Ottomans Nerfed? - The Superthread

[OCO]

Well, Ottoman Empire was the world's dominant power in 16th and 17th centuries at its peak point. Also, Ottoman history had some important breaking points; I will give just two examples. Ofcourse anyone can bring more possitive or negative examples for Russia, France, GB too.

1. Example: Conquest of Constantinopol was a real gamble for Mehmet II. Contrirary to the popular opinion, prospects of the siege was not on behalf of the Ottomans. Rather Ottoman army could face a serious deadlock if Hungary and Venice were brave enough. Hungary was already willing to enter the war but their heavy lost in 1444 Varna War led them to act slowly. 1444 Varna was on the other hand a miraculous victory of Ottomans but this is out of the thread anyway.

ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: Well think about if Mehmet II had failed to conquer Constantinopol in 1453. It would be the dead of the Empire before its birth. Byzantium would gain their losts in Thrace with the help of a huge conflict in Anatolia. Aqkoyunlu was a serious powerhouse under Uzun Hasan rule until their fiasco against Mehmet II in 1473. Anatolian Turcoman clans would always prefer to support the strongest and they would turn away from Ottomans which they didnt like already. Consequently a possible failure of the siege would bring an even bigger mass than 1683-1699 Great Turkish War.

2. Example: Suleyman I's inheriting the throne was another serious danger for Ottoman legacy. Since he was the only son of Selim I and he had only one boy which was little child. Eygpt, Syria and Hejaz was newly conquered. Local tribes with Mamluks was seeking a chance to reacquire the power. Suleyman had very strong rivals such as Hungary (then the HRE) and Safavids to deal with. In Anatolia Alawid Turcoman riots was not really suppressed.

ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: Just think if Suleyman the Magnificent died after 2-3 years. A child heir. Under the incapable Sultan Mustafa rule, Eygpt would be independent once again with a self-confident pasha just like Suleyman's brother-in-law tried. Hungary would free Serbia and Bulgaria easily. Safavids would take advantage of Alawid riots and invade Anatolia.

In alternative history perspective many events can occur in the game for every country. This brings playability to the game for sure. Otherwise playing same scenario would be so boring.

But... A BIG BUT...

Without some historical accuracy, alternative history alone cannot be a fun. This will be like playing in an artificial world with real nation names like CV series. Anyone who doesn't like history does not play this game and %99 of the players need to see historically consistent campaings in order TO CHANGE the history. I think that is the point of this game.

I want to ask: Can anyone show me AI Ottomans achieved their peak point as it was in real life in this patch? Or in any campaign a leader like Napoleon brought Europe to knees? Any colonial empire conquered India in a few years? Any USA beating GB?

Did you see Russia, Austria, France, GB, Ottomans were strong at the same time? How many times did you see Mughals in India? How many times Netherlands formed and colonized Indonesia? None, never.

So game balance, alternative history are just bullshit if there is no historical real events. This game needs Selim I, Napoleon, George Washington, Ivan the Great. Then we can be happy to see Ottomans lost against Mamluks in 2 of 10 games.

I hope my point was clear enough.

 

[wellenbrecher]

I'm not sure I follow your conclusion in the end there. Sorry if I'm just misunderstanding you.
Because certain things don't happen like history or even close to history, the Ottomans need to be the strongest nation each time around? What?


Also sidenote, my Naples game actually had a successful Thirteen Colonies revolt against GB! Fully AI, I never even noticed or meddled until GB was well on its way to losing that war.

 

[Bebou]

Well, Ottoman Empire was the world's dominant power in 16th and 17th centuries at its peak point. Also, Ottoman history had some important breaking points; I will give just two examples. Ofcourse anyone can bring more possitive or negative examples for Russia, France, GB too.

1. Example: Conquest of Constantinopol was a real gamble for Mehmet II. Contrirary to the popular opinion, prospects of the siege was not on behalf of the Ottomans. Rather Ottoman army could face a serious deadlock if Hungary and Venice were brave enough. Hungary was already willing to enter the war but their heavy lost in 1444 Varna War led them to act slowly. 1444 Varna was on the other hand a miraculous victory of Ottomans but this is out of the thread anyway.

ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: Well think about if Mehmet II had failed to conquer Constantinopol in 1453. It would be the dead of the Empire before its birth. Byzantium would gain their losts in Thrace with the help of a huge conflict in Anatolia. Aqkoyunlu was a serious powerhouse under Uzun Hasan rule until their fiasco against Mehmet II in 1473. Anatolian Turcoman clans would always prefer to support the strongest and they would turn away from Ottomans which they didnt like already. Consequently a possible failure of the siege would bring an even bigger mass than 1683-1699 Great Turkish War.

2. Example: Suleyman I's inheriting the throne was another serious danger for Ottoman legacy. Since he was the only son of Selim I and he had only one boy which was little child. Eygpt, Syria and Hejaz was newly conquered. Local tribes with Mamluks was seeking a chance to reacquire the power. Suleyman had very strong rivals such as Hungary (then the HRE) and Safavids to deal with. In Anatolia Alawid Turcoman riots was not really suppressed.

ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: Just think if Suleyman the Magnificent died after 2-3 years. A child heir. Under the incapable Sultan Mustafa rule, Eygpt would be independent once again with a self-confident pasha just like Suleyman's brother-in-law tried. Hungary would free Serbia and Bulgaria easily. Safavids would take advantage of Alawid riots and invade Anatolia.

In alternative history perspective many events can occur in the game for every country. This brings playability to the game for sure. Otherwise playing same scenario would be so boring.

But... A BIG BUT...

Without some historical accuracy, alternative history alone cannot be a fun. This will be like playing in an artificial world with real nation names like CV series. Anyone who doesn't like history does not play this game and %99 of the players need to see historically consistent campaings in order TO CHANGE the history. I think that is the point of this game.

I want to ask: Can anyone show me AI Ottomans achieved their peak point as it was in real life in this patch? Or in any campaign a leader like Napoleon brought Europe to knees? Any colonial empire conquered India in a few years? Any USA beating GB?

Did you see Russia, Austria, France, GB, Ottomans were strong at the same time? How many times did you see Mughals in India? How many times Netherlands formed and colonized Indonesia? None, never.

So game balance, alternative history are just bullshit if there is no historical real events. This game needs Selim I, Napoleon, George Washington, Ivan the Great. Then we can be happy to see Ottomans lost against Mamluks in 2 of 10 games.

I hope my point was clear enough.

You want to see Ottomans reach their peak post patch?...didn't the person who posted right before you provide something far more impressive then their peak irl? In his game they didnt take all of their former North African provinces but instead ate Poland and Russia lol.

 

[OCO]

You want to see Ottomans reach their peak post patch?...didn't the person who posted right before you provide something far more impressive then their peak irl? In his game they didnt take all of their former North African provinces but instead ate Poland and Russia lol.

The point is not only Ottomans. Maybe in 1 of 10000 games Manchu can eat India too. But yes, if the name of campaing is "rise of Ottomans". Ottoman should rise in majority of the possibilities.

 

[Bebou]

The point is not only Ottomans. Maybe in 1 of 10000 games Manchu can eat India too. But yes, if the name of campaing is "rise of Ottomans". Ottoman should rise in majority of the possibilities.

I thought the game was called Europa Universalis 4. I don't see Rise of the Ottomans on my copy...

 

[Roki_09]

Update on my game:
Ottos crushed Russia again, took Moscow and surrounding large cities, Then declared on Bohemia(Emperor), only calling AQ Q, as their ally.
Bohemia brought me to the war, Venice and bunch of minor nations from HRE.
I crushed AQQ, and had some 50/50 battles with Ottoman troops.
In the north Bohemia was mostly losing land and fights, but not that fast, as AI decisions are sometimes not that great. (they dont focus on one enemy)
I was ready for a push into Turkey, but Bohemia made peace with AQ giving me some nice land, but loosing a ton of positive war score.
And then they signed a white peace with Ottos.

