LOL. 20% from Traditions is FAR MORE????
Some Maths: 18 mln French vs 6 mln Muscovians is 300% difference, not 20%
With "far more" logic, France should have had +300% manpower more than Muscovy with the same development.
Muscovy 100 more dev than France in 1480s.
- Thread starter durbal
- 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.
Some Maths: 18 mln French vs 6 mln Muscovians is 300% difference, not 20%
With "far more" logic, France should have had +300% manpower more than Muscovy with the same development.
So because I said you shouldn't look at the development in a vacuum you come back to troll? Sure, the manpower boost early on helps represent France being populous, as does my previous argument about states which greatly reduces a Russia going insane with the 75% autonomy floor. Looking back at history, how often did France have an army that completely dwarfed Russia's even if they historically for a long period of time had 2-3x their population?
I'm still waiting to see the first screenshot of Muscovy/Russia owning either Stockholm, Beijing, Warsaw, Vienna or Constantinople in a decent amount of time to call them OP this patch. Because everything else is in the range of "they were successful this game", and is balanced by the screenshots of Muscovy failing to form Russia despite Third Rome.
I have this suspiscion that, except Stockholm, I won't see any.
Before calling them OP, let's try to see how strong they actually are in game after a good 100 years, and not how one parameter looks like at first sight, without taking things like autonomy into account.
Let's face it. France is OP when it owns Iberia more often than not, Ottomans are OP when they own Vienna more often than not. You judge OPness by what the AI achieves with the country, not with what it could achieve if it was more agressive and had no ennemies, or what a player could do with the country.
I have this suspiscion that, except Stockholm, I won't see any.
Before calling them OP, let's try to see how strong they actually are in game after a good 100 years, and not how one parameter looks like at first sight, without taking things like autonomy into account.
Let's face it. France is OP when it owns Iberia more often than not, Ottomans are OP when they own Vienna more often than not. You judge OPness by what the AI achieves with the country, not with what it could achieve if it was more agressive and had no ennemies, or what a player could do with the country.
I'd settle for something close to their historical borders around 1700, which hasn't been seen since around 1.2. So much crying about Russia yet it never comes close to its historical performance.
Your anecdote is meaningless. We can't see how your gameplay has perturbed Europe, because you've slapped the Great Powers window over the top of central and west-central Europe. Even so, I can see that England has prospered (and held its own against France) and Brittany is independent, which suggests a shaky start from France on the one hand, and an excellent start from Moscow on the other.
On picture it seems that France has no Brittany, Normandy, Acquitane. If it has no Burgundy we are done here.(there is also Savoy)
It is possible that Russian has more dev than it should due to buffs over patches, decisions, and each vassal pumping development in only province.
But it is not big deal. Not something to fix asap.
It is possible that Russian has more dev than it should due to buffs over patches, decisions, and each vassal pumping development in only province.
But it is not big deal. Not something to fix asap.
Last edited:
It hasn't really done anything. Castile got BI so it limited France somewhat is all -- I'm playing as Saxony so I couldn't care less about what happens over there. Even if France got Burgundy and the English mainland they'd still be eclipsed by Muscovy in 1500. That's ridiculous.
Muscovy just did its usual own little thing cleaning up a bunch of trash nations all around it to springboard it to hundreds of dev at a time that it was historically a backwater troubled nation.
This occurs in damn near every game. I can take more screenshots if you want.
I should just take a screenshot in every run at 1500 since Muscovy is just massive so early all the time. The Ottomans had the same problem and it's finally being fixed: a bunch of little freebie tags scattered around at their doorstep. All the hordes and Novgorod are just worthless garbage compared to Muscovy and collapse instantly. It's dumb, boring, and needs to be fixed.
Hmm, why didn't you care about the Burgundian Inheritance as Saxony? Even without the emperorship, you could have gotten a really good shot at getting it. It just requires a royal marriage to have the best shot at it. I think it's 70% of you receiving the Dutch part of it without emperorship, but don't pin me on the percentage.
I was just saying I didn't care about what happened over there after it happened.
(I also wasn't really bothering with BI anyway for what it's worth since it'd just make eastern Europe a brick wall due to English/French/Austrian alliances with Bohemia/Poland/Hungary after they rival me for the BI land. Gotta get to Muscovy and Ottomans fast to kill them so I don't have to spend a century chewing away at them later. Then I get emperorship and add all my conquered provinces to the HRE and revoke.)
Couldn't this be because you have Third Rome enabled? Because that is essentially a Muscovy/Russia buff (or even a pay to win DLC to some people).
It's more because of map changes. Muscovy has a bigger army due to starting vassals and provinces changed boosting dev. Regardless, if Third Rome is pay-to-win then that needs to be fixed too.
So is your ability to do math...
506+485 >> 741; and that's just France + England in your ss and the BI >> than Ireland and the bits of Scotland England took
I don't see the problem.
Their troops are still paper. Their income is laughable. They rarely ever upgrade their forts beyond lvl2 if they even build any. Their province value is utter thrash. They have a bajillion of different cultures. They get unrest and rebel events.
