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

[Nostalgium]

@Nostalgium This is the first fair counter-argument in the thread, so I'll endeavour to respond bit by bit.


What does it say about the Ottomans eventual power that the main point in the development of other countries is if they can withstand the Ottomans or not?

The fact is that even if we had a united Persia they'd get steamrolled by the Ottomans on pure quantity. The Ottomans also have the benefit of having the entire Levantine culture group as their home culture, which is inaccurate, meaning they have insane benefits from the land they conquer. Relative to the Ottomans, Persian lands are poor.

In the case of Muscovy/Russia, they're only on Ottoman level after forming Russia, colonising Siberia and sorting out their economy. The Ottomans again are far richer than Russia ever will be. This may be a fair point of gameplay but I feel compelled to point this all out.


The development of France is very RNG. The strength of the HRE, the outcome of the Burgundian Inheritance, and whether England/Castile form an early alliance can have existential differences to France. I don't think the Ottomans have anywhere near the level of RNG to deal with, even in the case of the AI. British AI still doesn't know how to deal with naval landings either.


A couple of things to point out.

EU4 is largely a quantity based game for AI battles. The Ottomans reach an unstoppable level of forcelimit and manpower long before anyone else can contest. (and realistically who will contest them other than Russia?) Therefore the Ottomans are able to defeat some of their potential rivals very early on in the game. This is made worse by their siege ability age bonus. It's also why them taking Quantity ideas is just vile. It's a guaranteed game over for any AI they fight.

In the first 100 years they are ahead on pips, tech, manpower, forcelimit, siege bonus and income than any of their potential rivals and by some margin. It's not unfeasible for Austria-Hungary-Venice-PLC-Mamluks and even Muscovy to all be defeated by the Ottomans within the first 80-100 years of the game. At that point who is going to stop them? The game offers zero mechanic. You just don't see large empires crumble in this game (this isn't an Ottoman specific issue).



I and others have said they just need a disaster or two.

They're the only major tag I can think of that doesn't have to deal with a major disaster. The Janissary coup realistically never happens. Meanwhile the War of the Roses drains English manpower/finances for over a decade. The French Wars of Religion gives me Vietnam flashbacks just imagining dealing with it.

The Ottomans should get a malus to embracing Institutions Printing Press and beyond. And they should have events that give very high autonomy or unrest in the Balkans.

I also think the +33% siege ability should go and be replaced with a manpower related bonus.

They shouldn't be in the Levantine culture group either. Turkish should be in its own culture group.

Finally, the awful, a historical Crimean event needs to go. It messes with the PLC and Muscovy far too much. The Ottomans don't need free land. Give them perma-claims on Crimea and the Black Sea whilst you're at it.

I am absolutely certain that these things above would create a more balanced game in which the Ottomans are still strong, the Ottomans still have the potential to be the world power, but there's enough variables for it to not happen every single game...

I agree fully when it comes to reworking the Janissaries - I think I made the case for them being an estate in this thread or another Ottoman thread - into something more like the Szlachta for PLC. Something integral to their gameplay experience culminating with a coup attempt disaster. I also think their culture group needs to be if nothing else, strongly reconsidered. I've mentioned the possibility of dividing it into two or more, something that gives them a harder time holding on to Egypt. Finally, the Crimean event is also somewhere I agree with you.

I do, however, categorically disagree with tag-specific nerfs to institution costs and arbitrary unrest events. Balkan Unrest events could/should be linked to the Janissaries or some other disaster, but it should be something that is temporary and can be dealt with. Their Age ability should also probably be set to 20%, so that it's essentially "offensive for free".

But I maintain my argument that their main strength will remain their position and circumstance, even after such checks have been put in place. A touch-up on the Middle East is necessary to more reliably create more robust states to be thorns in their side. Not necessarily contenders all on their own, though - just more than a cluster of regional powers at best.

 

[Opanashc]

Dhimmi +2 tolerance and Ottoman +3 tolerance of heathens, plus legitimacy - all give a +3 tolerance of heathens, and very stable provinces.

 

[Kerham]

In the meantime, Byzantium AI refuses to make peace for 6 months straight at full ticked war score + call to peace (Even before Ottomans got to start the siege, which would give some malus to peace desire). Save scummed the Ottomans sieges to see what happens, the answer is nothing. Byzantium just doesn't take a peace at the best time, only waiting to lose a siege to get some insignificant gain, when it actually picks Kocaeli instead of a core. If Ottomans would have 70 wasrscore with low war entusiasm, AI would magically be able to do it. And no, I don't have any province marked as interest or anything, is just railroad programming, Same war earlier had Ottomans at "only" medium war enthusiasm at 66 war score, most Balkans occupied including their capital. ofc Byzantium didn't peaced out.

