1.14 will destroy small countries

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

As a superpower 1.14 will be super beneficial allowing england France and the ottomans to grow exponentially however starts like Byzantium will become incredibly hard unless you manage to become siege leader for all sieges though diplomatic feedback and making important provinces will help the end result will be basileus(thankfully got this 1.13) Gothic invasion Albania or Iberia and a number of other achievements will become extremely hard to get is this intended or not? And if it is why?

 

[hwoosh]

This has always been the case... Blobs get less coalition risk than small nations; more monarch points through more expensive advisors; less of a threat from rebellions and invasions because they control a more geographically sprawling territory; more bandwidth for expanding on multiple fronts simply by virtue of having more troops and money. There haven't been many changes over the development history of EU4 that have moved this in the opposite direction, sadly...

 

[aclover]

You never know. Perhaps countries will still be willing to let you have you most of the share for the spoils of war as long as it helps cripple their rival

 

[gdj]

I always play small countries myself, yet i am not opposed to this change. Using a great power as a wrecking ball to fight other great powers without rewarding them is not reasonable either, after all. The diplomatic feedback mechanic does at least have some logic behind it. Also, like any shrewd and cunning leader of a weak coutry, you can use it to your advantage by distributing land in a way that causes additional friction between great powers, making you the sole real profiteur from it....maybe...

 

[EnricoMettifogo]

people complaining about a new expansion days before its release without actually playing or any other concrete evidence?
now that's something i've never seen around here.....
just kidding, we see this a lot

 

[GC13]

Yeah, I'm playing Italy right now. I have more than twice as much development as France, yet I started out as Florence. Who do you think got me to where I am now? I had France and Austria both in my corner to defend me from attackers, and if an enemy looked too strong to attack I'd go ahead and call them in to help me smash them. Now as the big boy on the block though, it's not so fun doing all of the work and getting nothing. I'm looking forward to this change, and even think it's so crucial to good gameplay that it should really be in the free patch.

 

[pphair]

Well 1.12 was a massive boost to small nations. So maybe just see this as a re-balance?
Less exploiting of the AI is always good in my book.
And why is it always Byz that gets mentioned? Its supposed to be impossible!

 

[warcraftknight]

You can also use favours to call your allies into wars that won't give them any land so you can still do the whole call France into your war as a giant invincible wrecking ball of doom, just not as often. And the 10 year cooldown on calling allies into offensive wars is gone to so thats going to make things a bit easier. And of course do the whole play nations into attacking each other by giving them land the other wants.
So yeah it will be harder for some smaller countries but not impossible thats for sure.

 

[El_Cid_]

As a superpower 1.14 will be super beneficial allowing england France and the ottomans to grow exponentially however starts like Byzantium will become incredibly hard unless you manage to become siege leader for all sieges though diplomatic feedback and making important provinces will help the end result will be basileus(thankfully got this 1.13) Gothic invasion Albania or Iberia and a number of other achievements will become extremely hard to get is this intended or not? And if it is why?

The devs should NOT hold back from taking the game in the direction they want to take it just because there are some legacy achivements which may become harder, even significantly so. Starting with OPMs like that should be very hard. Up until now all you have had to do is survive until you can get an alliance with a great power and then use them as your attack dog. I hope/expect that the new mechanics will make this much more nuanced.

 

[Thrake]

Hard starts should be hard. Having an OPed lucky ally doing all the job for you for free isn't hard. Glad it will become more realistic; tiny nations don't have to sit down at the table as winners just because good ol' buddy France killed 'em all.

 

[Golladan]

Can someone translate, please?

 

[grommile]

Can someone translate, please?

OP is whining about the change that means you actually have to do something for your AI wrecking ball instead of letting it do all the work then take all the spoils for yourself.

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

My point was from a gameplay perspective as opposed to a historical perspective due to the fact that the change although beneficial in someways means that in general smaller countries will have much slower starts compared to larger countries meaning it would be harder to pull of achievements. In general i agree that Basileus should not take only 5 attempts to gain but I don"t think that such changes as in made in Cossaks make the game reasonable as OPMs without riduculous cheesing with sieges or riduclous hours homing skills. The changes really in the end create a gap between the beginners who play larger countries and the experts who play smaller countries making the entry criteria for smaller countries much larger.

 

[Heatth]

The gameplay perspective is that now you have to actually do stuff to succeed, instead of relying on big allies doing it for you. Now diplomacy will be a game on itself.

 

[ZangoZett]

I believe Wiz stated in the video dev diary that your war contribution score depends on how much you're EXPECTED to contribute, not the absolute quantity of contribution given. Therefore, I think this change shouldn't negatively impact smaller nations too much, as long as you actually contribute to the war; really, I believe this was aimed more at accepting CtA's and doing absolutely nothing moreso than making small nation starts harder.

 

[Metallord]

Just give your big allies provinces they want in peace deals and since the moneyz and prestige get divided anyway i bet they Will be happy. Which Will tie in to the trust and Favor thingy. Thus you can keep them around as allies untill you are strong enough to rival them.

 

[Cryoshakespeare]

Well, it's important to remember that the "participation" score is also tied to how large the country is that is providing it. Thus, a small country and a large country will, if they contribute their share equally in proportion to their size, gain similar amounts of favor.

Small starts will be harder, most likely. But they will also be, I imagine, more intricate, more technical, rather than just spamming mercs and blobbing out with mega-alliances in order to become a medium-power.

 

[earlofbrigand]

Byzantium always gets mentioned because the old romantic in people wants to reclaim the rightful lands of our Greco-Roman forbears from the dastardly Turkish infidels! Obviously.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

As a superpower 1.14 will be super beneficial allowing england France and the ottomans to grow exponentially however starts like Byzantium will become incredibly hard unless you manage to become siege leader for all sieges though diplomatic feedback and making important provinces will help the end result will be basileus(thankfully got this 1.13) Gothic invasion Albania or Iberia and a number of other achievements will become extremely hard to get is this intended or not? And if it is why?

Please learn what "exponentially" means then get back to me. Also, Byzantium and Albania and Theodoro are all supposed to be hard. That's why they're achievements.

 

[earlofbrigand]

Please learn what "exponentially" means then get back to me. Also, Byzantium and Albania and Theodoro are all supposed to be hard. That's why they're achievements.

Yeah but not too hard that even the uber-players have to restart 20 times and do everything exactly right (ie in a non-organic manner) to make it through the night. A lot of people say that it was inevitable that the Byzantines were wiped out... that was because they had recently been ransacked in failed crusades, the Pope still hated them and European nations kept squabbling between themselves and couldn't form a defence against the Ottomans. There is a realistic window of about 100 years after the game started when things could have been different. By 1550 on the other hand, the Ottomans were in a much stronger position and then it would have been near on impossible.

So in some senses, around 1444, the Ottomans were very lucky.