And thats how I lost another chance to weaken them...

 

[CountKino]

I thought the game was called Europa Universalis 4. I don't see Rise of the Ottomans on my copy...

He's referring to the screen where you select your country, if you're looking at Europe it's called "Rise of the Ottomans", there are different names for North America, Asia, etc.

 

[Knight of the Black Rose]

I thought the game was called Europa Universalis 4. I don't see Rise of the Ottomans on my copy...

he didn't say anything about the game's name, are you blind?

 

[dynalon]

I thought the game was called Europa Universalis 4. I don't see Rise of the Ottomans on my copy...

OCO is referring to the name of the historical start. (upper left corner when you choose a nation)

Without some historical accuracy, alternative history alone cannot be a fun. This will be like playing in an artificial world with real nation names like CV series. Anyone who doesn't like history does not play this game and %99 of the players need to see historically consistent campaings in order TO CHANGE the history. I think that is the point of this game.

I think I get what you mean, but I don't quite agree with this. To me one of the big appeals of EU4 is that the start of the game is modelled with historical accuracy as far as the game mechanisms allow. My historical knowledge isn't good enough to discuss how accurate the game is in 1444, but I do recognize the effort of the designers to make it as close to reality as possible.

And another appeal for me is that for the largest part, the game does not railroad the course of history. My ideal would be that the real course of history is plausible in an hands-off game, just by the way the game mechanisms and the AI work. However, there is this question: How likely should it be that the 380 years of the game unfold (approximately) historically for every nation? Given the timeframe, the number of nations, and the fact that small deviations can have big consequences, my answer would be "very little". My second question would be, "How early in the game should those deviations be notable?" - to which I don't even have a decisive answer for myself.

 

[Lordban]

But yes, if the name of campaing is "rise of Ottomans". Ottoman should rise in majority of the possibilities.

And they do.

 

[OCO]

OCO is referring to the name of the historical start. (upper left corner when you choose a nation)

I think I get what you mean, but I don't quite agree with this. To me one of the big appeals of EU4 is that the start of the game is modelled with historical accuracy as far as the game mechanisms allow. My historical knowledge isn't good enough to discuss how accurate the game is in 1444, but I do recognize the effort of the designers to make it as close to reality as possible.

And another appeal for me is that for the largest part, the game does not railroad the course of history. My ideal would be that the real course of history is plausible in an hands-off game, just by the way the game mechanisms and the AI work. However, there is this question: How likely should it be that the 380 years of the game unfold (approximately) historically for every nation? Given the timeframe, the number of nations, and the fact that small deviations can have big consequences, my answer would be "very little". My second question would be, "How early in the game should those deviations be notable?" - to which I don't even have a decisive answer for myself.

Actually what I am trying to say here, possibility of historical events' happening is less likely than possibility of unreal events. FE, Poland's conquering Constantinopol is more likely than Mughals' or Netherlands' formation. Ofcourse Poland or Russia can conquer Constantinopol or Provence can take Paris in some plays. But Ottomans' and France's becoming great powers need to be more likely. Realility should be seen more.

Second point is that AI should be more dynamic and aggresive. But game mechanics do not allow that. Game mechanics donot allow an alternative Napoleon's birth or Ottomans' campaign of Egypt or GB's invasion of India. I mean these kind of events do not have to happen just like they happened in real history but similar possibilities are needed I believe.

The reason I am writing this under the thread is that Otto nerf is just new and Ottos are the major power which caused lots of changes in this period of time. But %99 of my gameplays Ottomans never reach what they really did.

 

[Arizal]

So maybe nerfing should be tied to actual things happening in the game?

I wrote a few posts about the subject elsewhere. National ideas and special mechanics are loved by many players who want "flavour", "immersion" and "replayability", but the presence of targeted bonuses doesn't make sense in an evolving world, nor does the fact that special mechanics are locked to some countries as if they were so fundamentally different from each others that in 400 years, they couldn't become similar to another historical model.

