Why does Lithuania have more development than France in 1444?

[Ritmas]

That was true before the conversion. You have numbers of foreign crusaders post 1444?

Poland balance is a bit more crucial than people realize and they can crumble very easily... with their disturbing tendency to be lagging in military tech. Likes of Austria have little to fear...

Maybe people should play more games and up to 1700 before saying east Europe balance is broken. Because if 90% games end with union broken because of negative prestige... well.

This, PLC usually begins to crumble by the 1700(as it supposed to) when all their neighbours turn for them.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

This, PLC usually begins to crumble by the 1700(as it supposed to) when all their neighbours turn for them.

Well, in most of my games from tye last 2 patches there are no strong neighbours to stop them anymore, and I manage to reach 1800.

 

[ponasozis]

Well, in most of my games from tye last 2 patches there are no strong neighbours to stop them anymore, and I manage to reach 1800.

its still situational

its sandbox game after all

last two of my games plc never even happened

 

[gabadur]

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.

Will you lower Lithuania's developement, making it lower than Polands to show how Lithuania relied on Poland, and was the junior partner in the Commonwealth? If not, I would consider nerfing Polands government form, making there be 50% autonomy, and forcelimit smaller

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

Will you lower Lithuania's developement, making it lower than Polands to show how Lithuania relied on Poland, and was the junior partner in the Commonwealth? If not, I would consider nerfing Polands government form, making there be 50% autonomy, and forcelimit smaller

Both of your alternatives are too harsh, imo. Sure, Lithuania's development(at least in Ruthenia) should be low, but the country was still massive! And about 50% autonomy cap - it would be a real pain to govern this country, especially with need of giving some provinces to the estates putting their autonomy at 75%.

 

[Brazzo]

Its really good joke Lithuania have more development than France, one of the most powerfull country in XV century.

 

[grommile]

Its really good joke Lithuania have more development than France, one of the most powerfull country in XV century.

At game start, France doesn't own all of France.

 

[ponasozis]

France was shit at game start

just survived all the plagues and in middle of hundreed years war

the allegable cease fire is bullshit peace

 

[Retrograde]

I think a Khmelnytsky Uprising disaster would be a good way to weaken pol-lit. It's definitely one of the most defining moments in our culture and history.

 

[Beagá]

At game start, France doesn't own all of France.

That´s pretty much it, with Burgundy, Brittany and Provence dead + english land it´s the number 1 european power.

Getting all those before 1500 is another matter entirely, but it shouldn´t be easy, and that includes player led France.

 

[evilcat]

1. Reducing development could be good idea. Even if it was just -30 development.
2. Ruthenians are too peacefull. They should rebel more often no matter who owns the land (Crimera/Russia/PLC dosnt matter).

 

[ponasozis]

1. Reducing development could be good idea. Even if it was just -30 development.
2. Ruthenians are too peacefull. They should rebel more often no matter who owns the land (Crimera/Russia/PLC dosnt matter).

I don t think giving additional rebel unrest to any specific culture is a good idea

 

[zdlugasz]

I think problem is not in development but rather in the way internal politics are in the game. Commonwealth in real life had huge struggles with nobles. Sejm was lazy not paying taxes and refusing to fund army of country (which was already small due to lack of funding from them) and used VETO power more than anything else. In game Commonwealth has no such problems, you can easily raise huge army, you get huge income (irl Commonwealth all nobles had no taxes).

Wrong on several fronts: they paid taxes, first VETO was enacted in the second half of XVIIth century only, etc, but I agree that the problem is that of internal politics which (does not) exist in game.


Most of other "historical" arguments presented in this thread, and I deliberately use "", are correct for second half of 17th century and 18th century, but not for 15th century! Starting game in 1444 it is possible to "centralize" Lithuania, to make it use its potential etc. It is not preordained that country X will fall (unless of course it is a target of Pdox magical DHE events like burgundy).

