Why are the Mamluks alive?

[Battlex]

I know that the Ottomans were so strong that they needed some "limits", but actually its so weird when you are in late game and they dont have even Damascus, it seems too inaccurated. I always waited for the inclusion of the "Egypt event", where you could annex them just by reaching Qayrah. Yes a strong Ottoman Empire is annoying for players who choose nearer countries but it should be like that, since it is one of the protagonists of the Modern Era, but more annoying is to see the Mamluks in the XVIII century.

Surely is because im specialized in Ottoman history but i always saw a lack of inversion in the Sublime Porte, although they have some exclusive mechanics they leave a lot to be desired.

Thank you for reading.

Meiou has this, the mamlukes only collapse because during a war the Sultan died, and then a Palace coup happened where they got autonomy but were a tributary, eu4 just can't do Palace coups sadly, and an Islamic burgundian inheritance wouldn't be looked on so kindly

 

[klingonadmiral]

In the same vein, I'd like to say:

"Why are the Russians dead?"

Because even without the Levant an Egypt, a modest Ottoman Empire will still be able to easily field 200-300 regiments by the mid 16th century, which they'll mercilessly aim towards Moscow if they get Crimea. In fact, the scariest Ottomans I ever faced never managed to get into the Levant.

 

[Cuervo0]

Power balance between Mamluks and Ottos always leaned towards Mamluks in the beginning of the game in last patches. But Ottos were expanding better in previous patches and taking the upper hand most of the time. It rarely happens now.

Annexing a whole nation is of course too much, but unfortunately there are too many events and missions that gives you ridiculously high rewards. It's not just because of AI perspective, most of the reworked mission trees are way too good than they should be. Compared to them Ottoman mission tree is just bad.

On the other hand, Ottos need more late game trouble. If they somehow successfully expand(rarely happens in current patch), they are extremely stable until the end. Especially a disaster which starts ticking up after a certain development and with an influential ulema/umera(a janissary estate would be better) to significantly reduce their instution spread would be good to reflect that. Disaster can also limit ruler quality until certain conditions are met such as Innovative ideas are completed or estate influences reduced by revoking privileges and only 1-2 privileges per estate is allowed after the disaster to maintain government absolutism. I mean a tough and long lasting disaster to get rid of the things that actually caused their fall in history if handled well, or reflect their fall with outdated tech levels and incompetent rulers if the disaster handled bad.

It may be too much to ask, but current situation doesn't make any sense in both ways. They are weak, stable and caught up on tech all the time without any trouble.

 

[EarlKonrad]

In the same vein, I'd like to say:

"Why are the Russians dead?"

Because even without the Levant an Egypt, a modest Ottoman Empire will still be able to easily field 200-300 regiments by the mid 16th century, which they'll mercilessly aim towards Moscow if they get Crimea. In fact, the scariest Ottomans I ever faced never managed to get into the Levant.

+33% FL from NI is no joke. The Ottos commonly pick quantity and offensive as well, which is another +50% FL & +20% FL. Couple that with them usually being one of the AI nations with the most dev and it is no wonder that they can field the largest armies, even rivaling Russia when it comes to troop count.

Fortunately the Russian AI is improved in 1.30 and they now know how to build artillery. But still their huge territory weakens them. I believe that the Russia x Ottomans match up in the hands of the AI has more to do with the Russian AI inability to deal with its vast stretches of land rather than the two countries raw power.

Power balance between Mamluks and Ottos always leaned towards Mamluks in the beginning of the game in last patches. But Ottos were expanding better in previous patches and taking the upper hand most of the time. It rarely happens now.

Annexing a whole nation is of course too much, but unfortunately there are too many events and missions that gives you ridiculously high rewards. It's not just because of AI perspective, most of the reworked mission trees are way too good than they should be. Compared to them Ottoman mission tree is just bad.

On the other hand, Ottos need more late game trouble. If they somehow successfully expand(rarely happens in current patch), they are extremely stable until the end. Especially a disaster which starts ticking up after a certain development and with an influential ulema/umera(a janissary estate would be better) to significantly reduce their instution spread would be good to reflect that. Disaster can also limit ruler quality until certain conditions are met such as Innovative ideas are completed or estate influences reduced by revoking privileges and only 1-2 privileges per estate is allowed after the disaster to maintain government absolutism. I mean a tough and long lasting disaster to get rid of the things that actually caused their fall in history if handled well, or reflect their fall with outdated tech levels and incompetent rulers if the disaster handled bad.

