Europa Universalis IV

Turks are also stupidly strong in early game. Their soldiers are stronger than those of other occidental countries in 1460. I don't know where those swedes get their info, but if they think they had a superior army just because they beat a bunch of tiny kingdoms and one Hungary who was on the brink of complete collapse, then they are retarded.
Turks always relied on number more than anything else, not quality or superior weaponry, this isn't the case in this game.
Also there's the fact that the neighbouring kingdoms whom they conquered where either backward arabs or crumbling empires. 15th century Western powers were already light years ahead in terms of warfare tech and organisation.

 

Only that you are not correct and Turks beat entire coalitions of western powers for the entire XIV/XV/XVI century. That they could field huge army is a sign of their advanced military tech allowing them to do so - they simply didnt have to rely on feudal levies. And a superior artillery corps, not to mention a fearsome fleet. A Janissary was a professional soldier who could easily beat knights of western powers. How can western powers be light years ahead if they cant field as many troops?

 

So you would replace the randomness and RNG of monarch stats with randomness and RNG of advisor stats? Because even now I dont always have lvl 3 advisors ready to be hired even if I can afford their services. Your "solution" is just as random as the current "problem".

Besides the game is perfectly playable at the minimal monarch point gain rate of 4 monthly (0 skill monarch and 1 skill advisor). A new tech costs 150 months of saving points which is acceptable. You fall behind as non western nation but its as it was meant to be with the tech group system in place.

 

They got pretty much humiliated as soon as they met an actual western power (austria), and Autria was busy fighting other stronger powers such as France. Ottoman were mostly seen as a nuisance poking from the east.
Also, even while outnumbering their oponent 3 to 1, they would get defeated or only obtain pyrrhic victories (against minor power like albania, serbia and such), which tells a lot about the quality of their soldiers and tactics.
And it's pretty easy to muster massive, badly equipped armies of levies, except they will suck and won't stand a chance against professional European armies.

Me knight iz stronker than ur janininissasry.

My point still stands about the reliance on number over quality.

 

Looks to me like the sultans were masters of diplomacy and bureaucracy, establishing the first US marine corps in history. Only in the later years of the veining empire, quantitative measures were put in place. Which turned out to be a crucial mistake.

So, no, ur wrong Cursed Platypus. Ur completely and utterly WRONG.

 

Tell me, how do I screencap those wikipedia boxes showing 100 000+ ottoman armies engaging outnumbered European armies? And having a hard time or just outright losing of course. From the 15th to the 19th I can throw as many examples as you may desire.

Questioning western's innovations and superiority in military technology from the renaissance onward is just retarded.

 

Battle of Nicopolis 1396, Ottoman force of around 15k beats crusader armies of around 16k with about 10k French knights and other troops. France not western enough for you?

 

That's about it. The failed nicopolis crusade at the end of the 14th century, which was more a completely unbalanced force (by western standards) of young overenthusiastic knights blindly charging into the enemy lines, in a similar fashion to the battles of Agincour, Crecy or other Battles in the 100 year war.

 

Your prime example of Ottoman defeat at western hands seems to be the end of their westward expansion at the gates of Vienna. So basically you are saying because they lost to a coalition of some of Europe's great powers, outside the capitol of one of the largest and most prestigious cities in the world, after 100s of miles of conquest and attrition(And largely because the sultan was killed) that they were a farce, nothing, pathetic? All their other victories don't count up to that point, nor does their military system?

Sounds kinda like they pulled a Napoleon meets Russia, but I guess Napoleon and Le Grande Armee was pathetic too.

Also your constant nagging on the overwhelming "size" of the Ottoman army is called bias. The west does that all the time in history to make themselves look better(wouldn't you after a century of defeat?).

 

Oh so, a historian directly negating the main point of your argument is "irrelevant bullshit". Well then.

And why? Europe was a a goddamn third world shitpool during the renaissance. Only *after* the renaissance europe started to explode.

 

I'm going to spend some time working on my ideas this weekend. I'll see what shit I fuck up.

 

Not it's not. Unless the current modern academical historians are biased, but in that case, there would be no point arguing over this, if you can't fucking trust anyone.

Vienna was hardly a coalition. The Holy Roman empire, definitively not at it's fullest (because doing so would expose him to the Kingdom of france, who was in a coalition with the ottoman), with some Polish help (a strong kingdom, but hardly the major power). Ottomans went all out and were crushed.
There's plenty of examples of Ottomans being crushed by someone not in a coalition. Also, it took a century for them to reach vienna because they would often get close to being defeated against the small prick I've mentionned previously.

 

Sorry, in case it wasn't obvious we'd be moving to a system of being able to hire what you want, because everyone can see EU4's advisor system is a pile of crap. No idea why they scrapped the perfectly good and usable advisor system in EU3.

Civilization is perfectly playable with one city only. Doesn't mean I want the choice of whether I can play normally or am forced to play a 1 city game decided by an RNG.

 

Irrelevant was the word. Your point didn't prove anything.

By those standards the whole world was a third world shitpool. 15th century Western canons, armor swords, guns, spears, logistics whatever were unmatched. They were at the forefront.

 

No they weren't. Before 1700 the world was pretty even. The european nations exploded in the 19th century.

 

Tthe Ottomans were the first country in Europe to establish a standing professional army and start the move away from feudalism. That's the main reason they were so successful for a time. It wasn't until western Europe began using more standing armies that they began matching the Ottomans.

