Europa Universalis IV

[Average Manatee]

EU4 is the best for small nations since it has by far the most predictable and determinate AI. In CK/Vicky/earlier EUs the AI is kind of random in the wars it declares and whether it wants to ally you and so on (almost invariably leading to a LOT of savescumming), but in EU4 you can fairly reliably play most small nations, get allies, ensure the allies fight with you and fight with a decent level of competence. Outside of the monarch RNG its by far one of the least random of Paradox games.

But yeah, there's a big lack of an overarching peacetime gameplay system like Vicky's economy or CK's dynasty game. Instead every expansion just adds a new tab of switches hidden somewhere in the UI to flip and get bonuses or avoid penalties.

 

[baturinsky]

Colonialism is manageable. Try Printing Press when it spawns in fucking Stockholm.

True dat. Though institutions can magically appear in any province with development over 30 and that tends to be more common when Printing Press rolls around. Still, though. Can slow you down pretty fiercely.

I actually still haven't seen Russia in my games. They removed "lucky nation" status from Poland, Brandenburg, and Sweden, all with the intention of making Russia more likely to form, and it still hasn't happened for me. I was worried that Scandinavia and eastern Europe would be consumed by the Green Blob, but Muscovy just can't get it together.

Muscovy has shitty and ahistorical National Ideas. They focus on the raising of manpower, while giving nearly nothing to effectiveness. Even though historically Russian fought on par with Europeans, even while lagging technologically, and vas wastly superior to Osmans and other Asians. And the size or Russian army was pretty proportional to the size of Russian population.

I blame traditional Sweden mythology about Valiant Sweden Knights Overwhelmed by Unending Russian Unwashed Hordes.

I think Russian ideas should be something like this.

Bonus to army morale.
Bonus to Land Leaders, mostly maneuver.
Bonus to Diplo Annexations. Vassalisation and gradually stripping independence was how Muscovy annexed first all other Russian duchies, and then Siberia and Caucasus.
Bonus to heavy ships and maybe Naval Leaders. Enough to let them potentially defeat the Ottomans on seas.
Bonus to tolerance of Heathens. Russia was probably the most religious tolerant country of it's time. More even than Ottomans that have +3 tolerance. Ottomans had extra taxes for non-Muslim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haraç), in Russia limitations to Muslims were minimal.

 

[Makabb]

they are reworking the fort zone control for 1.19 after 1 year of it, good riddance

 

[FreeKaner]

Colonialism is manageable. Try Printing Press when it spawns in fucking Stockholm.

True dat. Though institutions can magically appear in any province with development over 30 and that tends to be more common when Printing Press rolls around. Still, though. Can slow you down pretty fiercely.

I actually still haven't seen Russia in my games. They removed "lucky nation" status from Poland, Brandenburg, and Sweden, all with the intention of making Russia more likely to form, and it still hasn't happened for me. I was worried that Scandinavia and eastern Europe would be consumed by the Green Blob, but Muscovy just can't get it together.

Muscovy has shitty and ahistorical National Ideas. They focus on the raising of manpower, while giving nearly nothing to effectiveness. Even though historically Russian fought on par with Europeans, even while lagging technologically, and vas wastly superior to Osmans and other Asians. And the size or Russian army was pretty proportional to the size of Russian population.

I blame traditional Sweden mythology about Valiant Sweden Knights Overwhelmed by Unending Russian Unwashed Hordes.

I think Russian ideas should be something like this.

Bonus to army morale.
Bonus to Land Leaders, mostly maneuver.
Bonus to Diplo Annexations. Vassalisation and gradually stripping independence was how Muscovy annexed first all other Russian duchies, and then Siberia and Caucasus.
Bonus to heavy ships and maybe Naval Leaders. Enough to let them potentially defeat the Ottomans on seas.
Bonus to tolerance of Heathens. Russia was probably the most religious tolerant country of it's time. More even than Ottomans that have +3 tolerance. Ottomans had extra taxes for non-Muslim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haraç), in Russia limitations to Muslims were minimal.

Russian ideas are probably most OP set of ideas in the game on par with Ottomans and France.

 

[baturinsky]

Russian ideas are probably most OP set of ideas in the game on par with Ottomans and France.

Well, they are pretty exploitable by human. But they are ahistorical and does not help much for AI, because AI just gets out of them a lot of worthless troops that can't do anything.

