• 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
Ya thats going to be odd after coming from EU3 MEIOU where Anatolia had like 32+ provinces in the region. But looks smaller in provinces than even in CK2.. I guess they reduced province count there to extend the map.

Possibly they made it so that the provinces aren't dirt poor, you don't need so many provinces if they actually supply a decent amount of tax and manpower. 3/4 of Anatolia in EU3 is barely better than Arabian deserts!
 
Ryukyu Diary when?
And it seems like you guys redrew and renamed the Anatolian provinces. Will the Ottomans still suffer from gamey strait blocking tactics?

This may have been one of the first comments on this thread but considering were talking about Ottoman Provinces....

I do not consider strait blocking tactics gamey. The Venicians and Byzantines use that tactic to great effect in IRL historical military campaigns. The AI is just dumb enough to fall for it multiple times garning it a gamey reputation. its not the fact that straight blocking is gaming its the fact the AI is not sophisticated enough to know when their being lead into a trap.
 
Last edited:

.
Its was the six century ad. Didnt find one against the Ottomans but against the Empire's older enemy the Persians.

"The only major naval action of the next 80 years occurred during the Siege of Constantinople by the Sassanid Persians, Avars and Slavs in 626. During that siege, the Slavs' fleet of monoxyla was intercepted by the Byzantine fleet and destroyed, denying the Persian army passage across the Bosporus and eventually forcing the Avars to retreat."

It was used to divide the enemy forces that lead to a Byzantine victory in the war. But that was just one in many times nations used navies to use naval superiority to deny enemy armies methods to cross waterways. Harder to find examples later than that due to the near non-existence of the byzantine navy in its latter days. , Manuel II was the last one to have a strong navy which quickly became woefully underfunded by his successors.

Honestly players are lucky to be able to send enemy armies across straits without a prepared navy, IRL Armies couldnt do that. There was a reason why Darius of Persia built a dam bridge out of old boats for his invasion of Greece across the Bosporous.
 
Last edited:
.
Its was the six century ad. Didnt find one against the Ottomans but against the Empire's older enemy the Persians.

Precisely, because in the EUIII era gunpowder technology made blocking the straits impossible due to the presence of coastal forts with artillery. Hence it being gamey. Really most straits shouldn't be blockable without controlling one side or the other.
 
Precisely, because in the EUIII era gunpowder technology made blocking the straits impossible due to the presence of coastal forts with artillery. Hence it being gamey.

Early Artillery forts weren't that effective due to the primitive nature of early cannons. veneticans and byzantine naval vessels were able to get by them to Constantinople to partipate in the final battle of Constantinople. They only harassed enemy fleets, it was not outright denial of the straits.
 
Early Artillery forts weren't that effective due to the primitive nature of early cannons. veneticans and byzantine naval vessels were able to get by them to Constantinople to partipate in the final battle of Constantinople. They only harassed enemy fleets, it was not outright denial of the straits.

What forts did the Venetians and Byzantine naval vessels get past, exactly? Anadolu/Rumeli hisari did not block access to Constantinople from the south. Also, bypassing a fort is entirely different from remaining near it for an extended period of time, which would have been necessary to block the crossing of an army.

That being said, it does apply for the huge majority of the EUIII era, and it would be more historically accurate to disallow blocking uncontrolled straits than not to. The power of coastal forts was very clearly demonstrated in the 1538 Battle of Preveza, when one Ottoman fort prevented the entire Christian fleet from attacking the Ottoman fleet in a sheltered bay.
 
What forts did the Venetians and Byzantine naval vessels get past, exactly? Anadolu/Rumeli hisari did not block access to Constantinople from the south.

That being said, it does apply for the huge majority of the EUIII era, and it would be more historically accurate to disallow blocking uncontrolled straits than not to. The power of coastal forts was very clearly demonstrated in the 1538 Battle of Preveza, when one Ottoman fort prevented the entire Christian fleet from attacking the Ottoman fleet in a sheltered bay.
I dont remember the specif forts but i do remember watching a documentary about the cannons used in the fall of Constantinople, with the ottomans attempting to blockade constantinople by setting up cannons along the coast to shoot at approaching vessels. Might not been actual forts but artillery batteries but those are exactly like artillery forts without the fortifications.

Attacking a fleet in a sheltered bay and attempting to blockade an entire straight are two different things. Dont bring up examples that dont contribute to your argument. In order to get into that dam bay the enemy would have to get up close and any battery of cannons would have devestated an enemy fleet possibly even blocked their access by having the wreckage of friendly ships blocking the entrance to the bay. Hell the same could been accomplished by a single fire ship when they attempted to enter the bay. Choke points are force multipliers.
 
