• 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.
Is there really any need to further cripple the Ottomans? The Greeks and Slavs were treated reasonably well, certainly compared to alternative rulers. Without Greek culture the Ottomans in 1419 are a basket case. Without slavonic they are extremely unlikely to bother with the Balkans (which are poor) and even if they do bother with the Balkans they'll just weaken themselves.
 
Regarding the Fratricide and Bakshish events:
Could they make rather nice flavour-adding random events for the Ottomans instead? They come so often anyway. And I rather not have a sure +3 stab on a certain date for a player, makes for exploits. But this event might help the Ottomans together, with their rather high stab cost.
IMO the Bakshish shouldn't be made so hard, since crippling OE is not needed.
 
Originally posted by Mad King James
Not paying the Jannisaries in the Ottoman Empire is a big deal. They run the army, the beurocracy, and god knows what else in the Empire.

Yes I agree, but is it really such a big deal that its fair with a - 6 stab hit? I guess it all depends on how you look on stability and what factors you think that stands behind stability raisings and decreasings. In comparison with a decreas of 1, if your raise wartaxes (and thoose extra taxes inflicts upon alot of people) a decreas by 6, as I see it, would be something more like the government doesnt pay there troops anything, a new war is coming along and a great meteor is sighted, heading for earth :rolleyes: As it wasnt so that the Sultan didnt pay the jannisaries, they just didnt get that extra payment when he rose to power, I cant see the meaning with a decreas by 6. But on the other hand, witch player will choise not to pay his janissaries if he face a stab hit, wether its 2 or 6. :D
 
Originally posted by John Poole
I really think the Ottoman Empire should only get Turkish and perhaps by event Arab culture later but having Greek and Slavonic culture is silly. When were the Greeks and Slavs ever considered equals to the Turks and Arabs? There were some prominent Greeks and Slavs...but they were all slaves of the Sultan and were chosen for those positions precisely because they were second-class citizens and thus not a threat to seize power.

Well I on my part dont have any problems with letting OE have greek and slavonic cultures, but I guess it depends on how you look on how the cultures works in the game. If you think that a nation only should have the culture of the ruling class I follow you but then again, if a conquerer allows the ruling class to stay put on its old domains and rule its people with its own laws, but for this pay taxes to the central government. Isnt that old ruling class/culture part of the system!?
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Is there really any need to further cripple the Ottomans?

I think this is one of the best reasons not to remove their cultures, unless of course someone had a great idea that suddenly started causing the Ottomans to overperform:eek:
 
I also don't like the Greek and Slavonic cultures, primarily because it gives the Ottomans an easy time with converting provinces. Historically the Ottomans succeded in converting Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo. In the games, I have seen the AI Ottomans convert most of the Balkans to Sunni Islam. The Ottomans should be strong, but they are converting way too much territory in the Balkans with their extra cultures.
 
In response to Chevitz Gurrera, I didn't realize that there was no Ottoman claim on Cyprus and that Kerch and Kaffa were included in one of the events already, sorry.

I thought Morocco and Sicily would be good ideas for cores, because of how the Ottomans expanded. From Malta, the logical next step is to Sicily, and then you could control Meditteranean trade. By owning Morocco, you'd own half of the straits of Gibralter.

As a rec for Moroccan cores, I'd recommend Owning Gibralter, Grenada, and all of Algeria.

For Sicily, I'd recommend owning Malta and Apulia.

Both of these events would occur around the late 1600s.

If not for the internal problems facing the Ottoman Empire, they would probably have continued expanding.
 
Originally posted by Jacob Oppenheim
I thought Morocco and Sicily would be good ideas for cores, because of how the Ottomans expanded. From Malta, the logical next step is to Sicily, and then you could control Meditteranean trade. By owning Morocco, you'd own half of the straits of Gibralter.

As a rec for Moroccan cores, I'd recommend Owning Gibralter, Grenada, and all of Algeria.

However, why would anyone recognize these claims? Not only that, but why would the populations be happy to accept Ottoman rule. I think that if you want to take these areas, thats great, but it shouldn't be easy/revolt-free.
 
Well on giving the OE extra CB shields in Morocco and Sicily. There should be some high hoops to jump to do so and make it a challange like revolt risk and bad relations with others. (Especially Spain and Portugal for being in Grenada) Also on the conversions in the Balkans, I'm surprised nobody brought up the idea of Albanian culture for the OE. Also an event where Kosovo changes culture to Albanian since that did happen historically.
On the struggles for Mascate, did the OE run into Portugal since they occupied and vied for the same space. Maybe an event should be written for the struggle. Does anyone have a picture atlas showing the extent of the empire for purposes of CB recieving. If I'm not mistaken they got pretty close to Ethiopia so is there any record of conflict? That and has anyone brought up the religion of Nubia issue since I think they were Sunni by 1419.
 
The OE should most definately have Greek and Slavonic cultures. While I agree, this does have the problem of easy conversion to Islam we should remember that the reason the Balkans aern't Muslim today is because the Ottomans made it illegal fo European Christians to convert to Islam in order to preserve the tax base as well as ensure a supply of Christian boys for the kapikulu/janisaries. Unfortunately, the game mechanics cannot handle the reality of Ottoman history.

