EU4 - Development Diary - 3rd of October 2017

[seriousgigi]

* since the AI can't use large armies, the buff on manpower, force limit and maintance is not considered as buff.
* christian-ottoman alliance system is needed because AI ottoman empire alone can't handle against poland, france, austria, russia joint forces at the same time. it exist because of gameplay reasons.
* ottomans had military advantages over europeans (*not all of them europeans were not consist of one country) in such as logistics, disciplined professional army, canons and sieging (especially XVI. century)
* hungary got the black army because of this. the important thing is not being good in a short period but a long period. this difference makes you great country.
* Historically ottomans austirans were not kicked out of history after 1550 because the christians ottomans were busy with religious wars civil wars and economic problems

i have to quote from now...

Ottomans never destroyed western countries in a frontal war

what kind of an argument is that? who are western countries? give me example of a country who destroyed a lot western countries?

But even with the catholic-protestant conflicts, ottomans were almost defeated in 1596.

ottoman empire didn't lose any war against europeans until the second siege of wien. the empire lost only battles but always won the wars.

Their fall started much before 1683.

yeap bu i think their fall first started in selim the grim's time. what a great fall.

the european nations adopted the idea of power balance

this is the reason why ottoman empire supported protestants and european nation-states against the hre and pope. you can even see this when the grand armada decides to go destroy english navy and occupy england. check queen elisabeth's letter to the ottoman emperor. and sorry but where were the famous great europeans who following balance of power system when polish lithuanian commonwealth gangbanged by neighbours? i think one of the most events who made russia was too powerfull was the commonwealth's collapse. see no body gangbanged ottoman empire like they did on poland. second siege of wien was example of this. check this. the empire lost the hungary and podolia but reconquered other lands from russians and venetians after the war. didn't got destroyed.

 

[Twoflower]

* ottomans had military advantages over europeans (*not all of them europeans were not consist of one country) in such as logistics, disciplined professional army, canons and sieging (especially XVI. century)

And that is just an unproven claim. I am not an expert in military history, and neither are, I suppose, you and most people on this forum. Which is ok, since we are only talking about a game
That said, I'd like to point to the wikipedia article on the Ottoman-Habsburg wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottom...ogical_advance_of_the_Western_Christian_forces

Technological advance of the Western Christian forces
The earliest type of Turkish hand cannons are called as "Şakaloz" , which world came from the Hungarian hand cannon "Szakállas puska" in the 15th century.[14]

Although Ottoman janissaries adopted firearms in battles since the beginning of the 16th century, the Ottoman usage of the handheld firearms spread much slower than in the Western Christian armies.

Wheel-lock firearms were unfamiliar for Ottoman soldiers until the Siege of Székesgfehérvár in 1543, despite it was used for decades by Western Christian armies in Kingdom of Hungary and in Western Europe. According to a report from 1594, the Ottoman soldiers hadn't adopted the pistol yet.[15]

In 1602 the grand vizier reported from Hungarian front about the firepower superiority of the Christian forces:

"in a field or during a siege we are in distressed position, because the greater part of the enemy forces are infantry armed with muskets, while the majority of our forces are horsemen, and we have very few specialists skilled in the musket"[16]

According to Alvise Foscarini's (Venetian ambassador in Istambul) report in 1637, "few Janissaries even knew how to use an arquebus"[17]

This should obviously not be taken as gospel, but especially the quote of the grand vizier is quite telling.

ottoman empire didn't lose any war against europeans until the second siege of wien. the empire lost only battles but always won the wars.

So you claim.
In the real world:
- in the Hungaro-Ottoman war of 1479 - 1480, the Ottomans suffered a crushing defeat in the battle of the Brodfeld and were driven from parts of Northern Serbia and Bosnia
- Spain and its allies captured Tunis from the Ottomans in 1535 and kept it until 1574; this qualifies as Spain "winning a war"
- the conflicts between Portugal and the Ottomans in the Indian Ocean between the 1530s and the 1560s never had a clear winner, but notably the Ottomans failed in their goal of diminishing Portuguese influence, trade and shipping in the Indian Ocean
- likewise, the Portuguese-Ottoman conflict in the 1580s ended with the Ottomans beaten back and their admiral captured
- the Ottoman Astrakhan expedition (1568-1570) against Russia was a complete disaster, an Ottoman expedition force of 70.000 army being almost wiped out by a Russian relief army of 30.000.
-the Thirteen Years War between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs (1593-1606) ended in an exchange of territory (the Ottomans got Eger, Esztergom and Kanisza, but ceded Vac). Not really much of a victory (Austrian propaganda actually presented the peace as a triumph for christianity, which it certainly was not, either).

