That's because there really isn't one to this
(I corrected your spelling in your post, sorry spelling is one of my pet peeves. Grammar on the other hand is not :blush: )
Russia needs nerf
- Thread starter TingJonKi
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
That's because there really isn't one to this
(I corrected your spelling in your post, sorry spelling is one of my pet peeves. Grammar on the other hand is not :blush: )
I can verify that the Ottomans also eat up the hordes in some of my games, usually when they don't expand south they move East and North.
Because in order for the Russians to be able to do anything they need those super ideas, mostly to combat the large amount of Ming and Manchu armies who may have joined in a coalition (which is another mechanic that needs to be fixed) the large armies of Lithuania and Poland, the hordes (whom of which form a large Horde alliance against Russia) and then the super discipline armies of Prussia and Sweden when war inevitably comes knocking on your door from them.
which is what happened historically when the Osmanli Emperors allowed the Janissaries to gain to much power, then lastly the Ottomans can disband the janissaries before them giving multiple negative AND positive modifiers, depending on what the player or AI wants to do.
My suggestions are, from the very beginning:
1: Give the Hordes some unit upgrades, and perhaps reduce tech penalty of hordes. Hordes should be declining after 1600, not 1500.
2: Seriously buff up Manchu/Timurid NIs. Considering how successful those states were during the EU4 time period, they should have NIs equivilant of top-tier European nations.
Russia shouldnt be fighting China + Lithuania + Prussia + Sweden all at once and winning.
Indeed. Hordes get a raw deal however you look at it. I don't understand why they get no new unit types at all past the initial ones, for instance (a punishment that was deemed too harsh even for the New World and Sub-Saharan tech groups). I suppose it's because they continued to use bows, long after they'd gone out of fashion in the West. (Come to think of it, one thing that EU4 gets wrong is the lack of a fire phase in the early game - the developers seem to have forgotten how important bows and crossbows were in 15th-century warfare.)
Bows went out of fashion in the west not because they were ineffective, but becasue bows required an enormous amount of training and strength to use. What mainly hurt the hordes was not the lack of firearms, but rather the lack of advanced artillery, Russian artillery really hurt the hordes badly.
I'd have to see some screens/saves to believe this is actually happening.
I didn't say Russian ideas were terrible, I said the western powers have better combat NIs, which they clearly do since 0 of Russia's have direct combat effects such as France (+20% morale, +2% recovery, +10% discipline), Sweden (+15% inf power, +15% discipline), or even England (10% discipline plus all their god navy bonuses) get. The tiny morale bump from +army tradition is laughable in comparison. Being able to field a lot of cheap infantry doesn't mean a lot when you can lose fights at 2 or 3-1 odds against Sweden and their god-generals+bonuses/decisions. Also, head to head the OE NIs will result in them stomping all over Russia at anything like similar tech (Ghazi may well be the most overpowered idea in the game) until the late game unit disparity kicks in.
I don't disagree that there is a problem with a.i. Russia munching on China constantly if that is what people are seeing a lot of (I haven't, nor have that many screenshots I've seen shown excessive Russian expansion) but nerfing them so they do even worse than they already are in Europe isn't called for without corresponding nerfs to the other Europeans.
That was in direct response to Mr. Tex's post, whom claimed that russia needed its NIs for that purpose.
Your analysis is as flawed as they come.
The main benefit of army tradition is not morale, its better generals. Army tradition is the difference between rolling 5-6 pip generals and only rolling 1-2 pip generals. You also completely ignore the fact that Russia's technology bonus applies to military technology.
Military Technology and Generals are two of the most important factors in land combat.
Morale? If your that damn concerned about morale, just let the Sunnis convert you then go full pious for a +25% Morale bonus. If your willing to go Shiite you can get +35% morale which surpasses any European country. Or you can grab defender of the faith which also provides a nice morale bonus.
+10% Discipline by itself is not going to cause british/french armies to win outnumbered 3:1, if your losing that badly its because of something else. Either you picked lousy ideas, or you let yourself get behind on military tech for whatever reason.
The only two countries that get obscene quality are Sweden and Brandenburg, and if those countries are fielding anywhere close to 33% of your total land force, your doing something really badly wrong.
Yes, exactly - there's no magic rule that says (pre-industrial era) guns beat bows in real life, only in computer games. Maintaining a pool of trained archers is onerous for an agrarian society like England that needs to keep archery practice as a sort of enforced pastime, but it's no trouble for a nation of lifelong warriors. Artillery is something that only becomes indispensable much later in the game (and is curiously independent of tech group). Mid-game, it's infantry that gives Europeans such a silly advantage over Asians in EU4 - everything from level 12 upwards just steamrolls anything the Asians can come up with. The balance of infantry and cavalry unit types in this game is all wrong.
