Remove Lucky Nations.

[sjobenrit]

All counties that are currently 'Lucky' are already major powers (or major powers-in-the-making) and with their good idea sets and mission trees I dont see why lucky nations are still in the game, and that you cant remove them if you want to earn achievements.
Surely Austria does not need

	+1%	Missionary strength
	−10%	Stability cost modifier
	+10%	Institution spread
	+1	Monthly splendor
	−20%	Mercenary cost
	−20%	Embracement cost
	−20%	Advisor cost
	−1	Interest per annum
	−10%	Missionary maintenance cost
	+25%	Manpower recovery speed
	+10%	Fort defense
	+5%	Siege ability
	+10%	Spy network construction
	+25%	Improve relations
	−1	National unrest
	+0.5	Yearly republican tradition
	+1	Yearly legitimacy
	−25%	Aggressive expansion impact

on top of their national ideas, missions and events.
(copied and pasted from the wiki)

Also, if you want to keep lucky nations, why not enable them for the player?

edit: even if you do not agree, please discuss! It helps a lot!

 

[Sidolowka]

Just outright remove lucky nations. All 8 of the high priority lucky nations (Castille, the Ottomans, France, England, Austria, Portugal, Muscovy and Jianzhou) have no problem expanding and surviving into the late game, while also having great mission trees (maybe except the Ottomans) and anywhere from somewhat decent (Portugal) to amazing ideas (Russia and Jianzhou).

Sure, being lucky doesn't completely break the game in their favour, but there simply isn't enough justification for them to recieve a huge amount of buffs (+1 to all monarch skills, -1 unrest, +25% manpower recovery speed, -25% AE impact, -20% advisor cost and -1 interest per annum, etc.) for no reason.

 

[Mirochi]

Maybe only OPMs should get the "lucky" bonus, rather than major powers? With this way, "lucky" bonus acts like an equilizer

 

[Sidolowka]

Maybe only OPMs should get the "lucky" bonus

Ardabil and Toungoo immediately come to mind – I could get behind this.

 

[sjobenrit]

Maybe only OPMs should get the "lucky" bonus, rather than major powers? With this way, "lucky" bonus acts like an equilizer

Ardabil and Tougoo immediately come to mind – I could get behind this.

yea, I would rather give those OPMs some bonuses because they grew to a much larger empire then what start in 1444, but I would also give those bonuses to the player and make them less op

 

[Vin55]

That would be great or to emerging powers, like Sweden or Aqua Quanulu and Brandenburg stuff like that small to medium starters, who would benefit from a slight push and maybe have 10 nations who qualify but make it that only 5 get it randomly.

 

[BlazeKnight_]

Lucky nations are fine. Actually I wouldn't mind seeing AI getting some better buffs on all difficulties. All of those current buffs (and the buffs on Hard, VH) just push the AI to become more competent because they can't manage economy or manpower properly. AI is actually quite decent in warfare, they just need the resources to be able to conduct it. Although, it would be better if AI was improved on a fundamental level rather than just a mess of modifiers meant to bring them up to a player. Specifically, AI does not pick good idea groups, they don't develop properly, and they are awful at managing economy and manpower.

 

[xavdang]

Lucky nations are fine. Actually I wouldn't mind seeing AI getting some better buffs on all difficulties. All of those current buffs (and the buffs on Hard, VH) just push the AI to become more competent because they can't manage economy or manpower properly. AI is actually quite decent in warfare, they just need the resources to be able to conduct it. Although, it would be better if AI was improved on a fundamental level rather than just a mess of modifiers meant to bring them up to a player. Specifically, AI does not pick good idea groups, they don't develop properly, and they are awful at managing economy and manpower.

What the OP is trying to say, is that these bonuses are given to nations that already have no problem surviving. We should better spend them on small nations that actually rose into the position of Great Power, despite not being advantaged at the start.
It's not really about AI itself, it can be improved independently.

 

[almoravid]

I don't think you need to make the single player game easier by removing lucky nations. I am not a powergamer, but if my Milan survives into 1550s, I'll usually be able to smack around the lucky France/Austria/Castile at will and it's good that at least the Turk still packs some punch. I do like to see my ROTW develop semi-historically and have some kind of strong Russia, strong Ottos, strong colonial WE nations etc, and I'd love to see Manchu form and conquer China a bit more often. I would prefer Austria to end up being a central european powerhouse and I'd like to see Brandenburg form Prussia a bit more often than Pomerania.

I can see some tweaks, though. F.E. Castile/Spain and Ottomans would lose lucky nations on 1700 start. Why not make it expire by 1650 with these two? Why not start English lucky nation status in 1650, as the country wasn't all that lucky in the entire 1444-1650 era?

What I would also like is to see more of a boost for an AI-formed Persia, Netherlands and Mughals. Make them lucky, and make Mughals run out of luck in 1650.

