Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

North Africa

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81899 EUIV: Bug Reports 449 EUIV: Suggestions 19149 EUIV: Technical Support 6720 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
one of the main issues is that the AI just wont surrender provinces, IE france AI goes to war with english AI, france takes aquitaine and calais, holds them for 5 years, white peaces because england wont surrender them. Or spain gets distracted ,morroco takes back ceuta, spain doesnt have the capacity to take it back due to wars and what not. morroco holds it and winds up white peacing.

why i like MEIOU's mecanic of it you held a province for so long it auto defected to you(limited by cultures and cores if i remember right)
 
Hmm, on the manpower replenishment issue: Why not limit manpower replenishment to only friendly provinces, i.e. provinces that are controlled by you (including occupied provs), your allies, or provinces owned by nations that you have military access with. I believe that this could possibly solve the overseas replenishment issue.
 
AndreasPhokas said:
one of the main issues is that the AI just wont surrender provinces, IE france AI goes to war with english AI, france takes aquitaine and calais, holds them for 5 years, white peaces because england wont surrender them. Or spain gets distracted ,morroco takes back ceuta, spain doesnt have the capacity to take it back due to wars and what not. morroco holds it and winds up white peacing.

why i like MEIOU's mecanic of it you held a province for so long it auto defected to you(limited by cultures and cores if i remember right)
Click to expand...

CK2's war goal system would also fix this. In CK2 you say what you are fighting over before the war starts, and if you hold that you get a monthly bonus to your war score, so if you were fighting over Ceuta then you can win the war just by holding it long enough (and not losing more and more stuff elsewhere).
 
Beylerbeyi said:
Barbarossa (or his brother, can't remember right now) gave his land and ships to the Ottoman Sultan. And got even more ships from him. In Preveza he commanded the fleet built for him in the Imperial Dockyards in the Golden Horn. He wasn't from the Barbary states anyway, he was Turkish, from the Aegean. He retired to and is buried today, in Istanbul.

After the 16th century, OE decentralised and Algerians etc started acting more independently.
Click to expand...

An exchange of ships to upgrade; but still he learned his skills and became legendary and the commander of a legendary fleet before becoming an official admiral; which is why the Sultan wisely gave him the rank and fleet upgrade.

Regardless I would say we can agree the power of the barbary states is wildly under represented.
 
The battle of the three kings (1578) is one example of how North africans was able to defeat an all-mighty Portugal... This battle even caused Portugal to loose its independence for 60 years...

Things like this could never happen in EU3/2... I hope it changes with EU4

For more details about the above battle, here is an interesting link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alc%C3%A1cer_Quibir
 
MrQwerty said:
It is incredibly easy for a sufficiently powerful European country (England/France/Castille) with Holy Wars and Western troops to wipe out North African and Ottoman troops and to annex all their lands. Of course as we know, this never happened. Spain held no more than two cities on the African coast and France didn't colonize Algieria, Morocco, and much of the Western Sahara until the mid-1800s.

Terrain should play a more crucial part in the game. Yes, European troops can suffer as much as 10-20% attrition in the North African desert, but with the tens of thousands of troops that can be put on the field and that Western men can defeat African armies twice their size, the attrition doesn't make much difference.
Click to expand...

Wait... are you saying my CKII games where I see France do that in 1150 isn't historically accurate?!
 
bigfoxy said:
The battle of the three kings (1578) is one example of how North africans was able to defeat an all-mighty Portugal... This battle even caused Portugal to loose its independence for 60 years...

Things like this could never happen in EU3/2... I hope it changes with EU4

For more details about the above battle, here is an interesting link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alc%C3%A1cer_Quibir
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reminder that they also did better on land then the game depicts.
 
Part Moroccan here, gunpowder was very common in the Muslim world, lets not forget the Muslims introduced it to Europe from China and were among the first to use it on a battlefield, OE used huge bombards to take down Constantinople walls and Morocco invaded Mali with a small army using muskets, on the topic of north Africa being ahistorically squashed like a fly like someone already said it is an AI issue, intelligence in AI doesn't refer to a capacity to learn from past mistakes or make smart decisions, every strategy game a played suffered from this issue : the AI is really not an AI but just an illusion of an AI, that's why it acts completely randomly and invade places it shouldn't be in, we need a way to force Spain to invest all its resources in the new world instead of invading north Africa and this goes for Evey country, we need to force OE to support north Africa England & France to colonize north America and India etc etc, i'm not sure this can be done without heavy scripting or if it can be done at all.
 
