Ottoman-Russian Silliness

[Raven45]

My question which other people have already asked is this: why is the historical rivals modifier 'legitimate' to prevent France and Austria from allying each other, but the same can't be said for the Ottomans and Russia?

Austria and France actually DID ally each other during EU4's time frame, after the diplomatic revolution when Britain and Prussia joined forces and caused France and Austria to find common ground (Seven Year's War). Yet in game they are prevented from allying no matter what, even if one of them is an OPM or if they have the same rivals and are otherwise diplomatically isolated.

On the flip side, we have the Ottomans and Russia who were historical enemies and had severe conflicts of interest during this time period, especially with the fact that Constantinople is the center of the Orthodox Church and because both had interest in the Crimean region. The two countries still don't get along to this day, but in every single game I've played this patch, they have happily destroyed the Commonwealth, Hungary, the Balkans, and in some cases even Scandinavia together.

TLDR; if Austria and France can't be allies when they were allies historically at the end of EU4's timeframe, why can the eternal enemies Russia and the Ottomans ally each other and become unstoppable?

Also in before 'but the player can take steps to break the alliance up', yes, that's true, but the game shouldn't be balanced around the player using somewhat gamey tactics just to produce historically plausible outcomes. If I were a player inclined to role play, I wouldn't want to no-CB Byzantium at the start of every game just to prevent the Russian-Ottoman heathen alliance from dominating all of Eastern Europe and the Middle East

 

[LiberiusX]

My question which other people have already asked is this: why is the historical rivals modifier 'legitimate' to prevent France and Austria from allying each other, but the same can't be said for the Ottomans and Russia?

Austria and France actually DID ally each other during EU4's time frame, after the diplomatic revolution when Britain and Prussia joined forces and caused France and Austria to find common ground (Seven Year's War). Yet in game they are prevented from allying no matter what, even if one of them is an OPM or if they have the same rivals and are otherwise diplomatically isolated.

On the flip side, we have the Ottomans and Russia who were historical enemies and had severe conflicts of interest during this time period, especially with the fact that Constantinople is the center of the Orthodox Church and because both had interest in the Crimean region. The two countries still don't get along to this day, but in every single game I've played this patch, they have happily destroyed the Commonwealth, Hungary, the Balkans, and in some cases even Scandinavia together.

TLDR; if Austria and France can't be allies when they were allies historically at the end of EU4's timeframe, why can the eternal enemies Russia and the Ottomans ally each other and become unstoppable?

Also in before 'but the player can take steps to break the alliance up', yes, that's true, but the game shouldn't be balanced around the player using somewhat gamey tactics just to produce historically plausible outcomes. If I were a player inclined to role play, I wouldn't want to no-CB Byzantium at the start of every game just to prevent the Russian-Ottoman heathen alliance from dominating all of Eastern Europe and the Middle East

So much this.

 

[Sfan]

I assume the 7 years war can be described as a GP intervention by game terms.

 

[Rusky]

AI Russia should see Crimea as a strategic goal, since historically they wanted a black sea port. There should be a mission to claim a warm water port, and maybe even a mission to conquer Constantinople. Right now there is only a mission against the Crimean tatars, but I don't think the Ai ever chooses it.

Atm Russia get claims on Crimea when formed.



I strongly agree that Ottomans and Russia shouldn't be allies. Historically, Ottomans backed hordes, which raided slavic lands, so most late Muscovy and Russia rulers were trying to deal with this PITA with different success. Then there is value of Black Sea...

And here lies another problem with Russia. Getting the Black Sea is not as important in game as it was historically.
In the game, Russia doesn't get much from Crimea it self because there is no valuable trade going to it that can feed the motherland.

I pointed out long ago that Russia should get a way to funnel trade from Persia into Crimea or Maybe Astrakhan. Or maybe Both to give the Hordes in the area some flavor as well.
This creates a rivalry over Persia and the whole area between the Ottomans and Russia or anyone else that dominates, like it was historically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_Wars

ATM, the optimal Russia game seems to be to push into India to get the trade and only take Persia to keep the Ottomans from getting it and to keep your trade from India getting stolen.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Russia_relations

Spoiler

Safavid Empire-Russian Empire
It was not until the 16th century that formal diplomatic contacts were established between Persia and Russia, with the latter acting as an intermediary in the trade between Britain and Persia. Transporting goods across Russian territory meant that the British could avoid the zones under Ottoman and Portuguese control.[1] The Muscovy Company (also known as the Russian Company) was founded in 1553 to expand the trade routes across the Caspian sea.[1] Moscow's role as an intermediary in exchanges between Britain and Persia led Russian traders to set up business in urban centres across Persia, as far south as Kashan.[1] The Russian victories over the Kazan Khanate in 1552 and the Astrakhan Khanate in 1556 by Tsar Ivan IV (r. 1533–84) revived trade between Iran and Russia via the Volga-Caspian route and marked the first Russian penetration of the Caucasus and the Caspian area.[6] Though these commercial exchanges in the latter half of the 16th century were limited in scope, they nonetheless indicate that the fledgling entente between the two countries emerged as a result of opposition to the neighboring Ottoman Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_trade_route
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_trade_route#/media/File:Varangian_routes.png


Russia needs a mission to revive the Volga Trade Route. This would make for a much more interesting early game as Russia, where you focus on fighting the Ottomans over pushing east into lands that can't hope to challenge you.

