Some change to Anatolia

[Duman]

Bayezid I conquered Erzincan in 1401 right after he heard Timur is about to conquer Baghdad.

Ottoman unification

No such thing as Ottoman unification, its Turkish unification or Anatolian unification.

 

[Grand Historian]

If Castile can lose their cores on Granada in the name of historicity, then Ottomans can lose their cores on Ramazan, Dulkadir and southern Karaman in the name of historicity as well.

 

[Duman]

It went till Karaman and Candar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_I But they were only vassals for a mere 12 years.
In game terms, Timur used 'Support independence' to liberate those vassals

Not really. In game terms Bayezid I gave pretty strong " Diplomatic Insult " CB to Timur, which made Timur declare war on Ottomans and release Turkish beyliks.
Since its Turkish culture, Ottomans didnt lose the core

 

[Dutchman251]

Well, so he hadn't even enough time to core those lands .

Edit: I replied to the third post above. But my point was not that those Ottomans should have no cores, but that I want a little more Pontic Greek culture.

 

[Duman]

If Castile can lose their cores on Granada in the name of historicity, then Ottomans can lose their cores on Ramazan, Dulkadir and southern Karaman in the name of historicity as well.

Its completely different case than Castilian cores in Granada though.

 

[Grand Historian]

Its completely different case than Castile though.

No. They either conquered it or they didn't.

 

[Legend92]

Pre-1.12 France? That pretty much covered it for all intents and purposes. And a slight map revision.

yeah that was pre 1.12 france but if i dont remember wrong france also have cores on them?

 

[Ratanka]

every once in a while its a thread like this where a "person" wanna stand a point that the cores are NOT historical but they ARE and we all know it so no need for this

 

[Duman]

Ottomans conquered those lands which is directly their culture.
50 years before the game's startdate Ottomans were controlling those provinces.

Castile didn't conquer Granada provinces and those provinces culturally not related to Castile.
Even if you go 500 years before, you won't see any Castile or Asturias controlling Granada.

Its completely different case, sorry.

 

[Grand Historian]

Ottomans conquered those lands which is directly their culture.
50 years before the game's startdate Ottomans were controlling those provinces.

Castile didn't conquer Granada provinces and those provinces culturally not related to Castile.
Even if you go 500 years before, you won't see any Castile or Asturias controlling Granada.

Its completely different case, sorry.

The Ottomans never conquered Dulkadir or Ramazan before start date. Your argument's completely moot, sorry.

 

[Grand Historian]

yeah that was pre 1.12 france but if i dont remember wrong france also have cores on them?

Yes, that would be correct. But they had also been vassals of France, which was an unbroken political entity, for centuries, and were never truly independent like the Beyliks.

 

[Legend92]

The Ottomans never conquered Dulkadir or Ramazan before start date. Your argument's completely moot, sorry.

ottomans cores on dulkadir and ramazan for gamebalance i think, but i prefer remove dulkadir and ramazan cores and adding crimea/moldavia/hungary mission/events

 

[Duman]

The Ottomans never conquered Dulkadir or Ramazan before start date. Your argument's completely moot, sorry.

Ottomans conquered Dulkadir and actually it was a TRUCE-BREAK!

Right after Mamluk sultan died, Bayezid started his campaign to expand into south, which he captured Malatya, Darende and Divrigi. Mamluks were saying that they had a truce active but Bayezid continued his campaign nonetheless, saying the agreement has been done with last Mamluk ruler, who is dead and he has no agreement with current ruler.

 

[Dutchman251]

If they vassalized all those lands, they don't automatically get cores. Especially, because ALL of the beyliks armies fought on the side of Timur in the battle of Ankara, leading to the Ottoman defeat(http://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire). If all those armies left him, there is no way you can argue the Ottomans integrated those vassals sufficiently to be considered core territory. And maybe you could give some sources to prove your arguments

 

[Duman]

Its really not like they have their own army and this army participated in battle on Timur's side.
Soldiers sent by Anatolian beyliks deserted during the war and joined Timur's forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qaraei
They deserted.

 

[Frozen Yakman]

Well, those former Ottoman vassals are independent at the EU4 start date. Compare them with Burgundy, Brittany, Provence and Navarra, on which France does not have cores, either.
I have not the littlest problem with the beyliks that the Ottomans controlled in 1444 being fully integrated.

Why would France have cores on Provence?

 

[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.

 

[FrozenGrenadier]

If Castile can lose their cores on Granada in the name of historicity, then Ottomans can lose their cores on Ramazan, Dulkadir and southern Karaman in the name of historicity as well.

How you can deal with such logic. Even his nickname is Grand Historian. But he is blatant anti-turk and nothing more.
My suggestion here is just remove Ottoman from the game and create as much as vassal as you can so everyone will be happy

 

[Grand Historian]

How you can deal with such logic. Even his nickname is Grand Historian. But he is blatant anti-turk and nothing more.
My suggestion here is just remove Ottoman from the game and create as much as vassal as you can so everyone will be happy

I have a feeling someone is from the Balkans.

 

[forrseti]

@dutchman, see:

They actually did used to own those areas. Under Bayezid I, in the 1390s, the Ottomans conquered basically the whole of Anatolia, ousting the local beys and imposing their rule.

Then Timur came along and wrecked all that quite thoroughly. After he was done dismantling Ottoman Asia and re-establishing the beyliks, the subsequent Ottoman civil war delayed any reconquest until just before the game starts.

and

But given how poorly the Ottomans have performed in some versions, they'd get a pass on this one, in my book. Frankly, the AI Turks still underperform, relative to their historical selves, and that seems to be a relevant (if inconsistent) measure for the treatment of majors.

If Castile can lose their cores on Granada in the name of historicity, then Ottomans can lose their cores on Ramazan, Dulkadir and southern Karaman in the name of historicity as well.

Read what Wiz says:

The rules for where we allow foreign cores is basically 'where we think it's a good idea'. There is no consistent standard (other than that there should be some historical justification) nor will there ever be, because foreign cores have a very large effect on the way the early game develops.