Ottomania

[Feeblezak]

I am shocked that in a start date entitled “Rise of the Ottomans” the Ottoman Empire is in a powerful position, and they remain consistently powerful throughout the game’s timeline for which a large duration the Ottoman Empire was at the height of it’s power.

Nerfing the Ottomans I feel would just lead to complaints of a giant Malmuk Empire stretching from Morocco to Constantinople, or an Austrian Turkey. Do you really want Austrian Turkey?

 

[Nostalgium]

Lets turn this around. Historically, Transoxiana (later reforming into Mughals) conquered almost all of India. Would you honestly be ok with Transoxiana getting a unique government form guaranteeing you get a 5/5/5 ruler, absolutely 100% all the time, at no cost? + 10 starting discipline, permanent 4/4/4 or better generals, unique mechanic buffs to province productivity, a starting 70 year 300% bonus to siege speed?

While the Harem system is powerful, it doesn't guarantee 5/5/5 rulers. It grants average+ ones, with a pick of stat distribution and the occasional amazing one. Their starting discipline is 5%, not 10. Permanent 4/4/4 generals are available to literally anyone who is constantly at war and keeps building army tradition - Ottomans get a head start with great starting generals, but so do Muscovy, France and England. Their siege speed bonus is 30%, not 300%.

The Ottomans are powerful enough - I don't think anyone denies that - without exagerating.

 

[MatthewP]

It is in the link I responded to

Great Turkish War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The link refers to a huge Christian coalition that banded together to defeat the Ottomans. It took enormous armies fighting on many fronts. The Venetians did indeed land with 12k troops and win some victories. As the article explains, they were able to do it because the vast majority of the Ottomans' armies were fighting elsewhere. This is in fact quite replicable in EU4; one of the main strategies for breaking up large blobs is to crush them and wait for them to be jumped by minor powers in their moment of weakness.

Virtually no behavior of the Ottomans in EU 4 is historical, yet the people defending EU4 Ottomans always use history as an argument. The large territories the Ottomans took where a result of fighting tiny and micro nations, fighting backward nations, or catching large nations in a bad time. Yes, the Ottomans did have some legitimate victories, but in no way more than anyone else in the "recommended nations" starting tab.

Lets turn this around. Historically, Transoxiana (later reforming into Mughals) conquered almost all of India. Would you honestly be ok with Transoxiana getting a unique government form guaranteeing you get a 5/5/5 ruler, absolutely 100% all the time, at no cost? + 10 starting discipline, permanent 4/4/4 or better generals, unique mechanic buffs to province productivity, a starting 70 year 300% bonus to siege speed?

As has been pointed out, these are all large exaggerations. Also, the Mughals, if formed, get just as many advantages as the Ottomans if not more. The difference is that they don't exist at game start, obviously for historical reasons.

And at the same time, this ahistoricity is making half the nations in the game toxic to play, because sooner or later you will border a 250 000k Ottoblob with military tech 8 years ahead of time, and if you didnt devote your gamestyle prepairing for it, you can mind as well press "unconditional surrender" on day 1 and spare yourself the war exaustion.

I think even the folks on your side of the argument are rolling their eyes at this point.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am shocked that in a start date entitled “Rise of the Ottomans” the Ottoman Empire is in a powerful position, and they remain consistently powerful throughout the game’s timeline for which a large duration the Ottoman Empire was at the height of it’s power.

Nerfing the Ottomans I feel would just lead to complaints of a giant Malmuk Empire stretching from Morocco to Constantinople, or an Austrian Turkey. Do you really want Austrian Turkey?

In other peoples' games, yes. Always looking to improve the bonuses for that "trading in salt" modifier.

 

[Sidolowka]

I've said this before in a seperate thread, but in my opinion it isn't the early game that's the problem with the Ottomans, it's the late game.

There's simply nothing to stop them, and the AI nations around them are too dumb to deal with the mega Ottoblob with 2 million troops. I really don't want to see Ottoman Moscow for the 3rd time in a row.

