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

[TheMeInTeam]

because without lucky nations, france is a pushover, right?

I like how Wiz claimed lucky nations weren't that big of a deal and that making them random wouldn't help small nations much, but then they assign Brandenburg lucky status and rather than it blobbing in maybe 1/20 - 1/10 games it blobs in over half of them lol. Considering how the AI pisses monarch points away, super leaders really help it, and so do super generals.

I'm not 100% convinced that lucky nations like Mewar or Ajuraan wouldn't wind up doing much better than usual.

 

[RobRoy3]

I like how Wiz claimed lucky nations weren't that big of a deal and that making them random wouldn't help small nations much, but then they assign Brandenburg lucky status and rather than it blobbing in maybe 1/20 - 1/10 games it blobs in over half of them lol. Considering how the AI pisses monarch points away, super leaders really help it, and so do super generals.

I'm not 100% convinced that lucky nations like Mewar or Ajuraan wouldn't wind up doing much better than usual.

I dunno, they do seem to be doing a bit better in most of my 1.8 games, too. But I frequently edited my games to make BRA lucky in previous versions and it didn't really help them much.

 

[RELee]

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!!

:rofl:

 

[yerm]

I like how Wiz claimed lucky nations weren't that big of a deal and that making them random wouldn't help small nations much, but then they assign Brandenburg lucky status and rather than it blobbing in maybe 1/20 - 1/10 games it blobs in over half of them lol. Considering how the AI pisses monarch points away, super leaders really help it, and so do super generals.

I'm not 100% convinced that lucky nations like Mewar or Ajuraan wouldn't wind up doing much better than usual.

Brandenburg is uniquely positioned to benefit more than most from lucky. They already get -ae, so as a lucky nation they basically can't piss people off. They get really good quality troops and tradition, so the bonus to generals and manpower round out their army perfectly. Their starting monarch + heir have garbage mil skill (and are garbage in general) so mp bonus helps them not fall behind.

There are other nations that, if lucky, can snowball. Switzerland is a good example; they get ok (not amazing but still good) mil ideas, but are crippled by strong neighbors and especially attrition. You throw in the defense and manpower of lucky and they're awesome. I only saw them randomly lucky once; I usually don't play random lucky, but it was mindblowing. I expect Tuscany is another candidate; I usually see them miniblob and then get coalitioned back into the dirt; lucky would probably let them succeed consistently, since it seems to me that low AT/generals and high AE are what kill them.

 

[Vityviktor]

I think France (for example) itself is enough powerful to have even more bonuses for being a lucky nation.

 

[vonlinchen]

If ironman is too hard for you, dont play it, problem solved.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If ironman is too hard for you, dont play it, problem solved.

I sense a soul in search of...

reading comprehension .

 

[Jokolytic]

If ironman is too hard for you, dont play it, problem solved.

You missed the entire point of absolutely everything I've said. You are ignorant.

 

[yerm]

I think France (for example) itself is enough powerful to have even more bonuses for being a lucky nation.

France does better without lucky, because Castile/Spain, Austria, England all lose it. Unlike the others, since France is initially half vassals, the loss of lucky hits only half their initial army. They still cruise through the HYW and burgundy, but now, they can charge into the Austria and recover from a long and brutal war while Austria's lack of luck means they're pitifully unable to do anything after they march stacks across the alps and lose their men. England usually falls way behind on early mil tech and is useless either way. Burgundy still loses. Turn luck off and see for yourself - France actually blobs faster.

...then it meets the player. It may have grown faster due to relative strengths vs ai neighbors, but it is at a HUGE disadvantage against a player now, especially if that player starts next to France and wants to be a bully. Lucky nations, even if they don't change the outcome so much, do change the relative strength of those powers against a player.

 

[Qoff]

If ironman is too hard for you, dont play it, problem solved.

Pretty much this and plus would be unfair with those who got the achievements with lucky nations. People want a mode like Ironman with customizable options? I'm ok with that, but the Ironman should stay the way it is and the other mode shouldn't give achievements.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Pretty much this and plus would be unfair with those who got the achievements with lucky nations. People want a mode like Ironman with customizable options? I'm ok with that, but the Ironman should stay the way it is and the other mode shouldn't give achievements.

I sense a soul in search of...

Reading comprehension ^_^.

 

[FreeSoc]

Pretty much this and plus would be unfair with those who got the achievements with lucky nations.

