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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Try playing the Sub-Saharans. Lousy tech group. etc. Yes they're difficult. But they have plenty of Alliance options.
I would just rather spend twenty years as some Indian vassals maneuvering my way to independence than go through that gauntlet of death. Wiz is a diplomat as well (see the current PDX developer multiplayer), so I imagine that's why he thinks Novgorod is one of the Nastier countries to start.
Would be great if he could elaborate on my wild guesses though...
Sub-Saharan has one big Iberian problem even if it does start well... Hope you like getting some 40+ war score and not being able to get white peace let alone concessions... :|. But hey, making the AI take stab hits for refusing deals well below war score even in a prolonged war was deemed 'unreasonable'... *sigh*.
Novgorod can usually get Lithuania as an ally fairly easily. Then use trade CB to declare on Muscovy (it's not ideal for taking land but it does give you a much nicer CB for getting war score) and use Lithuania to do as much damage as possible to Muscovy before they get suckered into the PU with Poland.
Then after that you can play as diplomatically as you would otherwise... Also numerous countries even in Europe alone are like this. Novgorod on the most part is in control of their own fate and don't have an instant game over condition like playing as Scotland and having England declare on you almost immediately and Scotland's a pretty generous start compared to any of the Irish minors who get warned to death by nanny England (thanks for that pointless mechanic...) Navarra who's dependent on not only getting an ally, them not turning 'domineering' at random intervals and breaking the alliance, and possibly getting warned which even an alliance doesn't revoke and at least ten others who have similar problems.
The comment regardless of how it was intended just sounds ignorant and arrogant...
Try playing the Sub-Saharans. Lousy tech group. etc. Yes they're difficult. But they have plenty of Alliance options.
The reason I think Novgorod is hard, is I'm a more diplomatic player. The big proble with Novgorod is as you pointed out:
I frequently see them ally to Scotland. Because there's no-one else that will ally to them. In fact, I've waited five years for the Scots to give up so I could half annex them (as Muscovy)
Agreed. One of the frustrating things about the early Novgorod game is the Swedish gamble: if you don't support their independence (or try to wait until they have another ally), then you might only have Scotland as an ally when Muscovy attacks. If you do ally Sweden, they'll probably declare an independence war without securing any other allies. They usually ignore the potential allies of Norway, the Hansa, Pomerania, Poland, and the Livonian Order. I don't know why they don't try for at least a second ally before they declare independence. It sometimes seems like they are just trolling and waiting for Muscovy to attack the Novgorod player while the Swedish-Denmark war is ongoing.
Playing a minor in HRE is a race against time. Unless if you are lucky, major nations like France, Castille/Spain, Austria, Bohemia etc will be growing. If you do not grow fast enough to counter them in size in due time, you will have to play the diplomacy game very well and be constantly on your toes.
The best tip I can give you other than that is to make sure to get good allies, and don't start wars unless you're fairly certain you're going to win. Also, don't fall behind in mil tech, and watch your aggressive expansion.
One more, don´t rage quit after losing provinces in a war.
Novgorod is a prime example. Losing war to Moscovy at the start of the game is not the end of the world, as long as you get an alliance with Poland and Sweden (which is not that hard, as long as Poland PU Lithuania and rivals Moscovy). Actually, Novgorod is far from the most challenging nations in the current patch. More often I saw Novgorod forms Russia than Moscovy do, thanks to a ridiculously strong Poland.
Here I list some countries that seems strong for its size but NOT EASY to play:
1. Timurids (bad monarchs, bad historical events and nomad tech)
2. Morocco (good luck fighting against three Iberian powers together when Portugal declares war on you, which I consider very unhistorical and Paradox should definitely do something to on it)
