Ottomans Nerfed? - The Superthread

[Metz]

Venice should skirmish more often with the Ottomans. They had several wars from 1396 until 1718.

 

[Blust]

Weird. In my game, Ottoderp ate Hungary, Wallachia, Byzantium and all others minors in Anatolia in less than 30 years.

 

[grand_Turk]

On the bright side, Mehmet Fatih II is now 6/4/6 which is nice.

Not only that. They also scaled up the stats of all Ottoman sultans reigned between 1640 and 1703. Yet, I didn't understand the motivation behind the change in Mehmet the Conqueror's stats.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Random games are called Civilisation series, not EUx

EUx has plenty of random and lots of anti-history in the name of gameplay. It has less broken by design elements than civ, and somehow civ 6 actually managed a worse UI which is kind of amazing in a not so good way, but arguments based solely on history using either game as the premise are incoherent and necessarily self-inconsistent. Nobody ever seems to manage to define criteria for where history stops and gameplay starts that applies consistently, including the developers.

At least they mind the gameplay, outside of the new world where nobody who works on EU 4 seems particularly interested in history, gameplay, or even the player actually doing something in many cases.

When it comes to Ottomans, you need more than "they were strong historically". You need a reason they're special compared to other nations that were strong historically and later declined to the point where they're made uniquely powerful. Even then, making it happen w/o the conditions historical Ottomans had is irrational.

You need causality for something to be historical. Need it, no exceptions. Events happening w/o causality are ahistorical, regardless of whether they happened in causal history.

That's why when all someone has to offer as a basis is "history", they're wrong, and it's not a matter of opinion. x = not x is tautologically false, and asking for historical outcomes w/o their cause is a request for x = not x.

 

[I_am_Nemo]

The main nerf is that Venice guarantees ALbania, so Ottos might have a hard war just a few months into the game, which can lead to that kind of gangbang. But besides that, they clearly seem as strong as ever.

That's what killed them in my first game this patch. I think Serbia wound up in that mess too, and maybe somebody else. All said and done, as of 1531, Anatolia is now split between 'lukes and Karaman, Byz has most of Southern Greece/Macedonia (gained it, lost it to Venice, and now I see they have most of it back) and Poland has moved in on the North. Ottos? Nowhere to be seen.

Wonder if the AI needs a little more prompting to not declare into the VenAlbanian mess, as it seems a few others are highlighting that as well. Other than that, I'm doubtful they're in any trouble. But we'll see.

 

[Sfan]

He was 5/5/6 previously, right? I guess he secured no meaningful alliance, but was still awesome, so the -1 in dip was balanced by the +1 in adm?

 

[Benghi Bon]

God forbid we have variety in games. I for one am happy to see the tables actually turn sometimes in Anatolia. The complaints about them never reaching their height is so, so, so moot -- noone does in the game, among others because it's not a simulator.

 

[seriousgigi]

Not only that. They also scaled up the stats of all Ottoman sultans reigned between 1640 and 1703. Yet, I didn't understand the motivation behind the change in Mehmet the Conqueror's stats.

they couldn't success with forcing the AI to put their national focus on ADM at the game start. then they just decided to change mehmet's skills i guess. you know pdx just removed more than 600 ADM from the ottoman empire.

also thanks for the ridiculous mistakes pdx. it seems @Trin Tragula coudln't see this weird wars in the whole EU4 teams' nights of observe games before COC out.

i think the bonus wars most likely will be started by hungarians/poles/austrians (who got pu over hungary) when the ottomans decided to start ridiculous wars against anatolian minors.

 

[Frogbait]

Coherent reasoning is always a plus.

History alone as the argument is not coherent.

But muh History :*(. Also must include the obligatory "it's called EUROPA universalis".

EUx has plenty of random and lots of anti-history in the name of gameplay. It has less broken by design elements than civ, and somehow civ 6 actually managed a worse UI which is kind of amazing in a not so good way, but arguments based solely on history using either game as the premise are incoherent and necessarily self-inconsistent. Nobody ever seems to manage to define criteria for where history stops and gameplay starts that applies consistently, including the developers.

At least they mind the gameplay, outside of the new world where nobody who works on EU 4 seems particularly interested in history, gameplay, or even the player actually doing something in many cases.

