Some change to Anatolia

[Dnote]

They shouldn't have cores, in 1444 they had never controlled those provinces directly, it wasn't long after that which they did, but at the start date they didn't. They should be claims, preferably mission based claims at that.

Also, the Ottoman Empire is Turkey, it is a dynastic sphere of influence and a caliphate, it is not a traditional nation and didn't actually solidify as such until the Allies broke it up after WWI. So forming Turkey would simply be changing the name, nothing else would change, no cultural union or additional claims or changes to NI. Unless you want to form the nation we now have today, but that is way outside of the time period represented by the game.

 

[Dnote]

First, I'm quite aware that there's no consistent term for a core, but that doesn't mean I agree with the double standard either. Second: they never conquered Ramazan, which was the argument for removing Castille's cores on Granada. They never really managed to subjugate Dulkadir in the same was as the other Beyliks, either. Third: the Ottomans are one of the only three great powers that consistently manage to achieve some measure of their historical success in game now, the others being Poland and Sweden. Russia implodes, Austria gets pummeled, Brandenburg does almost nothing noteworthy, Denmark is a joke, France implodes as of 1.12, England just sits back, Castile doesn't form Spain half the time, Portugal is Portugal and the Netherlands rarely arrive on time to do anything.

Whilst I agree with removing the cores and making them claims, I find it a little strange that your logic is "nerf Ottomans, because they are almost playing historically", rather than buffing all the other states that are failing to achieve their historical goals.