-
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.
Arghhh, he lives those many years
Since in the fight betwen Ottomans and Mamelukes cavalry will be the premiere weapon, that 4 shock is unvaluable. Even the AI manages to do a lot of harm with him.
Thinking about it, could be a good idea to edit Hindu tolerance of Timurids/Mughals ?
BTW Sword of the Safavids is a cool name for the Persian army
Last edited:
I strongly disagree with some of you about this setup issue with ottomans/ persians/ mameluks.
I think they should all be in. There is no reason why the Ottomans will go down, indeed, any of the 3 could go down. With a Mughal player as well then there are multiple possibilities. Add Algiers and things could go any number of ways. As happened.
I've seen the Ottomans being played well and I've seen them being played badly, nothing to me suggests that they should be the only country that doesnt, for some reason, have to face equal competition like everyone else. They still have a significant advantage with leaders and events.
Now there are all powers then its just a case of how many regions can be filled up properly. The Ottomans always used to have it really easy under setup that many of you used. Now they dont.
I think they should all be in. There is no reason why the Ottomans will go down, indeed, any of the 3 could go down. With a Mughal player as well then there are multiple possibilities. Add Algiers and things could go any number of ways. As happened.
I've seen the Ottomans being played well and I've seen them being played badly, nothing to me suggests that they should be the only country that doesnt, for some reason, have to face equal competition like everyone else. They still have a significant advantage with leaders and events.
Now there are all powers then its just a case of how many regions can be filled up properly. The Ottomans always used to have it really easy under setup that many of you used. Now they dont.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.402
- 38.945
I think the key is to not allow a human Hungary if there is a human Mamelukes+Persia.
Hungary can focus completely on OE, as Austria is friendly, and Venice gains nothing from an anti-hungarian war.
hmmm, not so sure.
Perhaps the problem is that with Peter E's very useful scenario the Persians are just brought in too early and thus the Ottomans dont get that breathing space when the timurids collapse and the Persians emerge?
Perhaps the problem is that with Peter E's very useful scenario the Persians are just brought in too early and thus the Ottomans dont get that breathing space when the timurids collapse and the Persians emerge?
I think the Mamelucks could be left out easily when Hungary, Venice and Persia are played..
Point. In a standard 1492 setup, Persia arises from the ashes of Ak Koyunlu, as was the case historically, not the Timurids.
I tried delaying Persian action slightly by leaving them at -2 stability to start with, but it evidently is not enough. In 1.01 I actually added several fortresses to Persia, to avoid the possibility of devastating Ottoman/Timurid attack on Persia in 1492 (Ottomans attacking through Ak Koyunlu) due to their 10? unfortified provinces, by adding more fortresses to Persia, which actually make them easier. Ideally, I would like Persia not to be too dangerous for the first seven or eight years (given that they are created early), giving the Ottomans (and the Timurids!) a small breathing space. After that, they should certainly be dangerous to the unwary Ottoman Empire!
Perhaps one should add a loan or three to Persia in 1492? It would be a purely temporary inconvenience and could be argued to have been incurred during the Safavid revolution.
In that hypothetical setup you´d have Mamelukes, Persians, Hungarians and Venetians. All of them focused in Turkey because they haven´t any other strong enemy. And Turkey will barely be able to find allies against them. So it´s one country against 3/4.
Not even France is going to be so surrounded.
Not even France is going to be so surrounded.
I have been testing Persia and she is very very powerful. The -2 stability doesn´t affect her too much.
And the mere existence of a so strong Persia so early unbalances things against Ottomans. Nevertheless if they were given 10 more years we would have a more historical scenario.
A good solution could be a huge penalty to attack Ak Konyulu in the very begginnig. For example having a royal marriage between Ak and Persia, or a truce. Another possibility could be an alliance, but that can have some nasty secondary effects.
Of course, after ten years, Persia should be very, very powerful. Let us not forget that this "unbalancing things against the Ottomans" is still vastly more historical than the usual procedure. It is merely that we, as Ottoman players, have gotten used to fighting nearly unopposed wars against Ragusa, then Ak Koyunlu, Venice, and the Mamelukes, and then sending our armies deep into Persia at the same time as we invade Hungary, all before 1526
RM+truce. Hmm.
