Some change to Anatolia

[Grand Historian]

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.

 

[FrozenGrenadier]

I have a feeling someone is from the Balkans.

I have a feeling that someone is from south caucasus.

 

[Grand Historian]

I have a feeling that someone is from south caucasus.

North America. Sorry pal, but you don't have the rabid nationalist card to play this round.

 

[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.

 

[Grand Historian]

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.

I fail to see how that's my logic. I'm pointing out that if Castile is going to be nerfed for the sake of historicity, than the Turks need to follow example if a double standard is to be avoided. I actually want the great nations to play the way they should; France should be returned to pre-1.12 so it can actually resist England and friends, Moscovy's starting position could use a slight buff and it's ideas should be reshuffled (Siberian Frontier should come sooner), Castile should get an Infantry Combat bonus for the Tercio (you know; those guys that kicked France senseless in the first half of the period), so on and so on.

 

[grommile]

I fail to see how that's my logic. I'm pointing out that if Castile is going to be nerfed for the sake of historicity, than the Turks need to follow example if a double standard is to be avoided. I actually want the great nations to play the way they should; France should be returned to pre-1.12 so it can actually resist England and friends, Moscovy's starting position could use a slight buff and it's ideas should be reshuffled (Siberian Frontier should come sooner),

If you want Muscovy to play the way it "should" from a historicist perspective, their colonist coming late makes perfect sense. The Russian expansion into Siberia happened mostly after Ivan the Fearsome was declared Tsar of All Rus.

 

[Grand Historian]

If you want Muscovy to play the way it "should" from a historicist perspective, their colonist coming late makes perfect sense. The Russian expansion into Siberia happened mostly after Ivan the Fearsome was declared Tsar of All Rus.

Now, I didn't say I wanted it to play from a 'historicist' perspective. I said I wanted it capable of being able to do the things that it did historically, not being completely railroaded into doing them, and most games nowadays Moscovy fails to colonize Siberia at all, and more often than not is eaten up. And having Siberian Frontier as idea #5 means that it usually comes noticeably later than Ivan's time.

 

[Straigthtsilver]

If you want Muscovy to play the way it "should" from a historicist perspective, their colonist coming late makes perfect sense. The Russian expansion into Siberia happened mostly after Ivan the Fearsome was declared Tsar of All Rus.

Now, I didn't say I wanted it to play from a 'historicist' perspective. I said I wanted it capable of being able to do the things that it did historically, not being completely railroaded into doing them, and most games nowadays Moscovy fails to colonize Siberia at all, and more often than not is eaten up. And having Siberian Frontier as idea #5 means that it usually comes noticeably later than Ivan's time.

Muscovy seems to underperform in just about every aspect since CS was released. Not only does it fail to colonize Siberia often, but it is far too timid for a great power, especially one which historically expanded like crazy.

Compared to France or the Ottomans, who if they don't collapse early on blob with a vengeance into Spain/Netherlands and Egypt/Persia, Muscovy is lucky to even take on the hordes. Novgorod usually dies because of the claims + mission, but in my last game Russia failed to even take on a 4PM Uzbek that was like a tumour in the path of colonization. Nogai and Golden Horde remained unmolested well into the 1680s when I decided to start a new game.

 

[Frungy78]

I feel that France is underperforming because it makes terrible alliances. Aragon is the opposite end- they ally Portugal, England, Austria, Burgundy, Hungary, whatever.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

I feel that France is underperforming because it makes terrible alliances. Aragon is the opposite end- they ally Portugal, England, Austria, Burgundy, Hungary, whatever.

This is so true. In almost every game I have played, they were allied with Navarra, Savoy and random third power. Usually Hungary. Hungary is not a bad choice, but it is halfway across Europe. But what exactly are Navarra and Savoy supposed to do against Burgundy and England? France was better off with the Vassal Swarm.

 

[Basileios Makedon]

They could keep the otto cores in Candar and Karaman maybe.

Add an Anatolian culture group with the following cultures:
-Southern Turkish ( Karaman )
-Northern Turkish ( Ottomans )
-Greco-Turkish ( I don't know, maybe a Nikaea tag? )
-Cilician ( Ramazan )
Add a decision for any anatolian nation to become the cultural union if they conquer all the peninsula.