 

[Nostalgium]

In the meantime, Byzantium AI refuses to make peace for 6 months straight at full ticked war score + call to peace (Even before Ottomans got to start the siege, which would give some malus to peace desire). Save scummed the Ottomans sieges to see what happens, the answer is nothing. Byzantium just doesn't take a peace at the best time, only waiting to lose a siege to get some insignificant gain, when it actually picks Kocaeli instead of a core. If Ottomans would have 70 wasrscore with low war entusiasm, AI would magically be able to do it. And no, I don't have any province marked as interest or anything, is just railroad programming, Same war earlier had Ottomans at "only" medium war enthusiasm at 66 war score, most Balkans occupied including their capital. ofc Byzantium didn't peaced out.




View attachment 831140

Was Makedonia/Selanik occupied at any point? Byz might have really, really wanted that, and as the AI is incapable of recognising that it's unlikely to be able to take it back in this war it may thus have been stunted by the -1000 malus for demanding a province with no occupied fort. The screenshot is a great situation for a player, but it's exactly the sort of win the AI can't leverage. It's not a case of Byzantium's AI - or any other AI - being hardcoded to be more lenient against the Ottos. They just see that they're winning and want to get their most desired prizes.

 

[Kapi96]

No.

Timing matters. There's a period where they're just strong, you'd have to be a lot bigger than them to beat them at that time. But that period doesn't last that long, and after that they're certainly beatable. Before that they're definitely beatable too. If you're not in a position to hit them ASAP, it doesn't matter, it won't be too long until you can beat them again.

You really want to hit them before they beat the Mamluks though. The first war vs the Mamluks is a great time to attack, their armies are going to be tied up in the east/south and the Mamluks often aren't that heavily outnumbered. That gives you time to start sieging stuff and even when they do get their armies back to fight you, they'll be weaker and possibly having their border territories sieged by Mamluks while they do it.

You can certainly beat them even without waiting until they're in another war though. I've beaten them in the 1500s in recent games as Austria, Italy, Poland, Russia & Burgundy.

The AI controlled major nations in that area are usually pretty terrible against the Ottos. But a player controlled one can easily outgrow/defeat them. If you can't, then you just have some more things to learn I guess.

 

[FrogCrusher]

In the meantime, Byzantium AI refuses to make peace for 6 months straight at full ticked war score + call to peace (Even before Ottomans got to start the siege, which would give some malus to peace desire). Save scummed the Ottomans sieges to see what happens, the answer is nothing. Byzantium just doesn't take a peace at the best time, only waiting to lose a siege to get some insignificant gain, when it actually picks Kocaeli instead of a core. If Ottomans would have 70 wasrscore with low war entusiasm, AI would magically be able to do it. And no, I don't have any province marked as interest or anything, is just railroad programming, Same war earlier had Ottomans at "only" medium war enthusiasm at 66 war score, most Balkans occupied including their capital. ofc Byzantium didn't peaced out.




View attachment 831140

The AI not peacing out is a subject by itself, many times debated and described on those forums. Several propositions were done, in particular give the possibility for an ally to warn the war leader they will leave if no peace is found in the next month.
PDX never gave feedback on this issue where AI are tuned to 100% WS instead of searching compromise.

 

[necro84]

But I maintain my argument that their main strength will remain their position and circumstance

Of course it's one of the biggest strenghts. Even when all the Balkan provinces are under occupation the Ottomans can rebuild their armies in Anatolia, regain morale and continue fighting. PLC or Austria can have similar development, manpower and FL but after few loses doesn't have any safe place to regroup. Only few nations can match Ottoman fleet and take control of the straits making position their weakness.

Some changes to the navy would be necessery, naval FL could depend on development or number of provinces and not only on the number of ports. Why having huge inland empire with just a few ports makes having large navy more expensive than having small island based country? Unified Germany would have smaller naval FL than Denmark or Tunis

 

[Kerham]

Was Makedonia/Selanik occupied at any point? Byz might have really, really wanted that, and as the AI is incapable of recognising that it's unlikely to be able to take it back in this war it may thus have been stunted by the -1000 malus for demanding a province with no occupied fort. The screenshot is a great situation for a player, but it's exactly the sort of win the AI can't leverage. It's not a case of Byzantium's AI - or any other AI - being hardcoded to be more lenient against the Ottos. They just see that they're winning and want to get their most desired prizes.

