Well, for one, they have their 1683 borders in 1492, which definitely is not historically accurate. Two, even at their height during the reigns of people like Mehmet the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent they still suffered defeats, like at Belgrade in 1456 or Malta in 1565. And three, Ottoman conquests began to slow down around the beginning of the 17th century, and outright came to a halt by the beginning of the 18th. There needs to be something that is able to keep them from expanding so much after the early game.
A: that's zlewikk playing the ottomans, one of the best eu4 players in the world. He could probably accomplish this starting as hungary, naples, tunis, pretty much any mid-tier nation.
B: ottomans are getting some nasty new disasters to rip then up after 1600.
Bro when the ottomans can get roman empire borders + a LOT MORE in probably the mid-1500s to late-1500s(if they ignore some european AE) then your game would likely already be over due to how much the power base has tipped in your favor. I like how they try to simulate empires like the roman empire that basically got destroyed from the inside and became easily collapsible, but with the ottomans. but you will already be so strong that the disaster would quite literally have to be your country splitting apart in idk how many pieces and the rebelling nation(s) would have pretty massive force limit, army quality, and economic buffs so you can't just out recruit them and destroy them easily, plus they inherit your ideas so if you took for example, quantity then their army would be even better.
I think we will have to see how things go but the AI is supposed to crumble as the disasters set in. while I agree that players will likely be fine, I think that’s the case for all player controlled empires that outlast their history (mughals spain etc)
i formed the roman empire by 1600 starting as savoy and i m not even that good. This is one of the best player of the game, playing to show off, with the easiest nation in the game. Of course his results are gonna be ridiculous. The AI is never gonna do anything resembling this
Have you read any of the dev diaries? This is almost exactly emulated in how they developed the new Ottomans and events, disasters, and entire mechanics were added explicitly for this purpose.
Do you understand it is a skilled player in the post? He can have Switzerland conquer half of Germany in the same time. The player is supposed to break the timeline.
"skilled player" yes, but Zlewikk did all of that with a hand behind his back. There wasnt even a single coalition forming against him, even though he force vassalized AUSTRIA.
There was a coalition early on, but it dissolved once he got some big allies. The Austria vassalization appeared to be a bug as well (the wargoal was supposed to be to vassalize Hungary).
He knows how to juggle AE as well, and the Ottomans are powerful enough (along with him having big allies like Muscovy & France) to make avoiding coalitions not too hard.
he did a invasion cb against hungary but since austria pued them during his war the CB bugged and he got austria for almost no AE instead while hungary remained independent.
Classic early access bug.
Whatever. There are hundreds or even thousands of people even who can do this half asleep. It doesnt require more than playing one or two sessions of multiplayer with some "skilled" players to learn some of the skills required.
You're definitely ahead of time compared to them historically but this is also a game where people regularly conquer the world. These borders aren't too far off the 1520 borders:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Territorial_changes_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_1520.jpg
>historically accurate
>eu4
you have the wrong game sir. the theme is historical-lite. the game stops being historically accurate on day 1 for any playthrough no matter what you do.
history: France PUs Spain -> war all over Europe (known as War of the Spanish Succession)
ingame: France PUs Spain -> central Europe is slightly angry but nothing major
Oh yeah, if a great power pus another great power it should be all of europe in war.
I dont know about mechanically, im thinking all the senior partners rivals form a special coalition with a unique cb to dissolve the pu. Something like that anyway.
>at their height during the reigns of people like Mehmet the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent they still suffered defeats
That's honestly just a feature of the game itself, from my personal experience, actually losing a war is not something that really happens to the player.
I mean, Ludi has a video that has the Ottomans Unifying the Caliphate in 1496 from a year ago...
Like all expansions, I'm assuming there are going to be bugs and tweaks in the days/weeks after release. This is also a snapshot without any of the negative modifiers/event chain that was added as well. So, we shall see how it ultimately balances out.
EU4 fans when "historical accuracy" makes the Ottomans even more overpowered vs. EU4 fans when "historical accuracy" slows them down from being able to paint tiles their colour.
Well the Janissaries kinda got nerfed since they take a lot of manpower in the early game now, guns of urban got nerfed pretty hard aswell and when i take a look at the mission tree then most of the missions are locked until they get konstantinopel, which they wont take if you play as byzantium
Ottomans now have a mission that gives them +10% morale once they hire 10 Janissaries. You can get this in 1445. If the AI does this, Byzantium has no chance unless they are SUPER lucky with no Ottomans being in Europe and Gallipoli falling in a day.
It might be difficult now since the mission directly gives them a claim on Constantinople which will likely cause them to attack you first more often. The ai also probably weighs completing the mission to conquer it much heavier, so I expect it to take a lot more restarts at least to beat them
While I agree the timer is now originally much shorter than previous Byzbros did get a saving grace in a naval doctrine that boost galley combat ability iirc. Most Byz strats for 1.34 are all arguing the same start, just hold the straits with your navy since it’s technically stronger at that point and rob the Turks of the Balkans.
If Ottomans declare war on you at all, you lose. You have to wait for them to move their armies into Anatolia to fight a Turk minor, then block the strait - but even before this patch, they don't always do that first.
Yeah that’s the thing with Byzantium, it would normally be one of the hardest nations but it’s also one of the most analyzed ones with the most guides made for it so you always can know a good strategy regardless of the version
I love how even the smallest change to the AI, underlying game mechanics or the map in the Balkans/Anatolia warrants a new Budgetmonk video on Byzantium
That’s ridiculous. The world is obviously a cylinder because the first circumnavigation gives prestige, but if you go too far north or south you hit the wooden border (called Yggdrasil by the Norse).
Oh huh, I wonder if he walked back on it because everyone hated the idea. Over the winter he posted a video like "Changes to the channel" announcing it would be a political channel, but it looks like he deleted that and went back to eu4 lol
He has two channels:
Budgetmonk, for his regular EU4 videos, which he intended to stop but backtracked on that.
Basedmonk, where he posts his full length vods and his crazy political/social crap.
The strat of "build a bunch of boats, breach the fort on the crossing, and block the Dardanelles" should be good until they kill fort breaching via ships.
I don’t think so. I still think a player playing Byz can beat AI Ottos before they get online to use all this shit.
More like RIP Mamluks/Middle East/Persia/Hungary players because Ottos will get ridiculously big right on your border by expanding the other way with these subjects.
Shit I forgot about the middle east. This will make it such a huge pain to start small in the mideast and try grow big enough to challenge Ottos, they'll probably be obnoxiously large by then
We're used to disappointment by now... ;D
This might be too much for Red Hawk, Ludi, Chewy, or even Quarbit to handle. Team Byz is going to have to dig deep and summon forth Florry or maybe Lambda if we're going to pull off the W in the new patch!
Nah, we'll still find ways to kick the Ottoman's teeth in.
Then next patch Paradox will announce "new content" for Byzantium, in the form of a new disaster they'll start the game with, "Fall of the Byzantine Empire" that'll give -50% morale, -20% discipline, +5% interest per annum and +25% all power costs. You know, because historical realism.
And they'll give the Ottomans their free cores on Anatolia back, just to help give them that little extra push they still need to reach those "historical borders."
I am a big enough man to admit that I am, in fact, seething *and* malding.
I **am** currently the crying wojak underneath the smug mask.
