http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary#Corps_strength
So yes, unwashed muslim peasants is exactly what triple manpower during religious wars means.
Why is the Ottoman Ghazi idea still in this game?
- Thread starter Colossal_Elk
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary#Corps_strength
So yes, unwashed muslim peasants is exactly what triple manpower during religious wars means.
Again, though, it was not uncommon for countries to have an elite, professional core than peasant levies that could be rasied on top of that.
The overall game isn't but ideas themselves are, otherwise we would have seen no idea nerfs for any nations.
So much of this conversation hinges on the fact that Paradox has decided that non-Western armies are inherently inferior to the glorious West even at equivalent tech levels. I submit that that is the real problem here, because it's the reason Ghazi might be considered necessary for the Ottomans to remain competitive.
Actually, Ottomans are very strong early game, their units are just as good if not better than western tech, and all their best NIs come early, and then you have the Janissaries and that 5/5/6 ruler they start with, they were deliberately built to be the strongest early game power. However, Ottomans falls rapidly after 1600, their units become third world quality and their Janissary bonuses are wiped out to janissary decadence events, on top of this the West superpowers start to shine with Prussia's obscene army tradition, discipline, and infantry power and Muscovy's tech advantage and ability to field huge armies.
I don't see any reason why Ghazi couldn't be made an event that lasts until ~1650. Replace the idea with something like manpower recovery speed and therefore buff the AI a bit more (a human player could conquer the world with the coring cost reducement and the rest filled with Brittany ideas just as well).
It IS the single most imbalance nation in multiplayer, there is no disputing that. No other country can come up with that kind of manpower.
@Those who say you would have to break them early: Have you actually ever played a mp match / seen the world map?
1. Unless this coalition would consist of 3-4 major Europeans including France, i see no chance for breaking a human Ottoman. And even if it is manageable, why even play ottomans in the first place? No other nation would need such a massive early (counter-) attack.
2. Don't forget they start with a God Sultan. They are probably ahead of every nation but Florence in the first 20-30 years.
2. They have nobody neighbouring them in three directions that could possibly put up even half of a fight. The only neighbour that could pose a problem would be a human Poland (or Mameluks + Timurids both human, but that never happens because they suck). But there is still all of Asia left...
3. You can't compare it to Russia, it doesn't even come close. +75% manpower is nothing compared to Ghazi and they have no other military boosts to speak of. The need to conquer something first to become any kind of power. A Poland or Lithuania player could crush them with ease in year 1, even a halfway decent Denmark / Sweden player could finish them off.
I see why it is in, to give the AI a boost. The problem is, the AI doesn't use it anyway. The Ottomans could conquer all of Egypt + Balkans in 30 years without even a dent in their MP pool, even with AI warfare, yet they never do. I bet you could give them a +100% Discipline and Morale boost and it wouldn't make a difference because the AI would still move in stacks of 100 and stand on some desert mountain like Moses.
And being a good sporting opponent or "End-Boss" for a human? Oh come on... If you are east or south of them they could kill you anyway until you westernized or are at mil-tech 22, as you will lose 3x their forces. If you are coming from the west, you usually don't attack them in the first 100 years anyway, unless you are suicidal or playing Byzantium. After some time, it is laughably easy to kill them. Just place 2 huge stacks at the Bosporus and let them attack repeatedly with the crossing malus. Ghazi even helps you there, because they keep attacking and give you +40 battle WS in no time.
Make it weaker, replace it with an event, replace it with something else useful. I honestly don't see a reason why not to. It imbalances MP like probably nothing else and makes no difference in SP if it is somehow transformed.
And stop comparing the complains to those about Prussia please. Pomerania can kill BB on day 1, Poland both BB and TO. Unless they are protected by a human Austria / Denmark / Poland, i can't possibly imagine them ever becoming a thread of any kind. Same for Sweden.
It IS the single most imbalance nation in multiplayer, there is no disputing that. No other country can come up with that kind of manpower.
@Those who say you would have to break them early: Have you actually ever played a mp match / seen the world map?
1. Unless this coalition would consist of 3-4 major Europeans including France, i see no chance for breaking a human Ottoman. And even if it is manageable, why even play ottomans in the first place? No other nation would need such a massive early (counter-) attack.
