Russia needs nerf

[-Malovane-]

Heh - just had a fun experience last night playing Ming in Ironman. Had fully Westernized by 1550, and cut Russia off from Eastern expansion, so they only got a couple provinces into Siberia.

~1650 they attacked, along with Great Britain, Austria, and Prussia. Being a couple tech levels ahead of them militarily, being Western tech, plus outnumbering them and having a greater manpower pool, and going through some prior battles with Western forces, I thought I was going to be ok. But that didn't happen - Russia steamrolled me. Hard.

The reason was because they took offensive+defensive, and with luck bonuses this meant every single general they had (5 of them) was 6 fire/6 shock/6 maneuver. They didn't have a single general below 20 pips. This is the problem with "Lucky Nations". Super leaders yield extreme MP generation, so they can load up on military ideas early, yet stay competitive in tech. Then they throw around hordes of armies with full blown super-Napoleons at the helm of each, which is absurd.

"Luck" needs to be removed as a whole. The nations that currently have it are already strong, and don't particularly need it. They survive quite well, and thrive, in a non-ironman game with it turned off. So what's the point?

 

[JimboOmega]

Heh - just had a fun experience last night playing Ming in Ironman. Had fully Westernized by 1550, and cut Russia off from Eastern expansion, so they only got a couple provinces into Siberia.

~1650 they attacked, along with Great Britain, Austria, and Prussia. Being a couple tech levels ahead of them militarily, being Western tech, plus outnumbering them and having a greater manpower pool, and going through some prior battles with Western forces, I thought I was going to be ok. But that didn't happen - Russia steamrolled me. Hard.

The reason was because they took offensive+defensive, and with luck bonuses this meant every single general they had (5 of them) was 6 fire/6 shock/6 maneuver. They didn't have a single general below 20 pips. This is the problem with "Lucky Nations". Super leaders yield extreme MP generation, so they can load up on military ideas early, yet stay competitive in tech. Then they throw around hordes of armies with full blown super-Napoleons at the helm of each, which is absurd.

"Luck" needs to be removed as a whole. The nations that currently have it are already strong, and don't particularly need it. They survive quite well, and thrive, in a non-ironman game with it turned off. So what's the point?

How can you be two levels ahead on tech? In most of my games, the european powers are at least a couple years "ahead of time", and to be two levels beyond that (typically 30 years) is impossible with tech as it is now.

But yes, Muscovy (in my game) is quite a ridiculously overpowered sprawling mess. Worse, they're the junior partner of an unusually successful France. They have a much larger military than any other power, like 50% more, and their borders don't look unusual - they haven't advanced into the Ukraine, deep into the Baltics, or into Scandinavia.

I only was at war with them once, when I was in absolutely no shape to be at war, so it wasn't a fair comparison, but it was the only war I fought where I had to make big concessions. I think France being their senior partner is actually working for me, since I can rack up AE with them and they can't do anything about it (France hates me, but we have a royal marriage... and no CBs on me that I'm aware of).

I can't speak of 6/6/6 generals, though... a flat +1/+1/+1 is nice, but at 100% army tradition you should at least be competitive.

I will say, and I'm sure you've noticed, that military tech is by far the easiest to keep up in, and having spare points for ideas isn't a stretch even for a normal nation - though of course if you have to westernize that will put you behind the curve. Typically my military tech is right on time or close to it, but my diplo tech... and worse my admin tech... is a bit of an embarrassment (why does the neighbor bonus cap out at -25%? Boo)

 

[brifbates]

How can you be two levels ahead on tech? In most of my games, the european powers are at least a couple years "ahead of time", and to be two levels beyond that (typically 30 years) is impossible with tech as it is now.

Later in the game non-western nations will start falling behind in tech, including eastern Russia (despite their bonus) without having godly rulers or strong advisors. At 13 years/tech you need 4.5 mp/month at +10% which isn't too hard but the ai will often exceed their number of leaders, buy more generals, and otherwise spend additional mil points which will make them drop below the required number if they happen to not have a 5/6 mil ruler.

 

[Pilot00]

So your expecting a horde AI to be able to replicate player exploits against Russia?

Do you realize how rediculous you sound?



This. People tend to imagine the Steppes as uninhabited, mostly barren wastelands, when in reality thats not the case.

........Yes I suppose asking for a working AI on a complex game is rediculus...Do you know what is more rediculus? People who have no arguements and all they do is say how rediculus other arguements are.

