The Ottoman-Crimea event has to go

[TheMeInTeam]

Magical bypass of game rules is not okay. The game's rules model causation, and history did not violate causal chains to make things happen.

If Crimea's weak enough to be 100% or less AND the Ottomans put troops there to attack them as part of a mission, fine. The event as it exists now is an internal inconsistency that intentionally breaks otherwise established game rules. If you're not okay with Iran flipping to Aq Qoyunlu by event randomly for example, it's incoherent to prefer the Crimean event in its present form.

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

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.


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.

What I quoted from Wikipedia already showed that it was a relation of subordination not of even formal equality as an alliance would imply. And even better the link you yourself posted starts with the following sentence: "In 1475, it entered into an alliance with the Ottoman Empire which gradually evolved into a vassalage."

The game dramatically simplifies the relationships between overlord & subjects, as well as decentralization. It would not be possible to have 50 different types of subjects with some being a tiny bit looser then others and them gradually moving from looser to deeper. I mean its not like they spent diplo points in real life for a few years but the vassal still had all autonomy, and then from one day to the other the flipped being fully centralized.

This simplification in the game also focuses on de-facto relationships not de-jure ("official"). If we talk de-jure the Shadow Kingdom event should not happen, the Italian states were formally part of the HRE until its dissolution in 1806. The Habsburgs intervened in Italy in their authority as emperor even in the 18th century. The event still makes sense as the influence was much lower than north of the Alps.
Spain can be formed at a time where it was still a very decentralized monarchy with separate laws, institutions, citizenship for the Crowns of Castille, Navarra and Aragon (and even within these) who shared not much more than the same monarch. That only really changed after the Spanish War of Succession.
The Russian principalities were also still tributaries of the Golden Horde.
Ajam was formally a subject of the Timurids, the ingame description says so, but speaks of something like de-facto independence.
The English kings were the official overlords of Ireland.
The list could probably be endless.

Magical bypass of the game rules? Well hello Poland-Lithuania, Iberian Union, Burgundian Inheritance, Roman's Invasion, Hungary PU, ... There are so many events in the game that create subjects and most of them are far stronger than Crimea, why is this one against the game rules?

What I can agree that a greater incentive should be given to keep a March, it also seems that the AI used to be more ready to do so. It would also be interesting to add a hard lock (e.g. 10 years) to flipping back to vassal. Otherwise one could consider the chance for the weaker option (Subjugation Casus Belli) could be increased, but isn't it 50 : 50 anyways.
I would also like that the AI (and even better the missions) of the Ottomans get reworked to be more agressive, they should aim to conquer their historic borders, not be content with some balkan minors. That might even make them less annoying to defeat for the player: they might actually not always have endless manpower when they are at constant war.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Magical bypass of the game rules? Well hello Poland-Lithuania, Iberian Union, Burgundian Inheritance, Roman's Invasion, Hungary PU, ...

Only some of these break the internal rules of EU4. PLC, Hungary PU and Moldova arose from situations that happened before the start of the game, and thus should be modeled.

Otherwise, remove the Death of Shah Rukh.

There are so many events in the game that create subjects and most of them are far stronger than Crimea, why is this one against the game rules?

None of these events are as potent as the Crimean Khanate when it comes how they affect large-scale game balance. Sure, Austria getting the BI and Hungary early destroys France, but their reach usually doesn't extend much further than that. The Iberian Wedding is pretty much the expected outcome, and actually doesn't hurt Castile (if it still prevails) too bad beyond their European position. Considering how prone an AI PLC is to just collapsing under its own weight (it's either eastern hegemon or dead by 1600 with these guys), the Union between Poland and Lithuania also isn't a problem, and even then will not have much influence past say Anatolia.

The Ottomans affect every country between Portugal and Korea, Sweden and Kilwa. Russia is less impactful, but still factors into the plans of everyone north of India. Any event that significantly messes with the balance of power without these two countries has massive implications for most of the Old World. I've long reached the point were I simply restart if the Ottomans get Crimea, unless I play in Japan, Malaya or the Americas.

 

[-DI- RivalET]

Only some of these break the internal rules of EU4. PLC, Hungary PU and Moldova arose from situations that happened before the start of the game, and thus should be modeled.

