The unique, special, snowflake that is The Ottomans

[HybridRifter]

In my many hours of gameplay, I have spent many of them either dealing indirectly or directly with The Ottomans when controlled by the AI. One aspect I find annoying, and yet predictable, is how it goes about expanding. The AI is programmed to use the missions to gain it's Cassis Belli's. The Ottomans may occasionally use some spy network points to grab a claim, but for the most part, it uses the set list of special missions to gain its claims.

Depending on where you are located around The Ottomans, this can be very useful to know and understand, or very infuriating if you own one of those provinces it gets a magical claim on. They have more conquest missions than any other country in the game (as far as I can tell). This allows the AI to suddenly grab claims to a half-dozen provinces at once, lowering the aggressive expansion it generates from wanting those provinces. This lets them either claim more land form the war or go to war again sooner because there is less aggressive expansion to worry about.

So I ask: why do the rest of the countries have to play by one set of rules (build spy networks, lay claims only on provinces touching/costal)? The Ottomans are an EMPIRE! They have no shortage of diplomats. They should have to manufacture their claims like every other country. This would even have them use some of the some of those spy network points as opposed to their spy constantly being caught and losing their network while never using any of them, which is what happens now.

One more, separate, but related topic: can we finally fix the game so France and The Ottomans stop forming an alliance just because they both rival Austria? At the very least, if this is something you want to happen in game, there should be severe negative relation hits to any country that allies with a country of the other religion during the times of the crusades.

 

[makaramus]

In my many hours of gameplay, I have spent many of them either dealing indirectly or directly with The Ottomans when controlled by the AI. One aspect I find annoying, and yet predictable, is how it goes about expanding. The AI is programmed to use the missions to gain it's Cassis Belli's. The Ottomans may occasionally use some spy network points to grab a claim, but for the most part, it uses the set list of special missions to gain its claims.

Depending on where you are located around The Ottomans, this can be very useful to know and understand, or very infuriating if you own one of those provinces it gets a magical claim on. They have more conquest missions than any other country in the game (as far as I can tell). This allows the AI to suddenly grab claims to a half-dozen provinces at once, lowering the aggressive expansion it generates from wanting those provinces. This lets them either claim more land form the war or go to war again sooner because there is less aggressive expansion to worry about.

So I ask: why do the rest of the countries have to play by one set of rules (build spy networks, lay claims only on provinces touching/costal)? The Ottomans are an EMPIRE! They have no shortage of diplomats. They should have to manufacture their claims like every other country. This would even have them use some of the some of those spy network points as opposed to their spy constantly being caught and losing their network while never using any of them, which is what happens now.

because ottomans were really powerfull country and for SOME level of historic represention of borders they got those missions to guide ai.

smiler thing is for france when he border an italian country starting with savoy then milan/genoa etc...

also same thing for mughals ... THEY GAIN ENTIRE INDIA AS PERMANT CLAIM!!! ENTIREEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
you call ottoman snowflake... then mughals are special snowflake that has a look of middle finger

Oh by the way: usual claims reduce cost of coring for %10... permant claims reduce coring cost %25 This means india is %25 cheaper to core for mughals
and there is no mission or someting for them to do this... it begins with their nation formation decision

I had a challange for myself... as mughals I would not devolp a single province,pick every idea that making me waste less monarch points and play game like that (wich means admin+diplomatic+aristocratic+innovative ideas)
result: 1800 dev ottoman and 1200 dev ming decided to join a coalition aganist me because I annexed too much land THEY HAD 90 AGRESIVE EXPANSION ON ME

 

[HybridRifter]

because ottomans were really powerfull country and for SOME level of historic represention of borders they got those missions to guide ai.

smiler thing is for france when he border an italian country starting with savoy then milan/genoa etc...

also same thing for mughals ... THEY GAIN ENTIRE INDIA AS PERMANT CLAIM!!! ENTIREEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
you call ottoman snowflake... then mughals are special snowflake that has a look of middle finger

Oh by the way: usual claims reduce cost of coring for %10... permant claims reduce coring cost %25 This means india is %25 cheaper to core for mughals
and there is no mission or someting for them to do this... it begins with their nation formation decision

