Why is the Ottoman Ghazi idea still in this game?

[Colossal_Elk]

This is like something an 8 year old would come up with.

GIVE DEM THREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETIMES THE MEN! BECAUSE RELIGION! DUHHHH!

Why? Who thought that for any reasons, balance or history, this makes any sense at all?

1.5x would be reasonable. 2x is kind of a stretch. But 3x allows Ottomans to fight almost all of Europe by themselves. This is with them NOT as a lucky nation. Now bear in mind, yeah, the Ottoman Empire was a big scary state that most Europeans didn't want to touch with a ten foot pole. But their manpower was not infinite and religious zealotry did not make them invincible.

The usual response about Ottos is that their military sucks in the lategame. Yeah, in 1750, when the game is almost over. And by that point their manpower is so vast that even if you can wipe all their stacks they're still nigh-impossible to invade because they recover almost instantly. It also allows them to do stack reinforcement chains and make battles go on for months at a time (where even your best, most advanced units are going to get depleted morale).

Maybe to reflect the idea that keeping a bunch of ill-trained zealots in line is really hard, raise revolt risk. If Ottos get triple manpower, they need to pay the penalty when it's active. I don't know, just something that actually makes this remotely balanced or realistic. When I played France and Scotland I thought Burgundy was OP but at least you can bankrupt them.

 

[Kwami]

I don't really see a problem with Ghazi. This thread is just a lot of whining.

 

[AltarofScience]

I've literally never had a problem with Ottomans. Especially on crusades.

 

[Colossal_Elk]

I don't really see a problem with Ghazi. This thread is just a lot of whining.

Massive manpower increase vs religious enemies. Why? They already have really high manpower and the only people not subject to the Ghazi bonus can't beat Ottos anyway. If it's going to be a conditional idea with a really strong bonus why not make that condition be something other than the status quo?

 

[Kwami]

You don't have to use the Holy War CB to declare war on them.

 

[Shadowless]

You don't have to use the Holy War CB to declare war on them.

Doesn't require holy war to work. (Unless this has changed in the beta patches) In single player I don't see it as an issue, however in multiplayer it is a rather large one that has caused both of my current games to have anti ottoman coalitions form and attack the ottomans in the first session hoping to cripple him so badly it becomes a non issue. On the multiplayer side of things I believe it is fairly well agreed that it is insanely powerful and one game that I am not in resulted in having a mod for the specific issue letting the Ottomans have the power to westernize and lose it or keep it but be unable to westernize.

 

[Colossal_Elk]

You don't have to use the Holy War CB to declare war on them.

I don't, but any religious enemy gets stuck in it. That's the problem: it's a boost vs religious enemies. Anything that isn't Sunni. And what great Sunni enemies do they have? They own the Mams; who else is there? Tripoli? Algiers? Crimea? A bunch of nobody countries that are only powerful because they tend to drag Turkey into their wars. Anyone who isn't subject to the Ghazi idea can't beat Otto anyway, so then what's the point of it? It should just be a static manpower bonus. I just implemented it into a game, 25% manpower recovery. They're waging 3 wars right now but at least they're not stepping on everyone in the process.

 

[Viking]

Doesn't require holy war to work. (Unless this has changed in the beta patches) In single player I don't see it as an issue, however in multiplayer it is a rather large one that has caused both of my current games to have anti ottoman coalitions form and attack the ottomans in the first session hoping to cripple him so badly it becomes a non issue. On the multiplayer side of things I believe it is fairly well agreed that it is insanely powerful and one game that I am not in resulted in having a mod for the specific issue letting the Ottomans have the power to westernize and lose it or keep it but be unable to westernize.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=220773504

this is the mod, the late game trolling of everybody else as the ottoman made the previous primi game boring for me as the uber ottoman. In player wars I stayed at max manpower constantly. The mod only adds an event replacing the regular turkish national idea group with a created one where ghazi is replaced by "Western Recruitment" which gives 20% manpower recover in general instead.

 

[ghostcaesar]

I don't, but any religious enemy gets stuck in it. That's the problem: it's a boost vs religious enemies. Anything that isn't Sunni. And what great Sunni enemies do they have? They own the Mams; who else is there? Tripoli? Algiers? Crimea? A bunch of nobody countries that are only powerful because they tend to drag Turkey into their wars. Anyone who isn't subject to the Ghazi idea can't beat Otto anyway, so then what's the point of it? It should just be a static manpower bonus. I just implemented it into a game, 25% manpower recovery. They're waging 3 wars right now but at least they're not stepping on everyone in the process.

pretty sure it means everyone who ISN'T sunni

 

[unmerged(13581)]

I'm not sure if you are indeed very unlucky or just making this up for whatever reason but I hardly see the Ottoman AI achieve even their historical borders.
Most of the time they don't manage to expand much into non-sunni provinces at all in my games and I never had any problem fighting them as a Westen/Eastern major country because despite having a lot of manpower they are usually 2 or 3 land techs behind, so they can't do much harm with their doomstacks anyway.
Actually, in all my games so far I've never ever seen them reach the "Gates of Vienna"...

 

[RadRussian]

The game is designed to be imbalanced. Ottomans is one of the nations that is destined to become superpower. I don't really understand why are complaining. You might as well start whining about Spain's third free colonist or Austria's emperorship and overall dominance.