I frankly am bored of this childish bickering.

 

[Pilot00]

How can you be two levels ahead on tech? In most of my games, the european powers are at least a couple years "ahead of time", and to be two levels beyond that (typically 30 years) is impossible with tech as it is now.

I pulled off ten years ahead with Ottos.

 

[grisamentum]

omfg there is no "e" in "ridiculous"

it usually doesn't bother me until i see it 4 times a single post

 

[alanschu]

Because Novgorod is not programmed to colonise, so it never does colonise.

The AI sticks with Novgorodian AI even after it forms Russia?

 

[Pilot00]

omfg there is no "e" in "ridiculous"

it usually doesn't bother me until i see it 4 times a single post

Should I cry now? Or keep my tears for the fifth time?

BTW sentences start with capital letters, just for the nazi inside you....

 

[Loke]

omfg there is no "e" in "ridiculous"

it usually doesn't bother me until i see it 4 times a single post

True and Russia is still to buffed compared to its neighbours... It should not get its stuff together until 1620 or so.

 

[JimboOmega]

The AI sticks with Novgorodian AI even after it forms Russia?

Doesn't Novogrod usually get pancaked by Muscovy which forms Russia?

 

[Novacat]

How can you be two levels ahead on tech? In most of my games, the european powers are at least a couple years "ahead of time", and to be two levels beyond that (typically 30 years) is impossible with tech as it is now.

If you westernize before 1600, its not that difficult to catch up. Liberte, Egalate, Fraternite also help.

Later in the game non-western nations will start falling behind in tech, including eastern Russia (despite their bonus) without having godly rulers or strong advisors. At 13 years/tech you need 4.5 mp/month at +10% which isn't too hard but the ai will often exceed their number of leaders, buy more generals, and otherwise spend additional mil points which will make them drop below the required number if they happen to not have a 5/6 mil ruler.

Um... Russia/Muscovy is lucky. They not only get +1 to all monarch stats (so even if they roll a 0/0/0, it still becomes 1/1/1), but they also get a rediculously high leader limit, they could have 5 leaders before incurring any upkeep. So theres no reason for Russia to be behind at all.

........Yes I suppose asking for a working AI on a complex game is rediculus...Do you know what is more rediculus? People who have no arguements and all they do is say how rediculus other arguements are.

Asking for an AI on par with humans is rediculous, especially since the Russians will end up getting the same AI and any horde attempt to westernize can be easily detected and crushed. A human Russia would be stupid to sit there and let a human Horde get adjacency to a western country for westernization purposes.

The AI sticks with Novgorodian AI even after it forms Russia?

Its a good question, and one im not really sure about. I know theres some hardcoded shannanigans going on with AIs an colonisation, I have seen modders attempt to give expansion/exploration ideas to other countries only for them to do nothing with the colonists given.

 

[Pilot00]

Asking for an AI on par with humans is rediculous, especially since the Russians will end up getting the same AI and any horde attempt to westernize can be easily detected and crushed. A human Russia would be stupid to sit there and let a human Horde get adjacency to a western country for westernization purposes.

I know you wont answer but Ill do it anyway: Where the heck did I ask for parrity with humans?
Apparently the only Improvement the AI needs is human awarness not to be able to use the whole toolset of the game....riiiiiightt.

 

[alanschu]

You argue that Lithuania is weak in the context of Ottomans
You argue that Lithuania is strong in the context of Russia

That is pretzel logic. Its when you spam so many different arguments that they start to contradict eachother.

I dislike the misuse of the word logic here.

There's nothing logically inconsistent here and from the propositions made, one could logically conclude that Ottoman's are stronger than Russia. If that statement is true, there's nothing logically inconsistent with the two statements. Whether or not that statement is true, however, is likely disputed (it wasn't until late game that I stood a chance against the Ottoman's - and I even westernized my Russia).

 

[Novacat]

I know you wont answer but Ill do it anyway: Where the heck did I ask for parrity with humans?
Apparently the only Improvement the AI needs is human awarness not to be able to use the whole toolset of the game....riiiiiightt.

Dont ask me, ask the guys who did it. If I would hazzard a guess it would be by probably pushing to the west as early as possible and getting provinces there as to have western neighbours. Or push south and turtle up till colonies start to plop.

You specifically asked for the AI to be able to pull something off that only human players can reasonably do.

You have not answered my question. If the Horde AI is supposd to be intelligent enough to know how to westernize perfectly, then why isnt the Russian AI allowed to be intelligent enough to stop that Horde push for westernization?

