I do believe the Ottomans should have Indonesia as a Revolution option

The Ottoman Empire had a protectorate in Indonesia from 1564 to roughly 1873 in the form of the Aceh Sultanate. There was large-scale trade taking place between the nations, Ottoman naval forces were garrisoned on the island of Sumatra, and the Ottomans assisted greatly in the development of heavy cannon in the region. This was partially done to challenge the Portuguese in the region.

Even though this relationship was not one of direct governance or vassalization, it still seems close enough to justify their addition to the Revolutionary roster for the Ottomans. Besides, there’s still room for 1 more Revolution option seeing as the Ottomans only have 4 Revolutions (the current cap is 5, held by the Spanish and the Portuguese.


Seems reasonable, why not?

Dude, they gave Portuguese the Barbary Coast Revolution, so they do not care about History too much.

Ottomans do not get Indonesia, because they have no consistent bonus to the units and mechanics that Revolution actually gives, and would be at a disadvantage compared to Ports and Dutch, with the same Revolution option.

Portugal did occupy some parts of Morocco from the 15th-18th centuries (and Morocco is considered to be a “Barbary State” by some historians). The traditional blueprint for “should this or that Revolution option be available” is whether people from a nation ever directly governed certain parts of the world. Even the Germans gets access to Argentina and Gran Colombia while the French, Dutch, and Swedes have access to the United States despite only having small outposts in those parts of the world for a few decades each.

1 Like

The Barbary Coast was in Algiers, which would make it a more suitable Revolution for Spain and france, rather than Portugal.

Also, Mamelukes as Mercenary shipment is a joke, we never employed Mamelukes, or Muslims, as a rule.

This is inaccurate as Portugal had auxiliary units from the sultanate of Fez during its occupation of morroco and had them also during their defeat at the battle of Ksar El Kebir. Also, religion was secondary to imperial rule during the XV and XVI centuries, and in places like India or Indonesia/Malasia diverse religion coalitions arouse to fight alongside imperial troops (example: the siege of malacca).

Anyway those shipments, like all mercenary shipment are not supposed to represent specific but generic types of troops that were hired or that could hypotetically be hired.

Nor for Portugal. In fact, were had issues in Japan and India because we could not stop preselytizing.

Also no, we did not use muslim mercenaries as a rule, there was great mistrust.

We would only fight alongside muslims, if we were defending the same place.

And Germany should have Romania for the same reason they have Argentina.