The Ottoman empire- Russia's best bud

[medopu]

Austria had a threat of Germany, Italy and possibly even Russia on their doorsteps. Although Ottomans weren't a powerful ally, they didn't have anyone else to count on, so it in certain circumstances makes sence for them to be allied with the Ottomans.

Which cannot be applied to Russia. I have no idea why they would need an ottoman ally. Probably for some obscure diplomatic reasons.

 

[Arentak]

There is a bug where the AI wrongly evaluates who to back in a crisis which results in Russia backing the OE a lot. Will be fixed in 3.02.

Mind you, this doesn't mean they will *never* back the OE, but it isn't inherently in their interest to do so, especially not against allied or sphered minors.

Thanks for the preview!

 

[Chamboozer]

Which cannot be applied to Russia. I have no idea why they would need an ottoman ally. Probably for some obscure diplomatic reasons.

Cause there's no simulation of the uniqueness of the Bosphorus or the diplomatic maneuvering with regard to it. Russia really doesn't have a practical in-game reason to care about the Ottomans; they can sail through the strait whenever they feel like it, and they don't get any particular bonus to diplomatically influencing the Slavic Balkan minors, so they're just as likely to end up in a foreign sphere of influence as a Russian.

 

[Kimberly]

The Ottomans and the Russians were buddy buddy in 1836, though...??? The Russians were actively propping up the Porte against Muhammad Ali Pasha's Egypt and actually participated in the intervention with the British to kick the Egyptians out of Syria and restore it to the Turks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian–Ottoman_War_(1839–41)

I was about to complain about the time I was the US and I saw Russia and the Ottomans ahistorically gang up on Egypt to liberate Syria... Now I'm a tad embarrassed.

Cause there's no simulation of the uniqueness of the Bosphorus or the diplomatic maneuvering with regard to it. Russia really doesn't have a practical in-game reason to care about the Ottomans; they can sail through the strait whenever they feel like it, and they don't get any particular bonus to diplomatically influencing the Slavic Balkan minors, so they're just as likely to end up in a foreign sphere of influence as a Russian.

PDM turns the Boshporus into a canal, and that works out pretty well. Not only does it mean that the Asian parts under Ottoman control are considered contiguous with the capital (so no more "Ottoman Asia"), but it means that the Russians need to make nice with the Ottomans to get out of the Black Sea.

 

[Gunnarr]

Russia and ottomans being allies makings playing any balkan state a huge waste of time. Personally I just made the relations -75 between russia and ottomans at game start and now at least they follow more historical paths in the later 75% of the game instead of becoming allies and just killing all the balkans. but they still dont invade kars

 

[Chamboozer]

I was about to complain about the time I was the US and I saw Russia and the Ottomans ahistorically gang up on Egypt to liberate Syria... Now I'm a tad embarrassed.

Eh, I still don't find that kind of thing encouraging. It is historical for them to help the Ottomans against Egypt, by the reason why they're doing it is not the same as in history, thus it is still a problem.

 

[delra]

There was never any promise that Vicky2 will just replay history. The setting is historical, but nations are free to do as they please within that setting. If it amuses Russians to help Ottomans rather than dismember them - there's nothing wrong with that. Also, the 3.02 beta patch changes quite a bit regarding the Ottoman position at the beginning.

 

[Kimberly]

There was never any promise that Vicky2 will just replay history. The setting is historical, but nations are free to do as they please within that setting. If it amuses Russians to help Ottomans rather than dismember them - there's nothing wrong with that. Also, the 3.02 beta patch changes quite a bit regarding the Ottoman position at the beginning.

The game should go in a more or less historical direction, except where the player influences the course of history. Otherwise, what's the point of a historically accurate setting in the first place? Of course we can't perfectly simulate history, and it's not supposed to, but it should be generally coherent.

 

[EUnderhill]

The game should go in a more or less historical direction, except where the player influences the course of history. Otherwise, what's the point of a historically accurate setting in the first place? Of course we can't perfectly simulate history, and it's not supposed to, but it should be generally coherent.

I expect the AI to change the course as well, and thus require me to respond in kind. Whereas events in the 1840s ought more often than not to play out as did historically, given that many of the events underlying were already in motion, as the game progresses the divergence should be expected to increase with every decade.

 

[anomanderus]

I expect the AI to change the course as well, and thus require me to respond in kind. Whereas events in the 1840s ought more often than not to play out as did historically, given that many of the events underlying were already in motion, as the game progresses the divergence should be expected to increase with every decade.

The problem here is that you are making the AI sound like some grand worthy mastermind to compete against, meanwhile France is constantly seizing Puglia in Italy and other stupid ahistorical things like that. If allowed completely free reign to do as it would the AI would and does make the map look like a Dadist painting.

 

[EUnderhill]

The problem here is that you are making the AI sound like some grand worthy mastermind to compete against,

Yeah - so I play nice and give it a fair chance.

 

[anomanderus]

Yeah - so I play nice and give it a fair chance.

You mean you play countries like France and the UK and toy with the AI before going in for the kill. But in all seriousness the AI shouldn't be allowed completely free reign exactly because the AI isn't going to stick to any kind of "pretty borders" which makes the map look terrible and ruins overall enjoyment of the game. The ottoman-russian entente is another game ruiner.

 

[EUnderhill]

You mean you play countries like France and the UK and toy with the AI before going in for the kill. But in all seriousness the AI shouldn't be allowed completely free reign exactly because the AI isn't going to stick to any kind of "pretty borders" which makes the map look terrible and ruins overall enjoyment of the game. The ottoman-russian entente is another game ruiner.

Perhaps the AI simply differs in its sense of aesthetics...I'm too busy fiddling with the budget sliders and seeing how it affects POP needs and the supply chain to really get bothered by who in a given game ends up in control of the more remote portions of the map so long as it does not tend to get too terribly repetitive.

 

[Wizzington]

The AI neither desires pretty borders nor the lack of pretty borders. It desires whatever weighting is put into wargoal evaluation by a programmer. AIs are just code, they don't have any instincts or desires of their own.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

The AI neither desires pretty borders nor the lack of pretty borders. It desires whatever weighting is put into wargoal evaluation by a programmer. AIs are just code, they don't have any instincts or desires of their own.

Does that mean you could program an AI to want pretty borders?

 

[EUnderhill]

The AI neither desires pretty borders nor the lack of pretty borders. It desires whatever weighting is put into wargoal evaluation by a programmer. AIs are just code, they don't have any instincts or desires of their own.

Abstract expansionism?

 

[Wizzington]

Does that mean you could program an AI to want pretty borders?

Of course, but it'd come at the expense of AI self-interest since pretty borders is hardly always the optimal strategy.

 

[Chamboozer]

I think it can be said that annexing a piece of Southern Italy is also not the optimal strategy, though. I've always wondered what considerations the AI goes through when it decides to annex a place like that. Does it realize that infamy spent on Southern Italy means that infamy can't be used to annex another place? Does it even have long-term strategies with regard to expansion?

Then again, the AI often sits at 0 infamy without annexing any places at all. I wish I had more insight into how the AI chooses that sort of thing.

 

[Kimberly]

Of course, but it'd come at the expense of AI self-interest since pretty borders is hardly always the optimal strategy.

That may be a good thing, though. If you program the AI to be too self-interested, next thing you know, Paradox HQ is the heart of the robot uprising.

 

[Alerias]

The AI neither desires pretty borders nor the lack of pretty borders. It desires whatever weighting is put into wargoal evaluation by a programmer. AIs are just code, they don't have any instincts or desires of their own.

Then they are merely VIs!