About the alleged "Ottoman nerf", I sadly didn't have much time to play. It's true in my 3 started games (as QQ) I saw them doing less extreme things than previously, but the Ottomans were monstrous in the last version. I have no real basis to say this, but I would say the Ottomans feel back to their proper place, and the fact that they don't get anymore a huge scripted nerf in the 18th century must surely help them a lot to survive the late game. If anything, I am under the impression Mamluks are too stable for the disaster they became historically.

That last statement might appears like a rebuttal of what I said in the beginning. If a country future can affect the way we portray it in the game, what is the problem with NIs and special mechanics? I rather think that the historical future should influence how we portray the initial conditions for these countries, not their future bonuses. QQ or the Timurids are actually good examples, as they start in a rather dire condition. The rest, however, has yet to be written, in the game environment.

As @OCO submitted above, things could have gone wrong for the Ottomans. They could have for any country, in fact. So giving überbonuses to any country should be avoided, and that is what Paradox did with this update. They didn't "nerf the Ottomans to the groun" so much as removed their bonuses, which were unfair because they were based on their future glory at this point, while at the same time giving them a break in the late game, because the janissaries disaster was based on events which didn't necessarily happened in the game.

PS : By "überbonuses", I am referring to the old flat bonus the janissaries were and to the free cores in Anatolia.

 

[OCO]

PS : By "überbonuses", I am referring to the old flat bonus the janissaries were and to the free cores in Anatolia.

The idea of free cores in Anatolia has historical background. Those lands were under Ottoman rule till 1402 Ankara War. Like Neumark core of Brandenburg. Normandy and other French free cores. I belive those core should be given back to its owner.

 

[PotatoesOfDoom]

The idea of free cores in Anatolia has historical background. Those lands were under Ottoman rule till 1402 Ankara War. Like Neumark core of Brandenburg. Normandy and other French free cores. I belive those core should be given back to its owner.

...Brandenburg doesn't have a core on Neumark at the start, as I can attest from like 20 attempts to get a BBurg game off the ground.

 

[Rashie]

...Brandenburg doesn't have a core on Neumark at the start, as I can attest from like 20 attempts to get a BBurg game off the ground.

It used to. The Neumark core got removed as of Rights Of Man IIRC.

 

[Lordban]

Well, Ottoman Empire was the world's dominant power in 16th and 17th centuries at its peak point.

True in the first half of the 16th, false by the 17th. By then, Spain had a global empire and was richer than anybody else, and France took on the strongest powers of the continent on a regular basis and either won or stalled them.

 

[OCO]

...Brandenburg doesn't have a core on Neumark at the start, as I can attest from like 20 attempts to get a BBurg game off the ground.

It did, before. The game was more historically accurate at the past...

 

[dynalon]

Actually what I am trying to say here, possibility of historical events' happening is less likely than possibility of unreal events. FE, Poland's conquering Constantinopol is more likely than Mughals' or Netherlands' formation. Ofcourse Poland or Russia can conquer Constantinopol or Provence can take Paris in some plays. But Ottomans' and France's becoming great powers need to be more likely. Realility should be seen more.

Second point is that AI should be more dynamic and aggresive. But game mechanics do not allow that. Game mechanics donot allow an alternative Napoleon's birth or Ottomans' campaign of Egypt or GB's invasion of India. I mean these kind of events do not have to happen just like they happened in real history but similar possibilities are needed I believe.

The reason I am writing this under the thread is that Otto nerf is just new and Ottos are the major power which caused lots of changes in this period of time. But %99 of my gameplays Ottomans never reach what they really did.

Oh, I see. Yeah, it's true that quite a few historcally powerful players do not emerge out of the game's rules - although I've seen neither Polish Constantinople nor Provencial Paris in any of my playthroughs, either.

