Is it just me or are the Ottomans completely insane in 1.33?

[durbal]

It seems like unless you cheese them early they will just steamroll with endless 3-star generals and an inexhaustible economy and manpower. Have had this happen in multiple games...seriously have 3 or 4 3-star generals and a 130K force limit in 1510.

I mean, yeah, I guess there are ways to cheese them early to stop them but should that really be required? I like a challenge and all but it seems like right now they just plow over everything and no other major (Austria, Commonwealth, etc.) really has much of a chance. Having no real counterplay isn't cool.

I haven't seen them lose a single battle that isn't something like 4K vs 40K. 30K vs 18K? No problem. Ottos still win.

 

[durbal]

Seriously, what is this kind of stuff?

 

[st360]

Apparently people freel like the game needs a fictional endboss tag to prolong the game by 20 more years when they get bored of blobbing by the 1550s.

Also, the Ottomans get great rulers meaning they are ahead of west europe in technology, "because they sieged Wien, so its historical". No mentions of them loosing to Albania and what nerfs they should get to represent that.

Also, by that standard, France, Manchu and Britain who conquered way more should get 20 star generals and + 8000% siege ability.

So in short, the Ottomans are kept intentionaly OP for meme blobbing challenge fun.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I never felt like the Ottomans were as powerful as people painted them to be.
That was until i played together with a friend last week and we ganged up on the Ottos and still somehow got hopped even though our side combined had twice the Ottoman dev.

 

[direstrait727]

i was able to have a huge win against later on. i was playing as andalusia (granada start).
my formula to success:
- i had nearly up to 100 percent army professionalism* (edit: i said tradition earlier sorry) , while they had 20 percent from infinity blobbing and death stacks of earlier wars.
- i had a "perfect" army composition
- i sniped konstantinople with naval barrage and was able to block the straight to the balkans
- my vasalls and the commonwealth sieged down balkan
- i had the big fights around syria / jerusalem region, where i was able to trap them mountains or hills with scorched earth. they werent able to reinforce
- and i had quality, offensive and the naval military idea

but yes, it was alot of sweat and speed 3

long story short, it is definetely doable, but they are freaking insane, but they had been in real life as well until "we remember, in september, when the winged hussars arrived"

 

[durbal]

Apparently people freel like the game needs a fictional endboss tag to prolong the game by 20 more years when they get bored of blobbing by the 1550s.

Also, the Ottomans get great rulers meaning they are ahead of west europe in technology, "because they sieged Wien, so its historical". No mentions of them loosing to Albania and what nerfs they should get to represent that.

Also, by that standard, France, Manchu and Britain who conquered way more should get 20 star generals and + 8000% siege ability.

So in short, the Ottomans are kept intentionaly OP for meme blobbing challenge fun.

Yeah, I don't mind them being tough but they have 4 3-star generals and are 15 years ahead in military tech plus all their other buffs. I'm not sure what the point of them being so ridiculously strong is...no other major is even close in terms of power.

 

[st360]

they are freaking insane, but they had been in real life as well until "we remember, in september, when the winged hussars arrived"

Except the problem is they really weren't. They conquered the Mamluks, and conquered and slowly lost Hungary. Apart from that they mostly conquered tiny nations, and sometimes earned humiliating defeats by them.

By those standards, Frances Napoleon should be a 38 star general in game.

 

[heroes133]

Yeah, early game Ottos are insane, but in mid game they usualy stagnate and are pretty easy to beat. I would say that is pretty much how they should be.

I just finished my Teutonic Order game for the 'Baltic Crusader' Achivment and just like you said early game ottos were unstopabble with 3 stars generals everywhere but mid game in a war against them i was able to get over 8 points of morale while thay had 4.5 morale, discipline was even so easy victory from there, and if you beat them once you will beat them again and again.

 

[durbal]

Yeah, early game Ottos are insane, but in mid game they usualy stagnate and are pretty easy to beat. I would say that is pretty much how they should be.

Eh, I have to disagree here simply because if you play around their area the game shouldn't devolve into hoping they roll diplomatic rulers because otherwise they will steamroll. There needs to be some counterplay and right now there often isn't any.

 

[direstrait727]

best counterplay early game is to take moldavia and to impale the sultan

 

[AvengedK1ng]

Yay another op ottomans thread

It seems like unless you cheese them early they will just steamroll with endless 3-star generals

They have lots of early expansion so will get high mil tradition meaning high general pips. General slots now dictated by force limit

and an inexhaustible economy and manpower.

Well they have lots of dev and can slack standards, what did you expect. Janissaries dont cost manpower and they can easily afford mercs

Have had this happen in multiple games...seriously have 3 or 4 3-star generals and a 130K force limit in 1510.

And that's a noob playing ottos

I mean, yeah, I guess there are ways to cheese them early to stop them but should that really be required? I like a challenge and all but it seems like right now they just plow over everything and no other major (Austria, Commonwealth, etc.) really has much of a chance. Having no real counterplay isn't cool.

Austria has got alot better with the domineering personality change, as well as better ai when it gets burgundy, still doesn't pu bohemia much tho for some reason

I haven't seen them lose a single battle that isn't something like 4K vs 40K. 30K vs 18K? No problem. Ottos still win.

