times their size armies depending on generals when relieving forts but they dont engage due to the amount of enemy troops and just let the sieges happen.

Overall this is just a consequence of AI being completey incapable of properly judging army strength. They see force limit, manpower, standing army and mil tech and ignore just aboit everything else (if you ever see an AI prussia outside of the HRE watch biggest neighbours suicide into them 24/7).

One point i mentioned earlier that gets ignored a lot of times in this forum is AI ruler personalities. Not talking about the personality traits like scholar or strict but each AI ruler has a personality (militarist, diplomat, balanced and coloniser). These personalities are one of the big 3 factors for global political development, alongside the player and missions and are vastl more important than ideas, tech or location. Diplomatic rulers will very rarely go to war for anyrging but reconquest or permaclaims (hence the importance of missions). Militarist rulers will expand whenever possible on the other hand. "Lucky Nations" like the Ottomans have a higher chance to role a militarist ruler, hence the reason they grow so much more than other big countries. But if they get a diplomatic ruler once and that dude doesn't die young their expansion will come to a full stop for ~50 years. Since Ottomams are getting weaker with time that means missing out on their biggest powerspike and allows smaller neighbouring states to consolidate and build alliance, scaring off the Ottomans.