Europa Universalis IV

[Cursed Platypus]

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

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.

 

[KoolNoodles]

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?).

 

[Kane]

irrelevant bullshit]

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

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

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

 

[Sranchammer]

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

 

[Cursed Platypus]

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?).

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.

 

[Average Manatee]

Ideas are good. Tech is dumbed down with only 3 lines though.

If I were to completely overhaul EU4's monarch and tech system, I'd do this:

Monarch stats go from 0-3.
Advisor stats go from 1-5. This is to represent that an advisor with 100% dedication to a field can attain a much higher proficiency than a monarch.
Advisor's cost scales linearly with power. As it is now, having 1/1/1 advisors cost like 1/10th that of a single level 3 advisor, which basically eliminates being able to prioritize one tech field over another. By leveling out the cost curve, players can dedicate all of their income to a level 5 advisor, or to 2/2/1 advisors, etc.
Advisor costs go up with time and with empire size (similar to how tech cost increased in EU3 with empire size). If you have a fuckhueg empire you'll need a bigger advisor team that requires more money to operate.

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.

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.

 

[Cursed Platypus]

irrelevant bullshit]

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

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

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

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.

 

[Kane]

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.

 

[trais]

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.

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.

 

[Grinolf]

Even if I manage to deal with them, more will just pop up, like some kind of fully prepared 100 000 men army was hiding in the montains all this time. There's no way to repress the revolts, they get magical weapons and magical professional soldiers. I will have to deal with at least 3 waves before the nationalisation is over. Ottoman might even get 3 free provinces back if you succeed.

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.

 

[Cursed Platypus]

Even if I manage to deal with them, more will just pop up, like some kind of fully prepared 100 000 men army was hiding in the montains all this time. There's no way to repress the revolts, they get magical weapons and magical professional soldiers. I will have to deal with at least 3 waves before the nationalisation is over. Ottoman might even get 3 free provinces back if you succeed.

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.

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.

 

[Grinolf]

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.

 

[Kane]

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.

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.

 

[Cursed Platypus]

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.

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.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

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.

 

[Kane]

It's no wonder that whenever the Sultan's household troops were not in the field the Ottoman army was usually easily routed.

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.

 

[Krash]

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

How AI (and player) cheats, and why.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

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

 

[Malakal]

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 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.

 

[Kane]

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

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.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

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

Confirmed for not knowing shit.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

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

 

[Kane]

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

Confirmed for not knowing shit.

A roll call held in Hungary in 1541, reflecting the actual deployed strength of the Ottoman regular army forces participating in campaign, registered 15,612 men as present. Of these approximately 6,350 were Janissaries, 3,700 were Sipahis and another 1,650 were members of the Artillery corps.

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

 

[Sranchammer]

Are we seriously using Wikipedia for sources?

 

[RedScum]

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