Harsh Treatment Or Autonomy For Dealing with Rebels and Absolutism

[Adamgerd]

Thats what we have been telling you thus entire time.

That screenshot shows good progress as the Ottomans.
You look at this and are amazed, i look at it and see that he fed Afghanistan which has ICC.


All the stuff you have been writing about shows that you are missing understanding about basic mechanics of the game.
The Ottomans are insanely strong from Day1, but even they dont play themselves.

Even they dont play themselves? And there are stronger nations Imo than the ottomans, maybe in the early game they're strong, but mid game reformed Prussia's military with max militarization is just insane

Before i first played the Ottomans i had 800 hours in the game.
I restarted over 15 times just to see how far i could get in the first 30 years, because i was blown away by how strong they are compared to the countries i was usually playing.

Am I the only one who does not see them as militarily a strong nation?

Learn how trade works, i suggest playing half a game as Portugal going around Africa.

I might try another nation, but fighting the morrocans all over again and then when you win, they ally Tunis and destroy you and castille with Granada forming Andalusia. Yeesh, Portugal was one of the hardest countries I played, the one nation where I lost completely, not even Byzantium is as hard

You SHOULD have some AE "everywhere".
AE is a ressource. If you dont have any there is nothing to tick down, which is a waste.

I see

What did you do with all those points that you got behind in tech?
Sure filling out an idea group sucks away some points for a while, but you did not expand enough for you to run out of points with the 5/5/6 Mehmet you start with.

Coring land, some harsh treatment, and that 5/5/6 Mehmet does not last too long. And I really have no idea where the rest of it went

Otherwise you would core the same land with Admin. Vassals are used to split coring between Admin and Dip.

I thought they were used to increase your military so you could defeat the Mamluks

Do you have all the DLC?
If yes, then how do you not know that if you have the Ambition to WC?
Also, the Ottomans are easily close enough to central Europe to not have to Devpush anything.
Just having positive relations with Naples is enough for 99% of cases.

Most of the DLC's I do have, I mightve missed it

Estates give you tons of benefits ontop of making high LA land usefull much sooner.
The halfcost Advisors are super strong early game and the other buttons become ever more usefull as the game progresses.

But you need an economy to have the advisors to have tech to have a big military and you need the money to have a military to supplement your tech till you improve your tech, so by having advisors, my military will become weaker.

A "successful campaign" can be alot of things.
EU4 is Is neither hard nor complicated. But its complex and has many interlocking mechanics which, if used correctly, amplify each other to get retardedly strong results.

Yeah, I guess a successful campaign can depend. For me it depends typically on the country. As Hungary and Prussia, become a big GP, as Byzantium defeat the Ottomans, etc.

Instead of trying to run around with the big dogs try starting in a quiter area of the world and set yourself a smaller goal.
Start somewhere in the middle of Africa and conquer it, that will force you to learn other mechanics.

Maybe I will start in the middle of Africa or change the goal of the game to a lesser goal or maybe even abandon EU4 for now

You should learn what Local Autonomy (LA) really does and what a state limit is.

Isnt Local autonomy something which is bad and you should decrease unless it's unrest and than you should increase it and state limit how many states you can have

 

[rinehime]

How did you manage to invade all this in that time frame? Were you continually at war?

Basically, yes. Use the Ottoman claim missions, but cancel them after you core the provinces from the first war. You can't take all the land at once and the mission will reappear. Keep expanding east into Persia (release or vassalize as needed). Then keep going into Khorsan/Afganistan. Then keep going into India for the Trade companies. While waiting out truces, expand a bit into Kosovo, south into Egpyt/Arabia. Going into the Mahgreb shouldn't necessarily be done early b/c of the hostile Core cost, but I wanted to connect with Castile and the pirates were a PITA. I made Gujarat a vassal in India b/c it had a bunch of cores, but you should probably keep as much TC land for yourself (and give non-TC land to vassals)- you get the merchant & TC land sooner and it's cheaper to core ( (5 ADM - 1/2RCC) vs 8 DIP per dev)

EDIT: And in case you're wondering, that was Ironman - I just didn't have an internet connection at the time so the achievements are grayed out.

My AE with the known Sunni world is around 100-400. At first I was truce cycling them, but at some point there's too many to invade. Luckily, at that time, no coalitions will form unless you majorly piss off some GPs.

Listen to the advice on the forums, they know what they're talking about . Most of the advice in this thread has been good.

Thats what we have been telling you thus entire time.
That screenshot shows good progress as the Ottomans.
You look at this and are amazed, i look at it and see that he fed Afghanistan which has ICC.