Otherwise, remove the Death of Shah Rukh.



None of these events are as potent as the Crimean Khanate when it comes how they affect large-scale game balance. Sure, Austria getting the BI and Hungary early destroys France, but their reach usually doesn't extend much further than that. The Iberian Wedding is pretty much the expected outcome, and actually doesn't hurt Castile (if it still prevails) too bad beyond their European position. Considering how prone an AI PLC is to just collapsing under its own weight (it's either eastern hegemon or dead by 1600 with these guys), the Union between Poland and Lithuania also isn't a problem, and even then will not have much influence past say Anatolia.

The Ottomans affect every country between Portugal and Korea, Sweden and Kilwa. Russia is less impactful, but still factors into the plans of everyone north of India. Any event that significantly messes with the balance of power without these two countries has massive implications for most of the Old World. I've long reached the point were I simply restart if the Ottomans get Crimea, unless I play in Japan, Malaya or the Americas.

why lol ottomans tend to be the one endboss in the game, and even then i've rarely seen the AI match let alone exceed it's historical borders. Ottomans coming out on top in Ruthenia in the historical three way between it PLC n Russia, instead of Russia doesn't seem like the end of the world.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

why lol ottomans tend to be the one endboss in the game, and even then i've rarely seen the AI match let alone exceed it's historical borders. Ottomans coming out on top in Ruthenia in the historical three way between it PLC n Russia, instead of Russia doesn't seem like the end of the world.

Because it doesn't just mess with one world power, it messes with two.

PLC pose a threat to Austria and the Ottomans, Russia poses a threat to a lot of people.

I'm not saying they should never be wrecked but if this Crimea event fires it happens with a much higher frequency than what should be normal.

Again, I'm hearing complaints about the Ottomans not being strong enough but the problem is them allying AQ, not that they're nerfed in any other way. They are far too prone in 1.30 to focusing on Europe and the fact is, Hungary + Lithuania isn't particularly prime land in-game.

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

I disagree, all of these events (except Romans Invasion) are far more potent than the Crimean succesion, which is just an icing of the cake to the Ottomans, they don't need them. They are strong enough without the Crimea, they could just conquer them in 2 wars and be done with it. That global impact is there with or without that event, unlike the others mentioned, where the nations depend on these events (except Roman's invasion). What is Austria without its PUs and how shall Castile rival France and dominate Italy as they are supposed to.

Again you speak of breaking internal rules, what are those internal rules that you claim exist?

And for the Ottoman having such an impact, they are supposed to be that, in the first half of the EU$ timeframe they were by far the most powerful country. And actually they don't even live up to that, because currently they barely expand into the Middle East. Which might have the weird consequence of making them more of an obstacle as the player cannot abuse a temporary weakness or have them refuse a CotA. The Crimean event might enforce that focus on the north, but the problem is not the event but where the Ottoman AI decides to expand. Even if they eat AQ they don't really go further east/south in my games at least.

 

[PrussicAcid]

A lot of events are good as they are, and needed in an historic point of view. But this one put a finger in the gearing for the worst.

Ottomans looks north to the point to ignore Mamluks, Tunis, Caucasus and so on. At the end of the day, Mamluks will eventually colonise Australia, Tunis will finish the iberian job of killing Morocco, Persia and Arabia will stay in a HRE mood, and partition of Poland will occure but between the Ottomans, Bohemia and Scandinavia/Russia.

For better outcomes, this event needs to go, or at least be tweaked. Same goes for BI as an Imperial Incident. We also need something related to Silesia, because it is, like Crimea for the Ottomans, the gateway of Bohemia to take over Poland.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

I disagree, all of these events (except Romans Invasion) are far more potent than the Crimean succesion, which is just an icing of the cake to the Ottomans, they don't need them. They are strong enough without the Crimea, they could just conquer them in 2 wars and be done with it. That global impact is there with or without that event, unlike the others mentioned, where the nations depend on these events (except Roman's invasion). What is Austria without its PUs and how shall Castile rival France and dominate Italy as they are supposed to.

It changes their expansion path greatly.