Maybe once every 10 games sure the Ottomans could go super strong, but it's almost a given to have them blob from the Baltic to the Golden Horn, if not sometimes even to West Africa. (Which is odd considering how they have a deathly avoidance of Tunis and the Maghreb, which they DID conquer historically)

And there's also the fact that the Ottomans constantly throwing around 2 million troops and recruiting another million tends to make my PC sound like a Gatling Gun.

I'd say the main solutions would be to

A. Stop whatever's plunging AI Russia into 40k debt so they can actually be a threat to the Ottomans (and maybe make them consider Ryazan of crucial interest so they can stop cockblocking themselves by allying them)

B. Rework Persia (akin to the China rework this patch), so that there's a strong contender that unites the region instead of the Iranian Plateau consisting of 15 different minors by 1820

C. Make the Janissary disaster an actual threat so the Ottomans experience their historical decline

 

[PDXJon]

Do you really want Austrian Turkey?

Maybe for Thanksgiving . As long as it isn’t too spicy.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

To each their own. Wasting time on guaranteed failure does not amuse me one bit. I'm playing the Teutonic Order and it makes all the struggles gone through to get to 1530 pointless when the Ottos are not only waiting to attack me but guaranteeing everyone i need to conquer to expand further. So the game is essentially over. Especially since I made the foolish mistake of not min/maxing with the Eco/Trade/Quantity groups

Sorry, the Ottomans have to be drastically nerfed for this game to be a legitimate challenge rather than a one-sided curbstomp.

How on earth are you worrying about ottos as prussia? Theres half a region between you, just ally

 

[currylambchop]

Lets turn this around. Historically, Transoxiana (later reforming into Mughals) conquered almost all of India. Would you honestly be ok with Transoxiana getting a unique government form guaranteeing you get a 5/5/5 ruler, absolutely 100% all the time, at no cost? + 10 starting discipline, permanent 4/4/4 or better generals, unique mechanic buffs to province productivity, a starting 70 year 300% bonus to siege speed?

Mughals literally get Mughal Diwan and Indian Sultanate that removes all heathen tolerance problems and culture tolerance problems. Mughal Diwan also gives CCR which is way better than what the ottomans get.

 

[Methuen of Melnibone]

Exactly. I guess it is possible but you wind up in tedious combat micromanagement which makes the CIV4 endgame look downright pleasant in comparison.

Yeah that's pretty much my view - beating the Ottoblob even late game (when they've got stupid 20th century manpower) is do-able, but it's just not fun. I was doing a Florence -> Italy run, and watch the Otto AI hammer Austria-Hungary down to gruel before 1560ish - all of Hungary, Balkans, etc taken. Austria could do nothing about it because of Otto manpower. When they'd finished with them, they hammered Mamluks. By the time I was Italy it was 1650ish and the Ottomans had a million men all in, piles of three-star generals, the works.

It's just boring having to deal with that, every single game. Even blobby Mamluks aren't that bad - they eventually run out of manpower !

As I said - it's beatable, but it's just not fun. Beating a surprisingly strong Austria-Hungary-Bohemia-Burgundy ? Enjoyable. Out-navy-ing the UK and capturing London ? Fun. Slogging through yet another fifty year meatgrinder with endless Ottoman ubersoldaten ? Not fun.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

It is in the link I responded to

Great Turkish War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Virtually no behavior of the Ottomans in EU 4 is historical, yet the people defending EU4 Ottomans always use history as an argument. The large territories the Ottomans took where a result of fighting tiny and micro nations, fighting backward nations, or catching large nations in a bad time. Yes, the Ottomans did have some legitimate victories, but in no way more than anyone else in the "recommended nations" starting tab.

Lets turn this around. Historically, Transoxiana (later reforming into Mughals) conquered almost all of India. Would you honestly be ok with Transoxiana getting a unique government form guaranteeing you get a 5/5/5 ruler, absolutely 100% all the time, at no cost? + 10 starting discipline, permanent 4/4/4 or better generals, unique mechanic buffs to province productivity, a starting 70 year 300% bonus to siege speed?

Because those are some of the buffs Ottomans have. Why? Why do you get 5/5/5 guarantees for the most precious resources in the game, when for other tags just +1 admin for ruler is considered a strong reward?

