But they did IRL. Although their troops didn't fight under their banner
Game ruined - again- by the Ottomans
- Thread starter Oxenstierna13
- Start date
-
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.
Then that should be an opportunistic separate war, no? pop them an event that gives a CB or sth
- 1
- 1
No they literally fought in the 30yw. They sent 60.000 troops to fight for the palatinate making them the 5th biggest contributor of troops for the protestant side
Same here. In my current game as France, the Ottomans were boxed in by an strong Hungary allied with Emperor Austria on one side, and the Mamluk on the other. The borders are in Croatia, Romania and northern Syria - which is for the best since I'm going for Mare Nostrum. There seems to be a lot of variability between games.
If you think Ottomans are too strong, you should play with lucky nations off. They are nowhere near as strong with it off (at least in 1.29, although apparently 1.30 broke the AI even more and they go into debt more...).
With lucky nations off, they take much longer to invade the balkans and the mamluks can put up a fight. Sometimes Hungary, PLC or Mamluks can even destroy the ottomans entirely if the Ottomans end up fighting several nations at once at a bad time.
With lucky nations off, they take much longer to invade the balkans and the mamluks can put up a fight. Sometimes Hungary, PLC or Mamluks can even destroy the ottomans entirely if the Ottomans end up fighting several nations at once at a bad time.
of course not, however thx 2 smart devs they will wait for ur decision and join the opposite side, so do the russians often, both a total hoax
- 4
Thats the point. Why would they help you in your offensive wars if you dont want to help them in theirs.
If you think something isnt working right then make a bug report.
Unless things have changed the AI will only call you into a war if an Ai in your position would accept.
Its you who has the choice to dismiss the cta afterwards for a penalty. The AI doesnt get to do that.
And if you ally a bold fighter then dont be surprised to be called into suicidal wars.
- 1
- 1
Look, the Ottomans are supposed to be hard. It’s great for gameplay because it adds a challenge on the periphery of Europe and it’s appropriate in the historical context of the game.
That being said if you find yourself in a situation where they dominate the game and you can’t handle them then you have room for improvement in your game, regardless of if you have 50 hours or 5000.
That being said if you find yourself in a situation where they dominate the game and you can’t handle them then you have room for improvement in your game, regardless of if you have 50 hours or 5000.
- 5
- 2
- 2
You can't really claim "Ottomans are ruining the game" just off a few games. Literally playing a Switzerland game right now, and the Ottomans never expanded outside Anatolia and eating Byzantium. Wallacia was never taken, and Ragusa ate Serbia and Bosnia; and for some reason they never even bothered with Albania. It gotten to the point that I'm watching the Ottomans now getting crushed by the Mamelukes, who are now half way through Anatolia.
- 2
Yeah, but that's dumb logic. Why should human players have to follow AI reasoning? You can have an AI ally that consistently refuses your calls, but if you reject a single call from them, not only do you lose your alliance, but you also lose prestige and trust with all your allies, just because the game decided you "should" accept the call. Either both human and AI players should be allowed to make calls that the other side will reject, or the penalties should be limited to only that ally.
- 1
- 1
Game ruined by the Ottomans eh. Checkout this latest patch game I'm having in India. It is 1599.
I’ve only a few games in 1.3, and my main game is Morocco, allied to Otto.
What I’ve seen:
1) Otto is more balanced vs Europe - can go either way
2) Otto is slower to expand
3) Mamluks are more aggressive
I’m allied to Otto, and when we fought the Mamluks, Otto was getting beat in Aleppo while I took Alexandria. In their Hungary invasion, I think they managed to take Walachia cores, but it was a hot contest due to Austria.
It used to be, if you played in Europe, you had to have an Otto plan on day one. Now I think you need an HRE plan, and Otto can help with that. I’d rather face a blobbed Otto mid-game than a vassal horde or full on HRE. As a sunni nation on the med, I’m curious to see how the HRE will interact with me.
edit: on a side note, I broke my alliance with France and rivaled them (it was them or Timurids, I went with Timurids). I didn’t want France blobbing over Iberia - I have Granada as a march, had blocked Iberian colonization til around 1520, and enjoy coastal raids for a few hundred ducats... so away with you France! Plus some piracy... France and HRE don’t get along... . it wasn’t going to end well with France.