 

[FreeKaner]

Russian ideas are probably most OP set of ideas in the game on par with Ottomans and France.

Well, they are pretty exploitable by human. But they are ahistorical and does not help much for AI, because AI just gets out of them a lot of worthless troops that can't do anything.

They also benefit AI a lot by setting a safety net for AI's manpower losses to attrition because AI never takes it into account. I wouldn't say the manpower is ahistorical. Although you are right they could have bonuses to attrition and morale.

They have a bonus to army tradition though so it's not as much of a unwashed hordes as you make it to be. Plus the condition of Russian armies can be separated into two categories, before and after Peter. Let's be honest here, before Peter's reforms Russian armies were quite subpar compared to their European counterparts, so much so that no one considered them to be a notable state and even Poles looked down on Russian armies. The manpower early on and army tradition later on represents this quite well.

 

[baturinsky]

I wouldn't say the manpower is ahistorical.

Russian population in 1700 was 16mil vs 2.8mil in Poland and 1.37 in Sweden - their main European opponents. Russian manpower was overwhelming thanks to pop alone, without any bonuses.
Ottoman population in 1700 was 30mil - and Russians routinely fought and won against Turkish armies twice the size.

In the war of 1812, Napoleon had 400k, half of them French, vs 400k Russians. And 100k French National Guard stayed in France. So, French own manpower was 300k vs 400k Russian, with 30mil vs 40mil pop. Pretty close proportions.

Let's be honest here, before Peter's reforms Russian armies were quite subpar compared to their European counterparts, so much so that no one considered them to be a notable state and even Poles looked down on Russian armies. The manpower early on and army tradition later on represents this quite well.

Before Peter, Russia fought on par with Poland, and wrecked Siberians and even Osmans. And Poland in EU has pretty hefty army bonuses - Discipline, Morale, Cavalry and Infantry combat ability, and even some Manpower too.

But I agree that most army and naval bonuses should be late-ish. Order should be - annexation bonuses first (unification of Russia and Siberian conquest), then army quality bonuses (Peter), and Tolerance bonuses last (1773's "Tolerance of all religions" edict)

 

[Tytus]

Russian population in 1700 was 16mil vs 2.8mil in Poland and 1.37 in Sweden - their main European opponents. Russian manpower was overwhelming thanks to pop alone, without any bonuses.
Ottoman population in 1700 was 30mil - and Russians routinely fought and won against Turkish armies twice the size.

Wow, you are either a dumbfuck or a you are eating up Russian propagadna or you are just pulling those figures out of your ass because MAH RUSSIA SO STRONK!

n 1618, after the Truce of Deulino the Commonwealth population increased together with its territory, reaching 12 millions that could be roughly divided into: Poles - 4.5m, Ukrainians - 3.5m, Belarusians - 1.5m, Lithuanians - 0.75m, Prussians - 0.75m, Jews - 0.5m, Livionians - 0.5m; at that time nobility formed 10% and burghers, 15%.[10] Population losses of 1648-1667 are estimated at 4m.[10] Coupled with further population and territorial losses, by 1717 the Commonwealth population had fallen to 9m: roughly 4.5m Poles, 1.5m Ukrainians, 1.2m Belarusians, 0.8m Lithuanians, 0.5m Jews, 0.5m others[10] The urban population was hit hard, falling to below 10%.[11]

Even countring Poles alone you are way off.

Before Peter, Russia fought on par with Poland, and wrecked Siberians and even Osmans. And Poland in EU has pretty hefty army bonuses - Discipline, Morale, Cavalry and Infantry combat ability, and even some Manpower too.

You mean when Russia got wrecked by Batory during the Livonian War?
Or when you got your teeth kicked in during Polish-Muscovite War (Poles were even able to conquer Moscow and rule the entire Duchy for over two years)?
Or maybe when Russians surrendered during the Smolensk War?

The only war during that period that Russia was able to win againt Poland-Lithuania was Russo-Polish War and only because Poland was fighting a two front war against Russia and Sweden.

Russian armies before Peter when tried to expand west just gave up and died.

 

[baturinsky]

So much butthurt. Must be that crippling Polish inferiority complex showing.
If you think my numbers are wrong, post yours, and cite sources.