Even if the stars align and a Horde manages to Westernize, how the hell is it supposed to survive against a much bigger Russia? Remember, while the Horde was busy reforming and westerizing, the Russians are eating up one horde after the other, colonising Siberia, and growing bigger and bigger. Thats not even considering the Hordes are going to be enormously behind on technology so even if they do get into a fight, those advanced Western units will do shit because the Russians will have outnumbered and outteched the hordes.

There's nothing logically inconsistent here and from the propositions made, one could logically conclude that Ottoman's are stronger than Russia. If that statement is true, there's nothing logically inconsistent with the two statements. Whether or not that statement is true, however, is likely disputed (it wasn't until late game that I stood a chance against the Ottoman's - and I even westernized my Russia).

The Ottomans strength is largely transient though. They are strong in the early and mid game when they have the Janissary event chain... but then the 1600s roll around and Janissary decadence forces them to throw those beautiful Janissary bonuses out the window, and Ottoman NIs are not that great without the Janissaries. Ottomans also loses luck bonus in 1700.

 

[JimboOmega]

If you westernize before 1600, its not that difficult to catch up. Liberte, Egalate, Fraternite also help.

It's easy to catch up, but to get ahead is much harder, because the ahead of time penalties are steep. So to be 2 techs ahead of time is almost impossible.

Granted as someone else pointed out, Muscovy/Russia can, EVENTUALLY, lag in tech.

 

[Mightypeon]

Some suggestions for Horde buffs:

1: historically, the hordes were actually quite civilized. I would invite you to read up on the Muscovite Sieges of Kazan, nearly 200K Tatars died there, and had a network of fortified positions backed by countersiege artillery. While Muscovite Infantry eventually breached the walls (with help of foreign siege specialists), and was somewhat superior to the defending Kazani infantry, assuming that Kazan didnt get other infantry then what they had at the start is also bollocks.

So: Give Hordes Infantry, not very good infantry, but there is zero reason at all why Hordes would have worse artillery/infantry then Native Americans.
In addition, I strongly favor a considerable improvement of Indian and Asian units as well. In EU 4s timeline, well, lets just say that Western dominance over those happened in the 18th/19th century. If you take Dai Viet as a typical nation, visiting englishmen were quite impressed with f.e. Nguyen Anhs Artillery park, and other artillery was already used in the 15th Dai Viet conquest of Champa.

I would also support making Horde ideas a lot more powerfull. They could mobilize a far higher proportion of their population for war than sedentary powers. Perhaps one could add something like the Patriarchy thing the Orthodox get. You could slowly increase or decrease the sedentariarity of your tribe (there were pretty big difference in that regard between Kazan and the Oirats for example), via random events, this would influence how technology and related things spread.

 

[Novacat]

England actually obtained dominance over India very late in EU4, so I disagree there.

China, however, is a bit more complex. The problem with China is that it encompasses China, Japan, Korea, Indochina, and Indonesia. IMHO, Chinese tech group should probably be split in half.

 

[Incompetent]

England actually obtained dominance over India very late in EU4, so I disagree there.

China, however, is a bit more complex. The problem with China is that it encompasses China, Japan, Korea, Indochina, and Indonesia. IMHO, Chinese tech group should probably be split in half.

It would make sense to bump China, Japan and Korea up to be on a par with India at least. Not sure how much of a gap there was between China and south-east Asia.

 

[Mightypeon]

Dai Viet during Tay Son (within the time period) actually fared pretty ok against China, they used a ton of dirty tricks to do so, however, using dirty tricks should be one of their national ideas

Concerning India: Britain seriously conquered places (other than taking some trading posts) in the 18th/19th centuries. Right now, you can, as Britain, easily roll over them much much earlier. This is kind of similiar to the issues the hordes face, Muscovy should propably stomp hordes in the 17th century, but already stomps them 100 years earlier.

 

[eugene171]

Dai Viet during Tay Son (within the time period) actually fared pretty ok against China, they used a ton of dirty tricks to do so, however, using dirty tricks should be one of their national ideas

Concerning India: Britain seriously conquered places (other than taking some trading posts) in the 18th/19th centuries. Right now, you can, as Britain, easily roll over them much much earlier. This is kind of similiar to the issues the hordes face, Muscovy should propably stomp hordes in the 17th century, but already stomps them 100 years earlier.

Hordes getting zero unit upgrades likely has something to do with their getting stomped