EU4 - Development Diary - 3rd of October 2017

[grand_Turk]

With all due respect, it isn't like Turkish historians are more realistic than western ones. There are a number of things I've read from Turkish sources that are just as hilariously unbelievable.
Example 1 Death of Sultan Murad. In western/south european version the Serb knights made their way to the camp either through battle or under the pretext of surrender and there one of them kills Murad, whilst in the Turkish version, Murad was apparently walking around the battle field on his own after the battle and there a knight pretending to be dead jumped up and killed him...Yes because a Sultan would be wandering around a battle field without any protection...or wandering around there at all for that matter.
Example 2 the Battle of Ankara vs Timurids, I've heard claims that the Turks believe that Timur brought an army of 400k....which is ridiculous in every single possible sense of the time.
Truth be told exaggerating numbers when losing or winning has happened around all 4 corners of the world by practically every people imaginable and was done for a variety of reasons, including saving face, making yourself seem better than you are, inability to estimate or simple awe coupled with the former etc etc. Still claiming that western sources are somehow worse than Turkish sources is pretty hilarious.

I don't remember mentioning how Turks handled historical events or going into comparison between historiography in the West and in the Ottoman Turkey. Historiography in the past was far from being evaluated based on rational factors, and analyses of real life elements. For instance, in your second example, Timur having an army of 400k in Battle of Ankara is physically nearly impossible due to limitations on supply range, organization, geographic difficulties etc. In compliance with what I read in modern sources of history of war, having launched all of his campaigns with armies of 15-20k, Thunderbolt spent his resources up to the end and gathered an army of 40k against Timur's army of 70k at the Battle of Ankara. Anyway, since the only comparison I made is between past and present of historiography you claiming that I claim western sources are worse than Turkish sources is pretty much more hilarious than your assumption that my statement is hilarious.

I think it safe to assume that the Turks brought about 150k to Vienna and still lost to a force practically 2/3 or half their size. Not to mention the beating they received from Eugene of Savoy, who again only commanded half the number of men and still won, and won hard.

From that point of view, we can also safely declare that the Ottoman Imperial Army, Ordu-yu Humayun didn't lose a single pitched battle between 1402 and 1697. Yet, historiography is not what you think it is. There are countless conditions for the success or failure of an army in war. Quality and quantity of troops, organization, weaponry, seasons, means of transportation, discipline, training, moral, supply of materials, weather conditions, terrain conditions, battle experience of generals, political approaches etc. For example, 1529 spring was very rainy, the Ottoman army experienced delays and heavy difficulties on campaign route because of muddy roads, floods and had to abandon great siege cannons on the way to Belgrade. The siege of Wien started on 27 September 1529 which was obviously not a favourable start date for sieges in a region with harsh winter conditions. With devastating great cannons behind, Ottoman attackers would have a hard time to pass over the walls of the city. Suleiman I did what any great commander would do and withdrew his army on 16 October 1529 to avoid any more winter attritions. So, the failed siege does not show that the Ottomans had worse army than that of Habsburgs but indicates that the conditions were in favour of habsburg defenders who carefully avoided a pitched battle and waited for the weather conditions to consume the Ottoman Army. The determing factor of victory here was weather conditions and lack of necessary siege equipments. Not the quantity of belligerent army. Similarly, Prince Eugene's military talents was an important factor for Habsburg Victory at Zenta, but again that does not necessarily mean that the Austrian army was superior to the Ottoman Army in every aspect. The same Ottoman army soundly defeated both Habsburgs and Russian Tsardom in 1736-39 wars. Because they made serious efforts to modernize the army prior to the war. The determining factor can be anything, a brilliant general, a modernized army, firearms and so on. Consequently, I can understand that you may have a liking for boasting about your sparse victories over the Turks but my understanding of modern historiography prevents me from reducing the matter to simply "we beat you, you couldn't beat us" polemic.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

