Ottomania

[damnt512]

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.

Unfortunately this is something newer players don't understand, especially if you're playing country with western unit, they became units that have the strongest pip in 18th century. I just recently beat the Ottomans yesterday with Golden Horde, Ottoman have plenty of highland which is bad for horde, and horde units also have the weakest pip in late game, but I still won anyway. Twice. People are simply exaggerating Ottoman strength. I always tell people to just crush the Ottomans late game if they can't do it early game, because they always falter in late game. If people complain about snowballing, then that is a gamewide problem instead of just Ottoman problem.

 

[Workiwork]

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.

the idea to make Crimea into a Tributary was spoken about and Devs did say they had the same idea. MAybe we will see that soon(ish)

 

[jonjowett]

Then we need empire collapsing mechanics, gov capacity offered chance for expansive ai to rely on vassals but alas

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.

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?

I'm definitely in favour of an empire collapse mechanic. There's never been anything even close to a WC in history, let alone a one-tag WC, and the fact that the game permits this relatively easily (if you have the patience) breaks the historical immersion.

Further, the underlying issue in this thread is that AIs blob up, and this makes them stronger. Whereas, in history, large empires tended to be quite fragile.

Of course, whatever empire collapse mechanic you choose must apply equally to players and AI. The problem is choosing a mechanic that permits a WC by a reasonably skilled player, while also making it very clear via the gameplay experience that a WC is suboptimal and not the intended way to play the game.

Spoiler: Complete sidetrack describing one way this could be done

Disclaimer: This thread is not in the "Suggestions" forum, so extended discussion of this suggestion is probably off-topic.

I think the core of this empire collapse mechanic could be something like escalating unrest from total development. For example: +1 national unrest for every 200 dev.

The great thing about this is that escalating unrest will cause separatists in recently-conquered peripheral regions to fire very quickly, while the heartland will be relatively unaffected. I expect that this would make it very unlikely for any single AI tag to grow above 2-3k dev (ie. +10 to +15 national unrest). However, a dedicated one-tag WC player could probably handle even +150 national unrest by building a lot of forts and putting a lot of armies on rebel suppression.

Then you probably need some refinements, eg:

• Find a way to prevent Polynesia and Indonesia from becoming island rebel micromanagement hell
  • Maybe add the ability to zeroise all unrest and all income in selected provinces? (IE: 0 unrest for 200% local autonomy. Probably only for players, not AI. Revoking this should have consequences.)
• Improve access to and usefulness of tributaries (to simulate the sphere of influence of extremely large empires):
  • Allow all great powers (or all hegemons?) to create tributaries, eg. via a modified version of the enforce tributary CB that can be used on any other nation (not just adjacent ones).
  • Allow tributaries to count for some achievements (eg. WC) and maybe even some missions.
  • Add the ability to force tributaries to divert 50% (or 100%) of their trade power (because maybe you want a trade empire). (Either by adding trade power as a tribute option, or via a subject interaction.)
  • Ensure that tributaries can group up with each other for independence wars.
• Give extra diplo slots for significant increases in great power score (to allow/encourage extra vassals)
  • Eg: +1 diplo slot per 1000 great power score
• Prevent the memelord HRE/Shogun vassal swarm from being a much-easier path to WC.
  • Or not - the AI will never do this, so maybe player shenanigans are OK.

 

[themrspartan]

Their unit pips feel unfair. Unit pips based on culture in general are a silly idea imo. There's no reason I should have to have 3x their troop count to defeat one of their stacks just because they happen to be Turks. On top of their ideas and Jannissaries and the lucky nations buff and the fact that they always seem to choose Offensive ideas, it really feels like they're cheating.

 

[csward53]

Don't rival/embargo the Ottomans and they'll be a lot less hostile toward you. Especially if you're as far away as the Teutonic Order. I didn't have any issues with this in my recent Teutonic Order run so I am confused.

 

[Kalderus]

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.

Ottomans could definitely use another nerf. The Ottomans player will statistically dominate the Mamluks player (short of amazing second ruler mil skill RNG, and even then if the Ottos player allies or vassalizes Albania for Skanderbeg it's still GG Mamluks player), the Timurids player (unless the Tims player stacks all morale missions and skillfully uses defensive terrain), and the Austria player (even with a Poland player ally and Bohemia, Hungary and Milan PUs, the Austria player can't keep up with the forcelimit, economy, and MIL power generation of the Ottos player).

