So can we talk about the Ottoman-Timurid alliance, and how it shows a flaw?

[hashinshin]

Currently Ottomans always ally Timurids. That's fine, it's perfectly reasonable in the game's rules...

However the Timurids will NEVER come to back up the Ottoman's side in war, and it makes it impossible to ever get anything meaningful out of a war with the Ottomans since they have this mega-empire in the back that is supposingly their ally. This also happens incredibly often with Middle Eastern nations that are allied to Indian nations.

There needs to be a rule that a nation does not participate in a war for 3 years time they will be dropped from the warscore calculations (if not the entire war itself.)

 

[Osman Pasha]

It doesn't make any sense how Mamluks is the historical rival of Timurids and how the Ottomans are always friendly towards Timurids. Timurids fought the Ottomans at the battle of Ankara. It would make more sense for Ottomans to be the historical rival of Timurids.

 

[Camtheman]

If you've never fought a battle with a nation's ally after a time yeah their warscore cost should go away and you should only have to deal with the Ottoman's warscore cost.

 

[heroforhirerob]

In fairness, the Battle of Ankara was over 40 years earlier.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

Currently Ottomans always ally Timurids. That's fine, it's perfectly reasonable in the game's rules...

However the Timurids will NEVER come to back up the Ottoman's side in war, and it makes it impossible to ever get anything meaningful out of a war with the Ottomans since they have this mega-empire in the back that is supposingly their ally. This also happens incredibly often with Middle Eastern nations that are allied to Indian nations.

There needs to be a rule that a nation does not participate in a war for 3 years time they will be dropped from the warscore calculations (if not the entire war itself.)

Kinda agree with this, or something similar.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

From my experience, after 3 years pass, the warleader will negotiate as if they don't have their allies if their allies haven't participated until that point. However, this is a big problem, as an ally can cause a war that should have lasted a few months take three years to finish simply because they're allied with the defending warleader. Specifically in this situation, the ally and attacker can't actually reach each other, so the defending warleader just sits there occupied for 2 and a half years until the arbitrary three year limit runs out.

 

[hashinshin]

Well the problem becomes exacerbated once you can't 100% a nation. It'd take decades to 100% the Ottomans especially since they put up a good fight the entire way. Getting to 40/50% is typically good enough, but the alliance modifier to their willingness to surrender is SO MASSIVE that you'd be lucky to take on territory even with 40% war score.

Not every war is a complete butcher, and often getting to 100% is too long and costly for your war exhaustion and money reserves.

Trying to conquer Arabia just shows this problem all over, with many Arabians allying Indians that have no interest in EVER coming over, yet drive your territory gains down because it's too difficult to 100% them, and yet sitting on even 50% isn't enough for more than a territory.

Now if they participated in the war that might be one thing, but existing simply to drive down the AI's willingness to peace out is not cool.

What's worst is that if these alliances actually DID work there'd be no hope for ANY of the game if the Ottomans ever backed up the Timurids or vice versa. Who could withstand 200k troops by 1550?

 

[Squirrelloid]

What's worst is that if these alliances actually DID work there'd be no hope for ANY of the game if the Ottomans ever backed up the Timurids or vice versa. Who could withstand 200k troops by 1550?

France xP

 

[clockworkBabbag]

Well the problem becomes exacerbated once you can't 100% a nation. It'd take decades to 100% the Ottomans especially since they put up a good fight the entire way. Getting to 40/50% is typically good enough, but the alliance modifier to their willingness to surrender is SO MASSIVE that you'd be lucky to take on territory even with 40% war score.

Not every war is a complete butcher, and often getting to 100% is too long and costly for your war exhaustion and money reserves.

You realize the Timurids will be willing to white peace out separately long before the "decades" you need to get the Ottomans to 100%, even if you do absolutely nothing to them?

 

[Junuxx]

You realize the Timurids will be willing to white peace out separately long before the "decades" you need to get the Ottomans to 100%, even if you do absolutely nothing to them?

Indeed. I often concede defeat to unreachable allies like that, to peace them out sooner.

 

[Mztr44]

The one problem I see with this is that it would make it very difficult/unfair to allied nations to fight separate wars on different fronts. Like if Timurids was fighting a large Delhi to the east while Ottomans get attacked by Austria. You can hardly expect the Timurids to just abandon their borders to go assist the Ottomans even assuming QQ wasn't sandwiched between them restricting access. There is already a 5 year rule for 100% occupation, and typically by 4 or 5 years most nations will be willing to white peace.