In the game Persia seems to get over taken by the Ottomans fairly often without the Russians doing anything about it or even caring. This seems wrong.

 

[Martynios]

Wtf is that abomination...

Only one truly European power in GP list, and it’s the PLAYER...

 

[SlamDunc1990]

This would have been a problem in my current Byzantium game but expect I got lucky?

After retaking my cores in 1st war plus a few more provinces in 2nd war the Ottomans allied an already massive Muscovy. I proceeded to form alliances and eat non Otto territory (Serbian, Venetian, Aragonese etc). Eventually I got an Alliance with Poland and took on Ottomans/Muscovy. AI proceeded to get hammered by Muscovy making my gains in Anatolia largely useless and I had to settle for one province.

From then the power of Muscovy/Russia just grew and I had no hope of defeating them. I noticed however that after the Reformation the Otto's joined the Protestant League, as did Russia. When war broke out I waited until the Protestants were getting stomped by France, Austria etc then attacked Ottomans when I knew Russia would refuse a call to arms. I managed to then eject Ottos from the Balkans and take a few Anatolian provinces but crucially their alliance had been broken, I also managed to ally France which should aid me in my future wars to return Anatolia to its rightful owner.

Is it common for the Ottomans to join the Protestant League? There was a Center of Reformation in one of their Albanian provinces but they only had a small number of Protestant provinces... There had been a few Crusades declared against them if that makes any difference?

 

[Dominion]

Is it common for the Ottomans to join the Protestant League? There was a Center of Reformation in one of their Albanian provinces but they only had a small number of Protestant provinces... There had been a few Crusades declared against them if that makes any difference?

Ottos usually hate the Emperor and join the Protestant league because of it.
League wars are generally a good point to attack Ottomans. A lot of my runs have "border Ottomans before League wars fire" as a checkpoint because it's one of the best opportunities the game is giving you.

I would've never used Poland to attack into Muscovy+Ottomans.
Thing about Muscovy and even Russia is that they're still going into debt, even on 1.24
Waiting until they refuse to follow a CtA and jumping the occasion would've been the right course of action there.
Or waiting for league wars like you did.
Or attacking someone who's allied to either of them, forcing them to annull treaties.

Attacking into both is risky and rarely pays off.

 

[Scorpene]

I agree with the OP, i also had the Ottoman backed by Russia and Ming. Provided the fact, France is set as "historical rival" of Austria which is wrong in 1444 (England is... Austria will be), "because Balance", i dont understand why Otto which is probably the most OP nation of the game should have the possibility of allying with Russia.

I'll explain myself, respecting the Devchirme, the Otto enslaved the Christian population of the Balkan, to turn them in soldiers or counsellors... Because of their Faith. And Russia, which was built on the Christian orthodox faith, would accept that?

Not only do the Ottomans should lose the possibility to ally with Ming and Russia (they should be only able to work with France, for obvious Balkan / Italian ambitions of the two countries) but they also should lose their tolerance of the Heathens as "enslaving people when children" is not what could lead a population to be kind and nice to the foreign conquerors. That would lead to an interesting gameplay from Russia or a Ortholand-Lithuania, playing the Orthodox of Balkans against otto.

Btw, i know that is pure balance but, allying (even when you are the player) 2 of the 4 biggest powers when you are one of them is ridiculous IMO. I have done that plenty of time (with Russia and Ming usually) and you are just unattackable by a big coalition. But well diplomatically speaking, nothing would block you from doing that. Except that in real life, never would the Ming or Russia would have been able to send a great army in western Europe to protect their French Friends.

 

[SlamDunc1990]

Ottos usually hate the Emperor and join the Protestant league because of it.
League wars are generally a good point to attack Ottomans. A lot of my runs have "border Ottomans before League wars fire" as a checkpoint because it's one of the best opportunities the game is giving you.

I would've never used Poland to attack into Muscovy+Ottomans.
Thing about Muscovy and even Russia is that they're still going into debt, even on 1.24
Waiting until they refuse to follow a CtA and jumping the occasion would've been the right course of action there.
Or waiting for league wars like you did.
Or attacking someone who's allied to either of them, forcing them to annull treaties.

Attacking into both is risky and rarely pays off.

Yes I will not try that again, I was just impatient and had forgotten about the possibility of Ottos getting dragged into the League War. To be honest this has been my first Ironman Byzantium run I have survived this long so maybe I was a bit over keen to cut the Ottos down to size before the right moment. Now I expect Mamluks are going to be my next problem.

I do agree with OP and others that it seems odd that some nations get "historical rival" for balance but these two don't.