The AI looks at numbers and attacks who it thinks is weakest.

Ottomans basically get cores on Lithuania via Crimea. Poland-Lithuania and especially an independent Lithuania are weaker than the Mamluks and Austria at that stage of the game so they'll focus on them.

Again you speak of breaking internal rules, what are those internal rules that you claim exist?

That historical events in the game happen with some level of historical relevance and accuracy. This event is not historically accurate, because as I said, the Ottomans never annexed Crimea in 1480.

On the other hand, the Burgundian succession crisis did happen, the Iberian wedding did happen, the English royal family did claim the French throne.

And for the Ottoman having such an impact, they are supposed to be that, in the first half of the EU$ timeframe they were by far the most powerful country.

People repeat this a million times when I talk about the Ottomans like I've never read a history book. I know. And they still have a higher chance of reaching their historical peak than France or GB does in 1.30 (even taking Britain's 1821 borders).

And actually they don't even live up to that, because currently they barely expand into the Middle East. Which might have the weird consequence of making them more of an obstacle as the player cannot abuse a temporary weakness or have them refuse a CotA. The Crimean event might enforce that focus on the north, but the problem is not the event but where the Ottoman AI decides to expand. Even if they eat AQ they don't really go further east/south in my games at least.

I've seen them eat the Levant enough. They don't get claims on Persia so I don't know why they'd go further.

 

[filcat]

The author has to admit before commenting, that the crimean event was never seen as a balance-breaking event in any run of personal experience. After reading the posts, now starting to question, though still not able to definitely decide if that is the case.

However,

Ottomans looks north to the point to ignore Mamluks, Tunis, Caucasus and so on. At the end of the day, Mamluks will eventually colonise Australia, Tunis will finish the iberian job of killing Morocco, Persia and Arabia will stay in a HRE mood, and partition of Poland will occure but between the Ottomans, Bohemia and Scandinavia/Russia.

Agreed, these are valid observations, and can confirm them.

It is still not convincing to see the crimean event as the only cause of otto-bloating-aggression; the ottos at the hands of the code makes so many obvious mistakes and delirious moves that it is not possible to differentiate the root cause of the madness.

The ottos at the hands of the code (beside the usual economic collapse):

• Makes too many unnecessary alliances
• Keeps incredible guarantees of tags if the player is in the vicinity
• Forever keeps ragusa under guarantee, if ragusa is not pulled into ally-war
• Goes full-blown idiot by taking explo-exp if the player is in americas
• Overkills by taking quantitiy-admin (250k by 1580s)
• (if) invades mamluks, it invades all the way down to mogadishu
• (if) invades caucasus, it invades all the way up to urals

These are the moronic mistakes of the code-ottos. It fills up its diploo-slots with irrelevant allies, it makes utterly unnecessary conquests, it takes absolute needless ideas. A player-ottos:

• Never needs an alliance, never guarantees, only vassalises (muslim -to invite different scholars)
• Never takes explo-exp; laughs at quantity, or admin
• Never needs to go beyond slovakia, beyond dnepr, or upper nile

Obviously the code is not as capable as a human-player; instead the code-ottos, armed with an alliance ring of AQ (if QQ survives, then replaces it after one or two wars), tunisia (almost dead), sindh (?), ternate (dying here), and Ulm (that council of trent hits really hard); guaranteeing 2 province left hungary in spite to PLC, 2 islands left venice in spite to austria; loaded with quantitiy, admin, exploration (sigh); recently dow'ing funj after conquering zanzibar; swimming in 10k debt; decides to proclaim defender of faith, possibly for great horde against russia; etc.

...then revokes the march status of 3 province left crimea into vassal, to annex (the code never keeps a vassal). Hello code, old friend, what is the grand plan here, care to elaborate?, is the question that comes to mind at that moment.

After annexation, yeah, it pours all the 500k janissaries into ruthenia: the most needless conquest for ottos, as no trade value, no trade steering to konstantiniye, another 20 provinces with 5-dev, etc.

...and, it is still not definite to pin-point the crimean event as the only cause of this... mess. The code-ottos still finds a way to dow theodoro or genoa, and embarks on the peninsula, if that event does not grant a vassal crimea.

