Is it just me or are the ottomans at the start ridiculously wealthy.

[Tainarra]

After you take back your cores and Istanbul you make a ridiculous amount of cash. I had 3 plus 2 advisors, 70ish gallies, 40 light ships plus's about 40k troops all fully funded (minus the mothballed gallies) and I was still about 10 ducats in the green! This wasn't doable before art of war was it?

 

[Xara]

Yeah it was. You started in a reconquest war for Albania, could day 0 dow one of the opm beyliks for another, in a month dow a 2nd one, in 2 months dow the 3rd one, in 3 months dow candar, in 4 months dow Byzantium using city of world's desire mission. End the 4 reconquest wars with full annexation, take Byz capital while also vassalizing them (failing the mission but avoiding admin costs and freeing greece for conquest and able to return cores to byz from the islands). When they're done you'd have a great start on income and just needed a few years rest for WE and manpower.

It is a bit better now, though, even though you can't single out every nation in its own war. Starting income is a bit higher and I could get a +3 admin advisor right away. Late 1400's I had temples, constables, armories, and training grounds on every province.

 

[DevastatingTech]

Ottomans stronk and that's normal at all. Even name of starting period is "Rise of Ottomans". Based on that.

 

[migalhone]

In player hands, yes it is normal to have a LOT of ducats incoming every month.

The few games i've played in 1.8 showed me that AI Ottoderps tend to get wrecked by rebels, Bulgaria breaks free, Byzantium gets a lot of land for free and Ramazan/Dulkadir/Mameluks wipe Anatolia, resulting in a very, very sad Ottoderp. Not that i mind it, though...

 

[greendevil]

England is also ridiculously wealthy in 1.8.

 

[Tainarra]

England is also ridiculously wealthy in 1.8.

well that's just fair considering the absolutely terrible starting ruler and (typically weak) heirs england gets.

 

[greendevil]

well that's just fair considering the absolutely terrible starting ruler and (typically weak) heirs england gets.

Not really. You can pick your ruler between two choices with the War of the Roses event. And besides, that's hardly an excuse.

 

[birincikalite]

Well historically Ottomans were really starting to get wealthy by being the dominant force in such a big area in 1444

 

[Miravlix]

So far I've seen Castille, France, Ottomans and England is getting much better cash flow.

Maybe the 1.8 world generates more cash?

 

[riknap]

mechanics/game-wise though, what I've noticed is that they primarily get their wealth from taxation and trade, and they have a fair number of modifiers that increase income from these sources. which means early-game they are powerhouses (especially so on ironman games, since they're likely to be "lucky", thus even more wealthy), so much that they can often be the strongest land/navy force in the world even in AI hands

 

[durvas]

Ottoman trade certainly is higher. Add to that BT from the province increase plus a gold mine you can take off of Serbia and you'll have a ton of cash.

 

[RobRoy3]

So far I've seen Castille, France, Ottomans and England is getting much better cash flow.

Maybe the 1.8 world generates more cash?

Yeah. Most of the majors seem to have extra cash. There's just a lot more money and a lot more trade sloshing around the game than there was before all the additions.

I'm not sure it's a bad thing, though. I find myself needing mercs more (to counter the extra mercs everyone else seems to have).

 

[Trademaster]

England is also ridiculously wealthy in 1.8.

Indeed. In my game AI Britain had over 100 ducat trade income despite only having 60% control of channel and colonies only in Canada.

 

[Emiliana]

England starts in a war though