Ottomans Nerfed? - The Superthread

[ElGranCapitan]

Would you mind pointing out when my arguments have been historically inaccurate as that simply isn't the case.

The idea that the Ottomans should challenge Vienna in every game/most of the games for example. You pick an event from history, ignore it's causes and paint it as something that was determined to happen

The Ottomans conquest of Hungary..why did it happen so easily? Because the Hunyadis died out and through that eastern european semi-elective monarchy (nobility choose a new dynasty when the ruling dynasty died out) the Jagiellons rose to power. They had to make enormous concessions that ruined the once powerful state of Hungary. Without those events Mohacs would not have happened

 

[Lordban]

Since you asked about historical inaccuracies.

Also Columbus is a response to the Ottoman Empire so everything is interconnected.

It isn't. Euro-asian trade and the closure of its roads had been an issue since the rise of Islam, six centuries and a half earlier than the foundation of the Ottoman state. The Ottomans were only among the latest in a long series of roadblocks, and not the only one in the contemporary period with Columbus. As pointed out before, however, the advances made in navigation in the late 14th and 15th century made it possible for the first time to have a practical possibility of sailing on alternate routes to the Orient, no longer requiring land routes at all.

I don't have the time to go backwards now, but this is one example of historical inaccuracy, misrepresenting the Ottomans as the primary cause to an issue that predated them and whose circumvention allowed to bypass more than just them.

I'm not saying that the Ottomans should always take the nations they did in history. I'm saying the game should be guided as per your link but seeing the Ottomans fail to take Africa every game and never challenge Europe is disappointing. Why is that hard to grasp?

Because it runs counter to the design philosophy of the Europa Universalis series since its third iteration, which saw the departure from a largely deterministic approach to a plausibilistic one (however insufficiently implemented). The Ottomans should not succeed at taking Africa and siegeing Vienna in 100% of the games because it's not the design philosophy of the game. It's as simple as that.

 

[Coffer]

The idea that the Ottomans should challenge Vienna in every game/most of the games for example. You pick an event from history, ignore it's causes and paint it as something that was determined to happen

Maybe I missed a few posts, but I'm surprised more people haven't pointed this out. The idea that it absolutely HAS to happen in every single game, at least where the player does not actively interfere, is preposterous to me. History is history, but from the starting date on everything is dictated by the game, through the players and the AIs. There are some mechanics in place to encourage things going in certain directions, but they're just that: directions, not "here's the point where you absolutely HAVE to get every single time." To imply otherwise is to grossly misunderstand EU4 as a whole.

Lordban is absolutely spot on in his final paragraph.

 

[Ratanka]

all this "NERF OTTOMANS" jokes in the streams and from paradox people are getting annoying ...

NO ONE ever said that ottomans in a PLAYERS HAND are weak ... thats not the point that never was the damn point, the point is that the AI cant deal with the ottomans right know losing to the knights hungary mamluks making a joke out of themself

so all this "haha ottomans so weak" with a strong human player playing them ... are not clever guys ... just annoying

we not wanna have "BUFFS" to ottomans for players, what i suggestet was a passiv AI buff playing ottomans especially fixing this "lets stack 90k here and die from attrition while not fight the war vs 20k" which they currently do ...

so the "ottomans to weak" means 1. give ottomans a hidden AI strenght buff or 2. fix their movement and decision making which is so bad that they basicly screw themself with the new mechanics or 3. buff ai on a level that ottomans understand what to do

right now yes i get it a PLAYER is super super strong still with the ottomans, but ai isnt a player

 

[HansBaer]

I don't even?!
People see what they want to see. It doesn't make sense to argue with you guys.
You could always type "integrate hab/hun/mor/mam... tur" into the console and watch your glorious empire until you fall asleep with a warm feeling in your stomach.

 

[I_am_Nemo]

we not wanna have "BUFFS" to ottomans for players, what i suggestet was a passiv AI buff playing ottomans especially fixing this "lets stack 90k here and die from attrition while not fight the war vs 20k" which they currently do ...

