The Ottoman-Crimea event has to go

[Travis_Bickle]

I can't stand it when I see this event, it's gotten to the point I'll just bird if it happens.

Crimea was never a march or vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. It was a tributary or protectorate that lasted until 1783.

In EU4, if Crimea "seeks Ottoman protection", within 10 years they'll be a vassal and annexed by the Ottomans, because the Ottomans obviously need more free land.

If you couple this with "Poland chooses the local noble" then Lithuania is 100% dead. In fact, the Ottomans can go so wild in Ruthenia they basically stop Russia from forming.

If this event is going to happen, it should be an absolute 100% clause that the Ottomans aren't allowed to annex Crimea for 100 years or it should at the very most be treated as a Personal Union. Making Crimea a tributary would be much more accurate.

I have no idea why this event is in the game. It's ahistorical, breaks the games own rules for subjects and doesn't serve any purpose other than ensuring an Ottoman Ruthenia.

 

[-DI- RivalET]

Crimean hosts went on Ottoman campaigns? Which tributaries cannot? Tbh i'd be down for a tributary rework like there being a path from tributary to vassalization. Ottomans sometimes dominating ruthenia doesn't seem like a problem to me considering their dominance historically. If anything considering the Ottomans styled themselves Roman Successors, it would make sense for their missions to reflect that too.

 

[newtlord]

Crimean hosts went on Ottoman campaigns? Which tributaries cannot?

Maybe the Ottomans made the 'demand tribute of manpower' choice?

EDIT: At any rate, Crimea as a vassal (even if it starts as a march) inevitably results in Crimea being annexed, which seems more ahistorical than any oddities that would result from it being a tributary.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Crimean hosts went on Ottoman campaigns? Which tributaries cannot? Tbh i'd be down for a tributary rework like there being a path from tributary to vassalization. Ottomans sometimes dominating ruthenia doesn't seem like a problem to me considering their dominance historically. If anything considering the Ottomans styled themselves Roman Successors, it would make sense for their missions to reflect that too.

They only dominate Ruthenia because of this event which is both ahistorical and contrary to game mechanics, and it can really screw with the formation of PLC/Russia. It's too imbalanced.

The Ottomans are strong enough by their own right to have a very good campaign, this event only makes PLC/Russia weaker.

They should be a tributary of the Ottomans or some kind of special PU that can't be integrated before 100 years.

There's an argument the Ottomans should dominate the Black Sea/Caucuses more than they do, but they could do that through extra missions, not being given a bunch of free land just because.

 

[Alyosha]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. Ahistorical occurrences that happen every game seem to be PDox’s specialty, while historical events like the Burgundian Inheritance are relegated to an inconceivably low chance of happening.

 

[BoomKidneyShot]

Maybe the Ottomans made the 'demand tribute of manpower' choice?

EDIT: At any rate, Crimea as a vassal (even if it starts as a march) inevitably results in Crimea being annexed, which seems more ahistorical than any oddities that would result from it being a tributary.

Ottomans annexing Crimea causes the AI to really prioritize making their borders contiguous, hence the issues from expanding into Ruthenia and north of the Caucasus.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

I wouldn’t hold your breath. Ahistorical occurrences that happen every game seem to be PDox’s specialty, while historical events like the Burgundian Inheritance are relegated to an inconceivably low chance of happening.

I was thinking this actually.

Ottomans get Crimea with around the same frequency that Poland take the Lithuanian Union or the Burgundian Inheritance firing at all.

Ottomans annexing Crimea causes the AI to really prioritize making their borders contiguous, hence the issues from expanding into Ruthenia and north of the Caucasus.

Because also Crimea has cores on Lithuania, and Lithuania is incredibly vulnerable if they don't have Poland as an overlord. Even if they do...they usually get an ally like Brandenburg. At that stage in the game, Ottomans vs Poland/Lituania + Brandbenburg is easy especially because Muscovy will use this as an opportunity to attack at the same time.

 

[Alyosha]

I was thinking this actually.

Ottomans get Crimea with around the same frequency that Poland take the Lithuanian Union or the Burgundian Inheritance firing at all.

