Ottoman-Russian Silliness

[gia257]

These two posts basically sum up my points.

Also for all those saying how badly I suck keep in mind I have some house rules. I do not "no CB" wars, accept PU's, or take loans to merc up and defeat vastly superior opponents. I find it funny how people trash me for being a sub-par player but you know what? I enjoy the game and that is all that matters.

lol, you are france, you were the superior opponent all along, you just let them grow, pretty sure many people can follow those arbitrary rules and show the ottomans and russia dismantled by that date, not like you need to do that, all you have to do is break the alliance, it costs 10 ws

enough time has passed for them to have high trust, the ai always has high trust for whatever reason, if I was one of the russians or ottomans id rage if they rivaled me just because we are both big

 

[LiberiusX]

These two posts basically sum up my points.

Also for all those saying how badly I suck keep in mind I have some house rules. I do not "no CB" wars, accept PU's, or take loans to merc up and defeat vastly superior opponents. I find it funny how people trash me for being a sub-par player but you know what? I enjoy the game and that is all that matters.

Yeh, in my current Austria campaign, my first EU4 campaign since MoH, I can't ally with a weak France because of "historical rivals", but Russia and Ottomans have been allied for 100+ years. Meanwhile, Turbo-Spain owns part of Southern France and most of the colonizable world, and Ming hasn't been below 100 Mandate since right before I discovered them, not to mention they are the most developed.

This game has gone bonkers.

 

[Brynjar]

Unlike a few patches ago, when Russia and Ottomans always loved each other to the end of the game, Ottomans eventually tend to eat large parts of Russia these days. Also, that Ottoman empire looks small, are you protecting the Mamluks?

 

[Dracolithfiend]

nope, as I said in my first post that is the smallest I have seen the ottomans get since the last update. Normally they eat half of Poland/Lithuania, more of Hungary, all of Persia, all of Egypt, and south all the way to the horn. No clue why they didn't do that considering all the wars I have fought to break up Austrian PU's.

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

I hate to be that guy but you could have broken their alliance a long time ago. I would have done it the moment Russia formed. They are unlikely to renew their alliance while both wanting the same land.

Also your diplomats are super lazy. Friendly tip, they should always be working. It's not a bad idea to keep one at home so you can quickly react to situations, but you have 4 and all of them are sitting around the court eating your cheese and drinking your wine. Whip them into shape

 

[gia257]

nope, as I said in my first post that is the smallest I have seen the ottomans get since the last update. Normally they eat half of Poland/Lithuania, more of Hungary, all of Persia, all of Egypt, and south all the way to the horn. No clue why they didn't do that considering all the wars I have fought to break up Austrian PU's.

They cant eat anything if you surround them, also check the development and date, if i remove rivals I could ally all great powers and keep them allied forever (except ottomans for now, but can always remove them from the table next war) what now, historical rival the player vs entire world?

 

[Brynjar]

Also your diplomats are super lazy. Friendly tip, they should always be working. It's not a bad idea to keep one at home so you can quickly react to situations, but you have 4 and all of them are sitting around the court eating your cheese and drinking your wine. Whip them into shape

I don't see why anyone would care what his diplomats are doing in this situation. As he clearly isn't trying to blob, it doesn't really matter. Managing diplomats are just boring, especially when playing countries such as France or the Ottomans where it doesn't really matter, even if you are doing a WC.

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

I don't see why anyone would care what his diplomats are doing in this situation. As he clearly isn't trying to blob, it doesn't really matter. Managing diplomats are just boring, especially when playing countries such as France or the Ottomans where it doesn't really matter, even if you are doing a WC.

I'm sorry you think "Managing diplomats are just boring", but it's still a good habit.

 

[Brynjar]

I'm sorry you think "Managing diplomats are just boring", but it's still a good habit.

If it was a thread where he asked for advice of some sort, pointing it out would be of use, but not for what is clearly a lazy game, where someone is just ranting about the AI/lack of historical correctness. If you actually wanted to be nice and helpful, you should also point out that there are plenty of situations where you actually want more than 1 diplomat at home (although not often while at peace). Also, in theory, he could be having plans for all his diplomats, but have to wait for a month to pass to be allowed to send them again.

 

[Rider_of_Doom]

Paradox removed most "historical friends/rivals" modifiers, so the game isn't too straight in certain regions. That's fine in most regions, but there's is one thing in Eastern Europe, which can be viewed as a problem: The relations and relative power between Poland-Lithuania, Russia and the Ottomans. In every game one of them will be the punchback. In my games it comes down to something around 33% for Russia, 66% for the Commonwealth and 1% for the Ottomans (if they f*ck up the war against Albania). The punchbag will be rivaled by the others two, which will conquer this nation and this results in an alliance, which will not break, if the player does not interfere.