Which is not to say that the Ottomans didn't have their fair share of impressive victories against Christian Europe in the 15th - 17th century. They obviously did, but the myth of Ottoman invincibility is just that, an easily discardable myth.

second siege of wien was example of this. check this. the empire lost the hungary and podolia but reconquered other lands from russians and venetians after the war. didn't got destroyed.

Err, no. The Ottomans signed the Treaty of Karlowitz with Austria, the Commonwealth and Venice in 1699, ceding Hungary to Austria, Ukraine and Podolia to Poland-Lithuania and the Peloponnes to Venice, and the Treaty of Constantinople with Russia in 1700, ceding Azov to Russia. That war was a decisive victory for the christians beyond a shadow of a doubt. Venice would lose the Morea again in the Second morean war 1714-1718, but that was not the same war.
It's like saying that the Franco-German war of 1870 wasn't a decisive German victory because Germany would lose Alsace-Lorraine again in WW1.

 

[seriousgigi]

And that is just an unproven claim. I am not an expert in military history, and neither are, I suppose, you and most people on this forum. Which is ok, since we are only talking about a game
That said, I'd like to point to the wikipedia article on the Ottoman-Habsburg wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Habsburg_wars#Technological_advance_of_the_Western_Christian_forces

look again did i said sth about firearms? you quoted mostly firearms tech and one cannon from hungarians. check again i didn't say ottoman soldiers had advantage on firearms.

So you claim.
In the real world:
- in the Hungaro-Ottoman war of 1479 - 1480, the Ottomans suffered a crushing defeat in the battle of the Brodfeld and were driven from parts of Northern Serbia and Bosnia
- Spain and its allies captured Tunis from the Ottomans in 1535 and kept it until 1574; this qualifies as Spain "winning a war"
- the conflicts between Portugal and the Ottomans in the Indian Ocean between the 1530s and the 1560s never had a clear winner, but notably the Ottomans failed in their goal of diminishing Portuguese influence, trade and shipping in the Indian Ocean
- likewise, the Portuguese-Ottoman conflict in the 1580s ended with the Ottomans beaten back and their admiral captured
- the Ottoman Astrakhan expedition (1568-1570) against Russia was a complete disaster, an Ottoman expedition force of 70.000 army being almost wiped out by a Russian relief army of 30.000.
-the Thirteen Years War between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs (1593-1606) ended in an exchange of territory (the Ottomans got Eger, Esztergom and Kanisza, but ceded Vac). Not really much of a victory (Austrian propaganda actually presented the peace as a triumph for christianity, which it certainly was not, either).

Which is not to say that the Ottomans didn't have their fair share of impressive victories against Christian Europe in the 15th - 17th century. They obviously did, but the myth of Ottoman invincibility is just that, an easily discardable myth.

well, i wrote that argument against great wars not ottoman colonial advancement against portugal because no one really cared that wars in constantinople. (also ottoman statemen didn't want egypt become rich with indian trade so grand vizier mehmed pasha was alone with his war against portugal) astrakhan expedition was another example of this. hungarian crushing defeat you meant was against akincis (light cavalry who mostly used for loot not war) not ottoman main army. only with capturing of tunis you are right it was clear defeat.

the reason why i said this over main wars between european joint forces and ottoman empire. not a pirate castle in mediterrenean sea or irrevelant portugal naval war in indian ocean. i said this because there was no possibility to destroy ottoman empire in a serious pitched battle.