Crap... you're right... I overfed them too b/c I took some provinces in India I didn't realize I couldn't core. Oh well, I was waiting to integrate them till after max absolutism anyway, that should help a bit.

Only as an ambition. It's a little dicey but if they're < 10 ideas taken or even ~14 and you feed them a bit --> annex you can almost always soak them before they get their ambition. I'd still pick someone else normally, unless this is diplovassal shenanigans.

They likely already have it. Oh well...

Genoa can give a lot of institution spread too with positive relations, and they border a lot of stuff with respectable development via sea zone while typically being allied to Austria and a pain to destroy early. I didn't force any institution in my Ottoman run. Printing press was a bit slow. Iberia feeding me land free did make colonialism a little easier to grab though.

Both Venice and Genoa helped out with the first two institutions. Printing press spawned in northern England. Even with the boost to the other cities it still took forever. I owned Venice and ended up "nudging" it a bit there to get things started. Other than the big Anatolian provinces, Cyprus and Crete are pretty nice institutions spreaders for the Ottos b/c they border so many provinces via sea and have ok-ish development.

Global Trade has yet to pop, although it's 1601. I should get it in Constantinople: it has something like 160 trade value. 2nd is English Channel (I think) with like 35.

 

[Sfan]

I didn't read your entire post but I just wanted to correct this.

The Merchant will increase the value of the trade between the nodes by 5%.

Also I'm pretty sure Russia owns the two northernmost provinces in the Persia node in that screenshot.

Even there, I don't think Russia collects in Persia and they can't collect for much as it's node their main node anyway. And the +5% trade power is clearly inferior to +10% trade efficiency in Constantinople or the opportunity to steer from Alexandria and Aleppo into Constantinople (would require more screenshots to see which one is best). But you were right to mention it.

As for the rest Vulkandrache expresses what I feel as well.

If I might say, if you don't succeed by playing in Iberia, that's another proof you should not try to WC. The skill gap is tremendous.

 

[Adamgerd]

Basically, yes. Use the Ottoman claim missions, but cancel them after you core the provinces from the first war. You can't take all the land at once and the mission will reappear. Keep expanding east into Persia (release or vassalize as needed). Then keep going into Khorsan/Afganistan. Then keep going into India for the Trade companies. While waiting out truces, expand a bit into Kosovo, south into Egpyt/Arabia. Going into the Mahgreb shouldn't necessarily be done early b/c of the hostile Core cost, but I wanted to connect with Castile and the pirates were a PITA. I made Gujarat a vassal in India b/c it had a bunch of cores, but you should probably keep as much TC land for yourself (and give non-TC land to vassals)- you get the merchant & TC land sooner and it's cheaper to core ( (5 ADM - 1/2RCC) vs 8 DIP per dev)

My AE with the known Sunni world is around 100-400. At first I was truce cycling them, but at some point there's too many to invade. Luckily, at that time, no coalitions will form unless you majorly piss off some GPs.

Listen to the advice on the forums, they know what they're talking about . Most of the advice in this thread has been good./QUOTE]
I see. And yeah, the advice here at least I think is good and I am listening or at least trying to, I did ask for advice. And yeah usually the people on the forums do give out correct advice

 

[Adamgerd]

Even there, I don't think Russia collects in Persia and they can't collect for much as it's node their main node anyway. And the +5% trade power is clearly inferior to +10% trade efficiency in Constantinople or the opportunity to steer from Alexandria and Aleppo into Constantinople (would require more screenshots to see which one is best). But you were right to mention it.

As for the rest Vulkandrache expresses what I feel as well.

If I might say, if you don't succeed by playing in Iberia, that's another proof you should not try to WC. The skill gap is tremendous.

Well it was my first attempted game and Portugal is way too hard, your military is small and then Tunis, and Morocco after their first defeat attacked me and Castille (which I have no idea what was happening with their armies) and destroyed us. And what are you even supposed to do as Portugal? You rely on castille as your army is too unprepared to invade Europe. Do you just colonize and invade relatively undeveloped provinces?
But yeah, maybe a WC was too ambitious

 

[bly08]

I didn't read your entire post but I just wanted to correct this.

The Merchant will increase the value of the trade between the nodes by 5%.

Also I'm pretty sure Russia owns the two northernmost provinces in the Persia node in that screenshot.

This is correct, but it should be increased by 11.3% iirc since he has 5 merchants transferring. I'm also fairly certain that collecting in Zanzibar and Bengal would make more money than getting the steering bonus, or at least collecting in Constantinople instead of transferring from Crimea. If he really pushed it he could have around 7k dev and double the income in the same time. I had 5.5k non vassal dev and 1.5x the income in 1599 without the Coptic CCR.

