I admit that the Ottoman ideas are strong, but each country has it's strong points in terms of ideas, which define one's strategy. Byzantium has theirs.
Yes you're right, it is not strictly necessary to ally both Hungary and Aragon, but without them it becomes much harder to enact the ships wall tactic, because typically the Ottomans and Tunis attack your 30 ships fleet together and Crimea attacks you from the north. That's the point when thing become really luck-based.So beat the Ottomans w/o Poland with galleys like the last 7 patches in a row and you don't have to worry about diprep advisors or AI unit micro.
This isn't true either. Both Tunis and Crimea joined on this:
It didn't end well for Ottomans:
Byz is always amusing to me because it's a position that is 1) not even in the top 30 most difficult nations to play and yet 2) has many posters claiming it's impossible or that you HAVE to rely on alliances to beat the Ottomans.
Muscovy is too strong in EU relative to its real position in 1444; it's already railroaded for success, same with Castile. Let's not use hindsight bias to say these nations need to be stronger to achieve historic results. Sometimes France or Castile PU each other and integrate to hold both CN sets, more power than anything over there had historically.
That's a nice example of successful micromanagement, but in the grander scheme of things, you should admit that it's very hard to fight the Ottomans plus its two allies without the proper combination of allies and luck.
Show me how many loans you took out, I'm guessing by the amount of ships you have, you are heavily in debt. Plus Ottomans in that were already at war with someone else, and the fact that they did not destroy your navy when you declared war is impressive, normally the Ottomans have 40-50 ships.So beat the Ottomans w/o Poland with galleys like the last 7 patches in a row and you don't have to worry about diprep advisors or AI unit micro.
This isn't true either. Both Tunis and Crimea joined on this:
It didn't end well for Ottomans:
Byz is always amusing to me because it's a position that is 1) not even in the top 30 most difficult nations to play and yet 2) has many posters claiming it's impossible or that you HAVE to rely on alliances to beat the Ottomans.
Muscovy is too strong in EU relative to its real position in 1444; it's already railroaded for success, same with Castile. Let's not use hindsight bias to say these nations need to be stronger to achieve historic results. Sometimes France or Castile PU each other and integrate to hold both CN sets, more power than anything over there had historically.
Dude, loans are there to be repaid, and it's very easy to do it after the first won war. Ship composition also matters, the Ottomans fleet is mostly made of barques and useless transport ships, hence they won't attack you without the help of Tunis if you have that many ships and a decent admiral.
I don't like to this because for some reason, I prefer loans to removing a nice fort in Morea (worth about 200 gold, I believe it's at least the same order of magnitude of the interest I pay), but that is doable too: Byzantium's income is higher than it should.
how is that a joke? That is historicaly acurate
My joke was that people were saying Byzantium is too hard. I've defeated the Ottomans and restored the ERE borders as both Byzantium and Trebizond (Komnenos ho!). Now I'm trying it as Monferrat for that same reason. Actually, I've just managed to grab Ragusa and Albania from Venice, making progress to connecting some greek territory to the HRE. (Can't move my capital if it isn't.)how is that a joke? That is historicaly acurate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob,_Marquess_of_Montferrat
