PLEASE, no more Historical Lucky Nations for Ironman! Ready to cry.

[Jokolytic]

It is UNFAIR and BORING that Ironman is locked in Historical Nations. It is too punishing, dull, and unrealistic to see vomit green Ottomans everywhere and a sea of British red and Spanish yellow all over North America. It is perfectly plausible, just as with Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Syagrius, and countless other rulers that a great Sultan could be succeeded by an incompetent one or be defeated and the empire crumbles. I want to see Albania survive or Avignon take Savoy! It very well could have happened!

I plea and beg to Paradox, PLEASE remove the Historical nations Lucky Nations lock-in. Make it optional or switch it to None or even Random. It's just so frustrating and I love achievements, but I also love plausible alternate history! Please don't lock yourself like this PDS, you're so much better than this.

 

[Russkish]

+111111¹1111¹1¹111111¹¹¹1111111¹11¹¹11¹1

 

[Pannonius]

Lucky nations are awesome. They should introduce that concept in all of their games.

 

[Clownie]

Lucky nations are awesome. They should introduce that concept in all of their games.

I like it for some games, but making it obligatory is sad.

 

[Jconroy]

I would definitely like to have the option to switch it off in iron man.

 

[Jack45]

Lucky nations are awesome. They should introduce that concept in all of their games.

 

[szopaw]

Lucky nations are awesome. They should introduce that concept in all of their games.

They should also make Unlucky Nations. And it's always the player.

 

[RobRoy3]

I love lucky nations. But I don't see why they should be mandatory.

Ironman should allow mods, too. Isn't that how it works in CK2?

 

[FreeSoc]

I love lucky nations. But I don't see why they should be mandatory.

Ironman should allow mods, too. Isn't that how it works in CK2?

Yep. In CK2, you can use Ironman with or without mods, but you'll only get achievements if you don't use checksum-changing mods.

And I'm not against the concept of lucky nations per se, although I used to be, but Random Lucky Nations should a) be made an option for Ironman and b) be made more random so that you get some interesting mixes. Personally, I'd like to see Random Lucky Nations ensure that there's at least one Lucky Nation per continent, so that it's not just a swarm of Euro-Ottoman luckies smashing anything non-European and/or non-luck that borders them.

 

[Pannonius]

You may laugh now, but one day EUIV's lucky nations will rightfully be recognised as one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind.

 

[ChildeR]

Yep. In CK2, you can use Ironman with or without mods, but you'll only get achievements if you don't use checksum-changing mods.

This, CK2 to calls them ironman and strict ironman. That's what EU4 needs as well. A non-strict ironman that allows different settings and mods, but does not give achievements.

 

[GabbyDieJaeger]

I think lucky nations are, as they stand, completely ridiculous. France did not succeed through "luck", it succeeded through a huge population and a capable military, something already well represented in its basetax and National Ideas. Giving nations such as France or Austria "lucky" bonuses on top of good NIs and high income/FL at game start means that they often outperform history by a ridiculous margin. If anyone should have "lucky" bonuses, it should be nations that find it hard to be as successful as they were historically through such mechanics, such as the Manchu tribes, Sweden, Albania, or Aq Qonyulu.

 

[hitchens]

+1

 

[Clownie]

I think lucky nations are, as they stand, completely ridiculous. France did not succeed through "luck", it succeeded through a huge population and a capable military, something already well represented in its basetax and National Ideas. Giving nations such as France or Austria "lucky" bonuses on top of good NIs and high income/FL at game start means that they often outperform history by a ridiculous margin. If anyone should have "lucky" bonuses, it should be nations that find it hard to be as successful as they were historically through such mechanics, such as the Manchu tribes, Sweden, Albania, or Aq Qonyulu.

This.

 

[LastSalian]

Lucky nations are ok. I like challenges. Problem is big powers get buffed, and ROTW is neglected and gets nerfed every new patch.

 

[DominusNovus]

Lets remember that all these nations have to go head to head with the player, who is vastly superior at... everything, than the AI. So, while France and Austria did not succeed through luck (well, maybe Austria), they need luck to keep pace with their historical selves.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Lucky nations are ok. I like challenges. Problem is big powers get buffed, and ROTW is neglected and gets nerfed every new patch.

The problem is stale games with predictable powers emerging and less fluid starts in many cases.

 

[Mikalos]

I want to see Albania survive .

removing turkish lucky wouldnt change that

 

[Jokolytic]

Lets remember that all these nations have to go head to head with the player, who is vastly superior at... everything, than the AI. So, while France and Austria did not succeed through luck (well, maybe Austria), they need luck to keep pace with their historical selves.

And this will scare off less experienced players and makes most outcomes predictable and boring.

It's also borderline offensive. What, a non Euro major power can't colonize most of North America starting in 1444?!

 

[Jokolytic]

removing turkish lucky wouldnt change that

It happens when I turn Lucky Nations off!

Regardless, the point is this: this Lucky Nations restriction is bloody ridiculous in every way and all I'm asking for is at leas the option to play for achievements without seeing France/Britain/Ottomans/Spain win everything all the time.