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

[DominusNovus]

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?!

How on earth is it offensive?

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.

I've never seen Albania survive that war, unless I directly intervene, lucky, random, or nothing. I've seen the Ottomans toppled in that very war by revolts all over the empire, and they still managed to annex Albania.

Now, I actually agree that I'd like to have the option to use random nations as lucky for the purposes of playing in proper Iron Man mode. But you know what? I have to argue against you just because you're always so damn hyperbolic. Sorry man.

 

[CommunistCookie]

I disagree unless achievements are disabled without lucky nations. Achievements are there for challenge, much of which is lost without lucky nations.

 

[DicRoNero]

Late last night and the night before, LuckyNations, LuckyNations knocking at the door

 

[Krajzen]

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.

+1

Brandenburg, Netherlands, Manchu and nations like that should be 'lucky'.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I disagree unless achievements are disabled without lucky nations. Achievements are there for challenge, much of which is lost without lucky nations.

That's not necessarily true. Multiple achievements are easier with luckies on, including stuff like African power and sunset invasion (you want to westernize ASAP, and that means you want the luckies to come let you...westernizing 10 years earlier more than offsets any marginal challenge the lucky status might afford them later in reaching your goals). For achievements like WC, they're largely irrelevant unless you're doing the Ryukyu version, same with Master of India, forming Russia, or easy crap like at every continent.

So while luckies make stuff like Basileus and Taberestan --> Persia harder, they also make stuff that does not depend on early conquest of luckies easier.

 

[dstarsboy]

I think they should keep it as is but maybe tone down the modifiers a little.

 

[ahyangyi]

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

Wait this is already implemented. It's called hard difficulty.

 

[hitchens]

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.

I agree with this, but lucky should mean lucky as in a dice roill not better leader stats etc etc.

 

[domcoates]

+1

Brandenburg, Netherlands, Manchu and nations like that should be 'lucky'.

In countless ironmans I have only ever seen the netherlands form ONCE - they need buffed so badly; 90% of the time, burgundy conquers holland and then austria pick it all up ~1500 when burgundy collapses

 

[balmung60]

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.

Not that the Ottomans were blobbing much in 1.8 (haven't started a new game to see if 1.8.1 changed this), but it has little to do with the whole lucky nations thing. France, Muscovy, and the Ottomans will blob because they're big and rich, not because of lucky nations. Albania and Avignon get annexed because they're small and poor and at their larger neighbors' mercy. Spain and Portugal colonize everywhere because of the order in which they choose idea groups and their NIs.

+1

Brandenburg, Netherlands, Manchu and nations like that should be 'lucky'.

Well, two of those three already are.

 

[domcoates]

+1

 

[Kirkegaard]

Why can't you just play a non-ironman game without using save/load all the time? Seems to make more sense, than starting to change ironman?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree with this, but lucky should mean lucky as in a dice roill not better leader stats etc etc.

How are leader stats determined? General stats? Sieges?

 

[yerm]

I agree with Lucky being a silly term for it. Lucky should mean events, really, not stats and bonuses. Having certain "good" events be more likely if lucky and certain "bad" events less makes way more sense. This is especially nice since many of these country's bad events are scripted (England stands out) so having a nation with a scripted civil war get a peasant war stacked on is brutal. Lucky should nuke peasant wars, the really awful events like -2 or -1+cash stab, and most importantly, lucky nations should not randomly fall into a personal union under someone else!

 

[Jokolytic]

Why can't you just play a non-ironman game without using save/load all the time? Seems to make more sense, than starting to change ironman?

I want achievements!

 

[Qoff]

They should do a "Cooperman" more which would be like the Ironman but you would be able to setup your game the way you want but without achievements and cheats.

 

[Chimerae]

Just give all AI lucky status. All or none of them.

 

[Pete0714]

I want achievements!

You kids with your achievements! When I was young we didn't have achievements handed out to us. We had to make our OWN achievements, our own victory conditions. Nobody told us how to have fun, we made our own fun! And we are thankful! Now get off my lawn!!

 

[Xinkc]

You kids with your achievements! When I was young we didn't have achievements handed out to us. We had to make our OWN achievements, our own victory conditions. Nobody told us how to have fun, we made our own fun! And we are thankful! Now get off my lawn!!

Also saving a game was this new-fangled thing that often required a specific password instead of a proper save file.

Anyways, I wouldn't be against allowing Ironman to toggle between Historical Lucky nations and the definitely-weighted Random Lucky nations.

 

[Thund91]

How about this compromise:

People can play Ironman without lucky nations and get achievements.

People can play Ironman with lucky nations and get achievements with a little extra icon on it.

That way, people who get these achievements the "hard" way will still feel like special snowflakes without ruining it for other people.