Pop numbers can be found here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1700
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600

I was mistaken about Commonwealth population - it was 8-9mil

And Poles were also using help of allies (Sweden and Crimeans) and Russian internal conflicts to get any success against Russia. And could not hold up on their gains when temporary advantageous circumstances ran out. Which is why I say that Russia and Poland fought on par. Though, Commonwealth did that with much less population, I give it to them.

Polish-Muscovite War happened during Russian Lzhedmitriy civil war.
Smolensk war was fought with equal forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk_War and ended without a decisive victory for any side. Just as it would happened when similar strength armies fight.
Livonian War, quoting Wikipedia, "Tsardom of Russia faced off against a varying coalition of Denmark–Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Union (later Commonwealth) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland". In final stage of conflict, Poland fought allied with Sweden.

 

[FreeKaner]

I wouldn't say the manpower is ahistorical.

Russian population in 1700 was 16mil vs 2.8mil in Poland and 1.37 in Sweden - their main European opponents. Russian manpower was overwhelming thanks to pop alone, without any bonuses.
Ottoman population in 1700 was 30mil - and Russians routinely fought and won against Turkish armies twice the size.

In the war of 1812, Napoleon had 400k, half of them French, vs 400k Russians. And 100k French National Guard stayed in France. So, French own manpower was 300k vs 400k Russian, with 30mil vs 40mil pop. Pretty close proportions.

Let's be honest here, before Peter's reforms Russian armies were quite subpar compared to their European counterparts, so much so that no one considered them to be a notable state and even Poles looked down on Russian armies. The manpower early on and army tradition later on represents this quite well.

Before Peter, Russia fought on par with Poland, and wrecked Siberians and even Osmans. And Poland in EU has pretty hefty army bonuses - Discipline, Morale, Cavalry and Infantry combat ability, and even some Manpower too.

But I agree that most army and naval bonuses should be late-ish. Order should be - annexation bonuses first (unification of Russia and Siberian conquest), then army quality bonuses (Peter), and Tolerance bonuses last (1773's "Tolerance of all religions" edict)

Fights between Ottomans and Russians until late 1700s were proto-proxy-wars between Crimean Tatars and Russian Cossacks. Russia had more than ten times its neighbour's population and often much bigger armies, on par with Ottomans which had greater population in 16th and 17th century. The ideas are basically are merely compensating for the poor development of Russian provinces so they will have higher manpower than their neighbours at similar development.

Russia was definitely not seen as an equal by Poles, in fact they were incredibly shocked once they got defeated by them after Peter's reforms, because the blow was dealt by people whom they considered equal to Cossacks and Tatars, not their own army. Russia before Peter's reforms was inferior to any considerable European power, this is proven by fact how badly they kept getting defeated by Swedes over and over again, as well as getting their capital sacked by Polish.

There is no need for retroactive nationalism, it's a generally accepted fact that Russian army was subpar until Peter. Russia is one of few countries that gets flat military tradition bonus so I don't get what you want to see here. They are top 3 in terms of idea strength. Also another important thing to note is Russia had 140 million population by 1914.

 

[Tytus]

Polish-Muscovite War happened during Russian Lzhedmitriy civil war.

Polish-Muscovite also happened during Polish-Swedish Wars (1600-1629), Commonwealth was not only fighting Russia during that time. Also when Poles conquered Moscow the "unwashed" and unshaven russian nobility welcomed the idea of Union with Poland with Lithuania, because they viewed Commonwealth as a center of culture and development. It would have happened if not for our retard king that decided to convert everyone and go on a genocidal victory lap.

Livonian War started when Ivan invaded current Baltic States, but the counter offensive that ended the war - Batory's and Zamoyski's offensive did not include any Swedeish, Deanish and Norwegian forces. It was just Batory's forces against the Russian army.

And guess what during the first part of the Livonian War Poland-Lithuania wasn't even involved in fact we were figthing Sweden (who Russia was fighting at that time too). In Nothern Seven Years War (1563-1570).
In other words Russian armies of that period were not able to defeat an oponent that was fighting two major at the same time wars and when Batory got involved they just rolled over and surrendered.


Smolensk War also happened when Poland was fighting the Ottomans in Polish-Ottoman War (1633-1634) Russian invaded Smolenks but was unable to take the fortress for over a year and when Commonwealth forces came they were humiliated and forced to leave their entire artilery behind. The Poles in show of good faith let them keep their banners but at that point Russian army was demoralized they didn't have to do that.