Hope I made the right choice.
edit 2: I suppose Morocco, France, and Otto could chip down the HRE, but I’ve no interest in that.
Last edited:
Plans to defeat Oto. or HRE are the same.
1. Slow down expansion to 1600 (Oto) or Evangelical Union (HRE).
In both cases, it is important whether you are adjacent to them or not.
I've always corrected Oto's expansion. with an alliance with a top tier dog sitting over the Balkans.
1. Slow down expansion to 1600 (Oto) or Evangelical Union (HRE).
In both cases, it is important whether you are adjacent to them or not.
I've always corrected Oto's expansion. with an alliance with a top tier dog sitting over the Balkans.
Thats my point about defensive pacts. Like, trade leagues but for bigger nations. Just make it so the AI understands that it has someone to back it up if it gets attacked and not to consider your help in war. Like, I really wouldn't mind if defense coalitions could form against targets who don't particularly have a lot of AE if it makes sense.
A good example of this is the game i'm in now. I'm playing as England. France is in my union, I'm allied to portugal. Spain (Cas + Ara) owns Naples and large parts of africa + SA. Austria has decentralized the HRE and Ottoblobs are constantly fighting with Russia. Lithuania seems eaten up for the most part by hungary and Teutonic knights - things are weird.. I'm probably the strongest power (ming has more development but they're getting wrecked by revolts right now - I just got into Bengal and trying to expand a bit there), but It's really hard for me to bring forces to bear everywhere.
Guarenteeing nations takes up precious dip points, so I only have venice guarenteed. I want to check Castiles expansion, (warnings) - but I also want to prevent Ottomans from expanding more into europe. I don't care if they expand into the middle east or keep fighting the Mooks. - So if I issue a warning against them, and they decide to go to war with someone, I'm likely going to get dragged into a war in a region I don't want to fight, or care little about.
You may be asking: "Why don't you just stop them and take the opportunity to fight them?" or some nonsense. That's because wars are costly. I don't want to waste manpower, money and opportunity there when I could focus somewhere else. So Instead of guarenteeing 2 dozen european nations, I wish I could just enter a sort of 1-target defensive coalition with a few smaller nations. If they fight eachother, I don't want to keep getting dragged into wars, but if Ottoman decides to invade a region of special interest to myself - Well, time to rumble.
Warnings are only useful in the first place in regions you have an interest in, because they only trigger a CtA if the defender has a border with you.
- 2
You just play really bad
STOP nerfing the Ottoman Empire! In patch 1.30, Ottoman dies in half the cases. It is not normal
Ottomans need to buffAttachments
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
Lots of groupthink going on in this thread with the dislikes and lots of smug, condescending responses. All the concerns the OP raises are valid from a historical and gameplay point of view. The AI consistently outperforms the historical Ottomans and it should not require lucky circumstance or above average player skill to at least halt Ottoman expansion in a way similar to what happened historically. Also, you should not be forced to play in a game with an eyesore of ahistorically large Ottomans on the world map if you ever so happen to play in a completely different part of the world with no means to do anything about it. Lastly, many of the advantages given to the Ottomans are implemented badly and lead to frustrating player experiences, not to mention that they do not reflect the actual reasons that made the Ottoman Empire powerful historically.
I agree that it's nice to have a cool challenge at fighting the Ottomans but the way they currently work ruins every other game that is not about that, at the very least from an immersion perspective.
I had really hoped that when they introduced the era mechanics with Golden Century and talked about some tag specific era powers that they would move a lot or all of those random advantages the Ottomans get right now for whatever to be era specific. That could have provided a neat solution to make them the absolute juggernaut they were until the 17th century and then have their threat fade and center other sorts of conflicts instead.
I agree that it's nice to have a cool challenge at fighting the Ottomans but the way they currently work ruins every other game that is not about that, at the very least from an immersion perspective.
I had really hoped that when they introduced the era mechanics with Golden Century and talked about some tag specific era powers that they would move a lot or all of those random advantages the Ottomans get right now for whatever to be era specific. That could have provided a neat solution to make them the absolute juggernaut they were until the 17th century and then have their threat fade and center other sorts of conflicts instead.
- 9
- 4
Frequently – probably more frequently than it should – but I'd hardly say consistently.
- 2
- 1