Yet another Ottoman rant

[joos]

I am sure there are enough of these already, and I have been resisting ranting for a long time. But right now, I feel like that reincarnating soul in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which gets killed by the same person across its multiple lives.

It's not the the Ottomans are strong. What bothers me is their reach.

First game: I did a Timmy-Mughal run. Allied the Turks early and steadily expanded while making sure they remained on good terms. Thanks to recent changes in AI behaviour, allies don't suddenly decide they want your provinces, so the alliance was stable. I didn't need them militarily. I just needed them to be my friends rather than my enemies. So I formed Mughals and beginning to look at the vast expanse of India when I realize Ottomans guarantee Multan. And Gujarat. Why Ottomans? Why?! You can't conquer them, you can't core them, and it's half a continent away!

Second game: Played as France. Got lucky with the BI and got the entire Burgundian and Low Countries area under my rule. Then, Dutch revolts happen. (The problems with that event need their own thread: like no option to give them a peaceful independence, no option to stop the nation from forming etc) In the ensuing Independence War, Ottomans decide to join. Within four months, 80k Ottoman troops have marched across Hungary, HRE and are enjoying the sights of Paris. In 1492!

Third game: Decided to take things even more chill with Castile. Just a quiet colonial game. Watching a powerful France warily. They too get the low countries. I am allied to Austria. Then France invades Liege. Austria and I join. We are outnumbered with France's doomstacks wreaking havoc. But I manage to make some progress in south of France. Austria is beleaguered but regrouping. French troops are stalled in their siege of some German minor. I am thinking we can snag a quick victory, or at least a White Peace. Then, the Ottomans decide to intervene. They are now fighting on the French side. Predictably, Austria-Hungary falls in under two months.

It was at this point I decided to play as the Ottomans. And man, oh man! Haven't played as them in years, but it is the ultimate power trip. Need 40K troops at a moment's notice? No problem. Need three advisors before 1460? No problem. Need to keep ahead in technology? No problem. Institutions? Who needs them?!

I am not a WC player or an aggressive player by any stretch of imagination. But I am sure I can bring Western Europe to its knees by 1500 as the Turks.

The Ottomans don't need a nerf. They need to be a scary big enemy. But their reach needs to be toned down massively. And I suppose that can only come through changes to the game mechanics, such as stricter supply limits, morale penalty in distant lands far faaar from your own borders etc. And I am not sure they will not create more annoyances.

But when you crumble to the Ottomans once, getting back up is hella difficult.

 

[durbal]

It's not their reach. They are so stupidly overpowered in the new combat system and with the new AI that there is really no counterplay. They just march around stackwiping everything they touch and burning down forts like they're paper.

They need nerfs to their siege ability at the very least.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Reach in general is a problem. You get stupid outcomes like Spain invading Morocco through the middle east because their navy is outclassed, literally marching that entire distance on foot.

I guess by extension, it's also a problem for the Ottomans. Rather than singling out the Ottomans, seems like fixing how military access works (giving the ZoC beta another pass wouldn't hurt either, though less trivial). Alongside this is an adjustment for how nations that do literally nothing in wars are factored into them for the purposes of score/peace negotiation.

Great power interventions are also something of a problem, because their intention is balance of powers but their actual use is...less balancing. Though you can generally avoid this as a player by not relying on allies in most cases (or at that point, even baiting BS interventions on your side).

 

[Volbound]

Not to be that guy but the Ottomans were pretty OP in that early time period. They definitely weaken as the game goes on though. However, I have complained about this before because I have had armies that were ahead on military tech with quality that got beat by smaller size Otto armies. Some of it was generals, I think generals are more important now than even Military Tech (at least early game).

 

[wthree]

The Ottomans don't need a nerf.

They absolutely need a nerf, they are absurdly strong to the point its not even funny any more.

In recent patches the Ottomans would regularly beat the combined forces of the Holy Roman Empire and the Commonwealth. Now they stack wipe armies 4 times their size. It's ridiculous.

The whole "oh but there needs to be a big end boss" is such a nonsensical point. Having mechanics to have various nations emerge as end game nations is a good idea, arbitrarily deciding that the Turks were ubermench is not the way to go.


If the "tactics" to get around an absurdly buffed nation (with no historical basis) is to basically cheese the game mechanics so you never have to actually fight them, something has gone wrong.

