Your opinion on "Lucky Nations" setting?

[Renz]

I feel like lucky nations may be fun for someone who likes to play as the larger countries such as France or Spain, but if you like to start of with smaller countries like the ones that can form Italy or Germany it can be an extreme pain. If anything, Germany and Italy should be historic countries whenever they form for the feat you just accomplished, whether it's by an AI or human.

Does anyone else agree? I'd like to know if you leave lucky nations on or off mainly when you try to form a bigger country.

[Xara]

Lucky nations are part of what makes it challenging. The randomized setting can be interesting. It'd be cool to have a mode where the luck bonus swaps to random nations every 20 years or something.

[Bandit17]

Lucky nations create a challenge and helps push the game towards more historical outcomes.

Lucky nations are like the "Boss" or "Champion" in an MMO. They are meant to be challenging to force you to become a better player or for your multiplayer group to work together to take them down. Like a "Boss" they give you the feeling of accomplishment once you do gain the edge over them.

Playing and succeeding with a minor or small nation next to a lucky nation is very possible on normal settings. Myself and many others have created very large empires with minors. I have taken Venice and Brandenburg to huge proportions and my most memorable moments are when I took on the powerful lucky nations like France for example.

[sevensided]

I'd like it if they allowed Random lucky nations in Ironman, but I can understand why they do not.

Random country / Random lucky nation is a fun way to play.

[Ursinho Flinflon]

i just think that if you play as france, england, castile or any other major power, you should get the lucky bonus
but i just consider myself lucky that i'm not stupid like the AI

[Xandurz]

Ursprungligen skrivet av enrico_mettifogo:

i just think that if you play as france, england, castile or any other major power, you should get the lucky bonus
but i just consider myself lucky that i'm not stupid like the AI

That is what "lucky nation" bonus does. It gives the nation more punching power, so you actually have to think about what you are doing if you are not a regional power (France, Spain, etc.) since they can pose a challenge.



To answer the Op's post it is also fun to play as 1 province minors as there is nothing better than forming Netherlands as Utrecht (1 prov Bisphoric - no diplo vassalization) with France breathing down your neck and sharpening their claws with their lucky nation bonus.

But that is just my opinion, since I spent so much time in EU3 that even the Death and Taxes mod was starting to become too easy (and it was x2 as hard as Vanilla EU3).

[frozenfeet]

Only a year and a half late to this thread but @Bandit17 I do have to agree that taking on the blob and the kebab at the same time as Serbia(!) along with Russia was probably the best thing that's ever happened in EU4.

[CEO of Spearfighting]

I don't really have issues with Lucky Nations in itself, but... It's kinda annoying that most LNs already are in a very good spot. When I play with Luck off, they usually do well anyway.

I have more fun with random LNs.

You CAN bring down big LNs (I'm not a very good player but I still managed to smash France as the Papal States, in my best game), but it's such a pain in the ass. They're so resistent to unrest/burning down manpower through attrition, and such.

[Mansen]

Lucky Nations are there to ensure some amount of historial accuracy - Not to purposely screw over the player.

[E6LCXXH]

I dislike lucky nations. I think you should be able to form plausible scenarios just on the virtue of the country's stats alone.