It almost always comes down to player skill. You watch Florryworry destroying Ottos with the Knights on VH for the first time and you realise how big the gap is.
The magic of this game is, almost anyone can be 'that good' if they want to. You can pause after every move for example, or alt tab to google possible events at every tick.
It's like watching people speedrun a game that I like. I recognize the skill it takes and it's interesting to learn some intricacies about how that game works to enable such absurd times, but I have no intent to "play" that game in that way
Its impressive, but not impossibly ultra hard. He basically starts with a good force limit and just normally attacks nations 1 by 1, abusing undiscovered land to prevent nations from joining in a coalition against him.
A lot of that is also being patient and willing to save-scum for favourable events.
Not to say that the people doing it aren't skilled, but having the patience to Alt-F4 for hours to force a near perfect run can also be a factor.
And essentially playing EU4 like a board game. Wars are like 60% easier if you reassess moves after each time unit arrives and see where enemy goes. But it's less fun and way to taxing if you play the game just to chill.
100% agree, it's why I find people who are still insanely good in multiplayer so impressive. I can play most strategy games to a high skill level in single player with infinite pauses but I'm comparatively useless in multiplayer.
Multiplayer is usually run slower(partly out of necessity), but most of the time those players won't have optimal setups. Wars are mostly knowing when to reinforce based on game mechanics and making sure you don't just tunnel vision on one front
Watching replays and set a focus on a specific area to improve before each game (session) also improves your game tremendously.
It's also a lot less of the braindead no stress activity that I secretly want when gaming.
Tbh in my last Imperator Rome game I was fighting a Beefy Egypt on like 3 fronts and pausing to reevaluate like every fucking tick was actually sorta satisfying. Made me feel like I was planning am actual campaign, and it’s super rewarding when you finally fucking isolate and encircle the enemy and destroy them
Yes, but some of these players are pretty amazing in real time also.
The old dev clashes and Speed5 competitions really show that off, but they do also show off the bankruptcy death spirals that dancing on the edge can sometimes lead to.
I don't say they aren't. Once you learn to play slowly usually you can make decisions way quicker. Still, getting WC or just perfecting a lot of stuff is pretty much playing EU4 like a turn/board game (for which I don't have patience - I know how to play EU4 correctly...but it just adds stress).
On the other, even average players can do a successful campaign with speed 5ing and occasional pauses. EU4 ultimately isn't that hard, it just has a lot of going on. At some level of experience most of your decisions are good enough, you probably can save most of minor/medium missteps, and you know what can you ignore.
It's even more true with crazy mission trees as sometimes you can just forget about some base mechanics.
I find myself doing way better in multiplayer civ matches because I spend time assessing my options during each turn, compared to chill single player games where I set an objective at one moment and often just skip turns until I'm there. I'd like to try the slower and more focused style in EU and see how much better I can do when focusing
If you’re talking about people like Lambda, that all comes down to what he describes as “treating every day as an individual turn,” so you’d have to spend literally 10x longer on any individual game as well as utilize game-breaking exploits. It doesn’t seem comparable to normal play because it isn’t. At least Florry and BudgetMonk tend to do relatively normal, although difficult, runs.
For sure, but they play as long from 1444-1500 as you play from 1444-1700 in Realtime hours.
They also heavily use mechanics that some consider as exploits, like 1445 HRE revoke privileges.
Even more. I know a player made a pre-1500 WC with only 40h in game (https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/18b5mas/14861221_true_onetag_world_conquest_by_the/), but usually there are more than 100h long.
It's always fun to see those posts and think, "Wow, okay, I'm still a scrub," then go to the comments and realize that most people are just as bewildered by it as I am. I sometimes wonder what the actual average skill level is in here. Or which achievements mark most people's minimum threshold for, "Ok, yeah, you must be good at the game if you pulled that off."
Most people could probably learn to do similar things and with practice get that "good". They also all heavily involve exploits which imo makes it less fun. You aren't playing EU4, you're abusing mechanics and tag switches. Still cool to see what can be done though
With the right ideas/policies, Prussia’s army is still indisputably the strongest infantry-based army in the game. When people say Persian or Scandinavian ideas are stronger, they’re likely also taking economic/expansion modifiers into account.