There are countless conditions for the success or failure of an army in war. Quality and quantity of troops, organization, weaponry, seasons, means of transportation, discipline, training, moral, supply of materials, weather conditions, terrain conditions, battle experience of generals, political approaches etc. For example, 1529 spring was very rainy, the Ottoman army experienced delays and heavy difficulties on campaign route because of muddy roads, floods and had to abandon great siege cannons on the way to Belgrade. The siege of Wien started on 27 September 1529 which was obviously not a favourable start date for sieges in a region with harsh winter conditions. With devastating great cannons behind, Ottoman attackers would have a hard time to pass over the walls of the city. Suleiman I did what any great commander would do and withdrew his army on 16 October 1529 to avoid any more winter attritions. So, the failed siege does not show that the Ottomans had worse army than that of Habsburgs but indicates that the conditions were in favour of habsburg defenders who carefully avoided a pitched battle and waited for the weather conditions to consume the Ottoman Army. The determing factor of victory here was weather conditions and lack of necessary siege equipments. Not the quantity of belligerent army.

If you want to make a fair argument then you should not only point out the factors that lead to the failure of the Ottoman siege but also the factors that lead to the siege being possible in the first place. Emperor Charles was fighting France, England, the Papal States and several Italian cities in the War of the League of Cognac and the Spanish and Imperial forces were preoccupied in that war. The Ottomans only had to fight the personal forces of Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, with very little imperial aid.

When the Ottomans tried another invasion of Austria a few years later they were forced to retreat when the Emperor sent an 80000 strong imperial army

 

[grand_Turk]

If you want to make a fair argument then you should not only point out the factors that lead to the failure of the Ottoman siege but also the factors that lead to the siege being possible in the first place. Emperor Charles was fighting France, England, the Papal States and several Italian cities in the War of the League of Cognac and the Spanish and Imperial forces were preoccupied in that war. The Ottomans only had to fight the personal forces of Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, with very little imperial aid.

When the Ottomans tried another invasion of Austria a few years later they were forced to retreat when the Emperor sent an 80000 strong imperial army

England's and small Italian States' military contribution to war was no big deal for the emperor of europe, was it? Besides, it was not possible to field 80k army mainly composed of mercenaries at the time. Not when european armies were far from the idea of military professionalism. If what you said were correct, Habsburgs wouldn't have become tributary to the Ottoman Sultan after treaty of Constantinople in 1533. During Suleiman's campaign of 1532 (known as Alaman Seferi in Turkish) no proper armies of the emperor appeared to face the Ottoman army in a pitched battle. You should take other factors into consideration as well. The Ottomans avoiding a pitched battle is not rational, especially when they had the record of invincibility for a long while.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

England's and small Italian States' military contribution to war was no big deal for the emperor of europe, was it? Besides, it was not possible to field 80k army mainly composed of mercenaries at the time. Not when european armies were far from the idea of military professionalism. If what you said were correct, Habsburgs wouldn't have become tributary to the Ottoman Sultan after treaty of Constantinople in 1533. During Suleiman's campaign of 1532 (known as Alaman Seferi in Turkish) no proper armies of the emperor appeared to face the Ottoman army in a pitched battle. You should take other factors into consideration as well. The Ottomans avoiding a pitched battle is not rational, especially when they had the record of invincibility for a long while.

France was the main oppenent, that's true. But still, the Spanish armies were far away and also you have to consider the logistical problems of deploying those forces. There was just no safe passage. The army sent during the 1532 campaign was an imperial army approved by the imperial diet. That's the main reason why the Emperor urged his brother to make peace with the Ottomans. He just couldn't get Spanish forces in sufficient numbers to Austria/Hungary and relying on imperial forces meant concessions to the protestant princes. Deployment of Spanish forces in Europe only became easier when the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis solidified Spanish control over Italy

 

[Bebou]

I don't remember mentioning how Turks handled historical events or going into comparison between historiography in the West and in the Ottoman Turkey. Historiography in the past was far from being evaluated based on rational factors, and analyses of real life elements. For instance, in your second example, Timur having an army of 400k in Battle of Ankara is physically nearly impossible due to limitations on supply range, organization, geographic difficulties etc. In compliance with what I read in modern sources of history of war, having launched all of his campaigns with armies of 15-20k, Thunderbolt spent his resources up to the end and gathered an army of 40k against Timur's army of 70k at the Battle of Ankara. Anyway, since the only comparison I made is between past and present of historiography you claiming that I claim western sources are worse than Turkish sources is pretty much more hilarious than your assumption that my statement is hilarious.


