Europa Universalis IV

For something entirely different: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?713856-AI-Cheats-Facts-and-misunderstandings

How AI (and player) cheats, and why.

 

The Jannisaries formed a relatively small part of the Ottoman Army though.

 

Yes and that is why Ottomans has a civil war EVERY TIME A RULER DIED. Extremely stable, I mean their succession right was "each heir gets a province to govern and when the time comes he raises an army and murders his brothers for the throne". Nothing could go bad with that. Not a fragmented realm nuh uh.

Not to mention that you people FORGET that Ottomans got completely obliterated in history a few times. Like what Timur did. They didnt always have a huge army and a huge realm. For most of the time they were the underdogs, being victorious due to superior military tech.

 

No they formed a very large part of the army, only in the later years of the ottoman empire where they outsized by the arab draftings.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary#Corps_strength

Confirmed for not knowing shit.

 

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...re#Ottoman_Army_Strength.2C_1299.E2.80.931826

 

So, 6350 is less than 3700? I am intrigued, tell me more.

 

Are we seriously using Wikipedia for sources?

 

Please rename the thread to "Turks vs Non-turks - Which is better and why?".

 

Or possibly, "Turkish army quantity analysis".

 

Because the only action in 1541 was the siege of Buda. They were clearly a garrisson/occupation force.

Nevermind how there were 80000 Sipahis alone and only 6000 Jannisaries available at any time.

 

Anyways, I'm glad that I on this one.

But to be fair, EU3 only became enjoyable around In Nomine, so I guess I'll wait for expansions and then decide if it's worth the purchase.

 

Indeed. Though EU4 is pretty smooth, at least, like CK2. It's just not as beautifully awesome as CK2.....yet.

 

But at the very least it doesn't just feel like a stripped-down version of all the other Paradox games like its predecessor did.

 

The garrison force in the homelands where the sipahis and the siphais were tribal warriors and not part of the standing army. nor was their allegiance guaranteed.

 

I've been looking for it but couldn't find. Which one is it?

 

Magna Mundi had a dedicated part for knight hospitaliers. It may have come from Dei Gratia but not sure about that.

 

Magna Mundi. But Turks in EU4 are children compared to Turks in MM, which even stronger than France in that game.
There is good LP for Hospitallers in MM on that forum.

That's why, it is better not to ally with weaklings in the Balkan, who chiken to fight against Turks. Mamluks don't have any problems with joining against Turks. And also it best not waiting for attacking instead been attacked. So it be clear, who help you and who don't.

 

Wouldn't delaying victorious armies from pursuing for a certain number of days eliminate the possibility of the ping-pong shit? I don't that's been solved at all.

Granted the battle system is wonky already, but I'm trying to think of historical precedence for an Army immediately reorganizing to pursue and completely destroy a defeated enemy. Usually they were as battered as the other side, with few exceptions. Only a highly organized Army, like that of Rome at its height, could achieve anything close to it.

 

A Text-Only Report Of The Tunisian Cockblock

So I tried Tunis for my second game just for a laugh, with the larp-goal that I would first expand all over the Mediterranean in search of trade, meet Martin Luther and become a devout Protestant Kingdom, and then wage religious war on the Catholics in the name of... Jesus. Problem is that in the 1444 start all seaside regions are pretty well consolidated, either belonging to biggish chunks like Aragon and Napoli or to the HRE.

First step was a speedy invasion of Urbino, the only OPM in the area not to have this protection, and a successful annexation. Core. But -2 stability because I took a stab hit to declare war means increased rebel chances. Queue rebellion while coring, which quickly blooms to a size of 28,000 men - in 1446. The Urbino Nationalists field a larger army than France. They capture Ancona, then go on to besiege Rome for some reason, then Napoli-owned Abruzzi. I sit and wring my hands as Urbino reforms, now as a two-province, automatically beginning wars with Napoli and with myself (separately). As a fully fledged nation, Urbino realises it cannot pay for 28,000 men and promptly disbands everyone except 5,000 - which is just about all I can afford. I promptly land my ships in a set of evenly pitched battles and just win. The result: Urbino rebels have given me Abruzzi as well.

Once again, I try and core, and once again, rebellion while coring. Still on -2 stab. Urbino Nationalist Horde wipes out my army for a second time. I eventually accept demands, which strangely does not reform Urbino, but Abruzzi gets -100% everything Autonomy modifier for 20 years. Seeing its continued ownership as pointless for now I sell it to Napoli for 60 gold and try to core Ancona ASAP, using points for stability and harsh treatment. Ancona is cored. I relax and begin the missionary conversion process - which hikes up rebellion chance by 6%, and soon there is Urbino Horde III that wipes my army. Again. It goes rampant, again, and forms Urbino again, this time including the Papacy-owned Romagna. Urbino disbands the entire horde again, I swoop in again. The result: Urbino rebels have given me Romagna as well.

At this point my army has been wiped 4+ times, I am perpetually in negative stability, I can't afford any Ideas, and I only have trade income from the Tunis node to continue to replenish my army and keep a foothold. Just before Romagna is cored, Urbino Horde IV rises and wipes my army. Again. My ally, the Ottoman Empire, drags me into a war with Venice, which promptly sinks all my ships.

And that's where I'm at.

 

Armies cant move without morale, its in the game. If your morale drops too much armies have to reorganize. Besides ping pong is greatly reduced as battles are more decisive. Its only back in wars with huge nations but then Napoleon did not win a war with Russia after one battle.

 

At least in Polish history rebels DID field much larger army than the Polish state ever did. But your approach seems... flawed. Why not go to war with positive stability and enough points for core plus revolt reduction and stab boost?

 

Well, that's the gist of it. Napoleon changed the way warfare was done in Europe. Multiple day battles expending huge amounts of casualties would became the norm up until WW1. This was not the norm in the EU4 time period, however.

Before then, you essentially had unorganized masses of men commandeered by generals who would be far less aggressive in seeking battle than their 19th century since one blunder could mean total defeat. That was not the case with Napoleonic Armies which could survive the loss of a Corps. Campaign of maneuver rather than hunter-killer.

 

I wanted to hit Urbino before it had time to ally Austria or Venice or anything, and it was clear that they were the only option I would ever have for a foothold (do you see Siena exiting HRE or Napoli splintering?) in the near future. -2 Stab I thought was not a big deal - and it isn't, except for the rebel chance. I did have enough points for coring, stab boost and everything - it's just that I foolishly thought I could just spend on coring and save the rest for Admin 4 & Ideas. It would have been better to throw all my points at assimilation and hold on missionaries, then it could have stabilised.

Mainly, I just got to 1700 with a very conservative and quite boring/safe game as Mainz owning most of Germany, so wanted to take some risks. Also, Ironman mode. May persist with it, or try in a similar vein with a Western OPM.