Russia needs nerf

[Pilot00]

'Rediculous' is not an insult, 'Insane' is barely an insult at all, and both were describing your arguments, not you.

'Shitty player' comes after several pages of provocations.

What is an insult and not is not decided by you, but common sense and how it can be perceived by the one you hurl it against. I really hope the poster, sees what you say and replies as to who and what he meant, you will be surpised it seems.
Also you started provocing me therefore my replies are reactions to your provocation. You cant expect to insult someone and not respond in kind. Unless of course you have no sense (which you dont) of what you do.

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

What is an insult and not is not decided by you, but common sense and how it can be perceived by the one you hurl it against. I really hope the poster, sees what you say and replies as to who and what he meant, you will be surpised it seems.
Also you started provocing me therefore my replies are reactions to your provocation. You cant expect to insult someone and not respond in kind. Unless of course you have no sense (which you dont) of what you do.

I see it as an insult. Perfectly deserved, and even then nowhere near how much your retarded asspulls actually deserve, unfortunately enough.

Regardless, if you guys aren't going to talk about game mechanics anymore, then you should stop, or otherwise I'm afraid the mods will interfere.

Anyway, I perfectly agree with the suggestion that Muscovy should be removed from the lucky nations list, which sounds like a reasonable nerf.

 

[Pilot00]

I see it as an insult. Perfectly deserved, and even then nowhere near how much your retarded asspulls actually deserve, unfortunately enough.

Regardless, if you guys aren't going to talk about game mechanics anymore, then you should stop, or otherwise I'm afraid the mods will interfere.

Anyway, I perfectly agree with the suggestion that Muscovy should be removed from the lucky nations list, which sounds like a reasonable nerf.

Thanks for propagating this and for trying to keep the peace around The mods should have interfered from the start but thats another matter and we wouldnt have reached this outcome.

Lucky nations in general should be removed completely IMHO.

 

[Novacat]

Lucky nations serve a useful purpose of enabling countries that start off poorly but end up powerful to be more successful. Unfortunately, EU4's list of historical luckies is in dire need of tweaking.

I would keep Russia as a lucky, but only have its luck applied from 1600 onwards. In its place, I would give Manchu/Qing luck status until 1600, that, combined with better NIs, they might actually be able to subjugate the Oirats and eventually China.

 

[Mightypeon]

Personally, I really like lucky nations because it gives you a challenge in the lategame.

There is a lucky nations off setting iirc


Concerning the precise buffs, I would wish to make a distinction between buffs for the Steppes and Buffs or Asian nations.

First: Steppe buffs:
-Historically, Hordes differed a lot in terms of sedentarity etc. Kazans capital was a pretty big well fortified city, while other Khanates were actually quite different.
This could be implemented using a slider (akin to piety for Muslims, or Patriach authority for Orthodox), that is moved by events and shows how sedentary/nomadic the tribes are. Being nomads means considerably more manpower/discipline/morale , being sedentary opens the way for gouvermental and technological reform and increases your strength in the long term.
-Hordes should definitly get new units. Kazan did make considerable use of pistols, and of cannons (typcially, artillery troops were Ottoman trained though, keeping a cannon working in battlefield conditions requires different skills from using them in battle), the problem with getting modern regiments for the hordes was their failure to develop manufactoring centers for weaponry, Ottoman largesse got them only so far, although the difference between a Horde being backed by the high porte (Crimea survived quite long) and hordes that werent (Sibir fell really easy, Kazan/Nogai put up quite a fight) was quite significant irl.
Ways to profit from more advanced neighbours that arent westerners would be a pretty smart and historic way to do.

As far as Asians are concerned: Simply buff their military units, its ok for them to research slowly, but the huge power differentials in the mid game are unhistoric. Portugal lost a number of engagements at land (they dominated at sea though), and Britain began to conquer at the end of the time period, not in the 16th century.

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

The problem is, lucky doesn't shift mid-game, therefore giving Manchu luck would also mean balance issues, since the Manchurian tribes didn't actually do anything significant for the first few hundred years. They were quiet and friendly with their neighbours, particularly with Korea, who had all but subjugated the tribes on their border, and there were cases of Jurchen leaders claiming descent from Korea. (One of the funny things is that Korea has Manchu as a historical friend, when it should really be the other way around. Joseon still treated the Jurchen with disdain, and it only grew worse as time went by, even after Qing kicked their asses into submission.)