This is really just a thread about comparing a single number and implying that it represents strength.
It doesn't. Just as size doesn't represent strength.
Or else nations like Buryatia would be a powerhouse.
Just because something fits most of the time doesn't mean it fits all the time and a discussion based on nothing but "their dev is higher which is ahistorical and that means they need to get nerfed" is nothing but an attempt to get as many fallacies as possible in a single sentence on purpose.
Their troops are still paper. Their income is laughable. They rarely ever upgrade their forts beyond lvl2 if they even build any. Their province value is utter thrash. They have a bajillion of different cultures. They get unrest and rebel events.
This is really just a thread about comparing a single number and implying that it represents strength.
It doesn't. Just as size doesn't represent strength.
Or else nations like Buryatia would be a powerhouse.
Just because something fits most of the time doesn't mean it fits all the time and a discussion based on nothing but "their dev is higher which is ahistorical and that means they need to get nerfed" is nothing but an attempt to get as many fallacies as possible in a single sentence on purpose.
I dont see anything wrong here.
For AI Muscovy the current start is porn. They have vassals with loads of Manpower to throw away, an easy target with decent land to expand into with Novgorod and smaller Hordes to the south-east.
They can powerplay the first 50 years with little opposition and the diplomatic landscape can vary greatly. They can be allied to Denmark just as easily as they can be attack by them.
After that they hit brick walls everywhere but the east where they can slow-expand into crap land. Even if they reach the Ocean the only thing they got going for them is a big name.
Meanwhile the Area around France should be a stalemate at the start.
England and France are equally matched. The reason for France usualy winning is the full retard mode England goes into.
Its to be expected that time need to pass to see whos winning but that person will end up much stronger because of the much better land they can take.
France doesn't full annex England when it wins the war over Maine, so I don't know what you're on about here.
How is it a fallacy? I don't think you know what that word means.
For all those things you just said you know that you can look at the ledger and compare things like income, manpower, etc. right? When you do that you'll that Muscovy is not 'utter trash'. Their neighbors are in comparison though, which is why the Urals and steppes become a big pale vomit blob by 1500 every single game. There's pretty much nothing defensible about their current situation and it's really screwing with gameplay. Poland get crapped on every game and that whole area lacks any kind of dynamism since Muscovy is railroaded into success.
And again with the scarecrow arguments that seem to be your shtick...you know if you make a statement like 'just as size doesn't imply strength' which is something I never said or even insinuated it doesn't actually make any of your arguments worthwhile, right?
It's called making a comparison. But I can reduce that statement to "dev doesn't mean strength".
So here's the big impressive comment you've been waiting for: Dev doesn't mean strength and implying it does and it's the only thing we should look at (which you've done through your screenshtos) is incorrect.
Perfectly reduced and beautiful to look at.
And Muscovy/Russia being thrash is something everyone knows who ever went to war against them. Try going against a 6 morale France that's littered with lvl4 forts with your 4 morale troops, then tell me you're more scared of Russia with its level 2 forts and 0 useful modifiers other than their zerg bonus (which the AI never makes use of).
So here's the big impressive comment you've been waiting for: Dev doesn't mean strength and implying it does and it's the only thing we should look at (which you've done through your screenshtos) is incorrect.
Perfectly reduced and beautiful to look at.
And Muscovy/Russia being thrash is something everyone knows who ever went to war against them. Try going against a 6 morale France that's littered with lvl4 forts with your 4 morale troops, then tell me you're more scared of Russia with its level 2 forts and 0 useful modifiers other than their zerg bonus (which the AI never makes use of).
France is easy to beat too. Who cares? It's not about which country is stronger (France should be in 1500 by a huge margin) but rather that Muscovy makes gameplay in its area stale because their success is the most railroaded thing that Paradox has made in a long time. The game currently has Spain and Poland struggling to survive meanwhile Russia just herp derps its way to #2 or 3 GP by 1500 every single game. How is that in any way healthy?
Such garbage provinces too:
France just took its continental holdings from England and owns part of Iberia. Spain formed in 1550. I just took 100+ dev worth of state cores from Muscovy through Moscow/Ryazan.
Last edited:
I never said it's healthy for Portugal and Spain to struggle. In fact, I created a thread describing it as one of the biggest problems of the current patch.
It does matter who's the stronger one because dev is just one number and not the only relevant thing to look at.
And them sitting in #2 or #3 of the GP list still doesn't mean they're strong.
The patch didn't change much about Russia itself. It's surrounded by Horde and Novgorod. Everything can beat that. Has nothing to do with railroading but Horde nations played by the AI being weak in general.
Your focus should lie (if that's really an issue for you) on making Horde nations more effective.
Not on nerfing Russia.
It does matter who's the stronger one because dev is just one number and not the only relevant thing to look at.
And them sitting in #2 or #3 of the GP list still doesn't mean they're strong.
The patch didn't change much about Russia itself. It's surrounded by Horde and Novgorod. Everything can beat that. Has nothing to do with railroading but Horde nations played by the AI being weak in general.
Your focus should lie (if that's really an issue for you) on making Horde nations more effective.
Not on nerfing Russia.