[GS] The Ottomans Discussion Thread

[SephiBBZ]

It seems... So strong. What is this joke

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Both cannot be upgraded to (into?) because they are the first unit of that type.

Ah. I misunderstood. Since other free promotions just fill the unit's experience bar to the next threshold so it can get a promotion, I assume that's what happens when you upgrade a Swordsman to a Janissary. The experience bar bumps to the next threshold for its first, second, third, or etc promotion.

If your swordsman is already close to the next threshold, you probably want to level it up somehow before upgrading and getting the free one.

 

[Josephias]

Ottomans seem to have no early game advantages and perhaps a coastal start bias? They feel similar to Spain in a lot of ways, except they're more of a pure domination civ, whereas Spain can pivot to other victory types.

Yes, I was doing a mental exercise to compare them, since they were clashing continuously at their peak… not that good at working with meta numbers but we have:

- Janissaries vs Conquistadors: cheaper, extra promotion and +5 strenght vs +10 strenght if packed with a religious unit along with religious conversión (to be counted in "loyalty" bonuses).
- Barbary Pirates vs Early Fleets: Early Privateers are available to the Ottomans before Mercantilism vs At Mercantilism, Spain can ¿field? a powerful Navy (albeit expensive)
- Vizier combat bonus vs Religión Combat Bonus: More focused, fully controlable (3-turn establishment) +5 combat/+10 vs district (plus cheaper unit production) vs +4 against different religión (more generic, but also dependant on how religions are spread).
- Vizier diplomacy vs Trans-continent trade routes: Viziers Will provide you also some bonuses relative to diplomatic status (Alliance, grievances) and loyalty, vs Spain Will get extra Benefit from its trade routes (but needs it to pay for more expensive armies).
- Bazars vs Missions: I guess the extra amenities from Bazaars (plus counter benefits), will help you more with loyalty tan missions (but do not have extra science).
- Strong siege & conquer benefits vs inquisitors?: Turkey wins, hans down.

I guess if I had to buff a bit Spain to put it in line with turkey I'd probably enhance the Tresaure Fleets with some kind of amenity bounus (maybe +1 Amenity if the trade route has an improvement in one of the cities that is not previously connected by other route). This Will enhance a bit Spain at domination, while still make it highly dependant on its trade routes (altough It could be also nice if Tresaure Fleets gave Spanish Fleets and Armadas the same effect that Mali cavalary has, but for sea routes).
Spain seems still requires more effort to be succesful first (you need to manage to have a good economy to field your powerful army, and corsairs Will be raiding you to prevent specifically that). But seems somewhat historically accurate.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm disappointed that Suleiman doesn't have a turban larger than his head. As for the civ itself, at least it's only 90% warmongering instead of 100% warmongering. Ottomans just became the civ I play right before Canada.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Ah. I misunderstood. Since other free promotions just fill the unit's experience bar to the next threshold so it can get a promotion, I assume that's what happens when you upgrade a Swordsman to a Janissary. The experience bar bumps to the next threshold for its first, second, third, or etc promotion.

If your swordsman is already close to the next threshold, you probably want to level it up somehow before upgrading and getting the free one.

That's what I am thinking too, but then there's that caveat in the new governor promotion that gives a free promotion to built units that don't already have one. I know it's a slightly different situation, but maybe they think that's too strong.

 

[bbbt]

If Ibrahim was a real person, then why not use Roxelana instead?

My guess is because they wanted a domination focused governor, and one you could put in other civs, and that wouldn't make a lot of sense for Roxelana.

I dont know if it is just me. But it feels like since the first expansion that the newest civs suffer more and more from power creep. It feels like the original civs need to be buffed often to make up for ever stronger new civs. I dont think it is acceptable as a marketing strategy for a civilization game. The original civs could receive a buff here and there and be made more interesting.

I definitely wouldn't mind some of the original civs being buffed (i.e. Spain, Egypt), but looking at 'tier lists', the strongest civs listed are usually all either the DLC civs (i.e. Macedon, Australia, Nubia) or from Vanilla (i.e. Sumeria with his warcarts, Aztecs, Greece). Korea and occasionally Zulu are the only R&F civs I see being ranked highly, and the agreed upon weakest civ in the game - Georgia - comes from R&F. So I don't see much power creep happening beyond the initial standalone DLC civs.

 

[Alexadamz]

I am kindda worried about the governor though, he can put it in your capital and (currently) there is no way to get rid of governors in your own cities.

This may seem weird, as those kind of games are very rare, but I guess this UG and the left side of his promotion tree might be good for a team play. The left side of the tree is good if you have an alliance, and if your ally is at war with someone, you can just place the Vizier at your ally's city and make him stronger while defending. Just imagine Gilga and Sully as the best gym bros and, ouch, that might hurt together. For multiplayer, if you want to play collectivelly with some friend, that would be crazy OP. That is marginal, not many team games overall.