Rework the byz group adding:
-Greco-anatolian. Every Greco-Turkish province will convert automatically to Greco-Anatolian if a greek cultured nation conquers it. Start only in Biga.

Also Canik and Sinop pontic and sunni.

 

[FrozenGrenadier]

North America. Sorry pal, but you don't have the rabid nationalist card to play this round.

And you dont need to go all in "remove kebab" mode right? 70% of the people in here are turk haters including developers too

 

[AndreasPhokas]

Honestly id say make Sinope Canik Pontic and maybe Smyrna Greek. There was definitely still a left over greek presence especially along the north coast. Also when your history has an empire that ruled a lot of people and regions, well it takes a long time to forget things. I will admit im a bit of a byzantinophile myself and to an extent I dislike the ottoman empire(not modern day turkey mind you. I do personally think Ataturk is rolling in his grave at some of the changes being made in Turkey at the moment.) but I think I dislike venice more(fourth crusade yo)

 

[Straigthtsilver]

Pontic has to be expanded, at the minimum, to include Sinope. Canik could also work historically, but Paradox might be reluctant to add another unaccepted culture province to the Ottomans future territory.

Smyrna also definitely has to be Greek. Though Timur did massacre its population shortly before the 1444 start, Smyrna remained Greek well into the 20th century when the Turks finished the job.

 

[Grand Historian]

And you dont need to go all in "remove kebab" mode right? 70% of the people in here are turk haters including developers too

You know; just because someone advocates making changes for the sake of historical accuracy, or doesn't want to give your nation the glory and power a nationalist fanboy like you thinks it had, or should have, or shoots down a suggestion to, doesn't make them a 'turk hater', nor does it give you license to insult others and throw a tantrum on the forums like a child.

 

[hiimnotcrazy]

Bayezid I conquered those lands in 1399 and unified Turkish states in Anatolia, it is the first unification. There will be 2nd unification a while later.
for your concerns about being primary nation for Turkish culture and what happens if Karaman unifies all beyliks, most of Turkish players suggested using the name " Turkey " for Ottomans.
In 1399 Ottoman beylik unites Turkish beyliks and becomes Turkey which is primary nation for Turkish, if lets say Karaman destroys Ottoman Turkey, they form Turkey (Karaman Turkey) which also makes them primary nation for Turkish.

This is the best solution but in Europe people seems to love name Ottoman and I wouldn't want to discuss the same thing here too.

How about if ottomans win its called the ottomans if beyliks win.... its Turkey. Or better yet, give turkish ideas to replace ottoman ideas and a decision to adopt them as a beylik if you beat the ottomans. Finally, MAKE TURKEY = Revolutionary Ottomans/Beyliks. This would be a lot more historically accurate. (While the ottoman state was a Turkish state, it was not a nation state. A revolution would turn it into a nation state...)

 

[.Me]

I agree completely with this tread, the anatolian peninsula must be revised, also because I love to play here and i'm a fan of the ottoman and the byzantine history.
I think that now, with the new development system for the provinces is not so difficult to add regions of other cultures in anatolia. Just increase development of the Ottoman provinces and so the Ottomans will not be nerfed. Also because actually I think they must be enhanced to become more powerful as they are now.

About cultures, I think that at least Smyrna must be greek, (in this cultural map, in 1916 It is marked as a completely Greek city, like Adalia, just imagine five hundred years before...) If we wan to be realistic, Smyrna, Biga and Bolu should be of greek culture at this time. But...
Canik and Sinop should be Pontic.
Then should add the Cappadocian greek culture, now the cappadocian greeks are almost extinct, but in 1916 they occupied the entire area of Kayseri, an so I would like to have them in the game, in the province of Kayseri, or Kaiseri and Bozok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Greeks with a culture tag called "Cappadocia"
Then Adana and Erzurum should be of Armenian culture, and Erzincan and Malatya of kurdish culture.