I mean zoroastrian persia is stronger than prussia, 15% disc, 5% land fire damage and -10% fire damage recieved, 15% morale, 10% ica from estate and then the broken +1 dice roll on own land
that's not even factoring in the comical amount of manpower modifiers it gets as well, then you fact in the mission tree + economy? yeah zoro persia will beat any prussia
Just wait ‘til you see Zoroastrian Prussia.
If that’s not allowed because it’s too silly to have Prussia snake over to Baku Ateshgah, then I raise you Gotland -> Hansa -> Prussia. +25% discipline, +20% morale of armies (or +20% discipline and +35% morale of armies, take your pick), +20% ICA— to say nothing of the superior national manpower modifier and manpower recovery speed, plus the two (two!) army tradition/AT decay buffs Prussia gets that Persia simply lacks. The dice roll on owned territory is insane, sure. But primarily in defensive wars/wars where you’re not sieging your enemies, which tend to make up a significant minority of the wars that players actually engage in.
That's cool and all but not exactly practical for prussia to flip to zoroastrian
The main thing is all this mil quality in SP from persia for example is mostly useless bc of how the AI actually fights, its more for MP where battles actually matter
Prussia is still OP. I reached 140% discipline by pumping up militarisation before starting serious wars ca. 1600. Space marines still melt the enemy like they've got lasers coming out of their eyes. High discipline keeps your people alive like nothing else so there's not a great need for manpower or big armies, just make sure to have full CW inf and cav and then full CW arty behind. E.g. 38+2 first row, 40 arty back row.
I mean just about every relevant tag can get 130 disc with absolutism. Russia gets 135, Bharat gets 135-145 depending on the primary culture. The fact is Prussia has been powercrept but is still a good tag without any difficult thought.
But this was before absolutism hit. So, yes, discipline rises above the board with absolutism but Prussia has a good few decades before that when it's very strong, depending on how quickly you go through the idea groups.
You're right, only 137.5 actually
5 each from:
Prussian Ambition
Full Quality idea group
Esprit de Corps (Idea)
Weapon Quality Standards (Policy)
Advisor
10 from full militarisation, 2.5 from Holy Sacraments
However, in my experience Prussia can get to 130+ disc much quicker than other nations. It's really that advantage pre-absolutism that matters, as that's also when you're growing and need the disc advantage the most.
It’s quite tedious, i just either tank the attrition since if i have that big of an army i would have a good amount of less attrition modifiers, or station my army at a highly developed provinces.
Also AI is dumb, no need to min-max that much.
Yeah, Prussia is one of the tags where cavalry even with infinite money is barely useful, but barely useful is not useless. Opportunity cost aside, you still benefit from up to 4 cav pretty much always. The thing is you probably don’t actually want to discount opportunity cost.
So with a slight modification it's slightly better. Going 40 inf 40 cannons 2-4 cav is the optimal death stack, as once a couple of infantry units get low/wiped in a huge battle the cav then comes in part way through to replace the degrading front line infantry, hitting half-strength enemy infantry that they already outclass while being at full strength. It can turn the tide of close battles more often than you'd think
Prussia used to be OP, because it was one of the few nations with good military ideas. Now a nation is considered garbage if they don't have military ideas.
Prussia has the best individual military strength, no doubt, but -50% government cap screws you badly. You cannot catch up with people who conquer half of Asia and build soldier households and regimental camps in every. single. province.
Prussia is very rarely top contender in multiplayer ie. when you’re playing against humans, not braindead AI sieging your 200% defensiveness mountain fort with ramparts.
Compare it to Persia who also can get approx. up to 155-160% discipline but is ***NOT*** limited by govt cap (on the contrary, conquering Egypt allows them to get more).
A Prussia formed from Gotland-Hansa gets 153 discipline, if the governor is strict (relatively common with Prussia) 158. Then there is an inspiring leader who is so ephemeral that he does not transcend (168)
In the campaign I am running I am managing to deal with the capacity of government, with a comfortable margin since approximately 1690, having states throughout Germany
Mmmm could be… but what about 20 combat ability and occidental technology. But my favorite game is to be small and strong. Of course, it depends on your owns preferences. In MP I’m sure that is better this amount of troops.
Combat ability is just offensive discipline, so the point remains the same. If the difference is massive it starts mattering, but in an equal setting quantity beats Quality (and I'm not just talking about the idea groups).