 

[Richard-monagha]

In my Castile game I had my 3 PU's, had got all the Burgundy lands from the BI + free inherit (and about 15 provinces belonging to France I fed to them before the BI). I was allied to Austria/Hungary/Bohemia and Denmark/Norway/Sweden and I even managed to ally Commonwealth, Mamluks and Venice. Before the war we had just over 320k troops between us while Ottomans had just under 100k. They went for the Mamluks like I expected them to and started sieging them down. About a year in they had taken most of Egypt and Mamluks were about to sign a peace then out of nowhere 160k Ottoman troops appeared in the Balkans and starting attacking us and retaking forts in less than a year. We manged to lose so many battles but I was hoping due to our numbers we could drop their manpower levels, and we did, they dropped to 7k manpower but within another 4 month that manpower went up to 80k again. They forced out Mamluks/Venice/Austria/PLC then started sieging me and my subjects down.

The Ottomans have always been a strong AI nation, unless you can beat them within the first 15-20 years they just go in all directions. Some games I've seen them expand into Austria and Germany, owning most of Italy, going into northern parts of Russia, as far south as past the Horn of Africa, creeping towards India and even seen them owning some Spanish provinces.

 

[MatthewP]

First game: I did a Timmy-Mughal run. Allied the Turks early and steadily expanded while making sure they remained on good terms. Thanks to recent changes in AI behaviour, allies don't suddenly decide they want your provinces, so the alliance was stable. I didn't need them militarily. I just needed them to be my friends rather than my enemies. So I formed Mughals and beginning to look at the vast expanse of India when I realize Ottomans guarantee Multan. And Gujarat. Why Ottomans? Why?! You can't conquer them, you can't core them, and it's half a continent away!

Just want to say, this one is great and working as it should. The Ottomans noticed you are a threat and are trying to contain your expansion. It’s a way to create conflict and end hugboxes as well as smart strategy. I'm always so proud of the AI when I see them doing this as I close in on eclipsing them.

That said, the other two are problematic. For the second one it seems fine that they joined the war (I think they were your rival, right?) but of course marching across Europe is an issue. Military access, supply and similar issues are as you say really tricky to fix without opening up whole new and potentially worse issues. But Paradox at least should be thinking of this as they design the next game.

For the third, I think GP intervention is just a bit out of place. Everywhere else in the game the player has complete knowledge of who they'll be fighting before they hit declare war. It would be fine if the game made war participants less predictable and was designed around that. But to do it in just one place, especially one that can cause such huge swings, just doesn't feel right.

But anyway, I think this thread is probably doomed because of the title. You've pointed out three mechanics that allow the AI to get involved in wars in unusual/indirect ways. Whether these are good or bad and how they could be improved is an interesting and useful topic. But I feel like yeah, this is just going to end up being another "nerf the Ottomans" thread. And maybe they should be nerfed, but that discussion is very played out.

 

[adin85]

Problem with Ottomans is that Ai alies and subjects is stupid.

 

[YellowPress]

Reach in general is a problem. You get stupid outcomes like Spain invading Morocco through the middle east because their navy is outclassed, literally marching that entire distance on foot.

I guess by extension, it's also a problem for the Ottomans. Rather than singling out the Ottomans, seems like fixing how military access works (giving the ZoC beta another pass wouldn't hurt either, though less trivial). Alongside this is an adjustment for how nations that do literally nothing in wars are factored into them for the purposes of score/peace negotiation.

Great power interventions are also something of a problem, because their intention is balance of powers but their actual use is...less balancing. Though you can generally avoid this as a player by not relying on allies in most cases (or at that point, even baiting BS interventions on your side).

Balance of power being an uneven balance to keep the upstart down is why Germany started ww1 and 2

 

[YellowPress]

I am sure there are enough of these already, and I have been resisting ranting for a long time. But right now, I feel like that reincarnating soul in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which gets killed by the same person across its multiple lives.

It's not the the Ottomans are strong. What bothers me is their reach.

First game: I did a Timmy-Mughal run. Allied the Turks early and steadily expanded while making sure they remained on good terms. Thanks to recent changes in AI behaviour, allies don't suddenly decide they want your provinces, so the alliance was stable. I didn't need them militarily. I just needed them to be my friends rather than my enemies. So I formed Mughals and beginning to look at the vast expanse of India when I realize Ottomans guarantee Multan. And Gujarat. Why Ottomans? Why?! You can't conquer them, you can't core them, and it's half a continent away!

Ottos used to ally jaunpur all the time in mughal runs as they'd be one of the few independent Muslims states left by 1500. They're containing their ally preventing them becoming their enemy

Second game: Played as France. Got lucky with the BI and got the entire Burgundian and Low Countries area under my rule. Then, Dutch revolts happen. (The problems with that event need their own thread: like no option to give them a peaceful independence, no option to stop the nation from forming etc) In the ensuing Independence War, Ottomans decide to join. Within four months, 80k Ottoman troops have marched across Hungary, HRE and are enjoying the sights of Paris. In 1492!