Err, no. The Ottomans signed the Treaty of Karlowitz with Austria, the Commonwealth and Venice in 1699, ceding Hungary to Austria, Ukraine and Podolia to Poland-Lithuania and the Peloponnes to Venice, and the Treaty of Constantinople with Russia in 1700, ceding Azov to Russia. That war was a decisive victory for the christians beyond a shadow of a doubt. Venice would lose the Morea again in the Second morean war 1714-1718, but that was not the same war.
It's like saying that the Franco-German war of 1870 wasn't a decisive German victory because Germany would lose Alsace-Lorraine again in WW1.

again he claimed european countries could easily destroy ottoman empire but they didn't because of balance of power system and i said look at what happened to polish-lithuanian commonwealth and what happened to ottoman empire after great turkish war. first one got partitioned and second one lost hungary and podolia but reconquered other loses (morea from venice and azov from russia) after the war. the point was meant in here first one wasn't capable of getting revenge but the second one was. i didn't say it wasn't victory for european coalition.

 

[Kalderus]

14. A bit off, but historically christian-muslim alliances are impossible before 1600.

Not completely, and I wouldn't recommend making this a hard-lock for the game either (would be as bad as the "will not marry an infidel" hard-lock modifier in CK2).

Although inter-religious alliances should be more difficult pre-1600, they should still be possible, usually for the purposes of defeating a common enemy.

Two historical examples would be the short-lived Mamaluk-Spanish alliance of 1488-1491, and the 1501 Persian-Venetian-Mamaluk coalition against the Ottomans. Both of these are under Mamaluk events in game:

Common enemies in the Ottoman Empire

The large expansion of the Ottoman Empire in the Mediterranean has not just concerned our most christian realm, but has also made the Mamluks really worried. In history, the Mamluks and Fernando of Spain made a temporary alliance between 1488 until 1491, targeted against the Ottomans, where the Spanish promised 50 caravels against the Ottoman Empire.

[Collapse]
Trigger conditions

• None

Is triggered only by
(please describe trigger here)

Even a Muslim country can be an ally...

• Mamluks:
  • Gain opinion modifier "The Ottomans are a common enemy" towards (Our country)

The Anti-Ottoman Coalition

In 1501, the Shah of Persia sent an emissary to the Venetians through Mamluk lands to form an alliance against the Ottomans. The Ottomans accused the Mamluks of providing the envoys safe passage on their way to Venice, and the Sultan appeased the Ottomans.
What shall we do? Try for a grand coalition?

[Collapse]
Trigger conditions

• None

Is triggered only by
(please describe trigger here)

Send the emissaries to Venice

• Venice:
  • Trigger country event "The Anti-Ottoman Coalition" in 2 days
• Lose 5% Piety

It is too much of a risk

• Gain 5% Piety

 

[Bella Gerant]

and sorry but where were the famous great europeans who following balance of power system when polish lithuanian commonwealth gangbanged by neighbours? i think one of the most events who made russia was too powerfull was the commonwealth's collapse. see no body gangbanged ottoman empire like they did on poland. second siege of wien was example of this. check this. the empire lost the hungary and podolia but reconquered other lands from russians and venetians after the war. didn't got destroyed.

Eh? The PLC getting partitioned was BECAUSE of the balance of power. The PLC was becoming effectively a Russian protectorate, Russia was curbstomping the Ottoman Empire (ended up getting to the Black Sea and taking over the Crimean Khanate as a result of their most recent war) and Frederick the Great wanted to keep Russia from getting out of hand and to keep the Ottomans as a decent counterbalance to Austria and Russia. By having all three powers eat at Poland, they could maintain a balance of power (Balance of Power only concerns the Great Powers, lesser nations don't get a say in it) and keep each other from fighting (keep Poland off the map kept them at peace for quite a while).

Ironically, the Partitions might have actually been an overall loss to Russia in the long term. It allowed Prussian ascendance as a result of Prussia gaining control of most of the PLC's foreign trade, which would forge the way for German unification under the Prussian banner. If they hadn't occurred, the Russians could've gained control of the territory they received and more without letting their rivals take any.

But, in any case, the PLC's collapse wasn't due to the Partitions; it had been declining for some time and its laws were in the pockets of its neighbors.

The Ottomans were far overextended with Vienna and a loss on one front doesn't mean total collapse, which is one major issue with EU4 I think (logistics are too simple, allows for doomstacks and, as a result, total collapse since every war ends up being a life or death struggle).

