Ah, the classic unnecessary Jomini mudslinging.
Great now that you have tried to establish moral equivalence can we dispense with such dreck from here on out? Maybe we could stop having you denigrate everyone's concerns as stuff that doesn't matter for no reason.
If you want to talk about how the AI performs, you better talk about how it performs in general, as all majors as of late have been 'underperforming' in comparison to their historical counterparts, and not just focus on the Ottomans. If you're going to object to how it performs in multiplayer, you might as well objects as to how humans are more intelligent than it to begin with.
Indeed, I do. OPMs wax and wane as either aids or detriments to expansion. When the primary determinant of AI expansion are alliance bloc wars, then OPMs actually help the state expand quickly; this typically shows up when AE is a major limiter of AI expansion. When this was the case, I noted that it was powering France to rapid ahistorical growth and supported greater integration of OPMs into the HRE protective mechanisms. For the most recent build (note I have not played 1.16 thanks to the save break that occurs whenever you add new provinces), I would also support some changes to the pip balance for Eastern land units as this seems to be a problem for Russia. For the Iberians, one of the major issues is getting bogged down in Africa instead of hitting the historical, more lucrative spice trade; thus I opposed the utterly ahistorical inclusion of African Great lakes region because it will continue to degrade Iberian performance by wasting time in Africa. For the British, I do not think expanding Ireland was particularly helpful (though far less important than Africa and the OE) as it delays English idea acquisition.
Furthermore, you seemed to quite conveniently overlook Milk and Lettuce's report that the outcome is exactly the same as it already is with the new provinces and Epirus; the region ends up dominated by the Ottomans without any noticeable ill-effects or delay on their expansion, and that empirical evidence completely outweighs any theoretical argument you could otherwise make (and I think it's a well established fact on the forums that you've gone out of your way to try to shoot down threads that request more provinces/tags in the past).
Not in the least. It is painfully obvious that the Ottomans are going to dominate the South Balkans. The current strategic mix gives the Ottomans such a preponderance of force that no AI alliance of minors can stop the OE from eventually taking the place. My concern is the
time it takes to achieve that dominance. As I have repeatedly stated so that you could repeatedly ignore it, my concern is that the AI will be a year or two slower before it confronts Hungary, AQ/QQ, and the Mamelukes. Those regions are strong enough that they can handicap the OE and engaging past their pip dominance is a huge handicap for the OE. Beyond these states we have the states that should check the OE, but in turn have their own expansion curtailed by the OE - Austria, Persia, Spain, Poland, and maybe Russia. Even if the OE beats up the OPMs and the first set of opposition states, it still needs to be hitting against those states and burning off resources so they do not just make a giant PLC blob without opposition.
Congratulations for realizing the majority of players are not blobbing-obsessed elitists who go crazy over an extra year or two thrown in the path of their steamroller
Can you
please try to actually understand the opposing viewpoint. I want a stronger OE so I can have a
stronger opponent. My current best steam roller is a power QQ start with the Nomad pips/Shi'ite/DotF to churn & burn my way through the majors with razing, another province to siege means jack all to that - I literally can just buy 4 mercs and siege the place whenever. The OE gaining WE against them might make the game marginally easier; certainly if I take the Byz march route they are a gimmee bonus with a yet another easy to pluck core.
And this is your problem. You have already conceived that
any opposition to your position must be illegitimate. Your proposal makes elitist steamrolling
easier. I do not want that. I want the OE to be a historical threat for the 99% of games where I play
anyone else so I have a more worthy AI breathing down my neck.
for the sake of historicity or general enjoyment and then act like it's the end of the world. The Ottomans will still control the Balkans if left to the AI, and the player will always be more intelligent than the AI, and will generally be able to outperform it regardless of the nation or situation.
Well, hell by those standards who gives a rat's ass? The Ottomans always control western Anatolia, isn't that good enough?
Of course I can outperform the AI. The question is, when the does the AI with its many more resources become worse than me? You make that moment sooner.
And, really, if you're going to object to new cultures (and please, do remember that once you reach a certain point of expansion you're going to have trouble keeping any number of cultures above three or four accepted) you should also object to the current acceptance system as well.
Do you honestly think I could care any less about accepted cultures in
my country? I have run continent spanning empires at 195% OE with
nothing accepted culture outside of my starting group thanks to the old culture rules.
What I care about with cultures is the
AI. How will the OE (or the Venetian or the Austro-Hungarian) handle these cultures. Current build says badly. By far and away the single best way to wreck the OE is to drive up their WE until multiple separatist rebels break out. The more culture groups there are, the stronger this tactic becomes. The AI already runs afoul of this without human intervention when it goes high WE. In
every game, the OE AI will have a harder time maintaining Greek accepted, particularly if they reach anything close to historical size. For the AI, accepted culture actually matters outside of revolts. Losing Greek is a pretty hefty knock of OE income and their ability to field sizeable armies.