With full BI that should be achievedable, as well as merc loans for long term saves

Third game: Decided to take things even more chill with Castile. Just a quiet colonial game. Watching a powerful France warily. They too get the low countries. I am allied to Austria. Then France invades Liege. Austria and I join. We are outnumbered with France's doomstacks wreaking havoc. But I manage to make some progress in south of France. Austria is beleaguered but regrouping. French troops are stalled in their siege of some German minor. I am thinking we can snag a quick victory, or at least a White Peace. Then, the Ottomans decide to intervene. They are now fighting on the French side. Predictably, Austria-Hungary falls in under two months.

Cries in Charles V

It was at this point I decided to play as the Ottomans. And man, oh man! Haven't played as them in years, but it is the ultimate power trip. Need 40K troops at a moment's notice? No problem. Need three advisors before 1460?

You can always do this at game start? Even minors now with 5 loans + monopoly

No problem. Need to keep ahead in technology?

Well they were cutting edge until suleiman's death

No problem. Institutions? Who needs them?!

I am not a WC player or an aggressive player by any stretch of imagination. But I am sure I can bring Western Europe to its knees by 1500 as the Turks.

Logistics in eu4 would be great to limit ottoman expansion into Hungary early on

The Ottomans don't need a nerf. They need to be a scary big enemy. But their reach needs to be toned down massively. And I suppose that can only come through changes to the game mechanics, such as stricter supply limits, morale penalty in distant lands far faaar from your own borders etc. And I am not sure they will not create more annoyances.

But when you crumble to the Ottomans once, getting back up is hella difficult.

'nobles ally with foreign power' being more than just a single event would be great

 

[Volbound]

I mean you can, for the most part, just avoid Ottos early game.

I typically beat them when I start the war. The only time they get me is when they surprise declare on me or when I am just a weak nation (non major). You can beat them with countries like Austria, Poland, or Muscovy. You have to make sure you have the right ideas and try to make sure you are the aggressor with a great plan.

Another great tactic is to declare on them when they are at war with someone off in the Middle East or Mamelukes. Rush Constantinople. If you take their Capital, they get war exhaustion/prestige hit. The issue with Austria or Poland is that the Ottos will own you on the seas.

Typically you can take all of the European part of the Ottos and force them into a favorable peace treaty. After a couple of times, the Ottos should be pretty beatup and you can start 100% taking them out.

They are very strong, I won't deny that and I am tired of "tough guy" experts in these threads who don't give helpful advice or present condescending replies.

However, I will say that I do disagree with nerfing Ottos. They were pretty OP in that era and it makes them more of a historical threat. However, they are beatable if you work on it.

The only country that I might suggest nerfing would be the Ming, only because they are so OP in their area that they are not even fun to play. Not sure how you do that, though, and maintain historical accuracy.

 

[delusonalism_]

why does a new ottoman complaint thread need to be made every 2 weeks

i havent felt like theyve ever been as strong as they were before they lost their cores on the beyliks and the jannisaries were made into a poor unique unit instead of a strong modifier

 

[YellowPress]

why does a new ottoman complaint thread need to be made every 2 weeks

i havent felt like theyve ever been as strong as they were before they lost their cores on the beyliks and the jannisaries were made into a poor unique unit instead of a strong modifier

Because they come into the players sphere of influence soon enough, whereas other majors tend to stayto their region until later

 

[coorta19]

If developers are really working on improving ai (and have already improved ai) they should remove lucky nations or at least remove requirement for "historical" lucky nations if you want to play ironman compatible game. I think that removing lucky nation bonus should partially solve problem of Ottomans being overpowered and them being always almost some kind of endgame boss. This is not supposed to be "railroaded" to always end with almost the same nations being great power. Neither Ottomans, nor Austria or Muscovy were in 1444 somehow predestined to greatness and given few different choices in history they could have been relegated to insignificance. I always considered lucky nations modifier to be cheat for selected ai nations to help them expand due to ai being incapable to fully use strengths of each nation. But as I mentioned before if ai is one of main priorities for developers and they have already improved it, ai no longer needs cheats to play competently.

