Why does Lithuania have more development than France in 1444?

[TrulyMad]

i don't remember that i said anything about proof? also i can post another 5 screenshots which comes from different games

In my most recent game as the Ottomans. The commonwealth has done just enough really, not OP but not a push over either. They are about the fourth strongest nation in the game. It really depends on your game I think.

 

[seriousgigi]

Out of interest, to those people who think the Commonwealth is OP: do you also regard Ottomans, France, Austria or Russia as OP when they manage their historical conquests?

lol, i have never seen "AI" ottomans conquered wien, prague, warsav or krakow but as i said, i remember ottomans lost their capital to commonwealth more than once.

 

[Tacticus101]

OMG, that OP Lithuania.....

also, Wales, Bohemia, Ethiopia, Leon, Livonian order, Venice and Tuscany......NERF THEM ALLLLLLLLLL

(I am joking btw)

 

[Tacticus101]

lol, i have never seen "AI" ottomans conquered wien, prague, warsav or krakow but as i said, i remember ottomans lost their capital to commonwealth more than once.

I said historical conquests. The PLC frequently goes south because that is the easiest direction and wealthier land. They can get very strong if they break Ottomans, but when you see Ottomans own the Balkans, Entire middle east, Egypt, North Africa and Ethiopia not many people complain.

 

[seriousgigi]

because they are historically belong to ottomans but constantinople is not belong to plc

 

[Tacticus101]

because they are historically belong to ottomans but constantinople is not belong to plc

Which is my point. You are not arguing that Lithuania is OP because their start is too strong, you are arguing that they are OP because they surpass their historical conquests.

When Ottomans don't conquer all of the Mamluks in a single war, people complain. When Lithuania beats Muscovy in a war, people complain. I think too many arguments are focussed on what DID happen historically rather than what COULD have happened.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Which is my point. You are not arguing that Lithuania is OP because their start is too strong, you are arguing that they are OP because they surpass their historical conquests.

When Ottomans don't conquer all of the Mamluks in a single war, people complain. When Lithuania beats Muscovy in a war, people complain. I think too many arguments are focussed on what DID happen historically rather than what COULD have happened.

I agree with you, but Lith is still worth raising an eyebrow. As others have said, this is a nation that turned to Poland in part for survival. It doesn't have the population or other data to back up its 1444 position, really there's no convincing historical reason they should be anywhere near that ballpark, so what is the justification for Lith at 350 development? What is the justification for it at 150 development?

In both cases, we're left with a simple "how does the region tend to play out". I would argue it's a bit too stale and PLC-sided even now, and that such directly contributes to Russia's relative weakness in ability to contend with Lith, Sweden, and thus lacks the power to put pressure East. It also makes the Ottomans more likely to struggle.

Overall, absent a decent gameplay reason to juice them to 1/4 the wealth/power potential of a 0 LA Ming, why was this done in the first place, and why is a nation that got blown to pieces "historically lucky"?

The Lith situation is akin to England conquering France more often than France surviving. It's not necessarily wrong, it could have happened historically, but if it's happening in a majority of games it's still worth wondering why it is that England is doing that in AI hands so frequently.

 

[Beagá]

I said historical conquests. The PLC frequently goes south because that is the easiest direction and wealthier land. They can get very strong if they break Ottomans, but when you see Ottomans own the Balkans, Entire middle east, Egypt, North Africa and Ethiopia not many people complain.

Truth be said, if you could direct Lithuania to spam claims on Muscowy it would probably go east I know I would. Would even choose Exploration after I finally reached Siberia

 

[Tacticus101]

I agree with you, but Lith is still worth raising an eyebrow. As others have said, this is a nation that turned to Poland in part for survival. It doesn't have the population or other data to back up its 1444 position, really there's no convincing historical reason they should be anywhere near that ballpark, so what is the justification for Lith at 350 development? What is the justification for it at 150 development?

Well, they were able to fight, if not entirely successfully (they lost the wars, though not by that much) 1500s Muscovy, which in game currently sits at a bit over 500 development (including vassals, 357 without). Lithuania at that point is at 335 development, with substantial autonomy issues and half the income that Muscovy has; they are unable to afford their full force limits. Muscovy at that point quite easily trounces Lithuania and can actually take on the full commonwealth. Relative to each other, I think that their developments are in fact pretty fair; they are supposed to be reasonable opponents, with a lot of other factors contributing to Lithuania losing their wars vs Muscovy (though the PLC won vs Russia). Nerfing Lithuania would have to entail a sizable nerf to Muscovy in order to keep the region fairly balanced.

