+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 115

Thread: North Africa

  1. #81
    MM Prime Minister in Exile Vishaing's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMarch of the Eagles
    EU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,156
    Also, that event chain is extremely flawed in that there really isn't any actual choice. Why would anyone actually follow the historical path since under your system it is guaranteed to end their game? There might as well not be any options because no one with any sense would choose the 'we die now' option, and the only way to get an AI to choose that is to obviously handcuff it to that path.

    It would be better for the events to rely on, say, an internal faction system with power bases and potential uprisings from disenfranchised local powers that a conquering power could take advantage of in a dynamic and flexible manner leading to a situation where it is possible someone can come in and find an army of natives helping them out or find themselves welcomed only to be all ritualistically sacrificed because in this time line the Aztecs have managed to create a cohesive functioning state out of their empire and the local peoples actually enjoy their rule.
    Imperium in Imperio -:- EUIV Edition CKII Edition

    Vishaing's Idea Corner -:- EUIV Modding Tools, Areas of Interest, Free Relations, Simple Character System, Re-Re-Thinking Ideas, War and Peace, Simplified Population System, Reforming Monarch Points, Fixing Rotten Attitudes

    NOTE: Your Definition of 'soon' Might differ from Mine.

  2. #82
    Field Marshal Dafool's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, USA
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    1. The problem is his Spanish soldiers were a small minority; and I don't think the spy is meant to represent an individual more like a small army consisting of a nobleman and his entourage. Just look at the amount of gold you give him; more then a years income for most nations. He left with permission of the crown, established alliances, mapped and explored, raised the locals against their rulers, and setup the administration for the provinces joining Spain (although legal niceties had to be redone because he exceeded his authority in many of the agreements he made). Perhaps the proper gameplay would be to give the Aztecs bonuses for human sacrifices; but extreme vulnerability to rebellion and whoever discovers them first gets to launch those rebellions and rebels defect to that country. Game mechanics could just make rebels defect to the first european that discovers them.
    That is a highly loose definition of "spy" and it also goes against the general precedent in game. Not only that, but you're creating a very odd workaround solely to represent it in this different light, despite the fact that the much clear answer is this: Cortes is leader, a conquistador.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    2. I find from OSC that at very most it takes 5000 to destroy any number of natives, and it is very rare to need over 3000. The only time I ever need to reinforce OSC colonies (surrounded by natives who go to war once in awhile) is if European enemies kill my garrison.
    That is besides the point. The fact that you can effectively field 5K European soldiers in a hostile Mexico during the 16th century is fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    3. That is because Granada only held on account of Spanish disunity; it was doomed by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella. Prior to that reconquesta was effectively held up by the different states not wanting each other to be too powerful. Despite having some good (by that centuries standards) artillery Granada was very weak; the Barbary States were not.
    Granada was a remnant of a much longer process in which several different Christian Iberian states fought back, with a good deal of success, against the Iberian Muslims. They managed to do this not only without the wealth of the New World, but also during the period when the Muslims were largely at their strongest.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    4. You went off topic in response which is usually a sign of concession of the point. I stated that the colonies were not the goal; the goal was a good return and the resources the colony would give usually in the long term but once in awhile in the short term; which is why as you pointed out the Indies were so much more valuable then mainland territory. Even on the mainland you could see the pattern of early on the state doesn't intervene in the private transactions of the (fill in colony) company, and the colonists struggle (I already said every colony struggled at first) but then once developed the colony would for one reason or another be valuable and actual military resources would be required to defend it if other Europeans attacked or if the colony got into a conflict with natives that it couldn't handle on it's own (see transition of the 13 colonies into royal colonies). In the case of the Iberian Peninsula see the legal controversy over the Dutch East India Company taking a Carrack from the Portugese East India Company; it wasn't clear to Europeans at the time that these companies were part of their nations. The colonists also often had very good reasons to struggle to make the colony succeed when it was done by a company; for example religious minorities who didn't want to return to England. The Spanish Colonies gave wonderful returns for little effort from the nation; a colonial revolt that didn't involve fighting, wars were natives did most of the fighting for them allowing the treasury to be unscathed, for the conquistadores they could have easily died in battle and for the colonists they could and many did starve; but for the nation as a whole this was a massive reward for little effort. One of the most notable things about Spanish Colonization is that the colonies remained loyal and lacked independence movements until Ferdinand VIIth. Had Spain been going direct like Roanoke Island was for Queen Elizabeth I would agree it was hard for Spain but the fact is the people at the time didn't even know if the activity of colonial companies were legally the same as state activity (again see the case of the stolen Carrack). I never suggested that building a colony was easy for colonists; just that it was easy for Spain.
    If anything, you're dancing around the point because it would conflict with your opinion. When it comes down to it, there was significant investment in the New World, even if some of it happened haphazardly. You're trying to portray it as if European powers plopped down settlements and sailed home with a tidy profit. That is entirely fictional. Sending ships out to explore, settling colonists, maintaining trade lanes, protect the colonies, and trying to maintain governance over them was a huge task. Your picture of the era of exploration and colonization is so rosy that I can't imagine where you got it from.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    5. Under the current situation you just wait for a long time until the Spanish arrive and they kill you and you die. To win you will either need massive bonuses; a player should earn those bonuses by making the right decisions. It isn't unreasonable to have to think better then Moctezuma to get better results is it? In the case of the Byzantines they have one strategy and it works or they die, yet the first nation you will play thread is full of nearly all Byzantines.
    Then let them die, but don't "force" it because you want it to be easy. As I said, these are things that are handled by gameplay. It is the reason we play the game. If you want the game to automatically hand you victories, then just cheat.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    7. Strictly speaking the Papacy was as in favor of these wars as the actual Crusades, and these weren't dynastic wars like Italy. Religion had a much greater say in these wars then anything between Europeans. Protestants even joined the Corsairs to fight catholics; one of the greatest Barbary Admirals was a Dutch Protestant. Largely ended refers to France and England the traditional focus of Anglo and Francophone Histories and so world history outside of Europe; but there is also Italy and Spain, the Knights were a significant force to. Not to mention the Balkans; the last Crusade could accurately be called the relief of Vienna by Jan Sobieski in 1683.
    So what you're saying is that the Papacy had a loose definition of "crusade" and that these "crusades" you mention weren't really all that crusade-like?

