The Mamluks is just a part of the huge conquests the Ottomans did in more or less a century. You also have to conquer Iraq, Hungary, North Africa, Arabia and Crimea.
With which countries is it impossible to follow history?
- Thread starter greendevil
- 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.
The Mamluks is just a part of the huge conquests the Ottomans did in more or less a century. You also have to conquer Iraq, Hungary, North Africa, Arabia and Crimea.
I think it's actually possible if you abuse the autonomy system. It drastically reduces warscore cost, down to 1% / province at 100% autonomy. And since you would have some 10-15 year truce timers in-between the Mamelukes you can use the time to mop up the rest of the Ottoman conquests. If you stagger your wars you will even be able to keep a lot of nations out of the coalition.
I'm currently playing another Brandenburg game, just to try that. The whole HRE, Scandinavia, the British Isles and all Eastern European nations - basically all of Europe but Iberia, Austria, Muscovy and France have 100+ AE (it's 1490). But since I keep attacking whenever I have no truce with anybody of these, the coalition never consists of more than 5-10 nations in total. It's amazing how badly you can abuse that - in my case I need strong allies because I'm not yet that powerful (and to keep them out of the coalition). But for the Ottomans you wouldn't need that - ally the Timurids if possible, to keep their AE low, that's probably it.
I'm currently playing another Brandenburg game, just to try that. The whole HRE, Scandinavia, the British Isles and all Eastern European nations - basically all of Europe but Iberia, Austria, Muscovy and France have 100+ AE (it's 1490). But since I keep attacking whenever I have no truce with anybody of these, the coalition never consists of more than 5-10 nations in total. It's amazing how badly you can abuse that - in my case I need strong allies because I'm not yet that powerful (and to keep them out of the coalition). But for the Ottomans you wouldn't need that - ally the Timurids if possible, to keep their AE low, that's probably it.
To be honest, in my opinion it is not about Spain to accomplish this. The historical way would be to play as Austria and have a PU over Spain, Naples, Bohemia and Hungary and to inherit the nonfrench Parts of burgundy.
Because Frederick III ==> Maximilian I ==> Philip I ==> Charles V
"Through marriage of his son Philip the Handsome to eventual queen Joanna of Castile in 1498, Maximilian helped to establish the Habsburg dynasty in Spain which allowed his grandson Charles to hold the throne of both León-Castile and Aragon, thus making Charles V the first de jure King of Spain."
Therefor its still Habsburg
The Habsburg Line in Spain ends a bit later
Because Frederick III ==> Maximilian I ==> Philip I ==> Charles V
"Through marriage of his son Philip the Handsome to eventual queen Joanna of Castile in 1498, Maximilian helped to establish the Habsburg dynasty in Spain which allowed his grandson Charles to hold the throne of both León-Castile and Aragon, thus making Charles V the first de jure King of Spain."
Therefor its still Habsburg
The Habsburg Line in Spain ends a bit later
I don't understand this. Can you increase autonomy in provinces you're occupying during a war so they will cost less when making peace?
I was specifically replying to the point about difficulties with trying to annex Mamlukes on time or earlier than historical date. Iraq and Persia are super trivial in game because you can grab both cores from QQ, release them as vassals and start feeding cores. Once you have you own little OPM Persia vassal you have nothing to fear from the East as the historical barrier of Safavid Empire becomes a tool to get AE free land from hordes or a bunch of small states if Timmy collapses. The only direction on which Paradox have made expanding as Ottos a bit harder is in North Africa because of more provinces, more BT and no real option to diplovassal Tunis easily.
Regardless, in single player Ottos are a tier 1 country that in hand of any aggressive player will vastly outperform historical conquests. I mean, this has been proven time and time again even by just casually browsing the AAR section or the general forums that it is hard to debate.
