Ottoman

[Hinin]

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

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

I stand firmly in the Kanuni camp, simply because I think it is really strange that, between two names evoking administration and law, we have the one least related with Suleiman, the actual leader of the civ in the game. Furthermore, Suleiman's period was far more prosperous for Ottomans traders, to the point European powers accepted to commerce with the empire despite religious and political tensions (think capitulations).

The name aside, I also think there should be a tenuous link between the two parts of the kit (commerce-focused UA / war-focused UCs) : maybe simply something like '+1 Trade Route slot per Vassal' ? Since Suleiman is especially good at capturing cities toward the mid game, but doesn't benefit much from it economically, that doesn't seem too far-fetched. Plus, it would create a category of warmongers that would care more about vassals (something that is more often used by peaceful civs as buffers) and would be thematic with how Ottomans dealt with their faraway conquests (think Barbary States, or how Ottomans reinforced their commercial presence in the Balkans after establishing vassal states there, like Wallachia or Dubrovnik)

 

[stormfallen]

Porting from the Morocco thread:

If that trade distance thing were to be removed from Morocco, I think it would make a lot more sense on Ottomans. The Ottomans are incentivized to make the shortest trade routes possible, because their UA focuses on completion bonuses, so they are specifically and uniquely penalized by the distance modifier.

If so,

1. Should the yields on TR completion be lowered as to not be an overbuff?
2. This still doesn't do anything to bring the disparate parts of the kit together. Would something like Hinin's "+1 TR per vassal" still work alongside this buff?
3. Does "really likes short trade routes" make any historical sense? Do we care?

 

[notaspambot]

On the shorter trade distance topic specifically: shorter trade distances don't really help with completion bonuses. If anything, longer distances allows for quicker completion bonuses on average, since the potential turns saved by not running a lap is greater.

Also, wouldn't the +1 TR per vassal be reliant a C4DF specific feature? Would that be okay?

 

[pineappledan]

Should the yields on TR completion be lowered as to not be an overbuff?

Probably, they are at 150 right now. Could probably be lowered to 100

This still doesn't do anything to bring the disparate parts of the kit together. Would something like Hinin's "+1 TR per vassal" still work alongside this buff?

I agree with @notaspambot. Some bonus like that is Not likely to happen with a base civ. That's modmod territory.

Does "really likes short trade routes" make any historical sense? Do we care?

We probably don't care no, but I can try to justify it anyways.

First, the Ottoman economy was heavily based on trade, but mainly on trade WITHIN and BETWEEN the various millets in their vast empire. The Ottomans enjoyed access to many valuable luxuries and a large populace/workforce to draw from domestically, unlike the comparably smaller and less densely populated European nations.

Whereas European nations prioritized access to valuable trade routes across very long distances, the Ottomans were situated in the economic centre of the continent, and they benefited most directly from being an entrepot that stood between Europe and access to Africa, Central Asia, India, and East Asia. In other words, keeping international trade restricted to short distances was geographically advantageous to the Ottomans who were, in relative terms, not that far from anyone else, but also didn't care that much, because they had lucrative domestic industries that were an even larger economic driver for them than choking long-distance trade was.

Re: gameplay, I see a distinct advantage to moving it from Morocco to Ottomans. As @myeong1129 pointed out, everyone on the whole continent gets comparatively richer with Morocco on their continent. That doesn't go away with the Ottomans, but Morocco has the lowest warmonger AI score in the whole game: 1. Ottomans are much more aggressive, so they are much less likely to just let their entire continent trade and benefit off of them uninterrupted.

 

[Drakle]

Could the Ottomans have a bonus where Hostile relation Civs trade units can't cross their territory? Given how they blocked off Euro powers from trading with the East. Or maybe Ottoman territory costs more tiles as distance for hostile Civs.

 

[Rekk]

Could the Ottomans have a bonus where Hostile Civs can't cross their territory? Given how they blocked off Euro powers from trading with the East. Or maybe Ottoman territory costs more tiles as distance for hostile Civs.

How does this work against the human player or in multiplayer?

 

[notaspambot]

Same as it would with for AI I suppose. It would basically be a reverse-roads specifically for trade units on your territory. That being said, "hostile" civs would just get their trade routes plundered anyway, so it would need to be global for it to really work.

Before we get into it any further, let's be clear: Does the actually Ottomans need a buff? Or does it "just" need flavour adjustments?