That's not an Otto specific thing, though. It's an AI in general thing, and needs an AI in general fix.

But, when the Ottomans take only half their historic lands around the Mediterranean and Middle East, some people declare the Ottomans just fine, or even overpowered.

Again, why the heck would they want to take North Africa? It's poor land, has (I think) increased hostile coring cost, and doesn't really influence trade into Constantinople. It's not their culture group, and religion doesn't matter all that much to them, because they're set up to play a high-tolerance. There's literally no reason for the AI to take it from a power-gain perspective, unlike the the Spanish and the French core lands.

If they were regularly failing to regain Anatolia and the Levant, then you might have a point about power. But ignoring North Africa, especially if they're pushing into PLC/Russia, is simply a matter of the AI correctly prioritizing high-value land over low value land. Aside from history, there's literally no reason to go past Egypt.

 

[Shreddinger]

all this "NERF OTTOMANS" jokes in the streams and from paradox people are getting annoying ...

NO ONE ever said that ottomans in a PLAYERS HAND are weak ... thats not the point that never was the damn point, the point is that the AI cant deal with the ottomans right know losing to the knights hungary mamluks making a joke out of themself

so all this "haha ottomans so weak" with a strong human player playing them ... are not clever guys ... just annoying

we not wanna have "BUFFS" to ottomans for players, what i suggestet was a passiv AI buff playing ottomans especially fixing this "lets stack 90k here and die from attrition while not fight the war vs 20k" which they currently do ...

so the "ottomans to weak" means 1. give ottomans a hidden AI strenght buff or 2. fix their movement and decision making which is so bad that they basicly screw themself with the new mechanics or 3. buff ai on a level that ottomans understand what to do

right now yes i get it a PLAYER is super super strong still with the ottomans, but ai isnt a player

Hmm ...
I wanted a challenge, so I started playing knights. Out of 10 runs, I got smashed by Ottoman AI 9 times before 1450, and the one time I didnt, I managed to get an Alliance with Austria who PUed Hungary (on Easy tho). No matter what nation I played, Ottomans always got big, on any difficuilty and they always run around on a rampage. While it's true that as soon as they eat Byzantium, Serbia and all the shit states and ally France they could just demolish Europe, just because they don't, doesn't mean theyre weak.

Now, maybe Im not completely up to date, I play without any DLCs, but playing as any nation that is threatened by the Ottomans seems like living on the edge constantly, more so than with other nations. Not even Russia is as aggressive as they are.

 

[Roki_09]

France never gets near Napoleon borders yet I dont see same threads for them...

 

[petertel123]

Out of all nations on the entire map, I think the Ottomans are most likely to look somewhat like they did historically in an observer game. Most of the map is completely crazy by 1800 and the Ottomans will still hold the Balkans, Levant and Egypt.

 

[Rashie]

all this "NERF OTTOMANS" jokes in the streams and from paradox people are getting annoying ...

NO ONE ever said that ottomans in a PLAYERS HAND are weak ... thats not the point that never was the damn point, the point is that the AI cant deal with the ottomans right know losing to the knights hungary mamluks making a joke out of themself

so all this "haha ottomans so weak" with a strong human player playing them ... are not clever guys ... just annoying

we not wanna have "BUFFS" to ottomans for players, what i suggestet was a passiv AI buff playing ottomans especially fixing this "lets stack 90k here and die from attrition while not fight the war vs 20k" which they currently do ...

so the "ottomans to weak" means 1. give ottomans a hidden AI strenght buff or 2. fix their movement and decision making which is so bad that they basicly screw themself with the new mechanics or 3. buff ai on a level that ottomans understand what to do

right now yes i get it a PLAYER is super super strong still with the ottomans, but ai isnt a player

Id say AI Ottomans still has the capability to do well in game. I've got a 3600 development AI Ottoman in my game by the end of a finished campaign in CoC. It's just not essentially guaranteed they'll become the dominant power in their region.

