I know they are a really powerful nation already but i would love if there was more flavour/ alt history especially for its mission tree.
- 2
- 1
Will there be any updates to the Ottomans ?
- Thread starter Commander.Valkrye
- 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.
There should also be mission trees for the beyliks so that they reform Rûm (or even their own empire).
In any case, the Ottoman mission tree is obsolete, there is the possibility of enhancing it with expeditions to Aceh, Piri Reis, the Turkization of the Greek populations of Anatolia (an event that did not occur historically during the period of EU IV, but which would be a logical mission), and other administrative and commercial missions. It would also require missions or events related to the Ottoman technological decline (which is not currently modeled, the too good mana stats of the leaders pose a problem)
In any case, the Ottoman mission tree is obsolete, there is the possibility of enhancing it with expeditions to Aceh, Piri Reis, the Turkization of the Greek populations of Anatolia (an event that did not occur historically during the period of EU IV, but which would be a logical mission), and other administrative and commercial missions. It would also require missions or events related to the Ottoman technological decline (which is not currently modeled, the too good mana stats of the leaders pose a problem)
- 11
Ottomans can reach their historical limits with their mission trees. If an extra effort is desired to bring a thrill. New goverment reforms and new sets of national ideas must come. A similar one had come to the Mughals. I don't think anything similar can be done in the Ottomans.
- 3
- 1
Ottomans already have their own unique government reform and in general quite a lot of flavour. More is alwayse better of course, but no real need IMO.
However I totally agree with Jihem and his suggestions. The mission tree should be updated soon. It is very dated as it is still in the state when mission trees where introduced. Back then it was one of the better simple because it was quite large. Now it is not only boring (90 % of the missions are Conquer A to get Perma-Claims on B), but also annoying, as very often you can and want to conquer B before A, or you are locked out of the missions because of one province and so on. There are also some inconsistencies as some missions give only expiring claims for some awkward reasons (I assume a bug). The AI also seems to have difficulties in handling the mission tree, often they lack 1 of the provinces for finishing a mission. That seems to be one of the reasons they rarely pursue their historical conquests, at least in my experience they very often ignore the Middle East and do not expand into that direction at all. (although that seems to be a bit improved again in the recent versions)
With their rich history there could also be a lot of flavour put into those missions also handling internal affairs and not just conquest. Admin Efficiency should also be somewhere at the end of that tree.
As a Tier 1 nation, they really deserve better as it is now.
- 9
- 3
Admin efficiency for the Ottomans would be completely overpowered, as well as likely ahistorical. The lack of administrative efficiency is one of the key reasons to their decline toward the end of the time frame - if anything they should get a penalty to it in their unique government form.
- 10
- 5
- 4
If we're talking about penalties, then other countries should get them too - Austria, Castille, Portugal, Papal States, etc.
But the game does not focus on penalties, just on bonuses.
So with the general direction of everyone getting a bonus because why not, yes, I agree that the Ottomans need a boost too.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Why should the Ottomans be forced to follow their historical decline?
- 3
- 2
The Ottomans are too strong as-is though. For example, they tend to beat the Mamluks hands down every time, while in reality they were relatively evenly matched and fought to a standstill in 1481. The main reasons the Ottomans decisively won the rematch was that the Mamluks were essentially bankrupted from a naval war against Portugal combined with a famine induced by overdrafting farmers. The Mamluks weren't at full strength, nor anywhere near it.
This is basically why I think the Levant should be rebalanced heavily, so that the Mamluks and Ottomans prevailing in the area about as frequently in hands-off runs.
Say, 30% Mamluks lasts to form Egypt
40% Ottomans take Cairo
30% Mamluks form Arabia
Not entirely sure how to concretely affect the balance to achieve this, but it seems like the most desirable outcome from both a historical and gameplay perspective.
This is basically why I think the Levant should be rebalanced heavily, so that the Mamluks and Ottomans prevailing in the area about as frequently in hands-off runs.
Say, 30% Mamluks lasts to form Egypt
40% Ottomans take Cairo
30% Mamluks form Arabia
Not entirely sure how to concretely affect the balance to achieve this, but it seems like the most desirable outcome from both a historical and gameplay perspective.
- 14
- 1
I agree with the OP - the current mission tree doesn't even cover the maximum extent of Ottoman expansion. No CB/claims on Moldavia, southern ukraine, and the Caucasus. And apart from claims on Austria and Gujarat not that much in the way of historical ambitions although admittedly I'm not sure what they should be.
- 1
For reasons of historical plausibility (which will be the essence of EU V, I hope), but without it being artificially triggered. I'd love to see a long-term disaster and that decline happen if the various factors that led to it IRL also happen in-game (defeat in a crucial war, Janissary factionalism, inflation, issues with obsolescence of the Timar, etc).
And in terms of pure gameplay : I find it much more interesting to pose various problems (stability for example, but not only) to large empires that easily blob (I'm thinking of the Mughals as well). If such mechanics were introduced for EU IV's end of life, it would make these empires a whole lot more fun to play, since the game's slower performance make a world conquest, which consists in a series of monotonous and easier and easier wars on several fronts, becoming a torture for computers.
- 12
A hard mallus like negative admin efficiency just isn't fun though. Maybe it forces a railroaded decline for the Ottomans to be more "historical," but at a certain point fun needs to come before railroadiness.
I would prefer the Ottomans get some additional bonuses to start that go away with a disaster that starts any time after Manufacturies spawns, or some other mid game institution.
Last edited:
- 3
A "buff" I want them to have is having the coast of Anatolia have greek culture because that is what it was historically. Perhaps a mission for when all of Anatolia and the Balkans are conquered the Greek culture can be assimilated. When the nationalism technology is unlocked, an event can fire that gives you the option to forcefully convert the greek lands of Anatolia for the price of 5+ unrest for 15 years and -2 stability. If there is a Greek nation, they can get a CB to retake the greek lands. If they do get a former greek land they get province modifiers to reconvert the lands to greek and get "anti-turkish settlement" which increases the cost of culture conversion in greek provinces not converted by the Ottomans.
- 4
- 1
Ottomans have fun in the early game with their rapid expansion, and then a struggle to hold onto. Ming gets disasters in the 16th 17th century, mali and majapit start with disasters but are strong if you recover
They kind of OP early game as is. All the updates have made OP nations even more OP. I'm not sure the Ottomans really needs that treatment.
- 2
This is going to be unpopular, but they should probably have some disaster that culminates in an extremely slow/expensive spread of the Printing Press.
It would greater simulate their decline, and iirc the Sultan even banned the Printing Press thinking it was Satanic at the time.
It would greater simulate their decline, and iirc the Sultan even banned the Printing Press thinking it was Satanic at the time.
- 1
- 1
- 1
I certainly don't like it, because it seems to be based on a discredited view of Ottoman history.
- 2
- 1
Yeah the ottomans stopped expanding and autonomy was won by provinces more and more but this wasn't decline because thats what People I Don't Like think
- 4
What a cogent and well-reasoned argument, with a lot of authoritative citations. You're clearly an expert on the subject.
- 3
- 1
Are bloody reprisals a sign of an empire being threatened or not? Increased foreign political intervention and control of markets?
Snooty academics writing a revisionist synthesis doesn't legitimise their view
- 3