Anyway, we can use the Vizier as an advantage to any AI that is having a bad time against other AI: place him at the AI you want to help, buff their unit production by 20%, give them some bonuses to attack 5 tiles around the city, and so it can protect himself better. If you want to play the Ottomans more peacefully that can be someway to counter any Dom Civ that is geared to a snowball victory. Besides, you can place the Vizier to help a AI while you attack the other AI from another end of their empire. It is a different gameplay indeed, more cooperative for the play towards the AI.

 

[steveg700]

Since they are confirmed as a replacement unit, it would be strange if they cannot be upgraded to. Yet, this is what everyone will be doing. It's rare that you build musketmen anyway, no one will hard build Janissaries.

Well, this design encourages players to do something they might not otherwise do. Good civ designs do that.

I'm a big fan of this design. It offers a diverse palette military advantages that a thinking player can leverage strategically. This could be a model for how to do dom civ's right. and a far better alternative to just handing out sweeping combat bonuses for a hammer-nail approach (a la Mongols, Zulu).

Got everything people might want with an Ottomans civ. Cannons, corsairs, janissaries, and bazaars. Perhaps the bazaar could have been more focused on economy and trade--something similar could have been said for Arabia's design--but maybe we'll see Morocco show up at some point.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

My guess is because they wanted a domination focused governor, and one you could put in other civs, and that wouldn't make a lot of sense for Roxelana.



I definitely wouldn't mind some of the original civs being buffed (i.e. Spain, Egypt), but looking at 'tier lists', the strongest civs listed are usually all either the DLC civs (i.e. Macedon, Australia, Nubia) or from Vanilla (i.e. Sumeria with his warcarts, Aztecs, Greece). Korea and occasionally Zulu are the only R&F civs I see being ranked highly, and the agreed upon weakest civ in the game - Georgia - comes from R&F. So I don't see much power creep happening beyond the initial standalone DLC civs.

I don't know if I need buffs as much as abilities that make sense with each other. I don't think every civ needs to take you by the hand and lead you the way you should play it (my favorites tend to be generalist civs many consider to be weaker) but it's nice when the different components work together.

 

[Corozivu]

This civ is perfect for my play style. I cant wait. Its perfect to attack the civs I havent killed in the ancient era after I spend the Classical Era building up my empire. Awesome stuff.

 

[Siptah]

Well, this design encourages players to do something they might not otherwise do. Good civ designs do that.

I think it is the other way round - this Janissary design makes you do what you always do: upgrade your swordsmen instead of hard building later units.

 

[Leathaface]

Now prepare for a great "We want Byzantium" spam. It's inevitable

The Maya are requested often by the fans.

 

[PhilBowles]

They don't seem like a particularly strong Civ to me. Extra production towards Siege units is nothing special,

For a civ which already has two units, a building and a governor, does it need to be? This is also the lesser part of this ability - the major one is that captured cities don't lose population, and the combat strength bonus is a nice buff. Plus the siege bonus is better than it looks early, since cheaper, better catapults will be excellent in the early game.

the Janissary using up a population flat out sucks TBH. If you build 5 of them you then lose 5 population in your empire.

Most of the time you upgrade into Musketmen, you don't build them - and with the Ottomans you either incur no cost when building them because you're taking them from occupied cities, or you use them to occupy cities which don't lose population, and so more than make up the difference.

The Grand Bazaar doesn't like top tier, it looks a bit above average.

Lots of abilities and units that individually look "a bit above average" equate to a top tier civ in my book. The Ottomans get production discounts on important units (Janissaries and siege), earlier access to a powerful naval melee unit, improved combat performance on all of them, extra amenities and higher population to help keep newly-conquered cities loyal, and extra strategic resources to support their military. This will play out as a high-powered domination civ that is better later in the game than any other domination civ, without giving up anything early (since the siege bonus applies as early as Mathematics). Oh, and they have a governor.

Because it will just play as a domination civ it's not one I'm overly interested in playing immediately, but its design is very interesting and synergistic for a domination civ without just being a Macedon 'spam lots of units' design. It also hits a lot of Ottoman flavour perfectly.

 

[ChocolateShake]

They're good and they're strong, but so, so, so BORING. -_- Oh well, extra loyalty and an amenity in conquered cities is hilariously overpowered, at least Dom will be significantly less tedious than it normally is.

Yup though the design is good it does seem a bit boring to me too, but then again I only very rarely play games where I'm going for conquest. I would've liked +1 range for their siege units, now that would be spicy.

I like the modding possibilities that will be opening up... I can see a mod being developed to give each civ a unique governor.

 

[Siptah]

I like the modding possibilities that will be opening up... I can see a mod being developed to give each civ a unique governor.

The UG is amazing for modders.

But I wonder if this design might foreshadow ideas for future civ games, may it be a spinoff or civ VII: leaders get a fixed bonus and have a promotion tree to customize your civ bonuses while playing. Suleyman is practically exactly that - he get's the Janissary as base bonus and then some promotions via the governor. Just that this "via the governor" makes it a kind of trade-off as you have to spend the same resource on it that you would usually spend for other governor promotions since the Ottomans have no bonus towards governor points. But maybe in the next game there it's something like "pick one promotion every two eras?"