However, the Ottomans have been The Big Scary Nation South East Of Europe in every single one of my playthroughs (which only includes one 1.23 run for now, I should add). I remember exactly one rough spot they've been through, which was Muscovy attacking, which lead to a sizeable Italo-German coalition to fire, which lead to mighte Ternate declare a colonai war on them and win against the Naval AI - so basically, it required the universe to gang up on them, and they still came out of it weakened instead of horribly crippled.

Coming purely from a gameplay perspetive, it just doesn't seem that important to me if they ally Tunis or eat Tunis, or if the distance between Vienna and the Ottoman's borders is historically accurate. And given that they didn't reach their peak strength before the 17th century, that's too far into the game that I would want the game to railroad their expansion to ensure historical borders.

So while I can (not fully agree, but) see why you would like historical outcomes, I don't really think that the Ottomans have a problem in that regard. Although they won't reproduce their actual borders most (if not all) of the time, they're able to reproduce their historical role as an extremely powerful nation with their fingers in a lot of pies in the areas around them - certainly moreso than other historical global players (the sun always sets over the British empire in my games! ).

 

[Bebou]

OCO is referring to the name of the historical start. (upper left corner when you choose a nation)

I think I get what you mean, but I don't quite agree with this. To me one of the big appeals of EU4 is that the start of the game is modelled with historical accuracy as far as the game mechanisms allow. My historical knowledge isn't good enough to discuss how accurate the game is in 1444, but I do recognize the effort of the designers to make it as close to reality as possible.

And another appeal for me is that for the largest part, the game does not railroad the course of history. My ideal would be that the real course of history is plausible in an hands-off game, just by the way the game mechanisms and the AI work. However, there is this question: How likely should it be that the 380 years of the game unfold (approximately) historically for every nation? Given the timeframe, the number of nations, and the fact that small deviations can have big consequences, my answer would be "very little". My second question would be, "How early in the game should those deviations be notable?" - to which I don't even have a decisive answer for myself.

See above, the first reply not the second. sorry didnt notice that you had also answered otherwise I would have included you.

Actually what I am trying to say here, possibility of historical events' happening is less likely than possibility of unreal events. FE, Poland's conquering Constantinopol is more likely than Mughals' or Netherlands' formation. Ofcourse Poland or Russia can conquer Constantinopol or Provence can take Paris in some plays. But Ottomans' and France's becoming great powers need to be more likely. Realility should be seen more.

Second point is that AI should be more dynamic and aggresive. But game mechanics do not allow that. Game mechanics donot allow an alternative Napoleon's birth or Ottomans' campaign of Egypt or GB's invasion of India. I mean these kind of events do not have to happen just like they happened in real history but similar possibilities are needed I believe.

The reason I am writing this under the thread is that Otto nerf is just new and Ottos are the major power which caused lots of changes in this period of time. But %99 of my gameplays Ottomans never reach what they really did.

I don't think the Ottoman AI needs to be anymore aggressive. It already declares into practically everyone near it. Also I haven't seen Poland or Russia conquer Constantinople since the PLC nerfs like a year ago or whatever.

You are right Ottos don't reach what they did irl, they usually reach far more than they did and that was and still to a degree is a problem. The reasons for why this is a problem, please see the previous 24 pages of the thread.

 

[zePa]

I've to be honest, I haven't bought CoC yet, but I've already watched tons of gameplays and I've read lots of posts about this.

In 1.23 seems that Ottos and the whole Middle East have been balanced. (and that could be good) The thing I cannot accept is the "historical accuracy" all messed up.

Ottos should always try to "eat" the whole Anatolia, Serbia, Hungary, Crimea, Iraq and Egypt.. a great power for centuries, and then, in the late game, a sort of decline with crisis and loss of provinces. This should be the "natural" expansion the AI should try to ricreate. It's a game, of course, and sometimes expansion can go better than planned, sometimes could be a mess, but this should be the base.

In my runs I've only watched big green blobs that eat half the world and now a land with no idea on what to do, stuck in their provinces. Is it so difficult to make things just "normal" ?

That's my opinion so far. Can't wait to buy the dlc to confirm or change my impressions.