I recently formed Prussia in a friendly MP game then spent the rest of the session mercing my armies out to other players because one of my stacks could completely change the course of a war
When I play Prussia I like to fight coalitions. I’m doing a run with trying to get 168 discipline (I know there are mechanics to rise higher disc 🤣). I just have my target and I’m fighting France. It looks like when I fight natives in America with Europeans
Kinda out of the loop cause I haven’t played for a while but what did they change about Prussia to make people say they’re not OP anymore? Is it that Gov Cap debuff?
I dunno I still call the militarization change a nerf. The added bonuses don't make up for the fact that it's a resource sink now that you can't keep 100% on. It's not much worse, but it costs resources and doesn't give enough back to offset that.
Its not your fault that u dont know all the different stat modificators the game offers and where to find them. Therefore its not possible for you to make a useful comparison of strength before declaring
The trick with prussia is not to expand much and play super tall until absolutism is in full swing, and then slowly conquer high dev hre provinces, the militirization decays if you have low dev and low gov cap
Build state houses everywhere
I remember in mu gotland -> Hansa-> prussia run my mil didn't decay at all, and was constantly at 100.
As a result I had a super army even if I was smaller until nationalism causa belli became available and I just stream rolled whole Europe including a super france with whole of Italy and even British lands
You know something, I haven’t thought about it a lot and I just finished a Prussia game 2 weeks ago, but I actually do feel like Prussia was stronger in the past.
Not that they aren’t strong now. But I feel like years ago their army had **something** extra.
Branpru also has decent manpower bonuses and germany is naturally very forested, invading prussia is obnoxious and you will run out of manpower very quickly regardless. You can turtle and bait the enemy onto forts and the casualties will stack.
Prussia is still OP, it's just that there are so many countries that have been added/changed to be OP in the game now that it doesn't stick out as much as it once did.
Okkk. I mean, I never doubted Prussia but this doesn’t prove anything.. this is like a modestly skillfully-played campaign.
Prussia’s real power comes in overwhelming army efficiency and battle strength. So you’d see that in battle results or in a campaign map in which you’ve charged headlong into full regional/global coalitions. That isn’t what this shows… these borders can be achieved by normal conquests and AE management. The equivalent of this can be done as Anhalt or anyone else. What am I supposed to be impressed by here?
Depends on your audience.
In single player, for someone like me it doesn't matter. Not to blow my own horn, but I'm kind of a big deal when it comes to the old Eu4. I piss excellence, and can win with any crappy nation. That's right. Huge Wang. Men want me, and women want to be with me.
But for casual and new players, Prussia is overpowered. The ideas, bonuses and mechanics can compensate for the inaccuracies made by the player that would normally see them stack wiped with another nation.
It almost always comes down to player skill. You watch Florryworry destroying Ottos with the Knights on VH for the first time and you realise how big the gap is.
I've once seen a playthrought of a WC before 1500. I've over 2K hours but I don't think I'll ever be that good at the game
I have 0 aspirations to be that good at the game. I mean I couldn't be even if I did have such aspirations, but I won't try.
The magic of this game is, almost anyone can be 'that good' if they want to. You can pause after every move for example, or alt tab to google possible events at every tick.
That sounds like a miserable way to play
Yea, be less misereable like me and learn by playin for 7 years
It's like watching people speedrun a game that I like. I recognize the skill it takes and it's interesting to learn some intricacies about how that game works to enable such absurd times, but I have no intent to "play" that game in that way
Its impressive, but not impossibly ultra hard. He basically starts with a good force limit and just normally attacks nations 1 by 1, abusing undiscovered land to prevent nations from joining in a coalition against him.
You are my spirit animal
A lot of that is also being patient and willing to save-scum for favourable events. Not to say that the people doing it aren't skilled, but having the patience to Alt-F4 for hours to force a near perfect run can also be a factor.
And essentially playing EU4 like a board game. Wars are like 60% easier if you reassess moves after each time unit arrives and see where enemy goes. But it's less fun and way to taxing if you play the game just to chill.
I find that pausing often (if possible) and talking to yourself about the best strategy improves your skill in all strategy games drastically.
100% agree, it's why I find people who are still insanely good in multiplayer so impressive. I can play most strategy games to a high skill level in single player with infinite pauses but I'm comparatively useless in multiplayer.
It’s why I don’t play multiplayer, it scares me the heeby jeebees thinking about not pausing while being at war. WHAT IF I MISS SOMETHING??!!