 

[jdavis86]

It sounds like there are two different cases to be made here. The first being that the event is inconsistent for EU4, and the second that the event unfairly buffs Ottomans.

The first is more compelling to me than the second. The area is low dev and balkanized, which makes it good for player expansion. For the same reasons, it is good for AI ottoman expansion and I would guess they'll do so even absent the event.

Really this boils down to an inconvenience for the player when they're trying to expand in the area. You'll probably have to deal with a defender of the faith, anyway.

 

[klingonadmiral]

why lol ottomans tend to be the one endboss in the game, and even then i've rarely seen the AI match let alone exceed it's historical borders. Ottomans coming out on top in Ruthenia in the historical three way between it PLC n Russia, instead of Russia doesn't seem like the end of the world.

Ultra-Turks. But not even the scariest Ottomans I've ever seen.

Ottomans aren't even that strong, but look what major power isn't happening.

Crimea is a Turkish vassal. And that's with me (Austria) forming a strong blocker against Ottoman expansion in Pannonia, heavens know what they would've pulled off without me.

We both know that the Ottomans don't just "come out on top in Ruthenia". hey see that they have 1200 dev and Russia only has 600 dev, and five years later that have 1400 dev and Russia has 400. Then they look at 800 dev PLC and reduce them to 600 dev. Then the 1600 dev Ottomans laugh at Austria bringing in Spain. An just like that youve got an Ottomans that stretches from the Adriatic to the Urals.

I've seen Ottoman Danzig. I've seen Ottoman Krakow, more than once actually. I've seen Ottoman Prague. I've seen Ottoman Milan (though that was on me, partially).

You know what all these campaigns had in common? Crimea became an Ottoman march.

The Ottomans are also one of the three countries (the other being a decent Russia and non-collapsing Ming) that can't simply be eaten lategame. Even a very healthy France that has extended to the Rhine and into Italy can easily be removed in 3, maybe 4 wars. The Ottomans regularily end up at like 1400% warscore. It's not hard to beat them, simply tedious to the extreme.

...and, it is still not definite to pin-point the crimean event as the only cause of this... mess. The code-ottos still finds a way to dow theodoro or genoa, and embarks on the peninsula, if that event does not grant a vassal crimea.

And then halt their expansion there because they get no claims further inland and are usually friendly if not outright allied towards Crimea. Once they annex Crimea they border the generally hostile Great Horde and the usually outright hostile Russians, which makes the Ottomans bring down the hurt.

why lol ottomans tend to be the one endboss in the game,

With their wet paper-quality military the Ottomans make for a horrible endboss. Final bosses are supposed to be hard, not tedious.

Just ONCE let me fight some big blobby Poland or Germany/HRE or unified India or Qing or Yuan as a proper endboss.

 

[Rawme]

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.

I agree. Paradox needs to rework that area anyway, and give that region more content rather than it just being land for the Ottomans to take. Middle East & Persia, along with the Ruthenia area.

 

[jdavis86]

Cmon folks we're talking about sunni land within a couple (and eventually the same) seazone(s) of the Ottomans. Chances are high they'll eat it or protect it without player intervention, regardless of the event.

 

[IndigoRage]

That global impact is there with or without that event,

They don't get cores on Lithuania without the event and the AI doesn't focus on attacking the soft under-belly of the Great Horde and Lithuania without the event. If they take it they essentially game ruin PLC or Russia. And while it's realistic for these powers to fight, Ottomans will win if they come into contact this early and it's essentially game-ruining for the region.

And for the Ottoman having such an impact, they are supposed to be that, in the first half of the EU$ timeframe they were by far the most powerful country.

Yes. Everyone knows they were powerful. They shouldn't need to ahistorically annex free land that gives them open access to the poorest countries in Europe that they're guaranteed to beat early game to accomplish that. They should expand eastward and southward.

Chances are high they'll eat it or protect it without player intervention, regardless of the event.

