Why do Ottomans start with Anatolian cores?

[Frungy78]

I understand that the Ottomans eventually conquered all of Anatolia, starting from a small beylik in the NW corner and taking over the rest. I don't understand why they already have cores in Karaman, Adana, Erzurum, etc. It's not like they used to own it. I understand it's all Turkic culturally, but it's not like Granada has a core on Andalusia, or Hannover has a core on all Hannoverian lands.

Balance-wise, it's one of the reasons the Ottomans explode growth-wise along with the free 15 base tax in Constantinople (0 autonomy by moving capital), and one of the best ways to contain Ottoman growth as the Mamluks or other nearby power (take the beyliks before the Ottomans do.) By removing the cores, the Ottomans will expand a bit more slowly but still have easy targets around them.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Ottoman growth does not need to be contained, although EDIT: nevermind, the cores are historical according to Demetrios.

 

[Demetrios]

I understand that the Ottomans eventually conquered all of Anatolia, starting from a small beylik in the NW corner and taking over the rest. I don't understand why they already have cores in Karaman, Adana, Erzurum, etc. It's not like they used to own it. I understand it's all Turkic culturally, but it's not like Granada has a core on Andalusia, or Hannover has a core on all Hannoverian lands.

Balance-wise, it's one of the reasons the Ottomans explode growth-wise along with the free 15 base tax in Constantinople (0 autonomy by moving capital), and one of the best ways to contain Ottoman growth as the Mamluks or other nearby power (take the beyliks before the Ottomans do.) By removing the cores, the Ottomans will expand a bit more slowly but still have easy targets around them.

They actually did used to own those areas. Under Bayezid I, in the 1390s, the Ottomans conquered basically the whole of Anatolia, ousting the local beys and imposing their rule.

Then Timur came along and wrecked all that quite thoroughly. After he was done dismantling Ottoman Asia and re-establishing the beyliks, the subsequent Ottoman civil war delayed any reconquest until just before the game starts.

 

[Frungy78]

Ah yes, forgot about Timur. My bad!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They actually did used to own those areas. Under Bayezid I, in the 1390s, the Ottomans conquered basically the whole of Anatolia, ousting the local beys and imposing their rule.

Then Timur came along and wrecked all that quite thoroughly. After he was done dismantling Ottoman Asia and re-establishing the beyliks, the subsequent Ottoman civil war delayed any reconquest until just before the game starts.

By the game's rules, they would therefore have cores on some of those provinces.

But this defies the game's consistency, because of the lack of numerous cores across the world (Golden horde, Mongolia, etc; same culture group lasts 150 years), and also because Castile has cores in Granada. Even the removal of BYZ cores is inconsistent with this practice.

The Ottomans are given special treatment in numerous ways, and Wiz made it pretty clear that they did that on purpose, to heck with consistency with other game rules or start positions unfortunately. They want the Ottomans strong so they get cores.

 

[zemuzil]

By the game's rules, they would therefore have cores on some of those provinces.

But this defies the game's consistency, because of the lack of numerous cores across the world (Golden horde, Mongolia, etc; same culture group lasts 150 years), and also because Castile has cores in Granada. Even the removal of BYZ cores is inconsistent with this practice.

The Ottomans are given special treatment in numerous ways, and Wiz made it pretty clear that they did that on purpose, to heck with consistency with other game rules or start positions unfortunately. They want the Ottomans strong so they get cores.

By the same rules Poland should have cores in chelmno and silesia

 

[birincikalite]

They actually did used to own those areas. Under Bayezid I, in the 1390s, the Ottomans conquered basically the whole of Anatolia, ousting the local beys and imposing their rule.

Then Timur came along and wrecked all that quite thoroughly. After he was done dismantling Ottoman Asia and re-establishing the beyliks, the subsequent Ottoman civil war delayed any reconquest until just before the game starts.

Not whole of it, but a very big chunk yes.

The reason is probably the same with Castile having cores on Andalusia and and Sweden cores on Danish lands.

