Muscovy 100 more dev than France in 1480s.

[YuriiH]

You can't just nerf Russia because you don't like that a great power exists there now rather than being Swedish bait.

Actually, it was a bait… for the half of EU4 historical period but kind of extremely lucky bait… and here PDX were completely right to assign "Lucky Nation" to Muscovy

Still, it does not justify Muscovy having more development than France before 1500

 

[Phoenix VII]

Can we have some numbers before we start advocating nerfing development? IIRC, Russia had a population of 6 million before the Time of Troubles where a famine killed a third of their population. What was the population of France during the 1500s?

 

[ywxiao]

Can we have some numbers before we start advocating nerfing development? IIRC, Russia had a population of 6 million before the Time of Troubles where a famine killed a third of their population. What was the population of France during the 1500s?

France had triple that. 18-20 mil.

 

[brifbates]

Actually, it was a bait… for the half of EU4 historical period but kind of extremely lucky bait… and here PDX were completely right to assign "Lucky Nation" to Muscovy

Still, it does not justify Muscovy having more development than France before 1500

Then get France off its #$% and taking the French lands because that hasn't happened in any of the very few screenshots purporting to demonstrate this phenomenon.

 

[Casko]

I feel like this is quite a silly argument.
First and foremost France is still stronger nation that Muscovy, even with the 100 dev buff.
Secondly while France can expand into rich Iberia, rich HRE, Rich England or go right into colonialism, Muscovy has to either eat its way into Lithuania, or devour the Horde states that have a nasty habit to reduce any development around them to 1/1/1 if they go to war with each other often enough. Also keep in mind that Siberia will not start as a money maker like the new world.

 

[Atlantians]

PI has to reevaluate the development system and redo the numbers. Whenever they add more provinces it disrupts its relation to those of other countries.

First and foremost, development should not be instant, it should take a year per development level. You can literally double a cities development or turn a rural backwater province into a booming metropolis overnight.

Second, by adding some sort of demographic/population system, you can cap province development realistically as cities don't appear in places where no one lives (unless you are 21st century China).

Third, adding a resource stockpile system where wood among other resources are needed to maintain, expand, and keep happy cities would help both the player and AI to prevent overexpanding to avoid economic collapses and setbacks.

Basically, the is the Development system that Victoria II had.

I always liked developing provinces in Vicky II. Feels so meaty.

 

[grommile]

First and foremost, development should not be instant, it should take a year per development level. You can literally double a cities development or turn a rural backwater province into a booming metropolis overnight.

Congratulations! You have just removed the "develop province to progress institution" feature.

 

[YuriiH]

Then get France off its #$% and taking the French lands because that hasn't happened in any of the very few screenshots purporting to demonstrate this phenomenon.

Even if France takes all her lands with current in-game development, it won't represent her 18 mln people vs Muscovian 6 mln (before famine), regardless of you swearing or not

 

[Matnjord]

Congratulations! You have just removed the "develop province to progress institution" feature.

Nah, you just made it require more long-term planning.

 

[Beagá]

Basically, the is the Development system that Victoria II had.

I always liked developing provinces in Vicky II. Feels so meaty.

Then enjoy while you can, because obviously Vicky 3 will have 3 times more provinces making building stuff in individual places just as annoying as in here.

Through I can live with more provinces if it means oil and gold RGOs in Europe don´t reach astronomic levels.

Personally I think Vicky 3 map should be Vicky 2 with some 20-30% extra provinces, but secondary and even maybe more RGOs than just 2. More provinces mean more lag, more trouble with immigration and a crapton of other potential issues, including army movement and not simulating trench warfare in any possible way (unless they use some sort of army organization like HOI 4 in which concentrated armies would receive stacking penalties as time progresses, so that having 70k soldiers in one province would be a dumb ideawhen machine guns and heavy artillery exist, forcing you to split forces to cover the front).

 

[Metz]

Congratulations! You have just removed the "develop province to progress institution" feature.

Institutional spread should move along trade routes, spontaneously spawn in ports, and occasionally creep borders.

 

[FrogCrusher]

View attachment 278807
And here's my Muscovy (with whom I had no interaction).

From what I see, you do not have Rights of Man (no Great Power at the top left). I can assume we do not have Third Rome also. In that case, your example is irrelevant since the issue of Moscovy being too strong is related to Third Rome.

 

[I_am_Nemo]

Congratulations! You have just removed the "develop province to progress institution" feature.

Good. Worst part of the whole institutions design. "Institutions are designed to spread gradually throughout the world, and here a billion factors influencing their spread. . . but if you're more than a certain distance from the spawn point, your best bet is just to dump a crap ton of dev into one province to spawn the institution, and if you don't, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot."

Institutional spread should move along trade routes, spontaneously spawn in ports, and occasionally creep borders.

Agreed, especially the trade routes. Additionally, getting a tick in your capital for diplo-relations with a country that has adopted. Combine that with trade route spread, and you get institutions that spread throughout the world in a logical and fairly consistent manner and which can be tweaked to provide a good rate of spread without either blitzing through provinces or taking forever to move through low dev/hostile borders regions.

