Military Focus of AARs

[unmerged(206)]

EU looks to be an interesting game and I've enjoyed dipping in to the AARs as the beta test has progressed, but I notice that they concentrate almost exclusively upon military affairs. Does this emphasis reflect the balance of the game?

Whilst not averse to the stomp'n'grind of a big war on occasion, I am hoping for something that gives me options in the diplomatic, economic and technocratic areas of statecraft. Are these features supported to comparable levels of detail as the military aspects? If so - how about some commentary focusing upon diplomatic or mercantile coups.

Luke

 

[Greyshaft]

Fair question. Some reasons why the military gets so much coverage might be:

* The comparative economic stats are buried in the status screens and are not observable in realtime.

* Adverse military events have a way of ruining your whole day (and possibly your whole country) so most players keep a steady gaze on them. Adverse economic factors can also ruin your country, but they take much longer to develop and they're not so much fun to watch.

* Diplomatic events affecting other countries are not always worth noting. eg Aden declares war on Oman...so what?

* We're a bunch of pathological war-mongering, testosterone-loaded, anti-social mouse-clickers who find instant gratification in the death of armies and couldn't give a rat's proverbials about diplomacy and economics.

These are the possible choices. Take your pick.

/Graham

PS Your point is noted for future AARs

 

[unmerged(13)]

The military aspect of the game is more prevelent within our AAR's simply because it is more exciting for the general reader to get involved with battles / wars on a massive scale, rather than quoting economic facts in the game, and the amount of traders at a certain COT making XX amount of profit.

If you read some of my later AAR's in this forum you'll see that I've added quite a few details about diplomacy and especially the economics / financial side of EU giving the reader large statistics on such stuff.


a) Playing as a Colonial Power. Means expanding globally / war with natives / war with other challenging colonial powers. Maximum VP points by colonizing areas far from Europe.

b) Maximum VP points, through diplomacy / good administration and warfare. Warfare is the logical conclusion to all that. Er, jeezus I sound like a warmonger.

Who was it that said 'Warfare is just an extension of diplomacy' ?? Frederick the Great I think :-?

Sapura

 

[unmerged(206)]

How hard would it be for an AAR to explore the linkage between economic sinews and military muscle? I would imagine that the relatively long term effects of economic development might be quite hard to 'disect out' from the short term excitements of individual wars, but it would be worthwhile if it could be done I think.

For example the Swedish AAR sees the Hansa repeatedly kicked from pillar to post. Invaded, occupied, dismembered, reconstituted and so on - yet even at the end it seems that they are still capable of mobilising dangerous fleets and cannot be completely disregarded by the emerging hegemon of the Baltic. Presumably this is because they started with an advantage in naval tech and are able to retain sufficient economic clout to compensate for their diplomatic and territorial weaknesses. Is it possible to include some descriptions of how this emerges from the processes of the game (maybe not, since the Hansa are a computer power, so FOW of some kind is presumably in operation)?

Similarly the Scottish AAR sees *enormous* English armies being built in the latter part of the game (despite Franco-Scottish invasions, internal revolts and other travails). Again illustrations of how failing powers can 'bounce back' (and the price they pay in order to do so) would be good. IMO of course.

Possibly this needs to be done at the end of the AAR (an AAAR?) when the full consequences of early decisions can be seen. In a continuous time game, 'winding back' 20 or 30 years in order to put your finger on a crucial turning point could be well nigh impossible. Is there a replay feature that would be useful here?

Sapura mentioned that playing as a colonial power is more of a builder/developer sort of game (with wars against natives and the competition natch). Is anyone doing these sorts of games in the Beta or are most efforts focusing on the shorter scenarios at present?

Luke

PS
It was Clausewitz '...war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other means.' On War, Book VIII, Ch vi

 

[unmerged(13)]

How hard would it be for an AAR to explore the linkage between economic sinews and military muscle?

Not exceedingly hard, that is why, I told everyone to read the AAR on Venice I wrote in the forum some days back. It's in the AAR forum and is detailed. Just make sure that you show all the threads from 10+ days plus else it won't show up.


repeatedly kicked from pillar to po

Indeed. This is because whilst they have large sea forces, they had a distinct numerical disadvantage against me. Their ally Russia, whilst commanding large forces was unable to break my skillful resistance in Novgorod and eventually this led to the occupation of their country by the end of the AAR. However, this was not an easy process, I don't need to tell you

Presumably this is because they started with an advantage in naval tech and are able to retain sufficient economic clout to

I don't know if they started with an advantage in naval tech. Maybe so. Either that or they basically maxed out research in their naval field and left the other tech fields behind. Perhaps the a.i thought that the joining of Hansa / Teutonic lands (+ alliance with Russia) would be enough.


Scottish AAR sees *enormous* English armies being built in the latter part of the game

I was a bit surprised over the size of the English armies in that AAR. Somewhere in order of over 200,000. I don't know how historically accurate that is, but this is a game after all. I'm sure the English could have mustered massive forces in times of great crisis. The Poles mustered well over 600,000 men (mostly peasants) during the Swedish / Russian / Prussian / Transylvanian invasion(s) of Poland in 1655-1660. Most of the Polish army went to support the Swedish King / whilst the magnates fought about in Lithuania.

Again illustrations of how failing powers can
'bounce back' (and the price they pay in order to do so) would be good. IMO of course.

One way to 'bounce back' is to ask for loans from the bank. These obviously have to be paid off within a given time frame. If they are not, the country goes bankrupt, and moral of your armies goes way, way down. If those occurs whilst a war is still being fought, then the country is as good as occupied.


Is there a replay feature that would be useful here?

No replay features, though there is a screen showing the 'history' of your campaign. However that has still not been implemented.


It was Clausewitz

I knew it was one of the two!

Sapura