 

[Foogsie]

I definitely think Ghazi is a bit much. Ottomans should be setup to a strong power, but I don't think they need a +200% manpower mod to do it. Trimming it to 50-100% would still be a pretty strong idea.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The game is designed to be imbalanced. Ottomans is one of the nations that is destined to become superpower. I don't really understand why are complaining. You might as well start whining about Spain's third free colonist or Austria's emperorship and overall dominance.

The assertion is that Ghazi + other bonuses make them better than all the other nations in MP.

I'm not convinced that's true though. While Ghazi is very powerful and the core reduction buffs the game's slowest expansion method into viability, in direct combat they get 10% discipline and a somewhat weak cavalry boost. Even ENGLAND gets that discipline booster, as does Hungary, qutie a few minor nations ranging from Iroquois to Ethiopia, Persia (who also gets recover morale speed), Poland (who stacks it with infantry combat and 15% morale), and don't even get me started on Prussia.

Even junk nations like Punjab have better *direct combat*. What makes the Ottomans so crazy is the combination of their starting size, position, and decisions available. However, late in the game they need that manpower, lest the likes of Sweden/France, Italy, and other Euro powers blast them to smithereens. The Europeans can hit the Ottos while they westernize, or just dogpile late game while raking in gobs of money + having superior troops of stacked infantry/discipline bonuses. No matter how huge manpower is, the ability to build and consolidate stacks while being attacked on multiple fronts is finite.

 

[Colossal_Elk]

pretty sure it means everyone who ISN'T sunni

That's...exactly what I said?

 

[mustachewarfare]

so we are gonna nerf Ottoman? The only non-western nation that has decent chance of being strong without being played by a player?

Ghazi doesn't even fit well with Ottoman strategy imo. (For SP. Not sure about MP part)

Ottoman 1st idea group (at least for me) is administrative. Since they are gonna go on rampaging conquest, they need "Adaptability" asap.

It is more attractive option than religious since most of the religious idea in there is not gonna be extremely useful to Ottoman. Ottoman gets “Ottoman Tolerance” as 1st NI. Thus all those conversion stuff is going to be meaningless. The only awesome idea is "Deus Vult" and it will be only awesome when Ottoman gets Ghazi NI which will require you to unlock 6 idea. (One might argue that “Deus Vult” is very useful CB without Ghazi. However, Ottoman gains tons of mission that grants free conquest CB so not having holy war CB against its neighbouring nation is not a significant loss.) And as I have mentioned earlier, thanks to Ottoman Tolerance, Ottoman doesn’t need religious ideas. (may be except the stability cost reduction)

Then one may argue without Deus Vult, Ottoman would not be able to use Ghazi. However, Ottoman can just take “” and just rely on mercenary troops.

For me, I find taking Administrative and taking up to 3 idea is a good idea. (The later ideas can be somewhat useful but I find spending ADM to coring and teching up to be a better choice.)
Then, tech up and get Diplomacy and complete diplomacy.
Then, tech up and get Defensive (since you will be quite close to having excessive amount of MIL by now)

The point is that Ottoman is better off not taking religious idea in early game. If Ghazi idea is nerf, then the incentive to take religious idea will be even lowered. Hell, maybe Ottoman players may not even bother taking religious idea at all.

In late game, all great power has insane amount of manpower so Ghazi is only truly useful in early game. However, this means that the player will have to sacrifice taking some good idea groups in exchange.

 

[Nunn45]

Simply removing or reducing Ghazi after westernisation would fix a lot of issues in the Multiplayer setting.

 

[xyra]

pretty sure it means everyone who ISN'T sunni

pretty sure it's everyone not muslem.
and it stops working if you convert to non muslem (orthodox)

however it is still very/too strong when used right. i wouldn't remove it, but i would modify it.

 

[Raliks]

I Agree, I just played a game as the ottomans and I could go building 60k stacks and send them into battle without being too concerned because I knew that if it got wiped I could just build a new one.

 

[grand_Turk]

Ghazi idea should not be removed from the Ottomans as they are already week against their western neighbours when they're controlled by AI. I for one never saw them conquering much of the Balkans when controlled by AI. Removal of Ghazis will reduce the military might of the Ottoman Empire and make them more vulnerable against other powerful nations.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I Agree, I just played a game as the ottomans and I could go building 60k stacks and send them into battle without being too concerned because I knew that if it got wiped I could just build a new one.

How do you build a new one if you have 1-2 opponents with a large #forces force-march into your territory? You only train one stack per province at a time, and forming them together is problematic with 2-5 40 stacks sitting in your lands. Considering that these forces can beat you heads-up at even numbers thanks to more discipline and baseline infantry power boosts, you need to be able to hit them with larger stacks + reinforce to deplete them. Sure, you could hire mercs to get units together faster, but they don't need (or use) Ghazi and there are other nations with better mercs. It's not just a matter of training 60+ new units, its training 60+ new units and putting them together before half of them get slaughtered, blocked at chokes, or have their provinces sieged before you can build them.

Still, a human Ottoman is formidable indeed and would take a dedicated effort to shut down, similar to other true superpowers.

AI Ottoman though? If you get the advantage, they'll have manpower in droves, and no regiments. It's a similar concept as beating the Mamluks with a Sub-Saharan nation in a separate war with no allies by simply taking advantage of an opportunity after the Ottomans flatten their military; once their units are gone, don't let them replace them.