I had a challange for myself... as mughals I would not devolp a single province,pick every idea that making me waste less monarch points and play game like that (wich means admin+diplomatic+aristocratic+innovative ideas)
result: 1800 dev ottoman and 1200 dev ming decided to join a coalition aganist me because I annexed too much land THEY HAD 90 AGRESIVE EXPANSION ON ME

The above is another great example of what I am talking about. I am all for conquest missions, but the missions need a rework. Either allow all countries access to these missions as they grow/evolve, or limit the accessibility of these missions so these countries don't keep choosing conquest missions that they just failed in the last 50 years or so. lets say you decided to play Genoa. It would get extremely tiring to have the "Conquer Caffa" mission pop, you fend off The Ottomans for 25 years only to have the mission end and The Ottomans select the mission again. (I understand there is random chance for what conquest mission is offered, but repeats do happen). What I am saying is there needs to be limits on these mission just like the game limits how many claims we can normally manufacture by putting time, resource, and access limits on spy networks.

 

[SoCCo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance

it was established in 1536 during the Italian wars and it lasted until Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798-1801.

your argument about crusades is invalid. by the time this game starts (Crusade of Varna - 1444), crusades where an old idea. EU4 represents an age where religion differences didn't prevent nations to ally themselves against a common enemy, even if the target enemy had same religion with one of the others.

France & Ottomans vs Austria & Spain
France & Prussia vs Austria & Spain
France & Sweden vs Austria & Spain
PLC & Great Horde vs Muscovy & Crimea
Muscovy (orthodox) & PLC (catholic) & Denmark-Norway(protestant) vs Sweden (protestant)

these are just historical alliances that i can tell out of my head.

Regarding Otto's missions. they are not the only nation that get claims on huge areas of land. Muscovy/Russia gets them too: conquer Novgorod, conquer the tartar lands in the south, conquer West Siberia for example, besides getting perm claims on a huge ass area AND the russian idea that allows them to colonize all of Siberia from Urals all the way to Pacific in less than 50 years. Forming Mughals, Hindustan or Bharat gives you perma claims on all of India. forming Netherlands (required 6 provinces) gives you perma claim on 20 provinces.

The missions are there to help players and AIs go a bit historical. Ottos are the strongest nation in the early game, they need to grow big, otherwise they fall behind in economy and military strength to Russia and West Europeans. those missions are there to just recreate the historical empire.

i have no idea why do you complain tho, in half of the games i play, or my friends play, we see weird stuff like Otto loosing wars to Albania or Byz and loosing almost all European provinces. in one game where i was playing with Orrisa, i saw them getting gang banged in 4 different wars: vs Albania + Venice, vs Byz + Hungary, vs Mamluks and 4th war vs Anatolian minors. in 15 years the Ottos had 3 provinces left and 15 years later they got completely annexed.

all i can say to you is:
1) get your facts straight about alliances and missions
2) learn how to fight Otto or any other big nation. once you learn how to counter them, you will discover that no country is broken and nothing is too hard if you do things right.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

EU4 represents an age where religion differences didn't prevent nations to ally themselves against a common enemy, even if the target enemy had same religion with one of the others.

The idea that religion played no role and it's just about politics is something that developed over the timespan the game covers, but I wouldn't say it's true for 1444 and while the Franco-Ottoman alliance is historical it was also highly despised by contemporaries.

I wouldn't say it is something that could have existed without the events leading up to it:
France was absolutely humilitated at Pavia
France and their allies England, the Pope and the Italian cities again lost against Spain/HRE during the League of Cognac
The Ottomans failed at Vienna

At that time there was incredible fear, especially among the French, of a Habsburg hegemony over all of Europe, that is the reason for this alliance

A mutual rivalry with some random duke, just elected Emperor a few years ago (Frederick III in 1444), would have never lead to such an alliance at that time. Alliances with minors were quite frequent even across religions, but great power alliances highly unusual. This changed with the 30 years war

But a small negative modifier in the first two ages for a great power trying to ally a heathen great power - something like -25 - would be a good idea imho

 

[Fanstar1]

The idea that religion played no role and it's just about politics is something that developed over the timespan the game covers, but I wouldn't say it's true for 1444 and while the Franco-Ottoman alliance is historical it was also highly despised by contemporaries.