One thing everyone should also note is the autonomy situation in Lithuania at game start. They actually have horde levels of autonomy, with 25% in most provinces (including estates) and 50% or more in plenty more (average autonomy is probably about 30-40%). In addition, they have 4 of their richest provinces with unaccepted cultures AND high autonomy (62% autonomy in their richest province). There is also the religious issues, even with their high tolerance Lithuania has unity issues, even a bit of war exhaustion can push the revolt risk above 0. The end result is that though Lithuania still has reasonably high development, they actually are much weaker than that in reality (and have less options to quickly increase their wealth, unlike many other powers).

Truth be said, if you could direct Lithuania to spam claims on Muscowy it would probably go east I know I would. Would even choose Exploration after I finally reached Siberia

True, but Poland, when it keeps the union, is the dominating factor in direction. AI Poland tends to go south or west until it forms the Commonwealth, at which point is tends to be a beast. I have seen independent Lithuania's go more into Russia though.

 

[cemacmillan]

...
is there anyone still thinks that commonwealth is not op?

Yeah, but it took them hundreds of years. No doubt by that point their development exceeded that of France in 1444.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

It's not developement alont that makes Pol-Lit so crushingly OP, it's their ideas. Discipline, morale, combat ability. In the end thanks to developement they field armies so powerful you have to field twice or three times larger forces or 2-3 techs ahead just to prevent stackwiping of your armies.

 

[FleetingRain]

One thing everyone should also note is the autonomy situation in Lithuania at game start. They actually have horde levels of autonomy, with 25% in most provinces (including estates) and 50% or more in plenty more (average autonomy is probably about 30-40%). In addition, they have 4 of their richest provinces with unaccepted cultures AND high autonomy (62% autonomy in their richest province). There is also the religious issues, even with their high tolerance Lithuania has unity issues, even a bit of war exhaustion can push the revolt risk above 0. The end result is that though Lithuania still has reasonably high development, they actually are much weaker than that in reality (and have less options to quickly increase their wealth, unlike many other powers).

This makes even less sense, to be honest. If a nation has 400 dev and not-fixed 25% autonomy everywhere, why not bring them down to 300 dev and 0% autonomy? The current setup implies that Lithuania has "untapped potential", when we know that what happened was simply that it was less developed/populated/"efficient" than its dev implies.

 

[Tacticus101]

This makes even less sense, to be honest. If a nation has 400 dev and not-fixed 25% autonomy everywhere, why not bring them down to 300 dev and 0% autonomy? The current setup implies that Lithuania has "untapped potential", when we know that what happened was simply that it was less developed/populated/"efficient" than its dev implies.

Because that is exactly what happened. Lithuania had a pretty good population, more than England or (at the start) Muscovy. Their issues were actually exactly what autonomy represents, an inability to actually use their population effectively or keep the nobles in line.

Also, don't say "when we know", because "we" don't, I have been arguing and will continue to argue that Lithuania's development is fine and weakness should be represented with autonomy and later events.

 

[Arinsar]

This makes even less sense, to be honest. If a nation has 400 dev and not-fixed 25% autonomy everywhere, why not bring them down to 300 dev and 0% autonomy? The current setup implies that Lithuania has "untapped potential", when we know that what happened was simply that it was less developed/populated/"efficient" than its dev implies.

Care to elaborate "what" hapened ? Reason why PLC collapsed were internal problems exploited by their neighbours. Example : nobility refuses to pay taxes = small army, Sweden with 10 times less popuation were able to muster 2-3 times larger armies (they were still losing battles versus PLC while it was outnumbered).

 

[Scurek]

Original poster here...

Honestly going over Paradox forums should be part of history study program. Now I'm not that big on history so this post is more about the game mechanics and how everything player there.

I'm afraid I made title a little misleading... It wasn't so much about Lithuania development but Poland-Lithuania early power. As it stands they start at the best when the union starts and this is usually as strong as they will get due to current mechanics that are in place. Later on ai Poland loses some wars and gets negative prestige loses union OR if it actually forms The Commonwealth which can and will most likely become a beast due to Polish ideas.
I would suggest in this particular case making it so that Poland & Lithuania develop at a steady rate, possibly reach their height mid-game and then be put on a test if they can survive without lucky nations in place. Maybe reduce Lithuania early military potential and slightly nerd Polish ideas.

