Why are the Ottomans so overpowered?

[TomLore]

I agree they can go particularly crazy blobby in recent patches, but I would argue it's not because they are OP or something but because of the direction the game has gone and massive lack of QA and bug fixes even after working on a year long DLC and patch focused the issues.

My previous post was trying to point out the fact that the Ottomans of previous patches actually had MORE advantages then they do now, so what has changed? No one around them has gotten weaker, several large countries got buffs (Mamluks, PLC, Russia, Austria-Hungary). The problem is the death spirals countries get into because of recent bugs, the AI used to be able to somewhat defend itself, absolutely not the case anymore. That goes for the Ottomans as well, if the PLC doesn't get crippled early, it's going to be a death spiral for the Ottomans.

The Ottomans are in the best position at the start to expand like crazy, and with mass debt a myriad of other issues unfortunately still plaguing the game, their expansion is magnified.

 

[grommile]

I'm fine with them not being so weak at the start but I am totally not fine with there being seemingly no barriers to how strong they can get.

There isn't really a hard barrier to how strong any country gets. (Quite a few soft barriers, but they are, well, soft.)

The Ottomans just happen to have a relatively low skill requirement to get absurdly strong, so the AI manages to actually do so some of the time.

Things that should create more substantial barriers to Ottoman growth, but don't, include:

• logistics
• weather
• terrain

For example, Süleiman the Lawgiver turned up at the gates of Vienna with a hundred thousand men in September 1529, having departed Constantinople in May. Along the way, despite encountering little meaningful armed opposition en route, he lost many men to disease and many cannon to the mud, thanks to 1529 being even wetter than usual along the Danube.

After a failed attempt at undermining the walls, and a failed attempt at storming the (unbreached! you can't do that in EU4 any more...) walls, he went home a month later, and lost a great deal of his baggage and artillery on the way home.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

I agree they can go particularly crazy blobby in recent patches, but I would argue it's not because they are OP or something but because of the direction the game has gone and massive lack of QA and bug fixes even after working on a year long DLC and patch focused the issues.

My previous post was trying to point out the fact that the Ottomans of previous patches actually had MORE advantages then they do now, so what has changed? No one around them has gotten weaker, several large countries got buffs (Mamluks, PLC, Russia, Austria-Hungary). The problem is the death spirals countries get into because of recent bugs, the AI used to be able to somewhat defend itself, absolutely not the case anymore. That goes for the Ottomans as well, if the PLC doesn't get crippled early, it's going to be a death spiral for the Ottomans.

The Ottomans are in the best position at the start to expand like crazy, and with mass debt a myriad of other issues unfortunately still plaguing the game, their expansion is magnified.

I think it's because the mechanisms that work against the Ottomans, alliances and debt management, actually also work for them. If they're able to expand a certain amount (Hungary and Mamluks)

It just annoys me because people act like I have no sense of history when I complain about this or I'm just bad at the game. I'm not. But it's absolutely easier to beat the Ottomans off the bat with Byzantium than it is to let them grow at all. As soon as they start growing they snowball into something insane.

There isn't really a hard barrier to how strong any country gets. (Quite a few soft barriers, but they are, well, soft.)

The Ottomans just happen to have a relatively low skill requirement to get absurdly strong, so the AI manages to actually do so some of the time.

Things that should create more substantial barriers to Ottoman growth, but don't, include:

• logistics
• weather
• terrain

For example, Süleiman the Lawgiver turned up at the gates of Vienna with a hundred thousand men in September 1529, having departed Constantinople in May. Along the way, despite encountering little meaningful armed opposition en route, he lost many men to disease and many cannon to the mud, thanks to 1529 being even wetter than usual along the Danube.

After a failed attempt at undermining the walls, and a failed attempt at storming the (unbreached! you can't do that in EU4 any more...) walls, he went home a month later, and lost a great deal of his baggage and artillery on the way home.

The Dutch Revolts seem something hardcoded into the game that'll fire no matter what. I'd be fine if come 1800 the Ottomans faced substantial independent movements

 

[Yolordmcswag]

It sounds like you had a game where the Ottomans got really strong. However, you can't use one game as a basis for a nerf, since there is a lot of RGN. In my most recent Iroquis campaign, Austria got Aragon, Burgundy and Great Britain in Unions, and they conquered all of France and Iberia. If this happened every single game Austria should be nerfed, but it happening once is cool.

Similarily, the Ottomans making it to France once in a while is cool. In most games I've played recently they don't even take Egypt. Overall I think the Ottomans are fine, too weak even since they rarely reach their historical size.

 

[love sweden]

The Ottomans conquered Hungary and Egypt in a single war in real life wich you never see them achieve before 1600.

 

[Jomini]

EUIV is ill-equipped to simulate real historical reasons as to why empires expanded and fell.

The Ottomans have a bunch of modifiers early game, which has worked well in the past barring Ottoman expansion into Russia. Now though the Ottomans can get really stomped or locked, which is wierd as an EUIV player to realise.

