• 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.
Welcome to the 24th development diary for our empire building game Europa Universalis IV and today we turn our eyes to one of the most interesting nations and a favorite because of its location and variety – The Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman Possibilities

When your story begins in the Grand Campaign, the Empire prospers under the rule of a line of committed and effective Sultans. In fact, we take our starting date from the dramatic Ottoman victory over an alliance of Christian monarchs at Vama in November, 1444. The Ottomans have flourished economically due to their control of the major overland trade routes between Europe and Asia. The Ottoman Empire is one of the most powerful states in the world – a multinational, multilingual empire.

Will you be able to reign and expand your empire over three continents? Will you be able to become a dominant naval force, controlling much of the Mediterranean Sea as well as become a major player of the European continental political sphere? Will you become the only power with a just claim to the title of universal ruler?

Or will your military and bureaucratic structures come under strain after a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. Will you fall behind the Europeans in military technology as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism? And will the discovery of new maritime trade routes by Western European states allowed them to avoid the Ottoman trade monopoly unless you take over the trade routes?

Choose, and choose wisely. Let the game begin.

Most players make an immediate move to eliminate Constantinople, the capital of a now tiny and irrelevant Byzantine Empire. Turkish missions push you in this direction, too, and it’s a natural opening act (once the Western border is secure). Taking this rich city means controlling all traffic to the Black Sea, greater ability to limit European land incursions into the core Turkish provinces in Anatolia, and a chance to move the capital to the greatest city on earth.

But Turkish expansion is a double-edged sword no matter which direction you go. If you continue to move into Europe, you will add Orthodox and Catholic provinces to a realm already teeming with non-Muslim citizens. Expand west to consolidate your holdings in Asia and you risk alienating Muslim rulers that would be better as allies. And to the South you have the Mameluks, a potential rival for power over the Levant.
The Ottomans start in 1444 with a lot of assets, some in the form of ideas and missions we’ll get to in a bit. They also have a navy that competes only with Venice for power in the Eastern Mediterranean, a starting Sultan of great ability and – for the moment – military superiority to or parity with the European monarchs that wish to drive Islam of the continent.

Ottoman Dynamic Historical Events
As a major power throughout this period, we have written quite a lot of events for the Ottoman Empire, but there are two event series that truly stand out.

The Provincial System
The Empire contains numerous provinces and vassal states, and many were under the control of Beys, provincial governors that ruled over these districts as a general would on the battlefield. Historically, this worked well to keep the Empire running smoothly with local initiative to handle local problems in a land too varied for a one-size fits all policy. But it also depended on a Sultan that knew how to rein them in. In Europa Universalis IV, local Beys, especially in far-off provinces, may demand more autonomy in form of a Provincial System to stay loyal to the Sultan. If they are given too much autonomy, though, you might have problems with corruption of the Beys or revolts from unhappy soldiers that don’t respect the system in place. But then suppression has its own cost if the Beys band together to simultaneously rise against the Sultan...It’s a balancing act that comes into play if the Empire grows too large.

The Janissaries
The Janissaries were the heart of the Ottoman army, and through reforms and granting them more and more rights, the player as Sultan may build up his Janissaries into the elite infantry they represented historically. But beware! Granting them too much power might lead to their decadence, or worse, becoming a threat to the Sultan. Palace Coups or revolts might follow, and in the end, disbanding them might be the only alternative. Can you risk weakening your army in the short term while you find new sources of power?
Both of these event series represent the core problems facing the Ottoman Empire through this period. With a strong Sultan, you can make up for more inefficient government or a slightly weaker infantry, since you can spend your Monarch Power Points to shore up problems caused by a multinational, dispersed and devolutionary government. But a series of weak rules in an Empire that needs to constantly reinforce its legitimacy will face grave repercussions.

