Ottomans Nerfed? - The Superthread
- Thread starter Ratanka
- 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.
- Status
We need a strong Persia, something which doesn't collapse.
The Ottomans should be going West, something which rarely happens. They need to be taking Hungary and marching on Vienna. That should be the threat they post.
Have you ever seen the Turks pose a threat to Spain?
Your reasoning has been answered about 100 times, the fact that you choose to ignore it is something entirely different. The game is not a history simulator. Read a book if you want to see the Ottomans push to Vienna and die there every time. I doubt 99% of the player base wants to watch the AI do the exact same thing every time. Furthermore, saying nearly never is a joke. They do it far more often than they fail yet you and the rest of your posse cry like its a every game occurrence.
Not that it matters, but I honestly doubt you are British, for one I've seen your grammar and you make suspicious mistakes for a British person. Secondly, if you are British I'd argue you should worry more about your own nation which doesn't even achieve 10% of what it did historically then crying about the Ottomans getting nerfed. I have yet to see the UK conquer India...for that matter I've yet to see France enslave most of Europe and invade Ottomans in Egypt. Shall we have the AI manage that as well?
ofc pre 1.22 bothered me too, seeing AI ottoman empire in baltic sea or full annexing austria but not annexing persia up to isfahan or reaching hazar sea because ottoman empire was already occupied persian capital a few times in history and conquered western persia including tebriz, hamadan and hold it for a short time like ~30 years. so it can be happen in game too. but the point is safavid empire was too weak in pre 1.23 and in 1.23 i haven't see the safavid empire is formed yet. also we should see in some games that safavid empire can conquer mesopotamia or more from ottoman empire too.
i think some events can be happen in the game like ottomans can conquer all over ruthenia from plc or plc can conquer hungary from ottomans these are normal things. but the seeing ottoman empire collapsing in 1470s just because declaring suicide war on trade unions with weird alliances is not normal. this is ridiculous.
Please don't be triggered by my comments. Not very becoming.
I'd also rather you didn't make assumptions about nationality. You aren't a linguistic and it's embarrassing. Where are you from?
UK
Issues with UK and most colonial powers arrive from the poor navy AI. But thanks for trying to take it off topic. This post is about the Ottomans and I don't understand your attitude which is...
"Why are you caring about the Ottomans, focus on your own country". .
Do you play with historical events? If you want a random world then set that up at the beginning.
I think people are trying to have a discussion on it and you have to use very hostile language. The argument being spelt out is that a strong Ottoman Empire should challenge Europe as that was a catalyst for many of the key events in European history. If you take that away then take away events like the reformation and Christopher Columbus. Would you be happy with that?
That barely happens though, I've seen about 5 AI simulations on youtube and once only did the Ottomans fail because they suicided into 5 countries. I'm pretty sure if you run the simulation 100 times they wont even fail 10 times in total. Fail here meaning that they die and never recover. Even if they do its not the end of the world given that once more IT IS NOT A HISTORY SIMULATOR. If it was then players would not be allowed in as they by definition ALTER HISTORY. It is perfectly acceptable to have Mamaluks win now and again.
I wonder if you ever played the original Rome Total War, where the Romans won EVERY SINGLE TIME, in EVERY SINGLE DIRECTION if the player did not intervene. It gets real old, real fast.
I'd like to see the game -which is not a history simulator- in rational game mechanics not declaring suicidal wars on trade unions with 3x more soldiers than yours just because the ai is broken. if you want to nerf the Ottomans make it in rational ways not suicidal broken wars.
Triggered? I'm not triggered, I'm amused to be honest since you have just confirmed you are in fact not British. You are indeed right I am not a linguistic, since that is not a profession, but I am something of a linguist. A British person would know the difference between the two. What's embarrassing is you trying to pretend you are British to justify your weak arguments.
Nobody is carrying anything off topic. What people are doing is showing you how your claims about Ottomans and historical accuracy of their actions can be translated to just about any and every country on the map, leading to an impossible mission or alternatively a rather boring scenario where we watch the same game over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Yes I play with historical events, but I don't want the game to be a history simulator, much like most of the player base. I haven't used a single offensive or rude word so far so I'm not sure what you find hostile in my comments other than me calling you out on what I perceive to be falsehoods. The Ottomans are still a challenge for Europe, however, to a far more historic (since that seems to be an issue) extent than pre nerf. Stop giving the Ottomans credit for the reformation please, since the situation in Europe was infinitely more complicated than just the Ottomans being a threat. Furthermore, the Ottomans expansion into Europe, was coincidentally linked to the very same complexity.
They do it in 1 out of how many games and all of the sudden the AI is broken? Was the AI fine when Hungary would guarantee Albania and then get stomped into the ground when the Ottomans attacked, instead of just ignoring the call to arms...or when Theodoro tried to defend Trebizond from a 80k Ottoman nation? I'm going to search the forums to find your posts about how the Hungarian and Trbizondian AI was broken in those examples...I doubt I'll find much though.
Oh I had a typo, my argument has collapsed. Shame upon me. Also love that must mean I'm not British, joke. I love how in your world only a Turk would defend the Ottomans. Clutching at straws there.
Presume you've not looked at any of the links I've shared linking the Ottomans to the reformation, it's historical fact. Please take a moment to acknowledge this and study the history of the period.
Ottomans do not currently challenge Europe as they did in history. A strong Ottomans are instrumental in the game's period. If we take that away then lets remove many of the historical events after the game start. Why should we have Columbus? He would never have gone west if the Turks hadn't made the spice trade more difficult. Thoughts on that?
Regularly in my games I see Hungary fall to the Turks. PLC too. Every 2-3 games they punch out Austria too, only failing when Austria loses the Emperor and thus is defended by its own alliances + Emperor's.
I see these sorts of lines and it confuses me honestly. "Turks should be taking on Europe" and I'm there in my own game going "When do they not invade Europe?"
The strangeness of the game. I've never seen the Ottomans expand towards Vienna.
Not saying you are wrong, intrigued. What nation do you usually play?
They do it far more often than they fail yet you and the rest of your posse cry like its a every game occurrence.
I am nor the developer neither i don't get money from it so if you want to compain about every broken mechanics i am not the one you are looking for. That is Hungarians' job not mine why would i defend the whole nations in the game?
So you are looking for a revenge i guess, they made wrong about Hungary in previous patch so they should do the same wrong on Ottoman Empire in this patch.
They expand towards the Russia though, you know because agressive expansion mechanics. Ai is smart in this.
I am nor the developer neither i don't get money from it so if you want to compain about every broken mechanics i am not the one you are looking for. That is Hungarians' job not mine why would i defend the whole nations in the game?
So you are looking for a revenge i guess, they made wrong about Hungary in previous patch so they should do the same wrong on Ottoman Empire in this patch.
They expand towards the Russia though, you know because agressive expansion mechanics. Ai is smart in this.
I've seen them attack Russia, more so than Poland. Poland and Austria should be their main opponent but they usually never threaten each other.
Think that is in part down to the rival system as well, not the greatest. It means alliances which often happened to take down nations never occur - look at the complex Western Europern wars which can't happen.
Varied. I get bored and hate playing the same areas over and over. I've seen it happen while playing as the following, off the top of my head (So not exclusive just these are ones I can recall):
About 3 different India games, so I'm just going to say "Hindustan/Bharat"
Oriat
Timurids
Mamluks (This I'd say was my fault since I completely stonewalled south Expansion and forced them to find another route)
Russia
Uzbek
PLC
Brandenburg (my gosh that was annoying, lazy Turks capitalising on my hurting Austria)
Milan->Italy
Manchu/Qing
And I do concur, that's why I would never accuse you of lying yourself. I just had to comment on how bewildering it is for me to see posts like yours because of the very different experiences.
I need to do that. I'm playing the same countries and getting frustrated by game elements and rage quitting.
The navy AI is what is driving me insane, too many games are ruined when I see nations like Spain or France fail to conquer foreign nations because they can't manage their fleet - or recently Spain taking most of Peru and then accepting a white peace. I just can't.
Or worse, Portugal imploding because it declared war on Kongo and kept landing 4k troops at a time, seeing them destroyed and trying again.
Then I go nope, can't handle this and quit.
For a purely random, won't care what happens to the world experience, what nation would you recommend?
No dear one, it is you over eagerness and continuous reiteration of being British that convinces me you are lying, the typos, which happened far more than once are just the cherry on top, so to speak. Oh I never said only Turks would defend Ottomans (although judging from recent threads it seems to be more and more the case), I did it in a previous thread when I first saw the potential nerfs but after the patch I saw I was wrong so I let it go. You can actually find my posts in one of the dev diaries saying I thought the nerfs were too much. The fact that you would do it in such a passionate way yet so clumsily makes me think you are indeed Turkish, which is fine it is just that your arguments have been disproved enough times, by enough people that you should move on mate. they wont be reverting the Ottos anytime soon so get over it.
Historical fact varies which book you read and which countries history it relates to. There are more than enough authors claiming that one of the main reasons the Reformation succeeding was because of France funding the Protestant princes in their fight vs the Habsburgs etc. Resources are plentiful so feel free to search for them. Snide remarks about studying the period will only get you in trouble, because if people do know anything about it they will figure out that your nationalism has long since consumed your ability to reason without passion.