From that point of view, we can also safely declare that the Ottoman Imperial Army, Ordu-yu Humayun didn't lose a single pitched battle between 1402 and 1697. Yet, historiography is not what you think it is. There are countless conditions for the success or failure of an army in war. Quality and quantity of troops, organization, weaponry, seasons, means of transportation, discipline, training, moral, supply of materials, weather conditions, terrain conditions, battle experience of generals, political approaches etc. For example, 1529 spring was very rainy, the Ottoman army experienced delays and heavy difficulties on campaign route because of muddy roads, floods and had to abandon great siege cannons on the way to Belgrade. The siege of Wien started on 27 September 1529 which was obviously not a favourable start date for sieges in a region with harsh winter conditions. With devastating great cannons behind, Ottoman attackers would have a hard time to pass over the walls of the city. Suleiman I did what any great commander would do and withdrew his army on 16 October 1529 to avoid any more winter attritions. So, the failed siege does not show that the Ottomans had worse army than that of Habsburgs but indicates that the conditions were in favour of habsburg defenders who carefully avoided a pitched battle and waited for the weather conditions to consume the Ottoman Army. The determing factor of victory here was weather conditions and lack of necessary siege equipments. Not the quantity of belligerent army. Similarly, Prince Eugene's military talents was an important factor for Habsburg Victory at Zenta, but again that does not necessarily mean that the Austrian army was superior to the Ottoman Army in every aspect. The same Ottoman army soundly defeated both Habsburgs and Russian Tsardom in 1736-39 wars. Because they made serious efforts to modernize the army prior to the war. The determining factor can be anything, a brilliant general, a modernized army, firearms and so on. Consequently, I can understand that you may have a liking for boasting about your sparse victories over the Turks but my understanding of modern historiography prevents me from reducing the matter to simply "we beat you, you couldn't beat us" polemic.

I was merely pointing out that all around the world the practice of altering numbers was common, not just in western historiography against the big bad Ottomans. Modern historiography still claims that Ottomans fielded larger armies than their opponents, so I am not sure what major differences you were alluding to...you seem to imply that they no longer do, which is again, hilarious.

I'm sort of confused as to what the purpose of your second paragraph even was. I never said Ottoman troops were of horrible quality, in fact I specifically said that the jannissaries were an elite fighting force. I merely pointed out that the ottomans often brought to the field much bigger armies than their opponents and that this undoubtedly played a part in their ability to win their battles. There is no shame in it, many empires did so and it is a pretty simple idea so I'm not sure why you are refusing to grasp it.

In general reference to you second paragraph, yes there are many factors which count towards winning a war however, you seem to give endless brownie points to the Ottomans taking into account countless hardships and clever maneuvers however, have not taken into account that European nations bordering the Ottomans had other problems to consider like their European neighbours. In fact in the very war you named from 1735-1739 the Ottomans do beat the Austrians (100k - 40k at the battle of Grocka apparently, so again numbers were a factor) but those same Ottomans did not beat the Russians but proceeded to lose at Stavuchany even though they had 30k troops more. Now granted these numbers are from the Wiki as I do not have access to my collection of history books at work however, the Russians had to worry about all their neighbours invading them, using their war against the Ottomans as a moment of weakness. Yet none of these matters seem to ever factor in your explanation above, only the fact that Otto quality apparently carried the day, huzzah. Also, sparse victories? Pretty sure that from the late 17th century onwards the Ottoman's lose far more than they win, and what they win is more linked to other intervening European powers than anything else. Hell by the early 19th century during the First Serb Uprising the Serbs win against insane odds in a number of battles. It is only Ottoman numbers which eventually quell the uprising, and the fact that Russians had to withdraw their support due to Napoleonic France invading.

 

[Redride' s OG]

Rum should be Turkish primary country instead of Ottomans.

 

[Inapporpriate name 99]

Scientific mainstream says that cannons were invented by the Chinese and then brought into the Islamic and Christian world by the Mongols. Invention by christians or muslims is in my opinion nationalistic fringe science

Also regarding outnumbered, I'm really interested what you are talking about. I looked at several wars between the Ottomans and Christian countries and the Ottomans almost always fielded more troops than their enemies. When did the Ottomans fight a war, not a single battle, with numerical disadvantage?