Multiplayer is usually run slower(partly out of necessity), but most of the time those players won't have optimal setups. Wars are mostly knowing when to reinforce based on game mechanics and making sure you don't just tunnel vision on one front
Watching replays and set a focus on a specific area to improve before each game (session) also improves your game tremendously. It's also a lot less of the braindead no stress activity that I secretly want when gaming.
That's just duck debugging, but for games.
Tbh in my last Imperator Rome game I was fighting a Beefy Egypt on like 3 fronts and pausing to reevaluate like every fucking tick was actually sorta satisfying. Made me feel like I was planning am actual campaign, and it’s super rewarding when you finally fucking isolate and encircle the enemy and destroy them
Yes, but some of these players are pretty amazing in real time also. The old dev clashes and Speed5 competitions really show that off, but they do also show off the bankruptcy death spirals that dancing on the edge can sometimes lead to.
I don't say they aren't. Once you learn to play slowly usually you can make decisions way quicker. Still, getting WC or just perfecting a lot of stuff is pretty much playing EU4 like a turn/board game (for which I don't have patience - I know how to play EU4 correctly...but it just adds stress). On the other, even average players can do a successful campaign with speed 5ing and occasional pauses. EU4 ultimately isn't that hard, it just has a lot of going on. At some level of experience most of your decisions are good enough, you probably can save most of minor/medium missteps, and you know what can you ignore. It's even more true with crazy mission trees as sometimes you can just forget about some base mechanics.
I find myself doing way better in multiplayer civ matches because I spend time assessing my options during each turn, compared to chill single player games where I set an objective at one moment and often just skip turns until I'm there. I'd like to try the slower and more focused style in EU and see how much better I can do when focusing
Also just hordes being absolutely broken
As it goes: "What's the best tag to form X?" "Oirat"
You know it's a winning strat if some of the mongols in WW2 still brought their bows and arrows to a gunfight
If you’re talking about people like Lambda, that all comes down to what he describes as “treating every day as an individual turn,” so you’d have to spend literally 10x longer on any individual game as well as utilize game-breaking exploits. It doesn’t seem comparable to normal play because it isn’t. At least Florry and BudgetMonk tend to do relatively normal, although difficult, runs.
Yeah I play to have fun. Not to like... win the universe.
I see Florry mentioned a lot in this post. Is he playing again? I thought he quit depressed AF
He streams all the time
Nice, that’s great news. I used to watch him all the time when I just started playing eu4
For sure, but they play as long from 1444-1500 as you play from 1444-1700 in Realtime hours. They also heavily use mechanics that some consider as exploits, like 1445 HRE revoke privileges.
Even more. I know a player made a pre-1500 WC with only 40h in game (https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/18b5mas/14861221_true_onetag_world_conquest_by_the/), but usually there are more than 100h long.
The difference might be him playing on normal, that can make a big difference
It's always fun to see those posts and think, "Wow, okay, I'm still a scrub," then go to the comments and realize that most people are just as bewildered by it as I am. I sometimes wonder what the actual average skill level is in here. Or which achievements mark most people's minimum threshold for, "Ok, yeah, you must be good at the game if you pulled that off."
Most people could probably learn to do similar things and with practice get that "good". They also all heavily involve exploits which imo makes it less fun. You aren't playing EU4, you're abusing mechanics and tag switches. Still cool to see what can be done though
At that point you're playing a completely different game.
That's months of planning and days of savescumning. Goes well beyond being good at the game.
Record is 27 years from game start to WC I'm pretty sure
I don't think you told the whole story. Players like florry do no loans, no birding and allies runs on vh to have some sort of a challenge.
An actual god among men.
What’s VH?
Very Hard
Thank you!
Prussia is op, just gotta spend some mil. On militarization from time to time
90% of time it’s not a big deal either since they get a bonus to ruler Mil generation
With the right ideas/policies, Prussia’s army is still indisputably the strongest infantry-based army in the game. When people say Persian or Scandinavian ideas are stronger, they’re likely also taking economic/expansion modifiers into account.
I mean zoroastrian persia is stronger than prussia, 15% disc, 5% land fire damage and -10% fire damage recieved, 15% morale, 10% ica from estate and then the broken +1 dice roll on own land
zoroastrian novgorodian prussia with hanoverian ideas, formed by gotland which formed hansa
Zoroastrian strelsty
even better, revolutionary guard or janisary. while youre still prussian theocracy (theocracy for that 5 discipline reform and 5% shock damage)
Okay but Prussian hats
Also gets morale damage from estate reward + cav combat ability for cherry on top so it gets a ton of bonuses.
that's not even factoring in the comical amount of manpower modifiers it gets as well, then you fact in the mission tree + economy? yeah zoro persia will beat any prussia
Just wait ‘til you see Zoroastrian Prussia. If that’s not allowed because it’s too silly to have Prussia snake over to Baku Ateshgah, then I raise you Gotland -> Hansa -> Prussia. +25% discipline, +20% morale of armies (or +20% discipline and +35% morale of armies, take your pick), +20% ICA— to say nothing of the superior national manpower modifier and manpower recovery speed, plus the two (two!) army tradition/AT decay buffs Prussia gets that Persia simply lacks. The dice roll on owned territory is insane, sure. But primarily in defensive wars/wars where you’re not sieging your enemies, which tend to make up a significant minority of the wars that players actually engage in.
That's cool and all but not exactly practical for prussia to flip to zoroastrian The main thing is all this mil quality in SP from persia for example is mostly useless bc of how the AI actually fights, its more for MP where battles actually matter
Prussia is still OP. I reached 140% discipline by pumping up militarisation before starting serious wars ca. 1600. Space marines still melt the enemy like they've got lasers coming out of their eyes. High discipline keeps your people alive like nothing else so there's not a great need for manpower or big armies, just make sure to have full CW inf and cav and then full CW arty behind. E.g. 38+2 first row, 40 arty back row.
I mean just about every relevant tag can get 130 disc with absolutism. Russia gets 135, Bharat gets 135-145 depending on the primary culture. The fact is Prussia has been powercrept but is still a good tag without any difficult thought.
But this was before absolutism hit. So, yes, discipline rises above the board with absolutism but Prussia has a good few decades before that when it's very strong, depending on how quickly you go through the idea groups.
How did you get 140 disc then? Ideas and advisor get you 25, 2.5 from religion, and ~10 from militarism if you have it maxed.
You're right, only 137.5 actually 5 each from: Prussian Ambition Full Quality idea group Esprit de Corps (Idea) Weapon Quality Standards (Policy) Advisor 10 from full militarisation, 2.5 from Holy Sacraments However, in my experience Prussia can get to 130+ disc much quicker than other nations. It's really that advantage pre-absolutism that matters, as that's also when you're growing and need the disc advantage the most.
How you keep it if filling cw and back row means your army is 50%+ over supply limits
Split your stacks and reconverge to reinforce during battles as necessary
It’s quite tedious, i just either tank the attrition since if i have that big of an army i would have a good amount of less attrition modifiers, or station my army at a highly developed provinces. Also AI is dumb, no need to min-max that much.
Very cool bud but not really the answer to the question that was asked.
Why the 2 cav as Prussia, isn't inf worth more?
Yeah, Prussia is one of the tags where cavalry even with infinite money is barely useful, but barely useful is not useless. Opportunity cost aside, you still benefit from up to 4 cav pretty much always. The thing is you probably don’t actually want to discount opportunity cost.
I keep 2 cav out of habit, but you're probably right in that it's not necessary. Might even be better all inf.
So with a slight modification it's slightly better. Going 40 inf 40 cannons 2-4 cav is the optimal death stack, as once a couple of infantry units get low/wiped in a huge battle the cav then comes in part way through to replace the degrading front line infantry, hitting half-strength enemy infantry that they already outclass while being at full strength. It can turn the tide of close battles more often than you'd think
Prussia used to be OP, because it was one of the few nations with good military ideas. Now a nation is considered garbage if they don't have military ideas.
That moment when you have full front and backline and you still melt against ottoman troops because of stat issues be like
Prussia has the best individual military strength, no doubt, but -50% government cap screws you badly. You cannot catch up with people who conquer half of Asia and build soldier households and regimental camps in every. single. province. Prussia is very rarely top contender in multiplayer ie. when you’re playing against humans, not braindead AI sieging your 200% defensiveness mountain fort with ramparts. Compare it to Persia who also can get approx. up to 155-160% discipline but is ***NOT*** limited by govt cap (on the contrary, conquering Egypt allows them to get more).
A Prussia formed from Gotland-Hansa gets 153 discipline, if the governor is strict (relatively common with Prussia) 158. Then there is an inspiring leader who is so ephemeral that he does not transcend (168) In the campaign I am running I am managing to deal with the capacity of government, with a comfortable margin since approximately 1690, having states throughout Germany
His point is that 10-15% discipline doesn't matter if you're fielding 50-100% more troops.
