The fact ottos can get more manpower and tax from christian provinces while merchant republics are still garbage that give wee bits of trade power is laughable.
- 5
Is it just me or are the Ottomans completely insane in 1.33?
- Thread starter durbal
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, i'm by no means a "good" player, but i still have a bunch of hours under my belt.
What I see as the main problem, as many others have writen in the forum over the years, is the lack of a mechanism showing, or at least trying to show, the downfall of empires in the late game.
I fully suport the fact that the Ottomans are very strong in the early to mid game, as it's somewhat shows the situtation in the Balkans/eastern europe. The problem is that we dont see the begining of the "death spiral" of the Ottoman empire (wich also should be present for other large empires in the mid-late game.
Also, i have to agree that the combination the Crimean event, combined with how the AI-Ottoman chooses too behave diplomaticly creates quite weird paths of expansion, wich shuld actualy be sub-optimal for the Ottomans, like choosing to push into low-dev steppe provinces, withouth pushing trade, instead of pushing into Persia/down the coast towards India.
Then off course you could grind down numbers, sige ability, the gain of army tradition and such, but I'm to bad at the numbers/meta, so i'l leve that to others!
What I see as the main problem, as many others have writen in the forum over the years, is the lack of a mechanism showing, or at least trying to show, the downfall of empires in the late game.
I fully suport the fact that the Ottomans are very strong in the early to mid game, as it's somewhat shows the situtation in the Balkans/eastern europe. The problem is that we dont see the begining of the "death spiral" of the Ottoman empire (wich also should be present for other large empires in the mid-late game.
Also, i have to agree that the combination the Crimean event, combined with how the AI-Ottoman chooses too behave diplomaticly creates quite weird paths of expansion, wich shuld actualy be sub-optimal for the Ottomans, like choosing to push into low-dev steppe provinces, withouth pushing trade, instead of pushing into Persia/down the coast towards India.
Then off course you could grind down numbers, sige ability, the gain of army tradition and such, but I'm to bad at the numbers/meta, so i'l leve that to others!
- 1
- 1
The Ottoman siege ability is the main culprit here. They are getting so much army tradition from all the forts they siege that they end up with endless 3-star generals, and the more super generals they get the more forts they're able to siege...and that's how the snowball happens.
They also basically don't suffer attrition during sieges because their sieges go so comically fast (15-17 day siege cycles) and the AI is taught to siege race which it will always lose vs the Ottomans. Then add on the fact that all the 3-star generals means that they will have 4-6 maneuver pips on each, and their doomstacks are unavoidable -- if you try to go counter-siege they will catch you and if you're lucky you won't get stackwiped.
Another thing I noticed (or at least seemed more prevalent) was that the AI's ability to magically see inside fog of war is really helped by it having maneuver pips since it will be able to choose all of its battles. Ultimately I wish it weren't able to see inside fog of war like it does, but with a bunch of maneuver pips it makes it extremely obvious that it's cheating since it can calculate exactly where it needs to go to escape or catch another army since it knows the pathing.
They also basically don't suffer attrition during sieges because their sieges go so comically fast (15-17 day siege cycles) and the AI is taught to siege race which it will always lose vs the Ottomans. Then add on the fact that all the 3-star generals means that they will have 4-6 maneuver pips on each, and their doomstacks are unavoidable -- if you try to go counter-siege they will catch you and if you're lucky you won't get stackwiped.
Another thing I noticed (or at least seemed more prevalent) was that the AI's ability to magically see inside fog of war is really helped by it having maneuver pips since it will be able to choose all of its battles. Ultimately I wish it weren't able to see inside fog of war like it does, but with a bunch of maneuver pips it makes it extremely obvious that it's cheating since it can calculate exactly where it needs to go to escape or catch another army since it knows the pathing.
- 9
- 2
- 1
Yeah the Ottomans in EU4 is like the Romans in Imperator Rome. They are literally unstoppable. Sure, they are supposed to be powerful but historically they are supposed to decline in power in the 1600s, or in-game Age of Absolution. I also can't remember a game where they don't pick Quantity ideas to make their huge army hugerer. Empires rise and fall, but for the Ottomans, they rise and rise and rise and make Julius Caesar jealous
- 2
- 1
- 1
To be honest, I think their age siege ability is completely broken. They simply stand on forts and they fall. In fact I have seen a game in which they go full Offensive ideas and have their siege ability with 3 star generals. No one can compete with that. Lucky nations get a siege bonus as well.
I know it's going to be an unpopular opinion but I think if Paradox were to make ONE change to balance an overpowered Ottomans, it would be the siege ability goes or gets nerfed. Maybe their age bonus could be manpower related, or combat ability related, or extra CCR or governing capacity or whatever, but specifically that siege ability makes it impossible for the AI to beat them. Even a skilled player with several strong allies will struggle for warscore because the Ottomans take forts down in two ticks, three maximum.
I know it's going to be an unpopular opinion but I think if Paradox were to make ONE change to balance an overpowered Ottomans, it would be the siege ability goes or gets nerfed. Maybe their age bonus could be manpower related, or combat ability related, or extra CCR or governing capacity or whatever, but specifically that siege ability makes it impossible for the AI to beat them. Even a skilled player with several strong allies will struggle for warscore because the Ottomans take forts down in two ticks, three maximum.
- 2
Peace offer
Ottomans lose age ability
Ottomans gain ability to make mamlukes and syria a vassal in one war
Look at them after the age of discovery then
- 6
- 1
- 1
I really struggle to take it seriously when people suggest the Ottomans should be able to annex the Mamluks in a war. It's too broken. I don't care if it happened in real life, it would completely break the game.
