Ottomans are unplayable.

[lullelulle]

I would not call them secular, i would rather say tolerant. Secular they were not, cause the immams were in the hands of state, as sultan was also the Khalif...

Calling them modern day secular would be wrong. But one of the most secular countries during that time isn't to far from the truth. The Christian Devşirme had a lot of power. Officially the Muslims had power, but unofficially the Christian "slaves" had a lot of power.

 

[bizkit]

Calling them modern day secular would be wrong. But one of the most secular countries during that time isn't to far from the truth. The Christian Devşirme had a lot of power. Officially the Muslims had power, but unofficially the Christian "slaves" had a lot of power.

Quite true,untill mids of 19th century.
You could even worship flying spaghetti monster in OE,noone cares as long as you pay your Cizya

 

[unmerged(80402)]

In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Torah and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities.

And in ottoman empire while it was allowed to be other religion than muslim, they were discriminated by their religion, example was the jizya tax, which muslim did not have to pay. Also there was no separation between religion and goverment. That they allowed non-muslims to live, was only tolerance. Not in now seeing of tolerance - alowing to every deviation, and saying it is tolerance, but by the normal means of tollerance, meaning, not loving them, but allowing them to live in peace, as long as they obey the law. And law even in Commonwealth or Ottoman empire, (which were both ones of most tolerant countries) were much more restrictive, than they are today.

 

[Icarium]

Calling them modern day secular would be wrong. But one of the most secular countries during that time isn't to far from the truth. The Christian Devşirme had a lot of power. Officially the Muslims had power, but unofficially the Christian "slaves" had a lot of power.

The janissaries were required to convert to Islam, weren't they? How exactly is that an example of religious tolerance?

 

[CanOmer]

The janissaries were required to convert to Islam, weren't they? How exactly is that an example of religious tolerance?

Christians were happy to give their children to the army. Because they have educated and paid well. Christian children were not only taken for army, they also taken for the imperial government and they can rise to the Grand Vizier rank that means greatest minister of the Sultan, also sometimes Serasker, chief commander of the army.

 

[Icarium]

Christians were happy to give their children to Ottoman army. Because they have paid well.

Even if that was the case (something I doubt quite a bit, to be honest), this has nothing to do with religious tolerance. Tolerance would be to give Christians the chance to be in high positions without having to covert to islam. Don't get me wrong, the other contemporary states were for the most part far worse than the Ottomans in that respect but let's not kid ourselves that the existence of the Janissaries was a sign of religious tolerance.

 

[Caban]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

 

[unmerged(80402)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

That is why this country was not realy secular.

 

[Caban]

Either way this discussion is getting badly off-topic.

I'm exiting it now, before things get out of hand.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

That is because disscusions often comes in such ways. When topic cease to be entertaining, or there appear a new one, the topic changes. But on the topic - Ottomans ARE NOT unplayable. Granada - maybe, but for sake, not ottomans.

 

[unmerged(238904)]

Ottomans have the Bosphorus Sea basically guaranteed for them, since its border encompasses Muslim and Orthodox minors and OPM's, and then the GH. Thrace is not remotely difficult to obtain, the Eastern Mediterranean is basically your oyster since no other power can compete against you, barring the Timmies until the Beloved Leader Tim Jong Il dies when their inevitable collapse occurs.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

And if ur lucky you don't border GH - if poland concede defeat before it loose any lands.

 

[unmerged(238904)]

If you have a typical game as a country close to East Europe, Poland and Lithuania should do just fine beating the GH back, if not defeating and conquering it. By the time they fall, which may not even happen to begin with, you can likely take on the GH in a war.

 

[CanOmer]

Playing as Ottomans is hard for new players. The main reason is that different religious countries doesn't be ally of each other. So, Ottomans and other muslim countries that close to the Europe, can't resist the cascading alliances of christanity. There are other reasons of course, stability cost, low tech rate and blockable strait between Anatolia and Balkans makes the things harder. Ottoman army quality was better than European armies untill 30 years war. But in the early game, Ottoman tech quickly drop behind of the Europe and quickly crushed.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Playing as Ottomans is hard for new players. The main reason is that different religious countries doesn't be ally of each other. So, Ottomans and other muslim countries that close to the Europe, can't resist the cascading alliances of christanity. There are other reasons of course, stability cost, low tech rate and blockable strait between Anatolia and Balkans makes the things harder. Ottoman army quality was better than European armies untill 30 years war. But in the early game, Ottoman tech quickly drop behind of the Europe and quickly crushed.

It is unlikely but possible to form alliance with country of another relgion. You just need 200 relations, and common enemy.

 

[CanOmer]

Even if that was the case (something I doubt quite a bit, to be honest), this has nothing to do with religious tolerance. Tolerance would be to give Christians the chance to be in high positions without having to covert to islam. Don't get me wrong, the other contemporary states were for the most part far worse than the Ottomans in that respect but let's not kid ourselves that the existence of the Janissaries was a sign of religious tolerance.

Religious tolerance is quite different topic with Janissary. Chiristians recruited for the palace, the scribes, the religious and the military duties and they can rise to the Grand Vizier rank that means greatest minister of the Sultan, also sometimes Serasker, chief commander of the army. The religion of 500 years ago was a language of today. So, the head of the empire had to have same language and same religion. Must not think as todays conditions. Also number of recruited people are quite few, they became elite, head of the Empire according to their skills. So, families did not resist to give their children. Also, maximum one child were taken from the same familiy.

Religious tolerance of the Ottoman Empire was different topic. There were tolerance for christians but there were no tolerance for Shiites.

 

[Colombo]

Iwanow: There is + limit, when modifier would stop to give you bonus to relations.
It would be nice to have - limit too, lets say -100 or 0 for most common modifiers. If you would actively fight with some nation, or have realy bad infamy, your relations should drop, but it is quite strange to drop only because different religion to -200.

 

[Ephafn]

It is unlikely but possible to form alliance with country of another relgion. You just need 200 relations, and common enemy.

That's is definitely not the case, as I played an Indian game (I don't remember which religion) where I was offered an alliance by France (which had conquered some of the Middle-East) not long after I discovered them through map spread. However, we still had the initial relation as we just learned about each other.

The problem is not that you need 200 relation, is that you end up at -200 relation with every wrong religion country after some time, with no possible recovery. (There should be some relative decay for relations...)

 

[Grubnessul]

maybe they should introduce a positive relations buff for shared rivals?

 

[lullelulle]

maybe they should introduce a positive relations buff for shared rivals?

That's an excellent idea. Maybe one for viewing the same nation as a treat too? It'd be lower than the bonus for rivalry.

Another thing is that your and the other countries tolerance should affect the religious decrease. If both countries have positive tolerance for each others religions there wouldn't be any drop from religion.