A short disorganized essay I felt like writing:
About EU2 as game of balance of power: The reason to why I enjoy EU2 when it is played like this (which obviously isn't the case of the last 100 years in ER2
), is that anyone who gets very strong also obtains a higher risk of losing his position. Hence, most deviations in acceptable power ratings will eventually disappear if players are willing to switch alliances etc., to do what's ever necessary to pick on the most successful nations. I feel not just the game EU2 benefits from this concept; it is usually a fundamental strategy is most strategy games that are played for victory; ie. to make sure you have no opponent that you could not defeat yourself with minimal amount of assistance. Okay, it may be silly to expect Venice to defeat OE alone, but it should at all times aim to keep ally defeatable with as few forces as possible.
The problem in EU2 counter-acting BoP play is that victory is very subjective, and in-gme VP points are for the most part totally unusuable. It takes skill and experience to notice the true power balances in EU2 and to judge success, and in a semi-newbie game as EU2 BoP concepts tend to vapourize into thin air.
I don't claim to have reached this level myself either; I failed to see such a strong France and I failed to see such a steep decline of OE.
If we instead of a BoP game would play EU2 as a game of personal success of one's own nation only; not relatively to the successes/failures of other nations, we risk to run into the situation we now have in ER2. (I also take the oppertunity to conclude ER2 is definately not a BoP game in its current state.) I have not played strict BoP play myself; hell, I too pushed OE too far in my early urge to conquer territory from Austria, and hence I fed a future giant France. In my defence, I can say I have tried to resolve the situation, unlike others *whistling*. I sacrificed the überness of my own country in the progress, and when defeat came I stood by it (anyone remember the big war around 1620-1630?). The goal was not to invade Austria; it was just to weaken France, which nicely fitted the BoP theory. The problem for Austria was that he got in the line of war due to his choice of alignment, but he also prevailed against the "evil invasion" as I'm sure he saw it.
After the first defeat, I could stand a second one. However, when I faced the same problem a third time tonight and when no visible way to eliminate it emerged the game risked to become delusional for the sentenced losers. I have not reached that mental point; in fact some nations will always lose as time progrsses (probably me in this case
), and I am prepared for it. It's just that, to fight at impossible conditions every single time since date X time isn't fun for anyone in my position. One might argue Austria fought like that vs OE long ago, and it is partially correct in the sense OE had a sizeable advantage. However, it was probably more of a function of a Spain not being able to keep check on France earlier, because an Austria with proper funding and cover from France can do some serious damage on incoming armies if handled properly in warfare.
If we step back just to talk about general power balance again based on the current situation of ER2, Sweden should be marginally cut back territory wise, and so should OE. Poland shouldn't have been so hopelessly underdeveloped by now, and Austria should perhaps have had some more land. I say 'perhaps' here because an Austria in the absence of a Prussia will inevitably be very powerful in everything but its economy. Furthermore, it is never good for one single major nation to control Italy; here a Venice could have been very useful. In fact, I start to think Chas should have played Venice instead of Denmark originally (on the condition that Prussia was played). I dare to say England has had way too little influence in this game early on. NL should somehow have been introduced earlier with better chances of greater economic development etc.
In the end, the list can get long, but no game will ever be perfect. ER2 is no exception; we must live with it. From the disadvantaged nations' point of view there is now a very large game breaking alliance around, and you'll have to admit there probably is problem. I don't say it's wrong to play game of cooperation, but if it is this case you may do so indefinately while fighting wars you can't (or at least should not) be proud of winning, you should consider thinking over your alignments a bit.
What would/could have been better now for me if I hadn't played this game as BoP in the first place? Certainly, there was a point where I and France would have been able to carve up Austria between us. We didn't; there was simply no honour of fighting such a war where the outcome was very much given. Unfortunately, so far all the efforts of the surviving Austria have been aimed at the Ottoman Empire, and none have befell France. If OE and France had equal possibilities of success at the start, now one hasn't if all other things remain equal. Admittedly, I have failed my diplomacy and strategy here.
I suspect France now thinks he is just as chivalrous as when declining annexation of Austria when he fights the biggest threat to his alliance instead of smaller ones. I don't blaim him at all, OE is (or rather was) a threat to be reckoned with. It is only logical for France to target OE instead of its subdued neighbours. The final responsibility cannot even be put on the neighbouring nations, whether they were blindfolded the rise of France or not, and what it has meant to us all; the losers are everybody actually. France can hardly attack an opposing alliance together with his and claim it is a war of equal odds. Austria has no reason to trust the OE, and why would it fight France now when it has become so powerful even when the Sultan ensures peace in south? Spain would get slaughtered (again) as it is now if it stood alone. England surrendered quickly in its war this session, and that's no surprise either.
Everyone seems to act in self interest and self preservation... but do we really? Is it desirable to have a France that noone can beat? Think for yourselves my dear friends, and France may almost have to fight some remotely even wars in the future.
The answer to how we came here: Courage, or rather the lack of it. I am not innocent, but neither are the nations in Europe that most of all hold the balance of power in their hands, and could cause shifts to make the gameplay more enjoyable to most of us.*
* I am aware that I throughout the text make the assumption close to equal wars = more fun than incredibly warped wars in balance. If you don't agree with this, then the current setup with one big alliance forever picking on and winning against a smaller one may suit you, provided you are on the powerful side.
PS. (Text I can't fit in anywhere.) I do sincerely believe you may be right when you force Sweden back from Danzig and OE back from Steirmark. What disturbs me is since this hardly is a result of an even war. I don't know whether I should feel honoured or displeased that I always caue such an upheaval and men-at-arms situation with the entire of Europe rallying against me for simply letting Sweden fighting its war where it has a chance in terms of game stats (not player skills here).
In the end, I guess I should have played a smaller nation that has a higher tolerance for success among neighbours.