Because also Crimea has cores on Lithuania, and Lithuania is incredibly vulnerable if they don't have Poland as an overlord. Even if they do...they usually get an ally like Brandenburg. At that stage in the game, Ottomans vs Poland/Lituania + Brandbenburg is easy especially because Muscovy will use this as an opportunity to attack at the same time.

I have seen the Ottomans get Crimea far more than the Burgundian Inheritance. I have NEVER seen the news Burgundian Inheritance fire.

 

[master_kong]

Crimea was an Ottoman march for sure, instead, the problem is the state of marches in this game. Crimea was able to wage war or raids on their own for instance, which is non-existent in the game. Marches should be more like tributaries than vassals. They should be able to have allies and subjects of their own, yes, Crimea had these too in history.

Another problem is they can be turned into a vassal from a march too quickly. There is a liberty desire malus for steppe hordes in the game which is great but it should be increased. Also keeping vassals loyal is rather easy in this game in general which also helps this Crimea to quickly turn into a vassal situation. Vassals should consider their 100% strength against their overlord instead of 75% imo. Why it's 75% anyway?

So, in short, Crimea was definitely a march. But, marches in this game are lacking.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

I have seen the Ottomans get Crimea far more than the Burgundian Inheritance. I have NEVER seen the news Burgundian Inheritance fire.

It just happened again in a Savoy game.

Coupled with Castile suiciding over Sus independence I'm increasingly losing enjoyment playing when such things happen (yes, Castile are very necessary to help me get Sardinia).

Seem like such easy fixes that just get overlooked.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Crimea was an Ottoman march for sure, instead, the problem is the state of marches in this game. Crimea was able to wage war or raids on their own for instance, which is non-existent in the game. Marches should be more like tributaries than vassals. They should be able to have allies and subjects of their own, yes, Crimea had these too in history.

Another problem is they can be turned into a vassal from a march too quickly. There is a liberty desire malus for steppe hordes in the game which is great but it should be increased. Also keeping vassals loyal is rather easy in this game in general which also helps this Crimea to quickly turn into a vassal situation. Vassals should consider their 100% strength against their overlord instead of 75% imo. Why it's 75% anyway?

So, in short, Crimea was definitely a march. But, marches in this game are lacking.

My point is, regardless of the particulars of Ottoman protectorates, the Crimean Khanate existed until 1783. In game, Crimea is Ottoman before 1500.

 

[master_kong]

My point is, regardless of the particulars of Ottoman protectorates, the Crimean Khanate existed until 1783. In game, Crimea is Ottoman before 1500.

Yeah, I already said it happens too quickly(before 1500) is a problem. But Crimean Khanate existing until 1783 is misleading. The Viceroyalty of Ireland had also existed but it's not a "vassal" regarding game terms. Boundaries between vassals and territories are pretty vague. Crimea not being integrated until the 1600s or until Crimea reforming its government would be very much a plausible outcome in the game for me.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Crimean hosts went on Ottoman campaigns? Which tributaries cannot?

They can, if they ally.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

I must honestly own a different version of the game from everyone else. In about 1/3 of my games will Crimea seeks Ottoman protection, and when they do only in about 1/5 of those 1/3 times will the Ottoman's ever annex them and when they do annex it is usually by 1550 at the earliest or so? Considering that starting around 1523 Crimean Khan's were appointed only by the Ottoman Sultan and all had to pledge loyalty to him, it doesn't seem too ahistorical for the Ottoman's to complete annexation by 1550 (historically they didn't because there was no reason to deal with Crimean rebellion after rebellion).

Also on the note of owning a different version of the game, I have hardly ever seen AI nations going into debt spirals and since 1.30 the Burgundian Inheritance appears to fire 4/5 times (this is all with having about 4000 hours or so in the game). I am quite curious as to why my games seem to be mostly free of common complaints such as these?

 

[IndigoRage]

I must honestly own a different version of the game from everyone else. In about 1/3 of my games will Crimea seeks Ottoman protection, and when they do only in about 1/5 of those 1/3 times will the Ottoman's ever annex them and when they do annex it is usually by 1550 at the earliest or so? Considering that starting around 1523 Crimean Khan's were appointed only by the Ottoman Sultan and all had to pledge loyalty to him, it doesn't seem to ahistorical for the Ottoman's to complete annexation by 1550 (historically they didn't because there was no reason to deal with Crimean rebellion after rebellion).