Historically the Ottomans faced a bunch of tag teaming. The Poles saved Vienna, but the Venetians were active at sea and there were even attempts to coordinate with Persia. The Russians also were opposed to them in Crimea while the Spanish went after Ottoman power in North Africa. The biggest blow was arguably by Portugal opening trade around the Cape and drastically cutting the value of trade flowing through.

And this is the real problem with runaway powers, be they the player or a human. The Russians, Austrians, and the Poles, if rivals, will not coordinate against the Ottomans until the later has massive AE from both Catholic and Orthodox sources; instead Ottoman attacks against one will invite the others to kick em while they are down. Even if they do manage to coalition up, they will (maybe) declare a joint coalition war and penny packet their forces in. This allows defeat in detail as the game allows for no outcomes like history (e.g. the OE takes some of the Balkans, but loses territory in the Khanates).

AI coalitions rarely check giant blobs and the AI spends too much effort on going after rivals (which might not even be all that wise to hate any more) instead of trying for some balance of power. Until nations can do a proper balance of power evaluation, it is all but certain that somebody is going to go unchecked and the OE is always going to be high odds of being that power (as they expand into 4 or 5 religious blocks). On the flip side, bringing out the nerf bat leaves the in much greater danger of being partitioned in the early game. Their territory is basically a giant collection of stuff that everyone around them would just love to expand into (often with few other cultural/religious concordant expansion options like the Beyliks, Byzantium, Wallachia), has the potential for a holy host of separatist rebels, and can easily get drawn into the biggest alliance webs of the game (the Italian merchant leagues, the HRE, and possibly some tributary/guarantee webs). Hitting the power level enough to let them thrive and menance Europe early but not too hard to avoid them becoming overwhelming is a narrow band shot if all we have coordinating their neighbors is AE.

 

[Rashie]

The Ottomans in their current state are significantly weaker than they have been at various points throughout this game's lifespan. They don't need to be nerfed further, rather the various economy issues the AI has needs to be sorted out, which isn't something specific to the Ottomans.

If there's any nation that do need specific attention in the vicinity it's probably Muscovy/Russia. I don't think I've ever seen a strong AI Russia in years now.

 

[redshirt4life]

The truth is that the Ottomans could have conquered Europe and this is kinda the whole deal with this time period. The game is Euro-centric enough.

If they run away by the 1700's that's kinda on you as the player.

 

[User29]

nobody ever remembers the pathetic ottomans of eu3 days, one of the major reasons the start date was moved to 1444 was to guarantee a strong Ottomans just after the victory of Varna.

EU4's entire legacy has been making sure the Ottomans are a serious threat in the game and they've done a stellar job. If I can beat the Ottomans as Naples in the 16th century by carefully balancing allies to get a coordinated strike then you should be able to too.

Yes the Ottomans weren't as strong irl as they are in game and no they don't weaken like they would in history, but they are a massive threat throughout the game to give the player something to be afraid of, because if there is anything true of this time period of history it's that the Ottomans were the bogeyman of Europe right until the treaty of Karlowitz and still a serious threat until the loss of the Crimean Khanate nearly a century later.

They're definitely not overpowered, if anything they're one of the few nations in the game that can actually compete with the player, across the board you will typically be #1 GP by 1600, the Ottomans might just might be still be able to compete with you by then

 

[RAID186]

Because there's no other explanation for why the Ottomans are so overpowered.

Excuse me sir might I refer you to... *history*

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Historically the Ottomans faced a bunch of tag teaming. The Poles saved Vienna, but the Venetians were active at sea and there were even attempts to coordinate with Persia. The Russians also were opposed to them in Crimea while the Spanish went after Ottoman power in North Africa. The biggest blow was arguably by Portugal opening trade around the Cape and drastically cutting the value of trade flowing through.

And this is the real problem with runaway powers, be they the player or a human. The Russians, Austrians, and the Poles, if rivals, will not coordinate against the Ottomans until the later has massive AE from both Catholic and Orthodox sources; instead Ottoman attacks against one will invite the others to kick em while they are down. Even if they do manage to coalition up, they will (maybe) declare a joint coalition war and penny packet their forces in. This allows defeat in detail as the game allows for no outcomes like history (e.g. the OE takes some of the Balkans, but loses territory in the Khanates).

AI coalitions rarely check giant blobs and the AI spends too much effort on going after rivals (which might not even be all that wise to hate any more) instead of trying for some balance of power. Until nations can do a proper balance of power evaluation, it is all but certain that somebody is going to go unchecked and the OE is always going to be high odds of being that power (as they expand into 4 or 5 religious blocks). On the flip side, bringing out the nerf bat leaves the in much greater danger of being partitioned in the early game. Their territory is basically a giant collection of stuff that everyone around them would just love to expand into (often with few other cultural/religious concordant expansion options like the Beyliks, Byzantium, Wallachia), has the potential for a holy host of separatist rebels, and can easily get drawn into the biggest alliance webs of the game (the Italian merchant leagues, the HRE, and possibly some tributary/guarantee webs). Hitting the power level enough to let them thrive and menance Europe early but not too hard to avoid them becoming overwhelming is a narrow band shot if all we have coordinating their neighbors is AE.