Whats morale, whats combat width, whats discipline, whats cav artillery inf ratio

Seriously, what is this kind of stuff?

View attachment 826240
View attachment 826241
View attachment 826242

Stacks to swat if you were a major. If beating ottos caucasuses is one of best places to siege race or bait them into mountains which you bombard and recapture the day they move out

 

[Aeroclub]

Except the problem is they really weren't. They conquered the Mamluks, and conquered and slowly lost Hungary. Apart from that they mostly conquered tiny nations, and sometimes earned humiliating defeats by them.

By those standards, Frances Napoleon should be a 38 star general in game.

Yeah but they had the capacity to expand in ALL of the directions (North, West, South and East) more or less at the same time. So IRL, they very seldom focused the entirety of their military capacity in a single conflict. And yeah, they do require this kind of insame amount of capacity to do the same in the game as well.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I believe the main problem isn't the ottomans per see, but large Empires being able to mobilize their entire military potential into a single front or minor conflict with no drawbacks or consequences of any sort.

If we got some reworks considering logistics and regional conflicts, blobbing and wars in general would become much more tolerable.

If the Ottomans mobilized their entire army into Algeria, war weariness should skyrocket and massive revolts in the balkans would be a given.

 

[necro84]

I mean, yeah, I guess there are ways to cheese them early to stop them but should that really be required? I like a challenge and all but it seems like right now they just plow over everything and no other major (Austria, Commonwealth, etc.) really has much of a chance. Having no real counterplay isn't cool.

Commonwealth has the best ideas as last two - 5% discipline and 15% morale, Ottomans starts with 5% discipline. If Poland would be able to win against Ottomans without problem at the beginnig we would have topic - why is mid/late game Poland or Commonwealth OP

 

[nobodyinparticular]

The AI upgrades have done the Ottomans very well. I did a PLC run recently where normally you start crushing the Ottomans by early-mid 1500s (I know some of you prefer to break them ASAP) and found them to be a good bit more challenging, and they did a much better job at recovering post-war. Occupying them for a good bit, wiping armies and taking max cash will usually death spiral them and get the Mamluks to sweep in, but the AI's better economy kept them stable and when the truce was up they had a bigger army than before even though I had taken 100% of warscore in land and cash.

I liked it! It was a nice change of pace. But I can imagine that they are now a bit excessive against the AI, against some small-medium sized nations that used to have better chances of resisting them, and too much for more casual players. So, some minor and surgical adjustment might be fair. Once again, the Crimea event remains a problem. Everytime they get it, they will revoke march on the Crimeans, annex them, and gain an insatiable hunger to expand into Ruthenia. AI Poland-Lithuania simply will not hold up as a buffer state and eventually the Russians are cucked too. I've seen AI Ottomans own Moscow by 1550. Crimea becoming a march could be disabled for the AI, or be reworked to instead add an alliance, historical friend modifier + add a lot of trust and favors so the Crimeans become instantly available to call in wars. Another thing I would tweak is the Guns of Urban age ability, just make it 20% and it'll still be really good. Early game Ottomans already tear stuff up because of anatolian pips, high mana generation and a discipline tradition.

 

[Nostalgium]

Crimea becoming a march could be disabled for the AI, or be reworked to instead add an alliance, historical friend modifier + add a lot of trust and favors so the Crimeans become instantly available to call in wars.

Crimea Event should be reworked to make them a Tributary if they must remain a subject, else a Guarantee and Historic Friend modifier. Something that allows the Crimeans to use the Ottomans defensively, but not offensively, and doesn't make the Ottomans hellbent on achieving land access to its subject.

 

[necro84]

@Nostalgium there isn't any good relation type in the game to describe relation between Crimea and Ottomans. Crimea was able to make it's own wars like tributary but also was helping Ottomans in their wars like vassal or ally. Ottomans didn't have any intention in making Crimea part of their empire. The closest thing to this kind of relation we have in the game is colonial nation but it doesn't make sense in Europe

 

[Nostalgium]

You can demand tribute in manpower or mil power, which is representative of the tributary sending generals, men or materiell to your war efforts. Additionally, you could also have the event give the Ottomans access to a unique, cavalry-heavy mercenary group with reduced upkeep, based in Crimea. There are plenty of ways within the game you can abstract a relationship like you describe.

 

[necro84]

But tributary nation can make it's own alliances and lose land (or be vassalized) in such wars, overlord can't enforce peace in this situation. I agree tributary is much better than march but maybe we can get more than "good enough"

 

[Nostalgium]

But tributary nation can make it's own alliances and lose land (or be vassalized) in such wars, overlord can't enforce peace in this situation. I agree tributary is much better than march but maybe we can get more than "good enough"

AI isn't smart enough to do this deliberately, and if Poland/Lithuania is played by a player, fully annexing Crimea more or less instantly is already an excellent opener precisely because of this event. If you're Muscovy, you have to carve through Golden Horde first to get there anyway, as they're too big to be vassalized without cobelligirenting them, which would draw in the Ottomans. It's not enough of an issue, the way I see it, to warrant retaining them as a full vassal.