Ottoman National Ideas
The Ottoman Empire starts with a 10% bonus to its army discipline, and creates core provinces 33% faster and more cheaply.
  1. Ghazi: +33% Religious Unity & increase manpower when fighting religious enemies.
    Ghazi is a title given to great Muslim warriors, analogous to Khan or Caesar or Johan. It was also a term given to Ottoman warriors that spearheaded Turkish invasions and raids into non-Muslim land. Fight the enemies of Muhammad, and the nation will rally around you.
  2. Timariot System: +15% cavalry power.
    The Timariot Sipahi cavalry were, with the Janissaries, an elite core of troops within the Ottoman army. Tightly connected to the bey system, Timariot soldiers were given land in return for service, ensuring their loyalty.
  3. Autonomous Pashas: -3 Max War exhaustion.
    Powerful and respect governors and generals became known as Pashas. It came with great honors and responsibilities and those given control of territory within the empire became great lords that would work hard to preserve their privileges.
  4. Ottoman Tolerance: +3 Tolerance Heretic, +3 Tolerance Heathen.
    As was customary in many Muslim empires of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, non-Muslims were not forced to convert not were they regularly harassed beyond the occasional higher tax. In Europa Universalis IV the Ottomans have a much lower chance of religious revolts because of this tolerance.
  5. Law code of Suleiman: +10% Tax Income.
    Suleiman is one of the great rulers of history – a soldier, a lawmaker and a reformer. In fact, where the West knows him as Suleiman the Great or Magnificent, in his homeland he is called The Lawgiver. A central part of his reforms was re-examining the taxation of Turks, especially taxes levied on Jews and Christians, taxes for manufactured goods and anti-corruption measures.
  6. Tulip Period: +10% Trade Income.
    Named for the high priced flower that became a symbol of refinement, the Tulip Period was an early 18th century attempt to Westernize the Empire. A strong viziers and a time of peace allowed the Ottomans to focus on new trade relations and greater experimentation with foreign art and architectural styles. It was also a decade of decadence and distraction, in the eyes of many Turks, and subsequent failures on the battlefield ended this period of innovation and garden parties.
  7. Imperial School of Naval Engineering: 20% cheaper ships.
    Always a major naval power in its region, the Ottomans didn’t found a proper naval academy until the 1770s. Naval engineering was one of the centerpieces of the curriculum.

When the Ottoman Empire has reached it full capabilities and unlocked all of its National Ideas, it also get a +20% bonus to manpower recovery speed. With these ideas, they are a really expansionist military country, that have far fewer problems with holding a realm with diverse religion. Lower war exhaustion and stronger religious unity in the early game will help greatly with the rapid growth the Ottomans need to keep from falling too far behind its Western neighbors.
attachment.php


Bonus Detail: Westernization

Experienced players are now thinking about how to goose the Ottomans so they can remain a dominant military and technological power. As you know, the Western tech group gains knowledge faster than others, and as the Ottomans do not belong to it they will eventually trail them.

In the original version of Europa Universalis III, you could sometimes get a random event (if the stars aligned) and you could upgrade into a better technology group. With later expansions this was transformed into a set of complex decisions and events that worked fine for the power user that understood all the consequences, but had severe drawbacks for new users and the AI. Westernization should be an option, but it should also be a clear statement of policy, not something you stumble or exploit your way into.

In Europa Universalis IV, Westernization is a completely defined feature, integrated in the technology system. If you don't belong to the Western technology group, you will now always see whether you have the chance to “level up”.

To start the westernization process, you need to have a neighbor of the Western tech group that is a fair number of levels ahead of you in technology, and you also need to have +3 stability. When you start the process, your stability drops to -3 and all your monarch power is wiped. You have switched to the western technology group, but you paid a heavy price for undoing centuries of tradition.

Then, each month, your progress towards being fully Western goes either forward or backwards. It can never go below 1%, but when you reach 100% you end the process, and get western units as well. So how does the progress work? Well, every month, your current stability is added to the progress. And there are fun events giving you -1 stability or hurting you somewhere else. Westernization should not be a decision taken lightly, especially for large empires. Your nobles and people will often resist and you may need to slow down your progress from time to time to avoid larger pains.

And yes, as a New World nation you can switch directly to western once the Europeans show up, but you have a fair amount of catching up to do anyway.
 

Attachments

  • eu4_16.png
    eu4_16.png
    2,5 MB · Views: 47.389
I have a hard time believing the Ottomans were the most tolerant on the face of the planet at the time. They were certainly not more tolerant than some regimes and peoples of antiquity. They were tolerant to be muslims, I think that is the most correct way to put it.