Should Poland get permanent level 5 advisors that cost 0 gold because it historically had good advisors? Should Sweden get +25% discipline because of the great northern war?

The Ottomans aren't historically balanced. They are broken due to a combination of paid DLCs and lucky game mechanic coincidences, and there is a refusal to balance them because a part of the playerbase wants a ahistorical "end boss". At which point it would be more honest for the game to just spawn a alien invasion when you get bored by blobbing.

And at the same time, this ahistoricity is making half the nations in the game toxic to play, because sooner or later you will border a 250 000k Ottoblob with military tech 8 years ahead of time, and if you didnt devote your gamestyle prepairing for it, you can mind as well press "unconditional surrender" on day 1 and spare yourself the war exaustion.

You forget timmies to annexing all vassals 1454 to mughals to wc

 

[Susan1972]

I am shocked that in a start date entitled “Rise of the Ottomans” the Ottoman Empire is in a powerful position, and they remain consistently powerful throughout the game’s timeline for which a large duration the Ottoman Empire was at the height of it’s power.

Nerfing the Ottomans I feel would just lead to complaints of a giant Malmuk Empire stretching from Morocco to Constantinople, or an Austrian Turkey. Do you really want Austrian Turkey?

I've tried the other complete campaign starts and they all roll the Ottos the same. Its not that they have the edge in that one scenario

 

[Susan1972]

How on earth are you worrying about ottos as prussia? Theres half a region between you, just ally

Not for long...

 

[cuendillar]

I am shocked that in a start date entitled “Rise of the Ottomans” the Ottoman Empire is in a powerful position, and they remain consistently powerful throughout the game’s timeline for which a large duration the Ottoman Empire was at the height of it’s power.

Nerfing the Ottomans I feel would just lead to complaints of a giant Malmuk Empire stretching from Morocco to Constantinople, or an Austrian Turkey. Do you really want Austrian Turkey?

I guess you're trying to be ironical, but my answer to this question would be an unequivocal 'yes'. I would love to see the Mamluks form Arabia och crush the Ottos, they should be more or less on par strengthwise after all. The Mamluks basically only lost due to being bankrupted and out of manpower following a naval war against Portugal when the Ottomans attacked in 1516 (note the date). In their first war in the 1480s between the two countries, the conflict ended in a stalemate (white peace in game terms).

Historically speaking, the Ottomans and Mamluks should come out on top about as frequently as detailed above. Using a sample size of one and concluding that something was inevitable is a huge fallacy, lots of highly improbable events shaped history as we know it. That doesn't mean other outcomes are less historically plausible.

Gameplaywise, the variety would also be highly beneficial.

 

[agonistes]

To each their own. Wasting time on guaranteed failure does not amuse me one bit. I'm playing the Teutonic Order and it makes all the struggles gone through to get to 1530 pointless when the Ottos are not only waiting to attack me but guaranteeing everyone i need to conquer to expand further. So the game is essentially over. Especially since I made the foolish mistake of not min/maxing with the Eco/Trade/Quantity groups

Sorry, the Ottomans have to be drastically nerfed for this game to be a legitimate challenge rather than a one-sided curbstomp.

I was going to say, 'this otto complaint nonsense gets tiring. They aren't that tough if byz can beat them.'

But you are playing teutonic? i just did a start as them two days ago and was able to ally otto and muscovy (austria had rivaled me and i dont restart). Easy mode. Then just form Prussia and start driving Otto back.

I think many complaints about otto are made by player who aren't thinking ahead globally.

 

[grommile]

The problem with the Ottomans is that EU4 does a very bad job of capturing the challenges of expansion.

"Drastically" nerf the Ottomans, and you'll be complaining about whoever blobs into their corpse.

 

[Blackmoore]

I don't know its the Ottomans so much as the very aggressive new AI. You simply cannot leave yourself open ever, or you are going to get attacked. The AI seems to pop its golden age right away too.

Honestly, I'm more freaked out about Ming keeping current on mil tech....