 

[YellowPress]

If developers are really working on improving ai (and have already improved ai) they should remove lucky nations or at least remove requirement for "historical" lucky nations if you want to play ironman compatible game. I think that removing lucky nation bonus should partially solve problem of Ottomans being overpowered and them being always almost some kind of endgame boss. This is not supposed to be "railroaded" to always end with almost the same nations being great power. Neither Ottomans, nor Austria or Muscovy were in 1444 somehow predestined to greatness and given few different choices in history they could have been relegated to insignificance. I always considered lucky nations modifier to be cheat for selected ai nations to help them expand due to ai being incapable to fully use strengths of each nation. But as I mentioned before if ai is one of main priorities for developers and they have already improved it, ai no longer needs cheats to play competently.

Okay play with lucky nations turned off and show us how the game goes
Ottomans, austria, and muscovy are very much in their beginnings of greatness in 1444 so the buff makes sense
Mehmed the conqueror was called that for a reason

 

[st360]

The Ottomans don't need a nerf. They need to be a scary big enemy.

No they don't. Thats total BS. They need a massive nerf.

I'm so sick of this "The Ottomans historically sieged Vienna once and lost, so they need to be broken" crap.

Guess what? France conquered all of Europe in 20 years. Where is the +70 000% siege speed and +8 000% artillery combat for France?

Spain destroyed the Aztec Empire with 20 guys. They owned 80% of both Americas within 70 years. Where is their + 500 000% combat ability versus natives and -2 000 000% coring cost in the new world?

The Ottomans spent 95% of their history fighting against one province minors and loosing 30% of the time. The only 2 times they did anything was when they conquered Hungary over 200 years (and then lost it), and when they tried to siege Vienna and lost. Their only single actual achievement was defeating the Mamluks. The Ottomans couldn't defeat Albania ffs.

 

[YellowPress]

No they don't. Thats total BS. They need a massive nerf.

I'm so sick of this "The Ottomans historically sieged Vienna once and lost, so they need to be broken" crap.

Twice and fought over Hungary for more than 200 years

Guess what? France conquered all of Europe in 20 years. Where is the +70 000% siege speed and +8 000% artillery combat for France?

Napoleonic warfare age ability +5 in thr age of revolution that everyone can get
Elan used to be game breaking

Spain destroyed the Aztec Empire with 20 guys. They owned 80% of both Americas within 70 years. Where is their + 500 000% combat ability versus natives and -2 000 000% coring cost in the new world?

They can conquer inca in 1 and spawn rebels everywhere. They get permaclaims to aztecs and will be at tech advantage along with cortez being like 5556

The Ottomans spent 95% of their history fighting against one province minors and loosing 30% of the time

If you focus on balkan nationalism posts yeah it'll show them only doing that

. The only 2 times they did anything was when they conquered Hungary over 200 years (and then lost it), and when they tried to siege Vienna and lost.

They held most of Hungary, had zapolya as a vassal, but were able to rebound sometimes even if Hungary was what the ottomans bit their teeth on

Their only single actual achievement was defeating the Mamluks

In 1 war, along with rapid conquest of north africa and meddling in moroccan affairs

. The Ottomans couldn't defeat Albania ffs.

They obviously could considering the number of Albanian janissaries, viziers, eunuchs, and all the rest, there's even an Albanian bathroom servant who helps lead a riot after one too many turks

 

[Zhetone]

Not to be that guy but the Ottomans were pretty OP in that early time period. They definitely weaken as the game goes on though. However, I have complained about this before because I have had armies that were ahead on military tech with quality that got beat by smaller size Otto armies. Some of it was generals, I think generals are more important now than even Military Tech (at least early game).

they weren't nearly as powerful irl as they are in the game. whether that's a good thing or not is of course up for debate

 

[Heaven Canceler]

Okay play with lucky nations turned off and show us how the game goes
Ottomans, austria, and muscovy are very much in their beginnings of greatness in 1444 so the buff makes sense
Mehmed the conqueror was called that for a reason

What I personally want is a real random lucky nations mode that buffs tags so that even random OPMs can get strong. There was a mod that did that with inversely proportional buff depending on development which has long since been dead, but the concept is really interesting. Its boring that the same blobs are going to be around almost always unless the player intervenes. Why do the Ottomans have to always be the big bad by the end? Why not Tunis? Why not Mahra? Why not Circassia?

As is, even random lucky nations is so heavily weighted in favor of the big guys its worthless. And the bonuses while nice won't make a small nations get "lucky".

Also, they should rename current system of "Lucky Nations" to "Powerful/Rich Nations" because most of them have nothing to do with luck and are more about their strong powerbase and location. Ardabil and Taungu are the ones who can actually be called "lucky".

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

Call it what it is, the Ottomans reach is insane because they are overpowered.

This thread comes up so often that it's clear the EU4 player base has an issue with how unbalanced the game is in favour of the Ottomans. I really hope there is some balancing but I am doubtful.