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

[grisamentum]

The current army AI really favors large nations with single control and large stacks. A coalition of medium/large nations (like Austria+Hungary+Poland) should be able to beat a very large nation (like Ottomans) but the current army AI doesn't do that, because it no longer knows how to work together and every stack is separately saying, "I'm too scared to go near the Ottoman stacks" even though they could beat them all together, easily.

It's actually relatively frustrating as a small nation like Knights, because it means your window of strategies shrinks significantly, since you can't rely on allies to help you win the war anymore.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

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.

More aggressive ai has sorted this slightly, marched all my troops through Poland to help in a french austrian war as russia, only for poland to join and then rush troops back across before they sieged down too many cities
Multi front war is one reason we need better portugese and iranian ai, would mean theres at least 100 years of a persian front for ottos to solve whilst such conquests become worth less snd less as more and more indian trade is siphoned to Cape as historically happened. Origins has helped african tags consolidate more often now but indian tags seem to have more stalemate than before
Getting rid of conditional mil access would also help ottos not be able to appear in oldenburg as easily

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.

Unique mercs is what adal got in origins but Ethiopia got a UU so we'll see how things go forwads

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.

Historic friend would mean more allainces and eventual dip vassalisation

 

[AvengedK1ng]

The current army AI really favors large nations with single control and large stacks. A coalition of medium/large nations (like Austria+Hungary+Poland) should be able to beat a very large nation (like Ottomans) but the current army AI doesn't do that, because it no longer knows how to work together and every stack is separately saying, "I'm too scared to go near the Ottoman stacks" even though they could beat them all together, easily.

So if we have the hapsburg jagellion allaince work when they'd have contentions for the crown of Hungary and ottomans gets defeated far sooner than original time line, what happens? Mamlukes invades maybe, HRE play is restricted due to Austria picking enforce peace easily meaning protestsnt success harder, stronger commonwealth means russia is rare to form again
I prefer this more powerful ottos considering how weak they've been for last few patches

It's actually relatively frustrating as a small nation like Knights, because it means your window of strategies shrinks significantly, since you can't rely on allies to help you win the war anymore.

Well yes it shouldn't be ally blob and you peace ottos out leaving allies with nothing

 

[AvengedK1ng]

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.

Because they need to keep up being a threat. "losing to albania" is an example of how eu4 has to model non state actors as states, the shift of sirhind from pretender to tag is another example. Skanderbeg was able to lead several revolts but ultimately failed to achieve independence, same with mihael the brave

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.

Considering most blobs are carving something out of ottos I'd disagree

 

[AvengedK1ng]

Except the problem is they really weren't. They conquered the Mamluks, and conquered and slowly lost Hungary.

Holding Hungary in some capacity for about 200 years is impressive, especially considering the numerous diplomatic plays

Apart from that they mostly conquered tiny nations, and sometimes earned humiliating defeats by them.

Those defeats are celebrated because they weren't typical, like suleiman dying at the siege in croatia
But for 400 years or more the balkans were under ottoman yoke with bosniak Muslims and turkish Bulgarians a perpetual reminder of this state of affairs

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

Check his and frederick the greats pips

 

[raphi1985]

I Have just played one France-campaign with 1.33 patch up to 1670. I have beaten the ottomans in about 6 or 7 wars and removed them from the Balkans and Anatolia (to form Roman Empire). Still they are the second greatest power behind me with around 1.2k Dev. They kept conquering land even after multiple lost wars and with at times far above 10k Ducats of debt.

This is not really new with 1.33, I think. But the fact, that they had like 1k Dev and Mamluk-Egypt mainly conquered before 1500 was quite impressive. They seem to be more speedy in their usual conquests; maybe partially an effect of the lowered war-score since Origins?

 

[durbal]

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

Did you see the general with 5 siege pips? They also have +50% siege ability. There is no way to siege race them. They also bombard half the forts.

I don't want to sound like a noob complaining about Ottos, but this kind of stuff is just pure stat checking. Their stats are so far above and beyond anyone else that there is no hope to beat them in battle and no hope to beat them in siege races. Also, their 6 maneuever pips means that if you are sieging and they come at you there is often no ability to flee.