Also on the note of owning a different version of the game, I have hardly ever seen AI nations going into debt spirals and since 1.30 the Burgundian Inheritance appears to fire 4/5 times (this is all with having about 4000 hours or so in the game). I am quite curious as to why my games seem to be mostly free of common complaints such as these?

I haven't experienced a single debt spiral since 1.30. The worst I've seen in terms of AI debt was well within the amount I had in previous patches.

On the Crimea annexation: I don't see it more often than not, but it's often enough that it's really annoying regardless, especially considering the actual relationship the Ottomans had with them. Just feels like an old event that doesn't account for new mechanics that could serve the same function.

 

[atwix]

agreed. Event should never have been introduced.

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

In 1475, the Ottomans imprisoned Meñli I Giray for three years for resisting the invasion. After returning from captivity in Constantinople, he accepted the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless, Ottoman sultans treated the khans more as allies than subjects.[28] The khans continued to have a foreign policy independent from the Ottomans in the steppes of Little Tartary. The khans continued to mint coins and use their names in Friday prayers, two important signs of sovereignty. They did not pay tribute to the Ottoman Empire; instead the Ottomans paid them in return for their services of providing skilled outriders and frontline cavalry in their campaigns.[29] Later on, Crimea lost power in this relationship as the result of a crisis in 1523, during the reign of Meñli's successor, Mehmed I Giray. He died that year and beginning with his successor, from 1524 on, Crimean khans were appointed by the Sultan.

Are we talking about nomenclature now? That sounds much more like a march in the simplified way how EU4 depicts various degrees of decentralzation/dependency. Only the foreign policy part would sound a bit like tributary, but besides that tributary represents something much looser in EU4. The only point is somehow restricting turning them into a vassal.

Besides that the Ottomans do need some kind of a buff not a nerf, in all games in 1.30 that I played the Ottomans are far too weak and passive. Maybe the problem you experienced is that they seem to focus too much on Europe. They hardly ever go for the Mamluks (and if they try, they often take only few provinces). Maybe its not even a strength thing but simple the AI behaving weird.

Also in what way does the event break the games rules on subjects, what rules are those and in what way are they broken?

On the independent raiding: such a thing does not exist in EU4 in general on land, everything is a full war. It would require introducing something similar to coastal raids or maybe privateering on land.

 

[Meneye]

It would be fine, if still ahistorical, if the event worked as intended. They get a good ruler, and they become a march. But every game I see the AI Ottomans immediately turn them into a regular vassal (maybe because the Crimea don't directly border a rival?). It's just another oversight.

 

[Triplebassist]

The AI has become more eager to turn marches into vassals. Moldova is usually annexed by Poland in 1470, as well

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Are we talking about nomenclature now? That sounds much more like a march in the simplified way how EU4 depicts various degrees of decentralzation/dependency. Only the foreign policy part would sound a bit like tributary, but besides that tributary represents something much looser in EU4. The only point is somehow restricting turning them into a vassal.

Can you find me some evidence the Crimean Khanate was officially a subject of the Ottoman Empire?

https://shc.stanford.edu/events/ott...-khanate-symbiotic-alliance-or-veiled-rivalry

Most places I can find will list them as allies, and the fact that the Crimean Khanate was able to form their own alliances proves they weren't exactly subjects. In game, this would be best represented as a Tributary.

The game does an equally poor job of this in regards to the Mamluks and Cyprus, by the way. Cyprus was never a subject of the Mamluks, it was a tributary state (for a short while) but often immediately gets annexed in game giving the Mamluks an unfair advantage through institution research.

Besides that the Ottomans do need some kind of a buff not a nerf, in all games in 1.30 that I played the Ottomans are far too weak and passive. Maybe the problem you experienced is that they seem to focus too much on Europe. They hardly ever go for the Mamluks (and if they try, they often take only few provinces). Maybe its not even a strength thing but simple the AI behaving weird.

The Ottomans need to stop allying AQ then, because that's what blocks their eastern expansion. AQ are practically untouchable if they secure an Ottoman alliance and for some reason the Ottomans rarely turn hostile. I don't believe the Ottomans have been nerfed, I believe that their insistence on allying AQ blocks what would be a very natural expansion path and would actually make them stronger and richer than expanding into Hungary.