 

[Ratanka]

i love ottomans but since last versions
the starting core land got removed from turkey
the jannisary buff gets removed (the units arent nearly as strong)

and so on and so on ...
to much nerfs to the ottomans they are considered to be the superpower but so far not a single AI in my 1000 hours even reached their normal size in last tiems i even see poland taking constantinople ...

come on g uys thats to much they are supposed to be super strong

 

[seriousgigi]

i love ottomans but since last versions
the starting core land got removed from turkey
the jannisary buff gets removed (the units arent nearly as strong)

and so on and so on ...
to much nerfs to the ottomans they are considered to be the superpower but so far not a single AI in my 1000 hours even reached their normal size in last tiems i even see poland taking constantinople ...

come on g uys thats to much they are supposed to be super strong

i claim it poland, austria and russia will literally rape the ottomans in this patch, then mamluks or persia will finish the job you will see that. they removed approx 600 adm core points from the empire, made their ideas worst military idea set in the whole great land empires.

they'll barely able to conquer serbia maybe bosnia in this patch. then get defeated from austria who gets hungary under pu in 9/10 games.

@Trin Tragula also nerfed ottoman/crimean vassalage chance in previous patches with the reason of ottomans expand too much into russia. and now russia is too much powerfull since rom dlc why would not you give back that crimean vassalage chance to the ottoman empire again?

i'm sure people want to see crimea as ottoman vassal in their 8/10 games not 3/10 games.

 

[Markusmiless]

i love ottomans but since last versions
the starting core land got removed from turkey
the jannisary buff gets removed (the units arent nearly as strong)

and so on and so on ...
to much nerfs to the ottomans they are considered to be the superpower but so far not a single AI in my 1000 hours even reached their normal size in last tiems i even see poland taking constantinople ...

come on g uys thats to much they are supposed to be super strong

How many AI countries in EU4 reach their historical size regularly?

 

[seriousgigi]

How many AI countries in EU4 reach their historical size regularly?

ottoman empire is tier 1 country. game starting date attributed to their victory over christian coalition.

and there are two empires conquered too much lands (colonisation is another game mechanic) in the eu4 history russia and ottomans. russia usually reachs their borders. they even conquer the whole crimean khaganate before 1600 in most games.

 

[Markusmiless]

ottoman empire is tier 1 country. game starting date attributed to their victory over christian coalition.

and there are two empires conquered too much lands (colonisation is another game mechanic) in the eu4 history russia and ottomans. russia usually reachs their borders. they even conquer the whole crimean khaganate before 1600 in most games.

This doesn't answer my question.
What I'm hinting at is that if no other country played by AI reach their historical borders how would we make the Ottoman AI reach their historical borders when giving them a lot of bonuses and free cores barely helped in that?

In my eyes it's clear that the solution would be to improve the general AI (which can be hard work) rather than add random buffs to the Ottomans.

But for me as of now I'd rather have a country not get ahistorical buffs rather than buffing a country because of the argument that the AI doesn't reach historical borders, you may not agree but that is how I feel about this.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

The Ottomans are actually the nation that comes by far closest to their historical borders regularly..others do not reach their historical power level ever. Have you seen Qing or the Mughals in any recent game? Did Spain ever get half as powerful as they did in the 16th century? Or France under Napoleon? The British Empire?

Russia does equally well, but apart from that most other historical great powers do significantly worse

I don't think the Ottomans will be worse of than France is in the current patch. They are strong in half of the runs, rather strong in the other half and once in a blue moon they actually manage to get themselves killed (without player intervention that is).

 

[Tavior]

The Ottomans are actually the nation that comes by far closest to their historical borders regularly..others do not reach their historical power level ever. Have you seen Qing or the Mughals in any recent game? Did Spain ever get half as powerful as they did in the 16th century? Or France under Napoleon? The British Empire?

Russia does equally well, but apart from that most other historical great powers do significantly worse

I don't think the Ottomans will be worse of than France is in the current patch. They are strong in half of the runs, rather strong in the other half and once in a blue moon they actually manage to get themselves killed (without player intervention that is).

