• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What? I've formed plenty of countries with colonies and never had more revolts because of it.

I never did Netherlands but I've made UK with England, Spain with Portugal, Italy with Naples and HRE with plenty others, and never had more revolts because I enacted a decision that changed my country.

That is not possibly correct unless you formed the unions when you had no current colonies. If you form a union any province that is currently less than city size will get nationalism revolt risk for your old tag nation. It seems like a bug to me and so may be fixed in the next patch along with settlements in horde territories disappearing when you tag change but in 5.1 you absolutely get rr in colonies when you tag change.
 
That depends on when Burgundy tries to claim your throne. A few things come to mind:
- not be a monarchy (noble republic is an early opportunity).
- have a high legitimacy (get lots of royal marriages), since you start out with 0 legitimacy coming out the of PU with Hainaut.
- Very gamey: grant them military access. This will give them a -5 stability hit when declaring war on you.
Thanks for the tips.
I always boost my legitimacy as quickly as possible, spending all my diplomats exclusively on it. Unfortunately it takes a while to rise back to decent levels so Burgundy has ample time to claim my throne :(
I'll try granting them military access from the start - if only to keep them off my back - though I seem to recall that option to be a "Maybe" at best. I like to be buddy-buddy with them regardless but like I stated our relations always deteriorate dramatically at some point for reasons unkown. Rather bizarre.
 
Sorry but why don't you just not have royal marriage with Burgundy, or are they using that spy mission that gives a claim CB?
No I do have a royal marriage because that is one of the few options available early-game to improve relations. I obviously want to avoid war with Burgundy at all cost and they're too big to simply bribe early on.

But you've got a point, it simply may not be worth the trouble in this case. I'll retry without the RM and see where it goes *fingers crossed*
 
No I do have a royal marriage because that is one of the few options available early-game to improve relations. I obviously want to avoid war with Burgundy at all cost and they're too big to simply bribe early on.

But you've got a point, it simply may not be worth the trouble in this case. I'll retry without the RM and see where it goes *fingers crossed*

Instead of using a RM using give Military access and Ask for Military access. Once you have you First Born and 50 Legitimacy then a RM is a safer bet.
 
Iwanow, have you ever made a useful comment? Are you trolling this forum?

[video=youtube;x9gN2hdybFY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9gN2hdybFY[/video]

Yes, and yes. Like in bible. "say yes yes, and no no"

My forehead has this response:
493051-anime_sweatdrop_1_large.png

And you say I am a troll...
 
Last edited:
Wow Holland is probably my favorite country...rich with lots of potential...it takes a little patience.

Other posters are right that Holland has low manpower...so my strategy is always to take a big BB hit early on in taking some high-value provinces wherever I can get them to expand manpower...then once you have expanded to 6-10 good quality provinces, take a break to get BB down...all the royal marriage missions (-1 infamy) and subjugate/vassalize (-2 infamy) help a lot as does a good diplomat.

Basically I look out for local opportunities to subjugate, vassalize, diplo-annex neighbors...or conquer when you can get a core...vassalize HRE electors to become emperor and everything's easier and you get lots of CBs on other electors...3-4 elector vassals and you're set...lots of good Holland missions...then cherry-pick the best stuff around the world...in my current game, I annexed Thrace from Byzantium and annexed Rome...took Danzig, Livland, Pskov from Teutonic Order...annexed Tver...now eating away at the Russian nations to migrate capitals and shift to Russian culture once I get enough cores there and can induct Russian provinces into HRE...then to take out Golden Horde from the east while I beat Portugal to colonizing the Azores and Canarias in the west...while slowly picking away at HRE and anywhere else I can get stuff...also I sack Burgundy and take Vlandern, Antwerpen with COT, Ghent as soon as I can, but this requires good timing, you have to build up a lot and hopefully have a good ally like France, Austria, or Bohemia because Burgundy can be a powerhouse...but they have awesome provinces close to you.

late game...looking forward to Bank of Amsterdam and other Dutch perks, with Russian culture and cultural shifts across Siberia...lol.
 
Back on topic, everyone. And no insulting of other forumites.
 
Well i try, for example i ask what other think about vassalizing danes as a dutch. 4 infamy isn't so bad, and it gives you additional troops and fleet. Plus some nice income boost. Not like i would prioritize on conquest as dutch anyway, but it helps to build a vassal base around you.
 
Right idea. Actually Denmark I think has too high a province value to vassalize. I don't spend BB on vassalization unless for an elector or other rare circumstances, but there are so many missions that give you free vassalization CBs (no BB) and actually reduce infamy by 2. Certainly it's worth utilizing such opportunities.
 
Right idea. Actually Denmark I think has too high a province value to vassalize. I don't spend BB on vassalization unless for an elector or other rare circumstances, but there are so many missions that give you free vassalization CBs (no BB) and actually reduce infamy by 2. Certainly it's worth utilizing such opportunities.
Whether or not it has a vassalization war-score <= 100%, it remains to be seen (I haven't tried that, personally). But the reason why Denmark is not a feasible early target is because it is often allied to Sweden and/or Norway, which makes invasion attempts troublesome. Countries like Brittany, Papal States, and Trier are better choices due to their relative proximity, lower likelihood of being allied to powerful blocs, and/or intrinsic benefits. If one plans to exit the empire, vassalizing PAP and excommunicating nearby minors can give cheap annexation.
 
Sweden and norway... true, but remember 2 things. First off, sweden ussualy quickly end alliance with denmark, and norway ussualy have little to none army (holland got better manpower and support limit than whole norway if i am right). But when you conquer, you should allways be opportunistic, and don't attack strong enemies(so i agree fighting denmark is not allways best plan). I think good choice if you plan on vassalizing denmark is to for example ally with teutonic order(as they often get invaded by denmark).

