I think I understand now why the Ottomans fail so often

[The Blood Eagle]

You were arguing that because of one single philosopher 300 years earlier, the entire Muslim world completely abandoned technology and science and mathematics, and sank into a pit of mysticism and religious fanaticism. Yes? And therefore the weak, easily-conquered nature of Muslim countries in EUIII is not a flaw in the game as most people in this thread are claiming, but entirely historical - as we would realise if only we had "studied history".

So the expansion of the Ottoman Empire in the EUIII period, founded as it was on possessing the most modern, technologically-advanced army in the world at that time, must be quite a mystery to you?

No, it isn't a mystery at all. The Ottomans were a multi-faith and multicultural society when they reached their empire phase. They also had to deal with European politics in a way that no other Islamic nation had to. It's also, as I mentioned before, why they have their own, independent tech group. Because they are the exception to the rule.

Here's the first line from the Wiki entry on Ghazali - so you don't have to think I'm just making it up:
Ghazali has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential Muslim after the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Besides his work that successfully changed the course of Islamic philosophy—the early Islamic Neoplatonism developed on the grounds of Hellenistic philosophy, for example, was so successfully refuted by Ghazali that it never recovered—he also brought the orthodox Islam of his time in close contact with Sufism

 

[Kyoumen]

They aren't in the Muslim tech group, they're in the Ottoman tech group by themselves.

Yes, and what I said was that they were previously in a tech group with a higher tech speed than the new Ottoman tech group, in response to you saying that the Ottomans were the "exception to the rule" of Islamic countries being in technological decline and that's "why they were given their own tech group". Their tech group is actually slower than the one they were in before, despite the fact that even then they ahistorically fell behind Western Europe far too early. So no, that is not why they were given their own tech group.

And, as I already noted, the other Islamic countries are also underpowered in relation to their historical performance.

 

[Taylor]

Right, to get back on topic.

If hordes and war exhaustion are the cause of the Ottomans underperforming, then what causes North-Africa to be dominated by Christian nations so often?

 

[sprites]

try putting massive slow_limits , like 30 or 35 to have them fall behind a lot less quickly ...

 

[The Blood Eagle]

And, as I already noted, the other Islamic countries are also underpowered in relation to their historical performance.

They weren't suited for Eastern tech, and now you have the luxury of recruiting Janissaries and Spahis. It's slower than Eastern but faster than Muslim. Should probably be faster than both of those.

I totally agree with the other Islamic countries, however, a tech disadvantage shouldn't lead to Castille and GB devouring entire nations at a whim. It certainly should be more prohibitive to just waltz around the Levant without the same problems the Crusaders had centuries before.

 

[The Blood Eagle]

Right, to get back on topic.

If hordes and war exhaustion are the cause of the Ottomans underperforming, then what causes North-Africa to be dominated by Christian nations so often?

The overpowered Holy War CB - and the income disparities that leave the Mamluks and Arabia dirt poor throughout.

 

[6354201]

Right, to get back on topic.

If hordes and war exhaustion are the cause of the Ottomans underperforming, then what causes North-Africa to be dominated by Christian nations so often?

An old campaign quote from Bill Clinton sums it up quite nicely: "It's the economy, stupid."

North Africa doesn't have many provinces given the geographic area it covers (this is obvious when you compare it to Europe or Japan), and the provinces it does have are extremely poor except for a few in Morocco.

 

[StephenT]

North Africa doesn't have many provinces given the geographic area it covers (this is obvious when you compare it to Europe or Japan), and the provinces it does have are extremely poor except for a few in Morocco.

One thing EUIII does badly is representing defensive strength.

Just making the North African countries richer/having more manpower wouldn't work, because then they'd be able to build large armies and go invading other countries with them, which is equally unrealistic. There needs to be some way of making countries much stronger when they're fighting purely defensive wars, so it's hard to conquer them but they don't get to invade you back after they defeat you.

That would be historical. Putting together an army to invade a foreign country was really difficult and expensive in this era. Kings had to negotiate with their nobles to send troops; they usually had to borrow vast sums of money or raise oppressive taxes to pay the men's wages and purchase supplies; it could take weeks or even months to bring all the different units together - and it wasn't uncommon for plague to break out, or the king to run out of money, or the troops to get bored and desert, and so the entire invasion would be called off before it even began.