They were by far the most tolerant of European regimes. Muslims naturally have to have some respect for other jeudo religions as it is part of their holy book.
 
I have a hard time believing the Ottomans were the most tolerant on the face of the planet at the time. They were certainly not more tolerant than some regimes and peoples of antiquity. They were tolerant to be muslims, I think that is the most correct way to put it.

Oh, yeh, you're that narrow-minded racist Islamophobe dude, I forgot.
 
Last edited:
We keep seeing national ideas based on temporary policies. The "Tulip Period" only lasted about 12 years, yet the player will be able to "enact" it probably before its historical time and then keep its bonuses (and none of its real-world maluses) for the rest of the game's timeline. It brings me back to the Russian DD, where I imagine that the player will still get the bonus of the Strelets regimental system even after entering the Petrine era and forcing the crippled Streltsy rebels to convert to the new order.

I dunno, maaaaan, I dunno.
 
well the ottomans were tolerant like the other muslim countries per customs(extra taxmoney was sweet) but were not really tolerant against heretics, especially after the ottoman sultan got the title of Caliph and began struggling with the Shia to the East. What began as political rivality soon turned out to be a greater rift in the Middle East, as we see its echoes today. No need to get political but for the sake of realism i suggest +3 Tolerance Heretic Bonus should be shifted to the Heathens.

Though the Empire managed to convert peoples to Islam in the Balkans, it was not in great proportions but its is not the case when u're playing the Ottomans in EU3 where it is really easy to get the Balkans all green in a few decades. I would propose that the Ottoman Tolerance should include increased tax bonus and decreased conversion ability of some sort as a trade-off...
 
My favourite nation, my only nation I really enjoy playing. There it is... I like the amount of detail given to this gem country!

Just a minor suggestion: Can't we rename that "westernization" thingie? we could call it "Full technology research", "Good technology research", "Decent technology research", "weak technological research" and "poor technological research" instead of Western/Muslim/Chinese/New World ....
I never like the term of westernization...
 
My favourite nation, my only nation I really enjoy playing. There it is... I like the amount of detail given to this gem country!

Just a minor suggestion: Can't we rename that "westernization" thingie? we could call it "Full technology research", "Good technology research", "Decent technology research", "weak technological research" and "poor technological research" instead of Western/Muslim/Chinese/New World ....
I never like the term of westernization...

Trouble is, westernisation was kinda what happened. A lot of places e.g. Japan in the 19th century specifically abandoned old values and traditions as part of the modernisation process.
 
...
Personally I see that as justification for simulating Peter's reforms as someone with good monarch stats, but no long term impact.
Probably that would make more sense historically. But giving nations a chance to compete with the European states in technology seems to be a good option for gameplay and customer satisfaction.
 
I like how the NIs are very strong to begin with. The Ottomans are always up against a lot of powerful [Christian] enemies, so as good as they seem, I think that they should be properly balanced. There's also a gradual shift away from warring over time, which is a nice touch. I think the strongest Idea might actually be Ottoman Tolerance, as it helps with both Shiite and Christian provinces. It would allow for that much faster expansion, especially with cheaper cores.
 
Nah, neither were the Ottomans the heir of Rome, nor more tolerant than greedy dutch and venetian merchants. Worship money, and you forget those silly religious struggles. :p

I hope they are strong enough to instill some fear in Europe, the Janissaries seem interesting.
 
Nice dev diary, loved the little quips and the westernization info.

However, this bit:

Will you be able to reign and expand your empire over three continents? Will you be able to become a dominant naval force, controlling much of the Mediterranean Sea as well as become a major player of the European continental political sphere? Will you become the only power with a just claim to the title of universal ruler?

Or will your military and bureaucratic structures come under strain after a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. Will you fall behind the Europeans in military technology as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism? And will the discovery of new maritime trade routes by Western European states allowed them to avoid the Ottoman trade monopoly unless you take over the trade routes?

Choose, and choose wisely. Let the game begin.

strongly reminded me of the writing style of Civ 5's starting blurbs. Will you build an empire that will stand the test of time?
 
