The Crimean Khanate event is still the worst in the game

[durbal]

Making it more random doesn't change the fact that everything about it is awful.

- Randomly allows Ottos expansion everywhere in eastern Europe based on an AI dice roll
- Reduces Crimea to a silly puppet which gets annexed in 10 years
- Ruins wars with random war leader switching
- Ruins rivalries and diplomacy with Crimea (again, due to total randomness)

And now we have a new one:

- Gives Theodoro to the Ottomans as a vassal.

Just get rid of this event already. It adds no flavor and any historicality it adds is in name only since Crimea just becomes some cancerous Ottoman outgrowth within a decade whenever it fires.

 

[qwertzuiop]

I don't like the event either, but how is this different from the Burgundian Inheritance or the Iberian Wedding? All the things you mentioned can happen in those events as well, except for war leader switching in the BI because Burgundy ceases to exist. The Iberian Wedding does have war leader switching though.

 

[Rider_of_Doom]

The event itself is fine, the only problem lies within the current forms of vassals. Crimea would be more like a protectorate in terms of EUIV rules, but this option was removed. Now, tributary would be the closest thing, but the Ottomans can't use them, although, historical they had some.

In my opinion the vassals mechanic need to be fleshed out a bit more. More options and different levels of subjection (like the puppets in HoI IV).

 

[FleetingRain]

IIRC the Ottomans can't make Tributaries, but they can keep Tributaries.

I'd need to mod it to check it out tho

 

[Magnificent Genius]

It's not the event itself, it's that the AI refuses to keep marches around. Poland changes Moldavia to a vassal pretty quickly as well. If there was some modifier that forced the Ottoman AI to keep them as a march, or if the AI didn't automatically change marches into vassals the event would be pretty tame.

 

[durbal]

I don't like the event either, but how is this different from the Burgundian Inheritance or the Iberian Wedding? All the things you mentioned can happen in those events as well, except for war leader switching in the BI because Burgundy ceases to exist. The Iberian Wedding does have war leader switching though.

At least BI and IW alter how majors will play out. You can play around them and they change the game somewhat (not that I like them either). Plus they pretty much always fire.

The Crimean Khanate event just determines whether or not the Ottomans get easy expansion into a bunch of minors and a back door into Poland.

It's not the event itself, it's that the AI refuses to keep marches around. Poland changes Moldavia to a vassal pretty quickly as well. If there was some modifier that forced the Ottoman AI to keep them as a march, or if the AI didn't automatically change marches into vassals the event would be pretty tame.

A player would do the same thing. Handicapping the AI doesn't solve the problem -- the event is all kinds of busted and was just tossed in for...what reason exactly?

Should we make an event where Spain just annexes all of Mexico? It'd seriously be more historical and probably ruin gameplay less.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't like the event either, but how is this different from the Burgundian Inheritance or the Iberian Wedding? All the things you mentioned can happen in those events as well, except for war leader switching in the BI because Burgundy ceases to exist. The Iberian Wedding does have war leader switching though.

A legit case can be made that those are also anti-gameplay events, as they break normally established rules even while not always having the historical conditions that triggered them happening.

 

[makaramus]

At least BI and IW alter how majors will play out. You can play around them and they change the game somewhat (not that I like them either). Plus they pretty much always fire.

The Crimean Khanate event just determines whether or not the Ottomans get easy expansion into a bunch of minors and a back door into Poland.



A player would do the same thing. Handicapping the AI doesn't solve the problem -- the event is all kinds of busted and was just tossed in for...what reason exactly?

Should we make an event where Spain just annexes all of Mexico? It'd seriously be more historical and probably ruin gameplay less.

I actually keeping them around at early game and if they reform I still keeping them around because they got great idea group as horde

 

[bly08]

Inheriting Crimea is borderline worse for player Ottoman than not inheriting. Horde AI is dumb and there are too many other vassals that need to be released around the same time.

 

[makaramus]

Inheriting Crimea is borderline worse for player Ottoman than not inheriting. Horde AI is dumb and there are too many other vassals that need to be released around the same time.

didnt they fix horde ai?
Also when I use support me as vassal they fight where I fight its about how to using vassals

 

[lanc]

Historically, Crimea Khanate is almost literal definition of a march, please do not say things like it is not historical.