 

[pgm123]

Not "Caesar", but yes. "Caesar" in the Roman empire was a title for the junior emperor who was the de facto heir.

Yep. I mean "of the Romans" instead of "of Rome."

The Ottoman Sultans didn't claim they were the rulers of Rome per se, but they claimed the title and right to rule over Orthodox Christians. The ruler of all Orthodox Christians (and theoretically all Christians in general) is the Roman emperor, whether they are citizens or not. The early Ottoman empire was majority Orthodox and very Balkan-centered, so before the claim of the title of Caliph, the title "Kayser-i Rum" helped grant legitimacy. Remember that the relatives of Constantine XI had a claim and supporters in the west to usurp the throne.

Ruler of the Romans is included in their title like Successor to the Prophet and ruler of Jerusalem. His title (as best as I can reconstruct after I remove the places he didn't yet control):

Sultan Suleiman Han, Sovereign of The Sublime House of Osman, Sultan of Sultans, Khan of the Khans, Commander of the faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the lord of the Universe, Custodian of the Holy Cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem, Caesar of Rome, Padishah of The Three Cities of Constantinople, Adrianople and Bursa, and of the Cities of Damascus and Cairo Egypt, of all Azerbaijan, of the Magreb, of Barkah, of Kairouan, of Aleppo, of the Arab and Persian Iraq, of Basra, of Raqqa, of Mosul, of Parthia, of Diyâr-ı Bekr, of Cilicia, of the provinces of Rum, of Sivas, of Karaman, of Van, of Barbary, of Tripoli, of Syria, of Rhodes, of the province of Peloponnese, of the Mediterranean Sea, of the Black Sea, of Anatolia, of Romania, of Baghdad, of Kurdistan, of Greece, of Turkestan, of Tartary, of the two regions of Kabarda, of Georgia, of the steppe of Kipchaks, of the Tatars, of Theodosia and of all the neighboring regions, of Bosnia, of the City and Fort of Belgrade, of the province of Serbia, with all the castles and cities, of all Arnaut, of all Wallachia and Moldavia, as well as all the dependencies and borders, and many others countries and cities.

Even though familial lines were used for claims, the Roman throne cannot be claimed via inheritance because the title was not hereditary. The fact it was effectively that with fathers being succeeded by their sons was mostly a matter of nepotism/establishing a dynasty. Theoretically, the emperor could name anyone as their co-emperor and heir, which is why usurpers were rarely challenged if they succeeded (with the logic "if they succeeded, then they must have had God's favour").

I know that, but Suleiman seemed to think it was important for propaganda reasons to say he had a link to the imperial family (even if no one can verify that link)

 

[steveg700]

It seems... So strong. What is this joke

Joke? No, no mounties, no hockey rinks....Just what appears to be a well-designed dom civ.

Really, compare with the kind of advantages you can get with the Mongols, Aztecs, or Zulu, I think the Ottomans are pretty reasonable. It's strategic warfare where you have to plan where to deploy the vizier, where to build janissaries, where to raid. Siege units actually get some love.

 

[bbbt]

I don't know if I need buffs as much as abilities that make sense with each other. I don't think every civ needs to take you by the hand and lead you the way you should play it (my favorites tend to be generalist civs many consider to be weaker) but it's nice when the different components work together.

I definitely agree, I prefer coherent generalist (i.e. Mali for example), and unique/active (i.e. Maori) over generic/passive. I'm less fond of coherent but focused (i.e. Ottomans here with their dom victory, or even Sweden with a very specific culture victory focus). The 'hodgepodge' style is definitely less interesting since it often makes it feel like a more generic play through.

The two commonly criticized ones I listed: Egypt and Spain, I think Egypt suffers from being a somewhat hodgepodge generalist with mostly passive abilities, and Spain is actually probably pretty religious victory focused, except most people don't like religious victories. Plus they suffer the 'byzantine problem' - religious bonuses but no guarantee/bonus to getting a religion.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'd be interested in how the Vizier functions in games where the Rise & Fall mechanics are disabled (or for players who've only purchased the second expansion and not the first).

Right now, Ibraham can be so powerful and yet still balanced precisely because his promotions come at the expense of recruiting or promoting other governors. When he is the only governor in the game, the balance of power seems to tip to the Ottomans.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I definitely agree, I prefer coherent generalist (i.e. Mali for example), and unique/active (i.e. Maori) over generic/passive. I'm less fond of coherent but focused (i.e. Ottomans here with their dom victory, or even Sweden with a very specific culture victory focus). The 'hodgepodge' style is definitely less interesting since it often makes it feel like a more generic play through.

The two commonly criticized ones I listed: Egypt and Spain, I think Egypt suffers from being a somewhat hodgepodge generalist with mostly passive abilities, and Spain is actually probably pretty religious victory focused, except most people don't like religious victories. Plus they suffer the 'byzantine problem' - religious bonuses but no guarantee/bonus to getting a religion.

The one I can't get into is India. I'm not sure why I'd ever want to be either of those leaders.