3. Denmark (it is not easy to tame Sweden, and you start with negative prestige in 1444 as I remember)...
4. Mamelukes (preparing to fight Ottomans, which is definitely not easy)
5. Moscovy (bad tech, and a very strong Poland to deal with)
'kay. You play Ndongo or Loango, I play Novgorod. Let's see who survives/gets the stronger position in most games. Then I'll play Novgorod and you can play any of the following in series:
- Jangladesh
- Sukhotai
- Tver
- Yaroslav
- Ryazan
- Theodoro
- Trebizond
- Ramadan
- Dulkadir
- Aq Qoyunlu
- Ardalan
- Sarig Yogir
- Kara Del
- Mongolia
- Either of the Malaccan OPMs north of Malacca
- Manipur
- Moldavia
- Mozavia
- Athens
- Karaman
- Candar
- Mzab (and of course the local tribal nations there)
- Georgia
- Connaught
- Tyrone
- Munster
- Leinster
- Any Siberian clan council other than Buryatia
- Guge
- Shirvan
- Gazikimukh
- Jolof
- Navarra
- Riga
- Livonian Order
- Ternate
- Tidore
- Buton
- Makassar
- Luwu
- Maldives
- Ryukyu
- Perm
Then, after you realize how dismal these positions are compared against Novgorod, go ahead and tack on every single Mesoamerican position, along with most of the rest of the new world. Heck, even the over-discussed blurple is (arguably) harder, and there's a ton of debatable ones.
I would just rather spend twenty years as some Indian vassals maneuvering my way to independence than go through that gauntlet of death. Wiz is a diplomat as well (see the current PDX developer multiplayer), so I imagine that's why he thinks Novgorod is one of the Nastier countries to start.
Okay, no, THIS is *not* convincing me of one of the "hardest starts in the game". Gauntlet start? Where you don't need loans in a mopup walkover on standard ironman settings ? Lithuania got PU'd at the earliest possible moment, which was far too late. Sweden can choke on their little rivalry joke. If I were to continue this they'd be getting a tiny little visit with 2:1 odds against them from me alone + Poland all-in'd just after taking a tech.
This allows me to steer back onto the topic. This start is markedly easier than when I last bothered back in 1.7 times. It wasn't even particularly grueling war micro. It needed no loans, just an understanding of war and when to engage to completely eliminate the only serious threat vector that isn't allied. Now, why might this be a barrier to a casual or rookie player?
- Lithuania will auto white peace out, violating every other master-subject scenario that manifests in the game. I know this, a new player would not, an inexperienced player might not use them while they're still useful.
- The rules of combat, attrition, combat width are stacked against casual players. At one point in the first war I got an on the spot stack-wipe on Muscovy, but most players don't even consider it as a possibility (manual retreat while winning).
- The rules of vassals and core acquisition have changed wildly, as has AE (I pushed my luck feeding all of LO to Pskov, but kept just enough people from going butthurt, someone not around for 1.13.2 beta details would burn)
- Vassal liberty desire is also a tight management system that will hit you out of nowhere without consulting the wiki, and there are pitfalls on this position especially with feeding hordes to religious-first Perm. Same deal with missions breaking allies.
But those kinds of considerations are difficulties to nations everywhere. The notion that Novgorod is "one of the hardest" nations, or even worthy of consideration for it, is silly outright. You can win this with even sloppy micro. There are, however, basic mistakes the OP is making *in addition* to the game having a number of fake difficulty aspects holding it back and making it less accessible for casual players. The bulk of OP's struggle is likely knowledge, some he could have had and some a casual player wouldn't have any way of knowing w/o trial and error typically.
You'd rather spend 20 years as an Indian vassal posturing for independence than have a FL of ~30 with advisors, a superpower ally, and the 2nd best tech group in the game, one of 3 that gets freebiewesternize, as a great starting government ? Okay, maybe I prefer those kinds of starts to these cakewalks too, but you can't possibly assert the vassals is under *less* existential threat !
On this note, I recommend watching DDRJake's game as Livonian Order. (Look up 'Common Sense Sneak Peek'.) Not so much for tips on playing well, but on having the fortitude to keep trying even when everything goes wrong.
the game has become easier and easier. 1.7 and art of war made it load easier, and 1.13 common sense made it even easier, if you do some key things like taking only enemy forts in peace deals until they only have capital fort.
Overall, the game sped up and became LOAD easier. But I guess you need good understanding of the game to see it becoming 'easier'.
It also depends on what region you play I guess.
