Played some Democracy 3. I'd played previously as the U.S. and wasn't a fan - there just wasn't enough politics, and no negotiation - but this time tried as the UK and enjoyed it more. For some reason the UK starts in a really poor position in the game, but the challenge made it more fun. I still eventually got to the point that the economy was humming along, and there wasn't much to do, but I'm glad I tried a different country.
Also played some EU4, and fought another long, drawn-out, griding war with the Ottomans as Ryazan. After five or six years of warfare, I thought I might finally have them on the ropes, when they somehow recruit 60,000 more men - and not all mercenaries, either. In the end, I had to settle for about 4000 gold in tribute, less than about 5000 that I could have received earlier - but still have not managed to take a single province. The ability of the Ottomans to withstand losses is staggering. Their alliance took losses of nearly half a million in the war, 50% higher than the Ryazanian-Commonwealth alliance, and they still weren't spent. Meanwhile I have an army of no more than 20,000, and no manpower; at least the Commonwealth is doing better.
So why pick a fight with the Ottomans? Well, because now that the Mamluks are history, it's better to fight them together than to fight them individually. And at this point, my hope is to defeat them economically. After the last war, they were more than 5000 gold in debt. Now they're more than 14000 gold in debt. So the hope is that after another slugfest or two, they'll go broke, and then some combination of a Polish-Lithuanian-Russian invasion, rebels, and their other neighbors seeing an opportunity will bring them down.
But still, it's 1675, and the Ottomans near their peak are scary. They definitely aren't the sick man of Europe yet.