Having the dniepr be annexed is realistic, its just going onto Moscow thays the issue
- 4
Ottomania
- Thread starter Susan1972
- Start date
-
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.
It's debatable how integrated into the Ottoman Empire the Crimean Khanate actually was.
Regardless, if the Ottomans get Crimea for free, they will be the very nature of the game go into Muscovite lands and the Great Horde as a minimum, let alone Poland/Lithuania. This event really breaks too much and shouldn't be in the game, maybe the Ottomans can get a subjugation CB on Crimea in their mission tree, or maybe Crimea becomes a special kind of vassal (think a PU) that cannot be annexed until 50 years have passed.
But the issue is in this game, they instantly turn Crimea into a vassal from a march and then annex them soon after. Thus giving them freedom to go into the Great Horde, Lithuania and Muscovy.
The Ottomans do not need free land. They're probably going to steam roll everyone anyway.
- 6
- 1
@Ferdinand_Bardamu this event could have more options for Crimea like succesion in Moldavia or new Burgundian inheritance. Haji Giray was close ally of Lithuania (he swore loyality to grand duke so he even could be considered as some kind of vassal) and after his death there was civil war in the khanate.
Making historical changes in this area could destroy the balance of the game. For some time Novgorod was vassal of Poland but this would make PLC to strong. Poland would have Mazovia, Moldavia, Danzig and Novgorod as vassals + Lithuania as junior partner
Making historical changes in this area could destroy the balance of the game. For some time Novgorod was vassal of Poland but this would make PLC to strong. Poland would have Mazovia, Moldavia, Danzig and Novgorod as vassals + Lithuania as junior partner
- 4
- 1
Croatia and England should be papal vassals at game start
:bigbrain:
- 4
- 1
In mission tree Poland should have PU over Russians and Sweden from historical point of view.
- 3
do you really need mission PU's now you can snipe any throne you want to grinding up 90 favors?
While the complains here are obviously over the top the sentiment in itself is right. Ottos are too strong and it got worse this patch. Since Stackwipes have become rarer rushing the ottomans down quickly is rarely an option anymore, making every war against them more costly.
Of course experienced players can still manage them if they play accordingly but those who couldnt before are having even more trouble now.
The fundamental issue remains that AI cant challenge the ottomans and they always succeed in AI vs AI unless they screw up their first war.
Often i hear from the "mid-level" players tjat the ottomans are fine the way they are so that the game has an end boss but frankly said i would be much happpier if i didnt know on 11.11.1444 who will be the threat later on. An end boss is great but give me some variety.
Of course experienced players can still manage them if they play accordingly but those who couldnt before are having even more trouble now.
The fundamental issue remains that AI cant challenge the ottomans and they always succeed in AI vs AI unless they screw up their first war.
Often i hear from the "mid-level" players tjat the ottomans are fine the way they are so that the game has an end boss but frankly said i would be much happpier if i didnt know on 11.11.1444 who will be the threat later on. An end boss is great but give me some variety.
- 4
- 2
This is why Paradox's game design was flawed in that Population wasn't factored in. You COULD have Novgorod properly subordinated, but Novgorod's population would reflect the reality of that time - sparsely populated areas without much contribution to the Economy or military/manpower. To me, this is a core argument for the future EU5 build, that we should see more significant differences in population "volume" by provinces and regions of the world, but enable colonization to push the population growth up, perhaps in spikes also (pop-up events, in theory, could be built in). This does nothing to solve the EU4 problems we have, but - game design without population numbers being a part of the metrics, disable a key factor that helped shape the world.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Honestly, after I:R 1.1 being basically prototype EU4 with pops, Stellaris having a pop overhaul, and Vicky 3 doubling down harder on pops than Vicky 2 seemed to, I strongly believe EU5 will also have them.
- 1
taking mechanics from stellaris is very unsettling. Its pretty god awful as a game, only really enjoyable as a series of short stories and some rp potential.
- 7
- 3
i very much doubt eu5 will have stellaris pops
stellaris pops are terrible for performance
i would expect its pop design to be somewhere between vic3 and ir
Yeah, I for sure meant what Grommile said. The reason I brought up Stellaris was to show that PDX seems to be doubling down on pops in their strategy games (CK3 is an RPG an this is a hill I will die on), not to imply they're the mould I'd like to see EU5 use.
- 1
I know this is getting a lot of pushback but I do think that AI ottomans should start slowing down in the mid 17th century like they did historically and not snowball indefinitely.
An AI Ottomans that's the most powerful state in the world in 1800 should be an anomaly, not the norm.
- 2
- 1
Then we need empire collapsing mechanics, gov capacity offered chance for expansive ai to rely on vassals but alas
- 6
Ottoman ideas are subpar, they only get 5% discipline and 33% force limit, aside from CCR their idea set is nothing overpowered. Their strength comes from the fact their bonuses are frontloaded with discipline in traditions, siege bonus from age ability and Anatolian unit strength early. Their armies are fairly weak past tech 16. Especially compared to other majors.
- 1
- 1
Yeah at this point we start bumping into the inherent ahistoricity of "historical" grand strategy games. Empires don't actually keep growing, progressing, and developing forever like they do in EU4 (or CK2, or Civ, or any other similar game) - they rise and then they collapse, because the idea of one person singlehandedly guiding national development through centuries is inherantly at odds with the way history goes.
This is very prominent in the devs' desperate attempts to keep Ming from snowballing spectacularly into a global superpower because that's what makes sense in the rules of EU4 but isn't remotely what actually happened.
- 2
I mean that's really a problem with most of the bigger nations in EU4.
The ottomans are just in the special position since they are already the strongest nation at games starting point and not hindered by game mechanics as Ming for example.
Spain's decline is also not really represented in the game. Yes they blob less than the Ottomans and take longer to grow, but they aren't nearly as weak by 1800 as they should be.
If we start to go that route (which I am not opposed to) we have to think about how this will affect player empires. Because if AIs get affected with a decline mechanic the players should be as well. As others pointed out the fact that we are basically immortal god emperors guiding nations for hundreds of years and leading them to unseen heights is fundamentally at odds with how the historical decline works.
In EU3 (or very early EU4 not sure about the details) most bigger Empires would eventually collapse (at least for certain patches). While this resulted in some much more historical games it also made it much easier for players to blob. Would the overall playerbase be fine with either having an expansion limit placed upon them or make the power gap between AIs an players even worse?
- 4
- 1
See paradox making factions more a threat in ck3 and many fans complaining about how hard the game is now
Devs are clearly split between pro ming and anti ming and doesn't release you need to balance for ming.
They can spam generals due to massive force limit
Merc companies avoid the previous available mercs malus theyd get
Celestial empire giving +50% autonomy got scrapped but ming remained a single centralised tag in 1444, rather than vassals
- 3