That said artillery forts etc arent around everywhere specially not in 1444. I would argue that ideally land armies shouldn't be allowed to cross straits period without a navy to transport them and if that navy cant beat an enemy navy guarding the strait then it shouldn't be allowed to cross.

Its also true with the advent of cannons land armies could partially contribute to the ensuing naval battle by virtue of the range of their guns but EU4 cant incorporate that in their battle system.

Its like allowing the French Grand Army to cross the dam English Channel just cause someone thinks its "gamey" to deny enemy naval troop transportation across water with a dam naval force.
 
Last edited:
I dont remember the specif forts but i do remember watching a documentary about the cannons used in the fall of Constantinople, with the ottomans attempting to blockade constantinople by setting up cannons along the coast to shoot at approaching vessels. Might not been actual forts but artillery batteries but those are exactly like artillery forts without the fortifications.

It certainly isn't, because cannons in forts were much larger and more powerful, not needing to be moved around. You are right that artillery was not guaranteed to prevent individual ships or small groups from breaking a blockade or passing through the strait, but that isn't the same as maintaining the constant presence necessary to block the passage of an army across the strait.

Attacking a fleet in a sheltered bay and attempting to blockade an entire straight are two different things. Dont bring up examples that dont contribute to your argument. In order to get into that dam bay the enemy would have to get up close and any battery of cannons would have devestated an enemy fleet possibly even blocked their access by having the wreckage of friendly ships blocking the entrance to the bay. Hell the same could been accomplished by a single fire ship when they attempted to enter the bay. Choke points are force multipliers.

The point was less about the protective aspect of the bay and more about the firepower of the fortress. The presence of a fort forced enemy ships to stay at a distance or suffer the consequences. That's all that would be needed to get an army across. If both sides of the strait were guarded by forts, then those forts could provide protective fire to the troops as they cross. As it stands, the blockading fleet doesn't even have to suffer any damage at all, let alone risk the survival of their ships to prevent enemy crossings. It gives the holder of a powerful navy an anachronistic ability to dominate over land powers.


That said artillery forts etc arent around everywhere specially not in 1444. I would argue that ideally land armies shouldn't be allowed to cross straights period without a navy to transport them and if that navy cant beat an enemy navy guarding the strait then it shouldn't be allowed to cross.
Its like allowing the French Grand Army to cross the dam English Channel just cause someone thinks its "gamey".

The fact that they weren't widespread in 1444 doesn't mean a thing. They should either be unlocked via technology, or if that would be impossible to code, they should be active throughout the whole game anyway because for more than 80% of the timeline coastal forts were a presence in warfare, especially in the Mediterranean. Also the English Channel isn't a strait in the game, so there's no need to exaggerate.
 
.
Its was the six century ad. Didnt find one against the Ottomans but against the Empire's older enemy the Persians.

"The only major naval action of the next 80 years occurred during the Siege of Constantinople by the Sassanid Persians, Avars and Slavs in 626. During that siege, the Slavs' fleet of monoxyla was intercepted by the Byzantine fleet and destroyed, denying the Persian army passage across the Bosporus and eventually forcing the Avars to retreat."

That's the owner of the strait blocking it to stop enemies from crossing. I believe what people are complaining about is an attacker blockading the strait to stop the Ottomans from moving their armies between their own provinces.

Honestly players are lucky to be able to send enemy armies across straits without a prepared navy, IRL Armies couldnt do that. There was a reason why Darius of Persia built a dam bridge out of old boats for his invasion of Greece across the Bosporous.

It was Xerxes and it was the Hellespont/Dardanelles, not the Bosphrous. Darius didn't need a bridge because his army was a lot smaller and could fit in his fleet.
 
While im sure Napoelon would agree with your sentiments Cham your still wrong. Crossing a straight requires transportation by naval vessels across open water. The difference between the English Channel and a Strait is merely the fact that the English Channel is far bigger than any strait.

Because you know what a strait is cham? Its a passage of water with land on both the sides of it. And since Land units cant combat naval units its up to the navies to ensure control of the water ways for the army to pass over the other side.

Honestly the whole fact you can do it without a navy itself is what i consider gamey but i justify that by people using civilian transport vessels for the strait crossing. Something you would be unable to do if the strait was contested by an enemy fleet since no civilian would want to risk getting killed like that.
 
That's the owner of the strait blocking it to stop enemies from crossing. I believe what people are complaining about is an attacker blockading the strait to stop the Ottomans from moving their armies between their own provinces.



It was Xerxes and it was the Hellespont/Dardanelles, not the Bosphrous. Darius didn't need a bridge because his army was a lot smaller and could fit in his fleet.

Same issue, its their problem is that they dont realized a strait isnt a land bridge.

Sorry my mistake on the whole Darius thing.
 