 

[Shadowless]

Even if France takes all her lands with current in-game development, it won't represent her 18 mln people vs Muscovian 6 mln (before famine), regardless of you swearing or not

Sure it could, when you consider the state limit making a lot of russian land going to be pretty damn bad, the Russian region alone has 16 states compared to the french region's 13. Add to this the fact that in those 13 regions there is (manually checked may be slightly off numbers) 724 dev for france in those 13 regions compared to 461 in Russia's 16.

Just because Russia may have more dev than France does not at all mean it would be stronger or even as strong as France.

 

[YuriiH]

Sure it could, when you consider the state limit making a lot of russian land going to be pretty damn bad, the Russian region alone has 16 states compared to the french region's 13. Add to this the fact that in those 13 regions there is (manually checked may be slightly off numbers) 724 dev for france in those 13 regions compared to 461 in Russia's 16.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. Just for a minute, if we consider development as population, it does not matter HOW MANY provinces a country have.
It could be 10 50-dev provinces or 100 5-dev provinces, etc. I was talking exactly about population, not about how much a country has autonomy in its lands, not about how many square miles it covers, not about how much does a country have control over their lands, not about who is stronger or weaker, but about development as population in houses.

So, Muscovy by 1500 usually has more development (aka population, as considered in above paragraph) than France by the same date.
Meanwhile, according to historical facts, France had thrice more people (aka in-game development) than Muscovy.

As for weakness / power, IMHO Russian Great Power should not artificially get development-wise bigger than, e.g., France to be on par with her in power.
Besides, Muscovy-Russia was never as powerful as France or Ottos before “westernization” of 1700s. It just was too far away in snowy deserts of the Little Ice Age, therefore had no strong rivals—none really cared to conquer those cold, endless, non-inhabitable lands (except borderline conflicts with Sweden or Poland). Only by the 18th century (1700s) Russia went on a conquering rampage, increasing their lands (and population) in quantum leaps.
Unfortunately EU4 does not consider this; i.e., you don't care where your conquered provinces are located—they just provide flat development when cored.
Indeed, gameplay-wise weak Muscovy will be immediately gobbled by neighboring countries.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not a fan of rails. This is only slightly less silly than just putting Persia on the board in 1444.

Real life Muscovy still had to try a little in 1444 .

 

[Shadowless]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. Just for a minute, if we consider development as population, it does not matter HOW MANY provinces a country have.
It could be 10 50-dev provinces or 100 5-dev provinces, etc. I was talking exactly about population, not about how much a country has autonomy in its lands, not about how many square miles it covers, not about how much does a country have control over their lands, not about who is stronger or weaker, but about development as population in houses.

So, Muscovy by 1500 usually has more development (aka population, as considered in above paragraph) than France by the same date.
Meanwhile, according to historical facts, France had thrice more people (aka in-game development) than Muscovy.

As for weakness / power, IMHO Russian Great Power should not artificially get development-wise bigger than, e.g., France to be on par with her in power.
Besides, Muscovy-Russia was never as powerful as France or Ottos before “westernization” of 1700s. It just was too far away in snowy deserts of the Little Ice Age, therefore had no strong rivals—none really cared to conquer those cold, endless, non-inhabitable lands (except borderline conflicts with Sweden or Poland). Only by the 18th century (1700s) Russia went on a conquering rampage, increasing their lands (and population) in quantum leaps.
Unfortunately EU4 does not consider this; i.e., you don't care where your conquered provinces are located—they just provide flat development when cored.
Indeed, gameplay-wise weak Muscovy will be immediately gobbled by neighboring countries.

You were talking about exactly population? Why on earth did you say it wouldn't REPRESENT 18mln vs 6mln? With the systems that I discussed it does exactly that, giving france even if it has less development far more power than a muscovy with far more development. Using development as a complete vacuum and ignoring how it interacts with the various systems in place of EU4 does indeed make it wrong, but since EU4 has systems in place to deal with someone being insanely high dev ahistorically perhaps, I don't see how it doesn't represent the population difference pretty well.

 

[brifbates]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. Just for a minute, if we consider development as population, it does not matter HOW MANY provinces a country have.
It could be 10 50-dev provinces or 100 5-dev provinces, etc. I was talking exactly about population, not about how much a country has autonomy in its lands, not about how many square miles it covers, not about how much does a country have control over their lands, not about who is stronger or weaker, but about development as population in houses.

It's a darn shame that development doesn't equate to population then isn't it? All you have to do to figure that out is look at India and China not having widespread provinces with 5+ times the development of the most populous parts of Europe...

 

[gronak]

Muscovy is already inferior to Lithuania, so nerfing them will make the game even more ahistorical. Let's not forget the reason why Lithuania joined with Poland - protection from Muscovy.

 

[klopkr]

Personally I think the solution is slightly lowering the development of all the big nations. This is a game of blobs blobbing. If all the blobs had less development from the start then then every minor nation would get a bit more of a boost and thing should stay fairly balanced. Just remove slightly more from the east and scandinavia to reduce this Muscovy blobing.

These should be rising powers right?