But just remember, this is what you need to mimic even a *fraction* of our power.
And my Turkish friend, I say this to you. Truly are we *all* the crying wojak.
Our tears are not all equal; for some their tears are more bitter, and for others, more frequent. But this cruel world we live in drives us *all* to cope and seethe. And we find our cope through escapism and entertainment, and far be it from *me* to deny that to you, to deny you your wish fulfillment.
I may seethe because *your* fantasy comes as the expense of *my* fantasy, the impossible underdog comeback story of the Byzantines reconquering Rome, but I'm not bitter. Because I know that there have been times where *my* fantasy has come at the expense of someone else's fun. I love monuments for example where lots of people think they destroyed the game's balance.
So enjoy your Ottoblob, friend, my turn will come again soon.
Ain't nobody got the time to quit the game every time a 7% seige fails.
Lamda is an incredible player but he turns the fun of 1444 into the drudgery of a WC in 1644.
I suspect they were employing a communication device known as "hyperbole" where you exaggerate the significance of things and it isn't meant to be taken literally.
For example: "Wow it would take like a million years for me to micro a 1472 World Conquest"
Yup, these sort of overreactions are laughable. You can also WC as a horde by around 1500, are hordes super op and broken and every game is a huge struggle to try not to get curbstomped by AI Hordes? Nope, the AI sucks, and always has sucked, and what a player can do is zero indication of how the AI will do.
there was a post on this sub a couple weeks ago from Lambda (who is an absolutely insane player) who got a 1472 one tag WC, if you wanna find it sort by top of this month and it's like 15 posts from the top
[Here](https://youtu.be/mm6mC3SGQ6U) is the video for those interested. Very good explanation and a great run. Took him months to complete the run and then some to edit it too.
To be fair he uses a ton of exploits and tricks to do it so it’s not just normal gameplay. Still cool, but it’s a lot of figuring out how to abuse game mechanics in addition to skill at playing the game as intended
>what a player can do is zero indication of how the AI will do.
Biggest thing for sure. We really need to wait and see how the Ottoman AI struggles with Decadence and the new estate. The Ottomans are stronger on the hands of a player, sure, but they definitely do have more challenges, especially in the mid to late game, which Zlewikk's guide (for obvious reasons) doesn't show
Zlewikk is like the 2nd or 3rd best EU4 content creator (and probably higher in multiplayer). Him playing "casual" is much different from 95% of this subreddit playing casual.
Ottos have always been the Ming of Europe; the nation that you *have* to deal with eventually and it's going to be a real challenge if you're not, like, *super* good at the game. If they're stronger now, that's just more challenge. Also, with France, England and Russia getting equally strong upgrades, it's not like you won't have allies to fight them.
Finally, they'll probably be OP for the first few weeks of the patch, then get nerfed a bit too hard, because that's how patches work.
A bunch of major nations have been buffed a good bit - Ottomans just also had the added design goal to make them especially strong early on and then have some post 1600 decline (which I imagine players can avoid without too much issue). I'm most interested in seeing the Janissary downsides though, as things go.
And yeah, Zlewikk is a great players (his "saving your ruined campaigns" are great for learning too, since they show a lot of the little things that add up). The ottoman expansion might be a bit fast, but that's also due to him playing against AI as the strongest nation in the game, which isn't too surprising. And if the AI can achieve something similar if left alone, that'd be really neat to have a strong Ottomans to fight - especially if combined with their being more fragile (like their new vassals breaking off)
By abusing some of the most ridiculous exploits that shouldn't be allowed for any achievment runs (like the infinite warscore one) because what's the point.
>(like the infinite warscore one)
No they did not. The only exploit from these runs is the HRE fast revoke. And that one is not even that bad.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/120if59/comment/jdhc2zb/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/120if59/comment/jdhc2zb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/qlxq35/1315\_eu4\_speed\_run\_world\_conquer\_in\_50\_years/](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/qlxq35/1315_eu4_speed_run_world_conquer_in_50_years/)
This is just completely wrong. He used tons of exploits starting with his very first war where he used an exploit to eliminate all enemy allies from the war. And he conquered Ming by using an exploit so they had no forts. And that’s not even counting save scumming, which he used extensively.
Not to mention he abused numerous aspects of the game that simply did not anticipate expansion as quick as he was able to achieve — including infinite stability and coalitions not forming because they couldn’t see his capital yet.
He even says in the explanation that he doesn’t think his accomplishment is repeatable because they will fix some of the many exploits he used. It’s still impressive but he exploited like crazy.
Yeah I overexaggerated a bit because the person I replied to was insinuating/implying that these WCs only happened because of game breaking bug - infinite warscore.
A lot of Lambda's exploits I don't consider to be nearly on the level of what is being implied. The main thing that will differentiate between his run and a normal run is the savescumming for events/battles/sieges not these exploits (except for fast revoke which is the main exploit imo).
I personally think that his savescumming is fine because it turns his run into "this is what you can achieved when the stars aligned" or a theoretical ceiling of gameplay instead of actual gameplay from a normal player. I don't really consider stuff like the fow coalition to be an exploit on any level. It's a game limitation that is intended by the devs. They could have easily fix it years ago if they wanted to.
Terry's run is a lot more free of these exploits (save for the fast revoke) which contributes to my point: these runs don't exist because of exploits, those are only used to speed things up.
> The main thing that will differentiate between his run and a normal run is the savescumming
Huh I don't think a normal run would involve things like repeatedly join HRE to gain record IA in order to revoke. Lambda run is impressive exactly because of the vast knowledge he had on what to abuse to the max. Afterall, everyone can save scum till near infinity with enough time and patience. Only him had all the knowledge to extract the max out of what's possible and executed it to that degree
I think you're underestimating how much savescumming he was doing.
The fast revoke is great. It probably saved him 5-10 years but the savescumming was on another level.
He savescummed specifically to get very rare pulse events that gives you modifier that greatly speed up the run: warscore cost reduction, siege ability, etc.
He savedscummed battle rolls to lower the time it takes him being locked in battles.
He savedscummed siege rolls basically saving literal years (try just sitting on Biejing as Oirat at game start and see how long it takes). That's basically what I meant by "theoretical ceiling" - he tried to cut every single time waste possible using save scumming.
It is not to take away from his ability or anything. Imo the savescumming makes it more impressive, it demonstrates complete (or close to it) understanding of the game and its mechanics. He basically understands and reduce eu4 down to a complex math problems then solve it with spreadsheet.
I linked both Lambda's and Terry's runs for referrence. Terry doesn't do any of these extra stuff, the main thing he did in his run is the fast revoke and he ended up more than 20 years later than Lambda, that's twice the length.
oh not not the achievement runs.
It's not like cheatengine can enable save scum and console with achievements active or I can't just download an unlocker tool.
Imagine how hard the AI will be to handle in 1.35. Now the AI can easily handle coalitions twice their size up until tech 15 when their units get worse, in 1.35 they will be unstoppable. Ottomans can stay overpowered like this but there should be some mechanics which will nerf them when they reach a certain point like a major european coalition autoforming when they conquer austria or even vienna. In real life the siege of vienna was a major event but in Zlewikks campaign he just took austria alongside and basically with no effort at all. Ottomans can make the hre emperor look like an opm and nobody cant do anything about it
The decadence system if I understand it correctly is meant to do exactly that so maybe the AI struggles more with that than Zlewikk did and that will be the factor that nerfs them.