When it comes to Ottomans, you need more than "they were strong historically". You need a reason they're special compared to other nations that were strong historically and later declined to the point where they're made uniquely powerful. Even then, making it happen w/o the conditions historical Ottomans had is irrational.

You need causality for something to be historical. Need it, no exceptions. Events happening w/o causality are ahistorical, regardless of whether they happened in causal history.

That's why when all someone has to offer as a basis is "history", they're wrong, and it's not a matter of opinion. x = not x is tautologically false, and asking for historical outcomes w/o their cause is a request for x = not x.

American Universalis when? I have a dream that one day natives will have fun and interactive gameplay regardless of colonizers again. Maybe one day the baseless primitive restrictions will be removed.

To further elaborate on TMIT's point for causality: effectively when you study history you'll usually find that nations are not really that different from their neighbors when it comes to general characteristics and that long reigning empires actually weren't super stable and super strong all the time. There are several factors that combine to make this happen and something as small as a single decision could change the outcome of events drastically. There is no inevitability when "history" was happening. In a game that is loosely based on the history of the world on November 11th, 1444, what happened in history goes out the window once you unpause the game. The Ottomans on November 11th, 1444 are in no way inevitability destined to rise to a major power house and become a regional super power. Relatively speaking, the Turks have a lot of ways to become irrelevant and fade to history. Other powers can rise in the power vacuum and everything can and will change. The Ottomans are set up to become a strong power with their starting ruler, national ideas, and surrounding territory. But so are a lot of their neighbors.

It's honestly more historical for the game if the Ottomans don't become a regional power house each game. That doesn't mean a new end boss won't rise in their place. From a game perspective it actually makes the game a bit more replayable if instead of the end game super bosses being the same nations everytime it has a good chance of being different each game.

So in short, if the Turks fall, another super power rises in their ashes. There is no such thing as certainty when dealing with a set date of history and spiraling past that point. Diversity makes each game more unique and we should honestly embrace that. And most important of all, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Seriously PDX, please give natives gameplay that does not revolve around the colonizers discovering them to gain access to basic game mechanics. Let natives be able to make their own destiny like any other nation.

 

[Sfan]

I don't know, we can consider that people who don't have odd occurrences do not come to the forum to whine, and I still see more screenshots of Ottomans succeeding than Ottomans failing since release. Complaining because of 2 or 3 games still don't make it a trend, many people reacted to the bullshitstorm by posting their screenshot of the Ottomans being first GP or by mentioning their Ottomans owning Hungary and Egypt as usual, without any player intervention. Pretending that you understand the game better than the devs seems the proof that you are either really angry, or that you really think too highly of yourself.

 

[seriousgigi]

why pdx not makes two different campaign modes for the game? like football manager. it has normal mode and football manager classic mode. pdx can make 2 modes and name those as eu classic mode (historical mode) and eu sandbox mode. in classic mode you can see pre COC version ottoman empire and in sandbox mode you can see their post COC version.

 

[Sfan]

Are you outright trolling because your Turkish pride can't handle the fact that they don't succeed 100% of the time anymore? Seriously, I tried to answer to your posts for the entire day, but you keep on ignoring every instance of the Ottomans succeeding and every dislike you and people who think like you get, and now you make it look like such an issue that you think it deserves a special mode? For real? If Paradox did not do it for forts, for institutions or for any other MAJOR feature disliked by some, I doubt they will do it because Ottomans went from 100% success to 50% success AT WORST, and likely way more success based on the posts of rational people who are not blinded by god knows which feeling.

 

[seriousgigi]

Are you outright trolling because your Turkish pride can't handle the fact that they don't succeed 100% of the time anymore? Seriously, I tried to answer to your posts for the entire day, but you keep on ignoring every instance of the Ottomans succeeding and every dislike you and people who think like you get, and now you make it look like such an issue that you think it deserves a special mode? For real? If Paradox did not do it for forts, for institutions or for any other MAJOR feature disliked by some, I doubt they will do it because Ottomans went from 100% success to 50% success AT WORST, and likely way more success based on the posts of rational people who are not blinded by god knows which feeling.

what turkish pride you're talking about? i did gave ottoman empire example because the the thread was about them. i'd like to see france, russia, spain, gbr basically all majors as strong in my games. some people in community want to see this while others want more sandbox games i mean choosing byzantium and make unreal map painting europe conquest with them. the whole discussions are here about this. two game modes can fix this and people finally shut up about discussing these nerfs/buffs with every patch/dlc so finally we can make more rational discussions about game mechanics in future.

also pdx can also change multiplayer ideas of nations for example.