2. Don't forget they start with a God Sultan. They are probably ahead of every nation but Florence in the first 20-30 years.
2. They have nobody neighbouring them in three directions that could possibly put up even half of a fight. The only neighbour that could pose a problem would be a human Poland (or Mameluks + Timurids both human, but that never happens because they suck). But there is still all of Asia left...
3. You can't compare it to Russia, it doesn't even come close. +75% manpower is nothing compared to Ghazi and they have no other military boosts to speak of. The need to conquer something first to become any kind of power. A Poland or Lithuania player could crush them with ease in year 1, even a halfway decent Denmark / Sweden player could finish them off.
I see why it is in, to give the AI a boost. The problem is, the AI doesn't use it anyway. The Ottomans could conquer all of Egypt + Balkans in 30 years without even a dent in their MP pool, even with AI warfare, yet they never do. I bet you could give them a +100% Discipline and Morale boost and it wouldn't make a difference because the AI would still move in stacks of 100 and stand on some desert mountain like Moses.
And being a good sporting opponent or "End-Boss" for a human? Oh come on... If you are east or south of them they could kill you anyway until you westernized or are at mil-tech 22, as you will lose 3x their forces. If you are coming from the west, you usually don't attack them in the first 100 years anyway, unless you are suicidal or playing Byzantium. After some time, it is laughably easy to kill them. Just place 2 huge stacks at the Bosporus and let them attack repeatedly with the crossing malus. Ghazi even helps you there, because they keep attacking and give you +40 battle WS in no time.
Make it weaker, replace it with an event, replace it with something else useful. I honestly don't see a reason why not to. It imbalances MP like probably nothing else and makes no difference in SP if it is somehow transformed.
And stop comparing the complains to those about Prussia please. Pomerania can kill BB on day 1, Poland both BB and TO. Unless they are protected by a human Austria / Denmark / Poland, i can't possibly imagine them ever becoming a thread of any kind. Same for Sweden.
Why not change Ghazi to only apply against higher tech groups instead of other religions? This auto-removes it once they westernize. They could have some other minor bonus added to compensate.
We should do the same with Prussia once they reach a certain size/forcelimit and cut all their ideas in half to prevent them from being too op as it is unrealistic to have such a large army size with that quality of troops.
(If you're going to nerf ottoman ideas, might as well do the same to nations deemed "OP" by a couple of people who do not know a workaround against a nation. Keep in mind that people who claim that the Ghazi idea are op, are much more likely to voice their opinion in a louder scale than people who are fine with it.)
Yeah... no... because your argument is kind of full of historical loopholes. You use history as a nice argument but somewhat ommit history altogether, since you carelessly gloss over the "how" of the aforementioned conquest. Ottomans didn't conquer the Mamluke holdings in 2 battles, at least not manu militari. The Mamluke elite simply decided to change sides and accepted the Ottoman rule in return for a return to the status quo ante bellum, with the only difference of them being under the nominal Ottoman leadership. When Napoleon arrived centuries later guess who he found??????
This isn't as much nitpicking as you are simply ommiting - the most horrible of all crimes of one arguing history- facts. The point though? It can't be done since no such features are simulated in-game. There is no elite that can cause entire chunks of an empire to switch sides to a new overlord, there is simply no internal micromanagement. The end. So though I get your point and also lament it not being possible, I don't see how . Since it would only make it arbitrary and unjust as a whole. We already have flavourable events in this genre, I'm not against them in se - on the contrary - but they'll need balance. The argument of 'theyz be glorious warleaders derp' isn't really cutting historical wood at all, certainly not to be bluntly translated into game features.
Oh please. Have you ever tried to do any of the major fast conquests of the era in game? The Ottomans get hosed out of their 1453-1463 romp because game mechanics don't support that much OExt. Doing anything like the War of Spanish Succession (where Austria takes the Austrian Netherlands, half of Italy, and other people peel land off Spain too) is also impossible. And the Manchu conquest of China. And basically every conquest related to Napoleon and every Italian coalition war that saw Milan or Liguria change hands.
