Superior supply systems

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

The Ottomans outlived EU4s period and only lost territorys due to losing wars and not cause holding onto territory was hard. If you wanna say not losing wars is too easy then blame your brain for making you better at the game and not the game not punishing you for becoming a better player.

An Ottomans with historical borders by 1590 in eu4 would be so ridiculously overpowered it would absolutely stomp everyone anytime and easily conquer half of the world if not more.
And yet, Historical the Ottomans struggled to expand any further and slowly declined (like literaly every Empire eventually did), by 1810 their Empire was smaller than it was in 1590.
The game simply cannot portrayed big Empires stagnating and regressing, its all about snowballing, getting increasingly stronger and snowballing more.
This is not Paradox's fault alone of course, virtually every game is like this.

Just 11th November 1444.

This makes no sense, its impossible to analyse a fixed day in history, if you want to make any assessments on the realms that existed on the 11th of November 1444, you must analyse the events that led to such outcomes (which would be the events of CK3)

 

[Vohen]

If you wanna say not losing wars is too easy then blame your brain for making you better at the game and not the game not punishing you for becoming a better player.

I'd rather do what everyone does and blame the AI for being bad at the game

 

[Jomini]

An Ottomans with historical borders by 1590 in eu4 would be so ridiculously overpowered it would absolutely stomp everyone anytime and easily conquer half of the world if not more.
And yet, Historical the Ottomans struggled to expand any further and slowly declined (like literaly every Empire eventually did), by 1810 their Empire was smaller than it was in 1590.
The game simply cannot portrayed big Empires stagnating and regressing, its all about snowballing, getting increasingly stronger and snowballing more.
This is not Paradox's fault alone of course, virtually every game is like this.


This makes no sense, its impossible to analyse a fixed day in history, if you want to make any assessments on the realms that existed on the 11th of November 1444, you must analyse the events that led to such outcomes (which would be the events of CK3)

If 1590s Ottos faced the historical foes of the OE they would get rolled hard and quick. Venice would destroy their navy with galleys, the rest would steer trade around the OE, and the war of sieges would be lost by the OE against the combined forces of Austria, the PLC, Russia, and Persia.

But that would require realistic diplomacy not hard truces that protect blobs from coordinated wars. It would require the Russians and the Persians to care about Ottoman gains in Hungary and to launch opportunistic wars.

The historical counter to snowballing is not some silliness with stagnation difficulty holding states against revolts. Rather it was old enemies burying the hatchet and making common cause based on balance of power.

EUIV has, at best, AE which makes it impossible for AEs to coordinate across cultural-religious lines and in any event, the AI expands at just below the threshold level >95% of the time.

The idea that losing territory makes an empire more stable, less corrupt, or more efficient is kindof hilarious. How exactly do you square that with Byzantium? Or perhaps Poland post-partition. Or Koxinga. Or the Mughals.

Historically empires fell because they became embroiled in conflicts beyond the means they could support, none were ever saved by shrinking to some "right size" and chilling.

 

[Froonk]

Yeah, the argument was not about the HRE, but about Castile/Spain, and not only in regards to size (otherwise i would have used the much larger Russia or the PLC as an example), but most importantly in regards to holding overseas lands, such as Belgium, Milan and Naples, which have no land connection with the Castilian Metropole and even have an hostile France in between.

It wasn't Castile that ruled those lands, it was Habsburgs monarch. Most anything beyond borders of Castile was highly autonomous and ruled by viceroyalty. It's much appropriate to consider it as a confederation, especially during Charles V time which the image you posted happens. In this confederation also Genoa can be considered part of the overall empire.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

It wasn't Castile that ruled those lands, it was Habsburgs monarch. Most anything beyond borders of Castile was highly autonomous and ruled by viceroyalty. It's much appropriate to consider it as a confederation, especially during Charles V time which the image you posted happens. In this confederation also Genoa can be considered part of the overall empire.

I'm not talking about the yellow parts, only the red parts, those were under the Castilian Crown. Yes they were highly autonomous and weren't considered part of Castile per see, but that's simply how feudalism works in general, Aragon itself was considered a crown distinct to that of Castile untill 1716, yet they were united under the same monarch.

 

[Froonk]

I'm not talking about the yellow parts, only the red parts, those were under the Castilian Crown. Yes they were highly autonomous and weren't considered part of Castile per see, but that's simply how feudalism works in general, Aragon itself was considered a crown distinct to that of Castile untill 1716, yet they were united under the same monarch.