 

[RobRoy3]

By the game's rules, they would therefore have cores on some of those provinces.

But this defies the game's consistency, because of the lack of numerous cores across the world (Golden horde, Mongolia, etc; same culture group lasts 150 years), and also because Castile has cores in Granada. Even the removal of BYZ cores is inconsistent with this practice.

The Ottomans are given special treatment in numerous ways, and Wiz made it pretty clear that they did that on purpose, to heck with consistency with other game rules or start positions unfortunately. They want the Ottomans strong so they get cores.

Yeah, the consistency thing is problematic. But given how poorly the Ottomans have performed in some versions, they'd get a pass on this one, in my book. Frankly, the AI Turks still underperform, relative to their historical selves, and that seems to be a relevant (if inconsistent) measure for the treatment of majors.

Of course, undoing some of the things that specifically hinder the Turks might be a better option: modifying the unrealistic impact of the straits mechanic, rationalizing their missions, reversing previous idea nerfs, etc.

 

[WeissRaben]

By the game's rules, they would therefore have cores on some of those provinces.

But this defies the game's consistency, because of the lack of numerous cores across the world (Golden horde, Mongolia, etc; same culture group lasts 150 years), and also because Castile has cores in Granada. Even the removal of BYZ cores is inconsistent with this practice.

The Ottomans are given special treatment in numerous ways, and Wiz made it pretty clear that they did that on purpose, to heck with consistency with other game rules or start positions unfortunately. They want the Ottomans strong so they get cores.

Remember that - while in practice I KNOW cores have been put there to help the Ottomans, and not otherwise - they can reasonably reconquer those areas quickly. Other nations would be killed by prestige draining.

 

[Grand Historian]

For the same reason the Ottomans are the primary nation of Turkish despite just being one of many dynasties (albeit the strongest) at gamestart.

 

[Sunspawn]

For the same reason the Ottomans are the primary nation of Turkish despite just being one of many dynasties (albeit the strongest) at gamestart.

This bothers me the most.

 

[Thrake]

Remember that - while in practice I KNOW cores have been put there to help the Ottomans, and not otherwise - they can reasonably reconquer those areas quickly. Other nations would be killed by prestige draining.

The worst is probably that it is AE-free conquest (or sorta). At least there's some historical basis for those cores though.

 

[Wizzington]

The rules for where we allow foreign cores is basically 'where we think it's a good idea'. There is no consistent standard (other than that there should be some historical justification) nor will there ever be, because foreign cores have a very large effect on the way the early game develops.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But there is no historical justification for Castile's cores on Granada (it would be like putting a ton of Muscovy cores in Novgorod), and the stuff in Ming is...interesting. You actually do have some for most of the Ottoman ones.

 

[Grand Historian]

The rules for where we allow foreign cores is basically 'where we think it's a good idea'. There is no consistent standard (other than that there should be some historical justification) nor will there ever be, because foreign cores have a very large effect on the way the early game develops.

I am assuming the unspoken rule about Byzantine cores remains the same in light of this?

 

[Gaussia]

I agree with Wiz, no reason foreign cores at the start of game should follow rules of the game later on. Think they work a little bit as specific events/missions just more convinient.

 

[Wizzington]

But there is no historical justification for Castile's cores on Granada (it would be like putting a ton of Muscovy cores in Novgorod), and the stuff in Ming is...interesting. You actually do have some for most of the Ottoman ones.

I agree on Castile's cores TBH, I'll see what Johan thinks of removing them.

Ming has revolter cores, not foreign cores. Completely different.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I agree on Castile's cores TBH, I'll see what Johan thinks of removing them.

Ming has revolter cores, not foreign cores. Completely different.

Would be interesting if they are removed; perhaps Granada then will be more likely to last ~50 too.

 

[hashinshin]

Please don't make spain any weaker. France never has any real opponents as is. If you remove Spain's castile cores at least look in to making Spain form in more than 1/4 of games.

 

[Wizzington]

Castile's cores on Granada are now kaput.