It may be too much to ask, but current situation doesn't make any sense in both ways. They are weak, stable and caught up on tech all the time without any trouble.

The Ottos have been having trouble expanding into the Levant since CoC. Technically that is their best expansion route (right religion, right culture and rich provinces) but the Mam are very strong early on, so the Otto start expanding everywhere else following their perma claims until they are strong enough to take down the Mam. What kills the Ottos in 1.30 is the merc change -- they simply cannot deal with it and that cripples their early game expansion. They have always relied quite heavily on mercing up to expand as opposed to the Mam that always hoard manpower (because they rarely start wars).

When EU4 was released, the Ottomans had far and above the best and most complete missions. How far have they fallen! I honestly wish that their missions would be revised.

They are supposed to explode when the late game rolls around, but there are two things that kind of make this impossible: Cradle of Civilization and Rights of Man. If you play with both of this DLCs disabled, the Ottomans will invariably die come the late game when they get a bad ruler, as they should (or at least have trouble continuing expanding). CoC made it too hard for the AI to trigger the Janissary coup as they need many, many janissaries; the pashas make their empire too stable basically for free. Rights of Man guarantees that they will have at least good monarchs with their unique government type, which is a huge issue when their unique disaster calls for them having a poor monarch.

The balance in the middle east is all sorts of wrong. Ottomans barely expand into the Levant, Mam and the de facto power there, Persia never forms, etc.

 

[Battlex]

+33% FL from NI is no joke. The Ottos commonly pick quantity and offensive as well, which is another +50% FL & +20% FL. Couple that with them usually being one of the AI nations with the most dev and it is no wonder that they can field the largest armies, even rivaling Russia when it comes to troop count.

Fortunately the Russian AI is improved in 1.30 and they now know how to build artillery. But still their huge territory weakens them. I believe that the Russia x Ottomans match up in the hands of the AI has more to do with the Russian AI inability to deal with its vast stretches of land rather than the two countries raw power.



The Ottos have been having trouble expanding into the Levant since CoC. Technically that is their best expansion route (right religion, right culture and rich provinces) but the Mam are very strong early on, so the Otto start expanding everywhere else following their perma claims until they are strong enough to take down the Mam. What kills the Ottos in 1.30 is the merc change -- they simply cannot deal with it and that cripples their early game expansion. They have always relied quite heavily on mercing up to expand as opposed to the Mam that always hoard manpower (because they rarely start wars).

When EU4 was released, the Ottomans had far and above the best and most complete missions. How far have they fallen! I honestly wish that their missions would be revised.

They are supposed to explode when the late game rolls around, but there are two things that kind of make this impossible: Cradle of Civilization and Rights of Man. If you play with both of this DLCs disabled, the Ottomans will invariably die come the late game when they get a bad ruler, as they should (or at least have trouble continuing expanding). CoC made it too hard for the AI to trigger the Janissary coup as they need many, many janissaries; the pashas make their empire too stable basically for free. Rights of Man guarantees that they will have at least good monarchs with their unique government type, which is a huge issue when their unique disaster calls for them having a poor monarch.

The balance in the middle east is all sorts of wrong. Ottomans barely expand into the Levant, Mam and the de facto power there, Persia never forms, etc.

Ottos also had free cores in Anatolia in earlier patches. I don't know about anyone else but this patch, crimea seems to become a vassal far more often than they did last patch when normally crimea would stay independent

 

[Zaddy]

For what it's worth I've played 5-6 games since 1.30 into the 1700s. Ottos have handicapped themselves by allying an Anatolian minor several times, blocking them from the Levant. The remaining times the Ottos just kinda sat there, taking the Balkans but not fighting MAM until 1650s, if at all.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Fortunately the Russian AI is improved in 1.30 and they now know how to build artillery. But still their huge territory weakens them. I believe that the Russia x Ottomans match up in the hands of the AI has more to do with the Russian AI inability to deal with its vast stretches of land rather than the two countries raw power.

True, but a consolidated Persia should also able to succesfully fight off the Ottomans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Persian_Wars

Currently, if Persia goes up against a large Ottomans half of Persia will be in Turkish hands a few years later.

For what it's worth I've played 5-6 games since 1.30 into the 1700s. Ottos have handicapped themselves by allying an Anatolian minor several times, blocking them from the Levant. The remaining times the Ottos just kinda sat there, taking the Balkans but not fighting MAM until 1650s, if at all.

While in my games:

That Crimea is an Ottoman march.

