• 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
TBH I think westernization should be removed, it should be about how fast a country implements new technologies and the country that's considered modern, or western, is the one that's able to do that the fastest, while backward nations would take a longer time to implement these technologies once discovered or never implement them. And the ability to implement a newly-discovered tech would depend on the stability, organization, and willingness to adopt new ways in the country.
 
TBH I think westernization should be removed, it should be about how fast a country implements new technologies and the country that's considered modern, or western, is the one that's able to do that the fastest, while backward nations would take a longer time to implement these technologies once discovered or never implement them. And the ability to implement a newly-discovered tech would depend on the stability, organization, and willingness to adopt new ways in the country.

But what do you mean by "implement"?
 
But what do you mean by "implement"?
Well, technologies were not discovered by countries at that time, it was individuals who created them and then countries would implement them once they became popular, like the bayonet for example.
To add up to my point, when Russia "westernized" in real life, Peter merely implemented existing technologies, ideas, and systems in place in Western Europe, and because he had prepared for that it wasn't as painful as it was for the Ottoman Empire for example, who had to start with modernizing the army first. Whereas in EU IV the army gets westernized last, in the Ottoman example it was almost the only thing that got actually modernized. So "westernization" shouldn't be a decision you simply click and then it kicks off automatically; it should be a gradual, manual process that doesn't have to be completed and can fail, depending on the internal situation of the country and how well it is prepared for westernization, it could depend on factors like stability, the monarch's power, influence, and hold over the country, and the army's loyalty/organization.
 
A few links to everyone who think like Connor Mulhern, that "the Ottoman empire were by far the most tolerant of European regimes", or like Guillaume HJ, "that hat the European standard at the time was "We tolerate you if you tolerate us brutally forcing you out of the country at swordpoint or outright killing you."

Areopagitica
Statute of Kalisz
Edict of Nantes
Edict of Torda
Edict of Versailles
Council of Constance

So much goddamn revisionism on this forum.

And I'm sorry for being a narrow-minded racist Islamophobe...

@Easy1 talk about it in the history forum do not derail the thread.

I'll shut up after this post.
 
1850 is a whole different game time. Besides China didn't historically westernise until at least the late 19th century.
Partly due to the Qing being generally abysmal rulers. That said, unless a european power borders china, which they didn't until the opium wars, China won't be able to westernise.
 
A few links to everyone who think like Connor Mulhern, that "the Ottoman empire were by far the most tolerant of European regimes", or like Guillaume HJ, "that hat the European standard at the time was "We tolerate you if you tolerate us brutally forcing you out of the country at swordpoint or outright killing you."

Areopagitica
Statute of Kalisz
Edict of Nantes
Edict of Torda
Edict of Versailles
Council of Constance

So much goddamn revisionism on this forum.

And I'm sorry for being a narrow-minded racist Islamophobe...



I'll shut up after this post.

The council of constance definitely does not count as an example of tolerance, and the Aeropagitca has more to do with freedom of the press. As for the others, Poland-Lithuania was exceptionally tolerant compared to its neighbors, hence the pale of settlement. The Edict of Nantes was rescinded. Also all of these tolerated other Christian religions - none of them tolerated muslims.
 
The introduction text sounds awesome. They got the main points right, Ottomans were a pragmatic, militarily expansionist power which had a tolerance system to quickly consolidate their holdings. And they were, in the very least, the geopolitical successor to Rome. Good job Paradox! I hope the application will match the theory.

Some points: The most important item in the Ottoman, and indeed earlier Turkic, trade monopoly was silk. Would be nice to see silk represented in the game as a trade good as it was enormously important, more so than chinaware, for instance.

Beys events: This is hard to determine without the details, but Ottoman history has roughly three periods in the EU time frame concerning this. Until Mehmed II, there are Frontier Beys from families with great autonomy. After Mehmed II truly founded the Empire the country is centralised and the local rulers are weak. And after Suleiman, in the late 16th century the central government weakens and Beys gain in power and influence. This is of course true for the core lands of the Empire; i.e. Anatolia and the Balkans. Arab lands, North Africa, Crimean Khanate etc were not ruled as directly.

Jannisaries events: This sounds great. Janissaries impeded modernisation efforts later on. When wielded by a powerful Sultan they were the ultimate weapon. Under a weak one, they caused all sorts of trouble.