I wouldn't say it is something that could have existed without the events leading up to it:
France was absolutely humilitated at Pavia
France and their allies England, the Pope and the Italian cities again lost against Spain/HRE during the League of Cognac
The Ottomans failed at Vienna

At that time there was incredible fear, especially among the French, of a Habsburg hegemony over all of Europe, that is the reason for this alliance

A mutual rivalry with some random duke, just elected Emperor a few years ago (Frederick III in 1444), would have never lead to such an alliance at that time. Alliances with minors were quite frequent even across religions, but great power alliances highly unusual. This changed with the 30 years war

But a small negative modifier in the first two ages for a great power trying to ally a heathen great power - something like -25 - would be a good idea imho

the power of the rival in question should be a factor also

 

[erneiz_hyde]

Claims doesn't reduce AE if you simply used the conquest CB.

 

[makaramus]

Claims doesn't reduce AE if you simply used the conquest CB.

permant claims reduce it by %25 for conquest casus belli but yea that means ottomans dont have any aggresive expansion advantage with missions

to op... religion is played a factor on relations not alliances... france didnt like ottoman a lot because they were still sunni but they allied a lot of times with them

when suleiman the magnificent was sultan they wanted them to attack austria so king of france who is prison of habsburg in that time line... suleiman agreed to do this not because he really wanted friendship of france but instead they were allready planned siege of holy roman empire they were like "ok so we gonna have even more rightful reason to declare war and have a potantial ally that is huge and strong at other side of europe? I am in "
after war ottoman failed to take wien but succeed relasing france king in peace, france was glad for their help but there was no huge friendship between them just respect.

 

[MrMess85]

In my many hours of gameplay, I have spent many of them either dealing indirectly or directly with The Ottomans when controlled by the AI. One aspect I find annoying, and yet predictable, is how it goes about expanding. The AI is programmed to use the missions to gain it's Cassis Belli's. The Ottomans may occasionally use some spy network points to grab a claim, but for the most part, it uses the set list of special missions to gain its claims.

Depending on where you are located around The Ottomans, this can be very useful to know and understand, or very infuriating if you own one of those provinces it gets a magical claim on. They have more conquest missions than any other country in the game (as far as I can tell). This allows the AI to suddenly grab claims to a half-dozen provinces at once, lowering the aggressive expansion it generates from wanting those provinces. This lets them either claim more land form the war or go to war again sooner because there is less aggressive expansion to worry about.

So I ask: why do the rest of the countries have to play by one set of rules (build spy networks, lay claims only on provinces touching/costal)? The Ottomans are an EMPIRE! They have no shortage of diplomats. They should have to manufacture their claims like every other country. This would even have them use some of the some of those spy network points as opposed to their spy constantly being caught and losing their network while never using any of them, which is what happens now.

One more, separate, but related topic: can we finally fix the game so France and The Ottomans stop forming an alliance just because they both rival Austria? At the very least, if this is something you want to happen in game, there should be severe negative relation hits to any country that allies with a country of the other religion during the times of the crusades.

The last point makes no sense as France and the Ottomans did ally. If anything the crusades should be taken out.

The lack of cores at the start is slowing them down. The Ottomans should be an all mighty blob and threaten Europe.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

when suleiman the magnificent was sultan they wanted them to attack austria so king of france who is prison of habsburg in that time line... suleiman agreed to do this not because he really wanted friendship of france but instead they were allready planned siege of holy roman empire they were like "ok so we gonna have even more rightful reason to declare war and have a potantial ally that is huge and strong at other side of europe? I am in "
after war ottoman failed to take wien but succeed relasing france king in peace, france was glad for their help but there was no huge friendship between them just respect.