 

[Adamgerd]

This is correct, but it should be increased by 11.3% iirc since he has 5 merchants transferring. I'm also fairly certain that collecting in Zanzibar and Bengal would make more money than getting the steering bonus, or at least collecting in Constantinople instead of transferring from Crimea. If he really pushed it he could have around 7k dev and double the income in the same time. I had 5.5k non vassal dev and 1.5x the income in 1599 without the Coptic CCR.

Bengal? It's allied to Malta

 

[ecrurudesby]

This is correct, but it should be increased by 11.3% iirc since he has 5 merchants transferring.

Five merchants from five different countries will increase the value of the outgoing trade by 11.3% if they all push trade between the same two nodes, but I'm looking at the screenshot on page 1 and he only has 2 Merchants, and we don't know who else has a Merchant in the Persia node. I have to presume there's been an update post but I'm not reading all of them.

 

[bly08]

Bengal? It's allied to Malta

I'm talking about @rinehime's screenshots

Five merchants from five different countries will increase the value of the outgoing trade by 11.3% if they all push trade between the same two nodes, but I'm looking at the screenshot on page 1 and he only has 2 Merchants, and we don't know who else has a Merchant in the Persia node. I have to presume there's been an update post but I'm not reading all of them.

You're right, I was referring to rinehime's screenshots.

 

[Adamgerd]

I'm talking about @rinehime's screenshots



You're right, I was referring to rinehime's screenshots.

Ah

 

[rinehime]

This is correct, but it should be increased by 11.3% iirc since he has 5 merchants transferring. I'm also fairly certain that collecting in Zanzibar and Bengal would make more money than getting the steering bonus, or at least collecting in Constantinople instead of transferring from Crimea. If he really pushed it he could have around 7k dev and double the income in the same time. I had 5.5k non vassal dev and 1.5x the income in 1599 without the Coptic CCR.

I had a crappy 1 or 2 ADM ruler for a while and no PP bonus since about 1540 or so. Even with the +3 adviser and focus, I was coring as fast as I was making it.

Trade-wise, I just took Kilwa and a good hunk of the Aden node and haven't re-jiggered my merchants yet. The guy in Crimea had no better place to go at the time. Collecting upstream might be beneficial to prevent some of the leakage in Constantinople (about 10 ducats) because I haven't completely locked up Ragusa yet. Not sure Bengal is the place though - Right now I have 68% with 23 forward, which all makes it to Constantinople. I'm not sure the loss in trade power would be worth it, but I'll check. Nothing goes through Aden b/c I didn't have much power there till recently.

 

[rinehime]

I Not sure Bengal is the place though - Right now I have 68% with 23 forward, which all makes it to Constantinople. I'm not sure the loss in trade power would be worth it, but I'll check.

Nope, it's not, net loss of 6-12 (some manufacturies come online in the process) when I move the guy from Crimea to collect in Bengal. But there was a net gain of 6 when I moved him to collect in Constantinople. I might be able to move the guys in the West India nodes a bit to collect somewhere, now that I have 74% in Aden, but I think it's pretty close to optimal now.

 

[bly08]

I had a crappy 1 or 2 ADM ruler for a while and no PP bonus since about 1540 or so. Even with the +3 adviser and focus, I was coring as fast as I was making it.

Trade-wise, I just took Kilwa and a good hunk of the Aden node and haven't re-jiggered my merchants yet. The guy in Crimea had no better place to go at the time. Collecting upstream might be beneficial to prevent some of the leakage in Constantinople (about 10 ducats) because I haven't completely locked up Ragusa yet. Not sure Bengal is the place though - Right now I have 68% with 23 forward, which all makes it to Constantinople. I'm not sure the loss in trade power would be worth it, but I'll check. Nothing goes through Aden b/c I didn't have much power there till recently.

Less money is going into Hormuz than coming out of Goa, which means you're leaking a fair amount in Indus. Unless you own 95%+ from Ceylon to Aleppo then it's almost always better to collect in Bengal and Zanzibar, especially if you have 68% trade power in Bengal already. You can own less if everyone else is transferring also, but I think Maldives will always collect. I suspect it might actually be better to collect in every node at this point but without knowing more I can't say for sure.