What came to my mind just now is that it may be the problem of Lithuania as a lesser union partner contributing too much troops, thus making Poland insanely strong at the beginning. This is not the only example of this, just check how Burgundy now easy beats France just because former has vassals (unions) now. Then again balancing this out may break something else and so on. In the end I just want to encourage developers to think in this direction and maybe surprise us all with some brilliant solution.

 

[Sukramo]

Just had another game with a silly Commonwealth. Did Trebizond, got the Empire achivement and decided to form Byzantium for the lulz. Commonwealth had taken Constantinopel so I needed to take them. I had 211 dudes vs their 100 or so. Felt ok. However litterally no one wanted to help me take them down. And that is anoth problem with Poland. Very few people actually want their land. Austria liked them. I had killed Ottos. Muscovy had been trashed by them. There was only me but they had enogh allies to outnumber me 4 to 1 (Netherlands, big Anhalt, Scandinavia) Frustrated I ended the run. It is a problem with Diplomacy true, but once they kill Muscovy, they have very little real resistance from anyone.

Everyone loves the Commonwealth. I think many and Ottomans especially needs more missions to take them out. Dont think I have ever seen Austria take its mission to attack Poland. Was surprised to see it existed in my Austria run. And nerf any one of: Polish ideas+ Absolute Monarchy+free Western+Empire tier+Insane land value.

 

[cemacmillan]

Out of interest, to those people who think the Commonwealth is OP: do you also regard Ottomans, France, Austria or Russia as OP when they manage their historical conquests?

They are all overpowered in their own way. Austria has too much support code (like Burgundian Inheritance, diplo power, etc.). Ottomans are unrealistically centralized. France has a level of "national effectiveness" and cohesion that it never achieved until the end of the 19th century. Russia has it's unique ideas and probably better development than it should.

Having said that, in the hands of the AI, all of them except Austria seem to underperform in observe mode. I have seen enough spectator games where Russia never forms, where Provence takes half of France, where the Ottomans start with "Conquer the Levant" and Venice winds up with Byzantium.

PLC (again, in observe mode without players interfering) on the other hand tends to expand well beyond its historical conquests.

 

[Krajzen]

Because that is exactly what happened. Lithuania had a pretty good population, more than England or (at the start) Muscovy. Their issues were actually exactly what autonomy represents, an inability to actually use their population effectively or keep the nobles in line.

<copied from my previous post on the subject>

PLC pop estimations from 1500-1600 period point at 8-10 millions of people in the entire PLC (which had like 900 000km2 of area). That's mediocre density to begin with, and IIRC 60% of it was the Polish part (of course not all people here were Polish - in 1444 'Poland' I include Red Ruthenia being owned by Poland since 14th century + Jews, German settlers etc), next 10-15% was Lithuania, rest of it was poor Rus.
Meanwhile estimates for Muscovian population from this era go from early 15th century's minimum estimates of 5 millions to maximum estimates of 14 millions by 1600 (please note the fact Muscovy/Tsardom was quickly growing in territory in this era) so it's pretty safe to assume Muscovy in 1444 had either similar pop to Lithuania or significantly higher - and there were more grand cities under Moscovian control! Muscovy, Yaroslavl, Nizhny, Ryazan, Vladimir and more vs Vilnius and Kiev.

Thus in fact yes, it'd be pretty fitting to decrease Lithuanian development to be on similar or slighty lower level than Muscovy

Cezary Kulko in 'the demographics of PLC' estimates population density of PLC Ucraine on 3 people per km2 compared to 6-7 of Lithuania and 20 of Poland/Red Ruthenia. In 16th century. Later it increased... because seeing unused potential of it, the colonization by Poles/Jews/Germans/Lithuanians started.

 

[WeissRaben]

Out of interest, to those people who think the Commonwealth is OP: do you also regard Ottomans, France, Austria or Russia as OP when they manage their historical conquests?

Honestly? It depends, yes. The Ottomans came very near to a perfect strike, OTL, and I still maintain that their historical size should not be taken as average. Turkey and Greece, of course. The Balkans, extremely likely. The Levant, maybe. Egypt, could be. North Africa, hardly.

If you roll a die once, you don't get 3.5. You might get 6, but it doesn't mean 6 is the average result.

 

[gianlucad]

The reason why Lithuania is so strong is because the region would just get rolled by Bohemia/Austria/Hungary/Moscowy/Ottomans otherwise. I'm pretty sure paradox gave up on historical accuracy in EU4 a while ago.