The timeline doesn't work out

The Ottomans and the Habsburgs weren't at war until ~1528, when the Ottomans responded to the call to arms from John Zapolya, the King of Transsylvania, who had been invaded by Archduke Ferdinand in 1527 (who both claimed succession to the Jagiellon kings of Hungary), while Francis was released in 1526 after signing an absolutely humiliating treaty, it was more the threat of another war in Italy combined with the fact that Charles got what he wanted in the Treaty of Madrid that made him release Francis

 

[makaramus]

The timeline doesn't work out

The Ottomans and the Habsburgs weren't at war until ~1528, when the Ottomans responded to the call to arms from John Zapolya, the King of Transsylvania, who had been invaded by Archduke Ferdinand in 1527 (who both claimed succession to the Jagiellon kings of Hungary), while Francis was released in 1526 after signing an absolutely humiliating treaty, it was more the threat of another war in Italy combined with the fact that Charles got what he wanted in the Treaty of Madrid that made him release Francis

timeline .... yea sure ... time line doesnt make up that france conquered entire britain too... or timeline doesnt make up that ottoman conquered constantinapol at 1445 too BUT IT HAPPENS -_-

 

[ElGranCapitan]

timeline .... yea sure ... time line doesnt make up that france conquered entire britain too... or timeline doesnt make up that ottoman conquered constantinapol at 1445 too BUT IT HAPPENS -_-

We are talking about History, not what might happen in the game, you said the Ottomans forced Charles to release Francis, which is just not true. That is what I was pointing out

 

[makaramus]

We are talking about History, not what might happen in the game, you said the Ottomans forced Charles to release Francis, which is just not true. That is what I was pointing out

even if didnt doesnt change fact that ottoman fought side by side with france army

 

[SoCCo]

The idea that religion played no role and it's just about politics is something that developed over the timespan the game covers, but I wouldn't say it's true for 1444 and while the Franco-Ottoman alliance is historical it was also highly despised by contemporaries.

I wouldn't say it is something that could have existed without the events leading up to it:
France was absolutely humilitated at Pavia
France and their allies England, the Pope and the Italian cities again lost against Spain/HRE during the League of Cognac
The Ottomans failed at Vienna

At that time there was incredible fear, especially among the French, of a Habsburg hegemony over all of Europe, that is the reason for this alliance

A mutual rivalry with some random duke, just elected Emperor a few years ago (Frederick III in 1444), would have never lead to such an alliance at that time. Alliances with minors were quite frequent even across religions, but great power alliances highly unusual. This changed with the 30 years war

But a small negative modifier in the first two ages for a great power trying to ally a heathen great power - something like -25 - would be a good idea imho

there's already a negative modifier (different/heathen religion). they also have something that improves their relationship (common enemy). as far as i care, all looks good. even if they shouldn't ally in the first age, but after 1500 and reformation they should be allies against a strong Austria.

 

[makaramus]

well... if there was someting to be done I would suggested making those "conquest" quests cannot target player provinces? Most of them atleast? Making ottoman cant have claims on mamluk region if mamluks ever controlled by player makes some kind of sense I suppose :/

althought if I was to choose I must stand aganist this idea all the time since missions are like events and decisions are factor of nation's power Wich means those missions are like ideas of ottoman empire

ottoman was not a military genius or diplomatic star: They were conquerer and adminastors! They had many rebellions in their countries and solved them with ease their goverment was brutally harsh (seriusly... when an heir choosen to be sultan all other heirs had to be killed so there will be no war to be ruler )
so making them have lots of claims actually reveals their this str

 

[SoCCo]

well... if there was someting to be done I would suggested making those "conquest" quests cannot target player provinces? Most of them atleast? Making ottoman cant have claims on mamluk region if mamluks ever controlled by player makes some kind of sense I suppose :/

althought if I was to choose I must stand aganist this idea all the time since missions are like events and decisions are factor of nation's power Wich means those missions are like ideas of ottoman empire

ottoman was not a military genius or diplomatic star: They were conquerer and adminastors! They had many rebellions in their countries and solved them with ease their goverment was brutally harsh (seriusly... when an heir choosen to be sultan all other heirs had to be killed so there will be no war to be ruler )
so making them have lots of claims actually reveals their this str

preventing AI to get claims through decisions/missions on a human player is game breaking. just learn how to deal with them.

 

[makaramus]

preventing AI to get claims through decisions/missions on a human player is game breaking. just learn how to deal with them.

did you read what I wrote at ending?
"althought if I was to choose I must stand aganist this idea all the time since missions are like events..."
I AM SAYING EVEN I AGANIST THIS IDEA -_-

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Please keep Ottoman nerf discussion to the Ottoman nerf discussion superthread.