Historically, Greeks and Slavs made up most of the governmental positions inthe empire. The government was largely composed of kapikulu, the best of whom were selected to be janisaries. During the Phanariot period of Romanian history, Phanariot Greeks (Greeks living in Constantinople) were appointed as governors of Wallachia and Moldavia. The head of the Orthodox Church was a government official. The Bulgarians were willing subjects of the Empire, many converted despite the law. The Slavic and Greek parts of the empire prospered greatly under Ottoman rule, because even though they paid higher taxes than the Moslems, they paid lower taxes than they had before. Trade increased and was largely in Greek hands.

I would also say that despite the fact that Albania eventually converted (and not all the way as it is still 30%-40% Christian today) the area was always unruley. Moslems didn't become predominant there until the last decade of the XVIIIth Century. While the Bogomil Sect of Bosnia also converted to Islam, even today, the majority of Bosnia/Hercegovinia is Christian (Orthodox and Catholic).

Jacob Oppenheim, no need to appolgize. :D

mnorrefeldt, the Ottomans have a stability problem, having four to six different religions in their empire, as well as several non-state cultures. Th purpose of the Fratricide and Bakshish events is to help keep the OE alive.

As for why choice_B is so harsh, Yoghurt, imagine if the entire government (from Constaninople to Algiers) suddenly revolted. It's gonna hurt, and it's gonna hurt bad. Also, the choice_A's start getting nastier and nastier, as it was the creeping power of the kapikulu which changed the OE from the terror of Europe to the sick man of Europe. A human player needs a real incentive to hurt himself for the long run. When faced with having your diplo-sliders changed in a negative direction, you need a -6 stab to motivate you to make the "right" choice.

BTW, a couple of sultans tried to break the power of the Janisaries. They ended up dead. It wasn't until 1826 that their grip on the throat of the empire was finally broken. By then it was almost too late.




I am, however, open to being convinced otherwise.
 
Originally posted by ImperialMog
Well on giving the OE extra CB shields in Morocco and Sicily. There should be some high hoops to jump to do so and make it a challange like revolt risk and bad relations with others. (Especially Spain and Portugal for being in Grenada)

I think its best to make sure its clear that you can conquer things without cores:D If you want to take Morocco, the effects that you will feel (without cores) are justified, perhaps even, too weak.
 
Hmmm. Those Bakshish events do seem incredibly beneficial, which was perhaps not the idea. -20d or -30d for +1 stability point! In these days of 1.06 high stability costs, that is a gift from god, even when you throw in a centralisation hit. (On the other hand, perhaps this boost to the Ottomans was intentional, and presenting it as something negative merely camouflage :D)

And as for the later events, where you get multiple choices, I have a hard time imagining anybody but the AI pick a -6 stability hit plus revolts (typo error in events: "revot"->"revolt") over a +1 stability gain that increased aristocracy and decreases centralisation. And if it is only of interest to the AI, perhaps the option should not be present :)
 
Originally posted by chegitz guevara

mnorrefeldt, the Ottomans have a stability problem, having four to six different religions in their empire, as well as several non-state cultures. Th purpose of the Fratricide and Bakshish events is to help keep the OE alive.

Um, I hadn't seen those events presented as anything negative.

I do agree that the option B should go. Don't know why I didn't chime up when asked, but I didn't.
 
Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Hmmm. Those Bakshish events do seem incredibly beneficial, which was perhaps not the idea. -20d or -30d for +1 stability point! In these days of 1.06 high stability costs, that is a gift from god, even when you throw in a centralisation hit. (On the other hand, perhaps this boost to the Ottomans was intentional, and presenting it as something negative merely camouflage :D)

The boost is intentional. The Ottomans have severe stability problems. Too many cultures, too many religions, high innovation and free subjects if done historically.

I think you and Isaac may be correct about choice_B (and yes, I had noticed I spelled revolt wrong :eek:). I was thinking about using the it to set some flags. If you don't allow the janisaries to become more and more corrupt, you ought to be able to avoid the killer event where you have to choose between four years of revolution or lose your tech.
 
Random events or set dates

Originally posted by chegitz guevara:
mnorrefeldt, the Ottomans have a stability problem, having four to six different religions in their empire, as well as several non-state cultures. The purpose of the Fratricide and Bakshish events is to help keep the OE alive.
I didn't object to the events as such, I like them and I think OE might need some help.
BUT I think it is a bad idea to have a +3 stab event coming on a set date, without offset, when they are played by a human. Exploits such as changing DP-sliders, declaring wars and such just before the stab bonus come to mind.
And I don't consider the dates of these precise fratricides to be important enough not to have them random. Perhaps triggers with DP sliders could be added, a more modern monarch might not use it?

Edit: And the Bakshish options are very unbalanced, but that seems to be the consensus now anyway.
 
Good point. Maybe put some longish offsets on these events?
 
umm is it just me or does the mameluks(atleast in the "fantasy" scenario)have Georgian state culture? i just post this thing here, might be the wrong place:D