I really don't feel like pointing out the irony here. But this is the primary reason why I've avoided confronting you about this; as I know that regardless of what I say or write it won't change your opinion.
Nonsense, you need only show how your changes will lead to more fun games most of the time. You can see may very generous calculation and dispute any particular numbers or assumptions. The problem is that
all of your arguments inherently assume that a pretty 1444 map trump all other concerns.
Better posters than me have tried and failed, and Paradox continues to go on expanding the map regardless of your baseless objections.
So, which of my bases are invalid? I mean we get it, you do like my opinions, but rather than deriding them with simple adjectives, why not show which of my assumptions fail to give rise to my stated metrics?
But it is unnecessary insults such as this that did succeed in goading me into replying, so I'll give you points for that.
So you managed to go through this whole post without saying a
single thing about any of the very real concerns others have mentioned - no addressing of breaking save games, no addressing of time dynamics, no addressing of AI revolt issues ... just a bunch of comments using disparaging adjectives. Well I had hoped for better from you.
If you're completely obsessed with painting the map in a certain color so efficiently you calculate every possible number and variable available to you. Otherwise it only makes the region more dynamic and otherwise is something that most players will not worry about.
Funny, you asserted earlier in this post that it makes the region static - always ending up under OE domination (I would note that I applaud this lack of dynamic change, but once again you hold that either outcome validates your position).
Sorry to throw a five-seven month monkey wrench into your blobbing plans. Or, you know, you can just park an army in Aetolia while you fight multiple wars elsewhere, and worry about the infinitely many other cultures you're not currently accepting.
Like that would happen. I do not give a rat's ass about me conquering the place. Another isolated OPM is pretty much always a win for the human - the AI has to very inefficiently burn resources taking it, it provides me with marginally more choice for no-CB springboarding, it gives me an easier time to March swarm an early Albanian start, it provides me with a resurrectable tag for either rebel farming or vassal feeding.
Absolute worst case scenario is that it raises the total OE WS value just enough to make it take another war to kill them off.
Oh, really now? So, you mean to tell me that the Kingdom of Cyprus or the Despotate of Epirus' administrations and religious policies had nothing to differentiate it from Byzantium or the OE?
That is state, not culture. Cyprus did indeed have differing administrative procedures, which is why you know, they are a completely different form of government. Once the OE took over Cyprus I know of
no unique provisions in Ottoman law that reflected this.
Or that the Souliotes in Epirus didn't revolt against or otherwise resist (such as committing rather blunt forms of tax evasion, something that was quite common in more isolated regions of Greece) the Ottomans near-continuously while the Greeks in Macedon, Thessaly and Thrace remained otherwise passive, or that the native Epirote Nobles under Nikephoros II Orsini didn't revolt against Byzantine rule and reestablish an independent state centuries before despite both the Epirotes and Byzantines being Greeks?
So what? The fact that tax collection is more difficult in areas without dense trade networks and large amounts of easily accessible arable farmland has jack all to do with culture. Of course the mountain areas revolted more - that was true in Scotland, Russia, France, Spain, Portugal, Anatolia, Persia, Austria, Transylvania, Bohemia, and Japan. It is much harder to resist when you are a port town where the Ottomans can just starve you out by closing the roads and blockading the place. None of that was culture based.
Revolting against the crown? Please. Should we base French culture on the Fronde? Or perhaps Russian culture should reflect the loyalties to the False Dmitri's. Irish rebellions against the British were highly localized as well. Tyrone's rebellion was basically just the O'Neils and the O'Donnels , should those be separate culture?
Or that Epirus wasn't a point of diffusion for multiple cultures, was the center of the Western-inspired Greek Enlightenment,
Normally being the center of a cultural enlightenment would suggest that you are indeed part of that culture
and that the isolated Greeks living there weren't different from the rest of Greeks in Greece (and the same as Cyprus, with a particular emphasis on the latter)?
As opposed to those on Corfu, Lesbos, or isolated in the Peloponese? No.
This has absolutely no bearing on the viability of an Epirote or Cypriot culture, and there are other tags in game whose power is exaggerated (such as Madurai, who owns one of the smallest provinces in India and didn't even own all of it historically, or Japan, which didn't even exist as a central nation in 1444).
Well you see it kinda does. If you look at the actual province you carved out there, the vast majority of it was held by the OE. Of the remainder, the majority - including the biggest cities in that area were held by Memnone Tocco ... as an administrator of the Ottoman crown.
See the fact is with the seizure of Ioannina, the vast majority of both the province you drew and the historical state of Epirus was held as a petty apanage of the OE. Reflecting the games historical representation of, for instance the French dukedoms, County of Barcelona, and of course Sicily the actual land and administration of Epirus was with the victor of the 1430's war - the Toccos under the OE. Certainly given how the 1444 start deals with Gotland suggests that the remnants at Arta should be rebels against the OE.
And considering Leonardo III's second wife was the illegitimate granddaughter of the King of Naples and he married her for political reasons, excuse me for finding this claim a bit sketchy at best.
And yet, the Kingdom Naples did precisely jack all to help out this royal niece either when Arta fell or when the Ottomans later took the small islands left. We do, however, have record of Skanderbeg's appointment being ill received
precisely because Skanderbeg's allies in the court did not consider Arta sufficient for providing a second in command under the old feudal alliance network.
You could make this argument for about thirty other provinces in game, easily.
And funny enough I do. I have long maintained that the game would be far nicer if we dialed up the required size. The historical loss is not that great to compensate the many lost man-hours of trying to click places that seem to invariably end up dead.
So, apparently Epirus' inclusion would be the doom of the Ottomans, because they clearly can't cope with a single new OPM that would get eaten by Byzantium before they even got there in the same way a player could and would fall apart at the seams.
Could you try to make the strawmen less obviously moronic? I have clearly stated that my concern is that the OE will be delayed. This will negatively impact the greater region - e.g. making it easier for a player QQ to consolidate before facing the OE.
As that's what 'AI breaking' is certainly implying. And, since apparently history is in the way of this as well, Epirus didn't even exist as an independent nation in Epirus in 1444.
Well historically, the bulk of the territory was administered by Memnone Tocco after 1430. Having won the little civil war in Epirus with the help of Sinan at administered the place as an Ottoman functionary (I cannot recall, but I think he might have been a sanjak bey). Going with, oh every other entry into the EUIV historical database, this would make the nominal Epirate state simple rebels with the main fort in the area being held by the OE. Going with Ottoman law as was actually administered in the territory marked, it was less independent than Bulgaria or Mentese.
You just described every patch that expands the map, something we're certain to see in the future regardless of whether or not these changes are implemented.
It is almost as if most or indeed all of the value adding map changes have already occurred.
And I'm sorry that you've reached such a of skill level that any minor, ultimately inconsequential, map changes that might negatively affect the AI for a year or two against your ultra-aggressive playstyle immediately makes the game unplayable for you, truly that is an epidemic amongst most players.
Again, please desist with the BS strawmen. I very generously run my cost-benefit analysis with a 1% degradation in game quality due to having an inferior opponent when I get to double digit Mil tech. The fact is Arta is
only going to be used by players for cheese - an ahistorical way to get an ally or toehold on the Ottoman coast with
far more value than historical Arta could hope to manage or to play Arta. The OPM beset by Ottoman forces is
already a thing (and a not particularly popular one). 1% degradation for many games vs even
spectacular improvements of one game is a bad tradeoff.
I mean seriously, forget my playstyle. Say I am a bog standard Mameluke player. I'm hoping to fight history to unite Islam by 1821. Okay, how much does my game change if I fight the OE at tech 8 (where I have 4 pips to his 5) as opposed to to tech 9 (7 to 7)? Well that makes my game
massively easier if we delay an even up fight until we hit 9.
But what about something further afield. Say I am relatively weak at playing, but want to play Bohemia to become a Protestant HRE and set my goal to hold Warsaw, Vienne, and Paris. Okay, what will determine the difficulty of this run? Mostly how easy it is to beat up Austria, Poland and France and to win the 30YW for Protestant supremacy. What will make this more difficult? Austria getting a Hungarian PU and easily defeating the OE. Getting ahistorically strong Poland and Austria makes this challenge perhaps a bit too hard and makes the new player have less enjoyment than if they could more accurately gauge the challenge from 16th century history.
Will this happen every game? No. But when they do, they have a pretty big impact regardless of player skill or playstyle. Sure, if you play in the New World, who cares, but then who cares about adding Arta in that case? It is far more likely that your changes will make play worse.
And, now, I'm left questioning why I even took the time to respond, since I guessing this is really not going to accomplish anything other than getting you to lash back with an (at least) equally-scathing post.
Now, now this is very simple. If you want to accomplish something, just engage with the cost-benefit analysis. Please tell us how many
times better an Arta game will be.
At the end of the day you appear to only measure historical accuracy by how a pretty 1444 map reflects your preferred reading of history. The better measure does not privilege 1444 so much and asks what setting will make for a better 1448, 1453 ... and how the changes will make the natural forces in the area better reflect historical strategy.
So please, do me a huge favor, before typing anything in response, please try to restate my basic position in your own words in a manner that an objective person (or preferably me) would think is fair.
My attempt at your position is as follows:
Arta was the true seat of Epirus and was sufficiently important that it and its holder should be able to lay both de jure and de facto claim to all the land of the early 15th century Epirate state. Culture should be based on dialect and regional custom rather than the practices of administering states. Concerns about AI performance, multi-player, UI, or general gameplay are inherently inferior to maintaining the historical accuracy of the 1444 start.
.png){kind=avatar}