Might be a good idea. If so, it should definitely go for the Timurids as well. After all, the setup assumes that the Timurids and Ak Koyunlu have ceded the rest of Persian lands per 3817, 3818 (but some years early) in order to be friends.
I am, however, inclined to try giving them a modest revolt risk, of, say, +4 or +5 until 1500 instead, to simulate how Persia is still not completely under central control of Ismail. It should be timed to end at the same time as Ismail arrives as a leader. That plus a truce (no RM to avoid the RMs between Sunni and Shia), could probably do the trick.
Okay, I will run a few tests tonight.
Did actually anyone seen Ottomans holding more than one or two provinces in Hungary?
Btw, Truce is very good. It not only allows Ottomans to focus on Egypt, but protects unfortified Persia, too.
Btw, Truce is very good. It not only allows Ottomans to focus on Egypt, but protects unfortified Persia, too.
hmm, I dont think that your suggested setup would make sense, but there again, due to changes, any setup is technically possible, making all of this somewhat futile perhaps.
Hungarians have to deal with the Poles and French, the Persians the Mughals, the Mameluks the Algerians and the Venetians the Austrians and the French and other Italian players.
I dont see an anti Ottoman auto alliance. I see alot of people who have very formidable dangers on other borders but who all share a border with the Ottomans. Personally its the mameluks who I think are the weakest, because they provide potential Persian access to the Med. On top of which I have seen them have total collapses twice recently, although I have seen 2 Ottoman collapses as well in exactly the same games.
I think one of the issues, as already stated, is that there needs to be a breathing space.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.402
- 38.945
I don't agree on this analysis.
Venice, Hungary and Austria gain nothing by fighting each other in the beginning, and are natural allies.
Austria will always be an enemy to France, and Venice's interests are most likely in Italy or the mediterranean, which comes into conflict with France or Turkey.
Hungary has nothing to fear from France. She'd only get into a war with France if France and Austria fights, and thats not really needed if Spain is smart.
Poland could theoretically go to war with Hungary, but the gains possible outweigh the costs. Its more cost-effective for them to consolidate holdings on the Baltic before the Swedes does it.
ergo, in most cases, Hungary have nothing to worry about.
This is not my setup. Indeed i oppose it.
Mamelukes or Hungarians should be dropped. With Persia included i think Mamelukes is the one to leave. As you say breathing space is needed.
Really i don´t see that strong dangers in Persian or Mamelukes other borders. Timurids are weak, Algerians will doubtfully be always played, and they are weak too. So they can focus in the OE.
About Venetians and Hungarians the point is they haven´t "exclusive" enemies. If Poland and France are enemies, the latter two have enemies as well.
The thing is, if you're going to have any decent sized power like the Mameluks being player controlled then you have to accept that they may do better than their historical performance, be it the Mameluks overrunning the Ottomans or whatever and you're going to have to live with the results.
Is this a bad thing? Opinions probably differ, but it certainly made for an interesting scenario in the weekend game. I do think though that most of the Ottomans problems in that game were caused by pretty poor early play and I wouldn't expect it to always turn out that way.
Is this a bad thing? Opinions probably differ, but it certainly made for an interesting scenario in the weekend game. I do think though that most of the Ottomans problems in that game were caused by pretty poor early play and I wouldn't expect it to always turn out that way.
Absolutely agree.
Venice will probably interested in her cores & greek slavonic provinces, usually under Turkish rule. It´s logical she ally with Turkey enemies in Austria-Hungary.
I have no problem in Mamelukes overrunning Ottomans if they are able to. I´m sure they are a tough enemy. The problem comes when you add to Mamelukes, Venetians, Hungarians and Persians. It´s like playing a setup in 1419 with England, France, Burgundy and Brittany
My gripe with that is-Ottomans are no threat to Austria, which can inherit Hungary unopposed (when such inheritance would never happen in that case IRL)
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.402
- 38.945
That event should only trigger if TUR have taken some part of Hungary...
Any suggestion for a trigger?