About brittany, i think it is not very wise, as atb, brittany is allied to burgundy, so it might be little suicidal, unless burgundy is just getting owned by someone. Also papal states ussualy are allied to half of italy and guaranteed by second half, so it might be little risky plan too. Aspecialy due the fact you would travel from northern sea, to mare nostrum... If i would plan on something like this, first i would conquer country like tripoli, for a naval base. Still i think taking down closer countries is easier, and ussualy work better than making troublesome adventures into far land. (americas are not far lands in this matter, as holland is in good position to colonize those lands). Still it all depends on what you plan.
 
How could I miss a thread with both Iwanow AND Chronicler? oO
Anyway, I think some people have a rather strange Idea of how you should proceed with Holland. Your inherent strenght is your strong ecconomy and your easy access to colonies. Conquering or extensive warring hurts your ecconomy and the benefit is very little for the first 50 years. If you actually bide your time, vassalize your two neighbours and wait for the diploannex mission and in the meantime colonize the Americas, take a trading port in Asia and build up your ecconomy further you will be in a very, very strong position once you form NL.
About the whole manpower thing: Its holland we are talking about. They are made from money and you can even early in the game afford to go 200% of your FL IIRC thats 26k troops, enough to beat most AI nations if you know what you are doing (and have a bit luck with your leader) so conquering for the sake of getting higher FL does not seem wise, since it probably will kill your ecconomy.
About going merc as a colonial nation: Did anyone actually try this before suggesting it? Merc reduces demand for colonial goods by 50%, colonial expansion gives little to no infamy and Free trade gives you insane amounts of income. In SP you can dominate all the CoTs in the world with a decent Free trade setup, which is far more stable income than merc (since you will only lose income by taking bb, not randomly when your full monopoly collapses.
 
You never reach that kind of warscore for one province unless it has a cot. Even that is pushing it a bit.


Alexandra is way more than 50.
 
How could I miss a thread with both Iwanow AND Chronicler? oO
Anyway, I think some people have a rather strange Idea of how you should proceed with Holland. Your inherent strenght is your strong ecconomy and your easy access to colonies. Conquering or extensive warring hurts your ecconomy and the benefit is very little for the first 50 years. If you actually bide your time, vassalize your two neighbours and wait for the diploannex mission and in the meantime colonize the Americas, take a trading port in Asia and build up your ecconomy further you will be in a very, very strong position once you form NL.
About the whole manpower thing: Its holland we are talking about. They are made from money and you can even early in the game afford to go 200% of your FL IIRC thats 26k troops, enough to beat most AI nations if you know what you are doing (and have a bit luck with your leader) so conquering for the sake of getting higher FL does not seem wise, since it probably will kill your ecconomy.
About going merc as a colonial nation: Did anyone actually try this before suggesting it? Merc reduces demand for colonial goods by 50%, colonial expansion gives little to no infamy and Free trade gives you insane amounts of income. In SP you can dominate all the CoTs in the world with a decent Free trade setup, which is far more stable income than merc (since you will only lose income by taking bb, not randomly when your full monopoly collapses.

Well, this is most popular strategy with holland. But i just speak of alternative. And vassalizing denmark makes you pretty strong(bigger support limit, and better income). So if you can spent 4 infamy(got higher infamy(near 10) and still managed to get 5 merchants in all european COT's), it is good country, as is not guaranteed by HRE, and sometimes even fights it. Also they got support limit of like 7 or 14(not sure but they are quite weak). Also, if you want to wait for that lucky cores on the utrecht and friesland, it is pretty good move. And if you already got those, well, you can just spare the 4 infamy for vassalizing denmark anyway. I think, that denmark, got quite low value of provinces, so aspecialy if it does not annexed holstein, so they are pretty much vassalizable. Their best province got base tax of value 6 or 7 not sure. When you have formed netherlands, vassalizing denmark is piece of cake, and even if not, this is not very big challenge.

And remember that not everyone fancy in colonizing, some players just want to create european empire of holland, so if you don't plan on colonizing, vassalizing denmark is quite usefull move.
 
Ivan, re-read the thread's objective.

Well, so? I red whole thread. And know what it is about. But it does not mean i can't say what to do after that. And re-read what you just quoted.

What i wanted to say that whole netherlands, can have like 30 k army without much of a problem, while whole scandinavia can muster around as much, going little over their forcelimits. Which indicates, that even holland by itself, is in good position to defeat the viking armies, aspecialy if you make a fleet outnumbering theirs.
 
That's as useful as writing about bullying France as the HRE in a thread that's concerned about forming the HRE.

Maybe it's just me, but I have been thinking only of the 2-province Holland all along.
 
That's as useful as writing about bullying France as the HRE in a thread that's concerned about forming the HRE.

Maybe it's just me, but I have been thinking only of the 2-province Holland all along.

Well, 2 province holland have support limit of 7(or higher - not sure). So if you trade all along, you can easily muster 14k troops and some decent navy. Ofcourse it involves minting. Counting that most of scandinavian provinces have base tax 1, a few got 2 or 3, and one got 4, one got 5 and one got 6... combining with all those countries being mercantilist(if i recal correctly), makes them in quite bad position, and they often get killed by bunch of opm's.

Also bullying france when trying to form hre does not seem to be hard(but you neither have to care about them). Saw austria that could easily kill off france in one mp game. Not like it matters, as best way to form hre is to become orthodox, and force other HRE members to become orthodox, then convert back, pass 2 reforms, etc.

Also, if you got denmark as vassals it might be helpfull in forming netherlands, as it gives you additional forcelimit, which can help if you need to fight the Emperor, or burgundy.