My experience is completely different from your then.

Nearly 75% of my games end up with Ottoman as my rival if planning to become a great power or blob alot and roft stomping everybody else even a Ming at full mandate of heaven strength.

The few case Ottoman usually fall apart if they attack the wrong catholic nation or get ganged stomped. But those are more of an exception than my usual experience.

 

[creativitypersonified]

Stop acting like ottomans are going to get annexed by Trebizond. They have a great position geographically with everything to their south and east beeing trash weak. They also get powerfull administrative bonuses which allow them to get very rich very fast even at AI hands. This then combines with their force limit boosts to give them huge quantity in their armies. They also have their cheeky Anatolian tech group which is the best one up until somewhere around mid game, unique government interactions with better heirs, stronger troops and many weaklings all around them. They are , alongside Russia if you have third Rome, the most powerfull nation beeing able to curb stomp other powers more often than not and often exceeding their historic borders. This patch is going to make them an average power in line with France,Austria. That's were they should be.

 

[ElGranCapitan]

My experience is completely different from your then.

Nearly 75% of my games end up with Ottoman as my rival if planning to become a great power or blob alot and roft stomping everybody else even a Ming at full mandate of heaven strength.

The few case Ottoman usually fall apart if they attack the wrong catholic nation or get ganged stomped. But those are more of an exception than my usual experience.

I think you just missed my point, I'm saying the Ottomans will be next patch where France currently is..

There was a reason why some nations were successful historically and that should be represented by them succeeding more often than not. But the Ottomans are still ridiculous, I've seen them get killed 1v1 just once by a mega blobbed Austria with Hungary inherited and Sardinia-Piedmont under PU. France at least sometimes looses to Burgundy

 

[Tavior]

I think you just missed my point, I'm saying the Ottomans will be next patch where France currently is..

There was a reason why some nations were successful historically and that should be represented by them succeeding more often than not. But the Ottomans are still ridiculous, I've seen them get killed 1v1 just once by a mega blobbed Austria with Hungary inherited and Sardinia-Piedmont under PU. France at least sometimes looses to Burgundy

No I didn't.

Currently for most of my games Ottoman would always pick Quantity which make them far more painful (natural quantity NI + quantity idea group) to deal with relatively.

Even if I were to take their current known losses of core claim on minors in Anatolian area. The end result would be more or less the same mostly because Ottoman NI still have 25% forcelimit modifier. It may be better if they often struggle to take more land than currently.

There was even a Novgorod -> Russia where I used them as an attack dog for a long time (allied). But we both eventually ran out of possible rival and Ottoman decided to rivaled me. So I couldn't let them grow (already 2k+ development or more with quantity idea group). I had a forcelimit of 160 and could afford an extra doomstack over forcelimit that was composed entirely of inf/cav/cannon (yes even cannons and filthy rich). I keep trying to curb stomb them whenever they tried to do a conquest war. But they declare a new one back to back nonstop even at zero manpower reserve. After a while it got so boring I quit.

Consequence, I am still worried it isn't enough but we will see.

 

[seriousgigi]

The Ottomans are actually the nation that comes by far closest to their historical borders regularly..others do not reach their historical power level ever. Have you seen Qing or the Mughals in any recent game? Did Spain ever get half as powerful as they did in the 16th century? Or France under Napoleon? The British Empire?

Russia does equally well, but apart from that most other historical great powers do significantly worse

I don't think the Ottomans will be worse of than France is in the current patch. They are strong in half of the runs, rather strong in the other half and once in a blue moon they actually manage to get themselves killed (without player intervention that is).

i'm not talking about this patch but the next patch. this patch is fine except reaching to baltic or full annexing austria

france usually ends up with conquering london and/or toledo if it didn't got destroyed in the beginning. and before pdx nerfed revolution, france could easily get huge force limit and terminator soldiers in the game. for example in my netherlands game they became revolutionary and created at least 600k soldiers -nevertheless 300k land force limit- and put those soldiers on the border cities and i had to create another 150K soldiers (got 300K already) just for preventing this threat. but like i said they nerfed revolution together with the rebellions in previous patches.

british empire is another story like i said before. comparing colonial and land empires is irrevelant.