I have seen that several people said it before, but majority ignore it repetitively
- game starts in 1444 and not to say e.g. in 1667
- big part of "Russian" land was not under control of Muscovy in 1444 (vassals & minors, Novgorod, Khanates, 1/3 of Lithuania) - so comparing development of Muscovy and Lithuania in 1444 is a complete nonsense; Muscovy centralized and took over a lot of land with population while Lithuania decentralized and lost population (Similarly France does not own its all 18th century cores in 1444)
- prevalent socio-economic model in Eastern Europe was completely different than in Western Europe, there were only a few big cities and majority of population, taxes, production and whatever came from countryside. Nobility "actively" fought against burgers and won that fight. They were allowed to establish whatever production they wanted on their land - using peasants for work - thus completely cutting guilds out. While in Western Europe cities in Lowlands, N. Italy etc became powerhouses, in Eastern Europe they became marginalized.
- development can not be selected to force preferable outcome after 350 years of gameplay
- Lithuania had potential to became great, Vytautyas was close to dismantling Golden Horde and absorbing part of it but lost at Vorskla river
- 40 years before game start it was Lithuanian which was expanding against russian principalities: e.g. Vytautyas incorporated Smolensk in 1404, in next 5 years fought with successes against Pskov (which forced to pay tribute) and Muscovy, in later years Lithuania established control over several other prinicipalites and for a short time even over Novgorod. Nobody can say what would happen if Grand Dukes remained independent of Poland, but one can guess that catholicism would not be so powerful and with equal or even preferential treatment of orthodox nobility integration of Ruthenian population would be smoother (or assimilation would even proceed in opposite direction)


I am not saying that Lithuanian development is ok since I have no idea what criteria were used to assign it. But the voices "nerf them" are on par with Horde units pre 1.13, native ability to colonize and cross water etc.

 

[in heaven]

Wrong on several fronts: they paid taxes, first VETO was enacted in the second half of XVIIth century only, etc, but I agree that the problem is that of internal politics which (does not) exist in game.

They didn't pay taxes, though it happened before eu4 timeline. Problem is, nobles were still paying very small taxes which caused problems with country not being able to recruit big army.

Most of other "historical" arguments presented in this thread, and I deliberately use "", are correct for second half of 17th century and 18th century, but not for 15th century! Starting game in 1444 it is possible to "centralize" Lithuania, to make it use its potential etc. It is not preordained that country X will fall (unless of course it is a target of Pdox magical DHE events like burgundy).

Well that means that game should start with low influence of nobles and powerful economy, but then you would have to struggle with nobles wanting a lot of power and corrupt foreign kings.

I have seen that several people said it before, but majority ignore it repetitively
- game starts in 1444 and not to say e.g. in 1667
- big part of "Russian" land was not under control of Muscovy in 1444 (vassals & minors, Novgorod, Khanates, 1/3 of Lithuania) - so comparing development of Muscovy and Lithuania in 1444 is a complete nonsense; Muscovy centralized and took over a lot of land with population while Lithuania decentralized and lost population (Similarly France does not own its all 18th century cores in 1444)
- prevalent socio-economic model in Eastern Europe was completely different than in Western Europe, there were only a few big cities and majority of population, taxes, production and whatever came from countryside. Nobility "actively" fought against burgers and won that fight. They were allowed to establish whatever production they wanted on their land - using peasants for work - thus completely cutting guilds out. While in Western Europe cities in Lowlands, N. Italy etc became powerhouses, in Eastern Europe they became marginalized.
- development can not be selected to force preferable outcome after 350 years of gameplay
- Lithuania had potential to became great, Vytautyas was close to dismantling Golden Horde and absorbing part of it but lost at Vorskla river
- 40 years before game start it was Lithuanian which was expanding against russian principalities: e.g. Vytautyas incorporated Smolensk in 1404, in next 5 years fought with successes against Pskov (which forced to pay tribute) and Muscovy, in later years Lithuania established control over several other prinicipalites and for a short time even over Novgorod. Nobody can say what would happen if Grand Dukes remained independent of Poland, but one can guess that catholicism would not be so powerful and with equal or even preferential treatment of orthodox nobility integration of Ruthenian population would be smoother (or assimilation would even proceed in opposite direction)

I am not saying that Lithuanian development is ok since I have no idea what criteria were used to assign it. But the voices "nerf them" are on par with Horde units pre 1.13, native ability to colonize and cross water etc.