I would legitimately stop playing EU4 if this ever became an option (maybe for the player, not for the AI).
- 5
- 2
- 1
- 1
Burgundian inheritance
Jagellion
Iberian wedding
Incan events
Danzig revolt
Timurids starting with cores everywhere
- 5
- 3
- 1
I am struggling to believe this is a serious post. I apologise if you are being serious, it's just hard to believe.
1) The Burgundian Inheritance is equally broken, no one country should get all of Burgundy. I've said that before.
2) This is the one I really struggle to take seriously given I am fairly sure everyone here has seen the PLC lose repeatedly to the Ottomans especially if the Ottomans get that awful Crimea event.
3) Iberian Wedding is necessary to ensure Castile does not get overpowered by France or England. I still see Castile lose to the North Africans not too rarely. Also sometimes the Iberian Wedding doesn't happen at all.
4) I don't know too much about the Incan events.
5) Really? You're comparing getting Danzig to annexing some of the highest development land in the whole game?
6) Because in 1444 the TImurids vassals are actually part of the Timurids realm?
- 6
- 4
- 2
@AvengedK1ng but Timurids should have cores everywhere, I quess historicly they should have also cores on QQ and AQ. I would prefer Timurids starting as a unified nation in a disaster like it was some time ago. Instead of integrating subjects the goal should be to end the disaster.
Morocco has the same starting situation as Timurids
You can break PUs in a single war so PU events aren't as strong as directly conquering over 300 dev in single war at the beginning of the game.
Morocco has the same starting situation as Timurids
You can break PUs in a single war so PU events aren't as strong as directly conquering over 300 dev in single war at the beginning of the game.
For me the Ottomans conquering the Mamluks in single war is something like Muscovy conquering Novgorod in single war, AQQ defeating QQ, later Adrabil defeating big AQQ and forming Persia, Qing expansion into Ming, some of the Mughal conquests. Giving such possibility only to Ottomans would be unfair and giving it to more nations would make the game completly different
- 5
Well, i totaly understand the balancing issuses, but it being part of a event line, when the stars are perfectly alligned.. It would be pretty cool.
- 1
Paradox rarely reverts power creeps only increases
Yes, still crap tonne of free dev
And you should get that much dev for free cuz?
Nah m8 thats stars align
And this event might not happen?
If not reformed and have capital you can capture ruler and break empire into separatist rebels whilst you annex everything so insta rebel break and then you can annex everything
It screws with balance of east germany massively because no longer just west prussia that defects
Yes and then you declare war on ajam and have integrated everyone by 1456
No claims, so theres difficulty in reconquering it all
Wasnt it united but transoxiana was vassal and both were tribal? I also forget what replaced ajam back then. Reliable persian revolts were good tho
Morocco isn't needed to set up balance of power vs ottos tho
If you conquer it too early liberty desire would be too high or you just gate event to historical period it happened in like the old annex event did
- 4
- 2
Anything to stop danish kola or livonian novogorod
Yee, having bagdad as vassal would help
Having a persia form reliable would be enough, seeing as whilst ardabil seen as first native persian ruler for ages, AQ patronises shahnemh a tonne
This increasingly does happen and keeps on getting updates, their vassal stealing mission is far more reliable now
A more dynamic game would be great, more vassals and less monotags so to conquer a tag you don't need 5 wars but 2 or 3 to full annex them and gain their vassals
- 2
You could give the Ottomans free cores on every single province on the map and people would still try to justify it.
- 4
- 3
Cores on remaining beyliks would be okay if beyliks routinely revolted like irl unlike the greeks
You don't see the problems with cores for Ottomans but there is a problem about cores for Timurids? This is Timurid Empire in 1405 so this could be Timurid cores in 1444 - game needs 50 years for a nation to lose a core. Delhi was more like a vassal but Iraq and Persia were parts of the empire
- 5
- 1
Seeing how stable anatolia is compared to irl, yes I'd be willing to give them cores which isn't that much considering dev compared to Timurid cores
But if we extend this fully then dehli will have that many more cores, england will have 2/3rds of france cored, Austria will have cores on bohemia and Hungary, poland will have cores on Hungary, provence starts with cores on naples.
Or we see timurids is too stable game on game whereas ottomans taking beyliks sooner doesn't change much when already have permaclaims and ccr national idea. We can't have a strong persia to resist the ottomans if theres always a stable timurids taking up eastern iran
Dehli was not a vassal, dehli got sacked and the sultanate collapsed and the day old sultans of multan being like the one kingdom to recognise timur as overlord once he left
Eu4 logic is interesting when you try to do real world comparisons, iran and iraq were part of the empire, but on timur's death the qq move in, do we put iraq as under a Timurid vassal or as a state with full core or a territory because timur ran out of admin because he concentrated development not razed the province. Malacca was a chinese tributary until leviathan because the ming complain when the portugese seize the sultanate then paradox realised nothing happened irl so the tributary was removed
Do you place the ottoman vassals timur appointed after Ankara as cores or vassals?
- 1
But examples of Englad or Delhi further proves the point that the Ottomans shouldn't have cores on beyliks. I'm not saying that such nations should have more cores and gave Timurids as an example of nation that in reality could have more than it starts with if the Ottomans get more.
And I have no idea why you think Austria should have cores on Bohemia or Hungary. When before 1444 Austria owned their land?
In 1.33 moral, discipline and pips are no more
Only numbers matter and so Ottoz can rule even when their unit's pips start to collapse
Only numbers matter and so Ottoz can rule even when their unit's pips start to collapse
- 2