The structure and organization of a military(as well as that of the society that supports that military) has a lot more to do with a military's success than the weapons and equipment an army uses.

Look at how Napolean became so dominant for a good example. It was because he was able to impliment a radical new way of structuring and organizing the French military so that it was able to take advantage of the large numbers of soldiers provided by universal conscription. And again, once other countries adopted his methods he became much less dominant.

 

1700 is a huge stretch. Ottoman's "tech" (both civil and military) was keeping up with european to about 1550. Then they basically stopped innovating while Europe went quickly ahead and by 1600 they were so far behind that it's actually quite sad. After the battle of Khotyn in 1621 Turkish sultan tried to reform but his army rebelled and he was assassinated. After that all went to shit.

 

Your post are very funny, considered the fact, that significant part of previous page was about rebels being gimped.
And nationalism EU4 became almost non issue with current claims system. With possible exception of Timurids, as I hear.
And you can repress them by spending the military power or boosting stability. Also it is very possible, that after the war you had hight WE.

And you really make youself look like retard by underestimating Ottomans strength and their threat to Europe. Well, making youself look like retard is consistent with your previous posts in that thread, but it is not something, that needed been continued.
Although it is fair point, that resistance of some Balkans countries like Albania towards Ottomans can't been modeled in that game. And Hospitallers are also very bland, but mods or DLC can fix that.

 

It's not. When playing as hospitalier, increasing your stability from 0 to 3 costs around 600 administration points, because you own Muslim and christians provinces (massive stability cost) and you can't convert the muslim ones yet.
Also, even if you reach 3 stability, the number of events decreasing stability is astounding, in less than 3 years I got 4 in a row.

Repressing revolts only decrease by 5%, and the risks are always 15%+ (usually 22%). You can't really take your time, because if you don't get powerful fast you'll eventually get eaten by some power nearby, and the coalition thing doesn't work well. I had to cheat my way to allow Hungary, Wallachia, Moldavia, Serbia, Poland, Lithuanian Aq-something and mameluk to declare war on the ottomans, because else they would just allow themselves to be individually eaten by this behemoth over the course of 30 years.

And even with all these guys at war, we almost lost, because the AIs can't fight together properly. The Ottoman 20 doomstack was just swallowing them one by one.

The way rebel stacks appear doesn't make sense, both gameplay/balance wise and historically speaking. A fucking army of 20 fully equipped soldiers, the equivalent of the whole ottoman force, appearing in the small shithole that is adana doesn't make sense.

Also, I'm not making myself look like an idiot, I'm arguing against dumbfucks who think the world was technologically even in the 18th century.

 

What was your WE? Hay you claim on that provinces? It could explain why it was such problem. Also I don't think it is wise to conquer muslims provinces until reformation and Adm tech 9, which allow to convert them. As alternative, I think it would be much better choice to realise some turkish minor as vassal and transfer to him all conquered lands. Also Aq Qoyunlu and Mamluks are much more useful as allies against Turks, than European countries, even if it is strange for Christian Orden to ally with them.
But overall Hospitallers in vanilla EU is not good country to play. One of the EU3 mods made them interesting and give them means to fight against Ottomans. I hope, that it would been transferred to EU4.

 

I am not going to argue the exact year, 17th or 18th century still take place 200-300 years later than platypus arguments. The great divergence also wasn't uniform, some nations fell behind earlier but by the 18th century europe was pretty much exponentially running away from the rest of the world. Indeed, it was the industrialization, steamboats and railways finally sealed the deal of european dominance.

This is also why I think the technology levels in the EU series are idiotic. The concept would make much more sense in the Victoria II game. Europas ascendancy certainly has factors going all the way back into the 15th century, but these factors could've realistically happened most anywhere else. For example, China was ahead in agricultural efficiency for much of the game's time span, indeed most european nations suffered severe food shortages in the 18th and 19th century, because the mouths simply could not been fed. China was resource rich and their exports where in high demand. The population density of china exceeded those of western nations in the late 18th century. China's administration failed so hard consecutively for 200 years, and by hard I mean really hard, to bring China to the economical and social collapse it faced in the early 20th century. But in EUIV a strong china can't happen. Because chinese are bad at teching.

 

the main issue is that alliances barely work. As a 5 province nation, no one's ever going to come to your rescue. I have excellent relations with several big neighbours, they are all allied, they are also rivals with the mamelukes, and have been at war with them several times. Yet they won't enter a war, they'll never come to my help (they aren't in a truce). I have to ask one of my friend to play as the byzantines just to stand a chance.

 

Their main advantage wasn't in their army but in the fact that Europe was too fragmented to actually muster up a sufficient force to push them out. That and the Jannisaries. It's no wonder that whenever the Sultan's household troops were not in the field the Ottoman army was usually easily routed. Sipahis became useful only for raiding as they moved further and further away from their late middle age style and mentality of training and fighting (inherited from the byzantines and the mass influx of former byzantine nobles/knights into the empire) and their once capable mercenary infantry became scarcer and scarcer until irregular Azabs recruited from mountainous Anatolia provided the bulk of the force and were unused to fighting on European terrain as well as in winter.

Even their artillery lagged behind severely. They were still using monster guns when every nation in Europe had a dedicated arsenal of field guns.

 

Yes, b/c if the Jannissaris aren't there, there is noone to fight. Durr. The drafting of arabs to the jannissary ranks only happened much later in the 18th century.