 

[damnt512]

Ottomans could definitely use another nerf. The Ottomans player will statistically dominate the Mamluks player (short of amazing second ruler mil skill RNG, and even then if the Ottos player allies or vassalizes Albania for Skanderbeg it's still GG Mamluks player), the Timurids player (unless the Tims player stacks all morale missions and skillfully uses defensive terrain), and the Austria player (even with a Poland player ally and Bohemia, Hungary and Milan PUs, the Austria player can't keep up with the forcelimit, economy, and MIL power generation of the Ottos player).

What a surprise, Ottomans dominating their neighbors that they dominated irl historically.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

Ottomans could definitely use another nerf. The Ottomans player will statistically dominate the Mamluks player (short of amazing second ruler mil skill RNG, and even then if the Ottos player allies or vassalizes Albania for Skanderbeg it's still GG Mamluks player), the Timurids player (unless the Tims player stacks all morale missions and skillfully uses defensive terrain), and the Austria player (even with a Poland player ally and Bohemia, Hungary and Milan PUs, the Austria player can't keep up with the forcelimit, economy, and MIL power generation of the Ottos player).

How is timmies facing ottos early game? They can't complain with 900 free dev, starting empire, and 300 missions giving permaclaims and 20 admin efficiency
Austria players needs to gitgud as i was able to win several wars on emperor and leviathan vs ottos with said pus, jusy need to trap enemy on forts

 

[necro84]

Ottomans could definitely use another nerf. The Ottomans player will statistically dominate the Mamluks player (short of amazing second ruler mil skill RNG, and even then if the Ottos player allies or vassalizes Albania for Skanderbeg it's still GG Mamluks player), the Timurids player (unless the Tims player stacks all morale missions and skillfully uses defensive terrain), and the Austria player (even with a Poland player ally and Bohemia, Hungary and Milan PUs, the Austria player can't keep up with the forcelimit, economy, and MIL power generation of the Ottos player).

In current version? As christian nation you can get +20% morale from crusade and Curia (10% from each). As Austria I would try to use mission Impale the Sultan from Wallachia or Moldavia to kill Ottoman leader. Ally or vassalize one of them, siege Ottoman capital and transfer occupation.
Timurids after integration of vassals and reconquest in Ajam has strong economy and higher FL. You can change religion to Shia for more bonuses.
The main advantage of Ottomans is their location because usually player would be able to siege only Balkans or Anatolia.

If you want to use Skanderbeg I think you are fighting before tech 5 when Ottomans get stronger units

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

What a surprise, Ottomans dominating their neighbors that they dominated irl historically.

But they didn't dominate all neighbors constantly from 1444 to 1820.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

But they didn't dominate all neighbors constantly from 1444 to 1820.

Most players only get to midgame

 

[Methuen of Melnibone]

Unfortunately this is something newer players don't understand, especially if you're playing country with western unit, they became units that have the strongest pip in 18th century. I just recently beat the Ottomans yesterday with Golden Horde, Ottoman have plenty of highland which is bad for horde, and horde units also have the weakest pip in late game, but I still won anyway. Twice. People are simply exaggerating Ottoman strength. I always tell people to just crush the Ottomans late game if they can't do it early game, because they always falter in late game. If people complain about snowballing, then that is a gamewide problem instead of just Ottoman problem.

When you see the test results the devs put up, and 4/5 of them have a perfectly healthy Ottoman sprawl from Moscow -> Aden, do you not see the issue ? Very rarely does another faction do that, and very, very, very rarely do they do it with the endless Ottoman manpower. Well done you for beating them with Ulm or whatever you described - I'm sure you're an expert - but (as expressed previously my myself and many others) having to do this every game isn't fun. That's the key thing - it is a game after all.

I'm of the opinion that complicated 'Decline of Empires' mechanics would be counterintuitive, and that the discussion on Spain is a bit of un herring rouge; Spain runs out of manpower. All that needs to happen is some of the stacked manpower modifiers for the Ottomans are takem away, so that they can't achieve 2million men by mid-late game, every game. That's all ! That reduces the most un-fun aspect (the manpower vortex), especially in the context of recent combat changes that make morale behave so differently.

 

[we need a jagellion]

On the contrary. I say buff the Ottomans.

Unironically yes. Everything else has been powercrept into oblivion with permanent modifiers from missions, tag switching, religion overhaul, HRE buffs, Ming buffs, monuments, etc. Ottomans are an end game tag with 1 good NI (CCR), crappy missions, and units which fall apart after the year 1600.

 

[Susan1972]

So, what do I do about the Ottos if I don't have Prussian Space Marines?

