Ottomans Nerfed? - The Superthread

[TheMeInTeam]

Because of the noobs, whose hands do not grow out of the shoulders, you have made the Ottomans unplayable.

You can click on them and press start just fine...or is the implication that one of the still-strongest positions on the board getting nerfed makes them unplayable? Isn't it kind of strange to call other players out as noobs then though? This should still be an easier 1-tag nation than anything but Ming and hordes.

Using history alone as reasoning is not coherent. For reasons why, see earlier in the thread.

 

[BaronVonUngern]

then let them give the Janissaries the mechanics of the Manchurian banners that eat ducats, and not human resources

You can click on them and press start just fine...or is the implication that one of the still-strongest positions on the board getting nerfed makes them unplayable? Isn't it kind of strange to call other players out as noobs then though? This should still be an easier 1-tag nation than anything but Ming and hordes.

Using history alone as reasoning is not coherent. For reasons why, see earlier in the thread.

from the description of the game in steam:
The empire building game Europa Universalis IV gives you control of a nation to guide through the years in order to create a dominant global empire. Rule your nation through the centuries, with unparalleled freedom, depth and historical accuracy.

historical accuracy, does this tell you anything, dear @TheMeInTeam ?

 

[Roxas15]

Observed game. they conquered rome, vienna, bohemia, wrecked russia and have income close to 2x france

 

[TheMeInTeam]

from the description of the game in steam:
The empire building game Europa Universalis IV gives you control of a nation to guide through the years in order to create a dominant global empire. Rule your nation through the centuries, with unparalleled freedom, depth and historical accuracy.

historical accuracy, does this tell you anything, dear @TheMeInTeam ?

Unparalleled freedom, does this tell you anything dear @BaronVonUngern ?

Setting aside the inconsistency in advertising, there are many nations that under and over perform compared to history in the game. All of these nations interact with core mechanics, most of which emphatically eschew historical consideration in favor of gameplay (war score, colonial range, coalitions, idea groups, monarch points, army logistics/composition).

Knowing that, what makes the Ottomans specifically special...especially when compared to France, Great Britain, Mughals, Qing, Aq Qoyunlu, or others that suffer on average from the degree of abstraction?

Also, Ottomans succeeded then declined in history for causal reasons. Making them strong in the game absent these conditions is not historical at all. Ignoring causality can't be historical. History did not break causality. Making Ottomans strong "because history" while ignoring game context does break causality.

 

[Gokberk Cakir]

They are definitely overnerfed.

There is nothing historical about Ottomans not having cores on Anatolian minors or Mamluks being so strong. Ottomans did not even fight many Anatolian Beyliks because as they grew stronger some Anatolian Beyliks simply joined them. Ramazanids is an example of this.

 

[grand_Turk]

Well, I don't want to relate it to the new patch and nerf but I was knocked out for the first time in an Ottoman campaign ever since I learned the game mechanics completely. Despite playing at full strenght I was irreversibly crippled by Habsburgs and Mamluks by 1485. But I don't think it's just the Ottoman nerf, the AI is doing great job by setting a firm wall of neighboring powers to check Ottoman expansion. These are my first observations in my first campaign in 1.23...

 

[holyvigil]

Ottomans so far in my game

weaker but still thriving.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

developers, please, let's return the Ottoman Empire to its original state, please. you can leave the Venetian guarantees. Because of the noobs, whose hands do not grow out of the shoulders, you have made the Ottomans unplayable. Historically, the Ottomans were OP until 1683 ... You went on about these Ottoman-haters, but not all of our contingent obscure this country.