While im sure Napoelon would agree with your sentiments Cham your still wrong. Crossing a straight requires transportation by naval vessels across open water. The difference between the English Channel and a Strait is merely the fact that the English Channel is far bigger than any strait.

Because you know what a strait is cham? Its a passage of water with land on both the sides of it. And since Land units cant combat naval units its up to the navies to ensure control of the water ways for the army to pass over the other side.

Honestly the whole fact you can do it without a navy itself is what i consider gamey but i justify that by people using civilian transport vessels for the strait crossing. Something you would be unable to do if the strait was contested by an enemy fleet since no civilian would want to risk getting killed like that.

'Civilian transport vessels', if by that you mean merchant ships temporarily rented out for military use, were the standard naval unit of the 15th Century. You're making a distinction between civilian and military which didn't exist at the time.

I don't want to get into the logistics of galley warfare and how the very idea of 'controlling the water' is entirely anachronistic for the whole first half of the game, so I'll simply ask you how a navy could actually prevent the crossing of the Ottoman army when in order to do so it must remain within range of multiple fortresses for a long period of time?

The difference between the Bosphorus and the English Channel is that with the former, an army could cross from one side to the other without ever leaving the range of friendly artillery.
 
" It gives the holder of a powerful navy an anachronistic ability to dominate over land powers."

Ya im sure Napoelon felt the same way about the Brits...

Would you stop using the example of Napoleon and Britain? It's completely irrelevant because the English Channel isn't defined as a strait in the game, so a crossing would still not be possible.
 
'Civilian transport vessels', if by that you mean merchant ships temporarily rented out for military use, were the standard naval unit of the 15th Century. You're making a distinction between civilian and military which didn't exist at the time.

I don't want to get into the logistics of galley warfare and how the very idea of 'controlling the water' is entirely anachronistic for the whole first half of the game, so I'll simply ask you how a navy could actually prevent the crossing of the Ottoman army when in order to do so it must remain within range of multiple fortresses for a long period of time?

The difference between the Bosphorus and the English Channel is that with the former, an army could cross from one side to the other without ever leaving the range of friendly artillery.

Ya i know about the whole merchant levy but for game purposes i tend to separate the two since trade ships CANT be levied for war ingame and you need to maintain a fleet not just disband the levy like in CK2.

That would require the necessity if possibly a new building, script code etc to impliment that and it would only what be effective in a few places? Like the Bosporus and Gibraltar. Then people with powerful navies would complain "Why cant i order my guys to attack the army in the ships crossing the strait and accept the causalities caused by the guns?" And to address those concerns you would somehow manage to implement the artillery forts in the naval combat system to do just that.

To rightly implement artillery forts at straits would be a hassle with few rewards to a few players. An the countries that typically controlled straits like the Bosporous and Gibraltar were naval/trading powers who could field a powerful navy to block them whenever they wanted. So the implementation of it would be bit of a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
You say that as if the Ottoman AI's failure to prevent hostile ships from ahistorically blocking the straits in EUIII wasn't a catastrophic problem for them. It's something that needs to be fixed for the Ottomans to be successful, and this is the solution I propose: that a strait in which both sides are controlled by a single nation should not be blockable by opponents of that nation. It solves the Bosphorus problem and adds a new element of strategy in which a country could try a lightning land assault one side of the strait to make it blockable.

It also fits well with other scenarios: Venice's armies could not be trapped in the city by a hostile navy until the mainland side were captured. Conversely, if the mainland side were captured while the Venetians dominated the sea the enemy could not cross without first defeating the Venetian navy.
 
You say that as if the Ottoman AI's failure to prevent hostile ships from ahistorically blocking the straits in EUIII wasn't a catastrophic problem for them. It's something that needs to be fixed for the Ottomans to be successful, and this is the solution I propose: that a strait in which both sides are controlled by a single nation should not be blockable by opponents of that nation. It solves the Bosphorus problem and adds a new element of strategy in which a country could try a lightning land assault one side of the strait to make it blockable.

So you want to give everyone including people who dont have access to cannon technology capable of doing that? Cause you know there is the entire rest of the world to worry about not just the Mediterranean.
 
So you want to give everyone including people who dont have access to cannon technology capable of doing that? Cause you know there is the entire rest of the world to worry about not just the Mediterranean.

As I said,

Chamboozer said:
They should either be unlocked via technology, or if that would be impossible to code, they should be active throughout the whole game anyway because for more than 80% of the timeline coastal forts were a presence in warfare

It's not as if it would be gamebreaking or even that ahistorical for the rest of the world. How often is it that you find a single nation controlling both sides of a strait? And how often does that lead to anything other than the player exploiting the AI by trapping their armies?