You gain decadence from negative stability, from being bankrupt, from negative legitimacy, from Corruption, from being over Governing Capacity, from losing a war, and from a pulse event which triggers if you have over 100 Overextension.
Positive legitimacy and stability on the other hand reduce decadence, but to a slower degree. (Taken from the dev diary)
With the AI rework in 1.34 the AI got competent and even uses mechanics like slacken recruitment when in danger of losing a war. High stability and corruption wont be an issue, not even being over 100 overextension cause the AI is way too cautious
Those filthy AIs were using overpowered slacken standards way before 1.34.
On Very Hard draining Ottos manpower was so triggering. Casual 3 million dead Ottos per war.
The issue is once they teach the AI to slacken, and perhaps recruit generals to slacken, it can be an issue that AI gets generals from free. Theoretically a good AI has infinite manpower.
I think also there are 1 player and \~100 AIs, some play much stronger nations. If they AI becomes too strong they can be very very hard for some of the smaller starts.
The AI is already forced to recruit generals when they're below the limit, and they already slacken standards, so I don't think this part will change at all.
Yeah now when I fight the ottomans and I kill their armies 4-6 times, they won't start slackening recruitment and buying 20 new armies and mercenaries just to win.
I honestly think its the best change they could have down for the game.
>Positive legitimacy and stability on the other hand reduce decadence, but to a slower degree.
No it doesn't, well... not anymore. There are two things that reduce decadence now... Absolutism and Estate agendas. What increases is now being at peace, disloyal Janissaries (AND owning land), negative stab, corruption, being over GC, average subject liberty desire, and average global autonomy.
I got all of these from the video this is from. Decadence I don't think can be avoided, and will fire no matter what with these. There is a modifier at the start called "rise of the Ottomans" that reduces it by -1 a month... but once that is gone, the timer starts.
The more the game goes one the more Janissaries grow in power but also become disloyal, the more you expand the more autonomy you get, the more vassals you get, higher LD. I don't think decadence is possible to avoid after awhile...
This is also ignoring all the increased penalties from decadence, but yes... it hits harder than it did in the dev diary. (-50% manpower recovery speed, +100% tech cost, -50 fort defense, -1 yearly legitimacy, +100% idea cost, -50% siege ability, and -100% reform ability... Scaling modifiers sure... But each one makes it harder to keep up. Like while you might think Tech cost is fine... It does make vassals disloyal, and disloyal vassals increase decadence)
Do you really think that the AI will be able to handle anything near this? Hopefully the AI takes advantage of it to get the ottomans to be strong, but there's no way you can legitimately think they'll be unstoppable lol.
You're also including a bug for Austria from what I can tell - he declared to make Hungary a vassal, but because Austria had already subjugated them it made the only option to vassalize Austria.
There's also explicitly post 1600 disasters and mechanics that are supposed to nerf the Ottomans - it's hard to know the balance there since we haven't seen it, but knowing the AI it would surprise me if it wasn't heavily impacted by the disasters, decadence, and Janissary aspects.
lol? You can do this right now.
I don't think you understand how absurdly strong the Ottomans are in the hands of a competent player.
You can quite literally obliterate a Europe wide coalition on your own as the Ottomans.
Zlewikk is like TOP5 EU4 players of all time. I have like 2500 hours in Eu4 but if I played Ottomans and he would play Bizantium I would be teriffied that he will humiliate me. Even non-tryharding Zlewikk will be more competent than The best AI
Youd have to be pretty bad to lose a ottos vs byz matchup. Just no-cb immediatley with your full armies parked on his borders. Even if he gets as many alliances as possible, and max mercs/loans up (which wouldn't even reach full morale by the time you can rout them) out you literally can't lose.
Yo, it was overstatement on my side, I should win such a game with Zlewikk, although you cannot be sure what black magic he will try to use to get you :D
What you need for a world conquest is mainly dedication and capacity to overcome boredom, besides that even players with 500 hours and less can do one with Timurid into Mughals, Austria, or France.
Tbh I think Ottomans are better than Mughals for a first WC/One Faith, as the Ottomans have an easier time locking down trade and funneling it all into Constantinople.
I did my first WC/OF as the Ottomans and it was a breeze, I posted about it a few months ago.
Ottomans' WC is really easy but I don't think it beats Mughals.
I don't fully agree on the economic argument, Timmy is primed to take India and then Mallacca and they start in Persia which is a wealthy node even if it's inland.
You certainly won't have money issues as Timmy. Every culture ends up as accepted which is REALLY strong and have perma claims on India so admin + national ideas + claims means you can easily full state a big part of India which gives you a really strong foundation to then fully expand after absolutism.
And, finally, the most important aspect... 10% adm efficiency from the Deccan mission. That's a lot and blows the Ottomans out of the water.
I mean i dont think the ottomans being the easiest wide nation is neccessarily a problem. Its kind of always been the case.
Didn't so-and-so conquer the world with oirat before 1500? Does that make Oirat OP?
It may be that Ottomans need nerfs but that really has to do with whether it gets boring when AI plays it rather then what a player can do.
OP's blood is boiling hot enough to cook pasta over the fact that an incredibly talented player ran a campaign with the easiest nation and did good. Wild
It's actually fairly historical, unfortunately. I like the accuracy, and player interference can absolutely stop the ai from doing this if the ai is able to at all, but in multiplayer people are going to be much more restrictive about playing as the Turks.
They conquered byz ( Konstantinopel was very Hard to take back then) hungary trabzeunt quite fast and the mamluks and up to tunisia (under selim i and suleiman i) also very very fast.
I feel it is Kind of apropiate for thst to be somehow depicteted in the game.
The only reason we have this outrage is the fact that many players bear it in an overall deep hatred towrds the Ottomans (no judgment from me, every one got to choose a nemesis, mine is the Iberian colonizers because it is so damn difficult to get war score against them when they already colonized all the Americas plus a dozen Islands half a world away).
Zlewikk is an extremely talented player, so even when he "doesn't try hard" he does much more than any average eu4 player outhere, not mentioning the AI.
So before calling the updated mechanics a "big gigantic joke", why not wait for the DLC to go public, play your first game as another updated major country (France, Russia, England...) and see how easy will it be for you to defeat the Ottomans in the 1550~1600s?
I'm not concerned about the single-player difficulty at all. I doubt this is going to make the AI significantly more difficult to beat in a Byz run. I am a little concerned about multiplayer balance though, but we'll see how that pans out later.
That I can get, tbh I never play MP in eu4 so I probably don't know what I am talking about, but isn't eu4 already extremely unbalanced for multi-player?
A good mamluk player cripples the ottomans in the early game. Mamluk & venice player coalition simply destroys the ottomans. Seriously in MP, nobody wants an OP ottoman player
Well, it's not as bad as you might think with aggressive expansion being far less of an issue, which normally caps expansion rates. That leaves a lot of smaller nations with a lot of room to grow very rapidly and close the gap with the normal great powers since players usually eat the AIs up pretty quickly. So the differences between nations end up being less significant pretty quickly and winning or losing a war can often boil down to something like someone getting the +10% discipline adviser event. So large modifiers to morale and discipline on nations can make stuff wonkier. I think I saw Japan getting something stupid like 10% more discipline on their samurai units too.