Protecting the region is a lot different than annexing it via event which encourages them to blob into Ruthenia. If any of you have played CK2, you know what the Byzantines always want to do when they're stable? Blob up the urals. It's that again.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

They don't get cores on Lithuania without the event and the AI doesn't focus on attacking the soft under-belly of the Great Horde and Lithuania without the event. If they take it they essentially game ruin PLC or Russia. And while it's realistic for these powers to fight, Ottomans will win if they come into contact this early and it's essentially game-ruining for the region.ain.

This is a really important point.

Poland-Lithuania (even more so with no Union) and Muscovy/Russia are not particularly powerful early game. Them coming into contact with the Ottomans in the early game is basically death for them. It's not a fair fight.

So you're basically severely handicapping or totally removing two great powers from the game because of this ahistorical event.

It seems to me a total no brainer that it should go (the Cyprus-Mamluk event is also really stupid Cyprus should end up Venetian or Genoan before Ottoman annexation).

 

[Battlex]

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

Wallachia, moldavia, and transylvania stuck around for ages as well irl but I don't see your thread complaining about them. Just admit that eu4 is a game where we get an approximation of history. Integrating crimes makes Ottos try to go for their historic border in moldavia and the west dniper, its not the worst thing
History this history that means Poland and Lithuania should break up several times before being bound for good, like Thrace in Imperator having a mission tree devoted to stopping its feudatories rebelling

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.


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.

Cyprus was never a subject, and the event that does so is extremely rare, but the guarantee at game start helps keep them alive rather than annexed soon after Venice being screwed over
Historic rivalry between Ottos and AQ would help their expansion but then AQ players would complain about increased difficulty. Perhaps there could be a rise of the Turkmens event that breaks the allaince with Ottos and makes them push east into Persia

 

[Battlex]

They don't get cores on Lithuania without the event and the AI doesn't focus on attacking the soft under-belly of the Great Horde and Lithuania without the event. If they take it they essentially game ruin PLC or Russia. And while it's realistic for these powers to fight, Ottomans will win if they come into contact this early and it's essentially game-ruining for the region.

Yes. Everyone knows they were powerful. They shouldn't need to ahistorically annex free land that gives them open access to the poorest countries in Europe that they're guaranteed to beat early game to accomplish that. They should expand eastward and southward.

Protecting the region is a lot different than annexing it via event which encourages them to blob into Ruthenia. If any of you have played CK2, you know what the Byzantines always want to do when they're stable? Blob up the urals. It's that again.

Ottos going for great horde (which really should get events to break up into astrakhan and other) is fine as they did historically, and then Muscovy defeated their expedition which turned back. If the AI could be in multi front wars then you could have a medium sized force go toe to toe and if turned back signed a quick peace, rather than atm where you get at most 2 wars at a time with each tag

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Wallachia, moldavia, and transylvania stuck around for ages as well irl but I don't see your thread complaining about them. Just admit that eu4 is a game where we get an approximation of history. Integrating crimes makes Ottos try to go for their historic border in moldavia and the west dniper, its not the worst thing

I don't know what you're talking about.

Wallachia has no vassal/march event, Translyvania has no vassal/march event, Moldavia doesn't interfere with the formation of 2 great powers.

Cyprus was never a subject, and the event that does so is extremely rare, but the guarantee at game start helps keep them alive rather than annexed soon after Venice being screwed over

It's not rare at all.

If Charlotte takes the throne, Mamluks get an event for a free vassalisation of Cyprus.

Check: https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Mamluk_events#The_King_of_Cyprus

 

[abedfo]

This event also makes playing smaller nations in the Caucasus almost impossible. Have a go at Circassia when the Ottomans surround you.

 

[Battlex]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Wallachia has no vassal/march event, Translyvania has no vassal/march event, Moldavia doesn't interfere with the formation of 2 great powers.


It's not rare at all.

If Charlotte takes the throne, Mamluks get an event for a free vassalisation of Cyprus.

Check: https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Mamluk_events#The_King_of_Cyprus

Exactly wallachia gets no events, translvynia can spawn if central Hungary is eaten, moldavia is made a march of Hungary or Poland when Ottos did roll up and take it without that much fuss
Look at the code in the game files, the AI weighting is actually quite low. Have you seen the Venice gets Alexandria for free off Ottos event? It's truly amazing