No, we had Gelibolu and Edirne, at 66 war score and medium Ottoman enthusiasm, when they had zero ocupations, not even Athens (yes I savescummed). Most likely Byzantium was thinking OH I GOT THEM GONNA TAKE ALL instead of taking a few cores, some money and war rep. In that situation could have asked even Selanik itself, you don't need the one fort itself, you need, I think, a fort with land connection.


This was one attempt to try to genuinely help the AI, f* if I ever try again, it's too pathetic.

 

[Koser]

As others have mentioned the Ottomans have a great advantage in their starting position. I don't think the Devs could make it any easier for them to be successful early on; surrounded by weak nations that seemingly make ridiculous alliances which in turn just presents them a surfeit of juicy provinces to gobble up. For example Candar allied to Karaman and AQQ. By the end of the war Otto's full annexed Candar, took all but one of Karaman's lands and took a big chunk out of AQQ. Does aggressive expansion effect them or not?

Crimea event also really needs to be reworked. Even when Crimea refuses for some reason Otto's get free claims on Genoa and Theodoro lands which is odd. Shouldn't they rather get claims on Crimea lands? Given that Genoa also makes dubious alliances, like Epirus or Albania, I've seen Genoa gone form the Black Sea in the first 10 years of the game which sucks if you're playing in that region wanting institution spread.

Lastly, Ottoman rulers need to be looked at. I played a game as Georgia a few weeks back and for the first 150 years of the game the Otto's didn't have a ruler with an adm / dip / mil below 4. 6/4/6, 5/4/6, 6/4/4 and on and on it went for 6 rulers when I decided to quit. They were so far ahead on tech they were out teching western nations. It was absurd.

Some balance changes to the region are needed in my opinion.

 

[Nimble Dick]

The Ottoman army will become surprisingly weak once they reach 1640, due to their lowered fire and shock pips. That is usually the time to attack them, 30k of your own will be able to easily beat 60k Ottos on flat terrain.

 

[lordgoof]

The Ottoman army will become surprisingly weak once they reach 1640, due to their lowered fire and shock pips. That is usually the time to attack them, 30k of your own will be able to easily beat 60k Ottos on flat terrain.

except that by 1640 they have 400k troops regularly.

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

People still don't get it.

I think most of us know how to beat the Ottomans. We don't need to be told 'the time to attack them is early or when their pips drop off in mil tech'. It isn't about difficulty or strategy, please focus on the issue at hand.

The issue is that with no player intervention the Ottomans are always the end-game boss. They dismantle everyone in their sights and grow to levels completely out of proportion to the rest of the game. Don't look at whether they annex as much as North Africa as they historically did. Look at their forcelimit, manpower and blobbing capabilities in the 1700s compared to other countries, especially compared to countries who in this century were able to beat them or at least hold their own against them.

It's frankly just boring. It offers no variety for late-game play because you know what the story will be. I'd kill to fight a huge colonial Britain that's conquered India or a Russia that's entered half of China, but that never happens, it's always the Ottomans.

Also I wish EU4 players would pick. Because half the time the argument is 'Well it's what happened in history' and the other half it's 'Well this game doesn't have to be historically accurate it's an alternate history game'.

If this game is supposed to mimic really history, the Ottomans need an inbuilt much heavier decline towards the late game.

If this game is alternate history, then the Ottomans shouldn't always be the end-game boss. Them failing to the Mamluks should be distinct possibility.

 

[agonistes]

It does. The Ottomans vital interest southern Italy every game unless Mehmed is a Diplomat or something.

Just chiming in that, yes, Naples does ally Epirus, and yes, Otto will take southern Italy.

And if pope should not be part of the conversation, who exactly are we whining about as having too rough a time? Theodoro?

 

[flammable888]

How can an empire be insane ?do you mean the leaders?I think if the ottomans were insane the leaders would have an insane trait like ck2.
Or do you mean the population is insane?that would mean there are millions of people in the balkans and anatolia who have a severe mental illness

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

People still don't get it.

I think most of us know how to beat the Ottomans. We don't need to be told 'the time to attack them is early or when their pips drop off in mil tech'. It isn't about difficulty or strategy, please focus on the issue at hand.

The issue is that with no player intervention the Ottomans are always the end-game boss. They dismantle everyone in their sights and grow to levels completely out of proportion to the rest of the game. Don't look at whether they annex as much as North Africa as they historically did. Look at their forcelimit, manpower and blobbing capabilities in the 1700s compared to other countries, especially compared to countries who in this century were able to beat them or at least hold their own against them.