Face it during that period Russian army was inferior to it's neighbours forces and was unable to defeat Sweden and Poland even when they were taking advantage of neighbours external and internal troubles.

So much butthurt. Must be that crippling Polish inferiority complex showing.

Yes, yes. Russia was always stronk. No defeats in its history ever happaned! They were always glorious and awesome. And did not even need all those stupid reforms, westernization and development.

 

[baturinsky]

Russia had more than ten times its neighbour's population and often much bigger armies, on par with Ottomans which had greater population in 16th and 17th century.

Which neighbors are you talking about? Commonwealth had half of Russian population.

Russia was definitely not seen as an equal by Poles, in fact they were incredibly shocked once they got defeated by them after Peter's reforms, because the blow was dealt by people whom they considered equal to Cossacks and Tatars, not their own army. Russia before Peter's reforms was inferior to any considerable European power, this is proven by fact how badly they kept getting defeated by Swedes over and over again, as well as getting their capital sacked by Polish.

If Poland did not see Russians as equals, even while losing half the wars against them, it just says that Poles are idiots.

There is no need for retroactive nationalism, it's a generally accepted fact that Russian army was subpar until Peter. Russia is one of few countries that gets flat military tradition bonus so I don't get what you want to see here. They are top 3 in terms of idea strength. Also another important thing to note is Russia had 140 million population by 1914.

Before Peter, Russia was technologically lagging to Europe. Difference in army strength pre-Peter is already represented by differencу in tech level and tech group. Army strength bonuses from National ideas should be on par with at least Poland.

 

[FreeKaner]

Russia had more than ten times its neighbour's population and often much bigger armies, on par with Ottomans which had greater population in 16th and 17th century.

Which neighbors are you talking about? Commonwealth had half of Russian population.

Russia was definitely not seen as an equal by Poles, in fact they were incredibly shocked once they got defeated by them after Peter's reforms, because the blow was dealt by people whom they considered equal to Cossacks and Tatars, not their own army. Russia before Peter's reforms was inferior to any considerable European power, this is proven by fact how badly they kept getting defeated by Swedes over and over again, as well as getting their capital sacked by Polish.

If Poland did not see Russians as equals, even while losing half the wars against them, it just says that Poles are idiots.

There is no need for retroactive nationalism, it's a generally accepted fact that Russian army was subpar until Peter. Russia is one of few countries that gets flat military tradition bonus so I don't get what you want to see here. They are top 3 in terms of idea strength. Also another important thing to note is Russia had 140 million population by 1914.

Before Peter, Russia was technologically lagging to Europe. Difference in army strength pre-Peter is already represented by differencу in tech level and tech group. Army strength bonuses from National ideas should be on par with at least Poland.

Russia had much greater population than both Sweden and commonwealth. Commonwealth regularly defeated Russian armies up until they themselves fell victim to Sweden during Great Northern War, which is when Russia emerged as a great power and a state competitive in terms of military and structure with Western Europe (Although still behind, with a gap which only increased gradually until WW1)

It wasn't just technology but also organisation, training and doctrine, in fact I'd say that the Russians weren't technology as much behind as they generally become in the game. Western Europe changed considerably during Italian wars and rest of Europe during 30 years war. Russia was kept behind in these. If Russia wasn't so behind in organisation, training and doctrine there would be no need for Peter's reforms which radically changed not only the equipment but the structure of the state and organisation of the army as a whole during Great Northern War.

It's an amazing feat Russians have achieved to emerge as a great power while being defeated over and over again in Great Northern War and to become a solid power in European politics. Do not diminish it by claiming that Russia was always strong. They weren't and were considered backwater. Equal to Ottomans in 17th century perhaps but by 17th century Ottomans were already entering their sick man of Europe period. It's indeed possibly their worst period, since they had their own Peter in 19th century but by then it was too late for them.

Also again, they get same army tradition bonus from their ideas as Prussia, a country that's embodiment of military tradition. I don't know what more do you wish to represent.

