Ottoman Faction in your experience

[Heinz Guderian]

May i ask other Empire Forum goers, how have the Ottomans behaved in their campaign? Have you ever seen them attack/expand/be rational?

In my experience, campaigns in which i was GB, Netherlands and France, they have never expanded, nor do they reinforce their cities properly, nor do they send meaningful stacks against their enemies. I try to help them (give them regions/money) because they are always good trade partners, but watching them formulate a campaign is like watching a bunch of retards ****ing a doorknob.

I know campaign AI is a bit problematic at the moment, but at least other nations such as Persia, Dagestan, even Georgia defend their cities well and send decent stacks against their enemy.

I remember Darth mentioning that the Ottoman AI "is broken", even when compared to others. The gap by Istanbul doesnt help with pathfinding.

How have you guys found them?

[Nastyvale]

Apparently there's something broken with land connections and it's hurting Swedish, Danish and Ottoman AI. During my campaigns they tend to sit idle and rarely take on Austria and/or Persia. It seems that their empire is cut in half and has no idea what to do...

[Darkpriest667]

Apparently there's something broken with land connections and it's hurting Swedish, Danish and Ottoman AI. During my campaigns they tend to sit idle and rarely take on Austria and/or Persia. It seems that their empire is cut in half and has no idea what to do...

I noticed the same thing..


Also the ottomans start out with almost no military whatsoever..

[Heinz Guderian]

Apparently there's something broken with land connections and it's hurting Swedish, Danish and Ottoman AI. During my campaigns they tend to sit idle and rarely take on Austria and/or Persia. It seems that their empire is cut in half and has no idea what to do...

I think this must be the reason. But i remember giving them Persia and Azerbaijan when i was the Netherlands, and after 10 years, they would still not raise a garrison against Chechen and Georgian raids. I tried money, lots of it, to no avail.

Does this also mean that they cant get a land trade with people like Persia or Georgia because their capital is not "linked" to asia?

[Nastyvale]

I'm not quite sure about how this bug affects trade as I was flooded with cash when I tried the Ottomans so let me get back to you on that one. On the other hand there's definately a problem moving armies and agents through the Dardanelles. At least it's consistent with other similar connections so hopefully it can -and should be fixed-.

[Big Pacha]

As an Ottoman player I've extended from Baluchistan + Ceylan (Indian map) to Kiev, Vienna, Italy, etc. As played by the AI yes the Ottomans are a joke: they never attack, don't even defend and in my russian campaign they even got kicked hard by Persia who took Mesopotamia. You're right that's a problem. Considering that they struggle at the very beginning with a miserable army and undeveloped territories I guess the AI tries to develop their archaic economy, swallowing the army budget. As the player you can correct but the AI don't

About the same with supposedly expansive powers like AI Prussia or Sweden: because of failed diplomatic relations at start, they don't expand, or miserably. As Prussia (my 3rd campaign) I took on Poland at 1st turn, taking west. prussia (Gdansk/Dantzig) but the AI never does that, same with Saxony who stays despiet their position: AI Prussia prefers to attack Austria at first.

This is all illogical but understandable considering the errors on starting diplomacy (must be patched) and some starting positions. Also, the AI tends to pack irrationally, stocking armies in remote place when it's needed on the other side of the Empire. That's how France gets invaded by Savoy, a delirious move many of us experienced. That 2nd problem requires AI change in priorities and geographic choices.

Also, some AI armies go back & forward and you wonder why: jogging?

It appears that the minor factions AI is much better and they're a far better challenge interms of gameplay & fun: they're aggressive, relentless, and less stupid: they send well-built armies unlike most major faction who prefer sending small groups that you can take down easily. My hardest battles were vs. minors btw.

So in conclusion I see 3 reasons+1specific:
- AI sloppiness for major factions
- Starting diplo. & positions that block a logical expansion
- AI army moves for majors are wrong, they don't conduct planned invasions (except Marathas btw) and send parties instead of armies, unlike minors.
+ In the case of the Ottomans the AI tries to catch up western economies while it should defend and toughen up at first. Small adjustment that would change everything.

[Darkpriest667]

pacha when some modder makes a capable ai for this game the ottomans will be slaughtered by austria in the beginning of the game... you cant truly believe the economy and military they start out with compared to other empires is accurate in the least bit.


By the way i thought it was passha? :-p

[Big Pacha]

pacha when some modder makes a capable ai for this game the ottomans will be slaughtered by austria in the beginning of the game... you cant truly believe the economy and military they start out with compared to other empires is accurate in the least bit.

Good point but that would be a lousy modding job to let that happen without counter-balance. Considering that the Ottomans have well placed forts but no garrison, some Isarelys in the Balkans could correct that. Where are the supposedly vast armies of the Sultan in 1700? A bunch of peasants with forks? Certainly not. Balance is the key as always.

Furthermore, if Austria goes for the Balkans they'll be invaded by Prussia. so all in all we could get balance. Austria is surrounded.

By the way i thought it was passha? :-p

Well It depends what's your western tongue. Yes It's Pasha in English but Pacha in French (same sound) but the real turkish writng is Pasa and that's not even accurate because It's modern turkish. I don't know about Arabic writing which was used during the Ottoman Era, so

Ottoman AI should be very aggressive in the beginning forcing Austria and/or Russia to deal with it. Perhaps grabbing a Mediterranean minor or two by the throat. However I have seen the AI take Croatia but that was rare i.e. once in more than a dozen campaigns.

Slighty off-topic: I could 'buy' the concept of harrassing raids/asymmetrical warfare with 1-3 unit stacks from the AI as long as there are follow-up moves with big armies. Unfortunately this is not the case.

You are so right! (not OT btw) That's why as I said Ottomans need a real army up north to treathen Vienna like they did IRH + change AI invasion policy for majors, They're not even trying.

As for suicidal minors, allow me to have a few objections there. Each and every campaign they tend to declare war and get annihilated within a few turns -if not outright-. Worst case scenario is when a protectorate such as Courland declares war and you have its protector joining the fray.

Also right but I find that a real plus to the game. The "worst case" isn't one IMO because It brings mayhem, WWI style web of alliances and forces majors to stop wetting their pants. Also, some minors are quite tough: if you let Courland develop they'll become a real pain in the "wub" + Persia can be challenging (desert crossing, large territory) + some minors have tough armies: some german states (who can also modernize) and Mysore who surprised more than one player as I read here anyway that was fun and they're still better than the static Med2 "rebels".

Thanks for the considered post BP. (...)

You're welcome

May i ask how you do you know the Marathas conduct planned attacks? I know they always seem to expand well, do you think their priority settings are well programmed? I've tried helping the Mughals as the UP against the Marathas, and i see the Mughals full stacks just wandering around the north while their cities get butchered.
(...)

I played the Dutch and from Ceylan you can see their moves. The Marathas have already well-built and well placed invasion armies from 1st turn, that's how. As a modder (or CA "patcher") you just have to give the AI the right direction to follow. The Mughals do fight back but not efficiently because of AI army moves as I said+they can face hindu revolts and can't go everywhere. Their territory is too vast and underdeveloped while the Marathas are more concentrated, then focused. Sometimes CA does right, as in India. Mysore is also a way to "enter" India but don't expect peace: the aggressive Marathas will attack you as soon as they can. I wish AI Prussia, Sweden, Ottomans, even France & Britain was like that. Also, their army is very cheap that helps.

[Nastyvale]

Ottoman AI should be very aggressive in the beginning forcing Austria and/or Russia to deal with it. Perhaps grabbing a Mediterranean minor or two by the throat. However I have seen the AI take Croatia but that was rare i.e. once in more than a dozen campaigns.

Slighty off-topic: I could 'buy' the concept of harrassing raids/asymmetrical warfare with 1-3 unit stacks from the AI as long as there are follow-up moves with big armies. Unfortunately this is not the case.

As for suicidal minors, allow me to have a few objections there. Each and every campaign they tend to declare war and get annihilated within a few turns -if not outright-. Worst case scenario is when a protectorate such as Courland declares war and you have its protector joining the fray.