No. But you can beat them into pulp during war, bringing up WE and unrest and support rebels after you made peace. Since you just ripped them to pieces it's highly likely they won't be able to fend the upcoming rebellions of. Provinces sieged by rebels add +20%(?) autonomy. I've regularly driven enemies into peasant's war which currently completely and utterly wrecks AI nations. Bankruptcy is pretty painful as well and can easily happen if you siege them down while trying to avoid the war goal (no call for peace). E.g. in my Theodoro campaign I drove the Ottomans into bankruptcy thrice within 50 years, which made them available for vassalization for 67% warscore (they had all of Anatolia, parts of Levant and Mesopotamia, I think more than 150 base tax in total).
I don't think that doing better than real life Ottomans would be possible:
Not that fast, at least. To do it one would have to break truces repeatedly and they would incur in huge aggressive expansion anyway, not to mention overextension.
Or what about Spain?
Not only you have to colonize and conquer all of southern and central America, but you would also have to inherit Flanders, Bourgogne, get in PU with Austria, conquer Lombardy, become HRE, several territories in North Africa, annex Naples and later get in a PU with Portugal.
The fact that I can't really follow history or do as good as they actually did is reason enough for me not to play Spain. I try to play Ottomans from time to time only to be angry when I can't annex / vassalize the Mameluks in a single war. As for Spain I don't really play them, I find it too hard. It's almost an impossible task.
With Spain is not that impossible, focusing idea groups with 5 colonist you can almost equal the speed of the Spanish colonial expansion. If you consider much of the colonial empire was controlled in theory, but many settlements were really small. Up to Europe is more and less a matter of luck, as it was in real history. Because is actually possible inherit part of Burgundian territory, so as obviously Naples, Aragon and also Portugal by events. Up to you push forward in Italy.
What annoys me is the flag, dunno if is possible but there could be an event like:
-Country is Spain
-Ruling dynasty von Habsburg
-Burgundy doesn't exist
The Ottomans expansion isn't all that hard. Don't even bother with the Mamluks until you get the annexation event. If you want Arabia early, go through Iraq, but you can easily just wait until after the Mamluks, or even get lucky and have the Mamluks eat Hedjaz for you.
The only part you will likely struggle is getting Hungary, but if you use your dilpomats wisely, and take the Balkans early, you should be able to succeed.
The only part you will likely struggle is getting Hungary, but if you use your dilpomats wisely, and take the Balkans early, you should be able to succeed.
AE is probably your biggest enemy. The way I'd do it:
1. Conquer Albania.
2. Get back my cores in Anatolia.
3. Vassalize Wallachia.
4. Conquer Byzantium and probably parts of Serbia (they are usually allied).
5. At this point there's probably an Orthodox coalition going on.
6. Turn East and release Syria as a vassal from the Mamluks.
7. Conquer stuff from Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu.
8. At this point there's probably a Sunni coalition going on.
9. And the Orthodox coalition is probably getting smaller.
10. Conquer Bosnia.
11. Release Transylvania from Hungary.
12. Feed Syria, get some Mamluk provinces.
All this should be doable in 60-70 years or so. Meanwhile I'd get Diplomatic ideas and Influence ideas to help with the warscore cost and AE management.
Making things exactly like in 1566 is going to be tricky, but I don't think it's impossible.
What happens if Burgundy is released during a peace treaty? 2 countries with the same exact flag?
The one that comes to mind is Manchu. While you can own all of Ming before they did from 1444 bookmark, the game has no modeling for that kind of takeover and it would be hard just to siege that much territory enough times in a row.
It does have "modeling", we just don't like it. "DHE"
"The emperor of Ming dies!"
Haha true. That would work, but no thanks ^_^.
Later in the game Ming has most of their provinces reach 100 percent local autonomy, leading to most of them being 1 warscore.
The real problem is in coring them as it still costs the same adm points and gives the same overextension.
