extremely unhistorical ottomans ruins the game.

[Delterius]

in case if you didn't read it (As always) name of the book is TARİH EBU'L FETH, "history of the conqueror" in case you didn't saw it, the name of Author is TURSUN BEY OTTOMAN HISTORIAN born in 1420, I HOPE YOU CAN SEE MY TEXTS NOW

Well, could you properly cite this book and show me the sections you're using as source?

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

Well, could you properly cite this book and show me the sections you're using as source?

you can check them yourself if you want, since you didn't cited me your own pages, I gave up hope on you, since you disregard and do not read what I say and just reply like NPC, go on and read the book yourself. I don't know english version of the book, so pages I will give will probably be out of sync. I am turkish speaker not English

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call out the elephant in the room. It's a bit difficult to believe that you are Turkish based on your attitude here. Countries generally get portrayed as using human-wave tactics by their enemies, I've never heard of anyone wanting to stereotype their own country in this way. Have you read Turkish sources on the battles you listed in your OP? Because many of those casualty figures look excessive, the Ottomans couldn't have been losing 50k soldiers in battle every couple of years. Defending the Spanish Inquisition doesn't help your case either.

the sources I give are Turkish, so yes the sources I read was Turkish, primary source

 

[mysticdueler]

I swear you don't read what I said, that guy claimed a book written in late 20th century, he has no primary sources while I cite PRIMARY source from OTTOMANS and here you go I hope you read this and don't write reply right away

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tursun_Beg

now please, just please, who should we consider as more true:

primary source, written by a guy lived in same age and working in the court of ottoman sultan himself

or, a source written 400 years after the event and claims different numbers than our primary one and also is not Turkish nor worked in court or saw the battle.

So you were also at that battle, working under Mehmed II? Do you have the original manuscripts of Tursen in your personal possession? If not, what makes you any better than those forumites you have been arguing with? The whole point of scholars and historians is to gather as much information, and as many resources as possible, and then sifting through them, weeding out the inherent biases to arrive at their conclusions. To take a single solitary source as your basis, and not question anything about it (where it came from, who it came from, how many people have interpreted it or translated it, etc), is folly of the highest order. Never just be satisfied with what you read or what you’re told. Think critically. Ask questions.

 

[Delterius]

you can check them yourself if you want

It seems that in truth what you're citing isn't Tursun Beg, but rather a citation of Tursun Beg you've found on wikipedia. You expect me to take what you say Tursun Beg claims at face value because a wikipedia page has... the title of a book he wrote in its listings. Furthermore, you make no attempts to analyze your sources, you make no cross examinations and all you can do is scream at others that the matter is closed and they cannot read. Quite ironic, as you haven't read anything but wikipedia boxes yourself. Was this not the case, you'd be simply take a screenshot of the many books you've read on the subject and prove me a fool.

Meanwhile someone comes into your thread with actual, proper citation of academic sources and your go mad, demanding proofs.

And to make matters worse: you had a meltdown over ONE of your sources. The battle of Constantinople. Imagine what would happen if people started questioning the other 20 claims made in the original post.

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

So you were also at that battle, working under Mehmed II? Do you have the original manuscripts of Tursen in your personal possession? If not, what makes you any better than those forumites you have been arguing with? The whole point of scholars and historians is to gather as much information, and as many resources as possible, and then sifting through them, weeding out the inherent biases to arrive at their conclusions. To take a single solitary source as your basis, and not question anything about it (where it came from, who it came from, how many people have interpreted it or translated it, etc), is folly of the highest order. Never just be satisfied with what you read or what you’re told. Think critically. Ask questions.

yes the source I gave, Tursun bey was there in all Mehmed's campaigns and yes, I have his book, so stop bs, I gave you source, instead of replying like NPC go read it

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

It seems that in truth what you're citing isn't Tursun Beg, but rather a citation of Tursun Beg you've found on wikipedia. You expect me to take what you say Tursun Beg has said as face value because a wikipedia page has... the title of a book he wrote in its listings. Furthermore, you make no attempts to analyze your sources, you make no cross examinations and all you can do is scream at others that the matter is closed and they cannot read. Quite ironic, as you haven't read anything but wikipedia boxes yourself. Was this not the case, you'd be simply take a screenshot of the many books you've read on the subject and prove me a fool.

just go read him if you want this is my last word, also how was your source? written in 1974, better? my source is primary and I learnt about him from my teacher in school who recommended me when I was young, and I read that book. Now go read it if you want to learn, instead of reading history in reddit.