[Heinz Guderian]

Thanks for the considered post BP. You are right about Minor Factions. They seem more coherent (even though they still sometimes go on suicide attacks). May i ask how you do you know the Marathas conduct planned attacks? I know they always seem to expand well, do you think their priority settings are well programmed? I've tried helping the Mughals as the UP against the Marathas, and i see the Mughals full stacks just wandering around the north while their cities get butchered.

BUT, this is different to Mysore. In another campaign, when i gave them an extra province, they expanded with speed and ruthlessness against the Marathas. Good garrison ability and sufficient attack forces. They are a minor faction, perhaps this has something to do with how the AI conducts itself?

[Aegon]

May i ask how you do you know the Marathas conduct planned attacks? I know they always seem to expand well, do you think their priority settings are well programmed? I've tried helping the Mughals as the UP against the Marathas, and i see the Mughals full stacks just wandering around the north while their cities get butchered.

Judging from my last 3 campaigns, Marathas performing so well is probably simply due to their good starting armies... On my campaign as the french they conquered the Mughals and then got overrun by Mysore. On my second campaign they conquered Mysore and then the Mughals until the latter only had two provinces in the very north left. Then the tide turned and the Mughals overran Maratha completely (which actually shouldn't be possible, if you beat down your opponent to two provinces and own like 15 provinces, you shouldn't get overrun...)

The third version was the most spectacular one. Maratha conquered nearly all the Mughal territory, then they lost two provinces in the north-east to revolts, one switching back to the Mughals and one became rebel. The Mughals then managed to unite their northern provinces and while they did that, Marathas conquered Mysore only to loose it to a rebellion which spawned Mysore again. Mysore then conquered the Marathas together with the Mughals. This last one was played with the IS-mod, which might explain the number of rebellions.



However, I don't think that the Maratha AI is any better than the rest. While it's true that the ottomans are exeptionally broken, the other AI don't really seem to know what they are doing as well...

[Theoo]

its true.. ottomens never do anything. i think because they so far in like the deserts well desert school arent so good so the AI doesnt get enough brain to do very good things . so that the AI is bad brains and then doesnt do anything good to build just stands around ... this is my theory

[Nastyvale]

Suicidal Minor states might spice up a rather stale situation but that's not what I was looking for. They seem challenging because there's very little going on on the campaign map. Thus, any glimmer of movement and aggresion from the AI is viewed over-positively. Where are wars between empires?

I would prefer going against a Poland-Austria alliance for example instead of being at war with -in the order of scripting- Courland-Saxony-Bavaria and maybe Poland when playing Prussia. Or berserk Savoy when playing the French.

[Heinz Guderian]

its true.. ottomens never do anything. i think because they so far in like the deserts well desert school arent so good so the AI doesnt get enough brain to do very good things . so that the AI is bad brains and then doesnt do anything good to build just stands around ... this is my theory

thats an interesting theory Theoo. You may be right, it could be a representation of the stagnation of ideas in the Ottoman Empire

Suicidal Minor states might spice up a rather stale situation but that's not what I was looking for. They seem challenging because there's very little going on on the campaign map. Thus, any glimmer of movement and aggresion from the AI is viewed over-positively. Where are wars between empires?

I would prefer going against a Poland-Austria alliance for example instead of being at war with -in the order of scripting- Courland-Saxony-Bavaria and maybe Poland when playing Prussia. Or berserk Savoy when playing the French.

But is it really scripted? I remember playing HOI2, and it is scripted for the Soviet Union or Germany to attack each other around 1942. Nothing can be done about it. Is this the same case with ETW? As the UP, France and Spain are very friendly to me. Just will not attack me. So is Hannover. But when i played as Prussia, those crazy Germans around me just wouldnt leave me alone.

[cpt_acid]

Ottoman AI indeed seems lamer than usual, if that's even possible.
I always thought it is meant to represent waning power of a decadent empire.
It could be due to a combination of factors especially puzzling to our friendly neighborhood AI:
Initial very low level of industrialization,
initial lack of armies,
dependency on trade for decent income,
war of virtually all borders,
vast territory ideally suited for naval troop transport of interventionist armies (which as we all know is well bwyond AI abilities),
and finally possible dysfunction of Dardanelles crossing (Sweden and Denmark are perpetually at war by never do battle at Skagerrak, or at all).