Last edited:
Well, France, and Brandenburg have better unique bonuses, than Russia. Again it doesn't mean that Russian ones are particularly bad, they are still pretty high up there among the good ones.
But if you compare fully formed BrBurg->Germany, and France, to Russia. France / Germany are way better. (western tech from game start -> will never fall behind in tech, epic military bonuses, tech bonuses etc...)
Granted, Russia became a military powerhouse mainly in the latter half of the 19th century (because they had a population boom). In napoleonic times however, the Russian "weakness" was possibly that they were so spread out, and estimate population was in the region of 40million (1800) Not unbeatable, but still, the Swedish and Polish coalition were unable to destroy the Russians as we know from history. Time of troubles sure was a bad thing, admittedly the Russians did lose territory also (to sweden for example)
But give me a break here, sweden is like this godlike military power in this game for much of the duration of the game in EU4. Sweden's population was also quite small (ca 1 million) , so it doesn't make that much sense that they have manpower boosting unique ability. This is also the reason why Sweden kind of lost to Peter to Great's Russia. How can 1 million strong country, fight against multiple times that number, eventually your armies will not suffice. Sweden lost her empire to Russia after all. Even if this historical curiosity will anger paradox staff, it must be noted. Yes, Sweden also trampled over Poland a little bit also, but last time I checked, it was Russia who regained and even gained more territory than before that war (great northern war)
Still, with the way that the other major powers get their bonuses, Russia pretty much needs some powerful bonuses also. Otherwise it will just become destroyed always by the uber-Swedish soldiers and Polish winged hussars. Ottomans aren't half that bad of a country anymore, in EU4.
I mean, srsly, give Russians some credit. In the end, it was Russian cossacks who went to Paris, and there was little the French and Napoleon could do about it.
How do you think Russia become such a big country then, if it was supposedly so bad militarily I guess they must have been just so nice to everybody... They must have had excellent skills of persuasion and diplomacy :closedeyes:
But if you compare fully formed BrBurg->Germany, and France, to Russia. France / Germany are way better. (western tech from game start -> will never fall behind in tech, epic military bonuses, tech bonuses etc...)
Granted, Russia became a military powerhouse mainly in the latter half of the 19th century (because they had a population boom). In napoleonic times however, the Russian "weakness" was possibly that they were so spread out, and estimate population was in the region of 40million (1800) Not unbeatable, but still, the Swedish and Polish coalition were unable to destroy the Russians as we know from history. Time of troubles sure was a bad thing, admittedly the Russians did lose territory also (to sweden for example)
But give me a break here, sweden is like this godlike military power in this game for much of the duration of the game in EU4. Sweden's population was also quite small (ca 1 million) , so it doesn't make that much sense that they have manpower boosting unique ability. This is also the reason why Sweden kind of lost to Peter to Great's Russia. How can 1 million strong country, fight against multiple times that number, eventually your armies will not suffice. Sweden lost her empire to Russia after all. Even if this historical curiosity will anger paradox staff, it must be noted. Yes, Sweden also trampled over Poland a little bit also, but last time I checked, it was Russia who regained and even gained more territory than before that war (great northern war)
Still, with the way that the other major powers get their bonuses, Russia pretty much needs some powerful bonuses also. Otherwise it will just become destroyed always by the uber-Swedish soldiers and Polish winged hussars. Ottomans aren't half that bad of a country anymore, in EU4.
I mean, srsly, give Russians some credit. In the end, it was Russian cossacks who went to Paris, and there was little the French and Napoleon could do about it.
How do you think Russia become such a big country then, if it was supposedly so bad militarily I guess they must have been just so nice to everybody... They must have had excellent skills of persuasion and diplomacy :closedeyes:
Russian diplomacy was a gun on your head.
or sabre blade near the neck, it was effective atleast sometimes
I cannot form a full argument at the moment, but I am really startled by those who think that +125% manpower should be present in the national ideas of any country.
With this reasoning... wasnt much the russians could do to stop the french taking Moscow, or the polish or the swedish... If I remember correct even a Horde took it aswell....
Anyways, OP is correct, Russia/Muscowy needs nerfing coz it has so unhistorical outcome within the game.
