What kind of in depth strategy do you think playing isolated minors require that a regular blobbing game doesn't?
Last edited:
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
The problem with that is that it doesn't make any sense to nerf a country in the 1500s or indeed 1600s in game because of things that happened in the 1500s reality, but may well not have happened in game.
I have no issue with the nerfs to the Ottomans starting position for 2 reasons. The first is that I think it makes the game more dynamic and varied. Sometimes they still succeed and become a behemoth. Other times they don't but maybe someone else does. Or maybe you end up with a bunch of middling powerful nations in the area and awkward alliance blocks. It makes the game more fun that you don't know what you'll be facing in that region. Asia is pretty static now with Ming and the co-prosperity sphere of tributaries.
The second reason is that I think there is a historical basis for removing those cores. Although the OE did have control of those areas within 50 years of game start, you could well argue that that control is better modeled as them having vassalized the Beys. In that case, the Ottomans would never have had cores on that land in the first place. It never made much sense to model the Jannisaries as a flat buff to their entire military, either.
So I think a good case can be made that the 1.23 OE is at least as historical and arguably more so than the pre 1.22 OE. That they don't actually achieve what the real life OE achieved in every game doesn't necessarily mean that the 1444 scenario is unhistorical. I think it's almost unarguable that from a gameplay perspective the current situation is better. Some players will be upset at the loss of a very easy start, but the new start is actually a lot better at teaching the game's mechanics. Being able to do those opening conquests virtually for free was not a good introduction to the game.
With that factor in place, maybe Ottomans should get quests to vassalise the Beyliks for reduced AE to allow them to expand (although still enough AE that they have to be cautious and can't just Rofl-roll the whole Middle-East or we'll be back to 1.22)
That a sweeping statement which doesn't capture the nuidances of certain periods.
If you look at the 15th - 16th century the main concern of Austria/Hungary were the Ottomans, even the peasants in the HRE were worried about the anti-christ which was the Ottoman empire.
Also Columbus is a response to the Ottoman Empire so everything is interconnected.
You need only read the past 20 pages and you will find that both myself and 90% of the community agree with you but many of our, predominantly Turkish it would seem, counterparts claim that Ottos should stomp all of Europe and further like pre CoC because they deem it historically accurate, which it is not but that is a story for another time. You know like pre patch Ottomans taking Vienna with ease all the way to Italy and what not. If we say this was not the case we are labelled as extremely anti Turkish, racist and sometimes anti Muslim, whereas most of us simply want a game with variety as you've pointed out...which coincidentally we now kind of have. I have played 3 campaigns since the patch hit and not once did the Ottomans get rekt that did not involve me intervening (as Karaman).
Ottos dont have all that because I stopped them. But they do have huge area in Europe, stretching from Vienna to Moscow.
Imagine if I wasnt playing Mameluks...
When has someone called you out as being Anti Muslim in this thread?
Also, again saying everyone is Turkish for wanting this isn't true. Everything you are saying is fake news.
What's funny is that in a strange sense Ottomans have become more popular now as a nation, post CoC, at least in my opinion. I played them once prior to the CoC changes, I conquered practically everything without any challenge. I even got coalitioned in the first 20 years of the game by Venice, Hungary, Austria, Florence, Pope and won easily, and continued expanding. I quit the game in the early 17th century because it was boring and felt pointless. Now I actually want to try playing them and fight stronger opponents like QQ, Mamluks etc. If it turns out that they feel as OP as before I'll probably drop the campaign again but at least they don't seem mindlessly OP right off the bat. Firstly though I want to finish my Karaman into Rum campaign. Its fun, and actually the only time I've seen the Ottos lose a war since their obscene buffs..but thats what you get when you go into Albania who is guaranteed by Venice and allied to Bohemia AND Poland....goodness me i giggled my ass off as I reaped the benefits with my Hungarian and Mamluk allies 
This is exactly what I pointed out ad the ahistorical narrative created on the forums. Hungary and to a lesser extent Austria were concerned about OE because they directly bordered them. Pretty much all countries had concerns about their neighbors.
And Columbus wasn’t a direct response to spite the Ottomans and framing as it as such is disingenuous at best.
Portugal going around the cape and Spain going westward are a response to the difficulties of the spice trade caused by the Ottomans. Do you disagree?
The Ottomans threatened Europe, France and England were in talks with them to take on the Habsburgs.
You are under playing their role in European politics.
Just going to invite people to watch what the DEVs had to say about the topic on Dev Clash.
I can't say I felt the Ottomans were especially nerfed when I subbed for Bratyn during today's dev MP.
Fully. That story goes a lot farther back from the Ottomans. What actually changed around the height of the Ottoman era was that it had actually become a material possibility to establish naval trade at long reaches, with the advent of far better navigation.
Uh-oh Ottoman Doomsayers...Paradox devs disagree with you...how long can you keep this faux argument going i wonder?
So maybe nerfing should be tied to actual things happening in the game?
I actually do agree with taking away some of the Ottoman's cores. When they conquered Karaman in the 1450s, they took half their land and vassalized the rest. Candar, they more or less just marched in and ended it.
They definitely should not have a core on Lezhe/Iskadora, despite the fact that they were pretty much constantly trying to conquer it. I kinda think it would be much better to as an existing claim, and also give it a high revolt risk, so that if the OE does take it, it keeps blowing up in their face.
Would be amazing to see Ottoman-Persian wars that result in stalemates. Does anyone think this would ever happen with Ottos in their current form?
That is a problem with the game, which doesn't model distance, lack of communication, and stagnation adequately. Obviously, if world conquest is possible.
And in the game that we play that we're discussing, the Ottomans would win that war easily.
I realize the faults of the game. But they're exacerbated by poor design decisions such as leaving the largely-autonomous regions of the Ottomans (like Egypt and the Balkans) somehow 100% loyal and fully contributing (Egypt because of bogus cultural union, and Balkans through Dhimmi estate and their ability to accept Greek etc. because they don't need to accept Egyptians).
Can someone please post a save with a failed Ottoman start? Not trolling, genuinely asking because I'd love to play a game like that. Restarting and restarting over and over after 50 years or so is ridiculously tiresome if I were to keep rolling the dice.
I'M asking because so far I finished two Ironman games (and three other attempts we won't mention here...) since the patch and they looked like this in the 18th century:
(obviously their growth in the first one is slightly stunted by me being Naples, they still took everything up to and including Vienna in some later wars by ~1800)
It's getting rather old, after the whining just after release I had really high hopes for a more interesting development.
If I'm perfectly honest, it was one of the main reasons to start up the game again.
I'd also settle for a naturally collapsing Ming save, that never happens to me either.
/edit
Didn't realise the order of the screenshots was flipped, oops.
I'M asking because so far I finished two Ironman games (and three other attempts we won't mention here...) since the patch and they looked like this in the 18th century:
(obviously their growth in the first one is slightly stunted by me being Naples, they still took everything up to and including Vienna in some later wars by ~1800)
It's getting rather old, after the whining just after release I had really high hopes for a more interesting development.
If I'm perfectly honest, it was one of the main reasons to start up the game again.
I'd also settle for a naturally collapsing Ming save, that never happens to me either.
/edit
Didn't realise the order of the screenshots was flipped, oops.
- Status