 

[Kalderus]

How is timmies facing ottos early game? They can't complain with 900 free dev, starting empire, and 300 missions giving permaclaims and 20 admin efficiency
Austria players needs to gitgud as i was able to win several wars on emperor and leviathan vs ottos with said pus, jusy need to trap enemy on forts

In current version? As christian nation you can get +20% morale from crusade and Curia (10% from each). As Austria I would try to use mission Impale the Sultan from Wallachia or Moldavia to kill Ottoman leader. Ally or vassalize one of them, siege Ottoman capital and transfer occupation.
Timurids after integration of vassals and reconquest in Ajam has strong economy and higher FL. You can change religion to Shia for more bonuses.
The main advantage of Ottomans is their location because usually player would be able to siege only Balkans or Anatolia.

If you want to use Skanderbeg I think you are fighting before tech 5 when Ottomans get stronger units

All these people down voting me seem to have been oblivious to the fact that I said an Ottoman PLAYER is ridiculously OP. As in, in order for single players to have their "end game boss" multiplayers have to deal with a nigh-unstoppable demigod in the hands of even a semi-competent Ottos player (unless an extremely good Mamluks player reigns them in early).

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

I have a Conspiracy Theory - EU5 is coming sooner that we think, and it will offer a much subdued and nerfed Ottomans Empire and then Paradox makes money in EU4 off the pro-Ottomans crowd, and anti-Ottomans crowd (in new EU5), at the same time.

New EU5 game start point will be named (instead of "Rise of the Ottomans") -- "The Reimagined Ottomans"

 

[jonjowett]

All these people down voting me seem to have been oblivious to the fact that I said an Ottoman PLAYER is ridiculously OP. As in, in order for single players to have their "end game boss" multiplayers have to deal with a nigh-unstoppable demigod in the hands of even a semi-competent Ottos player (unless an extremely good Mamluks player reigns them in early).

...Can't you just ban people from choosing the Ottomans? Or make it extremely punishing for someone to choose the Ottomans (eg. if someone picks them then everyone else will always team up to take them down)?

 

[Nostalgium]

So, what do I do about the Ottos if I don't have Prussian Space Marines?

You manage alliance networks, decide strategically when to fight them, and strive to secure naval superiority to dominate the Agean theatre if early/midgame, or simply slog it through if it's lategame. If you're a Western nation, you'll have better troops than the Ottos regardless after 1600, assuming you've invested in your military through ideas, as your unit choices will be better. If you're in a situation where you can't beat them, secure a big a block of allies as you can to gently encourage them (and any other majors, for that matter) to look elsewhere before they decide to come after you.

 

[Kalderus]

...Can't you just ban people from choosing the Ottomans? Or make it extremely punishing for someone to choose the Ottomans (eg. if someone picks them then everyone else will always team up to take them down)?

You certainly can, although most mp groups don't usually outright ban them, but encourage getting skilled Mamluk, Austria, and Poland players to match them. At least having a skilled Mamluks can at worst heavily slow down the Ottos player, since even if Mams loses, Ottos will be almost bankrupt (unless the Mamluks player severely misplays). However, in order to compete on even a slightly even playing field, the Mamluks player has to often resort to gamey tactics like selling Darnah (in Libya) to Candar in order to vassalize them and use a reconquest CB on the Ottos player, while also rushing Defender of the faith (before Ottos can click it), rushing golden era by getting more vassals and upgrading trade centres, and selecting a second ruler of the culture of your morale advisor so the mams player can take a +4 morale advisor at 50% cost (-25% from same culture as ruler, -25% from amirs estate privlege). The mams player will also need to quickly build a galley fleet in order to block the bosphorus once Kocaeli is sieged down (if they even can).

The rushed reconquest CB from vassalizing Candar is often necessary to counter the Ottomans player using an equally-gamey tactic to sell Mentese to Byzantium, then building to force limit, and using the perma claims on western Anatolia to reconquest Byzantium instead of having to wait for a 20 point spy network for a claim on Constantinople. The Ottomans player will also build forts on Hamid and Sivas (highlands in the east and west respectively) and often try to either ally or vassalize Albania so that their army will attach to one of the main Otto armies and get Skanderbeg to lead battles.

 

[damnt512]

All these people down voting me seem to have been oblivious to the fact that I said an Ottoman PLAYER is ridiculously OP. As in, in order for single players to have their "end game boss" multiplayers have to deal with a nigh-unstoppable demigod in the hands of even a semi-competent Ottos player (unless an extremely good Mamluks player reigns them in early).

There's a reason why in MP there are bans for Ottoman, and Ming too.