All in all, I am thinkig the exact opposite of the OP.
the game has become easier and easier. 1.7 and art of war made it load easier, and 1.13 common sense made it even easier, if you do some key things like taking only enemy forts in peace deals until they only have capital fort.
Overall, the game sped up and became LOAD easier. But I guess you need good understanding of the game to see it becoming 'easier'.
It also depends on what region you play I guess.
All in all, I am thinkig the exact opposite of the OP.
You are legitimately an elite player though, so you can see those things and a lot of mechanics that the UI does not present or clearly explain even if you try to glean them in-game are things you know like the back of your hand.
Your capabilities are pretty far removed from what would cause struggle for the casual/occasional player. You have in your signature a guide to one of the game's most convoluted/opaque mechanics after all .
I actually remember playing my first campaign as Castile in Eu3 it was so hard and frustrating, I got eaten by Aragon and Portugal very fast, while Eu4 was a lot easier for me to survive and as was said in Eu4 the large countries dominate the world.BTW, Sliders were sucks, and I believe the factions system will replace it successfully in the Cossacks.
It indeed depends. The question about which PDS grand strategy is hardest pops up from time to time and people can never agree and there will always be many people claiming it is each of the four. Meaning that it is really subjective and the question cannot really be answered. In my opinion neither of them are particularly hard---it is just way easier snowballing in CKII.
It indeed depends. The question about which PDS grand strategy is hardest pops up from time to time and people can never agree and there will always be many people claiming it is each of the four. Meaning that it is really subjective and the question cannot really be answered. In my opinion neither of them are particularly hard---it is just way easier snowballing in CKII.
if you play EU4 with AI bonus, hard and historical lucky nations in Ironman. With Ryukyu, Theodoro and Albania, this is the hardest somehow neae impossible for me lol
I consider myself a Casual Gamer...more of a game dabbler... (this is one of the only games i actually play more than a little dabbling) and I DON"T find EU IV too hard...
I don't find it too easy, but not too hard either.
My suggestion would be play a major power for a while to get back into the hang of things before playing a minor..
Allies in this game are Now a MUST unless you're like the Ottomans... the reason you got attacked by Bohemia even with Illegal Territory is... the fact that he thought he could win... ie your allies were weak
Novogrod is actually a not very good starting position, i'd imagine about 60 to 40 that Moskovy will attack you within a couple of years...
As for Lithuania, he's usually called a "I don't care power" because about the same amount of Time Poland has made Lithuania his new very large Pawn... it's called butter up Poland.
I actually just made it work with Novgorod. Until 1503 I was not in a SINGLE war (unthinkable in most earlier games I played in EUIII and when EUIV came out). I must admit I reloaded once because I once mistakenly thought that Golden Horde and me could take on Moscow, which was an insane plan, as it turned out. Anyway, so no war until 1503 was a bit boring but I made it work and finally helped Sweden enough to become independent and FINALLY made Lithunia a constant ally ("enemy of an enemy" task). Suddenly, even England wanted to ally me. At this point, together with Lithunia and Sweden (who would join me) I could fight Moscow and Denmark (who would join Moscow) and actually took 4 provinces off Moscow, which helped my country quite a bit. Had 10 years of instability and what not as I was drawn in two more wars very quickly (Sweden vs. Norway with tons of allies joining in), but I survived all of it without losing any land or having to take more than 5 loans. So all in all, it was worth it.
But what a challenge. ON EASY. I guess I just think that on easy, the game should be super easy and the player should have immense bonuses. That's why it's called easy. Back in EUII, there were 5 difficulty levels as far as I remember and 3 AI aggressiveness levels which I found to make more sense.
I'll give you a list of countries that helped me with the game.
Europe
Hungary - the first real "complete" feeling game I had. Playing Hungary made everything click. Tons of small countries around, medium sized, and large nearby. Ally Poland and fight off the ottomans, or conquer Poland and get a free westernization. You can even ally Austria!
Florence - this one may be a bit hard but it's fun for diplomacy, development (if you have common sense), the great ideas, multiple expansion routes, great flavor, lots of small nations around, you can form Italy, you can be the curia controller, naval power or land power, take Europe or Africa. And you get to be a republic.