Also, If you pick a major, Brandenburg inherits your lucky nation status. Make a historical enemy get it instead! Say, if you play Russia, Poland and/or Sweden gets lucky. If you go Ottomans, you suddenly see lucky Mameluke. If you pick Austria, Venice or Palatinate are suddenly lucky nations, etc.

 

[sjobenrit]

I would maybe rather see smaller randomized countrys get the lucky nations status, if it does not get removed/tweaked down a bit. What about Udege uniting Manchuria, Ferrara establishing an new lombard league, or Kongo conquering the Sahel? Giving the 'lucky buff' to (for example those) randomized smaller nations makes them able to change the course of the game, but not by much because these buffs alone do not give a country godmode. Still I think this idea would make the game a little bit more alt historical, and so (for me at least) more fun.

 

[MatthewP]

I would maybe rather see smaller randomized countrys get the lucky nations status, if it does not get removed/tweaked down a bit. What about Udege uniting Manchuria, Ferrara establishing an new lombard league, or Kongo conquering the Sahel? Giving the 'lucky buff' to (for example those) randomized smaller nations makes them able to change the course of the game, but not by much because these buffs alone do not give a country godmode. Still I think this idea would make the game a little bit more alt historical, and so (for me at least) more fun.

Hmm. I like this idea, but I also like the current way lucky nations work (increase challenge to the player by making strong nations stronger). I would play a “really randomized lucky nations” mode where the lucky tag is applied to nations completely at random, (optionally) shifts to a new nation if the original one is annexed, and has variable strength ranging from half to double the current bonuses. Also let the player choose how many there should be.

Maybe there could even be different types of “luck” with bonuses focusing on different areas.

 

[TheDungen]

Lucky nations should be replaced by specific bonuses to specific countries in specific eras.

That would be great or to emerging powers, like Sweden or Aqua Quanulu and Brandenburg stuff like that small to medium starters, who would benefit from a slight push and maybe have 10 nations who qualify but make it that only 5 get it randomly.

Neither Sweden nor Brandenburg needs this. Sweden gets plenty of bonuses already and Brandenburg was a backwater in 1444 in game'ts on the cusp of becoming a great power. It took to the 30 years war for the Brandenburg of reality to take over Hinterpommern, when was the last game they didn't do that in the first decade?

Hmm. I like this idea, but I also like the current way lucky nations work (increase challenge to the player by making strong nations stronger). I would play a “really randomized lucky nations” mode where the lucky tag is applied to nations completely at random, (optionally) shifts to a new nation if the original one is annexed, and has variable strength ranging from half to double the current bonuses. Also let the player choose how many there should be.

Maybe there could even be different types of “luck” with bonuses focusing on different areas.

I wouldn't mind Lukcy nations if Lucky nations weren't really blobbier nations. The game is already a blobfest. In reality the most successful countries coming out of this era weren't the massive blobbing ones but the ones who found their sphere of interest and hammered it out.

 

[Razor Feather]

I will say that the slate of bonuses the lucky nations get doesn't really make them all that much tougher once the player gets around to them, it just makes them less likely to fail from poor resource management on their own. Considering how many players complain about majors being in endless debt all the time, it may well be warranted as a means of making the nations likely to be big blobs on the map have a bit more staying power/consistency over the course of the game. Giving the buff to some more peripheral nations that historically expanded/punched above their weight would be interesting, however.

Giving the buffs to the player is essentially pointless design wise though. There is no need in this game to have strict "player hero buffs" that (most) of the ai doesn't have, simply because they are the player. There are already all sorts of mechanics that the ai uses poorly that the player can capitalize on to gain an advantage. Not only that, but the buffs given are those that make the long term resource management and balancing that is a core of the challenge of the game largely moot, or at least a lot less important. While the ai isn't setup to go "Man, my loans are super cheap, time to over cap and rush all my neighbors" the player will. The player will also do things like stacking more stuff on top of some of those buffs, like say ae reduciton, to make them far more powerful. If what you want is a stronger player nation, that is essentially the entire point of the easy difficulty setting. All it does is buff the player. It makes no other changes.

 

[MatthewP]

In reality the most successful countries coming out of this era weren't the massive blobbing ones but the ones who found their sphere of interest and hammered it out.

Only sort of matters as far as this discussion goes, but I don't know about this. England conquered the largest empire in world history. Spain owned a continent and a half outside of Iberia. Russia became Russia. The Ottomans blobbed like crazy. Manchu conquered China. Mughals owned a ton of India. The US only showed up at the end but was extremely expansionist immediately to its great benefit. Sure, France blobbed less, as did HRE - both due to tough powers on their borders and a lack of centralization that they had to deal with first, not because expansion was a weak approach. It seems like massive expansion was the go-to strategy for successful powers in this period.

Giving the buffs to the player is essentially pointless design wise though...If what you want is a stronger player nation, that is essentially the entire point of the easy difficulty setting.