This is my entire point, thank you for making it so eloquently.

They warred with major Catholic nations and the HRE in succession and faced no opposition or coalition. That is just absurd. In those contexts there would have been a tangible plan to scale them back.

The truth is that the Ottomans could have conquered Europe and this is kinda the whole deal with this time period. The game is Euro-centric enough.

If they run away by the 1700's that's kinda on you as the player.

Yeah but they didn't for the reasons highlighted in the post above.

Napoleon could have conquered all of Europe too, but he didn't...

Excuse me sir might I refer you to... *history*

Posts like this are just annoying and not helpful. I'm not stupid and I've read history.

 

[Chazb5046]

Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Each game has its own path... so maybe you were unhappy about something in your last game(s).

no single nation should“win” though.

Blobbing is so unchecked that By 1700 All (or at least most) areas of the world have been homogenized into regional blobs. Europe is gone.

Look at the bookmark for 1745 then play through a game and look at the state of the world/greater Europe in 1745.... Paradox fails utterly to simulate the cost of expansion or even indeed, that not every nation is always hell bent at every opportunity, on declaring war and taking land.

 

[SolSys]

I'm not shocked this topic is once again gracing these forums, but am a bit surprised it is coming from a player who must have tons of EU4 experience judging by the forum badges you have.

Forum badges don't indicate experience in one game or another. They only indicate ownership.

(For example, I have many badges, but did not play most of those games -- not enough time to play with work).

 

[Chazb5046]

The Ottomans have a bunch of modifiers early game, which has worked well in the past barring Ottoman expansion into Russia.

What?

do you have any evidence to back this up? What are these modifiers that bar ottoman v Russian expansion?

 

[Chazb5046]

Look, I am not going to make a complaint for the sake of making a complaint.

I'll try and be fair. Yes, I have seen the Ottomans struggle. But I've also seen them go insane. When they do go insane, there seems to be no barrier to how insane they can go.

Let me put it like this, my earlier point stands, English expansion seems largely limited to where they historically expanded (uniting the British isles and colonising in the Americas) and occasionally I've seen them pick off a small Asian nation or two. But they've never gone insane. Furthermore, they often suffer at least two built in mechanics (in the forms of civil wars). Castile, the same. France, the same.

When the Ottomans go nuts, they really go nuts. In fact, when they go the most nuts is when they focus on Europe and don't bother that much with the Mamluks or anyone else because they conquer high development land and show no opposition.

In my save, they're now bordering my France because they ate North Italy and Switzerland. Does that not sound at least a bit extreme to you? I keep hearing the same regurgitated nonsense like I've never played EU before or read a history book. I know the Ottomans were strong, I know you optimally need to eat them early, I know I need strong allies and to expand elsewhere, but I shouldn't be sharing a border with them as France.

I'm fine with them not being so weak at the start but I am totally not fine with there being seemingly no barriers to how strong they can get.

This is a very very good explanation of the problem with Ottomans/any huge blob. The game doesn’t stop snowballing, in fact even facilitates it.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

no single nation should“win” though.

Blobbing is so unchecked that By 1700 All (or at least most) areas of the world have been homogenized into regional blobs. Europe is gone.

Look at the bookmark for 1745 then play through a game and look at the state of the world/greater Europe in 1745.... Paradox fails utterly to simulate the cost of expansion or even indeed, that not every nation is always hell bent at every opportunity, on declaring war and taking land.

This is a fantastic point indeed.

I did have it once when Great Britain decided to basically go to war with the whole new world and I was shocked at how they conquered everywhere with very little resistance.

But in regards to the Ottomans, it is at a new level. If they succeed in the first 20 years of the game, then they can just go wild. There's no level of proportion to the damage they can do.

For them to eat into both Catholic and Orthodox land so heavily and face no penalty, no coalition is insane. I don't understand why people get so defensive over this. The Ottomans deserve to be strong, I agree, but they do not deserve to have the right to just go wild with no penalty.

 

[Kimbole]

I don't understand why people get so defensive over this. The Ottomans deserve to be strong, I agree, but they do not deserve to have the right to just go wild with no penalty.

You’re overstating how big a problem this is. The Ottomans do not regularly go wild. What they did in any one run does not have a very significant relevance in terms of how overpowered a nation is if it only happens very rarely. I do not think people are getting defensive, I think lots just disagree with you about whether they find the Ottomans to be obnoxiously blobby in any consistent way in their games. The way you describe them simply does not stand up to the way they are in the overwhelming majority of my games.

 

[threetypesofcorn]

What?

do you have any evidence to back this up? What are these modifiers that bar ottoman v Russian expansion?

They have worked well in the past, except for Ottoman expansion into Russia.
Remind me next time to use commas correctly

 

[Nwaij]

I know.

Look, at some point there has to be a limit at how reasonable Ottoman expansion is. If they get to France is that too much? What if they invade England? What if they invade Sweden? at some point a line has to be drawn about how powerful is reasonable for the Ottomans.

The world.

 

[LSF]

Hey guy, why did you change the title? That was funny.