The defender had none of those problems. No need to beg and plead with nobles and free cities to send troops: the enemy was marching in to loot, rape, burn and pillage, so everyone would rally to the colours out of self-interest (and feudal obligation). The army would be operating on home ground, so it would be much easier to keep it supplied and fed.

In short, the defender should be able to mobilise a far greater proportion of their military strength than the attacker ever could. The only exception would be nomadic hordes where the entire nation was the army.

How to show that in EUIII? Maybe a combination of things:

• Free regiments when your country is invaded, which cannot move outside of your core provinces.
• Increase attrition in enemy-controlled territory.
• Even better, massively increase attrition in desert provinces (and jungle too), but this doesn't apply to nations in the Muslim or African tech groups.
• Make army maintenance costs double (or more) for any regiment currently not standing in one of your core provinces. This penalty could decrease over time, perhaps linked to the Tactics modifier, to show how armies became more efficient as the period went on.

That would stop a lot of the less-realistic conquests, not just Castille in North Africa.

 

[Graspiloot]

I think the sengoku system of retinues and levies is a step in the right direct for the armies in general.

But I think you are right with defensive wars. But that counts for all the countries. Very strong medieval countries like OE, Aragon and Bavaria (not so much now in DW with the penalties for uncored HRE territory) are easily conquered in eu3, but this is not historical at all. It should be a lot easier to defend than to attack (especially overseas, the system in asia is completely unrealistic when europe discovers asia they have no trouble to just conquer everything). Maybe a change in the attrition system would help (especially overseas, also 1 cog transporting 1000 soldiers, yeah right).

Maybe the tech system is in itself a problem. Things work completely different per "tech group" for production or land technology. This is not reflected in game. The nations of asia were rich thats why european nations wanted to conquer them. However they lacked in "land tech". This is not reflected in game, european nations are a lot richer than asian ones because of their production and trade techs (like they didnt develop that in asia).

 

[unmerged(138372)]

One thing EUIII does badly is representing defensive strength.

Just making the North African countries richer/having more manpower wouldn't work, because then they'd be able to build large armies and go invading other countries with them, which is equally unrealistic. There needs to be some way of making countries much stronger when they're fighting purely defensive wars, so it's hard to conquer them but they don't get to invade you back after they defeat you.

That would be historical. Putting together an army to invade a foreign country was really difficult and expensive in this era. Kings had to negotiate with their nobles to send troops; they usually had to borrow vast sums of money or raise oppressive taxes to pay the men's wages and purchase supplies; it could take weeks or even months to bring all the different units together - and it wasn't uncommon for plague to break out, or the king to run out of money, or the troops to get bored and desert, and so the entire invasion would be called off before it even began.

The defender had none of those problems. No need to beg and plead with nobles and free cities to send troops: the enemy was marching in to loot, rape, burn and pillage, so everyone would rally to the colours out of self-interest (and feudal obligation). The army would be operating on home ground, so it would be much easier to keep it supplied and fed.

In short, the defender should be able to mobilise a far greater proportion of their military strength than the attacker ever could. The only exception would be nomadic hordes where the entire nation was the army.

How to show that in EUIII? Maybe a combination of things:

• Free regiments when your country is invaded, which cannot move outside of your core provinces.
• Increase attrition in enemy-controlled territory.
• Even better, massively increase attrition in desert provinces (and jungle too), but this doesn't apply to nations in the Muslim or African tech groups.
• Make army maintenance costs double (or more) for any regiment currently not standing in one of your core provinces. This penalty could decrease over time, perhaps linked to the Tactics modifier, to show how armies became more efficient as the period went on.

That would stop a lot of the less-realistic conquests, not just Castille in North Africa.

+1

I should also add that I see Castille sometimes invade countries like the mamluks with a holy war casus belli without actually bordering them and without a crusade with them. I do think that is a problem that ai can declare holy war over sea which adds to the already existing problem(s).


In case of the Ottomans it's definitely the hordes of Timurids and Golden horde which make all other countries gang bang them because they looks to be "weak".