Why does Lithuania have more development than France in 1444?

[yerm]

Constantinople at least still had 50k people in it, recovered immediately after game start, was important throughout the game period, was always a high value target, and attracted international trade and even support even in that weakened state... Kiev simply never became deserving of Florence-level development at any point in the period.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Threads like these tend to produce a number of very high quality posts and are in many ways a pleasure to read. Commenting is trickier as most answers I can give would be open to interpretation. Still we do read them which may be nice to know
However while it does not really touch the main point of most posters here but you should really check out what development level Kiev actually has in the game rather than just go by what the wiki says (as is often the case the wiki is not up to date here and hasn't been for more than one version). Kiev's development is comparable to Armagnac, not Florence's.

 

[TheDungen]

Constantinople at least still had 50k people in it, recovered immediately after game start, was important throughout the game period, was always a high value target, and attracted international trade and even support even in that weakened state... Kiev simply never became deserving of Florence-level development at any point in the period.

Nah constantinople recovered quickly once it again became the seat of an empire. Had the ruthenians formed ruthenia then they likely would have kiev for capital (since it had been so when the ruthenias was last free) and the city would have grown at the expense of other, at the start of the game larger, cities. Just like constantinople once it was again the seat of an empire quickly drew new population from elsewhere in the empire.

 

[arctus]

Threads like these tend to produce a number of very high quality posts and are in many ways a pleasure to read. Commenting is trickier as most answers I can give would be open to interpretation. Still we do read them which may be nice to know
However while it does not really touch the main point of most posters here but you should really check out what development level Kiev actually has in the game rather than just go by what the wiki says (as is often the case the wiki is not up to date here and hasn't been for more than one version). Kiev's development is comparable to Armagnac, not Florence's.

i think people are more concerned about the overall developement of lithunia. i dont really see a reason why it cant be cut back to some reasonable level, like 275 or so. it just feels wrong to sort the ledger by developement in 1444 and see lithunia at second place after france

 

[Peanutcat]

I'm just waiting for Wiz cynical reply

 

[Tacticus101]

I have had this argument a few too many times.

The big thing I will say is that two of the big reasons people seem to want to nerf Lithuania's development are;

1) because they dislike them being Second in development to France.

The issue here is that development is completely out of sync and highlighting Lithuania alone is unfair. Iberia has much greater development than it should compared to its population, as does Scandinavia and England. France and most of the rest of the world have far less developments than they should. There is very little actual match between population and development, in that respect Lithuania is far from the worst offender.

2) Because they are to strong compared to Muscovy

This is simply not true. In 1444 Lithuania is significantly stronger than Muscovy, true, but if you expand historically as them up until 1500 (which is much easier than history because the hordes are much weaker in Eu4) then Muscovy actually becomes much stronger than Lithuania. At the point historically where Muscovy defeated Lithuania, they actually have much more development than them and can field bigger armies, even though historically the wars were not as one sided as some people like to make out (and involved allies).


I actually think that Lithuania's development is entirely reasonable for the area, it in fact balances fairly with other powers in the region. I don't think they are too strong compared to historically either.

 

[zsImmortal]

Threads like these tend to produce a number of very high quality posts and are in many ways a pleasure to read. Commenting is trickier as most answers I can give would be open to interpretation. Still we do read them which may be nice to know
However while it does not really touch the main point of most posters here but you should really check out what development level Kiev actually has in the game rather than just go by what the wiki says (as is often the case the wiki is not up to date here and hasn't been for more than one version). Kiev's development is comparable to Armagnac, not Florence's.

If it is so, my mistake (can't say I've looked seriously at that area since Baltic crusader or so). The general problem is the rough divide (for me at least) between Eastern Europe and Tatar Europe, where provinces (I looked summarily yesterday) are worth roughly half of the development value of the other for reasons that are nebulous at best.

Kiev being one of the better provinces in that part of the world (maybe not so much, but at least comparable to most major Rus cities) is just nonsensical when looking at its history in the period.

 

[yerm]

Threads like these tend to produce a number of very high quality posts and are in many ways a pleasure to read. Commenting is trickier as most answers I can give would be open to interpretation. Still we do read them which may be nice to know
However while it does not really touch the main point of most posters here but you should really check out what development level Kiev actually has in the game rather than just go by what the wiki says (as is often the case the wiki is not up to date here and hasn't been for more than one version). Kiev's development is comparable to Armagnac, not Florence's.

You're correct - it is not 10 10 8 anymore. You should be aware that bringing up Constantinople on these forums is like blood to sharks; I got caught up in the moment and was talking in general. Please forgive me, I lost sight of the actual thread.

The problem is really the region overall and in general. Kiev becomes the poster child for that but is hardly the sole culprit. The entirety of Lithuania and in particular its southeast is just entirely too rich. This region was not providing any kind of real tax income, nor substantial troop draw. I suppose a rural region that is hard to tax or levy out of can still be a wonderful source of trade goods to move along, so maybe keep the grain production there, but the rest can still go down. It got nerfed, but not that hard, certainly not hard enough! JUST for the sake of the literal balance in that very region it needs to at least be brought down to parity with Poland and Muscovy, and dwarfed by either after vassal integrations at least somewhat!

 

[Korashy]

I'm just waiting for Wiz cynical reply

Probably trolling the HOI4 forums since he's helping them with AI.