 

[dunyayi kurtaran adam]

If you remove Crimean event from the Ottomans we'd see Russia have Theodoro in 16th century every game. Also AI Otttomans is stupid for to not using vassal mechanics like sending officiers that gives discipline mp rec sp exhance of some ducats. this is one of the best thing someone can do but the AI is stupid as we know.

Also Vassals should careful with choosing ideas for themselves. In what world Horde March Crimea takes diplomatic or espionage idea group? If you are march then you should choose quality, quantity defensive ideas.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Historically, Crimea Khanate is almost literal definition of a march, please do not say things like it is not historical.

To the best of our ability to determine, actual history obeys causality.

Nothing that happens without its historical causality is historical, and breaking otherwise unbreakable rules in-game by event has a significant justification burden that events sometimes fail.

If you remove Crimean event from the Ottomans we'd see Russia have Theodoro in 16th century every game. Also AI Otttomans is stupid for to not using vassal mechanics like sending officiers that gives discipline mp rec sp exhance of some ducats. this is one of the best thing someone can do but the AI is stupid as we know.

Unfortunately, the subject is also an AI. That big morale/disc boost is applied to < 15 troops in most cases, and they're not always on-par techwise. You're usually better off just annexing them, maybe using the troops as siege fodder before then, if they'll stay attached.

 

[lanc]

I am sorry, I could not comprehend what you tried to explain but let me ask in a different way, what is the difference between Burgundian Inheritance and Crimea events for Ottomans ?

Game attempts to reproduce history in a way and this is quite fitting.

 

[durbal]

I am sorry, I could not comprehend what you tried to explain but let me ask in a different way, what is the difference between Burgundian Inheritance and Crimea events for Ottomans ?

Game attempts to reproduce history in a way and this is quite fitting.

BI affects three majors who are often rivals, so whether or not it fires and who gets it means the player’s strategy needs to change. Crimean Khanate is a free handout to the #1 power, uncontested, and just completely eliminates all strategy for everyone in the area. It sucks and is anti-gameplay.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am sorry, I could not comprehend what you tried to explain but let me ask in a different way, what is the difference between Burgundian Inheritance and Crimea events for Ottomans ?

Game attempts to reproduce history in a way and this is quite fitting.

My argumentative position is that Burgundian inheritance, Iberian wedding, succession of Crimean Khanate, and NED declaring independence are all examples of events that are broken by design. I don't need to establish a difference between them, I assert they all share a poor design aspect.

The reason I assert that is two fold:

1. These events are all capable of bypassing/breaking established game mechanic rules, with no justifiable criteria of why they should get these special exception to the rules while most positions don't.
2. These events make things that happened in history happen in the game, even if the reasons that caused them to happen in history don't exist (breaking causality).

These events are a less extreme version of something like Revolutionary France with Napoleon appearing in the 18th century even in games where France got fully annexed in 1550. Complete nonsense. The argument "Napoleon existed in history" is irrelevant and meaningless in this context. If the cause isn't there, the historical event happening is not historical.

Breaking causality is not historical and can't be. Our history is causal.

 

[lanc]

That is why we have mods, I am sure there are mods removing historical context from the game so it becomes just Risk with slightly more detailed map. Original EU4 does not look for 'causality' or sorts.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That is why we have mods, I am sure there are mods removing historical context from the game so it becomes just Risk with slightly more detailed map. Original EU4 does not look for 'causality' or sorts.

That doesn't address what I said. If you want the game on rails mods can do that, too.

If you don't have causality, you don't have "historical context". That's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of reality.

 

[chegitz guevara]

IIRC the Ottomans can't make Tributaries, but they can keep Tributaries.

The tributaries of the Khanate become vassals of the Ottomans.

And now we have a new one:

- Gives Theodoro to the Ottomans as a vassal.

This happened because Crimea had made Theodoro a tributary at some point earlier in the game.

 

[durbal]

[QUOTE="chegitz guevara, post: 23537314]

This happened because Crimea had made Theodoro a tributary at some point earlier in the game.[/QUOTE]

I’m aware. It just happens very regularly that you can count on it happening de rigeur.