Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by bite, Jan 22, 2019.
I was thinking Hungary
That, Hungary, Russia, Egypt/Arabia or Persia. Are there any other enemies I forgot about?
Russia, Arabia, Egypt and Persia are all possibles but don't have leaders who interacted with the Ottomans.
I'm sure Peter had some interaction with the Ottomans at some point in his reign; they were neighbors after all. But yeah, Saladin, Cleo, and Cyrus are all a little--or a lot--early.
So speaking of comparing Ottomans to Spain (who only gets one unit with good combat bonus, I believe the rest get very moderate combat bonus IF facing a different religion), one thing often overlooked is the massive amenities and loyalty this guy gets. Conquering in EZ mode. one thing about a game I started a few days ago on deity is just dealing with massive loyalty problems. I probably should have burned down more cities, but wouldn't have helped me much because of Zulu I was at peace next to Victoria's cities. When the AI gets such advantage to getting golden ages, then yes these amenities and loyalty matter. I was playing as Macedon btw who get no such help with loyalty. And yes I can see Ottomans being better than Macedon at warfare if you use your governor wisely. And Spain isn't even in the same league.
I think Spain can be in the same league but they require so much setting up with things going right for them. All the Ottomans need to do is conquer a city before gunpowder.
Not exactly neighbours but he did fight the Tatars to try and get a Black Sea naval base which led to fighting the Ottomans so you're right.
Felipe had certainly some contact with the Ottomans in his time (most famously at Lepanto, although not in person). And CdM was allied to the Ottomans iirc.
But I guess it‘s Hungary that‘s going down.
Upgrading Janissaries from Swordsmen:
I believe you guys are not taking the new strategic resource system into account enough. GS is not R&F! One single source of iron won't be sufficient any more to field a whole army and it is very possible that there is simply not enough material around to build as many Swordsmen as desired. Or at least not as quick as desired.
It is very possible that some later units have to be hard-built from scratch when they come online and new resources are discovered.
Oh, yes, Battle of Lepento.
Be a good opportunity to show off the new Ottoman ships.
I think Hungary and Spain would be the most obvious choices with Poland and Russia as outliers..
Shame we don’t have galleass units back (or any new units in the general naval lines).
True, its the right period for caravels but they never saw much use in the Med.
edit: The Holy Alliance had galleases and galleys whilst the Ottomans had galleys and galliots
There was a long history of resisting absolute monarchy in France, too. That resistance just wasn't as successful, in part due to the King's ability to raise artillery units.
Prussia's a whole different beast, but in medieval times absolute monarchy was resisted even better in the Germanic states than in England.
Not that it mattered to the serfs. One overlord was as good (bad?) as another. It was the lesser nobility and townsfolks who fought for legal rights.
True, and it was after the medieval period before the centralised French state became a thing
True but once they'd establsihed the HRE wasn't absolute didn't they set themselves up as absolute rulers in their own petty kingdoms?
And the monastics, a major source of support for Simon de Montfort.
If any of the Stuarts had been truly competent England might have ended up as absolutist as France or whatever.
But NB that monks were chiefly drawn from the nobility and well-to-do burghers--random peasants didn't usually become monks--so we're still talking about the same people.
I rather doubt that. The English nobility and gentry was too used to having a looser leash; the French kings had kept the nobility off their back by keeping them preoccupied with infighting. Crossing the nobility is chiefly what lost Charles I his head, despite the fact that his ideas on absolutism were actually less radical than his father's.
Quick thoughts on Kebab:
Great Turkish Bombard: Siege units aren't as important this game because they're vulnerable and are somewhat replaced by the Battering Ram, but I often find myself building a few; getting better siege units while also getting them faster is nice. Also, getting a full pop city is potentially amazing--this could be kind of difficult to hold onto in the short term, since large cities can kind of be troublesome, but the long-term benefits way outweigh the short term annoyance. Also, the amenity and loyalty might offset that altogether, so we'll have to see how this works in action. Right now though, this seems pretty good.