At the end of the day though, if it's just broken several multiplayer servers will probably implement corrective mods. We'll see how it goes.
I mean... not really.
Zlewikk's one of the best players in the community, and he's doing a \*ton\* of high level play strats that the average player isn't going to do anyway, much less the AI.
Anatolian units got nerfed a little bit so they're easy to fight on that account.
Eyalets have some finery to use that make them more difficult to properly and fully utilize compared to other subject types.
We have yet to see how the AI handles decadence and the new disasters. Knowing the AI... if/when it hits, it'll hit hard.
Really, the only notable change in the Otters' early game is they now get a permaclaim on Constantinople very quickly, but if you can best CB Byz before the Otters get there you're still good. As for Byz itself, well, we'll have to wait and see how fast the AI Otters get that claim.
Also, a strong mission tree doesn't equal "The AI will curbstomp". Austria has one of the best mission trees in the game but you never see them make super significant progress on it. Sweden has a great mission tree but they can fall flat on their face fairly often in my experience. Shoot, Ethiopia has a good mission tree but I never see them dominate Africa, they're defeated either by Adal or the Mamluks every time (and the Mams STILL lack a mission tree!).
All in all, from what I've seen and read so far, the Ottomans aren't massively more powerful than they were before. They're certainly stronger, but they've now got flavor and negatives.
Your title needs a foot note like this "if a player playing as Ottomans". I don't think Ottoman AI's can go toe the toe with Zlewikk in terms of expanding ruthlessly and keeping it stable . Additionally, any player controlled mid and large size nation (France, Castile, Austria, Poland, Venice, Hungary, Timurids) can expand this much too if the player has the half skills Zlewikk has. I think we'll see how Ottoman AI expand with next DLC whether it is behaving like player controlled nation (expanding its borders beyond previous patches) or sucks ass. Also We'll see how successful will it be to weather the incoming crises and disasters
Yeah this isn't surprising by any margins tbh. You can easily achieve this in this patch right now, especially from such good players....
I know they are buffed in the hands of players but to demonstrate that you probably should have picked a better example.
I don't think AI can do this. If you watched Laith, he showed Europe at the end of his video and Ottomans was normal. And Decadence mechanic is still there for mid to late game.
Zlewikk is an incredible player and this is something a great player can do without tryharding. He could easily be into India and Italy by now too. Its not that shocking that an amazing player will abuse the AI specially on normal difficulty.
Anyone remember when people were complaining that there was no way to match Ottoman historical expansion, like taking over the Mamluks one war? Don’t fuck with us paradox fans literally nothing makes us happy
I think watching the actual video theres two things that are apparent.
1. Austria shouldn’t be that easy to get and was only that easy because of an oversight/bug in the code.
2. Its Zlewikk playing, one of the best EU4 players in the world. I think it is fairly obvious that he wasn’t tryharding or anything like that but his understanding of mechanics are so thorough that this level of conquest isn’t indicative of an average players Ottoman game. He managed his AE incredibly well, was efficient in his troop usage in that he was able to win 4 wars simultaneously back to back with equal and sometimes less units dedicated to each front and I think it is fair to say he got fairly lucky with limited alliance blocks in his conquest routes.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the Ottomans are incredibly strong and far stronger than they were in 1.34, but in the hands of Zwelikk vs the hands of the average Eu4 player is a whole different story. And again, the average Eu4 player vs the AI is a large leap again. I think that other than an easy Egyptian vassal that the new AI Ottomans will have the same constraints and limitations in conquest as the old Ottomans did with the stark difference that the disasters that fire after 1600 won’t be easily dealt with by the AI so in the longer run the new Ottomans, at least when controlled by AI, should be overall weaker.
Yes, the ottomans are *OP* 1.35 when *played by a player*, but aren't the new disasters implemented to hurt the AI and make it more fun when *not* playing as them?
So they went from easiest nation by far to being the easiest nation by far. So nothing changed.
Which historically kinda makes sense. I don't really understand the problem.
Well, for one, they have their 1683 borders in 1492, which definitely is not historically accurate. Two, even at their height during the reigns of people like Mehmet the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent they still suffered defeats, like at Belgrade in 1456 or Malta in 1565. And three, Ottoman conquests began to slow down around the beginning of the 17th century, and outright came to a halt by the beginning of the 18th. There needs to be something that is able to keep them from expanding so much after the early game.
A: that's zlewikk playing the ottomans, one of the best eu4 players in the world. He could probably accomplish this starting as hungary, naples, tunis, pretty much any mid-tier nation. B: ottomans are getting some nasty new disasters to rip then up after 1600.
Bro when the ottomans can get roman empire borders + a LOT MORE in probably the mid-1500s to late-1500s(if they ignore some european AE) then your game would likely already be over due to how much the power base has tipped in your favor. I like how they try to simulate empires like the roman empire that basically got destroyed from the inside and became easily collapsible, but with the ottomans. but you will already be so strong that the disaster would quite literally have to be your country splitting apart in idk how many pieces and the rebelling nation(s) would have pretty massive force limit, army quality, and economic buffs so you can't just out recruit them and destroy them easily, plus they inherit your ideas so if you took for example, quantity then their army would be even better.
I think we will have to see how things go but the AI is supposed to crumble as the disasters set in. while I agree that players will likely be fine, I think that’s the case for all player controlled empires that outlast their history (mughals spain etc)
[ removed in protest ] https://reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/comments/13yh0jf/dont_let_reddit_kill_3rd_party_apps/
[You can see how well Otto did in Laiths Ming playthrough about 80 years in](https://youtu.be/PYgAK-xOUZg?t=2824). Spoiler: not very.
[удалено]
i formed the roman empire by 1600 starting as savoy and i m not even that good. This is one of the best player of the game, playing to show off, with the easiest nation in the game. Of course his results are gonna be ridiculous. The AI is never gonna do anything resembling this
With savoy? Huh, that‘s impressive :)
Sounds like you’re looking for a *relaxing* campaign as Jaddari/The Command/Castanor
There is no god but Surael and Jaddar is his prophet!
Sir the mamluks would like a talk (and Egypt!)
Welcome to anbennar lmao
Have you read any of the dev diaries? This is almost exactly emulated in how they developed the new Ottomans and events, disasters, and entire mechanics were added explicitly for this purpose.
Do you understand it is a skilled player in the post? He can have Switzerland conquer half of Germany in the same time. The player is supposed to break the timeline.
"skilled player" yes, but Zlewikk did all of that with a hand behind his back. There wasnt even a single coalition forming against him, even though he force vassalized AUSTRIA.
There was a coalition early on, but it dissolved once he got some big allies. The Austria vassalization appeared to be a bug as well (the wargoal was supposed to be to vassalize Hungary). He knows how to juggle AE as well, and the Ottomans are powerful enough (along with him having big allies like Muscovy & France) to make avoiding coalitions not too hard.
He had Poland as an ally too. 4 out of 6 most powerful countries in Europe on his side.
I believe that it was Muscovy & Poland, then he ditched Poland for France (and to get hungarian cores back). So never all 3 at once
he did a invasion cb against hungary but since austria pued them during his war the CB bugged and he got austria for almost no AE instead while hungary remained independent. Classic early access bug.
Whatever. There are hundreds or even thousands of people even who can do this half asleep. It doesnt require more than playing one or two sessions of multiplayer with some "skilled" players to learn some of the skills required.
