Why ottomans for new players?

[Bibor]

There's a fair amount of people who go "I lost, this game sucks" and never play it again.

From my personal experince, the only times I ragequit (when I started playing) was when I overestimated my own strenght, underestimated the opponent's strenght, and had no clue how to actually fight the war (unsustainable stacks, badly timed sieges, bad positioning etc.). I lost my nerves primarily to enemies stackwiping half my army.

Now granted, Ottomans have enough forts to make a player go "I won this battle for some reason", but so does France.

EU4 mechanics (with all expansions) got pretty complex over time.
You skipped out on a "true tutorial" for way too long. It's time you made a real one that enables the player to start from scratch.

 

[Finrin]

Ottomans just have such a well rounded start for most elements of the game. Perhaps Castille for colonizing.
Also, one thing I haven't seen mentioned but they also allow a player to start doing something straight away without needing to plan far ahead which I guess most new players wouldn't know how to do.
Back in EU3 I remember starting out with Burgundy of all nations and while it was great for HRE mechanics, I would have loved modern Ottos instead

 

[mruuh]

You're absolutely out of your mind if you think a player is going to learn better from a youtuber than by experimenting on their own

I actually couldn't get into EU4 for a good while - I kept being overwhelmed with all the numbers, controls, sliders, I had no idea what is connected with what, what affects what, etc. Whenever I started playing a game, regardless of which country I picked, I had the feeling that I am just holding on while the game drags me down the timeline without me really knowing what's going on, reacting to events without understanding the consequences, and in general not having a good time. All that after hundreds of hours in CK2, with several succesful campaigns in that game, so it wasn't like various Paradoxian game concepts were alien to me.

What helped me get past that initial "a-ha!" hurdle was watching one or two youtube tutorials. They explained some basics about how various aspects and mechanisms of an EU4 country fit together, which numbers affects which other numbers and how, they even opened my eyes to certain UI controls that I did not even know were clickable (EU4 has some stupid and unintuitive UI design choices in certain places). I remember one of them was a video starting as Castile, while the other one, focused on how trade system works, was played as Venice, I think.

Of course, these videos did not explain all the subtle details, but it was enough to get me started, and feel like I am starting to be in control of my country. And from there, I was able to dig deeper and deeper into the game, looking up stuff on wiki as needed, understanding what to focus on, learning to read how the modifiers add up in various tooltip popups, etc.

Long-time players underestimate the initial barrier a new player has, and how important "foot in the door" can watching someone more experienced be.

Incidentally (back on topic of this thread), I finished my firsts full playthrough as Ottomans, after first abandoning the game as Castille. Not even because Ottomans game is easier, but they seemed to have much more events and overall dynamic gameplay than Castille, where I felt that I was only waiting for certain number to reach value where I could click a button and wait for another number that I needed to grow, with nothing to break up the monotony.

I did not fare remarkably well on that first Ottomans game, I barely ate maybe one fifth of Hungary, was slapped harshly a few times by European alliances, didn't even get close to India on eastern end, and only pushed Mamluks down past northern Egypt by late game. But I had fun, for the first time in EU4.

Also, I remember that in that game I finished the Suez canal just so-so before the end date, yay!

 

[PhoenixG]

The Ottomans require no diplomacy, not really. It doesn't need income or monarch point management, not even in the slightest. The only true thing that can go wrong for the Ottomans is if they repeatedly try to bore into Europe. Wow that's educational.

I disagree with the no diplomacy. Especially after the 1.23 change in central asia. With so many muslim countries, coalitions will form very easily if you don't manage your diplo game. While Ottoman does have a solid starting ecoomy, I've seen way to many beginners struggling with the economy front as Ottoman. The main thing is there is a LOT of stuff you need to manage and to learn that it's easier with a country that gives you some fexiblility.

Also my first game in EU4 was as Utrecht, so I kinda know how it is to be thrown in to the depth.

 

[Sunspawn]

In my opinion, ENGLAND would be a much better choice for a starting nation (my first EU4 games were England and Castile).
- They have a strong opponent from the very start (France, Burgundy)
- they are taught from the very start the importance of strong alliances due to continental possesions that cost an arm and a leg to keep
- they are taught from the very start the importance of heirs, and managing disasters and rebellions
- they have expansion options that require diplomatic opportunities (France too busy to help Scotland, Burgundy too busy to help Brittany) and timing.
- they are taught to manage trade, develop land and balance between budgets for naval forces and land forces.
- they, too, can still lose a war and come out eventually victorious, due to their unique geographical position, teaching them the importance of geography (that can later be applied to when playing Spain, Ottomans, etc.)

So starting, not knowing that you need allies because nothing tells you that France and Burgundy PU swarm are stronger and getting gangraped by 3 wars at the same time is a fun way to learn the game?

TIL.

 

[Dominion]

I disagree with the no diplomacy. Especially after the 1.23 change in central asia. With so many muslim countries, coalitions will form very easily if you don't manage your diplo game

Beginners attack Europe and learn what "HRE modifier" and "pseudo vassal swarm" mean.

 

[bly08]

Intelligence has nothing to do with knowing how to play EU4 when you first fire it up. If you want to learn something properly, you might as well learn from a master. The arguments would be valid if youtube wouldn't exist. As things are in 2018., unlike 15 years ago, you can now afford not to be forced unlearn things to learn things properly. We didn't have that luxury when playing say CIV4, so we had to learn things the wrong way, then unlearn them, then learn again.

Ottomans bring guns to a sword fight. That calls for too much un-learning later in the game when you play other nations.

Buy EU4 vanilla, fire up youtube, find good tutorials from people that make newbie-friendly videos and you'll have far more confidence in playing any nation. Arumba's "Prosperous Portugal" might be a good series for this, for example.

It's thanks to people playing NOT Ottomans on YT and Twitch that we actually learn more about the game.

You are arguing with someone who went from never having played past 1517 to WCing with relative ease within the span of a month.

Now I'm by no means a veteran player or honestly any good at all - I've barely put any hours into the game and I've not had the easiest time adapting to it, being the first game of its kind that I've played - the furthest I've gotten is about 1517

it's been a month. I've since played the game significantly more and done my first WC with relative ease

 

[Coffer]

You are arguing with someone who went from never having played past 1517 to WCing with relative ease within the span of a month.

Ah yes, the known forum flooder has come out to play. Got any more actual arguments, or are you just going to be bitter because you got shown up that one time and thus try to invalidate everything else that the other person might say even when, shock and awe, they're actually right? Because you'll find that the forum ratings for the post in question reflect the reality of things.

And guess what 150-200 hours do to you? Anyone can learn the easiest forms of WC during that time. It says a lot about you that you, so caught up in your frequent ego trips, conveniently forget that the easiest forms of WC, like vassal starts or Prussia being Prussia, are far easier than most starts and even newbies like I was back then can do them just fine. Like Bibor himself pointed out, the game really isn't that complicated - people who easily pick up on things like both him and myself can do these things just fine. That's all the attention I'm going to give you, because with posts like the achievement rate vs active player base one from the bigger nations thread, you don't need me to make people laugh at you anyway.

 

[bly08]

Ah yes, the known forum flooder has come out to play. Got any more actual arguments, or are you just going to be bitter because you got shown up that one time and thus try to invalidate everything else that the other person might say even when, shock and awe, they're actually right? Because you'll find that the forum ratings for the post in question reflect the reality of things.

And guess what 150-200 hours do to you? Anyone can learn the easiest forms of WC during that time. It says a lot about you that you, so caught up in your frequent ego trips, conveniently forget that the easiest forms of WC, like vassal starts or Prussia being Prussia, are far easier than most starts and even newbies like I was back then can do them just fine. Like Bibor himself pointed out, the game really isn't that complicated - people who easily pick up on things like both him and myself can do these things just fine.

I was implying that you are better than everyone in this thread given that you managed to WC with 200 hours played, thus there is no point disagreeing with you. If you have time I'd love to ask for some tips.

 

[Coffer]

I was implying that you are better than everyone in this thread given that you managed to WC with 200 hours played, thus there is no point disagreeing with you. If you have time I'd love to ask for some tips.

The same tips you'd only keep to yourself if you discovered any new unintended exploits, as you yourself pointed out directly to Paradox? Hit me up if you ever become a comedian.

 

[bly08]

The same tips you'd only keep to yourself if you discovered any new unintended exploits, as you yourself pointed out directly to Paradox? Hit me up if you ever become a comedian.

Yea that was my bad, didn't mean to offend you and Paradox. Do you have an AAR of your Prussia/vassal WC? I have a lot of trouble with those starts. I should not have assumed how difficult WCs are when it is only me who has a hard time learning the game.

Edit: Or screenshots, either is fine. You should make a thread cuz a lot of people would be interested in how you went from no experience after 1517 to WC in 200 hours played. And with Prussia apparently which is definitely not easy.

I don't think you can say "anyone" can do it though. You're really underestimating how fast you managed to master the game. No need to be so modest when you're this good.

 

[bly08]

Which vassal starts are you referring to btw? Is it someone like Sukhothai who starts out as a vassal? I don't see how they are among the easiest forms of WC. Could you explain? Same with Prussia. Now that I think about it wouldn't something like a non-vassal start be easier since you don't have to become independent first? Or do you mean a country that starts out with vassals like Timurids? If so which ones were you thinking of? I have lots of questions as you can see.

 

[YuriiH]

If you want to learn something properly, you might as well learn from a master.

Exactly THIS!

I'd like to know tue reasons, please

First of all, true reasons can only come from PDX.

In my opinion, the Ottomans give you 90% "win" button, rather than allow you experience the game.
Indeed, they are the easiest nation to play from the start, but easy means you learn too little at the end.

However, nowadays there is a large segment of players who like spending time reasonably => to have positive experience at the end (from wining or loosing, irrelevant),
rather than to waste billions of seconds of their lifetime in their struggle to achieve something digital.
The Ottoman start is nearly perfect for such segment, and that was the reason PDX recommended them.

 

[Brynjar]

I probably learned more from my first successful (and related restarts) Byzantuim game than I ever did playing Ottomans, France, Portugal and Castille combined. If your mistakes have no consequence, there is not much chance you'll learn a lot from them.

 

[Greyson of Leeward]

In truth the first nation i played as was the ottomans on hard difficulty. It was quite hard actually. The mamluks had some insane morale buffs which made beating them very difficult. But even when i had most of the balkans and all the middle east and north africa under my control, the russians were a very powerful rival to deal with. I kinda like how they did that however, during the 1400-1500 my armies were the largest and most powerful in the world, but after the 1600 a decline started. Historically accurate.