Nah, neither were the Ottomans the heir of Rome, nor more tolerant than greedy dutch and venetian merchants. Worship money, and you forget those silly religious struggles. :p

I hope they are strong enough to instill some fear in Europe, the Janissaries seem interesting.

Tolerance is a common principle in Islamic governments, at least in pre-modern times (obviously things are somewhat different now). Still, their tolerance is made more prominent by the fact they were able to sustain such a policy in a country which was largely built made up of Christians and Jews.
 
Yeah, in contrary to the United Provinces who had only 1,5 mio inhabitants and controlled most of Indonesia. Well, they killed muslims, but not for religious purposes. One of the first treatys with local rulers was the one with Ternate, which had a whole article, mentioning the tolerance of faith. The Ottomans may be the most prominent, but they were not by far the most tolerant in Europe, like it was mentioned by some...
 
Do you want China to be able to westernise immediatly if you started the game in 1600? Will the AI do it every time even though its didn't happen historically?

Westernization doesn't need to imply that they became fully European. That's a mistake I'd expect from Joe. Westernization, especially with how it's been changed, looks to be more of an opening up to European ideas, not the full adoption of European technology. So yes, I see no problem with China doing it in the 16th or 17th century. Historically they already begun absorb some ideas and inventions from Europe by that point.

Economically at least the effect on economic growth of Russia's reforms under Peter over the long term place it behind China (rather than close to Western Europe). A detailed analysis of the facts is here - http://old.uchitel-izd.ru/data/SEH/Vol.3.1/06 Meliantsev.rtf.

Personally I see that as justification for simulating Peter's reforms as someone with good monarch stats, but no long term impact.

Peter did more than economic reforms. He pushed to make Russia a true European power and not one on its periphery. His reforms had a strong political, cultural, administrative, and military implications. Given that westernization no longer brings you up to speed, but instead merely changes your potential technological trajectory, this seems entirely appropriate.
 
Yeah, in contrary to the United Provinces who had only 1,5 mio inhabitants and controlled most of Indonesia. Well, they killed muslims, but not for religious purposes. One of the first treatys with local rulers was the one with Ternate, which had a whole article, mentioning the tolerance of faith. The Ottomans may be the most prominent, but they were not by far the most tolerant in Europe, like it was mentioned by some...

Hmm, fair enough.
 
Tolerance is a common principle in Islamic governments, at least in pre-modern times (obviously things are somewhat different now). Still, their tolerance is made more prominent by the fact they were able to sustain such a policy in a country which was largely built made up of Christians and Jews.

Like i said before, they werent tolerant because they believed it was a right/correct/good thing to be/do. They were tolerant because between them (Anatolia) and the land they wanted to conquer (Austria and HRE's edges) happened to be lands inhabited by non Muslims, and also lands that were much poorer than what they wanted, and lands that they had no interest wasting time and effort in (everything from Constantinople to Wienna). So they came, conquered, and set things up as tolerant as they had to, just so that the local peasants wouldnt revolt, so that their armies could pack up, leave, and conquer something else further west. It was also quite common that conquered kings/princes/dukes etc would pretty much keep their status after Ottoman conquest (aristocratic privileges) for military service, some more taxes and stuff like that.

As long as the conquer-further-west worked, they were tolerant, as soon as it stopped working - meaning no more gold for the soldiers from successful campaigns - things were much less tolerant (as those soldiers returned back to previously conquered provinces and messed them up in every way).
 
Yeah, in contrary to the United Provinces who had only 1,5 mio inhabitants and controlled most of Indonesia. Well, they killed muslims, but not for religious purposes. One of the first treatys with local rulers was the one with Ternate, which had a whole article, mentioning the tolerance of faith. The Ottomans may be the most prominent, but they were not by far the most tolerant in Europe, like it was mentioned by some...

I don't know much of Indonesian history, but I understand the Dutch only established a real government there in the 19th century? Even if they had presence there before, it was still far latter than when the Ottoman first conquered Europe. So, yeah, the United Provinces may have been tolerant, but this doesn't really mean the Ottoman were not for their time. For at last a couple of centuries after the game start, the Ottomans were still an example of "tolerance", when compared to its European neighbors.