The AI doing weird army movements and being bad at dealing with attrition isn't really an Ottoman specific issue. It's something that effects their performance when that happens but isn't really because of their specific tag.

 

[OCO]

France never gets near Napoleon borders yet I dont see same threads for them...

I mentioned France and Russia as well. However people are blaming the one who talked about historical realism as "nationalist". Actually the Turkish or French or Russian nationalists do not need such a game to express themselves. These nations already did what they did in history.

Anyway, my goal is just to mention problems about historicaly inaccurate points of this game. As I am an Ottoman historian I am talking about this thread. Someone who is studying French history should talk about their history.

Here are some problems for Ottomans and Middle East:

1. Cairo is now a more developed city than Constantinopol. This kind of bullshit can not be justified.
2. Eastern Anatolia is Armenian/Coptic and Georgian/Orthodox.
Georgian provinces need to be Sunni in Eastern Anatolia. Acara, Hamshin and other Georgian tribes adopted Islam before 1444.
Erzurum needs to be Sunni and Erzincan needs to be Shia Turkish.
3. In Persian and Arabic Peninsula, most of the tags are artificial not tied to history. Devs made some tribe, region, community names as political beings. A religious community is a religious community not a state. They need to find another way to show religious communities or tribes.
4. Where is Epirus Duchy in the game? They need to be independent in 1444.
5. Aegean provinces need to be Greek Orthodox in Anatolia. Especially Izmir and Mugla.
6. Burgaz needs to be Sunni Turkish.
7. Kosovo needs to be Albanian.
8. Macedonia needs to be Bulgarian
9. Malikates needs to be Azeri Shia.
10. Urfa needs to be Sunni Arabic.
11. Elam needs to be Sunni Arabic.

Biggest problem as I see the the way of Ottoman expansion. As Mamluks are quite strong and make alliances with Turkish beyliks. Ottoman AI prefer to go north toward Russia. This causes small Russia too.

 

[Coffer]

Actually the Turkish or French or Russian nationalists do not need such a game to express themselves. These nations already did what they did in history.

That in itself outs you as a nationalist.

 

[Vokasak]

Here are some problems for Ottomans and Middle East:

...

2. Eastern Anatolia is Armenian/Coptic and Georgian/Orthodox.
Georgian provinces need to be Sunni in Eastern Anatolia. Acara, Hamshin and other Georgian tribes adopted Islam before 1444.
Erzurum needs to be Sunni and Erzincan needs to be Shia Turkish.
3. In Persian and Arabic Peninsula, most of the tags are artificial not tied to history. Devs made some tribe, region, community names as political beings. A religious community is a religious community not a state. They need to find another way to show religious communities or tribes.
...
6. Burgaz needs to be Sunni Turkish.

Hah.

 

[OCO]

That in itself outs you as a nationalist.

Please write something worth to answer next time.

 

[HansBaer]

I mentioned France and Russia as well. However people are blaming the one who talked about historical realism as "nationalist". Actually the Turkish or French or Russian nationalists do not need such a game to express themselves. These nations already did what they did in history.

Anyway, my goal is just to mention problems about historicaly inaccurate points of this game. As I am an Ottoman historian I am talking about this thread. Someone who is studying French history should talk about their history.

Here are some problems for Ottomans and Middle East:

1. Cairo is now a more developed city than Constantinopol. This kind of bullshit can not be justified.

I think it's more than justified.
"By 1340, Cairo had a population of close to half a million, making it the largest city west of China." (Wikipedia)
How could an "ottoman historian" not know such a fact?
I'm intrigued, is your self esteem really that precarious that you become angered if another capital is more developed than your own in a computer game?

A common trait among most nationalists that they don't see or declare themselves as such. Here in Germany they call themselves concerned citizens, in America they are patriots.