It's frankly just boring. It offers no variety for late-game play because you know what the story will be. I'd kill to fight a huge colonial Britain that's conquered India or a Russia that's entered half of China, but that never happens, it's always the Ottomans.

Also I wish EU4 players would pick. Because half the time the argument is 'Well it's what happened in history' and the other half it's 'Well this game doesn't have to be historically accurate it's an alternate history game'.

If this game is supposed to mimic really history, the Ottomans need an inbuilt much heavier decline towards the late game.

If this game is alternate history, then the Ottomans shouldn't always be the end-game boss. Them failing to the Mamluks should be distinct possibility.

I think this is one of the few reasonable arguments I have read in one of the million threads about this topic. The comparison to other countries is crucial.
The problem does not lie in any way with the Ottomans, the problem are more fundamental and deeper, the Ottomans are just the showcase of that.

One of the things is the Ottomans are designed to be strong early which is reasonable as historically they were in the first half of the game (someone said above that in the early 1600s the were supposed to decline, that is a falsified hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Decline_Thesis )
Yes the Ottomans suffered some setbacks in the late 17th century against Austria and their allies including Russia, where the lost Hungary and some other of its northern territories (although they recovered some of the lost territory later), but they only entered full decline in the late 18th century when they were for the first time crushingly defeated by the Russia combined with revolts in Egypt, ... That is however quite at the end of the EU4 timeframe.
The thing is in EU4 large empires just do not crumble apart, even for Ming it is still rare despite tailor-made disasters for them. The Ottomans are just the large empire that can form easiest and fastest:

The thing is the Ottomans are the great power that was at the verge of a major period of expansion at the beginning of the EU4 time-frame, while all the others did that only much later, making it more difficult to model. Furthermore, for the Ottomans can just conquer things which the EU4 gameplay works best and also the AI understand best (especially in 1.33 where the AI finally plays as aggressive and is not sitting around doing nothing anymore). Britain, Spain, Portugal ... depend on colonisation / naval invasion which the AI is not particularly great at. This is also made more problematic that land logistics are no problem in the game, while the naval logistics are very limiting, especially with the huge attrition. That means a naval invasion follows the historic constraints of not being able to simple ship your entire army, while a land invasion can a-historically make use of your entire army.
Persia does practically never form (I think I have not seen it since the Timurid rework, before it sometimes appeared as a revolter tag). It was a major rival for the Ottomans and that flank open of course changes the balance of power. Even if they cannot single-handedly defeat the Ottomans it is already an advantage if they can do proper resistance. Not really sure how to model them though, the situation in the area is complex to model, probably more railroading via events / better mission trees would be necessary there, making it more likely that one of the potential candidates there consolidates and forms Persia.

Russia for some reason does extremely rarely form in the recent versions, I have no clue what the reason for that is, but I think this is a thing that ought to be fixed. Of course that should largely work via improving their AI to not upset Multiplayer Balance.

From my experience, the Ottomans still rarely manage to achieve anything close to their historical borders in that timeframe. (at least pre-1.33, I haven't played enough in 1.33 to tell, and even if the sample of a single player is not very telling). They usually managed to go for the Balkans and maybe Hungary and the Black Sea coast, but rarely went into the Southeast. Now they are still better than this as the other great powers, but in that case: fix the others! Any larger nerfing to the Ottomans (and they have been nerfed many times, iirc the only buff they received in the last ~20 versions was their government form) would just be a band-aid for issues that lie elsewhere

What I do agree is some fine-tuning such as making them more disaster prone, Janissary should be more difficult to avoid, or at least the AI should be focused on hiring so many of them that they trigger it, and a Sick Man of Europe disaster could be included for the Age of Revolutions that causes Separatism / Unrest in the Balkans and maybe removes the Dhimmi Estate (or makes it extremely disloyal) to model the situation from the 1770s onwards (even though the actual falling apart was only after the EU4 timeframe).
Crimea also seems to be a bit too easy, maybe it should first make them a tributary and only later a march, also generally I think the AI should be less prone to revoke marches (an issue also in other cases, and maybe there should hard limits (15 years waiting period e.g., opinion/low LD?).

 

[themrspartan]

From my experience, the Ottomans still rarely manage to achieve anything close to their historical borders in that timeframe.

No nations do. Not a one except for a lucky Austria. This is due to AI stupidity and not their capabilities. Based on capability, the Ottoman AI will world conquest given enough time. Their manpower pool is functionally infinite. Their historical maximum borders are irrelevant to this topic and I never want to hear about them again.

