• 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 think that Persia should in fact be able to own Anatolia in the event of a failing Ottomans over Mamluks. I may be a little biased though that they are my favourite tag colour. But regardless, it makes sense to me since Persia and Ottomans reached a stalemate along the mountains.
Do you want tag magic to do that or just hope persia can beat mamlukes?
 
I think that Persia should in fact be able to own Anatolia in the event of a failing Ottomans over Mamluks. I may be a little biased though that they are my favourite tag colour. But regardless, it makes sense to me since Persia and Ottomans reached a stalemate along the mountains.

That is the fundamental problem with EU4 generally though; stalemates don't happen. The game is in a near-permanent state of unstable equilibrium due to the fact that there are very few obstactles to 'snowballing' empires. Which is a problem for a game about the Early Modern period in which a balance of power situation existed (at least in Europe) and wars were often indecisive.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Do you have a better idea?
In the current state of the game, the Ottomans have enough "luck" in their starting position, ruler, national ideas and most importantly, mission tree.

The same can be said of all major powers, but at least GB/Castile start off in disasters and Muscovy is perpetually borderline bankrupt.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This complaint comes every patch. Ottomans are in my experience about averagre strenght, but there have been patches where ottomans were far weaker. The reason i think Ottos are about fine right now is that though they have new missions, fare more other nations have missions as well, and the overall AI has gotten much more efficientt, even minor powers, and they blob more. It used to be most nations were static, while ottos blobbed forever, so now the Ottos are IMO just an average challenge.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This complaint comes every patch. Ottomans are in my experience about averagre strenght, but there have been patches where ottomans were far weaker. The reason i think Ottos are about fine right now is that though they have new missions, fare more other nations have missions as well, and the overall AI has gotten much more efficientt, even minor powers, and they blob more. It used to be most nations were static, while ottos blobbed forever, so now the Ottos are IMO just an average challenge.
Yes but consider the fact that if Poland takes the local noble, a major threat to them has just been demolished. If Hungary stays independent and loses their allies (which happens pretty often), Hungary will end up Ottoman clay too. Then there's them getting Crimea as a march and going wild in Ruthenia.

My point is, if the Ottomans go wild they go really wild and exceed their historical borders quite comfortably.
 
Do you have a better idea?

It could not exist, or be a toggle (and still have ironman)

We know what happened historically, and EU shines as an alternative version. Lucky Nations attempts to arrest the variability and encourage semi-historical outcomes in an artificial manner. I see why this is done, but would prefer no such mechanic, and each nation is on a level playing field. The game is already wildly variable, and I praise it as such. But it's time to let the unlucky nations get their freak on.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It could not exist, or be a toggle (and still have ironman)

We know what happened historically, and EU shines as an alternative version. Lucky Nations attempts to arrest the variability and encourage semi-historical outcomes in an artificial manner. I see why this is done, but would prefer no such mechanic, and each nation is on a level playing field. The game is already wildly variable, and I praise it as such. But it's time to let the unlucky nations get their freak on.
This is actually one of the not-too-many things that I think HOI4 got right. The historical focus toggle works pretty well to differentiate historical vs alt-historical outcomes for the AI. The HOI4 implementation is probably a bit too binary for EU but the idea is solid.
 
Do you have a better idea?
Thought it was clear but I guess not. No luck. Just let all the nations fall where they may. Even being an AI power, given its inherent assets and advantages, the Ottomans and others should not need massive fake buffs to keep them at the top. Just let everything fall how it will.
 
That is the fundamental problem with EU4 generally though; stalemates don't happen. The game is in a near-permanent state of unstable equilibrium due to the fact that there are very few obstactles to 'snowballing' empires. Which is a problem for a game about the Early Modern period in which a balance of power situation existed (at least in Europe) and wars were often indecisive.
Yep, and it is difficult to convey stalemates when one side on paper is far stronger than the other. One good example of this is Scotland and England. They fought countless times, and although the border changes did happen they were always similar to as they are now. A few miles here and there either way is how it changed. England did not steamroll Scotland and annex half the country as we typically see in game. A big problem is that nations will fight wars into bankruptcy, every war is an all out war.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In the current state of the game, the Ottomans have enough "luck" in their starting position, ruler, national ideas and most importantly, mission tree.

The same can be said of all major powers, but at least GB/Castile start off in disasters and Muscovy is perpetually borderline bankrupt.

