Ottomans Nerfed? - The Superthread

[Bebou]

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.

This conversation seems strangely akin to someone trying to convince me that a visibly white wall, is actually red over and over again. It starting to feel like I'm being trolled. You quite literally ignore anything you are told and accuse me of clutching at straws when your only argument over the last 5 pages has literally been "Ottomans were stonk so they must be portrayed as OP over the op a-historically stronk, like previous patches yus! Other countries were maybe stronk too but that's not as important as Ottostronk yus! I'm swear I'm British yus!"

I never said I didn't care about history books, you are simply putting words in my mouth because you can't find much to challenge otherwise. I said that there are conflicting views on many historical events so linking one opinion doesn't mean much. I encourage you to take the time to read the posts that people take the time to write to you.

Historical events don't pop every game for every nation, nor do they effect the game to the degree that the overbuffed last patch Ottoman's did. I don't remember that playing as France and getting Richelieu as a advisor made me OP or getting Machiavelli or the Afghan rebellions or the Persian rebellions or God knows what not. Your arguments are so weak they are laughable.

For someone who claims that I am aggressive and angry you've resorted to Ad hominum which is the literally embodiment of this. I can't shout at you since this an internet forum, all i can do is underline key words for you since I get the feeling that you either don't read or skim what has been written.

Comments like that are perfectly fitting after watching your arguments get destroyed numerous times by numerous forum members. At this point you are basically arguing that 2+2= 39 and now I'm starting to see why most people are ignoring you. You basically don't even read their comments, ignore any points they make and re-post the same "Otto stronk" over and over again. To encapsulate this, you just said I don't want to change my opinion, despite me welcoming you to search for my post where I originally argued that the nerfs were too much, and then got convinced otherwise after the patch and changed my mind. This is unironically becoming a massive joke.

My arguments were many ranging from historical accuracy about your pro ottoman deterministic nature of interpreting events surrounding them and their role in European history to a base argument (which is more than enough in game terms) of the game not being a history simulator. Your arguments so far have literally been "otto must be stronk! op stronk plz! a book i quote says so!" and that is about it. Writing this I have realized that you must be trolling me and that indeed I am silly for ever writing to you past the first post where you ignored what I said. So good day to you sir keep the dream alive, if it means this much to you I'm sure there are mods out here where the Ottomans conquer the world over and over again in every play through so perhaps download one of those. I wont be wasting my time with you any longer. Pip pip and cheerio ol' chap, as you "British" would say

 

[ElGranCapitan]

As I see it there is 2 possible ways to look at it that are intellectually honest:
a) Small nations should be ahistorically strong compared to larger nations - this is the current game design, partly to give the smaller nations a chance, partly to offset flaws in the outcome that are due to some things being simplistic design (like it's much easier to govern a large empire than in reality or to integrate territories into it or that wars are being total wars)
If that's the case then you should be fine with the current 1.23 Ottomans (and in fact, demand a nerf for Russia)

b) Historical strength levels - that would be more of a pre 1.23 Ottomans and current Russia, but it would also be necessary to buff every other major power and several medium powers (Spain, France, Austria, Sweden, Great Britain, Mughals, Manchu/Qing, Venice and some more)

I don't think any good argument can be made to put some nations on one scale and others on another, consistency is the key here

 

[Dracolithfiend]

b) Historical strength levels - that would be more of a pre 1.23 Ottomans

This is opinion if we are intellectually honest. A great many of us (probably the majority) feel that pre 1.23 ottoman was vastly outperforming historical fact while post 1.23 is almost perfect. It would be nice if it went after north Africa but that won't happen since it would end pirate raids.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

This is opinion if we are intellectually honest. A great many of us (probably the majority) feel that pre 1.23 ottoman was vastly outperforming historical fact while post 1.23 is almost perfect. It would be nice if it went after north Africa but that won't happen since it would end pirate raids.