 

[mysticdueler]

yes the source I gave, Tursun bey was there in all Mehmed's campaigns and yes, I have his book, so stop bs, I gave you source, instead of replying like NPC go read it

But how do you know? Anyone can write a book. Anyone can translate (and many errors have been made in the translation process). Which edition of the book do you have? How many times has it been revised? Do you have any other corroborating sources (other books by other authors)? Why only this one source?

 

[wthree]

I am completely with you on the way the Ottoman Empire is portrayed as this country of ultra-tolerant super-men, that only didn't conquer the whole world because it would be too easy.

Beyond the fact that it's just simply not historical, it causes issue gameplay-wise because it effectively removes the fun of playing near them, as they are perfectly able to utterly destroy the entirety of central and western europe.

 

[Delterius]

just go read him if you want this is my last word

Again, I make no claims about your sources. You do. Why can't you just show me his words, if you've read them? You've read them since you were a child. Don't worry, you can just write them in the original turkish. I can keep up.

While you're at it, do show me sources about the other 50 battles you cited. Paragraph and page, if you please.

 

[Xinkc]

Despite that other thread overhyping the Ottomans, they really don't need more of a nerf. They're already in one of the weakest situations I've seen them in game since release. My own playthroughs, those of others I watch on YouTube and Twitch, and those I've seen on the forums for this patch generally seem to show them as either stuck, beaten down, or going after some trash eastern European land that makes them only look like their doing well. That one thread was a shock to myself and others because the thought of the Ottomans doing well this patch was outside our experience.

To put it bluntly, they're not invincible. They're not unbeatable. Nerfing them more will only make them perform worse.

 

[Quimera]

So, Ottomans, the historically large empire who had massive manpower and war focus, in eu4, unstoppable behemoth with invincible armies that takes too much effort to lose, (I have 2k hours in Eu4, so don't reply "oH iF yOu PlAy As AuStrIA Pu BoHemIa AnD hUngArY YoU cAn EasIlY DeFeAt OtToMaNs")

the problem is not with how to stop ottomans, it is historically inaccuracies. So here let me summarise it quickly:

in game, 20k ottoman army is enough to beat 30k, 40k any other army in the game, so here is what's wrong with it,

Let's start with 1444 start date,

Battle of Varna: where many European nations teamed up against Ottomans to stop them, it is 37k against 25k battle, so for this part we can say game is doing OK job.

View attachment 633191



so, let's continue with what we can do in 1444, not pre start date, according to EU4, ottomans should NEVER lose against army of smaller size in first few decades of the game. But here are some examples

FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

View attachment 633192


70k against 7k, with ottomans losing heavy losses, and Constantinople civilians getting enslaved, but according to game, if 70k ottomans go against 7k byzantines,they would just stackwipe and win, while in reality they lose heavily, this means 30k to 50k

So, you might say "this is siege, show me battles, just as eu4 depicts" so here you go:


BATTLE OF VASLUI

View attachment 633193


50k against roughly 85k, Moldovans lose 5k while ottomans lose 45k, without counting wounded, this is just impossible in game even if you had 6 6 6 6 general, let's continue with another:

View attachment 633195

battle of Targovişte, 30.000 Wallachians against 250.000 Ottomans, (This is ridiclous isn't it?) Ottomans lose 5 times more than wallachians does, can this be done in game? well if you even tried 30k against 30k against ottomans, you would lose 15k while ottomans lose 8k or so, not even close to reality. let's continue:

View attachment 633196

Siege of Belgrade, just 1-2 decade prior to game's start date, 4k soldiers against 50k ottomans, with 60k civlians helping Hungarians, and this battle is led by incredible 6 4 6 ruler of Ottomans!!! (I don't even know why he has such incredible stats, as we will see later, he was not that great) you would assume ottomans wiping out entire Hungarian army right? well, then you should stop believing in EU4, because 60k peasants destroy proffesional Sipahis and janisarries.