Depending on your army strength/nation size, if you're doing a war against the Ottomans you could always get access from QQ and blitz your way to Samarkand while smashing the Timurid army to pieces, hold their capital for a year or so and they will be willing to accept a white peace pretty readily when that WE gets nasty for them and lack of army size. The bordering Indian nations are also pretty eager to jump on the Timurids at any sign of weakness which will speed things up even more. After something like that happens, the Timurids will more than likely crumble, or at the least someone will force their alliance to be cancelled and future Ottoman wars will be "easier" for you.

 

[Demetrios]

In fairness, the Battle of Ankara was over 40 years earlier.

Still, completely wrecking the Ottomans would leave a long memory.

I don't think people would have complaints if the Ottomans and Timurids would ally just some of the time; it's just that they ally in virtually every game. Something needs to be thrown in there to mix things up in the Middle East, as having the two greatest powers in the region always allied kind of limits gameplay in the region...

 

[ParadogsGamer]

This is what makes the Shahansha achievement so hard.

The only way to drive them apart it seems, is to wait for the Ottomans to be in a war without the Timurids and then strike, hoping that the other war won't be over for a while.

 

[CaptainChiatrol]

The AI never seems to factor in if they can get mil access across what is in the way but when I played as the ottomans timmurds helped me with troops all the time.

 

[Tufto]

However the Timurids will NEVER come to back up the Ottoman's side in war

Huh, weird, my QQ game must actually be going really well.

 

[Targor]

In my two currently running games Timurids are also allied to Ottomans but they don't interfere with my wars with Ottos at all, because they simply don't answer even one CtA from Ottos (from my attacks) because in both games they're hopelessly in debt, funnily enough that doesn't stop ottos from reallying them everytime. (Or does the Alliance not break with the new CtA system, when there's a red cross in the DoW Screen, even for defensive wars?)
If I'd attack the Timurids the Ottoman Empire would always come, but not the other way around (;

 

[Mztr44]

In my two currently running games Timurids are also allied to Ottomans but they don't interfere with my wars with Ottos at all, because they simply don't answer even one CtA from Ottos (from my attacks) because in both games they're hopelessly in debt, funnily enough that doesn't stop ottos from reallying them everytime. (Or does the Alliance not break with the new CtA system, when there's a red cross in the DoW Screen, even for defensive wars?)
If I'd attack the Timurids the Ottoman Empire would always come, but not the other way around (;

If there is a red X next to the checkbox it means that ally will not be called to arms at that time. Keep in mind, an ally that is not called in at the beginning of a war can be called later when the reasons they wouldn't have accepted are gone, i.e. got out of debt, lost WE, recovered manpower. The AI rarely tries to CTA if it thinks it wont be accepted. So you probably weren't seeing a re-alliance, but that the alliance never broke. The only thing the DOW screen tends not to be accurate on is whether the DOF will join the war or not. It might be indicated that it will join, but it wont always.

 

[grommile]

If there is a red X next to the checkbox it means that ally will not be called to arms at that time. Keep in mind, an ally that is not called in at the beginning of a war can be called later when the reasons they wouldn't have accepted are gone, i.e. got out of debt, lost WE, recovered manpower. The AI rarely tries to CTA if it thinks it wont be accepted.

Defensive CtAs are always sent when war is declared.

However, allies who have an RM and the same religion and rivals in common, and don't have a shared border or cores/claims on each other, can have sufficiently good relations that the alliance break from refusing the defensive CtA doesn't send them negative, which means that the alliance can be reformed.

 

[Saladin Osmanli]

It doesn't make any sense how Mamluks is the historical rival of Timurids and how the Ottomans are always friendly towards Timurids. Timurids fought the Ottomans at the battle of Ankara. It would make more sense for Ottomans to be the historical rival of Timurids.

Actually, there is a good reason for the Mamluks having historical rival status: Timur's rampage in the Middle East didn't just have him wrecking the Ottomans in Anatolia, he also attacked the Mamluks when he passed through Syria (sacking Aleppo and Damascus) and dealt them a painful defeat.