Quotation from Wikipedia: When the liberation war began to flare up in Albania, the leader of the rebels, Skanderbeg, accepted Catholicism and declared a "holy war" against the Turks. The government of Skanderbeg was unstable and a large number of people switched to the side of the Ottomans

P.S. please make the Ottomans again great (at least until the 1700s)

It's kind of ironic when you call people who couldn't succeed against the Ottomans noobs, yet claim the ottomans are unplayable

They are still one of the strongest nations (with Ming, France, Austria, Mamluks and a few others) so if you can't win with them, you don't have a right to call anyone "noob"

 

[cihan]

My impression are as the following regarding the new ottomans,

I played the game at Hard difficulty.
> I really liked this new Janissary mechanic, easy to get and they are a formidable foe If one keeps them drilled. AI might be lacking that as of now. Jans being special units are much better than jans giving global bonuses, because of the reasons which I will be explaining now. Old Janissaries had global modifiers such as +5 discipline +10 inf attack,

"10% damage reduction is better than 10% Ca...
10% damage reduction reduces all damage. Whether it's artillery, cav or inf. so ottos basically gives enemy -10% CA for all their units,before they only had 10% CA on inf with 5% discipline, so basically 15% extra damage on inf, but 4% reduction with their really bad late game pips, your inf would go "low strength" so quickly that your 5% discipline and CA basically did fuck all.
Now they'll be at high reg strength more often than before <75% reg strength is Huge damage decrease. So being able to stay above it is a lot better than some measly inf damage bonus when your inf will be low reg strength half the time. The only thing that really got nerfed is artillery. Since 5% discipline would've given 5% more artillery fire. but whatever, at least now their troops should survive a lot better late game. Early game they have extra pips anyway, so they do extra damage regardless, but now they'll also take less damage. And the biggest change of all is that you don't pay for your unit spam now. As long as otto has mil points, they can spawn units to fight. Before, if manpower was gone, you now have to use mercs but you'd have like 75 mercs for a 300 FL. Now you might have 75 mercs and 75 Jan units. it's an all around bonus. Nerfs with buffs. And as long as one could keep the stability above 1, the disaster will never happen."

> Removed cores in Anatolia made my job much harder, even when I had full claims I had to deal with rebellions and care for coalitions. It took me around 25 years to unite Anatolia.
> Constantinople by events becomes 37 dev.. Which is the highest dev city in the entire game at that point. The first event is when one conquers the city and the second even about the patriarchy. I spawned gems in Constantinople but as I heard from my friends, that gem event could be spawned in other locations so cant be sure of that.
> Mamluks being wealthier will affect the game balance obviously, in multi games early Ottomans will be more fragile but once they establish themselves in anatolia and in balkans, World conquest is quite possible.

 

[dunyayi kurtaran adam]

Ottomans so far in my game
View attachment 314357

weaker but still thriving.

how about this? just happened a few min ago

One of the reasons why Ottomans don't attack on Byz is Paradox removed picking Byzantium as rival for Ottomans at the game start. So the chance of attacking on Byz is decreased. Also it seems Ottomans don't make spy network on Byzantium anymore.

and when they do they attack on Byzantium with the claims of Morea not Constantinople

 

[Twoflower]

They are definitely overnerfed.

There is nothing historical about Ottomans not having cores on Anatolian minors or Mamluks being so strong. Ottomans did not even fight many Anatolian Beyliks because as they grew stronger some Anatolian Beyliks simply joined them. Ramazanids is an example of this.

Err, why would the Ottomans need cores on the Beyliks to get them to join? Cores encourage them (human and AI) to militarily conquer the Beyliks. Voluntary adhesion is covered by diplomatic vassalization and annexation and the Ottomans do not need cores to do that. You have just added an excellent argument for why removing the cores does in fact encourage "historical" behavior

 

[dunyayi kurtaran adam]

Err, why would the Ottomans need cores on the Beyliks to get them to join? Cores encourage them (human and AI) to militarily conquer the Beyliks. Voluntary adhesion is covered by diplomatic vassalization and annexation and the Ottomans do not need cores to do that. You have just added an excellent argument for why removing the cores does in fact encourage "historical" behavior

YOU CANT DIPLO-VASSALIZE THEM SINCE THEY ALL HAVE CORES ON YOUR LANDS THEY WONT ACCEPT. (Except Dulkadir)
then why dont we remove all cores of beyliks on ottomans lands?