What mainstream are you talking about, this also isn't "science" it's history, don't confuse the two. Also now you are relying on anecdotal evidence and complete historical illiteracy of how battles work.

I guess I should clarify and say first modern cannon. It would be like saying greeks had the first flamethrowers instead of the German army or Baghdad invented the battery.

Not sure what you mean by "ottomans had more troops mobilized in wars than all the christian nations", obviously any nation/empire that big would have a huge population and tons of reserves, but obviously not everyone would fight. Wars are won with intelligence/training/strategy/diplomacy, not huge numbers, most of the times the wars are over in a few battles even if you cut the Ottoman troops in half they would still win since most of the army didn't even fight at all.

 

[flogi]

After rereading the dev diary I'm wondering whether 50 Mil to recruit from one state is a bit extreme?
Are those troops reinforced from the manpowerpool?
Also will the special troop system become modable in the next update?

 

[DDRJake]

After rereading the dev diary I'm wondering whether 50 Mil to recruit from one state is a bit extreme?
Are those troops reinforced from the manpowerpool?
Also will the special troop system become modable in the next update?

They will replenish from the manpower pool. As for the modability, I hope to have a more detailed response for you in a future dev diary, so stay tuned for that.

 

[seriousgigi]

at least don't remove 5% discipline from janissaries it is too harsh...

Also will the special troop system become modable in the next update?

they'll add special troops with every patch/dlc. winged hussars and tercios in the list i guess.
i am expecting hajduks in balkan patch

 

[rattatta]

Is the conversion ability with merchant dominance still limited to muslims or have you guys decided to let christians do it too?

 

[flogi]

They will replenish from the manpower pool. As for the modability, I hope to have a more detailed response for you in a future dev diary, so stay tuned for that.

I see. Thanks for the swift response.
I'd still say the mil power spend should scale with the number of troops you are getting. Maybe hard cap it at 50, but it sounds a bit ridiculous to spend 50 mil in order to get one regiment.
Not even sure it should be points spent here, but I guess thats an universial design choice for the special units so far.

 

[MiniaAr]

As said a bit earlier in the topic, in 1444 there are only a handful of states that will provide a good return on the 50 MIL per area.

Bulgaria: 59 dev thus 6 janissaries with a single point of dev invested.
Thrace: 49 dev before Constantinople is made capital, thus 5 janissaries with a single point of dev invested. (and if it counts owned provinces and not cored provinces in a state).

And that's about it really.

Why not a 10/MIL per recruitable janissary unit?

This seems reasonable, as they still cost more ducats and cost manpower as well, and you'll still recruit janissaries from low dev states. And if you develop your heathen states, then you'll get additional janissaries without having to pay the full 50 MIL again.

 

[Haydar]

It would be unappropriate becuase AQ did not have any claims on Rum Sultanate.

Also Aq Qoyunlu's primary culture should be Azerbaijani instead of Turkish. Azerbaijani and Turkish spoke the same language by then, but Aq Qoyunlu interest was to the east.

 

[Kekelz]

I'm sure they'll eventually overcome all their neighbours and conquer 1/3 od the world like they always did.

True, this is a good nerf for the Ottomans, too many games when I do not play in Europe, I will see the Ottomans stretching from Vienna, to even maybe Warsaw all the way down the east coast of Africa, but I think the nerfing went around the wrong way because they are a little weak at the beginning. What there should be is be mechanics and events to slow and halt and test the Ottomans to make their expansion more sluggish after the first 100-150 years into non Sunni countries.

 

[seriousgigi]

True, this is a good nerf for the Ottomans, too many games when I do not play in Europe, I will see the Ottomans stretching from Vienna, to even maybe Warsaw all the way down the east coast of Africa, but I think the nerfing went around the wrong way because they are a little weak at the beginning. What there should be is be mechanics and events to slow and halt and test the Ottomans to make their expansion more sluggish after the first 100-150 years into non Sunni countries.

ottomans's border historically reached into the vienna and east coast of africa already. but the unhistorical thing is austria never reached constantinople or even beyond the belgrad. but it seems we'll see them reach to constantinople in 1/3 of games played with 1.23 update. this is ridiculous.