Because if it's the latter, I'm not really fond of either the trade distance buff or this one. As I've mentioned, shorter TRs do nothing for completion bonuses; if anything, they are detrimental for them. It wouldn't really fit in with the rest of the kit apart from just happening to be TR-related. As for debuffing foreign trade units, this at least synergises with conquest/going wide (be bigger, block off more land, force other civs to spend more TRs with you instead of other civs), but at the same time, it can be easily negated by other civs just choosing to use internal trade routes instead. If it's to be put on a UA, it should be put on a kit that specifically focuses on this aspect. Otherwise, it's more suited for something like a wonder.

 

[pineappledan]

On the shorter trade distance topic specifically: shorter trade distances don't really help with completion bonuses. If anything, longer distances allows for quicker completion bonuses on average, since the potential turns saved by not running a lap is greater.

Also, wouldn't the +1 TR per vassal be reliant a C4DF specific feature? Would that be okay?

i thought shorter distance trade routes do mean faster completion. That’s the only reason I suggested the ability moved here.

if distance doesn’t determine the number of turns for a TR to complete, what does?

 

[Rekk]

All trade routes set out for the same number of turns, but if the unit finishes all of the turns in the middle of the route, it has to spend additional time getting back to its home city before it finishes.

 

[notaspambot]

I'm fairly sure it's actually the opposite- if the last lap would exceed the base duration of the route, then it doesn't run that lap at all.

From CvTradeClasses.cpp:

		iCircuitsToComplete = max( int(iTargetTurns/fTurnsPerCircuit), 2);

Note how int() here will drop the decimal and round down.

Also, trade route duration is defined in RouteScaling.sql.

 

[Rekk]

I was close!

What is iTargetTurns set to?

 

[azum4roll]

Doesn't explain why longer routes usually take longer to complete.

 

[notaspambot]

I was close!

What is iTargetTurns set to?

From RouteScaling.sql:

UPDATE GameSpeeds SET TradeRouteSpeedMod=67  WHERE Type='GAMESPEED_QUICK';
UPDATE GameSpeeds SET TradeRouteSpeedMod=100 WHERE Type='GAMESPEED_STANDARD';
UPDATE GameSpeeds SET TradeRouteSpeedMod=150 WHERE Type='GAMESPEED_EPIC';
UPDATE GameSpeeds SET TradeRouteSpeedMod=300 WHERE Type='GAMESPEED_MARATHON';

INSERT INTO Defines(Name, Value) VALUES('TRADE_ROUTE_BASE_TARGET_TURNS', 30);

---

Doesn't explain why longer routes usually take longer to complete.

It's not a hard-fast rule; it only means that longer routes will tend to take less time on average. You might also be having routes long enough that making the minimum two laps is longer than the base duration for the route, which shouldn't really happen, but I suppose the experience can be skewed by different speeds/map sizes.

 

[Stalker0]

What if the Ottomans ability made it so there TRs were a set specific turn length.....regardless of distance. That gives them a consistency no other civ would have.

 

[Rekk]

What if the Ottomans ability made it so there TRs were a set specific turn length.....regardless of distance. That gives them a consistency no other civ would have.

Similarly, you could force them to only have two laps.

 

[Gazebo]

What if the Ottomans ability made it so there TRs were a set specific turn length.....regardless of distance. That gives them a consistency no other civ would have.

the duration stuff is funky, it's actually tied to the distance the unit has to go...can't really hard code it.

G

 

[InkAxis]

Also, we had a discussion about changing the name to not be a policy that was a failure, not in any way tied to the UA or kit, and hundreds of years after the leader?

The only argument I heard was that it was 'iconic', but I'd argue it's not. A good comparison would be if we had Catherine's ability be Perestroika. They both happened way later than the leader, were attempts to regain former glory along with increasing liberalization, and were followed by the collapse of the nation. And Perestroika is *more* iconic than Tanzimat.
Neither make sense for a UA title.

 

[chicorbeef]

Something referencing the Silk road maybe?

 

[beginner_]

Maybe I'm using the Ottomans wrong or not understanding the bonus but the trade route completion bonus seems like way too low. I make roughly double the amount of science or culture per turn than this bonus. Yes, the amount of trade routes increase as well but still, it seems not to matter much.

 

[stii]

It just doesn't scale very well, but this is true of lots of civ's abilities. I don't think you are missing anyway, although their UU is probably the best card of this civ.