So, now continue with what I said about Mehmed the conqueror, the god tier ruler in EU4, you will see why he is not great now:

BATTLES OF SKANDERBEG

View attachment 633198

8k against 80k, 1 to 10, with %30 of Ottoman troops dying or getting captured, is this possible in game? well you would get stackwiped if you had tried this, so no, let's continue:

View attachment 633203

Skanderbeg again, 1 to 4, losing 2k, killing 15k this is not possible again. even with Skanderbeg, so let's continue:

View attachment 633204

Now this is epic, 8k against 100k, and god tier Mehmed and Murad leading battle themselves! But getting 20k casualities during siege, and many more during retreat phase, while Albanians getting 1k killed, in eu4, this means stackwipe, but in reality it was albanian victory.

View attachment 633205

so now, Mehmed II with his commander leads 2nd siege of Kruje, which they outnumber massively but loses again! even if we take lowest of assumption, 30k for ottomans, it is still impossible for 13k albanians win.

So you might say "but this was skanderbeg, and game made him really good commander, what we can do? you are wrong, because Ottomans tried to take Albania for 2 decades more after Skanderbeg died, let's look at those battles:

View attachment 633208

tens of thousands of Ottomans, led by Mehmed, 6 4 6 ruler, again loses to few thousand Albanians, that is not led by Skanderbeg, So, it is not with skanderbeg alone, but with ottoman forces, but let's continue:

View attachment 633209

Ottomans at Kruje again, for fourth time! This time Mehmed (that 6 4 6 ruler) Brilliantly uses mass human waves tactics again! But no worries, his usage of mass human waves works this time in 10x outnumbering army! good job Mehmed! I surely couldn't do it with 58k against 2k, you really deserve 6 4 6 stats!

so that was it with balkans, ottoman victories all had massive number advantages apart from Varna, which ottomans had 37k against 30k, still outnumbering thou, so let's continue with Ottoman Venetian wars:

View attachment 633210

Battle of Gallipoli! (not 1915 one 10 galley against 32 galley and galleots, but 12 killed against 4000 killed and 1100 enslaved, and most of ottoman fleet is captured! and this is in 1416! 499 years before actual Gallipoli.


View attachment 633213

oh my! 55 against 5000? this is clearly ottoman victory! oh wait it is not?? it can't be, eu4 didn't taught me this!

View attachment 633214

battle of Focchies, ottomans outnumber as usual, but loses most of their fleet! But this is impossible in eu4 right? it shouldn't be true!

View attachment 633225



Battle of Lepanto, the battle that halted Turks, but this is impossible, how 212 ship can destroy most of 278 ottoman fleet? and 9 to 1 outnumbering in galliot number! just impossible in eu4.

View attachment 633226

Battle of Candia, in Turkish books, it is just considered as "the battle that we won" but this is reality, and if you wonder why there is 80k turks and 120k turkish casualities, it is because ottoman empire constantly reinforced that army. But nevertheless, Turkish victory

View attachment 633230

Siege of Farmagusta, 8.5k against 100k, with 8k killed against 52k killed, oh no, what is this? how can ottomans lose this with massive national idea bonuses they have?!

So that was it with venetian wars, now let's check few Austrian and few Persian wars because I am tired now.

View attachment 633232

the brilliant Eugene of savoy, 100k against 210k, and wins the battle! But oh no, Ottomans attack Austria again after spanish war of Succession, and Austria is exhausted of constant wars, what are they going to do???

View attachment 633234

battle of Zenta B) Eugene of Savoy decides to ambush invading ottoman troops, and this is turns out to be end of Ottoman expansion to Europe. 429 killed against 30k. Maybe Ottomans shouldn've attacked Austria after seeing they were defeated by french.