 

[baturinsky]

Russia had much greater population than both Sweden and commonwealth. Commonwealth regularly defeated Russian armies up until they themselves fell victim to Sweden during Great Northern War, which is when Russia emerged as a great power and a state competitive in terms of military and structure with Western Europe (Although still behind, with a gap which only increased gradually until WW1)

So, do you mean that to be historically accurate, Sweden army in game should be 3x smaller than Russian because of population differences, 2x smaller even than that because of Russian manpower bonuses, and then Sweden armies should win against Russian armies 6 times as big? Because that's how it happened historically?

 

[FreeKaner]

Russia had much greater population than both Sweden and commonwealth. Commonwealth regularly defeated Russian armies up until they themselves fell victim to Sweden during Great Northern War, which is when Russia emerged as a great power and a state competitive in terms of military and structure with Western Europe (Although still behind, with a gap which only increased gradually until WW1)

So, do you mean that to be historically accurate, Sweden army in game should be 3x smaller than Russian because of population differences, 2x smaller even than that because of Russian manpower bonuses, and then Sweden armies should win against Russian armies 6 times as big? Because that's how it happened historically?

The game isn't supposed to be precisely historically accurate, it's supposed to represent situation of the states over the timeline. Which Russia at the beginning until Peter's reforms was lagging behind in every sense and was subpar until after the reforms caught up. Also Swedish armies usually don't win against armies 6 times their size so I don't know what are you saying, in fact Sweden is not even a challenge in EU4 when you start as Muscowy and you can safely annex them as soon as they break free from Danes. Sweden usually doesn't get to have as ridiculous victories as they had against Russia historically, defeating armies up to 5 times their size with minimal casualties until Peter's reforms.

 

[Tytus]

If Poland did not see Russians as equals, even while losing half the wars against them, it just says that Poles are idiots.

Now I know you are fuck muppet. Wars against Russia/Muscovy with major Polish involvment.

1. Muscovite-Lithuanin War 1512-1522 - Polish-Lithuania victory - Muscovy lost all of the major battles, and the principality was sakced by Tatar mercenaries.
2. Starodub War 1534-1537 - Polish-Lithuania territorial gains against Muscovy.
3. Livonian War 1577-1582 - Polish-Lithuania victory against Muscovy finally turned Tsardom of Russia.
4. Polish–Muscovite War 1605–1618 - Polish-Lithuania victory.
5. Smolensk War 1632–1634 - Polish-Lithuania victory.
6. Russo-Polish War 1654–1667 - Russian victory (finally).

Before Peter's reforms Muscovy/Russia was losing against Poland pretty often for almost 150 years, this is why they were viewed as inferior when it came to their military capibilites. When Peter reform's finally took place Russia started to dominate.

 

[baturinsky]

If Poland did not see Russians as equals, even while losing half the wars against them, it just says that Poles are idiots.

Now I know you are fuck muppet. Wars against Russia/Muscovy with major Polish involvment.

1. Muscovite-Lithuanin War 1512-1522 - Polish-Lithuania victory - Muscovy lost all of the major battles, and the principality was sakced by Tatar mercenaries.
2. Starodub War 1534-1537 - Polish-Lithuania territorial gains against Muscovy.
3. Livonian War 1577-1582 - Polish-Lithuania victory against Muscovy finally turned Tsardom of Russia.
4. Polish–Muscovite War 1605–1618 - Polish-Lithuania victory.
5. Smolensk War 1632–1634 - Polish-Lithuania victory.
6. Russo-Polish War 1654–1667 - Russian victory (finally).

Before Peter's reforms Muscovy/Russia was losing against Poland pretty often for almost 150 years, this is why they were viewed as inferior when it came to their military capibilites. When Peter reform's finally took place Russia started to dominate.

OK, "won half of the wars" was a simplifications. More accurate would be to say that most wars ended indecisively and without changing status quo (white peace in EU4 therms). Only major victory Poland had when Russian state was in the state of civil war, and therefore can't be taken into consideration when comparing countries' military strength.

 

[baturinsky]

The game isn't supposed to be precisely historically accurate, it's supposed to represent situation of the states over the timeline..

Well, does it? Does Russia when, controlled by AI, perform representive to the historical situation of the states over the timeline?

 

[FreeKaner]

The game isn't supposed to be precisely historically accurate, it's supposed to represent situation of the states over the timeline..

Well, does it? Does Russia when, controlled by AI, perform representive to the historical situation of the states over the timeline?