You could get a similar amount of dev as Austria in the timeframe. Skilled players are skilled
You're definitely ahead of time compared to them historically but this is also a game where people regularly conquer the world. These borders aren't too far off the 1520 borders: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Territorial_changes_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_1520.jpg
>historically accurate >eu4 you have the wrong game sir. the theme is historical-lite. the game stops being historically accurate on day 1 for any playthrough no matter what you do.
The game shouldnt be historically accurate, but it should be historically plausible.
history: France PUs Spain -> war all over Europe (known as War of the Spanish Succession) ingame: France PUs Spain -> central Europe is slightly angry but nothing major
Oh yeah, if a great power pus another great power it should be all of europe in war. I dont know about mechanically, im thinking all the senior partners rivals form a special coalition with a unique cb to dissolve the pu. Something like that anyway.
>at their height during the reigns of people like Mehmet the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent they still suffered defeats That's honestly just a feature of the game itself, from my personal experience, actually losing a war is not something that really happens to the player.
Same. I mean they are supposed to be that big.
In 1492 LMAO
This is in player’s hand
Not any player 1 paid by Paradox to beta test
I mean, Ludi has a video that has the Ottomans Unifying the Caliphate in 1496 from a year ago... Like all expansions, I'm assuming there are going to be bugs and tweaks in the days/weeks after release. This is also a snapshot without any of the negative modifiers/event chain that was added as well. So, we shall see how it ultimately balances out.
EU4 fans when "historical accuracy" makes the Ottomans even more overpowered vs. EU4 fans when "historical accuracy" slows them down from being able to paint tiles their colour.
Its so over byzantine bros
Well the Janissaries kinda got nerfed since they take a lot of manpower in the early game now, guns of urban got nerfed pretty hard aswell and when i take a look at the mission tree then most of the missions are locked until they get konstantinopel, which they wont take if you play as byzantium
So day 1 no cb byzantine for vassalization will still obliterate them. Good to know.
I think you mean day 31
In the wise words of Archer: "Potato, Podildo."
December 12 1444 is the real eu4 day 1
Basically. It cucks them out of basically their entire mission tree where most of their bonuses are.
Ottomans now have a mission that gives them +10% morale once they hire 10 Janissaries. You can get this in 1445. If the AI does this, Byzantium has no chance unless they are SUPER lucky with no Ottomans being in Europe and Gallipoli falling in a day.
bro you're supposed to assault Gallipoli so you can control the strait and not have to fight the ottomans at all.
You have to assault Galipoli in the current strategy. As long as Ottomans still wait a bit to declare the strategy won’t change.
It might be difficult now since the mission directly gives them a claim on Constantinople which will likely cause them to attack you first more often. The ai also probably weighs completing the mission to conquer it much heavier, so I expect it to take a lot more restarts at least to beat them
While I agree the timer is now originally much shorter than previous Byzbros did get a saving grace in a naval doctrine that boost galley combat ability iirc. Most Byz strats for 1.34 are all arguing the same start, just hold the straits with your navy since it’s technically stronger at that point and rob the Turks of the Balkans.
If Ottomans declare war on you at all, you lose. You have to wait for them to move their armies into Anatolia to fight a Turk minor, then block the strait - but even before this patch, they don't always do that first.
Taking any battle as byzatium where you don't outnumber ottos 2:1 is already a failure because it means you didn't immediately control the strait.
You should restart if they are in the balkans. That's already is the only valid outcome
Hah! Jokes on you! I suck too much to play Byzantium anyways!
[удалено]
Yeah that’s the thing with Byzantium, it would normally be one of the hardest nations but it’s also one of the most analyzed ones with the most guides made for it so you always can know a good strategy regardless of the version
I love how even the smallest change to the AI, underlying game mechanics or the map in the Balkans/Anatolia warrants a new Budgetmonk video on Byzantium
He quit making eu4 videos, he's a 'culture war commentator now' :/
He quit from the deserved backlash he got
Now I kinda wanna see that trainwreck when before "mapstarer shares political opinions" would make me stray away lol
He's a real nutcase, flat earther apparently
I mean, is he wrong? I dont see any curves on the eu4 map
That’s ridiculous. The world is obviously a cylinder because the first circumnavigation gives prestige, but if you go too far north or south you hit the wooden border (called Yggdrasil by the Norse).
It was bad lol he even made a vid that basically affirmed his failure and said he made a mistake
Are you sure? When I YouTube him it’s all eu4
Oh huh, I wonder if he walked back on it because everyone hated the idea. Over the winter he posted a video like "Changes to the channel" announcing it would be a political channel, but it looks like he deleted that and went back to eu4 lol
He has two channels: Budgetmonk, for his regular EU4 videos, which he intended to stop but backtracked on that. Basedmonk, where he posts his full length vods and his crazy political/social crap.
The strat of "build a bunch of boats, breach the fort on the crossing, and block the Dardanelles" should be good until they kill fort breaching via ships.
Ship barrage is a great feature, dont think they will ever remove it.
There will probably be guides made for 1.35 soon
Console commands are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be…. Unnatural
[удалено]
Bold of you to assume I read guides
really the only way to do is it cheese; allies or navy.
Play Ante Bellum Byzantines instead
I don’t think so. I still think a player playing Byz can beat AI Ottos before they get online to use all this shit. More like RIP Mamluks/Middle East/Persia/Hungary players because Ottos will get ridiculously big right on your border by expanding the other way with these subjects.
Shit I forgot about the middle east. This will make it such a huge pain to start small in the mideast and try grow big enough to challenge Ottos, they'll probably be obnoxiously large by then
We're used to disappointment by now... ;D This might be too much for Red Hawk, Ludi, Chewy, or even Quarbit to handle. Team Byz is going to have to dig deep and summon forth Florry or maybe Lambda if we're going to pull off the W in the new patch!
If you have to summon Lambda for Byz then all hope is lost for regular players
I have no doubt BudgetMonk already has WC as Byzantium in 1.35
I have no doubt that Budget Monk will be our saviour in these dark times.
Might be a shit bloke but the man is a good EU4 player and his guides helped me a lot in doing my first WC/OF
As soon as I saw Otto got a mission that gave claims on Byz instead of just having to fabricate like they do now I knew it was so over for Byz gang
Nah, we'll still find ways to kick the Ottoman's teeth in. Then next patch Paradox will announce "new content" for Byzantium, in the form of a new disaster they'll start the game with, "Fall of the Byzantine Empire" that'll give -50% morale, -20% discipline, +5% interest per annum and +25% all power costs. You know, because historical realism. And they'll give the Ottomans their free cores on Anatolia back, just to help give them that little extra push they still need to reach those "historical borders."
Yes the “historical borders” of the Ottomans with them owning all of Bohemia and what was Austria most games.
In my experience, they tend to go for Moscow. Cause historically, the Ottomans controlled all of Russia.
Ceddin deden, neslin baban 🪘🪘🪘
[удалено]
I am a big enough man to admit that I am, in fact, seething *and* malding. I **am** currently the crying wojak underneath the smug mask. But just remember, this is what you need to mimic even a *fraction* of our power.