In 2 of my 3 games were my gameplan wasn't to curtain the Ottomans early they blobbed into the Mamluks, and in both they beat their historical extend.

 

[cleon422bc]

I know that the Ottomans were so strong that they needed some "limits", but actually its so weird when you are in late game and they dont have even Damascus, it seems too inaccurated. I always waited for the inclusion of the "Egypt event", where you could annex them just by reaching Qayrah. Yes a strong Ottoman Empire is annoying for players who choose nearer countries but it should be like that, since it is one of the protagonists of the Modern Era, but more annoying is to see the Mamluks in the XVIII century.

Surely is because im specialized in Ottoman history but i always saw a lack of inversion in the Sublime Porte, although they have some exclusive mechanics they leave a lot to be desired.

Thank you for reading.

I am a historian as well. I feel that many (too many) aspects of the game are unhistorical. However, the Ottomans are already overpowered – seriously overpowered. If the game makes them more powerful (by a mission or event to conquer the Mamluks for example), then it must also find a way to represent the Holy League of the European Powers against the Ottomans.

 

[brantodb01]

I think a mission that gives you the Mamelukes would be ok if there was a condition that meant the land you get is stuck on 100% autonomy for x years.
Some other conditions I might feel is that it needs to be full seiged (so there's devastation also nerfing what you get), they aren't a great power, and they have no allies in the war

 

[Junuxx]

I think a mission that provides a special lower warcost CB against the Mamluks would make more sense than an event.

 

[Waffle Knight]

Ottos also had free cores in Anatolia in earlier patches.

Which was a great change in my opinion. Playing a turkish minor used to be a masochistic slog.
Oh, you got a good start? Well, aq qoyunlu just popped out a 20 stack of ottoman rebels that procceds to siege down all of your cores, killing every turkish minor in one go.
I don't miss it at all.

 

[Less2]

I think a mission that provides a special lower warcost CB against the Mamluks would make more sense than an event.

You'd still die from being way over 100% overextension

IMO an event that can create a PU would be appropriate. In a sense the Ottoman Empire never really had anywhere near perfect, full control of the area in the same way that annexed land represents. A PU that acts semi-autonomously and can revolt if the empire is weakened would more closely represent history.

 

[Junuxx]

You'd still die from being way over 100% overextension

IMO an event that can create a PU would be appropriate. In a sense the Ottoman Empire never really had anywhere near perfect, full control of the area in the same way that annexed land represents. A PU that acts semi-autonomously and can revolt if the empire is weakened would more closely represent history.

Good point about the overextension. What about the Levant though? Shouldn't that area be under direct Ottoman control?

 

[Less2]

Good point about the overextension. What about the Levant though? Shouldn't that area be under direct Ottoman control?

It kind of depends, the area switched back and forth between the current ruler/administrator of Egypt and the Ottoman Sultan depending one the current balance of power. When the Ottomans became the sick man of Europe Egyptian power was basically gobbling them up from the inside all the way to Syria.

Some kind of burgundian inheritance like event that set the region to 100% autonomy and only gave territorial cores might be the best way to represent it. You'd want to script some kind of AE into the event as if the region was annexed.

Also given that the PU would reduce Ottoman GC needs, it'd be fair to remove their gigantic GC bonus from their special government.

 

[Froonk]

You'd still die from being way over 100% overextension

IMO an event that can create a PU would be appropriate. In a sense the Ottoman Empire never really had anywhere near perfect, full control of the area in the same way that annexed land represents. A PU that acts semi-autonomously and can revolt if the empire is weakened would more closely represent history.

Ottomans had loose control over Egypt initially and during Suleiman's reign the region was fully incorporated to the empire. While in 17th century the local notables had a strong sway in provinces this wasn't any different than much of Balkans and Anatolia, Istanbul only lost control over Egypt in late 18th and then 19th centuries.

As a side note since people repeat this idea that Ottomans never gained control of Egypt because of Mamluks and because there is a tendency to project situation of Ottomans between 1770s and 1840s back to apparently even 16th, it should be known contrary to popular imagination Ottoman state control wasn't particularly weak until late 18th, their dissolution is related to features not necessarily represented in game such as long peace period after 1740 leading to decentralised empire with weak central army which then lost control over its territories because of wars with Russia and Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Ironically of course Mamluks themselves had loose control over Egypt in early 16th and that's why they were annexed so wholly so quickly which is also not represented.