 

[Lordban]

They're Patriotes in France as well

 

[Bebou]

Maybe I missed a few posts, but I'm surprised more people haven't pointed this out. The idea that it absolutely HAS to happen in every single game, at least where the player does not actively interfere, is preposterous to me. History is history, but from the starting date on everything is dictated by the game, through the players and the AIs. There are some mechanics in place to encourage things going in certain directions, but they're just that: directions, not "here's the point where you absolutely HAVE to get every single time." To imply otherwise is to grossly misunderstand EU4 as a whole.

Lordban is absolutely spot on in his final paragraph.

This has been pointed out numerous times it is just that the nationalists do not want to read it and often just ignore the comments and repost their last post in hopes that if they post it enough times people will believe them.

 

[Shreddinger]

France never gets near Napoleon borders yet I dont see same threads for them...

Just as PLC rarely gets swallowed up by Prussia, Austria and Russia in the late 18th century, and nobody complains about them being OP just because they don't die.

I think it's more than justified.
"By 1340, Cairo had a population of close to half a million, making it the largest city west of China." (Wikipedia)
How could an "ottoman historian" not know such a fact?

Then according to this logic, Mumbai would be one of the most developed cities today? It's kind of a joke to compare the home of some of the greatest minds that sparked the flame of humanism, that was an important node both strategically as well as economically, that basically connected 2 worlds to a city that never had any historical or cultural significance.

I'm intrigued, is your self esteem really that precarious that you become angered if another capital is more developed than your own in a computer game?

Except that Constantinople is not the capital of Turkey. Ankara is.

 

[Vokasak]

Just as PLC rarely gets swallowed up by Prussia, Austria and Russia in the late 18th century, and nobody complains about them being OP just because they don't die.

This happens in my games pretty often, especially if I'm playing as Prussia or Russia or Austria and start the whole thing off. As soon as the PLC is weakened, everyone smells blood in the water and piles on.

But even if I'm playing in Korea, the partition of Poland still happens more often than a failed Ottomans. In fact it's often times the Ottomans who end up eating an absurdly big piece of the PLC. If Prussia doesn't form, they (The Ottomans) often go straight to the Baltic.

Then according to this logic, Mumbai would be one of the most developed cities today?

top 50, definitely. Probably higher.

It's kind of a joke to compare the home of some of the greatest minds that sparked the flame of humanism, that was an important node both strategically as well as economically, that basically connected 2 worlds

Yeah, Constantinople is pretty sweet, but at 1444 it's far from its peak.

to a city that never had any historical or cultural significance.

I hope you're joking

 

[HansBaer]

Then according to this logic, Mumbai would be one of the most developed cities today? It's kind of a joke to compare the home of some of the greatest minds that sparked the flame of humanism, that was an important node both strategically as well as economically, that basically connected 2 worlds to a city that never had any historical or cultural significance.

He said it can't be justified, I pointed out that being the largest city in the western hemisphere is quite a good justification. There is more btw: "Meanwhile, Cairo flourished as a centre of Islamic scholarship and a crossroads on the spice trade route among the civilisations in Afro-Eurasia."
And, btw., Mumbai is one of the most important cities on our planet according to most economists. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city)
If you take a closer look at this list, all cities have one thing in common: They are huge Metropolises or at least the biggest cities in their respective area. Frankfurt is an exception to the rule as the de facto financial capital of the EU in one of the most densely populated areas in Europe.

a city that never had any historical or cultural significance

You sure got some reading to do.

At the start of the game, Constantinople was in decline for a long time and began to flourish again under Ottoman rule, which is aptly represented by the "move capital" decision. What happens afterwards is the AI developing as it sees fit and has nothing to do with "anti-turkish" or "anti-muslim" sentiments as some people like to argue.
Even without the decision, Constantinople is probably the most valuable city to own in (early) game, maybe only shadowed by London and Venice (early game). Two centers of trade in a cloth province in one of the best trade nodes.