 

[Sfan]

But if you're not so obsessed with Turkey in particular, why is it that the fact that Turkey sometimes fail bothers you so much, while France, Russia, Spain and GB all sometimes fail, and you were not ranting everywhere. I would already find that suspiscious if I did not know you were Turkish. But let's forget it, the reasons behind your posts do not concern me and I'm sorry to mention it, that's my mistake.

To go back to the debate, do you really think that there is an issue with them failing sometimes? Or is it that you are under the impression that they always fail?

 

[gigau]

Consolidated the threads dealing with Ottoman Nerfing.

No need to multiply the number of threads dealing with the same subject.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

why pdx not makes two different campaign modes for the game? like football manager. it has normal mode and football manager classic mode. pdx can make 2 modes and name those as eu classic mode (historical mode) and eu sandbox mode. in classic mode you can see pre COC version ottoman empire and in sandbox mode you can see their post COC version.

You wind up with design overhead and consideration for two gameplay modes, with increasingly unrealistic burdens (in the cost/"get this out in time" sense) created by the DLC model. It's probably more economical to make and sell two games...and they kind of do that with the different titles on the same engine to a degree.

 

[HydroAC]

I tried the Mamluks for the first time ever with the new expansion. Initial impressions:

• Plenty of cash - even with corruption I never had any problems. I went on a spending spree when I got temples and marketplaces
• The Mamluk government type is rather fun. Not knowing what stats your ruler will have is a gamble, but I do get to choose Average or Strong legitimacy
• I'm not that impressed with the new Islam dynamic so far. I'll give it more time.
• Lots of opportunities for expansion, and weak states to the south (southern Nile) and southeast (Arabia).

At first I was concerned since the Ottos allied AQ, forming a thicket of alliance between Ramazan, Karaman, AQ, and Ottos. I eventually got to war with only Ramazan and Karaman, annexing both. The Ottos promptly attacked AQ (they previously had an alliance, so not sure how that worked). After taking a few provinces from AQ the Ottos guaranteed the intact AQ, blocking Otto expansion to the east.

The problem is that the Ottos took the mission to conquer the Knights instead of Constantinople. So they got into a fruitless war with Venice and Knights to take out the Knights (it was a draw). Then the Ottos attacked Albania, drawing in Serbia, Hungary, Venice and their vassals into a bloodbath.

This was a prime opportunity. I then attacked the Ottos and occupied Anatolia, taking land to Constantinople. The Hungarian allies decimated the Ottos east of the Aegean. I then attacked and took Constantinople and Athens. After my peace the Hungarian allies each took land and released 3 Byzantium cores.

So by 1463 the Ottos are crippled and out of the game: he has lost almost all of his holdings west of the Aegean Sea and I've bisected his holdings in Anatolia and taken Constantinople to boot.

RECOMMENDATION: with the new weakened Ottos they should NOT have scripted missions other than taking out Constantinople or perhaps re-conquest of Albania. Attacking the Knights was just plain useless, and the Ottos still have that mission, too!

Now, I wonder if I should convert to Orthodox with the inevitable revolt in Constantinople? Haven't done that before, and I need to decide fast. I suppose I lose the Mamluk government if I go Orthodox.

 

[Edraii]

I dunno about you, but I'm personally having a blast watching the Balkans rip otto to shreds

I mean, AI Byzantines retaking Anatolian land? In my 1400 hours of the game I've never seen that.

 

[Fanstar1]

I dunno about you, but I'm personally having a blast watching the Balkans rip otto to shreds

I mean, AI Byzantines retaking Anatolian land? In my 1400 hours of the game I've never seen that.

wait does knights hold Izmir?

 

[Brynjar]

So far the biggest Ottoman nerf seem to be the AI army movement changes. 127k army vs 42k QQ and friends army, Ottomans haven't been fighting anyone else for the duration of the war. Even so, all but 3 regiments are hanging around deep in Ottoman territory while they haven't even sieged down the war goal. 80 years into the game and I have seen this behaviour in several AI vs AI wars already.

A bit more than 2 years later and the Ottomans prefers to take attrition in their own territory instead of getting their 10 to 1 stackwipes or sieging down provinces.