Last edited:
So then Castille, England and France must always remain in the top 3 positions in every game, because thats what happened in RLF? (BTW unless the player has a hand on it, it remains thus 90% of the time).
BTW how long did the aforementioned keep Moscow?
That's because there really isn't one to this
(I corrected your spelling in your post, sorry spelling is one of my pet peeves. Grammar on the other hand is not :blush: )
Feel free to do so, my spelling is terribad in every language I speak and write (even my native one).
I would argue that a flintlock of the time, would certainly have more stopping power and armor penetration than a crossbow (power/armor pen) and range (long bow). It was far more easier to use and train too.
So yes thats a big plus for an army that used them vs a bow army. A bow army couldnt decisively devastate an armored knight cavalry charge completely. On the other hand, guns made both knights and armor obsolete. Then you have the fear factor. Many of the tribes who had no contact with the west simply crapped their pants when they heard the fussilade.
Last edited:
Brandenburg. Yes.
France? No. Not even close. Elan is very, very highly overrated. +10% Discipline is nothing, and infact is the average in Europe. France also has a lot of bad modifiers like +2 Heretic/Heathen tolerance, +10% National Tax and +10% Vassal Income.
France's military bonuses are hardly 'epic'.
Also, your forgetting the most important thing, Positioning. Brandenburg starts out as a three province minor. It pretty much has no chance of becoming a world-spanning empire unless it gets lucky and inherits Russia in PU or something. Muscovy, meanwhile, currently starts off as a superpower in its region (no other neighboring country comes even close to Muscovy's basetax/manpower in 1444) and has a plethora of weak neighbors and uncolonised land to conquer which allows it to effortlessly expand.
France starts off strong but they are unable to really go anywhere due to Austria, Castille, England boxing them in.
I already said that Sweden was rediculously overpowered and needed to be nerfed.
Except, repeating myself for the hundredth time, the problem is not Muscovy/Russia, the problem is that Hordes, China, and India are currently setup to be free territory for whomever wants to conquer them. Its not Muscovy strength but rather Horde/Chinese/Indian weakness that makes the Russians blob way too much.
The Balkans are free territory for the Ottos, the Provinces of the HRE are free provinces for whomever steamrolls Europe. The nations of America are free provinces for whomever colinises it. Same with Afrika...The thing as I understand it, is that those are exactly there to do that (isnt it how it happened too?).It will only take extraordinary circumstances for them to do anything meaningfull, or a human player.
That's just so wrong. Conquering into the HRE is very tedious. Conquering the Balkans is easy as the Ottomans, but that's hardly comparable to Siberia and the Hordes (apart from the fact that you can get quite a coalition against you as an unexperienced player - same with the HRE). Anyway, I would argue that the Ottomans do have one of the best (second to Russia and maybe GB, if in player hands) starting positions. Which is hardly surprising since it's very similar to Russia's: You can take Expansion and expand east with relative ease, while occasionally conquering parts of Europe to avoid coalitions. The main difference being that you lack these very nice "free" Siberian colonies, as well as the fact that it's a bit unintuitive (and slightly less effective, due to the needed transports) to go for China early, while going by land will take you a lot longer because of India. GB is only in a great spot if the player controls it and wins the HYW.
We're talking more about AI vs AI capabilities here. Of course a human player can blob through anything.
The HRE offers stiffer resistance to a quick conquest by a non-HRE state than anything except a unified major power, because it's all high-tech and it takes hardly anything to get the whole lot united in a coalition against the invader. The only AI power that could do it from the outside is a rampant France (having eaten Spain or got a big PU), and even they find it slow going.
The Orthodox Balkan minors are easy for the Ottomans to conquer, but then they run into Hungary - not a superpower by itself, but not a complete pushover either, and it often brings in major Catholic allies. Past that you start getting into the HRE and Poland-Lithuania.
Which if they dont form the Commonwealth will be total 0s. We keep making arguements and counter arguements and essentially we are saying the same thing:
Some nations are easy to expand from the onset due to several diplomatic,militirary and even geographical reasons. Same stands for Russia. However all the nations we are talking about (including Russia) have IFs. Those IFs are big most of the time. The Russian IFs are a big time problem (for them) which IMHO it doesnt lead to the necessityof a nerf.
As for the stiff resistance of the HRE, sorry to say but the only resistance I have seen put up to France so far has been the Protestant reformation. If they are cought in between campaigning they stop expansion.
So wouldnt that make it even easier for the Russians? Especially considering Lithuania is the strongest neighbor Russia has.
- Status