Currently, this "problem" can't be fixed without adding rival modifiers between the three nations as it was a long time ago, but then the region would be back into the stalemate/predicting days, where A) nearly nothing happens between the nations or B) the Commonwealth wil be the only punchbag sometimes to a degree. Personally, I don't want that situation back in a game, where everything after the game start is a bag of suprises. In the end, EUIV isn't a history simulator: It's a sandbox game set in history.

 

[Badesumofu]

These two posts basically sum up my points.

Also for all those saying how badly I suck keep in mind I have some house rules. I do not "no CB" wars, accept PU's, or take loans to merc up and defeat vastly superior opponents. I find it funny how people trash me for being a sub-par player but you know what? I enjoy the game and that is all that matters.

That's perfectly fine and I apologise if my posts came across as simply trying to trash your level of play. My current France game has involved zero no-CBs, and zero mercs. I did have to take some loans when I got events that cost money I didn't have. I did get a couple of PUs, but I'm not sure what you mean by not accepting them - you don't generally get a choice in the matter. You just get the PU. Regardless, it is possible to build France into an absolute beast without conquering anything outside the France region. Develop every province to 30 and your nation will be much stronger.

 

[Dracolithfiend]

I don't claim thrones and really only use royal marriage to get heirs. I have heard before that people can't help but get PU's however I really only see them truly forced upon me in maybe one game out of half a dozen? Hell I didn't even get Burgundian inheritance or the claims on Naples this game. Also my average development is around 20 but I don't have any ideas to reduce the cost.

I could easily declare a war to split there alliance but why would I? They are no threat to me. I just found it odd that they refuse to rival each other. It's just silly imo.

I took all military ideas. My plan is to derp around in Europe until about 1700 the take over India for the achievement.

 

[petertel123]

These two posts basically sum up my points.

Also for all those saying how badly I suck keep in mind I have some house rules. I do not "no CB" wars, accept PU's, or take loans to merc up and defeat vastly superior opponents. I find it funny how people trash me for being a sub-par player but you know what? I enjoy the game and that is all that matters.

people here are too proud of their extreme cheese and mechanic abuse.

 

[Sfan]

Well, technically you don't need extreme cheese and mechanic abuse to WC with any nation in any difficulty, just to be insanely good at microing stuff, and most of the best players don't use any exploit.
But people are too proud of their level of play, I agree with that.

 

[Dracolithfiend]

I wish there was a mechanic in place that gave them a significant drawback for refusing to rival each other. Power projection alone is not much of a negative for keeping a great power as an ally instead of enemy.

 

[hitchens]

i dont see the problem, you let them expand and stay together, they probably arent rivalling becuse trust

Tell that to anyone playing in sub Saharan Africa or South East Asia or America.

 

[Brynjar]

Well, technically you don't need extreme cheese and mechanic abuse to WC with any nation in any difficulty, just to be insanely good at microing stuff, and most of the best players don't use any exploit.
But people are too proud of their level of play, I agree with that.

That depends on your definiton of exploit. I have yet to see anyone who doesn't use any exploits occationally, including myself.

 

[gia257]

I could easily declare a war to split there alliance but why would I? They are no threat to me. I just found it odd that they refuse to rival each other. It's just silly imo.

"I'll demand these allies rival each other, reason, they can"

completely oblivious to one major complaint being "my lifelong allies just rivaled me just because they could, paradox fix!"

unless this is an ironic thread, if so 10/10

 

[Sfan]

That depends on your definiton of exploit. I have yet to see anyone who doesn't use any exploits occationally, including myself.

Manpower bug in 1.14 if you recruit from vassals, giving your AE to Ming if you give provinces to your vassals when MoH was released, double peacedeals. These are exploits to me. I personally only used the AE one, once, and that was unintentional. That did not prevent me from One Tagging in 1730, without using any of what I call exploit. But I abuse estates, loan and occasionally do no CBs. I don't consider that as exploits however, these are intended ways of playing the game. But we're going a bit offtopic.

 

[I_am_Nemo]

Best CB is clearly not an exploit, given how the devs themselves use it (including in dev clashes).

Back on topic, I don't see any reason why the two biggest blobs should rival automatically. Rival means target, not potential threat. Think of it this way: it's 1938, and the rest of the world is Poland. Until Poland is carved up, Molotov and Ribbentrop - er, Osmanoglu - have no shortage of topics to discuss over drinks. There's no particular reason why they shouldn't be perfectly content to carve up the world between them; it's not like they're actually going for a WC here.

Frankly, I find it much more silly when the AI flips to rivalry because reasons, when a player would just tank -1 PP for a couple years to preserve their diplomatic position and avoid getting isolated.

If we're talking about encouraging a Russia/Ottos rivalry for historical reasons, the solution is obvious: make Crimea a tributary state, rather than a march, of Ottos. Then sit back, relax, and watch WYSP do it's deadly work.

(edit: "wants your subject's provinces," which is notoriously unmodified by trust)