Venice - same as above but bigger
Scotland - a harder, and more glorious, England
Portugal - the best for new people and colonizers, if you're already pretty skilled, conquer Iberia and Africa!
Norway - one of the best to start colonizing, you can choose to stay in the union or try to break free and continue viking tradition!
Africa
Ethiopia - if you want Africa, this is probably the best. Very fun to play as the Christian power of Africa with a unique, kinda basic, religion. It's one of the few empires which gives great bonuses. You can go north to Egypt or south to the easier African countries.
Morocco - very fun, you can fight Portugal and win back your land if you're careful. After the first war you're free to conquer north Africa or (like me) take back the iberian land for islam!
Asia
Ardalan - a one province minor as a vassal under the powerful timurids? This was the most rewarding play through for me. It's not as hard as it seems. I convinced both the ottomans and mamluks to support my independence and stay friends the entire game. I reconquered my kurdish homeland and united the middle east. It's definitely a diplomacy game, and you can stay a vassal if you want.
Vajrayana - best to start in India. Moderately powerful, good ideas, etc. Gives you options how to expand in India, and you could colonize up to Australia before the Europeans.
I highly recommend trying one of these nations as they are fun, interesting, and moderately challenging. Most of them have flavor. Hope this helps. If you are having specific problems like, "I can't win wars", or "I don't understand this", reply to me and I'll try to help or someone else on the forum will. There's also the wiki, you should always read it each update.
the game has become easier and easier. 1.7 and art of war made it load easier, and 1.13 common sense made it even easier, if you do some key things like taking only enemy forts in peace deals until they only have capital fort.
Overall, the game sped up and became LOAD easier. But I guess you need good understanding of the game to see it becoming 'easier'.
It also depends on what region you play I guess.
All in all, I am thinkig the exact opposite of the OP.
The game is easy enough if you take the time to learn the game before you play it (I put in more than 30 hours before I played my first run). Watch a few let's plays and use the wiki if you are unsure about things. If you go for the trial and error method you need to accept that you will encounter errors.
I never had previous iterations but I have bought the game on 5 october. Selected Ironman and picked Flanders, the result:
Sorry, but from the things you listed off in your rant, and not understanding that Novgorod is actually one of the hardest countries in the game, you're at the very least not an experienced enough player to tackle either country. You basically picked mid-sized countries that are high on the target list for far bigger countries, which means you need to at least be able to outplay the AI diplomatically and militarily to have a shot.
Here's some moderately challenging mid-sized countries you could try:
- Sweden
- Brandenburg
- Milan
- Papal States
If you want to play non-Westerners:
- Tunis
- Bahmanis
- Malacca/Brunei
- Songhai
- Korea
The best tip I can give you other than that is to make sure to get good allies, and don't start wars unless you're fairly certain you're going to win. Also, don't fall behind in mil tech, and watch your aggressive expansion.
Wow. I just know that Novgorod is one of the hardest country. Anyway if you still look at this thread, how can I know that how much difficulty it will be for this or that nation? It's not something like CK2's difficulty indicator to know something instantly. All I know are western nations are the easiest and all small nations around the world are hardest and will totally get wreck soon.
Wow. I just know that Novgorod is one of the hardest country. Anyway if you still look at this thread, how can I know that how much difficulty it will be for this or that nation? It's not something like CK2's difficulty indicator to know something instantly.
Defining a difficulty-expressing algorithm for EU4 is... quite tricky. I suppose it could tell you what the Custom Nation value of your country's NIs, government, tech group, and provinces would be, but that doesn't capture things like "you have a bunch of cores on other countries" or "you have a national decision that cores Constantinople, adds 11 development to it, religiously and culturally converts it, and moves your capital there, all at zero cost" or "you have national missions granting you claims on huge swathes of Arabia".
but that doesn't capture things like "you have a bunch of cores on other countries" or "you have a national decision that cores Constantinople, adds 11 development to it, religiously and culturally converts it, and moves your capital there, all at zero cost" or "you have national missions granting you claims on huge swathes of Arabia".
None of those really affect difficulty much, IMO. More important would be factors like "a great power is your historic rival", "France has cores on your provinces" or "you are the only OPM neighbor of a great power".