As to faster coring, it is a good way to simulate the Ottomans. An alternative would be to make accepted culture a decision and make the Ottomans buy it cheaper than others. This would simulate their ruling class better.

Ghazi idea sounds good and accurate. Ottoman success against the Christians attracted warriors from other Turkish statelets to them.

Timariot System: Slight problem here in the definition. Timariot cavalry were not an "elite core of troops". The Six Divisions of the Kapikulu Sipahi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Divisions_of_Cavalry) were the elite cavalry corps. The Timariots were the timar land based regular cavalry of the Ottoman Army.

Ottoman Tolerance: This was a reality for the time period. Ottomans were tolerant for practical reasons as well as Turko-Mongol (Genghis Khanate had religious freedom) and Muslim traditions ("people of the book" status). Some people wrote that they were not tolerant towards the heretics, but that is not entirely true. For instance all Janissaries were Bektashi heretics, just like large tracts of the Empire. Heretics were persecuted because of the Safavid wars. However, like others wrote, Ottomans were tolerant in comparison to their contemporaries. The West became more tolerant after the Enlightenment. Also, this idea should come with a penalty to religious conversion.

Imperial School of Naval Engineering: Could be replaced with the Golden Horn Arsenal, which was probably the largest ship production facility in the world in the 16th century. Ottomans were a dominant naval power in the early 1500s and not after 1770s. Their great naval building efforts were in the late 1400s and early 1500s.

Re the screenshot. One should cut Hüdavendigar in size by separating Karesi on the West (answering the question, yes the Ottomans did expand west in Asia Minor). Also the great mountain of Bursa- a 2,5 km volcano- is missing in the screenshot. The geography and climate of Anatolia was atrocious in EUIII (mild winters and plains in Erzurum!), which seriously affected gameplay in the Caucasus, I hope it'll get fixed. I also hope that Ottoman buildings will look like Turkish ones and not Arab ones in EU IV.
 
The council of constance definitely does not count as an example of tolerance, and the Aeropagitca has more to do with freedom of the press. As for the others, Poland-Lithuania was exceptionally tolerant compared to its neighbors, hence the pale of settlement. The Edict of Nantes was rescinded. Also all of these tolerated other Christian religions - none of them tolerated muslims.

The council of constance nothing tio do with tolerance?

Paulus Vladimiri (ca. 1370–1435) was a Polish scholar and rector who at the Council of Constance in 1414, presented a thesis, Tractatus de potestate papae et imperatoris respectu infidelium (Treatise on the Power of the Pope and the Emperor Respecting Infidels). In it he argued that pagan and Christian nations could coexist in peace and criticized the Teutonic Order for its wars of conquest of native non-Christian peoples in Prussia and Lithuania. Vladimiri strongly supported the idea of conciliarism and pioneered the notion of peaceful coexistence among nations – a forerunner of modern theories of human rights.

Freedom of press and speech is a form of tolerance. It's that kind of tolerance you probably are opposed to because it does not tolerante muslims. Tolerance in the Ottoman empire was also eventually rescinded and the history of the empire ended with several holocausts. No, like I said, Judaism was also tolerated, not ONLY other Christian religions.
 
A few links to everyone who think like Connor Mulhern, that "the Ottoman empire were by far the most tolerant of European regimes", or like Guillaume HJ, "that hat the European standard at the time was "We tolerate you if you tolerate us brutally forcing you out of the country at swordpoint or outright killing you."

Areopagitica
Statute of Kalisz
Edict of Nantes
Edict of Torda
Edict of Versailles
Council of Constance
Areopagitica: Had zero official government backing, and had little (if anything) to do with religion.
Edict of Nantes: Only targeted Christians, and was repealed less than 100 years later.
Edict of Versailles: Happened in 1787, which is pretty much at the end of EU's time period.
Council of Constance: Ordered two heretics executed.

So...that leaves you with two examples, one from Poland, and one from Hungary. Not a terribly good argument for saying that the Ottomans were as intolerant as most of Europe.
 
I think the conditions for westernizing ought to be a bit more flexible. Good trade relations with a western state could be sufficient (eg. Japan), so you don't need to pull of gamey shenanigans by selling provinces etc.

