Addressing the Oversized Elephant in the room

[tom025]

If you dont nerf them their economy reduce at least the cavalry combat ability of Poland / Commonwealth.

33 % is way too overpowered, you should put it at 25 % its more reasonnable (Because most of cavalry civilisation have a bonus of 20 %).

Its now 3 time that I've seen Commonwealth be a Juggernaut, they destroy Russia and even the Ottomans.

Several Players complained about France in the past, But the Commonwealth is much worse than France !

(Anyway Its just a suggestion, if you don't want to change it I will deal with it )

 

[PhroX]

Lithuania is extremely fragile, so we wont nerf it.

While an isolated Lithuania is indeed pretty fragile (though still very strong if it manages to avoid major instability), from my experience, a Lithuania in a PU under Poland (something that happens most games) is pretty stable, while a formed PLC (an not infrequent event at all these days) is off the scale. The last 4 games I've played (none of which I've been in a position to directly interact with them), they've had Constaninople by 1650.

 

[ChildeR]

can only repeat myself. There is nothing unique about Lithuania's position

It is bordered by two luckies at start, which often becomes 3-4 if Sweden take some Baltics or they meet Ottomans in the Black Sea. Other powerful nations in somewhat similar positions (e.g. Aragon) also have a tendency to blob when they happen to not be eaten.

I have no opinion on whether that's a good thing or not.

 

[PedroVargas]

I'm also in favor of a slight nerf. Thanks to their initial traditions, they are not really that fragile (nothing compared to Timurids or other big countries that have internal problems) and by the mid game at the latest they do fine. And as others have said, even when they are independent, they eat land to the east that are historically Russia's domain. I've seen Lithuanian Caucasus (or Commonwealth Caucasus) quite often.

It's a not a game changer for me but a slight nerf would do no harm.

 

[m1c]

Lithuania is extremely fragile, so we wont nerf it.

Nerfing would be wrong but reassigning the development points would be good imo. More in major cities like Kiev, Vilnius, Smolensk, less in the wild fields region. Lithuania at the time was large but also very "top heavy" with a lot of sparsely populated regions. At the very least please lower the development of some of the provinces in the south-eastern wilderness.

The AI would also be less likely to want bad provinces even if its bordering them no?

 

[Zelius]

Lithuania has early-game internal problems: Low religious unity and low legitimacy after the first Jagiellon dies (assuming Poland PU).

Just start a Poland game and try feeding them Orthodox provinces from the Russias and you'll see.

Having said that there's not really much of a window for this to happen, as Kazimierz is young and and high legitimacy IIRC, and in any case Poland might get a foreign ruler. Once Lithuania gets Humanist it's stable as hell.


In my games it goes usually one of three ways:

1) Nobody drags a great power into war with Poland-Lithuania, all goes well as Poland eats TO and chews on neighbouring minors. Suddenly Commonwealth forms, lucky nation bonuses now applied to huge expanse of land + free diplo slot + heavy military ideas unlocked at same time = massive rapid expansion possible.

2) Poland-Lithuania is dragged into grueling war. Rebels emerge, opportunistic neighbours attack. Results in breaking of PU and possibly release of separatist states. Muscovy grows big.

3) Poland joins some random war and is not eligible to form the union, Lithuania stagnates and does nothing.

 

[darth254]

Lithuania has early-game internal problems: Low religious unity and low legitimacy after the first Jagiellon dies (assuming Poland PU).

Just start a Poland game and try feeding them Orthodox provinces from the Russias and you'll see.

Having said that there's not really much of a window for this to happen, as Kazimierz is young and and high legitimacy IIRC, and in any case Poland might get a foreign ruler. Once Lithuania gets Humanist it's stable as hell.


In my games it goes usually one of three ways:

1) Nobody drags a great power into war with Poland-Lithuania, all goes well as Poland eats TO and chews on neighbouring minors. Suddenly Commonwealth forms, lucky nation bonuses now applied to huge expanse of land + free diplo slot + heavy military ideas unlocked at same time = massive rapid expansion possible.