View attachment 633235

Battle of Petrovaradin, I don't have to say anything, you see it.

So that was with Austria, but let's continue with Persia, specifically Nader Shah's campaigns.

View attachment 633237

Campaign of Caucasus.

View attachment 633238

Battle of Yeghevardi, where Ottomans attack against numerically inferior nader shah with 50k sipahi and 30k janissary, but Nader shah is encamped in high ground! [shouldn't have even tried it!]
and most proffesional army of the ottomans lay dead.

But for the Persians, I can say that this was not like this all the time due to Persians not having westernised and having little firepower. So Half of the Perso Ottoman wars, persians win and other half ottomans. But this is sign that it was not due to technologically advanced europe, even technologically behind Persia defeated Ottomans with lesser men, and results are clear. Anyways, that was all I can say now, it was exhaustive for me.

oh and lastly, I am from Türkey, you can see it in my profile, so you may ask: "why you do this to your own history?" and my reply is :

you might see those ottoman men are just as "numbers" but every one of them had their own personality, their own life, maybe different destiny, but Ottomans took them forcibly, made them soldier and used them in mass assault tactics that didn't cared for individuals, it was really tough to be soldier in ottoman empire, fortunately Atatürk ended all this warmonger empire and made us more modern and humanist. I am disgusted when seeing Ottoman government saw my ancestors as mere "numbers" in battles. And makes me angry, I am glad all that Ottoman empire ended.

last lastly: "oH nO yOu UsE WiKipEdIa, YoU aRe WrOnG AnD bIaSeD" guys, you can check those battles in archives if you want, pls don't write this 1000000x times over and over, if you are curious if they are real or not, just look at archives and or check sources in wikipedia yourself and point them, and correct them if you want. I used wikipedia because it is easier to show you stuff, and it is clear and neat, I don't want to bother you with extremely hard to read sources. ALSO you can check all battles of Ottomans youself, and you will see that I am not randomly picking battles,%90 battles are like this.

I am historian, not developer, and I hope you developers find a way to fix this issue, it is extremely unrealistic, not fun because ottomans are unstoppable and easy to fix I assume, just boost their manpower and maintainence and lower their quality or idk, you are developers here.

WHY IN HELL DO YOU HAVE SO MANY DISRECPETEFUL DISAGREE?? you got a point mate,and you show up facts.

 

[Kanem Bornu]

WHY IN HELL DO YOU HAVE SO MANY DISRECPETEFUL DISAGREE?? you got a point mate,and you show up facts.

Probably because there have been approximately 1 million "nerf the Ottomans" posts going back to at least EU3. This is in spite of it being a game with a need to simulate the strength of one of the most powerful nations in the game's timeline with some reliability. It's just absurd. The Ottomans SHOULD be strong.

 

[wthree]

Probably because there have been approximately 1 million "nerf the Ottomans" posts going back to at least EU3. This is in spite of it being a game with a need to simulate the strength of one of the most powerful nations in the game's timeline with some reliability. It's just absurd. The Ottomans SHOULD be strong.

They should be, they shouldn't be THAT strong.

 

[The Tsar]

Despite that other thread overhyping the Ottomans, they really don't need more of a nerf. They're already in one of the weakest situations I've seen them in game since release. My own playthroughs, those of others I watch on YouTube and Twitch, and those I've seen on the forums for this patch generally seem to show them as either stuck, beaten down, or going after some trash eastern European land that makes them only look like their doing well. That one thread was a shock to myself and others because the thought of the Ottomans doing well this patch was outside our experience.

To put it bluntly, they're not invincible. They're not unbeatable. Nerfing them more will only make them perform worse.

he didnt say nerf them, he said make them different. i.e. more man power/force limit instead of discipline

 

[Froonk]

They should be, they shouldn't be THAT strong.

