Since we can all just assume France is #1 in the world, who does everyone think is #2, #3, #4, and #5? If played by humans to a competent degree which countries are likely the five strongest countries in EU4?
So the Muscovy thread got me thinking: If France is #1, who is #2? And who is #3?
- Thread starter hashinshin
- 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.
2 Ottos
3 Castille
4 Austria
5 Brandenburg (It has a great potential: good player will make it into supreme superpower, but it's quite easy to screw up)
3 Castille
4 Austria
5 Brandenburg (It has a great potential: good player will make it into supreme superpower, but it's quite easy to screw up)
Muscovy
Ottomans
Mameluks
Schweden
Denmark
Austria
Brandeburg
Poland
Hungary
Castille
Timurids
Ming
Portugal
England
Venice
etc
Not always in that order
All nations can be powerfull in EU4. After successfull theodora runs posted on the forums or DDRJake doing a world conqust as ryuku I don't think any nation is always doomed to be powerless. From what I see here on the forums and my own games I think I say pretty safley that moskovy is still a save bet.
Ottomans
Mameluks
Schweden
Denmark
Austria
Brandeburg
Poland
Hungary
Castille
Timurids
Ming
Portugal
England
Venice
etc
Not always in that order
All nations can be powerfull in EU4. After successfull theodora runs posted on the forums or DDRJake doing a world conqust as ryuku I don't think any nation is always doomed to be powerless. From what I see here on the forums and my own games I think I say pretty safley that moskovy is still a save bet.
Well I guess my question to you then, redomer, is if you believe that the Ming or the Timurids would stand a reasonable chance in a game against another human playing say Castille, or the Ottomans, or Austria? Obviously the differences in geography might be apparent, but the idea wasn't to say "who is kinda strong" but rather who are the top 5 nations.
I think it is still easier to make an awsome game with Muscovy then Branderburg. Italie (from tuscany, savoy or even Venice) is a great choice to dominate the world. England for a player have a lot to offer.
2 Ottodurp
3 Castille
4 England
5 Muscovite
2 Ottodurp
3 Castille
4 England
5 Muscovite
Timurids can form the mugals and I saw them get pretty powerfull on the wealth of nations dev session. They had giagantic armies and navies, huge income and many provinces. Ming on the other hand can colonize siberia and can eat his weaker neigbours. I saw AI ming eat into southeast asia around 1550 in 1.8. A player can obviously do much better than that.
As for other players playing castille, the ottomans or austria: ROTW can only hope they keep each other in check at least until they can build up their own powerbase. Timurids and Ming have certainly much potential.
1. France
2. Ottos
3. Muscovy
4. Castille
5. Austria
Depends. Brandenburg is very good in SP, but in MP you will be target numero uno for just about everybody.
2. Ottos
3. Muscovy
4. Castille
5. Austria
Depends. Brandenburg is very good in SP, but in MP you will be target numero uno for just about everybody.
I'd argue that Ottos would be #1 and France #2, but I agree with the rest.
Ottos can just expand and expand and expand without a care in the world.
I concur with this. France is held back due to Burgundy, the HRE and Castille in the beginning. When they finally have broken through that the Turks already annexed enough land to triple their BT.
It depends. France is a better for world conquest due to being able to deal with the HRE and colonizers in the beginning. Ottomans is just better for massive blobs in general.
#2 is Castille actually, for me at least.
this decision may or may not have been affected by their personal unions over portugal in my games.
this decision may or may not have been affected by their personal unions over portugal in my games.
I've seen Ottomans fail pretty consistently since 1.8. The new rebel mechanics seem to hit them pretty hard.
AI don't handle them well, but the question was about "strongest when played by human"
This is all in AI hands, since players can make pretty much anything into number 1.
Muscovy/Russia
Ottomans
Austria
Castille
Portugal
England
Sweden
Muscovy/Russia
Ottomans
Austria
Castille
Portugal
England
Sweden
SP or MP? For SP
1. France
2. England
3. Ottomans
4. Austria
5. Burgundy (absurd this isn't topping more people's lists)
6. Castile
7. Poland
8. Muscovy
9. Denmark
10. Ming
Right now in my current AOW game, the Ottomans are being carved up by the Mameluks and, of all things, Byzantium, who got gifted a whole bunch of provinces as a Venetian ally early in the game and have basically run the Ottomans out of Europe entirely by this point (all they have left are a couple isolated Bulgarian provinces which are probably doomed to fall soon) and are already making inroads into Anatolia...
This is an awfully arbitrary question which leads to a variety of answers, none of which have any arguments to support them. You're asking for nation rankings, however you fail to specify the criteria you want us to rate the nations on. Played competently by a human doesn't suggest any criteria. I assume you mean single player but than you're asking if another human was playing a different powerhouse nation. So which is it, single player or multiplayer? Also to what goals? Are you aiming for WC? Casual map painting? strongest possible armies? Ease of use? Your assumption that France will always be #1 is also misguided, as it greatly depends on what you're looking for.
I dunno who's strongest in this patch since Spain got buffed a bit, bit the richest countries in the world go
1. Portugal
2. Great Britain
3. France
4. Ottomans
Its just freaking ridiculous how much money Portugal makes from trade now.
1. Portugal
2. Great Britain
3. France
4. Ottomans
Its just freaking ridiculous how much money Portugal makes from trade now.