I did't think you understand my argument. My point was that pre-1.23 probably closer modelled the amount of power the Ottomans had compared to minor nation, but since the game does not model stuff like corruption, constant rebellion and other problems that plague huge empires it has to artifically nerf huge nations to lead to historical outcomes (same thing happened with France a while ago - I remember a post saying ally Austria, Burgundy and Castile to win the 100 years war)

Additionally the idea of making smaller nations more powerful than they were for balancing reasons does not create the same amount of outcry if the major in question is not the Ottomans

 

[brifbates]

I did't think you understand my argument. My point was that pre-1.23 probably closer modelled the amount of power the Ottomans had compared to minor nation, but since the game does not model stuff like corruption, constant rebellion and other problems that plague huge empires it has to artifically nerf huge nations to lead to historical outcomes (same thing happened with France a while ago - I remember a post saying ally Austria, Burgundy and Castile to win the 100 years war)

Additionally the idea of making smaller nations more powerful than they were for balancing reasons does not create the same amount of outcry if the major in question is not the Ottomans

By far one of the biggest issues the game has, ruling blobs is far too easy. Add in the lack of any logistical constraints and real attrition issues and it can get pretty comical. Why certainly you can march your quarter million soldiers across Siberia to fight the Chinese, what could possibly go wrong? In-game? Not much. In a historically accurate setting? Massive revolts in the west as all the conquered peoples rise up with no army around to deter them. Loss of 95% of that army to disease, lack of supplies, etc. plus the whole months of delay trying to turn it around and bring it back to deal with said revolts. Toss in your neighbors pouncing because, again, the whole no army there to deter them...

eta: I'd tend to agree with the OP as well, the Byz o philes won't be happy until restoring blurple is a noob level walk in the park. The Ottomans have never consistently reached their historical heights (and no, I don't mean by date x, I mean max Ottos historically vs max Ottos in-game at any point) in the game yet they keep getting nerfed cuz "too strong".

 

[Dracolithfiend]

I fully understand your argument. I simply disagree with it's basis while agreeing with it's premise. Should minor, regional, and major powers be modeled appropriately? Yes. I just feel it is better modeled in 1.23. That is my opinion.

 

[chegitz guevara]

Those saying the game is not an historical simulation are only partially correct. It is both a sandbox game AND an historical simulator. We're not playing an anything goes game, unless we set up random nations. We're testing ourselves in an historical situation: can we do better than the real countries of that period? Allowing for normal chaos inherent in any situation with incomplete data and bad ai, we still strive to have a reasonably historic game, at the very least, in the early part of the game.

The rise of the Ottomans as a superpower was about as inevitable as that of France or China. There were concrete historical circumstances that led to the Ottomans' supremacy, from how they treated those they conquered, to the crumbling of states around them, to the fact that they had effectively limitless manpower up until the consolidation of the Safavids. Anatolia was subject to mass immigration from Central Asia for centuries, and, in fact, the lower Balkans as well became home to immigrating Turks. The Ottomans could take losses that would have resulted in total defeats to any other nation, and bounce back within a year or so.

The Ottomans' only limitation was that the campaigns alway started from the capital, and ended before winter, so they only could conquer what was within arm's reach of Constantinople. They weren't defeated at Vienna (until 1683) or held back by the Persians. Austria and Persia were simply too far away to conquer.

But the game does a poor job at modeling the limitations of history, which means the Ottomans can be nigh unstoppable. So, nerfing them some is okay. I think they may have been over nerfed, but I need more playtime to see.

 

[hitchens]

The Ottomans only limitation was that the campaigns alway started from the capital, and ended before winter, so they only could conquer what was within arm's reach of Constantinople. They weren't defeated at Vienna or held back by the Persians. Austria and Persia were simply too far away to conquer.

Its weird that the mongols had none of these problems centuries earlier.

 

[Insentient]

Its weird that the mongols had none of these problems centuries earlier.

Mongols lived on horseback. Ottoman army didn't. Mongols could feed off the land by pillaging taking what they need. Ottomans' pillaging was limited to account for the fact that they wanted to tax the land afterwards.

 

[chegitz guevara]

Its weird that the mongols had none of these problems centuries earlier.

Cuz they didn't assemble at the capital and march forth every spring. They just conquered and kept going.