The game is pretty deficient for having no way to a do a lot of the most fun wars to their historical conclusion. There are a dozen possible mechanics out there, but currently we have nothing that allows more than 4 decent provinces to change hands ... and that is just way to ahistorical. I mean sure, make the mechanism costly - do this and you piss off everyone in Europe, but it is disappointing that if I play Russia I can't partition, I can't take Finland, and then I can't screw over Prussia at the bargaining table.
This. I am amazed that people are disturbed by Ghazi but not by the fact that non-western tech nation's army will get rofl stomped by western nation's army even though they possess same level of military tech.
here's a joke : the game's name is EUROPA universalis and most players are from WESTERN countries.
so, hey just nerf all countries outside the western/european countries so that we could roflstomped them.
"oh wow ottoman is OP early game, please nerf ghazi!!"
maybe they forgot the tech penalty, janissary decadence and the inferior army in late game.
but anyway, who cares about the other tech group? after all this game's name is EUROPA universalis.
But Brandenburg starts the game surrounded by powerful enemies and is a small nation, relatively easy to shut down. The Ottomans start surrounded by weak, collapsing nations ripe for the picking and is almost impossible for any nearby power to meaningfully contest until well into the 1600's. They're just not even in the same ballpark.
But we want the game to be fun. Many of us think the game will be more fun if European armies aren't so dramatically superior. Are you saying that the game should be less fun in order to cater to the ethnocentrism of the extreme minority of players?
Sad thing is, theres a lot of people who genuinely do believe that non-western countries should be inferior by default, and it seems like even Paradox has jumped on that train considering the nerfs to horde and asian NIs.
Agreed. Everyone who has played MP games knows how broken Ghazi is. It's beyond ridiculous.
All other buffs might give 33% manpower or some such. Ghazi effectively gives 300% manpower (and recovery speed).
They don't get the bonus when they are not at war. This means that in very long wars where some of the goal is to reduce the enemy manpower to zero before you carpet, you're not going to be able to have a higher manpower gain than them. So go for quick wars, kill their armies once, and take a few provinces. When the war ends they don't get the bonus no more, so their manpower won't rebuild faster than yours.
This is what makes the Ghazi idea good. (remember, they are supposed to be clearly the strongest country in the region)
This is what makes the Ghazi idea good. (remember, they are supposed to be clearly the strongest country in the region)
Beliefs and his joke aside, there is no question that they are inferior by default in-game...and not much justification for that (especially the straight nerfs to Asian ideas - WTF is up with that?).
Part of me is sad I missed the westernized horde government, but I think playing it before and not being able to now would have left me more angry too.
What are you talking about? :huh: Unlike you, I'm not ignoring any historical fact. Two memluk sultans were slain, and the Memluk army was laid to waste. This is what they call annihilation. You either conquer them by the sword or local rulers accept to come under your rule. Local memluk begs had no option but to obey and they eventually bow to Selim's might. Egypt's annual tax started to be sent to Istanbul after 1516-17 campaign. Which perfectly makes Selim's Egypt Campaign a conquest. You can't collect taxes from a province you don't own after all.Yeah... no... because your argument is kind of full of historical loopholes. You use history as a nice argument but somewhat ommit history altogether, since you carelessly gloss over the "how" of the aforementioned conquest. Ottomans didn't conquer the Mamluke holdings in 2 battles, at least not manu militari. The Mamluke elite simply decided to change sides and accepted the Ottoman rule in return for a return to the status quo ante bellum, with the only difference of them being under the nominal Ottoman leadership. When Napoleon arrived centuries later guess who he found??????
This isn't as much nitpicking as you are simply ommiting - the most horrible of all crimes of one arguing history
It seems to me, you're just trying to trivialize Selim I's splendid victory over the Memluks and remarkably succesful Egypt campaign. Bah.As for the feature I mentioned in my previous post, it is a perfect one to integrate into the game. Which is also completely relevant to EU4. I don't think you got what I thought either. There's no need for micromanagament to add such a feature into the game. It doesn't have to be applied on every occasion, but sometimes, by the help of some factors,you can conquer a country after defeating their army on the battlefield. In conclusion, the Ottoman AI needs more features apart from having ghazi idea to conquer lands like the way its historical counterpart did.
- Status