 

[Zohtun]

They are definitely overnerfed.

There is nothing historical about Ottomans not having cores on Anatolian minors or Mamluks being so strong. Ottomans did not even fight many Anatolian Beyliks because as they grew stronger some Anatolian Beyliks simply joined them. Ramazanids is an example of this.

YOU CANT DIPLO-VASSALIZE THEM SINCE THEY ALL HAVE CORES ON YOUR LANDS THEY WONT ACCEPT. (Except Dulkadir)
then why dont we remove all cores of beyliks on ottomans lands?

Why not hand them the cores on your land or else vassalise them by kicking their face in?

 

[Kathandis]

So people complain about the ottomans not achieving their historical dominance but not Prussia and Qing never rising, Korea often taking land from japan, United states rarely being much larger than a 5 province minor and one that does not even have american culture, The naploeonic wars never starting, England being nothing more than a second rate power who cant prevent invasions of their island, The great northern war never happening, Alliances that are far too static for the timeframe, india and most of asia being ignored on the colonial stage etc etc.

Of all the things people let slide on the historical accuracy front I have to wonder why the Ottomans not being a super power 100% of the time is such a big problem.

 

[Mortmal]

So people complain about the ottomans not achieving their historical dominance but not Prussia and Qing never rising, Korea often taking land from japan, United states rarely being much larger than a 5 province minor and one that does not even have american culture, The naploeonic wars never starting, England being nothing more than a second rate power who cant prevent invasions of their island, The great northern war never happening, Alliances that are far too static for the timeframe, india and most of asia being ignored on the colonial stage etc etc.

Of all the things people let slide on the historical accuracy front I have to wonder why the Ottomans not being a super power 100% of the time is such a big problem.

India and most of asia are not ignored on the colonial stage, i colonize great britain with them just fine ! Oh wait...

 

[oopsione]

I dont think Ottomans are supernerfed. You dont need to expand heavily to be competitive in MP because of the dev buffs. Constantinople and the increased Tradepower let you swim in Ducats early game. You get high professionalism earlier then any other nation of the game because of the jannisaries, which you can pump out every 5 years without worrying about anything in the first age. Full drilled Jannissaries deal 20% more and take 20% less damage without counting in ideas and professionalism level.

Quantity seems like a must have, when you finished it you can take on every country in the world without worrying. You outnumber all of them (except Ming) and have the way stronger troops regarding pips and damage modifiers. I didnt feel any setback nor threatened by anyone in early game just expanding as before. Fought Crimea, Great Horde, Kazan, Candar, Dulkadir and Ramazan in a war (marked Candar as co-bel.) and were stackwiping them left and right with my 2 18k full drilled jannisary stacks. Had 4 points in Quantity so I wasnt even loosing a lot of manpower.

Whats true tho that the amount of errors you can make increased. If you waste your manpower and money by sieging with huge jannisary stacks, or combining normal troops with jannisaries in battle over the combat width to not use your full firepower. The missions are helpful with expanding early though I guess people are still used to the old faceroll Ottomans. In my opinion they are as strong, or even stronger then before but require a little micro and thinking through which makes them more fun.

 

[dunyayi kurtaran adam]

^ People are talking about AI Ottomans NOT Player Ottomans. AI Ottomans can't process in the army profesionalism in my games even if they have huge money land etc. But some European countries does like France. I have seen them has 70% professionalism in 18th century.

 

[Brainblow]

In my timeline, the Ottomans managed to secure and alliance with France, Muscovy and Tunis within a few decades of the start of the game, making them damn near impossible to attack.

 

[Anastasius]

The Ottoman empire didn't get this much attention since the 19th century

 

[Horn and Ivory]

I'm evidently late to the party here, but so far for me the Ottomans now seem to play much more like a normal power in that they need a few friends to thrive. In my current game they got off to a rocky start, but now an Ottoblob/White Sheep alliance has risen to dominate the near east. Possibly the Ottoman AI needs to be a bit more diplomatic than it currently is. But overall, from what I've seen so far, I like the change.