Assuming converting to Coptic is a 10 year delay, or about 300 dev if 30 dev/year. For 150 years you still get 10% CCR for about 5000 dev, or about a 5000 adm point discount. The difference between a 5 adm ruler and a 2 adm ruler is 36adm per year or 5400adm for 150 years. This means at the very least you break even, but in reality the 10 CCR is much better since it saves on 4 months of coring time which allows you to end wars faster, hence my 7000 dev estimate w/o counting vassals. I'm guessing elite players like Marco could approach 10k dev at around 1600 with Coptic and not fall behind on tech or ideas.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even there, I don't think Russia collects in Persia and they can't collect for much as it's node their main node anyway. And the +5% trade power is clearly inferior to +10% trade efficiency in Constantinople or the opportunity to steer from Alexandria and Aleppo into Constantinople (would require more screenshots to see which one is best). But you were right to mention it.

As for the rest Vulkandrache expresses what I feel as well.

If I might say, if you don't succeed by playing in Iberia, that's another proof you should not try to WC. The skill gap is tremendous.

Nothing wrong with trying, the important part is identifying mistakes and correcting them. This is where most players don't put the effort, and the reason most players stop improving. When someone's not reaching a benchmark, it's useful for them to look at their decision-making process and identify which steps in their rationale failed them that time.

 

[bly08]

Nope, it's not, net loss of 6-12 (some manufacturies come online in the process) when I move the guy from Crimea to collect in Bengal. But there was a net gain of 6 when I moved him to collect in Constantinople. I might be able to move the guys in the West India nodes a bit to collect somewhere, now that I have 74% in Aden, but I think it's pretty close to optimal now.

Which merchant did you move to Bengal? Try Crimea to collecting in Zanzibar.

 

[Sfan]

While I agree that there is nothing wrong with trying, I think it's overwhelming to be confronted with 20 challenges at once. Playing a colonizing game as Portugal to learn trade, then a tall game as Milan to learn to micro estates and buildings, then use that knowledge to form Germany as Brandenburg (for instance, these are just frequently played games) then to finally try a WC as the Ottos, is probably better than going for the WC right off the bat, but that's just my opinion based on my personal experience.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

Even they dont play themselves? And there are stronger nations Imo than the ottomans, maybe in the early game they're strong, but mid game reformed Prussia's military with max militarization is just insane

Am I the only one who does not see them as militarily a strong nation?

Ottomans aren't THE best nation militarily (that's Prussia, followed by Poland) but they are quite good. The Ottomans have weak military national ideas, they get their military power from the fact that their units are better in the early game and they get the Janissary event. Now I guess that event either didn't fire for you because you weren't fighting enough to get >50 army tradition or you were scared of the disaster that may follow and thus clicked the option not giving bonuses. The thing is, if you stay muslim and keep the unique government you are 100% guaranteed to not get this event because having a ruler with 5+ in any stat will prevent this and the Ottoman heir event always gives good heirs with 5+

Coring land, some harsh treatment, and that 5/5/6 Mehmet does not last too long. And I really have no idea where the rest of it went

A start to save monarch points would be to never use war taxes

And don't make Mehmet a general, ever, he's very young and can live like 40-50 years

I thought they were used to increase your military so you could defeat the Mamluks

Defeating the Mamluks is extremely easy. Attack when you have tech 4 and they have 3 (or you 5, they 4). Recruit 10 mercs, send the mercs in first to conserve manpower. Kill their stacks 2 or 3 times and then siege up their forts. At this point your manpower should still be quite good due to the mercs

But you need an economy to have the advisors to have tech to have a big military and you need the money to have a military to supplement your tech till you improve your tech, so by having advisors, my military will become weaker.

Nope, your economy is fine..you are one of the richest countries in the game

Isnt Local autonomy something which is bad and you should decrease unless it's unrest and than you should increase it and state limit how many states you can have

Increasing autonomy decreases unrest, decreasing autonomy increases unrest. Autonomy will automaticly decrease without causing unrest

There is 2 reasons to decrease autonomy manually:
a) you want to increase absolutism
b) you need gold income as a horde - non-hordes can just hand gold provinces to the burghers for the same effect

 

[Sfan]

Unless this was changed, burghers don't give the benefit of no-autonomy to gold production as it's not a trade good. I must admit I have not checked it and I don't try it since I noticed it did not work over a year ago. Was this changed?

 

[Vulkandrache]

Unless this was changed, burghers don't give the benefit of no-autonomy to gold production as it's not a trade good. I must admit I have not checked it and I don't try it since I noticed it did not work over a year ago. Was this changed?

Giving a 0 LA province to the Burghers reduces gold income from it. So.

 

[Sfan]

Thank you, that's what I seemed to recall. Juste a small correction to what ElGranCaptain said.


As it happens Adamgerd, this thread decided me to finally jump into it and sum up everything I often say in similar threads. If you or anyone is interested, I go in greater length to explain how to minmax things.
So far I only had the courage to sum up Monarch Points, that might explain why you fell behind in tech.