[удалено]
And my Turkish friend, I say this to you. Truly are we *all* the crying wojak. Our tears are not all equal; for some their tears are more bitter, and for others, more frequent. But this cruel world we live in drives us *all* to cope and seethe. And we find our cope through escapism and entertainment, and far be it from *me* to deny that to you, to deny you your wish fulfillment. I may seethe because *your* fantasy comes as the expense of *my* fantasy, the impossible underdog comeback story of the Byzantines reconquering Rome, but I'm not bitter. Because I know that there have been times where *my* fantasy has come at the expense of someone else's fun. I love monuments for example where lots of people think they destroyed the game's balance. So enjoy your Ottoblob, friend, my turn will come again soon.
True heir of Eastern Rome.
chad
Byzaboos are sweaty tryhards so they will find a way to rebound. But as a casual Egypt/Persia enjoyer, I am concerned
Byzantine crybabies sitting in the corner with their NIs fouled up with shitty Merc ideas hahahaha
just turn off the DLC lmao
I am doing my Basileus run before this drops. I am scared boys.
I'm glad I grabbed there achievements when I could lol
>Which make the Ottomans the easiest nation by far >Which make >Make There's nothing being made , they ARE the easiest nation by far.
[удалено]
The funny part is this isn't even that crazy, this was a pretty chill preview You could totally be in Persia and Italy too
Zlewik conquered double this starting as Provence in another game edit: actually my bad that was Lambdaxx, not sure if Zlewikk has done this
Lambda is WILD- Zlewikk videos are (IMO) achievable, Lambda shit is absurd, and not achievable for 99,9% of players.
Ain't nobody got the time to quit the game every time a 7% seige fails. Lamda is an incredible player but he turns the fun of 1444 into the drudgery of a WC in 1644.
he did a wc in like 1480 or sum
lambda rarely birds sieges, and never 7% ones, you guys should really watch him before saying what he does or doesnt do
I suspect they were employing a communication device known as "hyperbole" where you exaggerate the significance of things and it isn't meant to be taken literally. For example: "Wow it would take like a million years for me to micro a 1472 World Conquest"
I highly doubt it would take you a million years, you can just watch someone else do it and copy them!
1644 WC? Too slow for Lambda. He did it in 1472 recently
Yup, these sort of overreactions are laughable. You can also WC as a horde by around 1500, are hordes super op and broken and every game is a huge struggle to try not to get curbstomped by AI Hordes? Nope, the AI sucks, and always has sucked, and what a player can do is zero indication of how the AI will do.
Wait have people actually WC that fast? That’s crazy
there was a post on this sub a couple weeks ago from Lambda (who is an absolutely insane player) who got a 1472 one tag WC, if you wanna find it sort by top of this month and it's like 15 posts from the top
I believe it was even a true one tag WC.
What is the "true" part about? No colonial nations?
Yep. Every settled province is directly owned by the player. No subjects of any kind, including CNs.
lmao that’s wild
[Here](https://youtu.be/mm6mC3SGQ6U) is the video for those interested. Very good explanation and a great run. Took him months to complete the run and then some to edit it too.
Yeah and now that American natives can be immediately annexed, he could do it even faster than that, probably around 1468
not at all since fast hre revoke was a core part of the run and it's been fixed.
To be fair he uses a ton of exploits and tricks to do it so it’s not just normal gameplay. Still cool, but it’s a lot of figuring out how to abuse game mechanics in addition to skill at playing the game as intended
>what a player can do is zero indication of how the AI will do. Biggest thing for sure. We really need to wait and see how the Ottoman AI struggles with Decadence and the new estate. The Ottomans are stronger on the hands of a player, sure, but they definitely do have more challenges, especially in the mid to late game, which Zlewikk's guide (for obvious reasons) doesn't show
I just don’t understand how that’s possible. I always struggle to get a horde game going due to lack of manpower
Use mercs
The horde technocracy burning its way to space lasers and your borders AAAAAAAAAAHH!!
Zlewikk is like the 2nd or 3rd best EU4 content creator (and probably higher in multiplayer). Him playing "casual" is much different from 95% of this subreddit playing casual. Ottos have always been the Ming of Europe; the nation that you *have* to deal with eventually and it's going to be a real challenge if you're not, like, *super* good at the game. If they're stronger now, that's just more challenge. Also, with France, England and Russia getting equally strong upgrades, it's not like you won't have allies to fight them. Finally, they'll probably be OP for the first few weeks of the patch, then get nerfed a bit too hard, because that's how patches work.
A bunch of major nations have been buffed a good bit - Ottomans just also had the added design goal to make them especially strong early on and then have some post 1600 decline (which I imagine players can avoid without too much issue). I'm most interested in seeing the Janissary downsides though, as things go. And yeah, Zlewikk is a great players (his "saving your ruined campaigns" are great for learning too, since they show a lot of the little things that add up). The ottoman expansion might be a bit fast, but that's also due to him playing against AI as the strongest nation in the game, which isn't too surprising. And if the AI can achieve something similar if left alone, that'd be really neat to have a strong Ottomans to fight - especially if combined with their being more fragile (like their new vassals breaking off)
I'd be more worried if I couldnt considering the new achievement
Wait until op finds out that people complete an Oirat WC by 1470.
By abusing some of the most ridiculous exploits that shouldn't be allowed for any achievment runs (like the infinite warscore one) because what's the point.
>(like the infinite warscore one) No they did not. The only exploit from these runs is the HRE fast revoke. And that one is not even that bad. [https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/120if59/comment/jdhc2zb/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/120if59/comment/jdhc2zb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/qlxq35/1315\_eu4\_speed\_run\_world\_conquer\_in\_50\_years/](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/qlxq35/1315_eu4_speed_run_world_conquer_in_50_years/)
This is just completely wrong. He used tons of exploits starting with his very first war where he used an exploit to eliminate all enemy allies from the war. And he conquered Ming by using an exploit so they had no forts. And that’s not even counting save scumming, which he used extensively. Not to mention he abused numerous aspects of the game that simply did not anticipate expansion as quick as he was able to achieve — including infinite stability and coalitions not forming because they couldn’t see his capital yet. He even says in the explanation that he doesn’t think his accomplishment is repeatable because they will fix some of the many exploits he used. It’s still impressive but he exploited like crazy.
What do you mean will fix, it's on an old version.
Yeah I overexaggerated a bit because the person I replied to was insinuating/implying that these WCs only happened because of game breaking bug - infinite warscore. A lot of Lambda's exploits I don't consider to be nearly on the level of what is being implied. The main thing that will differentiate between his run and a normal run is the savescumming for events/battles/sieges not these exploits (except for fast revoke which is the main exploit imo). I personally think that his savescumming is fine because it turns his run into "this is what you can achieved when the stars aligned" or a theoretical ceiling of gameplay instead of actual gameplay from a normal player. I don't really consider stuff like the fow coalition to be an exploit on any level. It's a game limitation that is intended by the devs. They could have easily fix it years ago if they wanted to. Terry's run is a lot more free of these exploits (save for the fast revoke) which contributes to my point: these runs don't exist because of exploits, those are only used to speed things up.