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    8. The point is the Hapsburg Wars including the Spanish Attempts at conquering North Africa were funded by the New World Empire. Without it we could see that Spain can't afford it's expeditions and warfare. The Hapsburg Empire did happen; and Spain did need it's gold.
    But that is assuming that New World wealth was the one and only source of this wealth. France got by quite well without exploiting the riches of the New World. The Ottomans also did quite well too. Or look at the quick expansion of the Russians. Spain pulled in a quick buck from their colonies, but ultimately one that began to destroy their economy in a matter of decades. Your acting as if European assets could not match, if better, the settlements in the New World.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    9. Is that a good argument for keeping North Africa weaker then it was historically? Give it the power it historically had; i.e. the power to defeat the Spanish Fleet and the power to crush the Portugese Army and slaughter all it's officers; and if either Spain is played brilliantly or Barbaries played poorly the conquest could happen (Spain could have easily administered NA and it's colonies had it conquered NA) if not the barbary nations stay significant forces which is historical. The point of EU3 is at the start date you get as close to history as you could; how exactly does NA being much weaker then historically square away with that concept? It doesn't. The Conquistadores did things everyone thought impossible; but did so without any support from their nation and often found an ungrateful nation looking for legalistic reasons to reprimand them for it (Cortez needed to go through many ordeals before he was brought back to favor and given a command in a NA expedition). To many people they hate conquistadores.
    It doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the Barbary states. You keep going on that tangent and avoiding the point. Your desire to ignore the logistical and administrative problems of governing foreign territory, whether it be the hostile Muslims of North Africa or the defeated Aztecs of Mexico. Even if you think that certain aspects of this are "easy for the state", your definition of the "state" doesn't reflect the way the game handles it. Unless you're expecting PI to severely limit our ability to control our nation, then your definition means nothing when we're speaking about the game.

