We are quite happy for you Theodoro achievements mate if that's what you were fishing for 
Muscovy have been majorly nerfed
- Thread starter Gigawot
- 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.
We are quite happy for you Theodoro achievements mate if that's what you were fishing for
No, I was providing numbers from my experience related to Muscovy and why I think they're fine still. Do I also need to go on about how they sit in probably the second-best area in the entire game in terms of expansion avenues?
You just playing it wrong. Muscowy as strong as usual.
Year 1657. 500 regiments army, all techs 4 years ahead of time.
Would you mind little critisism?You just playing it wrong. Muscowy as strong as usual.
Year 1657. 500 regiments army, all techs 4 years ahead of time.
Who put Lithuania with sweet Orthodox lands on the map?Agreed, Russia is enjoyable as it never was.
That's only one side of the equation. The other is NIs which are pretty mediocre at best and probably not very relevant.
Relevant compared to who? They're unarguably better than a majority of sets in the game. Not many starts get better things than a free colonist, -10% tech cost, 15% cheaper cores, and manpower recovery speed (which you arguably won't need anyways because +75% bonus manpower). Even the cheaper infantry is worth its weight due to the large amount of infantry you're going to have later in the game anyways. The dud is honestly the production bonus, but even that's useful considering that's where most of your income comes from as Muscovy now, I'm fairly sure.
Luthiania went on rampage during this game. It breaked from polish union, was ally with France, had Bohemia in union, killed TO and half of the LO and one time defeated Ottomans during first 100 years of the game. And this new Lithuania traditions with +100% coring cost...I hate it. And as I understood religion in 1.8 means nothing and affects only rel.unity and unrest from tolerance.Would you mind little critisism?
Agreed, Russia is enjoyable as it never was.
Gosh, you're a bag of happy thoughts, aren't you?We are quite happy for you Theodoro achievements mate if that's what you were fishing for
Did a quick play as Muscovy and it seems relatively alright - ate Novgorod in two games, helped Swedes gain independence and now having near-permanent +200 relations with alliance+RM, turned Ryazan into a March that's as big as Anatolia in the GH+Crimea area and just ate stuff around me.
Lithuania takes Aristocracy as their second idea group, from what I remember, which is where the +100 coring cost comes from for them. They don't have hostile coring cost modifiers in their unique NIs.
It has trashy +0.5 military tradition (Cyprus, Karaman, Songhai and Yaroslavl have +1 while tons of other have the same, tons of countries have core-creation costs cuts (remember the Ottos?) It has no naval/ galley combat events as it should after 1700 and not a single tiny quality boost while Austria received one recently. What about «C’est le sublime de l’art militaire»? Culture conversion and not culture acceptance is a complete trash.
I always break PLC apart first thing after first Novgorod war to eat them before hostile core-creation. The temptation is too high.
"I'm going to throw pointless arrogant insults around but I won't prove anything because I'm going to pretend it's common knowledge and ahahaha you don't know that you must be a silly Russian nationalist aren't you"
-you
I'm butthurt because I'm butthurt about the crappy, flamebait topic he started, it has nothing to do with my nationality.
After all, Muscovy versus Hordes - what does that ever have to do with Romania?
Well, to be honest, put things into contest. Austria was buffed because it has to fight Burgundy, France, the Ottomans and a ton of smaller countries with awesome ideas. I wouldn't envy Austria for its ideas - it's in the middle of chaos and on top of it, it has to guard the empire.
All those minors you mentioned. They are minors. Most of them will be eaten with 20 years, with or without those ideas.
If you compare the entire context, as you said before, Muscovy is just fine. The ideas are a bit wonky, but they're good nonetheless. And comparing things in context Muscovy dominates all its neighbors (army quality, army quantity, tax, production, possibilities for expansion, strength and aggressiveness of neighbors). Let's not forget that the game is not about power projection a la 20th century. There was no truly global power at the end of the game - maybe GB could qualify, but even GB was limited because of its mediocre land forces.
Trashy +0.5 military tradition? I would take that on a lot of nations who have none of that, to be honest.