There is no way to stimulate this in EU4, despite the fact that it's the defining feature of the era, as struggle between centre and provinces and centralisation efforts by states aren't represented well. New estate system is a step in right direction but not enough to represent Ottoman situation. Let alone plenty of demographic and economic factors which are better left to Victoria. Nevertheless Ottomans still held most of their territory by 1821 minus Hungary and Crimea, with former being best represented by a coalition and latter by rise of Russia which dwarfed Ottomans militarily and demographically.

I would say also another myth of decline is about Spain but thankfully that's not repeated much in this forum.

 

[holyvigil]

I think the main reason the Ottomans don't expand into Mamluk territory is because they are afraid of them and ally AQ.

I've seen a few games where the ottos create a wall with Dulkadir and don't conquer them on purpose. When in reality the Ottomans could probably wipe the Mamluks out. This has actually happened a few times where the Ottomans create a wall and the Mamluks attack over seas then the Ottomans win a decisive war against the Mamluks.

But... I don't think the Ottoman ascension should be a forgone conclusion in EU4. I like the Mamluks can sometimes be successful. I have also seen games where the Ottomans expand all the way south to Kilwa.

I'm of the opinion the Ottomans should have an inherent conquerer trait where they overestimate there own strength because usually they are much stronger than they believe they are.

 

[Gamergeo]

I think the main reason the Ottomans don't expand into Mamluk territory is because they are afraid of them and ally AQ.

I've seen a few games where the ottos create a wall with Dulkadir and don't conquer them on purpose. When in reality the Ottomans could probably wipe the Mamluks out. This has actually happened a few times where the Ottomans create a wall and the Mamluks attack over seas then the Ottomans win a decisive war against the Mamluks.

But... I don't think the Ottoman ascension should be a forgone conclusion in EU4. I like the Mamluks can sometimes be successful. I have also seen games where the Ottomans expand all the way south to Kilwa.

I'm of the opinion the Ottomans should have an inherent conquerer trait where they overestimate there own strength because usually they are much stronger than they believe they are.

Totally true. Ottomans is, at least until the middle-end, the strongest country in EU4. Just the AI doesn't know that

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Thats strange, but even if they do they will take hundreds of years to reach Lybia. The Mamluks were conquered in 2 years, it doesnt make any sense that you have to spend unlimited wars agains them to take 3 or 4 provinces in each.

What general conditions in EU 4 would let other nations annex similar territory in 2 years without exploding?

Without these conditions the Ottomans shouldn't do it either. Internal consistency of mechanics is important in games like this...and most games.

 

[Alyosha]

A PU solution is an interesting one. Could give three choices: 1) The default choice, inherit the Levant with the rest in PU 2) Annex it all (AI never takes this choice) or 3) PU that retains full control. 1 and 3 would provide some bonuses for giving up direct control of the land; 2 would already be unstable due to OE.

Inheriting the rest of Egypt should be possible outside of the PU conditions but should come with drawbacks. Maybe make it a qualifier for a different type of disaster unrelated to the janissaries - revolt of the pashas which could break up the empire.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Totally true. Ottomans is, at least until the middle-end, the strongest country in EU4. Just the AI doesn't know that

For the longest time that was the case, but nowadays there are many contenders for strongest early-mid game country. Ming and Timurids are two good examples. Hell, even the Mamlucks are very strong in the early game but they lack the potential to grow stronger (ok ideas and mediocre missions are to blame).

A PU solution is an interesting one. Could give three choices: 1) The default choice, inherit the Levant with the rest in PU 2) Annex it all (AI never takes this choice) or 3) PU that retains full control. 1 and 3 would provide some bonuses for giving up direct control of the land; 2 would already be unstable due to OE.

Inheriting the rest of Egypt should be possible outside of the PU conditions but should come with drawbacks. Maybe make it a qualifier for a different type of disaster unrelated to the janissaries - revolt of the pashas which could break up the empire.

The main issue with the idea of making them a PU is that PUs are locked behind Catholicism. As TheMeInTeam said, internal consistence is important. If you were to give the Ottomans the ability to PU someone, even if only as a consequence of an event, then you'd need to either let Islamic nations also have PU or just open the floodgates and allow everyone to do so.

Instead of getting the Mams as a PU, I'd rather see them becoming a regular vassal with lower LD (I bet that a 300 dev Mam would have quite high LD) and make it so that they can get integrated via a national decision ( I'm a sucker for decisions and would love to see more of them). The main problem I see with making the Mam vassals (independent of the type) is that they would give the Ottomans another manpower pool and even more troops.