 

[yerm]

Probably trolling the HOI4 forums since he's helping them with AI.

Oh, I see they've finally answered the question about how to make sure France and Italy's AI is modeled in properly!

 

[cemacmillan]

....
In-game, being one-province Knights, you cannot make Ottomans retreat from Malta (like Knights historically did), so make a parallel and see the overdevelopment as simple way to balance the game.


This number refers to Lithuania-culture + Belarussian provinces, but certainly not to all Lithuania with all its vassals (which are not implemented in EU4).

I don't find it to be balanced at all as it stands, though I don't look at it from the perspective of the fate of the OPM Knights; PLC if it forms, or Poland if it absorbs Lithuania (which also happens) simply starts eating everything in the region, little by little. At first they get most of Crimea, then it's Hungary. Russia/Muscovy can beat them but only with a total focus on getting the forcelimit up (or maybe a much better player than I).

I have reduced Lithuania to about 225 or so I think and that's still enough to kick butt without encouraging them to absorb Hungary.

 

[Arinsar]

While it certainly helps I wouldn't say it equals strenght, sweden took on the PLC and won despite having a substanially smaller population. England got within an inch of taking the french throne despite having like 1/10th of their population. Centralisation and the quality of the army matters too. And the PLC had really crappy centralisation. Even if we don't decrease the development (and we perhaps should) we should increase the autonomy of the ruthenian lands, perhaps even add some separatism.

You just forget like 20 other factors (in example huge uprising at ukraine). Things arent single dimensional. Game doesnt simulate so many things.

 

[Arinsar]

Threads like these tend to produce a number of very high quality posts and are in many ways a pleasure to read. Commenting is trickier as most answers I can give would be open to interpretation. Still we do read them which may be nice to know
However while it does not really touch the main point of most posters here but you should really check out what development level Kiev actually has in the game rather than just go by what the wiki says (as is often the case the wiki is not up to date here and hasn't been for more than one version). Kiev's development is comparable to Armagnac, not Florence's.

I dont see any uber developed provinces at Lithuania. Simply there is many provinces with low/average development.

 

[yerm]

I dont see any uber developed provinces at Lithuania. Simply there is many provinces with low/average development.

Kiev was uber developed before 1.14 as one of the best provinces in the world, hence its constant reference. Low/average is a silly assertion - compared to what, eastern Ming?

 

[Korashy]

I dont see any uber developed provinces at Lithuania. Simply there is many provinces with low/average development.

The problem is that Lithuania is almost as developed as France, which it wasn't. Sure in theory the region always had huge economic potential, but that has never been realized. It's hard building a farm when it gets burned down every 2 weeks by nomads (exaggeration).

And if we want to model a reality where they had stability and were able to expand and urbanize, and realize that economic potential than give their ambition -20% development cost of something. Let them earn it in the case that the conditions for it are there.

 

[cemacmillan]

This is the biggest country in Europe at a time. It has a good position for trade. It's justified for it to be as strong as it is.

Moreover, it needs all this development to be able to solve problems it historically solved for some times. You forget that it has *huge* internal problems. Most of the country is Orthodox while the true faith is Catholic. Huge part of the country is Russian so it will always have a problem while Russia exists. It doesn't have a political freedom. It may very well implode. Frankly I don't even think development level compensates all its problems so it's nowhere near France's power.

These problems make sense as RL problems, but they have no real impact on the game. I haven't seen PLC explode but once, and that was probably because they were continually at war _offensively_ against the Empire.

 

[giant_sloth]

Hey, leave Kyiv and Ruthenia alone! Hands off!

 

[LordNeidhart]

Threads like these tend to produce a number of very high quality posts and are in many ways a pleasure to read. Commenting is trickier as most answers I can give would be open to interpretation. Still we do read them which may be nice to know
However while it does not really touch the main point of most posters here but you should really check out what development level Kiev actually has in the game rather than just go by what the wiki says (as is often the case the wiki is not up to date here and hasn't been for more than one version). Kiev's development is comparable to Armagnac, not Florence's.

Sometimes I wonder if Paradox has a good cop/bad cop routine where Wiz is the inscrutable and curt developer and Trin Tragula is always a bastion of helpfulness.
Seriously, just an assurance that these threads are read and may even have some of its posts considered is quite something when compared to Wiz's usual allusions to a silent majority.

 

[Korashy]

Sometimes I wonder if Paradox has a good cop/bad cop routine where Wiz is the inscrutable and curt developer and Trin Tragula is always a bastion of helpfulness.
Seriously, just an assurance that these threads are read and may even have some of its posts considered is quite something when compared to Wiz's usual allusions to a silent majority.

I do miss Johan's just "no." and no further explanations or f**ks given. I do have to praise Wiz, since he took over as project lead he's pushed the game in a better direction and communication with the community has improved considerably. Then again, they also have a more broad following now than when EUIII and co were mostly niche games that had a smaller "hardcore" following.

 

[Tacticus101]

The problem is that Lithuania is almost as developed as France, which it wasn't. Sure in theory the region always had huge economic potential, but that has never been realized. It's hard building a farm when it gets burned down every 2 weeks by nomads (exaggeration).

Lithuania is far from the only culprit there. Russia has more development than France, with less population, as do the British isles, as does Iberia.