 

[Romulus81]

I vaguely remember hearing that forming Rum grants ottoman government but also ottoman events and decisions? Does this include the decision to capture Constantinople and to make it the capital and get empire rank and all that?
Follow up, when will the exact requirements to form it be released?

 

[fksahin]

I vaguely remember hearing that forming Rum grants ottoman government but also ottoman events and decisions? Does this include the decision to capture Constantinople and to make it the capital and get empire rank and all that?
Follow up, when will the exact requirements to form it be released?

Yes it will be including that decision as well.

 

[Golladan]

ottomans's border historically reached into the vienna and east coast of africa already. but the unhistorical thing is austria never reached constantinople or even beyond the belgrad. but it seems we'll see them reach to constantinople in 1/3 of games played with 1.23 update. this is ridiculous.

And you're basing this on....?

 

[Nefri]

Just my opinion, but I always felt the ottomans much more overpowered than historically should be, so this nerf was rly needed. Here are my reasons:

Aspect of players:
1. Ottomans are the strongest nation in 1444, so mostly beginers play with them, who want to parctice the game without looking for a challenging campign. Even if someone plays ottomans in very hard dificulty, it is like playing very hard in easy mode. If the player feels it too hard, just lower the difficulty or if that is not enough probably doing something seriously wrong. So this argument should be about the Ottoman AI: how historically can play with his options.

Aspects of AI and history:
2. Ottomans are lucky nation.
3. +33% siege from age of discovery by default.
4. Anatolian infrantry is superior under tech 14 by default.
5. Devshirme system, free +10% manpower for the whole game.
6. Ottomans are in the best position to expand in 1444.
7. Janissaries was the elite of the ottoman army, being 100% elite was a joke.
8. Historycally ottomans never had military tech adventage over the western countries, even at their prime period the tech lvl was even. At most of the battles they simply outnumbered the western armies 2-3* or more times.
9. Historically Hungary defeated the ottomans in 1456 alone and counquered Wien in 1485. In the game Hungary who should be the first challenge for ottomans is extremly weak and they don't even get historical friendship with Poland (instead they get rivaly in 80%) for the only reason to make ottoman expansion easier.
10. In very hard difficulty I never seen ottomans losing a single war before 1650, if no players involved (mostly even if). Last time they easly got Scio and south Hungary from a Muscovy granted Genoa war by pulling in half of the HRE and Castille in 1488.
11. Ottoman heir event is radiciously OP. Historicaly ottomans should have civil war event among the sons from the harem by default.
12. Historically ottomans were not kicked out of Europe after 1550 because the christians were busy with religious wars, not because they were so overhelming. Ottomans never destroyed western countries in a frontal war, they were mostly lucky, II. Louis died at Mohács and they manouvered very well during the hungarian succession war. (Like getting the hungarian capital Buda without fighting, what was one of the strongest fort of that age). But even with the catholic-protestant conflicts, ottomans were almost defeated in 1596. Their fall started much before 1683. Later they could keep Constantinapole only because the european nations adopted the idea of power balance, where they got a role to prevent the russian overextension (with western support).
13. Historically there sould be much more coalition activity agains the ottomans during their prime period. Crusade buff not represents the christian coalitions well enough and not even constantly active. There should be some event based coaliton options agains the ottomans if the AI can perfectly avoid the chance to trigger it.
14. A bit off, but historically christian-muslim alliances are impossible before 1600. I feel radicious when Bohemia is ally of ottomans in 1450. There should be a -150/200 peneality decreas 1/year at least or auto excommunication if a country make alliance with the enemy religion, including great power intervention. The idea of official alliance between christian and muslim nations for keeping the power balance is the invention of Richellieu when he started to support protestansts and ottomans agains the catholic Habsburgs as a catholic to prevent them to form the united HRE. His politic was much more effective than the traditional "moral based" one and realising it first, granted the dominant power for France for 200 years.

In overall I think the nerf was neccesary and well constructed, but still not enough, they are too powerful in the early stages of the game. Together with the Middle East rework maybe the situation is a bit better. Also their ideas should be buffed based on manpower, army maintance and force limit to represent their zerg style, but the anatolian unit type adventage should be nerfed too. Anyone who think Ottoman gameplay is too challenging with this lvl of nerf, should try any hostile nation, historically not conquered by the ottomans, but share border with them...