Does anyone else feel like the buffs to major countries in the recent Development Diaries were a bit much? I say this coming from the perspective of someone who likes the game to have a less pre-determined outcome. All of those countries already had big advantages due to their starting position and lucky nation status, as well as their ideas. I am not disputing they could use some flavour. But I think there is a case to be made for moderation. In my opinion the mission trees for some of the Electors and regional formables in the HRE strike a balance between being flavourful, fun and rewarding, and not being too OP. Some of these new mission trees go over the top in my view. It is essentially adding more and more buffs to countries that already have buffs and start out stronger than everyone else anyway due to their geography and development. I am just concerned that the same countries will blob over and over again even more than they do now. To an extent this happens anyway but so far there remained the possibility of countries other than the ones that did well historically doing well without player intervention. Now I worry this will become much more unlikely. I am concerned these changes will make the game more deterministic.
Also, I said this in another thread, I think the Angevin Empire is a bit odd. It feels out of place, like it belongs more to CKII/III rather than EU4. I always understood EU4 about being about the rise of the modern nation state. But here you have this middle ages concept being brought back from the brink of death. I feel like it needs to be reworked a bit more to 'fit in' better with the rest of EU4...and something needs to be done about the ideas. They are a bit much given the ease and earliness at which they can be accessed.
Basically I think more of a balance needs to be struck between making things flavourful and fun and rewarding whilst not making them too OP.