Vence said:
Part Moroccan here, gunpowder was very common in the Muslim world, lets not forget the Muslims introduced it to Europe from China and were among the first to use it on a battlefield, OE used huge bombards to take down Constantinople walls and Morocco invaded Mali with a small army using muskets, on the topic of north Africa being ahistorically squashed like a fly like someone already said it is an AI issue, intelligence in AI doesn't refer to a capacity to learn from past mistakes or make smart decisions, every strategy game a played suffered from this issue : the AI is really not an AI but just an illusion of an AI, that's why it acts completely randomly and invade places it shouldn't be in, we need a way to force Spain to invest all its resources in the new world instead of invading north Africa and this goes for Evey country, we need to force OE to support north Africa England & France to colonize north America and India etc etc, i'm not sure this can be done without heavy scripting or if it can be done at all.
Click to expand...

this! i always liked playing morocco up until about 1500 when the western euro troops just crush mine(granted last time i tried to play them was when i was a relative noob) an islamic colonizer would be awesome to see, historically why didnt morocco try? To busy with the pesky iberians and songhay expeditions? heck even kourland colonized(once...or maybe twice i dunno)!
 
This is just my opinion but i think Colonization is an European concept, i know this may come as a shock especially in regard of the constant propaganda hammering in the news , but Muslims sought to trade and exchange with the people they met, that is why Islam spread mainly along sea trade route to china, India, Indonesia Singapore etc and on the east African coast as far as Zanzibar.

Even when Morocco invaded Songhai empire it was never a long term move and aimed only at securing salt and Mali gold mines, two valuable trade goods, beside the Muslim world never had any serious population surplus like in Europe.
 
Vence said:
we need a way to force Spain to invest all its resources in the new world instead of invading north Africa and this goes for Evey country, we need to force OE to support north Africa England & France to colonize north America and India etc etc, i'm not sure this can be done without heavy scripting or if it can be done at all.
Click to expand...

On this part of your quote, I prefer the alternative that paradox put in their dev diary for Spain.

There they basically said that if Spain went after North Africia (consolodating the half dozen big cities that they had conquered and occupying more inland) that would have been instead of their American empire (they were powerful enough to do one or the other but not both). The AI should be able to see that the gains from America are easier and larger and go that way most of the time (but I don't think it should be locked in).

Regarding the difficulty in conquering them, was there much technological difference between Morocco and Granada? Or are the additional issues Spain faced just logistical?
 
Fawr said:
On this part of your quote, I prefer the alternative that paradox put in their dev diary for Spain.

There they basically said that if Spain went after North Africia (consolodating the half dozen big cities that they had conquered and occupying more inland) that would have been instead of their American empire (they were powerful enough to do one or the other but not both). The AI should be able to see that the gains from America are easier and larger and go that way most of the time (but I don't think it should be locked in).

Regarding the difficulty in conquering them, was there much technological difference between Morocco and Granada? Or are the additional issues Spain faced just logistical?
Click to expand...

That is ahistorical; a few hundred conquistadores conquered the stone age states of Mesoamerica and South America. Spain poured nothing into the new world and took almost bottomless barrels of gold from it. If anything without the new world spain does even worst at home.

The idea that a place like Algiers was just waiting for conquest and got lucky that 400 Spaniards financed entirely by Cortez without crown involvement decided it liked Mexico better is a joke.
 
StupidGenius said:
That is ahistorical; a few hundred conquistadores conquered the stone age states of Mesoamerica and South America. Spain poured nothing into the new world and took almost bottomless barrels of gold from it. If anything without the new world spain does even worst at home.

The idea that a place like Algiers was just waiting for conquest and got lucky that 400 Spaniards financed entirely by Cortez without crown involvement decided it liked Mexico better is a joke.
Click to expand...

Not that this topic needs to be discussed again, since we've had about three threads on it already, but the Spanish conquest of the New World took a lot of investment, effort, and risk on Spain's part. Cortes only managed to conquer Mexico with the help of thousands of native soldiers. He only ended up in Mexico because the Spanish conquest of the Yucatan failed. The Spanish were only trying to conquer the Yucatan because the fledgling colonies they set up were both difficult to maintain and not very profitable. Those colonies only started because the Spanish took a risk and set a poorly funded expedition in the right general direction under the command of a navigator that had no idea where he was going. Basically, the Spanish didn't just waltz into the Americas and sail back with boatloads of gold. It was the result of purposeful effort and investment. It should take a good deal of work to not only colonize and conquer the New World, but also to maintain it.
 
StupidGenius said:
That is ahistorical; a few hundred conquistadores conquered the stone age states of Mesoamerica and South America. Spain poured nothing into the new world and took almost bottomless barrels of gold from it. If anything without the new world spain does even worst at home.

The idea that a place like Algiers was just waiting for conquest and got lucky that 400 Spaniards financed entirely by Cortez without crown involvement decided it liked Mexico better is a joke.
Click to expand...

I really wish this wouldn't keep getting spread around. It's completely incorrect, as Dafool points out.
 
Dafool s right. However, it shouldn't matter. The point is, with "purposeful effort and investment", Spain lost 400 soldiers on the mainland, and gained Mesoamerica.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back