Grand Vizier: This is either going to be incredible or inconsequential. I feel like we're overlooking just how many military bonuses the Ottomans get out of this one governor: this can potentially give your units +5 combat versus other units, and a whopping +15 combat strength versus a city he's stationed in (if I'm reading this right). That's just outright disgusting. He also gives you a bonus for constructing units, which will be really helpful throughout the whole game, while also giving the Ottomans a chance for early war before all their bonuses kick in. Additionally, he's a pretty good diplomatic governor, meaning that the Ottomans are in a similar vein of Persia, in that they can play the warmonger game without facing the diplomatic consequences. Of course, upgrading Ibrahim means forgoing upgrades for Magnus, Liang, Pingala, or Reyna, which are really important to the current Civ VI meta. We'll have to see if we can afford not upgrading them in favor of Ibrahim, but this has the potential to be a really strong ability; unique regardless, so I'm all for it.
Grand Bazaar: This seems like it's dependent on the context. Built in a city with a lot of luxes, it could be incredible. Otherwise, just decent. We'll have to see how impactful the strategic resource thing is, but I imagine that's a pretty decent extra chunk, even if it's only one. Seems good, but going to need hands on experience before I definitively say how good.
Janissary: Ok, this is the one where I have no idea what to think. Taking it at face value, holy crap it's amazing. More combat strength, a free promotion, and it being much cheaper? Yes please! However, that population cost aspect it carries is a real bummer. But, given the UA and low production cost, building it in conquered cities shouldn't be a problem. And since it's a Musketman replacement, it should be able to be upgraded into from Swordsmen. We'll have to see how it fares in practice, but the potential is really high here. It comes in the late mid-game though, so the delay could hurt it.
Barbary Corsairs: Ok, so we all know how good the Jong is due to it coming so early, so depending on where exactly the Corsair is located on the tech/civics tree, this could be an amazing unit. However, it's probably not as good as the Jong since the Jong has that easy to achieve combat bonus, but it still likely will be a tyrant on the seas. The pillaging bonus is particularly interesting, especially considering how pillaging rewards scale now, making doing so more worthwhile. Again, seems promising.
Overall, I think the Ottomans are going to be really fun to play, and could potentially be quite good. However, I don't think they're going to be top-tier, since most of the bonuses don't activate until the mid-game, and a lot of the really strong ones in here you're going to have to bend over backwards. However, Grant Vizier and GTB are potentially game-breaking in some regard, so we'll have to see how the Ottomans fare in the actual release.
As of right now, I think the current PR for the GS Civs is: Maori>Hungary>Inca>Sweden>Ottomans>Canada>Mali.
Mostly but they were more open. Thomas Becket's father was a butcher, not a high status trade.
James never really put them into practice though, Charles tried to.
Charles is what lost Charles his head. Both Parliament and the army were keen to reach a settlement with him but his repeated bad faith and attempts to start new wars drove them to decide no settlement was possible.
If anything the ECW showed the weakness of the nobility as an institution.
I wasn't denying Charles's incompetence (James I was probably the only Stuart who had half a brain--no disrespect to Anne, but she did exactly nothing during her reign ). I merely disagree with the premise that a more competent Stuart could have achieved Louis XIV's level of power. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I probably got the closest to that of any English monarch, and both of them were very intelligent and charismatic rulers. I think Elizabeth I is probably the apex of power an English monarch could reasonably hope to achieve.
Grand Bazaars will alleviate this problem giving you +1 strategic resource accumulation. I'm assuming it only applies to cities that have strategic resources, so obviously you want a commercial hub in those cities. Only problem is they are a bank replacement and come a little late. Regardless, swordsmen don't have any per turn iron maintenance, and eventually you should accumulate enough to have a sizeable army.
And of course I still don't believe they can be upgraded into janissaries.
I would agree the Tudors were much more competent than the Stuarts. Henry VII whilst not charismatic was very intelligent and his hamstringing the nobility after the War of the Roses was important for Tudor power.
Separate names with a comma.