This makes roughly as much sense as arguing that it should be officially forbidden to get the Nobody Wants To Die achievement (Songhai gaining Timbuktu) in 1.8 because it is (presumably) so much easier than in 1.7 and earlier patches where Mali was colossal, and therefore discriminates against anyone who got it in said earlier patches.

 

[Pannonius]

Or they can just grab that steam achievement manager thing from the other thread and have their achievements and eat them, too.

Link?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This makes roughly as much sense as arguing that it should be officially forbidden to get the Nobody Wants To Die achievement (Songhai gaining Timbuktu) in 1.8 because it is (presumably) so much easier than in 1.7 and earlier patches where Mali was colossal, and therefore discriminates against anyone who got it in said earlier patches.

Yeah. It wasn't bad in 1.7 because Mali was friendly, but in 1.6 you had to be a strong player to get it because Mali and Hausa would both start having you as a rival and would ally each other almost instantly, meaning even a no-CB on Hausa would bring in Mali. As a result, you had to be capable of beating Mali + Hausa combined with (maybe) Kanem Bornu on your side. It was possible; I showed a screenshot doing so. However, as you say the difficulty variance in completing the achievement in 1.6 compared to 1.8 makes any possible lucky bonus a complete and utter joke.

Queen of Mercury, Sons of Carthage, African power (a bit harder in 1.8, MUCH easier in 1.7 than previous patches), market control (there are more total goods now), Jihad are also all substantially easier as a result of patches, further unraveling the logic he was trying to use.

 

[Felicity]

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.

punishing, dull, and unrealistic

unrealistic

http://puu.sh/cYDaM.png

 

[RELee]

http://puu.sh/cydam.png

:laugh:

 

[ABookshelf]

Every time someone complains about lucky nations being forced in Ironman it's mind-boggling...how about you don't play Ironman and then you can turn lucky nations off? Such a simple fix.

Oh and don't try to pull the achievements excuse. PI has endorsed an achievement hacker so if you want achievements just use that. Play non-ironman and keep track of achievement progress if you want to be get them legitimately without lucky nations.

 

[guga912]

I don't get the logic, you want to get achievements that are arbitrary goals set by the developers that you have to achieve to get a icon to make you feel like you have achieved something, but at the same time you don't want to follow the rules set by the developers on how you have to do it in order to have actually achieved the goal, but at the same time you don't want to bypass the system to simply get said achievement because that is not the way it was intended to be attained.

So basically they have to change the rules, to fit your needs because you want to get the badge the right way, but your right way not the way the developers had intended it?

People who care about virtual badges I really don't get you.

 

[Ak1995]

imo non lucky is making it boring :/

 

[clockworkBabbag]

I don't undestand the issue with lucky nations. They are a game balancing effect - nothing else. If they were random, a lucky Liege just wouldn't have the same game balancing effect as lucky France, so randomizing eliminates the whole purpose.

I really can see only one reason people would have an issue with lucky nations on ironman (since you can disable it in non ironman) - easier achievements. So - just cheat and get them rather than ask for massive game balance changes

The issue for me - and for quite a few people here, apparently, if you'd actually bothered to read the thread - has nothing to do with difficulty. If they don't exist the game is easier in some respects, and if they do exist you can find ways to work around it and/or get a benefit out of it. They don't affect the difficulty that much at all.

Lucky nations are not a game balance thing, they are specifically intended for historical railroading. Read the tooltip on the lucky nation setting, it explicitly says that. This is my issue with it, and probably the thing I like the least about EU4: it goes out of its way to make the world in the game end up more or less like the historical outcome. This is pretty absurd, seeing as how the game is ahistorical from the instant you hit unpause. I would be perfectly OK with random lucky nations being allowed in Ironman, but historical lucky nations is just making this problem worse.

Every time someone complains about lucky nations being forced in Ironman it's mind-boggling...how about you don't play Ironman and then you can turn lucky nations off? Such a simple fix.

Oh and don't try to pull the achievements excuse. PI has endorsed an achievement hacker so if you want achievements just use that. Play non-ironman and keep track of achievement progress if you want to be get them legitimately without lucky nations.

Endorsed an achievement hacker? I'm sorry, what? I'm having a hard time believing anyone associated with a game, who designed the achievements with the intention of people getting them legitimately, would ever endorse something like that.

Nevermind the fact that few people actually consider achievements to be worthwhile because of the stupid little trophy or whatever you get saying you got it. People like to actually achieve these things.