I once had a game where I tried annexing all of southern china in one war but ended up with like 580 percent overextension
The problem is that the way EU4 mechanics work doesn't really portray what happened with Burgundy and the Habsburg. The best description based on game mechanics, is that Burgundy didn't have a King title but only Duchy titles with different succession laws. Maximilian I didn't really have the title of Duke of Burgundy himself, instead he was married to the Duchess of Burgundy. Due differences in death date, the Mary of Burgundy dies before her husband and left the title to their son, who therefore was the independent Duke of Burgundy from he was 3 years old, when he married the Queen of Castille he became King of Castille, but he died before both his wife and father, leaving his son Charles I/II/V as the independent Duke of Burgundy, until first Charles I/II/V 's mother was deemed mentally ill and he became her regent as her son, and therefore King of Castille and Aragon. When his grandfather Maximilian I died in 1519, he then inherits the titles of Emperor of the HRE and Duke of Austria.
All of it is quite possible in CK2 which is perfectly able to model what happened, but EU4 doesn't have the mechanics to simulate it.
The best option would be changing the event for inheriting Burgundy, so that if Burgundy doesn't manage to take the decision to become King, then a female ruler change of dynasty from the starting one would trigger the Burgundian Inheritance, where Burgundy becomes the junior member of a PU to the most prestigious country they have a PU with, and after that each death of the ruler of Burgundy (i.e. the monarch of their senior partner) has a chance to have them inherited by the most prestigious country they (i.e. the senior partner) share a dynasty with.
All of it is quite possible in CK2 which is perfectly able to model what happened, but EU4 doesn't have the mechanics to simulate it.
The best option would be changing the event for inheriting Burgundy, so that if Burgundy doesn't manage to take the decision to become King, then a female ruler change of dynasty from the starting one would trigger the Burgundian Inheritance, where Burgundy becomes the junior member of a PU to the most prestigious country they have a PU with, and after that each death of the ruler of Burgundy (i.e. the monarch of their senior partner) has a chance to have them inherited by the most prestigious country they (i.e. the senior partner) share a dynasty with.
Well, EU4 cannot model naturally internal tensions causing such radical changes. Basically Ming would lose the Mandate of Heaven, and instead of just getting peasant rebellions, Manchu would instantly turn into Qing, Qing would instantly get cores over all of Ming, and nationalistic Qing rebels would have to pop up all over Ming territory so that their provinces flip to you. This way you could also declare war to help them.
As you said, "no thanks".
Forming Qing should really give cores across Ming, so It's actually possible to take more than 4 provinces in a war without massive over-extension.
Whilst on the subject of Qing, here is my progress to establish the full extent of Manchu rule over China and Asia
Whilst on the subject of Qing, here is my progress to establish the full extent of Manchu rule over China and Asia
1821 Qinq
My progress
Shun is vassal so is Yarkand
My progress
Shun is vassal so is Yarkand
Yeah. I'm doing a game with Sunda, and I have diplomatic ideas for the -20% province cost and DIP 22, so even without overseas expansion I can get over 200% OE with ~30% war score thanks to admin efficiency. If you go for a pure coring approach ADM bottlenecks you really hard. I think DIP + Influence is the way to go for nations that don't have big -core cost NIs, because you get 7.5 DIP/tax and can spread the OE to vassals so you're not dealing with 200% OE (which is doable but not exactly a great way to play all the time), and if you have both you have enough diprep to overcome the annexed vassal demerit.
I wonder if you stack overseas expansion, DIP -20%, and ADM efficiency if it isn't possible to full annex/release Ming after only minimal damage to it
. Of course, that would require Ming surviving that long and not westernizing.I wonder if you stack overseas expansion, DIP -20%, and ADM efficiency if it isn't possible to full annex/release Ming after only minimal damage to it
You can full annex Ming at its normal borders with 75% admin efficiency, overseas expansion and diplomatic ideas. At 50% admin efficiency I believe you can take virtually every province but the capital (which, at 0 autonomy and high base tax, costs something like 10x as much warscore as a normal province)
So in other words you can annex 80-90% of Ming in one war with massive OE, then break truce immediately, eat your stab hits, storm remaining Ming provinces ASAP, annex and release Ming as vassal before infinite rebels rip you apart?