Last thing, Ottoman empire was NOT Turkey, the Ottoman Empire was a dynastic state in which the Byzantine and the Eastern tradition were merged in a single state united under the islamic religion and ruled by a turkish dinasty who claimed to descent from the Komnenos of Byzantium. But they did not have the "nation-state" consciousness, they did not consider the Ottoman Empire the empire of all Turks like France is the nation of the French ad Germany of the Germans, for example they call the less civilized turks of eastern Anatolia "Savages" or "Barbarian" with the same words used by the byzantines. National consciousness in their land awoke in the early modern era, and it would cause the fragmentation of their empire.
About Turkey, I think that must be added as a decision like forming Egypt, if a Turkish nation controls all anatolia and is actually westernized, it can become Turkey.

 

[Chamboozer]

About cultures, I think that at least Smyrna must be greek, (in this cultural map, in 1916 It is marked as a completely Greek city, like Adalia, just imagine five hundred years before...)

Oh no, not this again.

I'll just copy my post from the thread we had less than two weeks ago.
___

The Turkification of Anatolia was not a continual process from 1071 until 1924. it was largely over by the end of the 14th Century, and Turks (i.e. Muslims, since ethnicity was not considered important and thus not recorded by contemporaries) were a majority in every province in Western Anatolia in 1444 according to the best estimates of modern historians. The last major population shakeup to hit the region was Timur's invasion, which was one of the catalysts that turned Smyrna Turkish as many of the remaining Greeks fled when he sacked the city. According to early 16th Century Ottoman censues, Smyrna (the whole district, not just the town) had 5900 Muslim households and 41 Christian. One modern estimate (Olnon) places the permanent Muslim percentage of the town in 1678 at 80%, and the largest minority were Jews at 15%. Censuses show Sinope province in the early 16th Century having 4,129 Muslim households and 552 Christian. However, the Pontic region was the section of the country where Greek Christian minorities remained the strongest, and many may have escaped the tax collectors due to the nature of the terrain. Nevertheless it seems to be the case that they were outnumbered even there by Muslims during this period.

Now, having Sinope as Pontic Greek culture would be a decent way to represent those minorities that existed throughout the region, but it's not technically accurate for any one province.

Indeed, trybald's right in that the crux of Vryonis' thesis is that the decline of the Byzantine Church and its social institutions in Anatolia, along with the trepidations of the Turkish nomads were the primary causes of the decline of Greek culture. The Ottomans reestablished order and after 1453 were united with the Orthodox Church rather than fighting against it, preserving what little had survived of the Greek Christian population. Nonetheless they were a minority everywhere, and only returned to Anatolia in significant numbers during the 19th Century.

___

tl;dr, projecting a twentieth century map backwards 500 years is silly, and most of the Greek population of the early twentieth century came to Anatolia as migrants from the Greek mainland during the nineteenth century, not remnants from Byzantine Anatolia.

70% of the people in here are turk haters including developers too

Bak arkadaşım böyle bir şey için hiçbir kanıt yoktur. Böyle konuşarak kimseyi ikna edemezsin aslında herkesin gözünde deli görüneceksin.

 

[hiimnotcrazy]

Muscovy seems to underperform in just about every aspect since CS was released. Not only does it fail to colonize Siberia often, but it is far too timid for a great power, especially one which historically expanded like crazy.

Compared to France or the Ottomans, who if they don't collapse early on blob with a vengeance into Spain/Netherlands and Egypt/Persia, Muscovy is lucky to even take on the hordes. Novgorod usually dies because of the claims + mission, but in my last game Russia failed to even take on a 4PM Uzbek that was like a tumour in the path of colonization. Nogai and Golden Horde remained unmolested well into the 1680s when I decided to start a new game.

Pre-CS Muscovy were expanding really slowly(or blobbing)(100 years, they've annexed Kazan.... not even touched Novgobear).
Post CS I've haven't even seen Muscovy survive.

 

[PiriReis]

Bak arkadaşım böyle bir şey için hiçbir kanıt yoktur. Böyle konuşarak kimse ikna edemezsin aslında herkesin gözünde deli görüneceksin.

Wise words from a knowledgeable man.

Also I see you improved your Turkish