Petition for "True Random Lucky NAtions"
- Thread starter Alblaka
- 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.
Meh. While I sympathize with the objection that many scripted events "railroad" aspects of the game, they also add immense flavor to the game.
Far better than tweaks to lucky nations, IMHO, would be an option to turn scripted events on or off. That could add far more diversity to a game.
I play with the existing "random" lucky nations quite often, and generally find the best mix I get is when it's about half historical luckies and half heavy mediums. I've gotten to the point where I check the save file, first thing and restart if they are too wild, too small, or too close. I already get games where I see two Rheinish minors as "lucky", and I don't think going further in that direction is a good thing. I can't recall if they got replaced when they got destroyed, but I share Xara's impression that they changed that in a patch. Thing is, it's not a super-power. My standard change if I don't like a lucky is to give it to Brandenburg; they still underperform as the AI.
The assertion of balance in the game due to the relatives strength of nations is a complete joke. Russia gets blocked by Aristocratic ideas 2 and Poland's alliance to Austria, and lucky has nothing to do with those things.
Lucky would probably have MORE impact in India than Iberia, though Austria with its non-military NIs tends to choke a bit without it, as does England due to its events.
I'm talking about AI-controlled nations. AI Poland in all of my games has never ever formed PLC while having a healthy and alive Lithuania. This is why Lithuania mostly falls in 1600+ unless a player helps. I'm actually both hands voting for TS' proposal. I just was trying to explain devs' logics.
I've seen PLC actually, even recently. It's not common though. However, both Poland and Lithuania take Aristocratic ideas as their 2nd group, and early on Poland/Austria alliance with Lith still under PU is common. Because of that, Muscovy will almost always steer clear while that alliance web is intact and by the time Poland loses the PU both of those nations have +100% core cost and Russia tends to ignore that pretty much forever, in favor of conquests of hordes, China, and India, which don't have +100% core cost. A player could feed Ukraine and minors and annex them as vassals, but the AI doesn't think in those terms so +100% core cost nations tend to become hard walls to the AI, especially at that size.
If Lithuania conquers Livonian Order, AI Russia has almost no in to attacking Europe aside from challenging Crimea + Ottomans (something they can't do until very late). They usually ally Denmark, cutting off the only other angle.
As u can see in my current Switzerland game, it was formed.
My current Genoa game has some similarities =)
Last edited:
+1 for adding lucky nation weight to medium powers like ming and japan, maybe timurids, too, more AI mughals would be welcome.
Since this is outside of ironman mode, why not let us pick our own lucky nations? This way you can focus on which part of the you want to empower, which might be interesting if you want tougher competition in say the middle east.
Don't unless you are adding the 3rd option of 'less weighted' version. I like the current random lucky nations because I'm playing this for challenge. I don't want to see Lucky 'medium' nation because it won't provide much challenge, as you said earlier.
How about adding an option that makes an another nation lucky if one of lucky nations disappear? Why was this removed several patches ago? It was fun to play random lucky nations and constantly face challenges even after defeating original lucky nations.
If you want challenge, you want AI bonuses or player handicaps, not lucky nations.
Lucky nations are just to determine which nations emerge.
I'm okay with a more even random option as long as you don't take away the current "random weighted" option we have now - this is all I use.
I would like to see the 'Lucky Nations' mechanic made optional in Ironman mode in general, but this is next best. So tired of finishing every game looking like a pre-World War I scene (worse than a WWI actually) with the same nations - makes the same tedious and boring after the while plus it forces you to blob in order to fight the blobs.
What I would personally like to see would be four options: Historical, Random (Weighted), Random (Majors), and Random (All). Historical is the same as it is now and Random (Weighted) is the current random, while Random (Majors) just excludes minors and Random (All) is in fact totally random, with Lucky hopping around a lot as minors are annexed. If totally random were an option I'd then mod it to scale like people have suggested, but that's not the sort of change I would expect in general.
Huh, the AI actively ignores large nations with +100% core creation cost? Didn't know that.
Makes me feel a bit safer against Russia in my Dai Viet game.
Yes. This was why Hungary never shrank (except possibly by losing Croatia to rebels) in early versions of the game.
This would be great. I'd still love to see a lucky minor in an area like India, but if Karaman or Candar got it, it probably wouldn't stop the Ottomans from swallowing them whole. I'd be happy seeing just what you're offering there.
Huh, the AI actively ignores large nations with +100% core creation cost? Didn't know that.
Makes me feel a bit safer against Russia in my Dai Viet game.
Not for Spain and Portugal against the Berbers
Its our choice to be disappointed if we want to! Ironman would probably stay lucky anyway so why not let players choose for themselves?