The Ottoman Empire - Information & Discussion

[Lazy Knight]

we can't do it, because the version would not work for non DLC owners. You got to do it yourself.

[jo the greek]

we can't do it, because the version would not work for non DLC owners. You got to do it yourself.

Isee i was speaking for two version double trouble

[Lazy Knight]

If it was only 2 versions... but in fact we had to make a version for every possible set of owned DLC's.

[garudamon11]

what people usually forget is , ottoman empire is supposed to be very powerful at start , the ottoman empire was still a major power and could defeat austria or russia alone in a war before 1753 , so i suggest that you put powerful early units but bad late units

[jo the greek]

what people usually forget is , ottoman empire is supposed to be very powerful at start , the ottoman empire was still a major power and could defeat austria or russia alone in a war before 1753 , so i suggest that you put powerful early units but bad late units

This isnt realistic approach

[Fionn son of Cumhaill]

Sorry man that would be a realistic approach. Granted the Ottoman's are synonmous with corruption and an unwillingness to adapt to the European doctoran of Line tactics but they were still a major player in the militarial sense. I can understand that you as a Greek wouldnt want to accept this but the Ottomans had a massive manpower pool that could be used to wear down the smaller yet more advanced European armies... It would be far from unrealistic and would infact be more historically correct:-) I dont mean to flame but if you can refute what i have just said with facts and figures et cetera i would do the likewise... However the fact remains the Ottomans were a major player and could easily have destroyed the Austrians if the Sultans had adapted their military to conventional European docterine.

[jo the greek]

Sorry man that would be a realistic approach. Granted the Ottoman's are synonmous with corruption and an unwillingness to adapt to the European doctoran of Line tactics but they were still a major player in the militarial sense. I can understand that you as a Greek wouldnt want to accept this but the Ottomans had a massive manpower pool that could be used to wear down the smaller yet more advanced European armies... It would be far from unrealistic and would infact be more historically correct:-) I dont mean to flame but if you can refute what i have just said with facts and figures et cetera i would do the likewise... However the fact remains the Ottomans were a major player and could easily have destroyed the Austrians if the Sultans had adapted their military to conventional European docterine.

To give early strong units and later weak is childish.

Realistic would be to give huge armies in the start that would be costing and a weak economy so in the course you have to battle for survival this would
represented the later decline also .

And many more suggestion could be gived

Αctually the Imperial Splendour already have done good representation

[Fionn son of Cumhaill]

To give early strong units and later weak is childish.

Realistic would be to give huge armies in the start that would be costing and a weak economy so in the course you have to battle for survival this would
represented the later decline also .

And many more suggestion could be gived

Αctually the Imperial Splendour already have done good representation

Actually i agree with you there except for the fact where you said the Ottomans should start out strong and become weak. I think the ideal compromise would be to have large standing forces at the games beginning but make the upkeep relitively small but the actual recruiting cost rather high. Also i agree with ya Tariq i just didnt elaborate on what i already knew, the corruption etc, but it was rather good+rep:-)

[Tariq]

Sorry man that would be a realistic approach. Granted the Ottoman's are synonmous with corruption and an unwillingness to adapt to the European doctoran of Line tactics but they were still a major player in the militarial sense. I can understand that you as a Greek wouldnt want to accept this but the Ottomans had a massive manpower pool that could be used to wear down the smaller yet more advanced European armies... It would be far from unrealistic and would infact be more historically correct:-) I dont mean to flame but if you can refute what i have just said with facts and figures et cetera i would do the likewise... However the fact remains the Ottomans were a major player and could easily have destroyed the Austrians if the Sultans had adapted their military to conventional European docterine.

Sultans couldn't adopt European approach because it would have require significant society changes. Most of the army was made out of local noblemans(Ottoman version of Barons), which would have to gave up on lot of their rights.And lets not forget Janissary corp which acted as "guardian" of old system and was very powerful, practicaly holding most the Sultans as hostages.

Every time when some Sultan tried even to think about modernization of military , he would end up dead on Bosporus shore by morning.Selim III tried reform in the end of 18th century and was prevented by Janissary rebellion, and he ended up assassinated later on.

It was not until 19th century that Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 managed to get rid of both decadent forces and even then was not without complete bloodbath(he had to massacre Janissaries completely).There were large nobleman rebellions in every part of empire(in Bosnia for example), that it took lot of resources for government to suppress it, and they never recovered it from that until ultimate fall of the Osmanli dynasty in 1919.

And by that time , it was to little to late. Most of the nations under Ottoman rule had their national ideas by then and "new army" was severely weakened by dissent and internal struggle from the start.Great deal of important territories was already lost (Serbia, Greece and some other Balkan states), making that reform useless.

With all that said , i agree with Jo the Greek that Ottomans were depicted quite well within limitations of the ETW game engine by IS.

[jo the greek]

Sultans couldn't adopt European approach because it would have require significant society changes. Most of the army was made out of local noblemans(Ottoman version of Barons), which would have to gave up on lot of their rights.And lets not forget Janissary corp which acted as "guardian" of old system and was very powerful, practicaly holding most the Sultans as hostages.

Every time when some Sultan tried even to think about modernization of military , he would end up dead on Bosporus shore by morning.Selim III tried reform in the end of 18th century and was prevented by Janissary rebellion, and he ended up assassinated later on.

