Ottomans

[Suj85]

Ive been looking and not many people talk much about the ottomans. I love them and always play as them. Is there something idk cuz im have trouble above noble

 

[Capt. Fluba]

I actually play as the Ottomans all the time, but it's weird as to why. When I play a team game with a friend of mine, he always played as Bismarck. In vanilla I played as Isabella for the Spiritual trait cause we love to rush religions to grab as many as possible, if not all of them. When Warlords came out I switched to the Egyptians (Ramesses II) because I still got the Spiritual trait, but added Industrious which helped me keep pace with Bismarck's economy. Finally, once my friend's wife started to join us, I switched to Mehmed for the Expansive and Organized, since his wife playing as Isabella gave us Spiritual/Expansive. Thus I was Mehmed and a strong trio of civs was formed.

Now, if the right conditions are met, we can grab wonders, expand well and keep strong economies going (in one current game, with BTS, before going to war, I was running 80% Sci, 20% Esp and making 80+ gold a turn!). But, to answer your question, Suj85, I think the Ottomans are just different. I play more of a defensive, cultural method with moderate expansion and minimal offensive action and I usually do well, especially if the RNG blesses me with a lucky starting position. The Ottomans just need a lot of work to be really good, and that's about it. They aren't strong in one way, they are moderate in many styles and good for filling holes in a team game. I hope that helps a bit.

Mainly I just wanted to post to start a discussion on the Ottomans!

 

[Suj85]

i tend to be more agressive using the conquered land to slingshot my self in research so i usually end up with a space victory

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

They suck.

 

[Suj85]

y do u say that

 

[reverend oats]

Capt Fluba, why all the expansive leaders?

 

[PreLynMax]

They suck.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Well, Expansive is one of the worst traits, and Organized is pathetic for most of the game.

 

[PreLynMax]

Well, Expansive is one of the worst traits, and Organized is pathetic for most of the game.

Organized is great for REXing, its a great combo with Finacial trait civs to maximize commence.

Protective (personal favorite trait, because I pwn with it) is great against Aggressive trait civs. Also allows that civ to build walls and castles faster, which makes cities that much harder to take. Someone in this forum said this game's balance is geared toward defense, so you'll need a lot more units to take a city, so you'll need more siege units to grab the same effort against non-Protective trait civs. A lot of aggressive noob-type pre-Monarch level players underestimate the Protective trait, throw all thier units at me, lose, and get pwned when I send my stack of doom to thier unguarded cities.

What does all this mean? The Ottomans' traits were not built for warfare. I believe they were farmers, not fighters. Those are the type that would drop thier pitchforks, grab thier swords and come back to rebuild thier destoyed improvements, and not to be underestimated.

 

[bestbrian]

Organized is great for REXing, its a great combo with Finacial trait civs to maximize commence.

Protective (personal favorite trait, because I pwn with it) is great against Aggressive trait civs. Also allows that civ to build walls and castles faster, which makes cities that much harder to take. Someone in this forum said this game's balance is geared toward defense, so you'll need a lot more units to take a city, so you'll need more siege units to grab the same effort against non-Protective trait civs. A lot of aggressive noob-type pre-Monarch level players underestimate the Protective trait, throw all thier units at me, lose, and get pwned when I send my stack of doom to thier unguarded cities.

What does all this mean? The Ottomans' traits were not built for warfare. I believe they were farmers, not fighters. Those are the type that would drop thier pitchforks, grab thier swords and come back to rebuild thier destoyed improvements, and not to be underestimated.

I thought they were Org/Exp?

 

[Suj85]

i tend to be more agressive using the conquered land to slingshot my self in research so i usually end up with a space victory

so who would u suggest i play as

 

[gdgrimm]

In Warlords, Ottomans are Exp/Org.

They don't play well for militaristic victories, because their traits don't fit nicely with conquering, and their UU doesn't help take cities.

They also don't fit real well for cultural victories, because they have no advantage in grabbing religions, nor any bonus to wonders or cultural buildings.

But the synergy between Organized, Expansive, and their UB (an Aqueduct with +2 ) is pretty amazing from a builders perspective. Lots of cheap buildings, reduced Civic costs allowing larger pops for the same cost, and extra happiness to keep the larger pop productive. Rushing quickly to Gunpowder also makes them pretty impervious to attack until well into the Gunpowder era.

All in all, a very nice choice for game strategies that rely on buildings and population for victory (like Space Race).

 

[bestbrian]

In Warlords, Ottomans are Exp/Org.

They don't play well for militaristic victories, because their traits don't fit nicely with conquering, and their UU doesn't help take cities.

They also don't fit real well for cultural victories, because they have no advantage in grabbing religions, nor any bonus to wonders or cultural buildings.

But the synergy between Organized, Expansive, and their UB (an Aqueduct with +2 ) is pretty amazing from a builders perspective. Lots of cheap buildings, reduced Civic costs allowing larger pops for the same cost, and extra happiness to keep the larger pop productive. Rushing quickly to Gunpowder also makes them pretty impervious to attack until well into the Gunpowder era.

All in all, a very nice choice for game strategies that rely on buildings and population for victory (like Space Race).

Great for rexing on huge maps. Remember, like the man says, "land is power".

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Mehmed II is Expansive and Organized (same in BtS), and Suleiman I is Imperialistic and Philosophical.

 

[Zapper]

ottoman empire owns

 

[john k]

I tend to do well with Ottomans, I like the Jannisary unit well enough.

 

[Sefnag]

I believe they were farmers, not fighters. Those are the type that would drop thier pitchforks, grab thier swords and come back to rebuild thier destoyed improvements, and not to be underestimated.

The Ottoman Empire 1299-1922
You don't control an empire that lasts for 630 years and spans most of Southern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa with farmers' militias.

And I agree, land is power. Control of strategic points and resource denial is as much a part of warmongering as attacking.

 

[dagriggstar]

Ottomans are a great "builder" type civ. Well suited to having alot of large cities...

Best way to play them in my view is tech rush to gunpowder then attack with Janissarys and deny others gunpowder at all costs!

I quite like Janissarys, very effective at taking out technologically backwards civs.

Cultural victories are quite possible - large cities = more production = more buildings...