It matters here because the administrative burden wasn't centered around, nor directly ruled by castile. That's what ruling a large empire under centralized control entails. Habsburgs never dealt with this. For that matter, even Ottomans with their highly efficient and centralized bureaucracy had to decentralized anything beyond Balkans and Anatolia to autonomous regions.

 

[Sokullu_Mehmet]

For OE, each campaign had to start from the capital (Istanbul/Constantinople) and reach the target before winter. The central government feared large armies away from the capital as a threat to the central authority.

I don't know how to potentially attempt to integrate this as a gameplay mechanism. From what I see, the best attempt to reflect this is communication efficiency modifier by MEIOU but even that does not fully account. Furthermore it does not reflect army costs at all, only for provinces.

 

[Canute VII]

For OE, each campaign had to start from the capital (Istanbul/Constantinople) and reach the target before winter. The central government feared large armies away from the capital as a threat to the central authority.

I don't know how to potentially attempt to integrate this as a gameplay mechanism. From what I see, the best attempt to reflect this is communication efficiency modifier by MEIOU but even that does not fully account. Furthermore it does not reflect army costs at all, only for provinces.

In theory it's easy:

• make attrition much worse during winter if the army is abroad in enemy territory (no change if the army is in friendly territory)
• make AI massively prefer friendly territory during winter

 

[Sokullu_Mehmet]

This does not solve the problem with sieges which continue in winter. Maybe armies could move much slower during Winter unless in friendly territory instead of very high attrition?
Furthermore, the army maintenance could scale with a combination of distance from nearest friendly fort, nearest own fort, own capital. The weight of last 2 could decrease with tech (especially last one) allowing larger armies to operate without bankrupting economy in late game. However in early game the armies would be confined to operate in local areas.
The other soultion would be each unit's maintenance depending upon distance from its home province instead of capital mentioned above.

One can add an exemption rule for the most far-away 10% of forcelimit from this rule.

Nevertheless, all the aforementione complex system have same problem, how to teach AI to play according to them?

 

[Canute VII]

Well, depends on the perspective. Sieges were interrupted when winter came. For a reason. It could trigger players to use the "assault" button more often.

 

[Deliberus]

The game simply cannot portrayed big Empires stagnating and regressing, its all about snowballing, getting increasingly stronger and snowballing more.
This is not Paradox's fault alone of course, virtually every game is like this.

CK2 would like to speak to you

On the real though Paradox is capable of showing it and representing it. All those pieces to show how empires stagnated are in the game, yet they're nowhere near as harsh.

Trade is never diverted from the Ottos

Tarrifs were made irrelevant because of a dev clash

Separation of Church and State isn't so much as attempted

Shame

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

CK2 would like to speak to you

On the real though Paradox is capable of showing it and representing it. All those pieces to show how empires stagnated are in the game, yet they're nowhere near as harsh.

Trade is never diverted from the Ottos

Tarrifs were made irrelevant because of a dev clash

Separation of Church and State isn't so much as attempted

Shame

There is a reason i mentioned "the game" and not "the company".
This was a criticism of Eu4, not ck2.

 

[Deliberus]

This was a criticism of Eu4, not ck2.

yet you also say this

virtually every game is like this.

Again, the reason why I pointed out CK2 (and to a lesser extent would point to EU3), is because Paradox is capable of making making games that do represent how big empires come to fall (Byzantine Empire being the best example). Ever since 2015, all the elements that could ever have represented how big empires could've fallen are either cut back severely or are non-existent issues.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

yet you also say this



Again, the reason why I pointed out CK2 (and to a lesser extent would point to EU3), is because Paradox is capable of making making games that do represent how big empires come to fall (Byzantine Empire being the best example). Ever since 2015, all the elements that could ever have represented how big empires could've fallen are either cut back severely or are non-existent issues.

Ck games are one of the few exceptions among the gaming industry.

 

[Vlad123]

Not really, the Ottoman military bureaucratic system, although it was the most efficient and stable feudal system historically existed. There was always a feudal system and feudal systems collapse if they don't expand, because they need new fiefdoms to be entrusted to the new administrators / nobles ... so when it stopped expanding a slow decline began for the Ottoman empire that didn't manifested because it was well managed, but it was in decline and the more territories it lost, the faster it declined until it died in the last war.

The Ottomans outlived EU4s period and only lost territorys due to losing wars and not cause holding onto territory was hard. If you wanna say not losing wars is too easy then blame your brain for making you better at the game and not the game not punishing you for becoming a better player.

 

[Sokullu_Mehmet]

Not really, the Ottoman military bureaucratic system, although it was the most efficient and stable feudal system historically existed. There was always a feudal system and feudal systems collapse if they don't expand, because they need new fiefdoms to be entrusted to the new administrators / nobles ... so when it stopped expanding a slow decline began for the Ottoman empire that didn't manifested because it was well managed, but it was in decline and the more territories it lost, the faster it declined until it died in the last war.

Despite my limited knowledge on the topic as a non-historian, I respectfully disagree. While the aforementioned view was the most dominant viewpoint among the Ottoman historians until the last few decades, the more modern viewpoint is that the Ottoman system was quick to adapt to market economy and central authority through methods such as iltizam.

I don't think the game should attempt to mimic all the mechanics, which is a very difficult if not impossible task.

 

[Vlad123]

Despite my limited knowledge on the topic as a non-historian, I respectfully disagree. While the aforementioned view was the most dominant viewpoint among the Ottoman historians until the last few decades, the more modern viewpoint is that the Ottoman system was quick to adapt to market economy and central authority through methods such as iltizam.

I don't think the game should attempt to mimic all the mechanics, which is a very difficult if not impossible task.

I am speaking to you, not as a historian, but as someone who has read enormous books on the subject. In fact, the Ottoman feudal system, although it was the best in existence, ALWAYS remains a feudal system, and like all feudal systems it is the victim of the contradiction of the new feuds that must be occupied by the "new rich" or rather if the population grows (which is normal !) the new nobles / governors etc, always need new territories to administer. From these territories they derive their income (excluding that due to the sultan). I repeat, feudal systems, such as slave systems, collapse if they do not expand. vice versa the capitalist economic system does not need to expand militarily (except at the beginning with colonialism) so it is already more stable than the old ones.

 

[Jomini]

I am speaking to you, not as a historian, but as someone who has read enormous books on the subject. In fact, the Ottoman feudal system, although it was the best in existence, ALWAYS remains a feudal system, and like all feudal systems it is the victim of the contradiction of the new feuds that must be occupied by the "new rich" or rather if the population grows (which is normal !) the new nobles / governors etc, always need new territories to administer. From these territories they derive their income (excluding that due to the sultan). I repeat, feudal systems, such as slave systems, collapse if they do not expand. vice versa the capitalist economic system does not need to expand militarily (except at the beginning with colonialism) so it is already more stable than the old ones.

I am not sure what being "feudal" has to do with all of this. The Netherlands, for instance, had a highly non-feudal government that nonetheless underwent similar patterns. Expansion opened up positions that the government could use as spoils for loyalists. When those avenues were choked off following military defeat the Dutch experienced ever more instability and corruption.

Similarly, when the American colonies were limited in 1763, somehow the colonial governments did not magically become less corrupt or stable, quite the contrary. Further the colonies that were not affected by the revisions of the proclamations before the Revolution were vastly more rebellious than those which were.

Even going out to 1848, the more stable states were generally those expanding in the colonies while those holding steady saw far more disruption. Certainly most 19th century colonial powers explicitly believed that expanding in the colonies helped shunt men of ambition into something productive rather than leading a rebellion to seize a piece of a stable pie.

Pretty much everywhere in world history has found that expansion breeds stability while contraction rarely leads to stability. This is true for feudal governments, early modern republics, ancient theocracies, and everything in between.

 

[Torredebelem]

The Ottomans outlived EU4s period and only lost territorys due to losing wars and not cause holding onto territory was hard. If you wanna say not losing wars is too easy then blame your brain for making you better at the game and not the game not punishing you for becoming a better player.

The Ottomans being a poor example as their way of managing the biggest part of their empire was through the use of political influence, thus invoking entities that are not defined in the game (most of Ottoman's possessions could not even be considered client states as depicted in game).

 

[cetvrtak]

The Ottomans being a poor example as their way of managing the biggest part of their empire was through the use of political influence, thus invoking entities that are not defined in the game (most of Ottoman's possessions could not even be considered client states as depicted in game).

Ottomans being in a whole other league

I knew I should have left this one out of the spoiler as a deterrent from Ottomans subject.