Yep. This one seems like a straightforward answer at least.

 

[TheDungen]

Only sort of matters as far as this discussion goes, but I don't know about this. England conquered the largest empire in world history. Spain owned a continent and a half outside of Iberia. Russia became Russia. The Ottomans blobbed like crazy. Manchu conquered China. Mughals owned a ton of India. The US only showed up at the end but was extremely expansionist immediately to its great benefit. Sure, France blobbed less, as did HRE - both due to tough powers on their borders and a lack of centralization that they had to deal with first, not because expansion was a weak approach. It seems like massive expansion was the go-to strategy for successful powers in this period.



Yep. This one seems like a straightforward answer at least.

England didn't conquer that empire inside of EU4. Spain is not one of the success stories coming out of the game period, they barely controlled any of it at the end. Russia is one I will give you. The ottomans was the sick man of Europe at the end of this era, The Manchu's were more like new leadership in china, and even then the Qing never really caught up to the Ming. At the end of the EU4 period the Mughals were not doing great. France actually blobbed a fair bit (Look at france in 1444 and compare it to France at the time of the revolution) but they also aren't the main victors of the period, oh they got close but post Napoleonic France were in for hard times. The HRE blobbed massively with Charles V being emepror of the first emprie on which the sun never sets, but they were some of the biggest losers of the period.

Generally speaking countries become powerful then they blob. Not become powerful because they blob.Britain had become powerful as was about to blob but it's power came from it's advanced science and industry. Prussia had gotten powerful and was about to blob but again it's power did not come from the lands it controlled.
Russia reformed then blobbed.
All the rest you mentioned blobbed, overextended themselves and collapsed inside of the EU4 period.

 

[MatthewP]

England didn't conquer that empire inside of EU4. Spain is not one of the success stories coming out of the game period, they barely controlled any of it at the end. Russia is one I will give you. The ottomans was the sick man of Europe at the end of this era, The Manchu's were more like new leadership in china, and even then the Qing never really caught up to the Ming. At the end of the EU4 period the Mughals were not doing great. France actually blobbed a fair bit (Look at france in 1444 and compare it to France at the time of the revolution) but they also aren't the main victors of the period, oh they got close but post Napoleonic France were in for hard times. The HRE blobbed massively with Charles V being emepror of the first emprie on which the sun never sets, but they were some of the biggest losers of the period.

Generally speaking countries become powerful then they blob. Not become powerful because they blob.Britain had become powerful as was about to blob but it's power came from it's advanced science and industry. Prussia had gotten powerful and was about to blob but again it's power did not come from the lands it controlled.
Russia reformed then blobbed.
All the rest you mentioned blobbed, overextended themselves and collapsed inside of the EU4 period.

interesting analysis. Great Britain of course would grow more in the next century but already owned a huge territory, and I don’t think it’s controversial to say that their empire was a huge source of power and wealth. Most of the countries you describe as collapsing in the EU4 time period are great powers at the start of Victoria 2, but certainly they did have issues. Only the Mughals recognizably collapsed before 1820. Who are the winners in your view then? I was initially going on something like “who had the most sustained geopolitical power during the EU4 timeframe”, but I recognize different definitions of winning are reasonable. Quality of life certainly was not great in blobby Russia.

On the “got strong then blobbed” point, of course this is true to a degree. Countries only successfully blob if they were strong, in fact I would argue that’s why we decided they were strong in hindsight. But again, it does not seem controversial to suggest that growing made them stronger. GBR, the US and to some extent Russia prospered after 1820 largely due to their enormous populations, land and natural resources; the Ottomans, Austria and Spain did not in spite of them. It seems really hard to take away from those examples that having access to large populations, land and natural resources is detrimental.

 

[TheDungen]

interesting analysis. Great Britain of course would grow more in the next century but already owned a huge territory, and I don’t think it’s controversial to say that their empire was a huge source of power and wealth. Most of the countries you describe as collapsing in the EU4 time period are great powers at the start of Victoria 2, but certainly they did have issues. Only the Mughals recognizably collapsed before 1820. Who are the winners in your view then? I was initially going on something like “who had the most sustained geopolitical power during the EU4 timeframe”, but I recognize different definitions of winning are reasonable. Quality of life certainly was not great in blobby Russia.

On the “got strong then blobbed” point, of course this is true to a degree. Countries only successfully blob if they were strong, in fact I would argue that’s why we decided they were strong in hindsight. But again, it does not seem controversial to suggest that growing made them stronger. GBR, the US and to some extent Russia prospered after 1820 largely due to their enormous populations, land and natural resources; the Ottomans, Austria and Spain did not in spite of them. It seems really hard to take away from those examples that having access to large populations, land and natural resources is detrimental.

The winners are the ones who rise the most from start to finish, England/Britain is probably number one on that list, followed by Russia, Prussia and France.
And no the source of the power of the British empire was it's industry.