I've never seen them like this before...it seems to be in every game at this point and it's absolutely wild.

They've received numerous buffs over the years to compensate for the derpy AI, and now that the combat system was changed (and seems to favor them) plus the AI is no longer full derp I think some of the buffs should be revisited (such as the full on goofball 'Ottoman court' government or whatever which seems to produce endless 5/6/5-ish rulers).

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

The current army AI really favors large nations with single control and large stacks.

This reminds me of the fact that two front wars are unironically way more favourable to the surrounded side, since they can fully gather their army in a single front and beat their foes one at the time without their allies being able to do anything about it.

 

[ElSocialismoNoFunciona]

One problem that I see is that coalitions are rarely built against the Ottomans.
For the era of reform and absolutism, the papacy should have another mechanic called "Holy League" that allows Christian countries that are border or rivals of the Ottoman empire to join.

If the Ottomans attack any member of the holy league, the entire league joins the war, allowing Spain, Austria, Venice, Poland, and Russia to defend themselves together.

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

One problem that I see is that coalitions are rarely built against the Ottomans.
For the era of reform and absolutism, the papacy should have another mechanic called "Holy League" that allows Christian countries that are border or rivals of the Ottoman empire to join.

If the Ottomans attack any member of the holy league, the entire league joins the war, allowing Spain, Austria, Venice, Poland, and Russia to defend themselves together.

This is the best suggestion someone has ever come up with.

I just saw them wipe the floor with Austria-Hungary-Bohemia. Then they attacked Poland-Lithuania (after that terrible Crimea event). Then they went straight back and attacked Serbia (who was in the Empire) and wrecked Austria-Hungary-Bohemia again.

In real terms, the Catholic powers of Europe would not (and did not) sit back and watch as the Ottomans individually picked apart Venice, Hungary, Austrias, Poland, Lithuania, even Muscovy/Russia until they had a coastline in the Baltics.

 

[durbal]

One problem that I see is that coalitions are rarely built against the Ottomans.
For the era of reform and absolutism, the papacy should have another mechanic called "Holy League" that allows Christian countries that are border or rivals of the Ottoman empire to join.

If the Ottomans attack any member of the holy league, the entire league joins the war, allowing Spain, Austria, Venice, Poland, and Russia to defend themselves together.

We don't need special game rules to handle hypothetical scenarios for what would happen if the Ottomans all of a sudden were fielding prescient generals and armies composed of terminators and could walk over multiple European majors without flinching. We just need them to not be fielding such things (at least so reliably) so that they might at least flinch every once in a while.

 

[agonistes]

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

Commonwealth being OP used to show up. I'm not sure what happened there.

 

[grisamentum]

Well yes it shouldn't be ally blob and you peace ottos out leaving allies with nothing

Sure, there is a Trust penalty if you don't give allies sufficient land based on their participation.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I mean more like this:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachments/capture-png.822047/

Where the AI will let Ottomans siege down its own forts, without defending them. Even though they would Ottomans outnumbered (more Austria troops are offscreen to the west, too), the AI won't put its stacks together and go fight. Moldavia is march of Hungary there but thinks, "I'm too weak, I'll hide in mountains." Hungary thinks, "I'm also too weak, I'll hide in mountains." Austria hides its stacks in Tirol because it thinks, "I also am took weak, better hide."

Meanwhile I have the other half of the Ottoman army trapped in Naxos, they can't leave because they're locked in and I have naval superiority. But the AI won't do its own half of the war, because it doesn't understand how to coordinate anymore.

This was a change that happened in 1.33. It makes the Ottomans much stronger against any other empire, because it alone will have more troops than most individual nations, so it will almost always fight better than a group of AIs with more armies collectively.

 

[agonistes]

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.

Maybe its my bias as a frequent player of Russia, but I would prefer Crimea event remaining as is.

So if we have the hapsburg jagellion allaince work when they'd have contentions for the crown of Hungary and ottomans gets defeated far sooner than original time line, what happens? Mamlukes invades maybe, HRE play is restricted due to Austria picking enforce peace easily meaning protestsnt success harder, stronger commonwealth means russia is rare to form again
I prefer this more powerful ottos considering how weak they've been for last few patches

Well yes it shouldn't be ally blob and you peace ottos out leaving allies with nothing

What you'd see is Austria wrecking France much more often.

 

[grisamentum]

They seem to be more speedy in their usual conquests; maybe partially an effect of the lowered war-score since Origins?

I would guess they are speedier in conquests because the AI will not contest sieges unless it is basically 100% sure it can win. So the AI will just let itself get sieged down against a superior opponent instead of fighting.

(Meanwhile in CK3, the AI is 100% suicidal and will charge against 10-1 odds, which is both more hilarious and more effective.)

 

[Nostalgium]

Maybe its my bias as a frequent player of Russia, but I would prefer Crimea event remaining as is.

Like getting stuck in with the Ottomans ASAP, eh? I can respect that.

 

[agonistes]

Sure, there is a Trust penalty if you don't give allies sufficient land based on their participation.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I mean more like this:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachments/capture-png.822047/

Where the AI will let Ottomans siege down its own forts, without defending them. Even though they would Ottomans outnumbered (more Austria troops are offscreen to the west, too), the AI won't put its stacks together and go fight. Moldavia is march of Hungary there but thinks, "I'm too weak, I'll hide in mountains." Hungary thinks, "I'm also too weak, I'll hide in mountains." Austria hides its stacks in Tirol because it thinks, "I also am took weak, better hide."

Meanwhile I have the other half of the Ottoman army trapped in Naxos, they can't leave because they're locked in and I have naval superiority. But the AI won't do its own half of the war, because it doesn't understand how to coordinate anymore.

This was a change that happened in 1.33. It makes the Ottomans much stronger against any other empire, because it alone will have more troops than most individual nations, so it will almost always fight better than a group of AIs with more armies collectively.

In these situations, you have to saddle up and do the hard work yourself, and let your allies siege.

I actually think there is more to the ai behavior than numbers. Nations like Otto and France are more aggressive during war. Austria this patch is a wuss - Austria often won't even join a battle in a neighboring province where the outcome is close, while France (whom I find more aggressive than Otto) will throw down any time anywhere even if called in.

Smaller nations can be aggressive too, they just are not (usually) suicidal - they will gladly jump into battles, and initiate battles even early on against otto provided the numbers are close. In fact, its actually a bit of an annoyance because otto will chew up the small stacks if you aren't protecting them.

-------------
I am strongly against any nerf to Otto. They are no more a threat than France or Spain. They are less a threat than Austria if Austria bursts.

You know what's a threat? Britain getting a pu over Russia while you are playing a england-USA run and you start seeing a red ribbon spread from crimea to china. And, oh, btw, britain is allied to spain and portugal, and france hates you because you own all the gold mines in mexico, so your only decent potential ally is a chewed up morocco, and every damn colonial nation ecxept you is spainish.

If Otto is troubling you, its probably because you didn't 'take steps' (taps nose).

 

[grandadmiralbob]

The Ottomans may be strong, but at least they don't have Italy's green. That would suck.

 

[necro84]

I just realized that one change in 1.33 had a very big impact on Ottomans - lots of forts in small nations. Each siege gives 2 army tradition and the Ottomans siege more forts than any other nation in the beginning. As a result the Ottomans get better generals and bonus to morale of armies + a bit better manpower recovery. I checked a few of my save games between 1480 and 1500 and they have 60-80 AT, in older saves at this time they have no more than 30 AT

 

[durbal]

Like getting stuck in with the Ottomans ASAP, eh? I can respect that.

I mean, if you're starting as Muscovy it's probably best to just steamroll them early and the Crimea event gives you the chance since they'll keep walking up and dying on the peninsula. And really, if the player is starting as any European major it's somewhat trivial to take down the Ottomans given how trivial it is to expand with majors and their mission trees.