Not that many. There are 17 nations with core-creation cost cut modifiers (not counting the group ideas, so minus hordes, theocracies, Anatolian Beyliks, and client states. Even with those groups in, it's around 40 or so, I think, which is still a very low percentage of nations in the game), and Muscovy sits around the middle of that list in terms of "how strong is this." It's also a monarch point saver that saves the most important point type, so it's still really strong.
I don't see what use Muscovy would have for a navy. Navies don't win wars in this game.
Technically the +0.5 military tradition is a quality boost. It affects land morale, morale recovery, manpower recovery, siege ability, and general rolls.
What is this supposed to be about?
Nah. Culture conversion has some pretty nice effects, especially with the new rebel mechanics. Granted it's probably more relevant in multiplayer games, but it's still pretty alright.
- now they will told you one true history of Russia and how current NI's are 100% hit for it and if you dare not to agree they will claim that you are evil butthurt nationalist. Dont even try to reason with them. Everyone here knows that Syberia and Great Steppe was home of most glorious, developed and highly urbanized civilizations in the world... until evil barbaric ruskies came and genocided all inhabitants.
- your post was second in mentioned thread and you personally did not hesitated to claim that herrmarisa is nationalist. And herrmarisa's topic was not a flamebait to begin with.I'm butthurt because I'm butthurt about the crappy, flamebait topic he started, it has nothing to do with my nationality.
After all, Muscovy versus Hordes - what does that ever have to do with Romania?
Well, there's quite a bit of information, links, and unanswered questions from me and others regarding horde lands in my thread about it and you didn't exactly have a strong showing there. What Russia did to those people was brutal, but then the original horde conquest of those territories was also brutal, and such behavior was common in the timeframe pretty much everywhere it was possible. The brutal treatment of populations in the steppes is not particularly different than what Spain did to the Americas, or what the USA did to the NA tribes for example, but nor should it be pretended that it didn't happen.
What didn't happen, however, was simply kicking out a few horse archers and building cities. There were already cities, and horde infantry used guns too. If anything, the flagrant ignorance showcased with regards to the hordes and Russian expansion ironically sells the accomplishments of Russia in this timeframe short, and the Russian NI's misrepresent what actually happened, that Russia relied more on quality than "waves of bodies and attrition only" in this period, in many cases adapting the tactics of the hordes they fought and improving on them over time.
The hordes are a joke in this game compared to reality. In real life, they gave Russia hell, but Russia won over time (a success no other nation attained, for centuries). I'm not sure how a "Russian nationalist" is okay with the representation of this feat being a walkover joke when it was actually a difficult accomplishment that other eastern Europeans repeatedly failed to manage, but it certainly is "silly".
I think Russia's ideas are still the most blatantly OP ideas in the game, and an entire tech group is dedicated to keeping them balanced.
75% manpower, 50% forcelimit, some army tradition, -10% technology, -15% coring. Russia can lose every battle and win a war.
The only reason people doubt their NIs is they get such garbage land to work with that it drags them down. Give them french or even Spanish land and you'd see Russia blobbing all the way to China.
If you compare their historical and in game conquests now they are a lot more in tune. They didn't just take over perm novgorod and the minors and immediately become a great power, now they have to settle down for a hundred years or so which is entirely appropriate. It would be like complaining the Teutons are weak in 1500 when they didn't even form Prussia till much later.
75% manpower, 50% forcelimit, some army tradition, -10% technology, -15% coring. Russia can lose every battle and win a war.
The only reason people doubt their NIs is they get such garbage land to work with that it drags them down. Give them french or even Spanish land and you'd see Russia blobbing all the way to China.
If you compare their historical and in game conquests now they are a lot more in tune. They didn't just take over perm novgorod and the minors and immediately become a great power, now they have to settle down for a hundred years or so which is entirely appropriate. It would be like complaining the Teutons are weak in 1500 when they didn't even form Prussia till much later.
Last edited:
Eh, Russian NIs are not top-tier but calling them mediocre is selling them short. -10% tech cost, +0.5 army tradition and -15% Core creation cost alone puts them above most NIs. Sure they are not top tier but they are hardly trash.