A strong Ottomans is instrumental in this period, and Columbus...wow I can't believe I have to retype this for the 15th time...Ahem...this game is not and I repeat, is not a simulation of history. If it were you would not be allowed to play the game as you would alter the course of simulated history. The Austrians were far more powerful in the period than they are in game, I've rarely seen them consume both Hungary and Bohemia. the French are far weaker then they were historically. Louis the 14th had one of if not the biggest armies in Europe yet this is rarely the case in game. The UK never conquers 1/4 of the globe, Spain does not try to invade the UK and fail numerous times, Sweden never got the Baltic in any of my games, the Prussians don't even form in the majority of games. the PLC eats then Russians in half of my games....wow I can go on like this for a year. So for the last and final time this game is NOT a history simulator.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, sorry I find it difficult to answer when I don't understand what you are referring to.
I am nor the developer neither i don't get money from it so if you want to compain about every broken mechanics i am not the one you are looking for. That is Hungarians' job not mine why would i defend the whole nations in the game?
So you are looking for a revenge i guess, they made wrong about Hungary in previous patch so they should do the same wrong on Ottoman Empire in this patch.
They expand towards the Russia though, you know because agressive expansion mechanics. Ai is smart in this.
Which then brings us to our original concern. Your dislike towards the nerf is linked to the changes hurting your pride, it is not hurting the game. If anything, judging from the posts the vast majority of players like the change. You don't care about balance you just want the Ottomans to be overpowered and steam role everything around them like in the previous patch. The only people who are vocal against the changes seem to be Turkish. Just saying.
Last edited:
I think you are the one who is getting really tetchy about this discussion. A strange reaction at being challenged and presented an opposing opinion. You over react and clutch at straws regarding national identity - you are 100% wrong but its amusing that this is part of your argument. Think whatever you want.
Regarding the references I left. Can I summarise your response?
"I don't care about any history books because there will always be an opposing view in another book so it's meaningless"
Was that correct?
You say it isn't a history simulator but keep historical events on. Umm.
I'm intrigued. Why are you so keen to shout and get aggressive over other people's opinions? Is this game a key part of your life?
Comments like this aren't helpful for a discussion.
"Which is fine it is just that your arguments have been disproved enough times, by enough people that you should move on mate. they wont be reverting the Ottos anytime soon so get over it."
You are really finding this personal and I don't understand why. Yes you have your position but this "It's not changing, I'm right, get over it" is a bit strange. Next they'll be literally stamping of feet.
I'd love it if people could exchange their ideas. I've said mine, you've said that has been countered but I'm not entirely sure that is the case. Your argument is "It's not a historical simulator" is about the limit of yours.
You cant compare the reformation with the failed attempts of the past, it is impossible. Luther detonated a time bomb. There had been as you say religious dissidence and some rebellions, but they never succeeded because those were elitist in nature. The dissidence were published in latin within the clergy, and its readers were the clergy. Kill the leader and your problem is solved.
The printing press brought Luthers radical ideas to the people, in a way that could not have been done without it. At the time, printing was a niche, reserved for the wealthy. Printing books was an expensive investment, and countless of printers went bankrupt because you were not guaranteed a profit on the investments. In fact, the printing press in Wittenberg was artificially kept alive by Frederick the Wise simply because he was vain. He wanted Wittenberg to be respected, when in reality it was a provincial little town of little interest that at Luthers arrival in 1508, only have had a university for 20 years. The only thing it had going was Fredrick the Wise's growing collections of relics. It was a town of some 2000 inhabitants you simply passed by during your travels.
By publishing in German after Worms 1521, Luther reached a much wider audience, an audience that never had been targeted before, the masses! The pamphlets were easy to make, they were cheap, so there were no financial risk involved. Luther also published answers to critics consecutively, so there was a steady stream of publications reassuring his followers and sympathizers. Luther did not allow criticism to go unanswered, and he wrote at an incredible pace. His audience grew larger for each month that passed, and his audience was insatiable. It didn't take long before other printers in Germany wanted to print Luther even if they disagreed with him theologically, everyone wanted in because Luther guaranteed profits. Wittenberg went from being a provincial town, to becoming a printing center printing more works per month than all the other printing centers (Strasbourg, Antwerp, Leipzig etc) combined at one point. Luther of course didn't care much for IP at this point, and he knew very well that more prints increased his chances to stay alive. His works spread like wildfire, and it was impossible to contain it. Between 1502 and 1516, five succesive printers published a total of 123 books, an average of 8 per year. all were in latin, and most were small. Hardly any profits were made out of these prints. Between 1517 and 1546 on the other hand, Wittenberg publishers turned out at least 2721 works, an average of 91 per year...this represents 3 million individual copies.
It cannot be overstated how radical Luthers ideas were, and they required active involvement of the people to succeed. And in order to reach the people, you had to apply mass communication, and this is where the printing press entered the picture. It would be impossible to have a reformation without it. Without it it would be just another heretical monk being burned at the stake. Luther (and his friends and allies) created the predecessor to the social media revolution of today.
You can learn a lot by reading articles, but the difference between reading articles and actual studies is an educated opinion.
edit: typo
Last edited:
- Status