This doesn't answer my question.
What I'm hinting at is that if no other country played by AI reach their historical borders how would we make the Ottoman AI reach their historical borders when giving them a lot of bonuses and free cores barely helped in that?

In my eyes it's clear that the solution would be to improve the general AI (which can be hard work) rather than add random buffs to the Ottomans.

But for me as of now I'd rather have a country not get ahistorical buffs rather than buffing a country because of the argument that the AI doesn't reach historical borders, you may not agree but that is how I feel about this.

everyone wants improved AI for sure but the problem is either pdx doesn't care or can't improve it with current game codes. maybe they wait eu5 for the improved AI who knows?

well you say adding random buffs to ottomans i say adding random buffs to ottomans against the countries already got random buffed ridiculously. look poland's national ideas, austria's ridiculous force limit (starts with 40k lol). austria will get hungary 8/10 games before ottoman empire will get any lands from hungary. no one say anything about austrian pu over hungary (ridiculously strong austria) but whenever ottoman empire gets crimean khanate event everyone here cries. (and they finally have had trin nerfed crimean event just after he added this event to the game, congrats). in history ottoman empire won against the hungary+austria and others then conquered most hungary but in game austria who gets the hungary under pu or just ally with it, can easily sends ottomans to the oblivion. mark my words you will see this in 1.23. thanks to jake and trin who make ridiculous military power nerfs to the ottoman empire.

but i understand them, without these nerfs neither mamluk or persian nor anatolian minor players could have fun. it would more like an agony

Ottoman NI still have 25% forcelimit modifier.

it is 33%. but i could easily prefer 15-20% reinforce speed or land attrition over them. because that force limit is finisher where ottomans already got full quantity already. that 33% land force limit idea is another useless national idea for ottomans. just a claptrap.

 

[bbqftw]

Hungary PU by event chance is somewhere around 30%, definitely lower than 50%

Idc about this argument but you do no favors by saying blatantly incorrect things

 

[LeSingeAffame]

The AI has 25% chance of taking the union, even less if they have an heir (not Ladislaus neither an Habsurg), especially if that heir is 5/5/5 or more (they should nearly always take this heir then)

 

[seriousgigi]

Hungary PU by event chance is somewhere around 30%, definitely lower than 50%

Idc about this argument but you do no favors by saying blatantly incorrect things

well i didn't check, but in last 3 observe games habsburgs got hungary before 1550s so ottomans couldn't take any land from them. and in one war they were busy with ethiopia, austria literally raped the ottomans with its bazillions of alliances. they reached to constantinople faster than light velocity lol

i may be wrong about pu but the point ottomans can't win against just hungary+austria with current coc setup i guess.

 

[Markusmiless]

well you say adding random buffs to ottomans i say adding random buffs to ottomans against the countries already got random buffed ridiculously. look poland's national ideas, austria's ridiculous force limit (starts with 40k lol). austria will get hungary 8/10 games before ottoman empire will get any lands from hungary. no one say anything about austrian pu over hungary (ridiculously strong austria) but whenever ottoman empire gets crimean khanate event everyone here cries. (and they finally have had trin nerfed crimean event just after he added this event to the game, congrats). in history ottoman empire won against the hungary+austria and others then conquered most hungary but in game austria who gets the hungary under pu or just ally with it, can easily sends ottomans to the oblivion.

I believe people complained about the Crimean event because Crimea didn't peace out of wars they had when the event fired.
Meaning other nations could take land from them with you unable to do anything about it.
Crimea also kept all their alliances which could pull them into wars that the Ottomans weren't part of (and they did because of an oversight in coding that makes it so that if you're somehow allied to a subject country you can call them into wars favor-free) which once again could lead to that it loses land without you able to do anything about it.

And I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim Polish ideas are balanced but just because one thing is too strong doesn't mean the right solution is to make another thing too strong.

And like someone mentioned above there is only a 25% chance the Austria-Hungarian Union happens, which becomes 20% if they have an heir that isn't Ladislaus Postumus and Hungary don't have the same dynasty as Austria. It becomes only 7% if the heir has at least 5/5/5.
So no the union doesn't always happen.