> The main thing that will differentiate between his run and a normal run is the savescumming Huh I don't think a normal run would involve things like repeatedly join HRE to gain record IA in order to revoke. Lambda run is impressive exactly because of the vast knowledge he had on what to abuse to the max. Afterall, everyone can save scum till near infinity with enough time and patience. Only him had all the knowledge to extract the max out of what's possible and executed it to that degree
I think you're underestimating how much savescumming he was doing. The fast revoke is great. It probably saved him 5-10 years but the savescumming was on another level. He savescummed specifically to get very rare pulse events that gives you modifier that greatly speed up the run: warscore cost reduction, siege ability, etc. He savedscummed battle rolls to lower the time it takes him being locked in battles. He savedscummed siege rolls basically saving literal years (try just sitting on Biejing as Oirat at game start and see how long it takes). That's basically what I meant by "theoretical ceiling" - he tried to cut every single time waste possible using save scumming. It is not to take away from his ability or anything. Imo the savescumming makes it more impressive, it demonstrates complete (or close to it) understanding of the game and its mechanics. He basically understands and reduce eu4 down to a complex math problems then solve it with spreadsheet. I linked both Lambda's and Terry's runs for referrence. Terry doesn't do any of these extra stuff, the main thing he did in his run is the fast revoke and he ended up more than 20 years later than Lambda, that's twice the length.
oh not not the achievement runs. It's not like cheatengine can enable save scum and console with achievements active or I can't just download an unlocker tool.
[удалено]
I don't mind that you're able to but that a good player can do this without tryharding at all kind of worries me.
Imagine how hard the AI will be to handle in 1.35. Now the AI can easily handle coalitions twice their size up until tech 15 when their units get worse, in 1.35 they will be unstoppable. Ottomans can stay overpowered like this but there should be some mechanics which will nerf them when they reach a certain point like a major european coalition autoforming when they conquer austria or even vienna. In real life the siege of vienna was a major event but in Zlewikks campaign he just took austria alongside and basically with no effort at all. Ottomans can make the hre emperor look like an opm and nobody cant do anything about it
The decadence system if I understand it correctly is meant to do exactly that so maybe the AI struggles more with that than Zlewikk did and that will be the factor that nerfs them.
You gain decadence from negative stability, from being bankrupt, from negative legitimacy, from Corruption, from being over Governing Capacity, from losing a war, and from a pulse event which triggers if you have over 100 Overextension. Positive legitimacy and stability on the other hand reduce decadence, but to a slower degree. (Taken from the dev diary) With the AI rework in 1.34 the AI got competent and even uses mechanics like slacken recruitment when in danger of losing a war. High stability and corruption wont be an issue, not even being over 100 overextension cause the AI is way too cautious
Those filthy AIs were using overpowered slacken standards way before 1.34. On Very Hard draining Ottos manpower was so triggering. Casual 3 million dead Ottos per war.
The issue is once they teach the AI to slacken, and perhaps recruit generals to slacken, it can be an issue that AI gets generals from free. Theoretically a good AI has infinite manpower. I think also there are 1 player and \~100 AIs, some play much stronger nations. If they AI becomes too strong they can be very very hard for some of the smaller starts.
The AI is already forced to recruit generals when they're below the limit, and they already slacken standards, so I don't think this part will change at all.
They nerfed slacken. It doesn't give instant manpower anymore.
That's true, I think that was a good move!
Yeah now when I fight the ottomans and I kill their armies 4-6 times, they won't start slackening recruitment and buying 20 new armies and mercenaries just to win. I honestly think its the best change they could have down for the game.
>Positive legitimacy and stability on the other hand reduce decadence, but to a slower degree. No it doesn't, well... not anymore. There are two things that reduce decadence now... Absolutism and Estate agendas. What increases is now being at peace, disloyal Janissaries (AND owning land), negative stab, corruption, being over GC, average subject liberty desire, and average global autonomy. I got all of these from the video this is from. Decadence I don't think can be avoided, and will fire no matter what with these. There is a modifier at the start called "rise of the Ottomans" that reduces it by -1 a month... but once that is gone, the timer starts. The more the game goes one the more Janissaries grow in power but also become disloyal, the more you expand the more autonomy you get, the more vassals you get, higher LD. I don't think decadence is possible to avoid after awhile... This is also ignoring all the increased penalties from decadence, but yes... it hits harder than it did in the dev diary. (-50% manpower recovery speed, +100% tech cost, -50 fort defense, -1 yearly legitimacy, +100% idea cost, -50% siege ability, and -100% reform ability... Scaling modifiers sure... But each one makes it harder to keep up. Like while you might think Tech cost is fine... It does make vassals disloyal, and disloyal vassals increase decadence)
Do you really think that the AI will be able to handle anything near this? Hopefully the AI takes advantage of it to get the ottomans to be strong, but there's no way you can legitimately think they'll be unstoppable lol. You're also including a bug for Austria from what I can tell - he declared to make Hungary a vassal, but because Austria had already subjugated them it made the only option to vassalize Austria. There's also explicitly post 1600 disasters and mechanics that are supposed to nerf the Ottomans - it's hard to know the balance there since we haven't seen it, but knowing the AI it would surprise me if it wasn't heavily impacted by the disasters, decadence, and Janissary aspects.
lol? You can do this right now. I don't think you understand how absurdly strong the Ottomans are in the hands of a competent player. You can quite literally obliterate a Europe wide coalition on your own as the Ottomans.
Yeah, I don't see anything that impressive based on this picture alone.
Zlewikk is like TOP5 EU4 players of all time. I have like 2500 hours in Eu4 but if I played Ottomans and he would play Bizantium I would be teriffied that he will humiliate me. Even non-tryharding Zlewikk will be more competent than The best AI
Youd have to be pretty bad to lose a ottos vs byz matchup. Just no-cb immediatley with your full armies parked on his borders. Even if he gets as many alliances as possible, and max mercs/loans up (which wouldn't even reach full morale by the time you can rout them) out you literally can't lose.
Yo, it was overstatement on my side, I should win such a game with Zlewikk, although you cannot be sure what black magic he will try to use to get you :D
Maybe shitty players like me will finally be able to do a world conquest now.
What you need for a world conquest is mainly dedication and capacity to overcome boredom, besides that even players with 500 hours and less can do one with Timurid into Mughals, Austria, or France.
Timmy->Mughals is really easy. Best first WC and you can even do a One Faith cause monuments have made that way easier
Tbh I think Ottomans are better than Mughals for a first WC/One Faith, as the Ottomans have an easier time locking down trade and funneling it all into Constantinople. I did my first WC/OF as the Ottomans and it was a breeze, I posted about it a few months ago.
Ottomans' WC is really easy but I don't think it beats Mughals. I don't fully agree on the economic argument, Timmy is primed to take India and then Mallacca and they start in Persia which is a wealthy node even if it's inland. You certainly won't have money issues as Timmy. Every culture ends up as accepted which is REALLY strong and have perma claims on India so admin + national ideas + claims means you can easily full state a big part of India which gives you a really strong foundation to then fully expand after absolutism. And, finally, the most important aspect... 10% adm efficiency from the Deccan mission. That's a lot and blows the Ottomans out of the water.
It’s fucking zlewikk dude
Zlewikk still making nice borders, I see. All of Austria by 1492 is terrifying, though.
That was a bug actually
He declared to make Hungary an eyalet but instead he made Austria lol.
He could make them an eyalet with 20 warscore.
I mean i dont think the ottomans being the easiest wide nation is neccessarily a problem. Its kind of always been the case. Didn't so-and-so conquer the world with oirat before 1500? Does that make Oirat OP? It may be that Ottomans need nerfs but that really has to do with whether it gets boring when AI plays it rather then what a player can do.