Additionally, there's innate AI inability to sign peace treaties with other AI factions. Luckily for Ottoman AI it has nothing to fear but the Human factor. I have seen Russia AI take a nibble in the northwest, Persia AI take a territory or two in the east and that's it.
On the other hand, I have yet to see a substantial Ottoman AI army in the European part of the empire.

Maybe the devs intended to make it a slightly easier prey for the player, and if so they have, against all odds, made an even more confused AI.

[Nastyvale]

Ahhh those HOI2 days and nights! Anyway, I think that there are a series of AI scripts depending on which faction the player chooses. Minor Germans go berserk when playing Prussia. Georgia-Dagestan DOW when playing Russia, Savoy when playing France etc etc. It seems that most of the action is centered around minor nations going medieval on you...

[Big Pacha]

Suicidal Minor states might spice up a rather stale situation but that's not what I was looking for. They seem challenging because there's very little going on on the campaign map. Thus, any glimmer of movement and aggresion from the AI is viewed over-positively. Where are wars between empires?

I get your point. At least there is action. The Empires don't go at war randomly as in Med2, maybe because they're not crude barbarians anymore and they're right to be cautions. Indeed, there are major conflicts in time.
Attack Brusssels with the Dutch = world war bw/ catholics and protestants and an enduring French/Brits war. Attack a german state = war with Austria and their many allies. An slight improvement on alliances and balance should be enough to bring more action bw/ Empires if you want.
Actually, as the Ottomans I've crushed Austrioa long ago but I'm still at war with Britain and the U.P. their former allies + when I attacked a weakened Poland, I had to handle their ally, the Russian juggernaut who just kicked Sweden out of the Baltic states and Karelia. So you see It's possible, but with time. Unlike Med2 you can begin slowly and then 10 turns later (or more, depends) you're involved in a Clash of the Titans, like me as the Dutch. But yes George II or Louis XV are not Genghis Khan

I would prefer going against a Poland-Austria alliance for example instead of being at war with -in the order of scripting- Courland-Saxony-Bavaria and maybe Poland when playing Prussia. Or berserk Savoy when playing the French.

I did both: attacking Austria with the Ottomans provide you with an endless war with all Europe (except my french & prussian allies). Maybe that's why the Ottoman AI is so chicken too. In fact as IRH some minor conflicts can drag you to major clashes bw/ Empires but, as this is the thread's point, the AI won't take the initiative of starting the fire. That, we can modify.

its true.. ottomens never do anything. i think because they so far in like the deserts well desert school arent so good so the AI doesnt get enough brain to do very good things . so that the AI is bad brains and then doesnt do anything good to build just stands around ... this is my theory

You're mixing real history and gameplay with a spice of humor, not bad.
The game's AI is just too cautious and wants to defend everything: making tough choices is for humans, not computers as good as any AI can be. Even NASA computers can't make choices without humans. Machines have no cognitive and sensitive intelligence because they're only about calculus. The day we'll achieve a real A.I. that can do this, well, choose your doom: SkyNet, Matrix or the Cylons?

Now in real history the Ottoman Empire was struck with major contradictions that led them to decline from that period to the WWI crumbling. Same causes as Imperial China or Absolutist Europe: a powerful caste refused to share and modernity was seen like a threat, they "rested on their laurels" and in the end they crumbled. Bad politics, bad leader, bad dev choice... that, you can change in ETW.

[Bloodzen]

With Darthmod iv seen the Ottomans capture regions in Poland and Russia but nothing too much

[Big Pacha]

@ Aegon: excellent display of ETW warfare in India + thanks for supporting and proving my theory, It's all about starting positions and balance. The Marathas are the best example, the AI Prussia being IMO the worst all because of wrong alliances and bad army starting postion.

This is all very moddable. In Med2 It was in one file (descr_strat if I remember), I don't know about ETW.

This Thread deserves to be moved in Gameplay & Startegy as the main topic is the AI.

@ Bloodzen: that means this new Darthmod is not finished and like the others for Med2 It will be improved. Good! Changing starting positions and starting alliances would also imrpove it.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Moved to gameplay discussions.