It was not until 19th century that Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 managed to get rid of both decadent forces and even then was not without complete bloodbath(he had to massacre Janissaries completely).There were large nobleman rebellions in every part of empire(in Bosnia for example), that it took lot of resources for government to suppress it, and they never recovered it from that until ultimate fall of the Osmanli dynasty in 1919.

And by that time , it was to little to late. Most of the nations under Ottoman rule had their national ideas by then and "new army" was severely weakened by dissent and internal struggle from the start.Great deal of important territories was already lost (Serbia, Greece and some other Balkan states), making that reform useless.

With all that said , i agree with Jo the Greek that Ottomans were depicted quite well within limitations of the ETW game engine by IS.

you said the things i wanted to say

I only concerned for the first years of the 18th cent and if this is possible to represented

[Heeehehe]

what people usually forget is , ottoman empire is supposed to be very powerful at start , the ottoman empire was still a major power and could defeat austria or russia alone in a war before 1753 , so i suggest that you put powerful early units but bad late units

I agree with him especially in term of Janissary, later janissary is already corrupted, the recruitment is not as strict as it was (as the early janissary live in barracks and could not marry until retirement, or engage in any other trade, but by the mid-18th century they had taken up many trades and gained the right to marry and enroll their children in the corps and very few continued to live in the barracks). as the janissary can marry and enroll thier children in the corps, they become corrupted, later janissary is more to political than military power, According to David Nicolle, the number of Janissaries in the 14th century was 1,000, and estimated to be 6,000 in 1475; but it was increased in the 18th century to 113,400 soldiers, but most were not actual soldiers and were accepted into the army through corrupt means and were only taking salary. and the core power of Islamic State military is their religion "Islam". Unlike the European states, The Islamic States is a multi-ethnic states that based on Islamic faith not their ethnic/race and their actual warrior is not fighting for anyone but The Creator and Lord of the Universe, King of All Kings "Allah" (they even wish to die as martyr to please their God and go to heaven) Islamic faith is the core of their millitary prowess. when their faith is damaged (which seems worse in late ottoman period) their prowess in many section (probably even all section) is damaged; their morale is severly damaged; because they have no cause to fight except maybe for their own life or perhaps their family, and even worse is only for their greed, so when the battle seems not profitable the army flee (they can even damage their own state for wealth like what the later janissary done), when morale is damaged fighting skill will be damaged because it's hard to fight in fear especially with the usually more complicated (I think) eastern martial art. some people think it's better to live peacefully in wealth than go to battle and die wich damage their fighting skill even more (because they have no motivation to train their self). it's their Islamic faith too that keep this multi-ethnic state united and prevented them from doing a "corrupted thing" and encourage them to seek knowledge. Ottoman army consists of many tribal warrior that have doing a good job in early period but when a tribal warrior become civilized (physically and mentally) and lose their motivation (religious motivation in this case) I think they're no better than a mob that seek wealth. and later nationalism damaged their unity make them quarrel among themself wich make the condition even worse

[Wingate]

The Turks were outpaced, which was more than a matter of military technology and organization.

[jo the greek]

wrong

[hippacrocafish]

Short campaign objectives should be changed, conquering all the required territories is a chore even on Medium. I would change them like so:

Remove:

-Galacia
-Venetia
-Dagestan
-Persia's capital (Can't remember name)

Add:

-Georgia
-Transylvania
-Patras (The other half of Greece)
-Malta (?)

And some starting territories that should be required for victory

-Anatolia
-Egypt
-Syria
-Bulgaria
-Morea

[hippacrocafish]

I think the Ottomans need some better lancer cavalry, Deli horsemen just don't cut it.

[Heeehehe]

I think the mamluk is underpowered, even Napoleon is impressed with the mamluk and make an army from them (Mamluks de la République), the mamluk even included in French Imperial Guard despite the decree of 21 March 1815 that stated that no foreigner could be admitted into the Imperial Guard (I Think French should have mamluk too as their unit). like Napoleon said "one Mamluk can hold two Frenchmen at bay; 100 Mamluks are equal to 150 French soldiers; three hundred Frenchmen do not fear the same number of Mamluks; a thousand Frenchmen will beat 1500 Mamluks." The Mamluk is individually stronger than The French Army, but The French Army is tactically superior at that time and better drilled as a team, and their bayonet is lethal to The Mamluk (as they are cavalry and bayonet works like spear) when deployed as team especially in Square formation like in Battle of the Pyramids. and they do fight well under Napoleon in Battle of Austerlitz. I think they should be stronger than the European Elite Cavalry. sory if i said something wrong or harsh i don't mean it and my english is not too good, Thanks

[Heeehehe]

any comment?

[panzer 4]

Janissaries still good late time, but only problem was who were the real janissaries and those who were only "janissaries" in name

[Heeehehe]

Janissaries still good late time, but only problem was who were the real janissaries and those who were only "janissaries" in name

Yes... i can accept this

[dark prens]

Hi. I played this mod with ottomans and I can say that this mod is worst mod ever. I cant create enough armies because of recruiment and upkeep cost. I lost many regions even I didnt make a battle. 1700 - 1800 historical period is great war period but we didnt make armies/large armies. In 1705, Britain declared to me war and took Egypt. At that time, ottomans didnt make war with British. Ottomans historical enemies are Austrians and Russians.Also maybe Persians. Can you tell me some advatages of your mod? With ottomans, it doesnt have.