Yes, Muscovy was not as powerful as Lithuania in 1444, but was more powerful in 1492..

 

[zdlugasz]

They didn't pay taxes, though it happened before eu4 timeline. Problem is, nobles were still paying very small taxes which caused problems with country not being able to recruit big army.

There is significant miscommunication between us. You say Commonwealth. Commonwealth has been formed in 16th century, thus did not exist before EU4 timeline. And in Commonwealth nobility did pay one direct taxes (although one might laugh at height of this tax) and because budget was always empty indirect taxes (kind of VAT) became more and more popular since 17th century, and additionally there were extra taxes for wars, paid also by nobility.
Regarding direct taxes there was established in 1456 tax from land that nobility rented from crown and established in 1520 "head" tax, but they were "special", not constant taxes. I beg your pardon, but unless you prove otherwise, I say that I know more about Commonwealth than you.
If you wanted to say that nobility had many tax exempts and paid much less than others I agree, but you can not say that they did not pay at all.

Or do you say that l boyars in Lithuania before 1444 did not pay taxes? Even if so (my knowledge is lacking in this area), they had duty to serve when knyaz called them to war. How otherwise Lithuania did expand in 14th century, and even at the beginning of 15th century, after disastrous defeat at Vorskla river?

Yes, Muscovy was not as powerful as Lithuania in 1444, but was more powerful in 1492..

And your point is?

If you start in 1492 during war between Muscovy and Lithuania and in majority of games Lithuania (without Poland) will defeat Muscovy then I will agree and say yes, significant changes are required.

One of those changes should be that senior PU partner wont always join war (although Poland should probably be at war against Ottoman Empire and/or Moldavia, thus might not join). Frankly I do not know how current game mechanics handle such situation.

 

[Atlantians]

I think problem is not in development but rather in the way internal politics are in the game. Commonwealth in real life had huge struggles with nobles. Sejm was lazy not paying taxes and refusing to fund army of country (which was already small due to lack of funding from them) and used VETO power more than anything else. In game Commonwealth has no such problems, you can easily raise huge army, you get huge income (irl Commonwealth all nobles had no taxes).

In Poland the Nobility were always very influencial even before the union. The unification with Lithuania was their idea.
I think in eu4 the Nobility estate needs to be revamped for Poland and I don't believe that just increasing Influence/Loyalty numbers through events would accurately represent the situation. I can't imagine a Noble coup happening in the PLC.

Maybe have the Noble Provinces pay no taxes, but have no influence rebellions if their minimum province count is met?

There is significant miscommunication between us. You say Commonwealth. Commonwealth has been formed in 16th century, thus did not exist before EU4 timeline. And in Commonwealth nobility did pay one direct taxes (although one might laugh at height of this tax) and because budget was always empty indirect taxes (kind of VAT) became more and more popular since 17th century, and additionally there were extra taxes for wars, paid also by nobility.
Regarding direct taxes there was established in 1456 tax from land that nobility rented from crown and established in 1520 "head" tax, but they were "special", not constant taxes. I beg your pardon, but unless you prove otherwise, I say that I know more about Commonwealth than you.
If you wanted to say that nobility had many tax exempts and paid much less than others I agree, but you can not say that they did not pay at all.
Or do you say that l boyars in Lithuania before 1444 did not pay taxes? Even if so (my knowledge is lacking in this area), they had duty to serve when knyaz called them to war. How otherwise Lithuania did expand in 14th century, and even at the beginning of 15th century, after disastrous defeat at Vorskla river?

Or not.

 

[Sabotage13]

Both of your alternatives are too harsh, imo. Sure, Lithuania's development(at least in Ruthenia) should be low, but the country was still massive! And about 50% autonomy cap - it would be a real pain to govern this country, especially with need of giving some provinces to the estates putting their autonomy at 75%.

Estate provinces don't actually raise autonomy, if it's above their minimum autonomy for the respective estate.

That only works if you raise autonomy directly via province files or events.