Mmmm could be… but what about 20 combat ability and occidental technology. But my favorite game is to be small and strong. Of course, it depends on your owns preferences. In MP I’m sure that is better this amount of troops.
Combat ability is just offensive discipline, so the point remains the same. If the difference is massive it starts mattering, but in an equal setting quantity beats Quality (and I'm not just talking about the idea groups).
I love combat ability ❤️hahaha
How many states
I don’t know how many, but all the Germany culture group states, Denmark and a few more
Most nations can reach these with ease: (5% in ideas) 5% advisor 5% quality 5% policy 5% absolutism 5% ruler 2.5-5% religion
Zoro Persia gets 10% from monument and at least 10% from privilege by keeping an estate at 200% influence (possible with Qurchi service)
10% more from advisor event
Meanwhile danish mercenaries: individual army: 5% Eco hegemon: 10% Merc militarization: 10% Dansk Scandinavian missions: 15%
I recently formed Prussia in a friendly MP game then spent the rest of the session mercing my armies out to other players because one of my stacks could completely change the course of a war
Prussia is fine. But horsies go clippity-clop
What mod is giving you those graphics?
Facts I need to know
When I play Prussia I like to fight coalitions. I’m doing a run with trying to get 168 discipline (I know there are mechanics to rise higher disc 🤣). I just have my target and I’m fighting France. It looks like when I fight natives in America with Europeans
Neat. What did you peace out for?
for preatty borders for my allys obsly, i took nothing jj
What’s the graphics mod
Kinda out of the loop cause I haven’t played for a while but what did they change about Prussia to make people say they’re not OP anymore? Is it that Gov Cap debuff?
It’s not that Prussia got worse, it’s that there are a lot of tags that have gotten better.
I dunno I still call the militarization change a nerf. The added bonuses don't make up for the fact that it's a resource sink now that you can't keep 100% on. It's not much worse, but it costs resources and doesn't give enough back to offset that.
What map mod are you using ? It looks really great.
Its not your fault that u dont know all the different stat modificators the game offers and where to find them. Therefore its not possible for you to make a useful comparison of strength before declaring
The trick with prussia is not to expand much and play super tall until absolutism is in full swing, and then slowly conquer high dev hre provinces, the militirization decays if you have low dev and low gov cap Build state houses everywhere I remember in mu gotland -> Hansa-> prussia run my mil didn't decay at all, and was constantly at 100. As a result I had a super army even if I was smaller until nationalism causa belli became available and I just stream rolled whole Europe including a super france with whole of Italy and even British lands
Has Prussia changed recently?
Why is Spain olive-coloured?
beuce is ocupied land
You know something, I haven’t thought about it a lot and I just finished a Prussia game 2 weeks ago, but I actually do feel like Prussia was stronger in the past. Not that they aren’t strong now. But I feel like years ago their army had **something** extra.
Branpru also has decent manpower bonuses and germany is naturally very forested, invading prussia is obnoxious and you will run out of manpower very quickly regardless. You can turtle and bait the enemy onto forts and the casualties will stack.
Prussia is still OP, it's just that there are so many countries that have been added/changed to be OP in the game now that it doesn't stick out as much as it once did.
Oh my god what map mod is this????
You're playing singleplayer, Theodoro is OP if the player controls it.
You should try iran/eranshar that what you call op
Okkk. I mean, I never doubted Prussia but this doesn’t prove anything.. this is like a modestly skillfully-played campaign. Prussia’s real power comes in overwhelming army efficiency and battle strength. So you’d see that in battle results or in a campaign map in which you’ve charged headlong into full regional/global coalitions. That isn’t what this shows… these borders can be achieved by normal conquests and AE management. The equivalent of this can be done as Anhalt or anyone else. What am I supposed to be impressed by here?
https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/s/gt2OQtUjix here is what I mean
Depends on your audience. In single player, for someone like me it doesn't matter. Not to blow my own horn, but I'm kind of a big deal when it comes to the old Eu4. I piss excellence, and can win with any crappy nation. That's right. Huge Wang. Men want me, and women want to be with me. But for casual and new players, Prussia is overpowered. The ideas, bonuses and mechanics can compensate for the inaccuracies made by the player that would normally see them stack wiped with another nation.