Russia almost always annexes Sweden and does often expand into its historical borders. Their ideas are strong and especially provide a safety net for AI and AI gets claims over vast expanses of land thanks to Russian missions. On the other hand Ottomans and Swedes never reach their natural borders in the game.

 

[Tytus]

OK, "won half of the wars" was a simplifications. More accurate would be to say that most wars ended indecisively and without changing status quo (white peace in EU4 therms). Only major victory Poland had when Russian state was in the state of civil war, and therefore can't be taken into consideration when comparing countries' military strength.

If this is your standard of measurment then only major victory in the 150 years I just mentioned the Russo-Polish War also does not count because it took place during Chmielnicki Uprising 1648-1657 - a massive Civil War against the Cossacks that were supported by the Crimeans. And during a war with Sweden. Both Sweden and Russia wanted to take advantage of the situation. And despite all of that Poland was able to win the Civil War and defeat the Swedes. And when Russia was in turmoil they just rolled over

(Poles were fighting against 400k Cossack and around 190k Tatars with forces of 215k troops. )

This only shows that Russia was a shitty unstable mess of a state with weak army, with weak leadership and weak economy before Peter's reforms.

 

[baturinsky]

The game isn't supposed to be precisely historically accurate, it's supposed to represent situation of the states over the timeline..

Well, does it? Does Russia when, controlled by AI, perform representive to the historical situation of the states over the timeline?

Russia almost always annexes Sweden and does often expand into its historical borders. Their ideas are strong and especially provide a safety net for AI and AI gets claims over vast expanses of land thanks to Russian missions. On the other hand Ottomans and Swedes never reach their natural borders in the game.

It was a long time I played EU last time, so I'll take your word for it.
Another question. Was Russian army historically disproportionally big for it's population?

 

[Delterius]

In my games Russia has awesome trade ideas and republican tradition~

 

[FreeKaner]

It was a long time I played EU last time, so I'll take your word for it.
Another question. Was Russian army historically disproportionally big for it's population?

Russian army wasn't disproportionally big for its population but Russia had cossacks which were a paramilitary society. Most wars between Russia and Ottomans are basically clashes by proxy between Cossacks and Crimean Tatars, which both were disproportionally large armies due their paramilitary on the horseback type of lifestyle. Russia also often drafted serfs disproportionally compared to other states, which meant that in defensive warfare they often had much more men compared to its population.

So no Russia's army was not big for its population but Russia's armed population that participated in wars was numerous compared to rest of Europe. Also you have to remember the manpower is related to development, the manpower bonuses basically allow Russia to be more populous than its neighbours while having less development, which was the reality.

 

[baturinsky]

OK, "won half of the wars" was a simplifications. More accurate would be to say that most wars ended indecisively and without changing status quo (white peace in EU4 therms). Only major victory Poland had when Russian state was in the state of civil war, and therefore can't be taken into consideration when comparing countries' military strength.

If this is your standard of measurment then only major victory in the 150 years I just mentioned the Russo-Polish War also does not count because it took place during Chmielnicki Uprising 1648-1657 - a massive Civil War against the Cossacks that were supported by the Crimeans. And during a war with Sweden. Both Sweden and Russia wanted to take advantage of the situation. And despite all of that Poland was able to win the Civil War and defeat the Swedes. And when Russia was in turmoil they just rolled over

Yes, exactly. Only Russian-Poles wars in that period that ended with significant territorial gains happened when one side was hugely handicapped. "Fair" wars ended indecisively, indicating roughly equal army strength.

This only shows that Russia was a shitty unstable mess of a state with weak army, with weak leadership and weak economy before Peter's reforms.

And this shitty country was steadily expanding East, South and West (into Lithuania)

 

[Luzur]

The game isn't supposed to be precisely historically accurate, it's supposed to represent situation of the states over the timeline..

Well, does it? Does Russia when, controlled by AI, perform representive to the historical situation of the states over the timeline?

Russia almost always annexes Sweden and does often expand into its historical borders. Their ideas are strong and especially provide a safety net for AI and AI gets claims over vast expanses of land thanks to Russian missions. On the other hand Ottomans and Swedes never reach their natural borders in the game.

Not always, Sweden and Ottomans (to a certain point it seems aleast) seems to do just fine in the games ive had as other nations, although not as precise and quick as i would do it.

I would put it at a 50/50 chance on it going either way.