AQ and QQ should both get lucky nation until the 1700s like the Turks. Rum should also get lucky if it forms as well.
In the interest of keeping single player somewhat interesting if the Ottos get nerfed...
- Thread starter hashinshin
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I thought the point of lucky nations was to buff nations that historically did well in the time period...
Persia formed from a rebellion out of Aq Qoyunlu, which managed to conquer a large portion of Iran.
How is this not doing well? If you constrain lucky to only nations that did well all period, even some of the current lucky nations don't make sense.
How are AQ and QQ not the definition of nations that did well? They came from very little in to an extremely powerful position. Certainly better than France of Spain who were on top then continued to be on top.
Uhm AQ did well, but QQ was already at the peak of their strength. It went downhill pretty fast for them after 1444.
And anyway. How is OP and thread title even connected? Wouldn't this nerf the Ottomans further?
Yes, they continued to be on top, the Sheep turks didn't. They fell.
Spain bankrupted, Austria got dumpstered, Portugal got capital-to-new-world kicked in this time period. All of these nations hold "lucky" boosts over nations like Jianzhou. Then you have Sweden, which had a good time in the sun but for most of the period was not a major player on the world stage and certainly did not "stay on top" for even 1/4 of the period.
Lucky bonuses are all over the place and pretty contrived as a design concept in general.
Austria... dumpstered?
They did nothing but expand 'cept for minor drawbacks (like the time where Aragon held Castille's crown warm for them or when Malta was given to the Knights) up until 1600 and even after that the House of Habsburg remained in control of large swaths of land despite technically not being under Austria's rule, then reunited their lands again and only started falling in 1720 when Naples declared their Independence.
And even after that they went on and started expanding again until the Napoleonic wars.
Their only real downfall came after WW1, which is way out of the timeframe of the game.
There are many lucky nations that weren't lucky throughout the whole EU4 time period. Austria definitely wasn't one of them.
They did nothing but expand 'cept for minor drawbacks (like the time where Aragon held Castille's crown warm for them or when Malta was given to the Knights) up until 1600 and even after that the House of Habsburg remained in control of large swaths of land despite technically not being under Austria's rule, then reunited their lands again and only started falling in 1720 when Naples declared their Independence.
And even after that they went on and started expanding again until the Napoleonic wars.
Their only real downfall came after WW1, which is way out of the timeframe of the game.
There are many lucky nations that weren't lucky throughout the whole EU4 time period. Austria definitely wasn't one of them.
Austria basically disbanded the HRE so the title wouldn't be taken by someone...less desirable. I'll take some literary liberty and say that's a pretty significant "fall".
Even Ottomans themselves started looking legitimately vulnerable at times in the 2nd half of the period. Lucky bonuses are an annoying piece of rails I'd not miss, especially because their assignment is arbitrary.
I don't think we need to debate whether or not lucky bonis are a relict from the game's release and feel out of place, but to look at the full time period from 1444 to 1821 and say Austria got dumpstered is more than just a stretch and quite frankly I'd even say an insult.
They got dumpstered one time at the end of the period, good enough by the "x nation "fell at some point" so no lucky" logic to apply
.Just need to make 'smart AI idea picks' version of VH - no one gamethrows with double exploration/expansion. Every AI picks defensive first. Random order of offensive/quantity/quality for 3/5/7.
You could then fix the lucky nations issues by giving every nation lucky nation on top of the VH bonuses for the true masochist experience. AIs loaded to the gills with military ideas with nearly double your FL and practically infinite money, I'm sure anyone can find an interesting start out of that.
You could then fix the lucky nations issues by giving every nation lucky nation on top of the VH bonuses for the true masochist experience. AIs loaded to the gills with military ideas with nearly double your FL and practically infinite money, I'm sure anyone can find an interesting start out of that.
Last edited:
Couldn't they adjust the lucky nations per age? This way you can boost certain nations in certain time periods.
Taken literally, many of the "Lucky Nations" in the game weren't very lucky at all; they were merely the strongest nations existent (in Europe) in 1444. The only real justifiable lucky nations that hold the title right now are Portugal and Brandenburg (if I recall correctly, Brandenburg even lost lucky nation status?). The others were successful due to events that were more or less inevitable in 1444. There was no "luck" in their rise. Meanwhile, you could definitely argue that states like Taungu, Jianzhou/Manchu, and Aq Qoyunlu deserve lucky nation status; their historical rise and success was NOT obvious in 1444 in any way.
If, as some people here appear are arguing, Lucky Nation actually means "This state existed in 1821 as a generally successful state", then at least change the name? The current mechanic and it's beneficiaries has absolutely nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with historical determinism.
Edit:
This is a good idea.
If, as some people here appear are arguing, Lucky Nation actually means "This state existed in 1821 as a generally successful state", then at least change the name? The current mechanic and it's beneficiaries has absolutely nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with historical determinism.
Edit:
This is a good idea.
Isn't that already covered by the special abilities some nations get ? Like the Portuguese being able to buy more colonian growth, or the Ottomans getting more siege speed in the Age of Discovery
But it required Mandate of Heaven, so we'll probably keep the two mechanics doing about the same thing
Lucky nations is the biggest nonsense in the game.
Games are far more interesting when nations are allowed to rise & fall on their own without being given artificial boosts. In particular the likes of Ottomans & Muscovy/Russia
Games are far more interesting when nations are allowed to rise & fall on their own without being given artificial boosts. In particular the likes of Ottomans & Muscovy/Russia
I wouldn't say so.
There are a lot of smaller nations whose whole existence is backed up by a bigger, lucky guy who protects them / defeats their enemies.
Every time France falls in 1450 because of "no luck" means total enrage for Spain, England and Burgundy/Austria, which leads to a bad time for their enemies.
And a little bit of railroading is absolutely necessary to have some kind of balance and to keep achievements somewhat reliable hard, i think.
Not speaking of RP issues, which play a big role for many players.