2) Poland-Lithuania is dragged into grueling war. Rebels emerge, opportunistic neighbours attack. Results in breaking of PU and possibly release of separatist states. Muscovy grows big.

3) Poland joins some random war and is not eligible to form the union, Lithuania stagnates and does nothing.

funny that I tend to see #1 about 90% of the time. I did on one occasion witness #2 where the PU got dogpiled by nations and then it got split, but hey, once in a blue moon.....

 

[ChildeR]

funny that I tend to see #1 about 90% of the time. I did on one occasion witness #2 where the PU got dogpiled by nations and then it got split, but hey, once in a blue moon.....

I don't think I've yet seen Commonwealth in 1.3, though I have only played a few games. I have seen Lithuania blob towards the Steppes and (in another game) Russia eat most of Lithuania.

 

[mursolini]

Just for your information, comparing pre-industrial states based on population doesn`t work. In fact, more population can be bad, as they take up more resources, without ability to contribute stuff.

The situation simply represents the problem of game in general: Development is mostly static, large empires are far too stable, some national idea sets can scale far better with state size than others.

but if you play as russia now owning all of novgorod plus some GH land you still can't challenge the whole commonwealth as russia did historically. Its a joke, even if you are arguing gameplay vs realism, realistically and gameplay wise lithuania should NOT have more developement than france!

Russia was defeated by Commonwealth on a number or occasions in 1500s and 1600s, before Khmelnitskiy uprising clearly turned the tide in favour of Russia.
Wars of 1577-1582, 1609-1618, 1632-1632 were clearly won by Commonwealth, with Russia losing territory. It is quite historical actually.

 

[SchwarzerKaiser]

If you don't want to nerf Lithuania by giving it higher LA in non-Lithuanian provinces or reducing their development, at least make the unified PLC more unstable.

 

[Searry]

The east is perfectly balanced.

 

[Apelstav]

If not anything have changed, Lithuania is one of those nations that is very vulnerable to revolts, if they get their army destroyed and their war exhuastion out of control they may implode.

Im pretty sure Sweden did not have anything close to 5 milion people in 1444. What made Sweden such a powerful military power may just been the simple fact that Sweden had a huge copper supply and with copper comes artillery and with artillery comes victories on the battlefield.

Sweden (with Finland) probably had around 1 million during most of the early modern era, but was able to raise a significant force of mercenaries partly due to French support, and partly due to a relatively efficient administration post-Gustav I Vasa.

Later during the Carolian era, and especially during the reign of Charles XII Sweden was notorious for its large, well-trained, non-mercenary army, largely due to Indelningsverket (or rather Det ständiga knektehållet, but the real name is more than a mouthful and relatively obscure), an allotment system that provided a large professional fighting force (the largest per capita in Europe I believe) but also made it quite difficult to raise reinforcements, especially for large losses. This army was also known for using very little artillery, and honestly extremely little firepower at all. Copper was mostly important as an export, and for artillery for ships and fortifications.

In game Sweden should really be nerfed though, or rather, Denmark should be strengthened and Norway should be harder to conquer, but I would love to see some way for countries with lower populations of raising either larger mercenary armies (and in large chunks, not by the thousand) or raising a highly expensive, but relatively large and efficient army which when lost essentially mean total defeat.

 

[zsImmortal]

Lithuania is extremely fragile, so we wont nerf it.

Oh that's rich. Didn't seem like a big deal when Ming got taken out back for a smackdown this patch.

Nerfing would be wrong but reassigning the development points would be good imo. More in major cities like Kiev, Vilnius, Smolensk, less in the wild fields region

No way Kiev should be anything significant :


http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s5285.pdf

In 1240 the city of Kiev was destroyed by the Mongols, whose leader, Batu Khan, is reported to have boasted: "I will tie Kiev to the tail of my horse. " In the ensuing centuries, Kiev and the surrounding territory continued to be the target of Tatar raids. From 1450 to 1586, for example, eighty-six raids were recorded, and from 1600 to 1647, there were seventy more. Crimean Tatars sacked Kiev in 1416 and again in 1482. Kiev was not ravaged again until the mid-seventeenth century, but even during this long period of comparative peace, it did not recover the size or importance it had enjoyed as the capital of Kievan Rus. According to one set of figures, Kiev had about three thousand residents early in the fifteenth century. Lviv (Lvov), Ukraine's largest town at this time, had about ten thousand.In 1474 one Venetian visitor described Kiev as "plain and poor." Statistician Ivan Pantiukhov estimates that its population averaged no more than ten thousand inhabitants from the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries.