What this would mean, is that although Manchu would have the strength to do eat up the Oirats and grow early on, they would do ahistorically early, where they should have no power or right to do so (The Jurchen was not even technically a true 'nation' at that time! They returned to being tribal after the Mongols blew the Jin up). Which may throw people like me, rather off.

So while Manchu would gain the power to form Qing, I don't think that this is the right way to go.

EDIT: By the way, Korean NIs are horrible. Yuck.

 

[Novacat]

Historical friend modifiers would prevent the Manchus from eating the Koreans, no?

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

That could work. Although I'm still bothered how powerful Manchu might be early. Although considering that the Oirats kick Manchu's ass as it stands now, it may be a fair change.

 

[Comes Imperii]

Concerning the precise buffs, I would wish to make a distinction between buffs for the Steppes and Buffs or Asian nations.

First: Steppe buffs:
-Historically, Hordes differed a lot in terms of sedentarity etc. Kazans capital was a pretty big well fortified city, while other Khanates were actually quite different.
This could be implemented using a slider (akin to piety for Muslims, or Patriach authority for Orthodox), that is moved by events and shows how sedentary/nomadic the tribes are. Being nomads means considerably more manpower/discipline/morale , being sedentary opens the way for gouvermental and technological reform and increases your strength in the long term.
-Hordes should definitly get new units. Kazan did make considerable use of pistols, and of cannons (typcially, artillery troops were Ottoman trained though, keeping a cannon working in battlefield conditions requires different skills from using them in battle), the problem with getting modern regiments for the hordes was their failure to develop manufactoring centers for weaponry, Ottoman largesse got them only so far, although the difference between a Horde being backed by the high porte (Crimea survived quite long) and hordes that werent (Sibir fell really easy, Kazan/Nogai put up quite a fight) was quite significant irl.
Ways to profit from more advanced neighbours that arent westerners would be a pretty smart and historic way to do.

As far as Asians are concerned: Simply buff their military units, its ok for them to research slowly, but the huge power differentials in the mid game are unhistoric. Portugal lost a number of engagements at land (they dominated at sea though), and Britain began to conquer at the end of the time period, not in the 16th century.

I agree with pretty much everything you suggested. I think hordes will definitely use some DLC in the future, so they will hopefully be stronger than now (with more units and mechanics).

About Manchu not being able to form Qing it is mainly a problem of the expansion system (see Ottomans not conquering Mamluks for example) which doesn't allow big, swift conquests for the reasons we all know. Making Manchu a lucky nation would not be a solution IMHO just like Ottomans with much better units and NIs can't conquer Mamluks with lucky on.

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

As far as Asians are concerned: Simply buff their military units, its ok for them to research slowly, but the huge power differentials in the mid game are unhistoric. Portugal lost a number of engagements at land (they dominated at sea though), and Britain began to conquer at the end of the time period, not in the 16th century.

I never understood why PI penalizes non-Western tech groups for both MP and tech costs, as well as for unit types too.

But yes, I do agree that the Nomads need some unit upgrades, definitely.

 

[TingJonKi]

Lucky nations serve a useful purpose of enabling countries that start off poorly but end up powerful to be more successful. Unfortunately, EU4's list of historical luckies is in dire need of tweaking.

I would keep Russia as a lucky, but only have its luck applied from 1600 onwards. In its place, I would give Manchu/Qing luck status until 1600, that, combined with better NIs, they might actually be able to subjugate the Oirats and eventually China.

lucky + mission CB would probably allow manchu to devour china but theyd also have to label ming and oirates as hostile/rival

i am confused on how AI works when it comes to choosing who to war, because for some reason you can see the north american natives lasting so long even though the europeans that border them have proper CB's and a huge amount more of strength. but it seems the AI only attacks rivals/hostiles, so probably that should be tweaked for the manchu against Ming/oirates

 

[Novacat]

I never understood why PI penalizes non-Western tech groups for both MP and tech costs, as well as for unit types too.

Im fine with that since you can fix bad tech and units with westernization, you cant fix bad NIs no matter how hard you try.

i am confused on how AI works when it comes to choosing who to war, because for some reason you can see the north american natives lasting so long even though they have proper CB's and a huge amount more of strength

AI usually attacks the weakest opponent, as well as the opponent it will gain the most from. AI generally does not prioritize colonies for acquisition because the amount gained from them would be pitiful. This will change when the new colonial possessions start appearing.