Like i said before, they werent tolerant because they believed it was a right/correct/good thing to be/do. They were tolerant because between them (Anatolia) and the land they wanted to conquer (Austria and HRE's edges) happened to be lands inhabited by non Muslims, and also lands that were much poorer than what they wanted, and lands that they had no interest wasting time and effort in (everything from Constantinople to Wienna). So they came, conquered, and set things up as tolerant as they had to, just so that the local peasants wouldnt revolt, so that their armies could pack up, leave, and conquer something else further west. It was also quite common that conquered kings/princes/dukes etc would pretty much keep their status after Ottoman conquest (aristocratic privileges) for military service, some more taxes and stuff like that.

As long as the conquer-further-west worked, they were tolerant, as soon as it stopped working - meaning no more gold for the soldiers from successful campaigns - things were much less tolerant (as those soldiers returned back to previously conquered provinces and messed them up in every way).

So? As far as the game is concerned, their reasons are completely irrelevant.
 
My head says that the Sea of Marmara needs to have less strait-blocking weakness.

But my heart says that we should keep it! It's how the Byzzies roll!

Oh, yeh, you're that narrow-minded racist Islamophobe dude, I forgot.

You sound pretty bigoted, yourself.
 
Ottoman mechanics look good, especially if events deal with its eastern and southern expansions.

Westernization system is good in effect (using stability is a great idea, as is depleting monarch points) but no good in cause. Lagging behind is not what produced the political conditions for modernization (which is what it should be called-or liberalization, which is what it actually is, even in Europe); everyone lagged behind (liberalizing) Western Europe after the mid-late 1500s. The reasons are complex-and some of them, like jointly pillaging the globe for the abundance that helped produce the middle class, are underexplored-but it's fair to assume that the West didn't "Westernize" (see how silly it is?) because it was technologically inferior to the Abbasids and the Tang.

I don't think there's much profit in modelling the social, economic, environmental, cultural, and intellectual conditions that produced a sustained period of liberalization for the first time in human history. It's fine to just have the Western Europeans do it and it's also probably fine, given that everybody else lagged behind, to abstract the divergence in those conditions with tech groups and "Westernization." But when it comes to the political conditions in those few non-Western societies that successfully jumped the tracks, it's much simpler and much clearer, and being the biggest laggard was not one of them. Rather, the state (and always the state) had to be led by a strong reformer, or a reformist faction in control of a sympathetic figurehead (Japan), with the will and power to overcome the enormous institutional and cultural obstacles-first the conservatives, often the backbone of the ruling class, the ruling family, the priesthood, and the military, and then, at the point of greatest success, the reactionaries, and finally the New Conservatives, who perennially attempt to redress the advances their forebearers opposed in the age-old language and values and can easily arrest progress (and always do for a time, as in Russia in the 19th century and Western Europe itself).

Peter is the best example from the period, the Meiji Restoration after it, but there are bunches (Mustafa Kemal from our own Ottoman Empire, for example) and they all fit the model. There are many, many more failures, including the Selim III and his Age of Tulips from our own Ottoman Empire, for example, and they all reveal a political defect, not some (perversely) technological or cultural advantage to which conservatives could point in order to say, "See, good enough is good enough for us."

It is true that success is an eerily accurate predictor of failure-that abundance has often caused stagnation, usually because the social classes solidify and orthodoxy becomes a cloak of the powerful-but not in this context. Russia did not reform because it was badly beaten in some war by the hyperadvanced Poles and the Ottoman Empire did not fail to reform because it was just strong enough to defeat _____ (your pick of Austria, Poland, Russia, France, various Balkan states, and Britain, all of which thrashed it during the period it was failing to reform). Russia was reformed because it came to be governed by a boy who loved sailboats; the Ottoman Empire was not because it did not.*

You model that with monarch points, ideas, and events, and it's not very difficult to do it at least as well as this technology gap does, which is to say not very well at all (see, as mentioned elsewhere: island nations, easy exploitable, problem of self-destruction in multiplayer, etc.).

*Or because Russia came to be governed by a man who took care to murder his update of the Praetorian Guard and the Ottoman Empire came to be governed by a man who did not.