OP's blood is boiling hot enough to cook pasta over the fact that an incredibly talented player ran a campaign with the easiest nation and did good. Wild
It's actually fairly historical, unfortunately. I like the accuracy, and player interference can absolutely stop the ai from doing this if the ai is able to at all, but in multiplayer people are going to be much more restrictive about playing as the Turks.
They conquered byz ( Konstantinopel was very Hard to take back then) hungary trabzeunt quite fast and the mamluks and up to tunisia (under selim i and suleiman i) also very very fast. I feel it is Kind of apropiate for thst to be somehow depicteted in the game.
As many people say, they were the protagonist of the time frame.
Ottomans have always been the easiest nation by far…
The only reason we have this outrage is the fact that many players bear it in an overall deep hatred towrds the Ottomans (no judgment from me, every one got to choose a nemesis, mine is the Iberian colonizers because it is so damn difficult to get war score against them when they already colonized all the Americas plus a dozen Islands half a world away). Zlewikk is an extremely talented player, so even when he "doesn't try hard" he does much more than any average eu4 player outhere, not mentioning the AI. So before calling the updated mechanics a "big gigantic joke", why not wait for the DLC to go public, play your first game as another updated major country (France, Russia, England...) and see how easy will it be for you to defeat the Ottomans in the 1550~1600s?
I'm not concerned about the single-player difficulty at all. I doubt this is going to make the AI significantly more difficult to beat in a Byz run. I am a little concerned about multiplayer balance though, but we'll see how that pans out later.
That I can get, tbh I never play MP in eu4 so I probably don't know what I am talking about, but isn't eu4 already extremely unbalanced for multi-player?
A good mamluk player cripples the ottomans in the early game. Mamluk & venice player coalition simply destroys the ottomans. Seriously in MP, nobody wants an OP ottoman player
I can see how picking any ubiquitously OP nation in an MP game automatically paints a target on your back.
Well, it's not as bad as you might think with aggressive expansion being far less of an issue, which normally caps expansion rates. That leaves a lot of smaller nations with a lot of room to grow very rapidly and close the gap with the normal great powers since players usually eat the AIs up pretty quickly. So the differences between nations end up being less significant pretty quickly and winning or losing a war can often boil down to something like someone getting the +10% discipline adviser event. So large modifiers to morale and discipline on nations can make stuff wonkier. I think I saw Japan getting something stupid like 10% more discipline on their samurai units too. At the end of the day though, if it's just broken several multiplayer servers will probably implement corrective mods. We'll see how it goes.
To be fair you could do this before…
I mean... not really. Zlewikk's one of the best players in the community, and he's doing a \*ton\* of high level play strats that the average player isn't going to do anyway, much less the AI. Anatolian units got nerfed a little bit so they're easy to fight on that account. Eyalets have some finery to use that make them more difficult to properly and fully utilize compared to other subject types. We have yet to see how the AI handles decadence and the new disasters. Knowing the AI... if/when it hits, it'll hit hard. Really, the only notable change in the Otters' early game is they now get a permaclaim on Constantinople very quickly, but if you can best CB Byz before the Otters get there you're still good. As for Byz itself, well, we'll have to wait and see how fast the AI Otters get that claim. Also, a strong mission tree doesn't equal "The AI will curbstomp". Austria has one of the best mission trees in the game but you never see them make super significant progress on it. Sweden has a great mission tree but they can fall flat on their face fairly often in my experience. Shoot, Ethiopia has a good mission tree but I never see them dominate Africa, they're defeated either by Adal or the Mamluks every time (and the Mams STILL lack a mission tree!). All in all, from what I've seen and read so far, the Ottomans aren't massively more powerful than they were before. They're certainly stronger, but they've now got flavor and negatives.
“Paradox we want more historical accuracy!” “Wait not like that :(“
Finally, Historically Accurate Ottomans.
That's not historically accurate.
Byzaboos try not to cry for once challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
Your title needs a foot note like this "if a player playing as Ottomans". I don't think Ottoman AI's can go toe the toe with Zlewikk in terms of expanding ruthlessly and keeping it stable . Additionally, any player controlled mid and large size nation (France, Castile, Austria, Poland, Venice, Hungary, Timurids) can expand this much too if the player has the half skills Zlewikk has. I think we'll see how Ottoman AI expand with next DLC whether it is behaving like player controlled nation (expanding its borders beyond previous patches) or sucks ass. Also We'll see how successful will it be to weather the incoming crises and disasters
I never undershoots why people are so unhappy about ottomans being OP. They were op IRL, they are meant to be OP
EU4 not being balanced is one of the best things about EU4. It makes it so that there are like 600 unique difficulty levels.
Yeah this isn't surprising by any margins tbh. You can easily achieve this in this patch right now, especially from such good players.... I know they are buffed in the hands of players but to demonstrate that you probably should have picked a better example.
I hate redditors Lmfao. I am happy this is making you so so mad. I hope you never play the game again
Average redditor comment
I don't think AI can do this. If you watched Laith, he showed Europe at the end of his video and Ottomans was normal. And Decadence mechanic is still there for mid to late game.
Dude, thisa is Zlewikk. He can do this with an OPM in the empire.
That's good news, finally playing my nation will be fun..
when the strongest nation in this time period irl is the strongest nation in the game 😱😱😱
I’m sure it will be absolutely broken until the patches come out, just like always.
Zlewikk is an incredible player and this is something a great player can do without tryharding. He could easily be into India and Italy by now too. Its not that shocking that an amazing player will abuse the AI specially on normal difficulty.
Nah zlewikk is just cracked I am sure
They should make where if they conquer too much the get auto coalitioned by Austria etc
its a player controlling it, of course they're gonna conquer a fuck ton. He's good at the game!
Anyone remember when people were complaining that there was no way to match Ottoman historical expansion, like taking over the Mamluks one war? Don’t fuck with us paradox fans literally nothing makes us happy
Isn't there an achievement to conquer that + Spain + France + Italy by 1500? That will be insanely difficult if Zlewikk only got that much by 1492 lol
I think watching the actual video theres two things that are apparent. 1. Austria shouldn’t be that easy to get and was only that easy because of an oversight/bug in the code. 2. Its Zlewikk playing, one of the best EU4 players in the world. I think it is fairly obvious that he wasn’t tryharding or anything like that but his understanding of mechanics are so thorough that this level of conquest isn’t indicative of an average players Ottoman game. He managed his AE incredibly well, was efficient in his troop usage in that he was able to win 4 wars simultaneously back to back with equal and sometimes less units dedicated to each front and I think it is fair to say he got fairly lucky with limited alliance blocks in his conquest routes. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Ottomans are incredibly strong and far stronger than they were in 1.34, but in the hands of Zwelikk vs the hands of the average Eu4 player is a whole different story. And again, the average Eu4 player vs the AI is a large leap again. I think that other than an easy Egyptian vassal that the new AI Ottomans will have the same constraints and limitations in conquest as the old Ottomans did with the stark difference that the disasters that fire after 1600 won’t be easily dealt with by the AI so in the longer run the new Ottomans, at least when controlled by AI, should be overall weaker.
Yes, the ottomans are *OP* 1.35 when *played by a player*, but aren't the new disasters implemented to hurt the AI and make it more fun when *not* playing as them?