It's not that the Ottomans couldn't have assembled close to the launch point for the war, or built up supplies and kept going through the winter. It's just they didn't. Selim Yavuz did, and he conquered the Mamluks in a two year campaign as well as took Eastern Anatolia from the Persians. But his army eventually forced him to return, rather than take Persia.

 

[hitchens]

Mongols lived on horseback. Ottoman army didn't. Mongols could feed off the land by pillaging taking what they need. Ottomans' pillaging was limited to account for the fact that they wanted to tax the land afterwards.

The mongols that conquered Bhagdad were not the nomads that conquered western Xia.

 

[hitchens]

It's not that the Ottomans couldn't have assembled close to the launch point for the war, or built up supplies and kept going through the winter. It's just they didn't.

The Ottomans' only limitation was that the campaigns alway started from the capital, and ended before winter, so they only could conquer what was within arm's reach of Constantinople. They weren't defeated at Vienna or held back by the Persians. Austria and Persia were simply too far away to conquer.

Uhhh ohh.

 

[in heaven]

Not really feeling nerf at all. They still merc spam and never run out of troops so it's same as in last patch.

 

[KubiG37]

I think it's actually even worse than in 1.22 (=more OP), at least if they're not removed early. Now that they can earn so much more money, they can sustain Mercspam larger than my entire actual army and still be +50g in profits? Russian 'attrition warfare' no longer works much. I like to play in eastern europe a lot, and now this annoying big blob keeps blocking all my ways of expansion in every game by being Defender of Faith all the time. And if you bypass the hordes somehow, you run into the very same problem - Ming (maybe even worse).

Previously they either did not have money for that title, or could be first defeated by very long defensive war.

 

[holyvigil]

Ottomans at the end of my second serious game.

 

[odenat]

Go watch Arumba's youtube series. Ottomans lost the first war against Albania! Now, Albania owns Western Greece!

I'm sorry but if Albanian AI can win against Ottomans at 1448, this game is broken. And if ppl say that being ahistorical means more fun gameplay; why only Western Europe can colonize America? Nerf Western Europe so that Kongo, China, Japan, Morocco can colonize America and Africa too.

I want to rebuild Andalusia as ppl want to rebuild Byzantium. Nerf Castille and Aragon please.

 

[hitchens]

I'm sorry but if Albanian AI can win against Ottomans at 1448, this game is broken. And if ppl say that being ahistorical means more fun gameplay; why only Western Europe can colonize America? Nerf Western Europe so that Kongo, China, Japan, Morocco can colonize America and Africa too.

I want to rebuild Andalusia as ppl want to rebuild Byzantium. Nerf Castille and Aragon please.

I've seen Norway take most of Sweden and most of Scotland, or Brittany eat half of France. It's a nice surprise. Historical railroading is not fun. Just look at it as if Ottomans had a bad or incompetent ruler.

 

[Bebou]

Go watch Arumba's youtube series. Ottomans lost the first war against Albania! Now, Albania owns Western Greece!

I'm sorry but if Albanian AI can win against Ottomans at 1448, this game is broken. And if ppl say that being ahistorical means more fun gameplay; why only Western Europe can colonize America? Nerf Western Europe so that Kongo, China, Japan, Morocco can colonize America and Africa too.

I want to rebuild Andalusia as ppl want to rebuild Byzantium. Nerf Castille and Aragon please.

I wonder did Ottos get 1v1d by Albania? Would be hilarious if that happened but in reality I'm sure that the Ottos simply attacked into a much stronger alliance then they expected and got decimated. Happens to my allies all the time when i refuse the call to arms to screw them over cause I want their land

 

[ahyangyi]

I'm sorry but if Albanian AI can win against Ottomans at 1448, this game is broken. And if ppl say that being ahistorical means more fun gameplay; why only Western Europe can colonize America? Nerf Western Europe so that Kongo, China, Japan, Morocco can colonize America and Africa too.

Albania.
Ottoman.
1448.
Ahistorical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Oranik_(1448) (just in case you say this is a battle not a war, note that it's part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian–Venetian_War)

 

[Sfan]

You're lying, that can't be. Fake history. Ottomans had no trouble taking the Knights or Albania, and they owned Dulkadir and Ramazan before 1500. I've seen it in previous patches, that's probably what happened in history.