"THAT strong" being what, exactly? Ottomans get a grand total of 5% discipline in their troop quality as 15% cavalry combat ability is irrelevant because cavalry combat ability only matters if you can stack it higher than 50%. This is weaker than all of their historical adversaries in the game. This is already weakest military quality amongst their neighbours, Serbia, Wallachia, Moldovia, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Mamluks, Karamanids, Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu all have better or equivalent military idea set. In wider European and Middle-east theatre, their military quality is worse than Castile, France, Prussia, Sweden, Poland, Muscowy, Russia, Persia, Mughals. Ottomans are the only major player in this period that gets no morale bonus to their troops whatsoever. The only reason Ottomans perform well early is because they have units with extra pips and the guns of orban ability, mid-game onward they are a generic military.

I feel like some people won't be satisfied until Ottomans collapse on their own without interference every game. I get that some people feel strongly about history of Ottomans but what's the point of reducing Ottomans to a pushover? Ottoman armies already melt away from 1650s, there is no fun or glory in overcoming an incompetent adversary.

 

[klingonadmiral]

actual mil modifiers. Sadly eu4 can't fix that until they remove their bs luck nation system

The Ottomans actually have a relatively weak military. +5% dicipline, +15% CCA is not particularily impressive for a major country.

 

[Katsue]

View attachment 633225



Battle of Lepanto, the battle that halted Turks, but this is impossible, how 212 ship can destroy most of 278 ottoman fleet? and 9 to 1 outnumbering in galliot number! just impossible in eu4.

I'm not an expert, but every account of the Battle of Lepanto that I have read or heard said that the galleasses, with their high decks that made them nigh-impossible to board and protected their crew from both shot and hand weapons, were practically a super-weapon. Incidentally, the same Wikipedia article that you have cited states:

An advantage for the Christians was the numerical superiority in guns and cannon aboard their ships, as well as the superior quality of the Spanish infantry.[21] It is estimated that the Christians had 1,815 guns, while the Turks had only 750 with insufficient ammunition.[4]

Is it surprising that the navy with a more than 2-1 superiority in cannon won a naval battle (despite a lower number of soldiers aboard)? No.

 

[Froonk]

I'm not an expert, but every account of the Battle of Lepanto that I have read or heard said that the galleasses, with their high decks that made them nigh-impossible to board and protected their crew from both shot and hand weapons, were practically a super-weapon. Incidentally, the same Wikipedia article that you have cited states:



Is it surprising that the navy with a more than 2-1 superiority in cannon won a naval battle (despite a lower number of soldiers aboard)? No.

It's also not at all impossible in EU4, considering Ottomans get no galley combat ability or naval combat bonuses whatsoever. If you take Venice, which I think has a weaker navy than it should have in EU4 as per my suggestions, because of your 25% galley combat ability, you can easily sink 200+ AI Ottoman galleys with 30-40 of your own. Naval warfare in this game works in a way that's way more lopsided than actual naval warfare at this time because it snowballs from smallest of bonuses and some NIs have very strong ideas.

In either case, I doubt OP's sincerity. He claims to be a Turkish historian, I don't know what they teach as history in Turkish universities but this fellow has no idea how historical method works. So it's pointless arguing with him.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Qara Qoyunlu all have better or equivalent military idea set.

Well, QQ is in a bit of a weird spot because their military bonuses are concentrated on superhuman generals.

The only reason Ottomans perform well early is because they have units with extra pips and the guns of orban ability, mid-game onward they are a generic military.

Well, and the fact that they start with 5% extra discipline.

It's also not at all impossible in EU4, considering Ottomans get no galley combat ability or naval combat bonuses whatsoever. If you take Venice, which I think has a weaker navy than it should have in EU4 as per my suggestions, because of your 25% galley combat ability, you can easily sink 200+ AI Ottoman galleys with 30-40 of your own. Naval warfare in this game works in a way that's way more lopsided than actual naval warfare at this time because it snowballs from smallest of bonuses and some NIs have very strong ideas.

And naval damage is increased by artillery fire. Spain gets +1 artillery fire, meaning on technological equality they deal 5% more damage.