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

No nations do. Not a one except for a lucky Austria. This is due to AI stupidity and not their capabilities. Based on capability, the Ottoman AI will world conquest given enough time. Their manpower pool is functionally infinite. Their historical maximum borders are irrelevant to this topic and I never want to hear about them again.

Still really struggle to understand people's obsession with the Ottomans reaching their historical borders.

France never reach the borders of modern France because:

1) They're scared of attacking the HRE.
2) The Burgundian Inheritance seldom goes their way.
3) They ally Provence.
4) They can have good relations with Brittany.
5) Sometimes England will pull as Castile alliance.

And this is all deemed proper and fair.

Meanwhile the Ottomans with infinite manpower, mana points and unrest reduction don't conquer some low development provinces in North Africa and people complain.

Let's just take it that within EU4's capabilities it's impossible for countries to expand in a truly accurate way, like @Manwe_Sulimo pointed out. Britain can't do naval landings in India, and I don't think any of us trust the AI to purchase a trade company and use Mercs to conquer Bengal whilst managing an economy.

Therefore we just have to look at the overall power that the country has, not whether they've conquered some 3 dev Ibadi province in North Africa.

Are the Ottomans power over the course of the game proportional and creating some form of game balance? I think not. In the majority of games the Ottomans are an unrivalled beast no coalition or alliance network can defend against until the player comes along. Some people like this for memes but I don't.

I think if this conversation (about game balance in general, not specific to the Ottomans) is ever going to be productive we have to stop looking at nations borders and look at their overall power as an AI. Mana generation, manpower, pips, income, diplomacy and other inbuilt factors such as national ideas and disaster are what you look at.

From a player perspective, the Ottomans as an end-game tag with no Admin Efficiency or Diplomatic Annexation cost are OK but nothing special. The Mamluks are better just for their ability to tag switch.

From an AI perspective, the Ottomans are an absolute beast and if they take Quantity ideas they're unplayable for the AI.

I would seriously stop complaining about this and concede everything else if Paradox did just two things.

1) Stop the Crimea event. For all this talk of historical borders, the Ottomans are far too keen to expand into Ruthenia ruining the formation of the PLC and sometimes even Russia. Two countries that should pose an eventual threat to them.

2) Ban the Ottomans taking Quantity ideas. You could say the same for Russia, the difference is Muscovy/Russia will never be rich enough to field 250k men in 1520. The Ottomans are.

 

[Scorpene]

Dhimmi +2 tolerance and Ottoman +3 tolerance of heathens, plus legitimacy - all give a +3 tolerance of heathens, and very stable provinces.

That's exactly what I would rework. What always amazed me is how Ottoman is too stable. I tried copttomans a few time and the only challenge there is is to be unstable enough to pop religious revolt... In a country when Devchirme was a thing were christian (vast majority in all the Balkans) would endure massive discriminations. Yet they bring only bonuses.

I'm also against specific Ottoman nerf on the instution or others. But what could be interesting could be that when Ottoman is reaching a certain army cap, as drafts in the Balkans were violents, the unrest there increase massively. Which would make it costly to increase levies, but also hell in term of attrition. And separating them with the levantine culture group could be a second solution.

All in all one of the problem of Ottoman is the crazy stability of big empires in Euiv. The siège buff is maybe also a bit badly thought. It's not that their siège were specifically fast, it is that they were consistent. They had logistic to feed their troops and keep them healthy and limiting their losses when most of Western country saw siège as, almost as risky for the defender than the attacker.
Maybe a very low attrition penalty on Ottoman when sieging would be better than siège ability which equals fast sieges.

 

[wthree]

The Ottomans are always a-historically powerful, but yeah it does seem like with the latest patch they're even more so.


The EU4 devs suffer from a severe case of Ottoman fetishism, and it really needs to stop.

I think most of us know how to beat the Ottomans. We don't need to be told 'the time to attack them is early or when their pips drop off in mil tech'. It isn't about difficulty or strategy, please focus on the issue at hand.

This has always been the response I get whenever I point out that there is no historical prescinding for the Ottomans being a race of hyper-intelligent God kings.

If you didn't know anything about history, you would think that the only reason the Ottomans didn't take over the whole world is because they happen to be the most tolerant, kind, and generous nation in history.

I'm all for flanderising certain tags, and giving a few almost mythic bonusses here and there, but this obsession the devs have with demonstrating the Ottoman Empire as the ideal society is just weird.

 

[StefanFan]

durbal being called noob =))