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

Regarding natives, there is also the problem of actually having to ship armies across the ocean, which the AI is hesitant to do, since they still have their holdings back home to worry about.

But yes, the disparity in strength between NIs are disappointing; hopefully PI decides to change their policy on this in the future.

 

[Novacat]

Well, one huge problem is that, between 1800 and 1820, a huge amount of land changed hands, both in Europe and Asia, and EU4 has no mechanics to reflect that.

 

[Incompetent]

Lucky nations serve a useful purpose of enabling countries that start off poorly but end up powerful to be more successful. Unfortunately, EU4's list of historical luckies is in dire need of tweaking.

I would keep Russia as a lucky, but only have its luck applied from 1600 onwards. In its place, I would give Manchu/Qing luck status until 1600, that, combined with better NIs, they might actually be able to subjugate the Oirats and eventually China.

Actually, I think Muscovy's 'Lucky' status is quite justified at the start of the game. They were a historical overachiever, when you look at how much they actually had to work with in 1444. What they don't need is to have both 'lucky' and implausibly high base manpower values.

Manchu is a good candidate for luck, but they need more than that. The Jurchens in 1444 were really nothing special: just another population of nomads, divided into various tribes that competed with each other and with the Mongol tribes. ('Manchu' is anachronistic for the 15th century - the name was chosen by the Chongde Emperor in 1635.) The unification of the Jurchens, their dominance over the Mongols and their conquest of China were all extraordinary achievements given what had gone before. I don't know if it's better to give them special magic events like in EU2, or to set up a more dynamic situation where if the Ming run into internal difficulties, any of the neighbouring hordes has a chance to take over. I would start the Jurchens as one or more Steppe Hordes, and then give them a decision to reform into the Manchu when they are strong enough.

The one 'lucky' country that perhaps doesn't deserve it is France. If anything it *under*-performed for much of the era, when you consider how much of Europe's total wealth and population lay within its borders.

 

[brifbates]

Anyway, I perfectly agree with the suggestion that Muscovy should be removed from the lucky nations list, which sounds like a reasonable nerf.

Changing color from green to blue (or possibly pink) isn't really a major game balance shift. If you think for a minute that making Muscovy non-lucky will magically stop some nation from blobbing across Siberia and bashing the hordes and China I have some nice bridges and other landmarks to sell you. My money would be on Sweden because Poland always seems to confuse itself and do nothing but with a power vacuum to the east they might pull their act together...

 

[TingJonKi]

Im fine with that since you can fix bad tech and units with westernization, you cant fix bad NIs no matter how hard you try.



AI usually attacks the weakest opponent, as well as the opponent it will gain the most from. AI generally does not prioritize colonies for acquisition because the amount gained from them would be pitiful. This will change when the new colonial possessions start appearing.

well even then ive noticed the AI will also prioritize missions too and the hostile/rivalry status to be more inclined to attack others

 

[Novacat]

Changing color from green to blue (or possibly pink) isn't really a major game balance shift. If you think for a minute that making Muscovy non-lucky will magically stop some nation from blobbing across Siberia and bashing the hordes and China I have some nice bridges and other landmarks to sell you. My money would be on Sweden because Poland always seems to confuse itself and do nothing but with a power vacuum to the east they might pull their act together...

Removing lucky status wont put the Russians at any particular disadvantage. Sweden starts with only a fraction of the manpower and basetax (roughly 1/3 of Muscovy), and they start the game stuck under a PU, which gives Muscovy time to eat its neighbors and integrate its vassals before it has to deal with the Swedes, assuming Denmark does not successfully integrate them.

 

[AndrewT]

Insults are not allowed on these forums regardless of perceived provocation. This is one of the rules of the forum you all agreed to follow, when you signed up here.

Responding to rudeness with rudeness is just as bad as the original transgression. Report by PM to a Moderator, do not respond in kind.

Thread closed.

I'm not going to bother going through nearly 300 posts to ping everyone responsible, you know who you are.

OP or anyone else is welcome to start a new thread on this topic but it must remain laser-focussed on the topic and not be diverted by nationalism, name calling, discussions of who is a good or bad player, allegations of arguing in bad faith or anything else off-topic or denigratory of any of your fellow forum members. We are a grown-up community here, not a kindergarten.

We moderators are determined that these forums remain civilised at all times, so that all feel welcome and respected.

If you do not feel capable of behaving in a fit manner, of restraining yourself with patience, of remaining above others' pettiness - do not post here until you can master yourself.

Thank you.