Being technologically backward per se shouldn't be important. After all, not being westernized means that you don't care for technological prowess: you care for eg. piety and military power. So instead disastrously losing a major war (or wars) against western powers, or losing trade to/not being able to compete commercially against western powers, that should be the trigger (eg. Ottomans -> Turkey). When such disasters happen you should get a window of opportunity to start westernization efforts (in game terms, a national modifier that lasts a few years). Unless you're so obviously backwards (eg. native Americans) that it's blatantly obvious that you're missing out.
 
Partly due to the Qing being generally abysmal rulers. That said, unless a european power borders china, which they didn't until the opium wars, China won't be able to westernise.

In EU3 Macao is its own province and while I haven't seen EU4 maps of that part of the world I'm assuming something similar will still be around. If so historical starts will start with China having the westernise button enabled from the start. Thats why I'm worried that in those games China will Westernise when historically I wouldn't have said that it started until the Opium wars. Of course they could make westernisation something the AI ignores, but the game doesn't really need special mechanics to help human players...
 
The council of constance nothing tio do with tolerance?



Freedom of press and speech is a form of tolerance. It's that kind of tolerance you probably are opposed to because it does not tolerante muslims. Tolerance in the Ottoman empire was also eventually rescinded and the history of the empire ended with several holocausts. No, like I said, Judaism was also tolerated, not ONLY other Christian religions.

Why doesn't freedom of speech/press tolerate Muslims? Are they undeserving of free speech/press just because they're Muslims?
 
Well, technologies were not discovered by countries at that time, it was individuals who created them and then countries would implement them once they became popular, like the bayonet for example.
To add up to my point, when Russia "westernized" in real life, Peter merely implemented existing technologies, ideas, and systems in place in Western Europe, and because he had prepared for that it wasn't as painful as it was for the Ottoman Empire for example, who had to start with modernizing the army first. Whereas in EU IV the army gets westernized last, in the Ottoman example it was almost the only thing that got actually modernized. So "westernization" shouldn't be a decision you simply click and then it kicks off automatically; it should be a gradual, manual process that doesn't have to be completed and can fail, depending on the internal situation of the country and how well it is prepared for westernization, it could depend on factors like stability, the monarch's power, influence, and hold over the country, and the army's loyalty/organization.
Yeah, no. We aren't playing Government Simulator: The Game. I think new percentage system is fine as it's essentially what you ask for : ability to have setbacks and gradual westernization from 1% to 100%.
 
What in the world is cultural Marxism? And are you implying that not tolerating Muslims is okay for some reason?

IN THAT TIME AND PLACE the withholding of rights from certain groups and various forms of oppression by the ruling elite against other groups (not necessarily defined by culture, race or religion but including women, the lowborn and so forth) was the bloody universal norm. I'm not saying it was 'good' or 'bad' or unjustifiable or deserved or whatever because it would be both futile and childish to pass judgement from where we stand armed with the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism.
 
IN THAT TIME AND PLACE the withholding of rights from certain groups and various forms of oppression by the ruling elite against other groups (not necessarily defined by culture, race or religion but including women, the lowborn and so forth) was the bloody universal norm. I'm not saying it was 'good' or 'bad' or unjustifiable or deserved or whatever because it would be both futile and childish to pass judgement from where we stand armed with the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism.

Well, we're comparing European and Ottoman tolerance policies in the Middle Ages, so that's why we're talking about egalitarian tolerance. Obviously, neither was perfectly tolerant, but one can argue that one is more tolerant than the other using modern definitions of "tolerant."
 
Why doesn't freedom of speech/press tolerate Muslims? Are they undeserving of free speech/press just because they're Muslims?

Quite typical for some leftists in the West to support restriction of freedom of press/speech as to not risk offending muslims. Many muslims themselves are against free press/speech if it imples the right to offend Islam.

A slur Nazis use for political ideas they don't like. It became popular with Breivik's "manifesto".

Nice propaganda
 
None of which is relevant as to which society was more religiously tolerant in the Europa era.

Freedom of the press does not make you more religiously tolerant. That doesn't mean you should abolish freedom of the press in the name of religious tolerance; that means they are two different topics not related to one another.

As for Nantes, the edict of Nantes was only about stopping Christians from killing other christians in the name of faith, it only existed because the two side had already sepnt several decades slaughtering each other, and it lasted a few decades before it was revoked.

If all your other examples are on that level, it's a laughable attempt.