 

[grandadmiralbob]

The Ottomans have to be nerfed. What is the point of playing any tag near them if, sooner or later, they just squash you? Any strategy just becomes "blob up and min/max and hope for the best" and what's the point of playing?

I know it's a running gag to longtime players but this has just got to stop.

You are the first person to suggest this. Go get at least 3 more people and the devs will probably cave in.

Seriously, who were you playing as? When I play near the Turk, all I do is guarantee Byz as a major or significant power, and they never grow. Spoiler, if you stack wipe an army, their friends to the south will probably jump on them. Another spoiler, if you do make them collapse, the Mamluks are no pushover once they gain Turkish cores either.

 

[GrandEurypterid]

My only completed game had Ottomans completely crumble against an allied Austra+Mamluks, funnily enough, though it does keep me from having an objective outlook on the matter from a sample size of 1. I tend to encounter Spain as the big bad blob more often myself, albeit not so much in Europe unless an alliance pulls them in.

Generally I'd say that if you're a beginner, good use of defensive terrain and separate peace is an absolute must. I've beaten much stronger enemies in a brawl in my Bregens -> Bavaria -> Germany and Phillipines -> to-be-Malaya game using mountain forts and the ocean respectively. If you take such defensively-styled national ideas (fort defence, bonus attrition, anything navally-focused with islands) and stack them with Defensive or Naval/Maritime ideas and a policy or two, you'll be able to fight asymmetrically instead of desperately trying to fight mano-a-mano. Sure, Quantity's much better for blobbing, but blobbing is an expert's defensive strategy because it relies on you reliably taking large chunks of land when other great powers are in the area. Using a line of defensive-terrain forts to hide from the AI and attack them when they spread out, or fighting Ming with a naval blockade instead of a land war, is much more likely to get you a mild defeat or a small victory.

I think it's mostly just the good start that the Ottomans have which make them such a threat- any nation which starts blobbing early-game tends to be an absolute powerhouse by the Age of Revolutions. Map Position = Difficulty is honestly an approach I find pretty fun, since you can find a cool nation, fail a few times, and come back to it later once you learn the mechanics or local area better. Diplomatic isolation from any threatening blobs is always a good play; picking someone like the Phillipines or Spice Islands, or a central/northern position in the HRE, is going to make it a lot harder for your enemies to expand into your area and get claims on you than if you start out in easy blobbing range.

 

[Susan1972]

You are the first person to suggest this. Go get at least 3 more people and the devs will probably cave in.

Seriously, who were you playing as? When I play near the Turk, all I do is guarantee Byz as a major or significant power, and they never grow. Spoiler, if you stack wipe an army, their friends to the south will probably jump on them. Another spoiler, if you do make them collapse, the Mamluks are no pushover once they gain Turkish cores either.

I'm playing as the Teutonic Order (now Prussia). I'm sure there are honest ways to beat them but I'd like a little more variety - unless PDX wants to rename EU4 to "Beat The Ottomans".

 

[AvengedK1ng]

I guess you're trying to be ironical, but my answer to this question would be an unequivocal 'yes'. I would love to see the Mamluks form Arabia och crush the Ottos, they should be more or less on par strengthwise after all. The Mamluks basically only lost due to being bankrupted and out of manpower following a naval war against Portugal when the Ottomans attacked in 1516 (note the date). In their first war in the 1480s between the two countries, the conflict ended in a stalemate (white peace in game terms).

Historically speaking, the Ottomans and Mamluks should come out on top about as frequently as detailed above. Using a sample size of one and concluding that something was inevitable is a huge fallacy, lots of highly improbable events shaped history as we know it. That doesn't mean other outcomes are less historically plausible.

Gameplaywise, the variety would also be highly beneficial.

This is what happens when people read revisionist history. X wasn't a great task so Y should be equally as viable. A technologically stagnant mamlukes that was only just adopting firearms and cannons, that could only play off turkish beylicks and not conquer them, that had to ally with the millenarian shia safavids, that was already relying on ottoman sea captains in the mamlukes-portugese war over the red sea, would not be expanding into anatolia and taming the autonomous beyliks without drastic institutional changes