 

[Phibs]

Oh that's rich. Didn't seem like a big deal when Ming got taken out back for a smackdown this patch.

Not to derail, but if anything my mingans are more stable than they used to be. Do you see Ming underperforming?

 

[Koivin]

Guys, I think the solution lies in the new mechanics with the estate. One of the biggest issues the PLC had was with its far too powerful nobility, however it was not properly represented. Now they can crank up local autonomy, nobility power and trouble with cossacks through events and estate mechanics. Lithuania will suffer from its powerful magnates' increasing power too.

 

[Kinghillard]

Considering how they use their manpower i don't think they need to be buffed, it's more or less historical

 

[Fiend13]

I agree, Lithuania is not fragile. Before forts, they were fragile. As Muscovy, invading Lithuanian territory is extremely difficult due to their fort placement, which is now one of the strongest things about Eastern Europe. Paradox deserves a high five for simulating that political boundary so artfully. However, with development changes, with Muscovy extremely weak in 1.13, Poland/Lit. are able to solo the Ottomans. It demands hard evidence for anyone to claim that Lithuania is weak.

 

[Fiend13]

No way Kiev should be anything significant

Nicely researched!

The devs messed up seriously in Eastern Europe, as always. I'm disappointed that this expansion won't be solely about Eastern Europe. Yes, ROTW needs the love more. But in a game focused on Europe, the devs ignore 40% of it. It's sloppy.

 

[Tacticus101]

It was never over twice as strong as Poland or nearly twice as strong as Muscovy in this time period.

Lithuania as the 3rd richest nation behind Ming and Timurids is something of a joke :/. The patch switching to development overdid it, giving PLC lucky status was enough in the 1.9-1.11 era.

It isn't over twice as strong as Poland or Muscovy. 1500 Poland, which is where we are getting a population for Lithuania of about 4.2 million (out of 7.5 in both Poland and Lithuania together) has a development of 280, Lithuania of 340, an entirely reasonable number. I have already explained the Muscovite numbers.

As for wealth, Lithuania is actually about 9th-10th, around the level of Austria and Aragon, only a couple pf places ahead of Poland and Muscovy. In 1500 Lithuania falls right down, Muscovy is 5th for income, Poland about the same and Lithuania way below both of them. At that point Muscovite and Polish forcelimits are much larger than Lithuanian forces an they can afford a larger army, even without their traditions.

 

[zsImmortal]

Not to derail, but if anything my mingans are more stable than they used to be. Do you see Ming underperforming?

Not sure what part of +15 unrest for losing mandate makes them 'more stable'. The problem before was that their troops had 90% discipline vs. 100% from rebels, now it's just 'lose mandate, become confetti'. If the expectation is that Ming should explode in the first 50 years, yeah they might seem stable. But forcing it like it has been, and seeing them break in the first 20 years frequently (I play in that region quite regularly, or at least I did until I got sick of the new Buddhism), doesn't make for a compelling argument when one says that another country is 'too fragile' to nerf. Sure Lithuania has a chance to break to rebels, but they get massive tolerance on top of having one of the biggest force limits to start the game and a lot of manpower. What that does is just 'force' Paradox to massively buff Muscovy, which just makes playing in the region much more miserable (i.e. playing as anything other than Muscovy or Lithuania/PLC makes for boring gameplay because you're much weaker than either due to ridiculous buff to Muscovy and solo Lithuania being a solid mass). Neither of those nations should be anywhere near that level, comparatively speaking to the region (Lithuania was sacked regularly by neighbouring hordes and Muscovy had to go through a long struggle lasting to the end of the 16th century to establish their dominance in the region).