I think this is the main point, the Ottomans have a combination of various advantages at the start of the game that other GP do not have, I think most important their position being by far the most powerful nation surrounded by tiny neighbours they can relatively easily gobble up in a relatively wealthy region, becoming strong enough to go against their potential rivals. Funnily enough I see them quite often fail at doing that - usually by underestimating the alliance webs. The others usually have some roadblocks in their way that they need to overcome: France the HRE, Castile and England their awful rulers and early disasters. A factor is also how the AI is able to handle a nation, the Ottomans are probably the easiest nation in the hands of the AI, they can just go with regular conquests and do not need to do anything special. The other extreme is Austria which the AI is just incapable of doing anything proper with them.
I would also say this is historically justified , the others countries were all in situations of severe crisis. England is about to dramatically lose the Hundred Years' War, and they do not become a major power until the mid/late 16th century. France was almost dismantled and put under PU by England and is just in the process of establishing itself again. Muscovy has also a very long time to go down that road, ... The Ottomans on the other hand have already recovered from Timur's invasion and the game starts right after they sucessfully repelled a crusade.


Yes but consider the fact that if Poland takes the local noble, a major threat to them has just been demolished. If Hungary stays independent and loses their allies (which happens pretty often), Hungary will end up Ottoman clay too. Then there's them getting Crimea as a march and going wild in Ruthenia.

My point is, if the Ottomans go wild they go really wild and exceed their historical borders quite comfortably.

From my experience in my games the Ottomans never even reach their historical borders until the 1650s, if anything they have a different focus and conquer the areas in the north you mention (of which large parts of Hungary and Western Ruthenia were conquered historically), but that they usually do when they delay going for the Middle East / Egypt which are much more valuable (and not even talking about Arabia and Northern Africa). More pressing than no Commonwealth is that Persia does normally not exist (I haven't seen them even after KoK).

But yes, we all have only very small samples.
 
Yep, and it is difficult to convey stalemates when one side on paper is far stronger than the other. One good example of this is Scotland and England. They fought countless times, and although the border changes did happen they were always similar to as they are now. A few miles here and there either way is how it changed. England did not steamroll Scotland and annex half the country as we typically see in game. A big problem is that nations will fight wars into bankruptcy, every war is an all out war.
It is also far too easy for large empires to put all of their forces into a single distant conflict, which would not have been feasible IRL.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Do you have a better idea?
Just.. don't have it? Aside from the fact that there's no reason those nations even should always rise to the top in the first place, the "luck" mechanic is a relic from the time when the major nations didn't all have amazing national ideas and other bonuses that mean they're likely to win most of the time against similar-sized nations anyway. The Ottomans don't need the "lucky nation" modifiers to get big, their other benefits will ensure that.
 
Just.. don't have it? Aside from the fact that there's no reason those nations even should always rise to the top in the first place, the "luck" mechanic is a relic from the time when the major nations didn't all have amazing national ideas and other bonuses that mean they're likely to win most of the time against similar-sized nations anyway. The Ottomans don't need the "lucky nation" modifiers to get big, their other benefits will ensure that.
When I make that initial unpause, I do so with the expectation that most of the major nations will show up and be major players.
 
Which is generally true without the need for lucky nations, because those nations became major nations for a reason.
IMO a little nudge is fine but the bonuses are too large (which can be fixed DIY) and too much free mana (which is all-or-nothing). I'd rather see a lucky nation mechanic allow for an occasional re-roll of bad dice, but I suspect the present engine would not support it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
IMO a little nudge is fine but the bonuses are too large (which can be fixed DIY) and too much free mana (which is all-or-nothing). I'd rather see a lucky nation mechanic allow for an occasional re-roll of bad dice, but I suspect the present engine would not support it.
Honestly, it just seems to me that the "luck" mechanic is arbitrary and far too much of a blunt tool. If a particular country needs buffing because it dies too often, then buff the country, or add special mechanics to ensure that historical events that aren't game-mechanically plausible can happen (for instance, the Burgundian Succession and Iberian Wedding). There's no need to add a catch-all mechanic that buffs countries like the Ottomans even more than they already are.
 
"Lucky nation" really ought to nations that were successful in spite, rather than due to, their starting position. Ever seen, say, AQ or Taungoo ever reach their historical maximum, without human interference? Or an Ardabil-formed Persia?

Not to countries that already are superpowers.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
When I make that initial unpause, I do so with the expectation that most of the major nations will show up and be major players.
I agree.
The problem is, this doesnt happen.
What happens, is the Ottomans completely dominate, with other major nations being on relatively equal playing fields.
 
  • 1
Reactions: