Ottoman

[Grassland Farm]

Yeah no doubt the Foundry is better but I feel Portugal's items aren't too shabby either.
Janissary is great, Foundry's yields are great, the Volley promotion tends to be a "win-more" factor, though.

 

[Gizmoman]

If anything the Arabian UA is a better version of the Ottoman UA now.

 

[Grassland Farm]

Quick brainstorm suggestion for UA:
Internal Routes also increase Happiness.
Internal Routes also generate Gold.
External Trade Routes also generate Culture (or Science?). Hell, just another good yield that makes ETR's danger be paid off.

 

[pineappledan]

Internal Routes also generate Gold.

They already do this. They give on completion.
External TRs give

I specifically suggested they give happiness or needs reduction because of the UA's name, and how it would support the UA. You send Internal TR's to newly integrated millets so they integrate faster.

 

[Grassland Farm]

They already do this. They give on completion.
External TRs give

I specifically suggested they give happiness or needs reduction because of the UA's name, and how it would support the UA. You send Internal TR's to newly integrated millets so they integrate faster.

On completion is narrow, I thought having it every turn would be better, perhaps scaling on % of the hammer/food the ITR gives, rather than era.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think the Ottomans are a "bad" civ, they aren't super weak or anything. However, I could agree that a little tweak is not going to hurt anything.

I do like the +1 on ITRs.... simple, easy, unique, works well with using ITRs for your satellites (as the high growth tends to cause unhappiness). I don't think it fundamentally changes Ottomans (nor should it), I just think it rounds them off juuuuust a bit.

 

[pineappledan]

They aren’t weak, it’s just the UA is incongruent with the UB and UU. The UB and UU encourage warring, which risks the UA’s power, because the UA needs TRs to finish, not get pillaged/interrupted by DoWs. So just adding something to the UA that doesn’t feel like it’s fighting against the other components.

Also, I just really think calling the UA "Kanuni" is a direct upgrade. It ties to Suleiman better, it’s was a successful round of political reforms that were during the empire’s height, rather than a failed round of political reforms during its decline. And “Tanzimat” feels like something that should have a rubber-banding mechanic specifically.

 

[InkAxis]

Yeah definitely needs a name change, I remember when I found out what it actually was a couple of months ago it was funny. Hundreds of years after suliman, and overall a failure, and not even about trade.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

Faster Trade Routes are another consideration. We can then rework the yields the UA gives is more consistent.

 

[andersw]

I find the ottomans very good, as for the UA and wars I try and secure one or two nearby CS and later on send to vassals if I need external, otherwise internal if no option.
The hill biased starts can ofc be turned on/off but it usually means a lot of prod.
Free promo on siege is awesome and the UU is very strong.

 

[Drakle]

I don't really get the basis for the Ottoman UA to begin with. And the Trade Route niche is kinda overcovered, and they are the civilisation with the least basis to have it (Venice, Portugal and Arabia all having far more trading history). Trade route based civs are kinda annoying because they all end up having the niche of always wanting to beeline the early trade wonders because more trade routes are always better.

The Ottomans were never really a super trading civilisation. By virtue of their position they had a lot of stuff flow through, but they never actively encouraged it like others, and often cracked down on it, which is why Europeans had to go around. Their niche was an explosive land-based conquering power, that supported North African piracy. They largely lost the naval battle versus Portugal in the Indian ocean, and against the Mediterranean Christian powers

 

[Gazebo]

.

The Ottomans were never really a super trading civilisation. By virtue of their position they had a lot of stuff flow through, but they never actively encouraged it like others, and often cracked down on it, which is why Europeans had to go around. Their niche was an explosive land-based conquering power, that supported North African piracy. They largely lost the naval battle versus Portugal in the Indian ocean, and against the Mediterranean Christian powers

By virtue of their position they had a lot of stuff flow through ->Sounds like trade to me
they never actively encouraged it like others -> untrue; one of the reasons the Italianate city-states constantly warred with the Ottomans (and other pre-Ottoman caliphates) and were also sponsors of navigation missions was because the Ottomans had a virtual monopoly on eastern trade.
Their niche was an explosive land-based conquering power, that supported North African piracy -> they had the largest fleet in the western world until the Battle of Lepanto; also 'piracy' in the context of N. Africa is orientalist slang for 'trade I don't like.'
They largely lost the naval battle versus Portugal in the Indian ocean, and against the Mediterranean Christian powers -> After centuries of fighting naval and land wars on about half a dozen fronts, sure, they lost. That doesn't invalidate the power and strangehold they had.

So, Tanzimat? The idea here is that, by controlling trade, the Ottomans manage their own advancement. That was one of the cores of Tanzimat - managed development through exchanges with Western Europe.

G

 

[InkAxis]

By virtue of their position they had a lot of stuff flow through ->Sounds like trade to me
they never actively encouraged it like others -> untrue; one of the reasons the Italianate city-states constantly warred with the Ottomans (and other pre-Ottoman caliphates) and were also sponsors of navigation missions was because the Ottomans had a virtual monopoly on eastern trade.
Their niche was an explosive land-based conquering power, that supported North African piracy -> they had the largest fleet in the western world until the Battle of Lepanto; also 'piracy' in the context of N. Africa is orientalist slang for 'trade I don't like.'
They largely lost the naval battle versus Portugal in the Indian ocean, and against the Mediterranean Christian powers -> After centuries of fighting naval and land wars on about half a dozen fronts, sure, they lost. That doesn't invalidate the power and strangehold they had.

So, Tanzimat? The idea here is that, by controlling trade, the Ottomans manage their own advancement. That was one of the cores of Tanzimat - managed development through exchanges with Western Europe.

G

I agree with everything you said, but I still don't understand the name Tanzimat for this.
Tanzimat was an attempt by the Ottomans to survive and modernize, and it was mixed in effectiveness generally and worse wrt trade. It (partially) secularized, increased equality, and modernized administration, but that hardly falls under trade, and most of these reforms just resulted in a conservative reaction later as I understand. As for trade, it allowed foreign powers to trade more freely in the empire, which ended up meaning the other european powers had even more economic control over them, and eventually resulted in extreme debt and bankruptcy. That's not exacty "controlling trade" as you say. Now the ottomans did control trade, and that did benefit them a lot .. but it was hundreds of years before Tanzimat, and Tanzimat decreased control and resulted in foreign powers gaining control.
That's what I think the most important thing is, that Tanzimat didn't exist when all the things you talk about were happening. It was many, many years later. So I'm not sure how you can connect those two.

 

[Gazebo]

I agree with everything you said, but I still don't understand the name Tanzimat for this.
Tanzimat was an attempt by the Ottomans to survive and modernize, and it was mixed in effectiveness generally and worse wrt trade. It (partially) secularized, increased equality, and modernized administration, but that hardly falls under trade, and most of these reforms just resulted in a conservative reaction later as I understand. As for trade, it allowed foreign powers to trade more freely in the empire, which ended up meaning the other european powers had even more economic control over them, and eventually resulted in extreme debt and bankruptcy. That's not exacty "controlling trade" as you say. Now the ottomans did control trade, and that did benefit them a lot .. but it was hundreds of years before Tanzimat, and Tanzimat decreased control and resulted in foreign powers gaining control.
That's what I think the most important thing is, that Tanzimat didn't exist when all the things you talk about were happening. It was many, many years later. So I'm not sure how you can connect those two.

the term does come later, but it was a callback to ‘greatness’ for the Ottomans. Look at this way; if the Ottomans don’t exploit their UA, they’ll fall behind.

 

[InkAxis]

the term does come later, but it was a callback to ‘greatness’ for the Ottomans. Look at this way; if the Ottomans don’t exploit their UA, they’ll fall behind.

Well if you want a callback to greatness why not use a term for the time they had that greatness, rather than one that represents a fall from greatness?

 

[pineappledan]

the term does come later, but it was a callback to ‘greatness’ for the Ottomans.

'Tanzimat' literally means reorganization though, it's not a callback.

 

[Gazebo]

'Tanzimat' literally means reorganization though, it's not a callback.

Reorganization…because things are not as organized as they used to be. So you. Reorganize.

 

[InkAxis]

Reorganization…because things are not as organized as they used to be. So you. Reorganize.

Right, so it's not calling back, it's changing the way things are. Tanzimat westernized and changed them to be more like western powers, not really a call back. And why call back anyway, just use a term from Suleiman's time, not a failed policy that wasn't even about the previous time.

 

[Gazebo]

Right, so it's not calling back, it's changing the way things are. Tanzimat westernized and changed them to be more like western powers, not really a call back. And why call back anyway, just use a term from Suleiman's time, not a failed policy that wasn't even about the previous time.

to preserve and restore past strength. The iconic nature of the term is worthwhile.


G

 

[pineappledan]

@Gazebo, do you have any particular criticism for why “Kanuni” is a worse/less suitable name than “Tanzimat”?