  3. #83
    Captain Sir Iain's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    496
    Even though I'm with you on most things, you're being very insistent on the crusading point (#7).
    The whole idea of "crusading" changed constantly. Just as it's possible too define crusades as only the wars for the Holy Land, it's possible to stretch the definition to the other religious wars of the Middle Ages (Hussites, Cathars, Prussians, the Reconquista). If you accept those as crusades because they match the pattern of religious wars with Papal approvement and remission of sins, then it should also be possible to accept the 16th and 17th century wars against the Muslims. The methods of warfare changed but they were still being fought with more or less the same ideals.
    Like every historical evolution, it hard to put precise dates on it.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Vishaing View Post
    Also, that event chain is extremely flawed in that there really isn't any actual choice. Why would anyone actually follow the historical path since under your system it is guaranteed to end their game? There might as well not be any options because no one with any sense would choose the 'we die now' option, and the only way to get an AI to choose that is to obviously handcuff it to that path.

    It would be better for the events to rely on, say, an internal faction system with power bases and potential uprisings from disenfranchised local powers that a conquering power could take advantage of in a dynamic and flexible manner leading to a situation where it is possible someone can come in and find an army of natives helping them out or find themselves welcomed only to be all ritualistically sacrificed because in this time line the Aztecs have managed to create a cohesive functioning state out of their empire and the local peoples actually enjoy their rule.
    I like that idea better then mine thank you. If they put that in I would actually try an Aztec Game; internal factions if done right have a lot of potential.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dafool View Post
    That is a highly loose definition of "spy" and it also goes against the general precedent in game. Not only that, but you're creating a very odd workaround solely to represent it in this different light, despite the fact that the much clear answer is this: Cortes is leader, a conquistador.



    That is besides the point. The fact that you can effectively field 5K European soldiers in a hostile Mexico during the 16th century is fantasy.



    Granada was a remnant of a much longer process in which several different Christian Iberian states fought back, with a good deal of success, against the Iberian Muslims. They managed to do this not only without the wealth of the New World, but also during the period when the Muslims were largely at their strongest.



    If anything, you're dancing around the point because it would conflict with your opinion. When it comes down to it, there was significant investment in the New World, even if some of it happened haphazardly. You're trying to portray it as if European powers plopped down settlements and sailed home with a tidy profit. That is entirely fictional. Sending ships out to explore, settling colonists, maintaining trade lanes, protect the colonies, and trying to maintain governance over them was a huge task. Your picture of the era of exploration and colonization is so rosy that I can't imagine where you got it from.



    Then let them die, but don't "force" it because you want it to be easy. As I said, these are things that are handled by gameplay. It is the reason we play the game. If you want the game to automatically hand you victories, then just cheat.



    So what you're saying is that the Papacy had a loose definition of "crusade" and that these "crusades" you mention weren't really all that crusade-like?



    But that is assuming that New World wealth was the one and only source of this wealth. France got by quite well without exploiting the riches of the New World. The Ottomans also did quite well too. Or look at the quick expansion of the Russians. Spain pulled in a quick buck from their colonies, but ultimately one that began to destroy their economy in a matter of decades. Your acting as if European assets could not match, if better, the settlements in the New World.



    It doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the Barbary states. You keep going on that tangent and avoiding the point. Your desire to ignore the logistical and administrative problems of governing foreign territory, whether it be the hostile Muslims of North Africa or the defeated Aztecs of Mexico. Even if you think that certain aspects of this are "easy for the state", your definition of the "state" doesn't reflect the way the game handles it. Unless you're expecting PI to severely limit our ability to control our nation, then your definition means nothing when we're speaking about the game.
    1. The spies get significantly more then your entire years income; it goes somewhere. In game the spy does what the conquistador did. What the spy conquers defects (i.e. what Cortez took went to the king of Spain without any royal involvement). Again like a spy. You are reading too much into the name; a small number of people acting with permission but not orders of the crown recruited local allies who were desperate to overthrow extremely brutal Aztec rule; and defeated the Aztecs and made the crowns first knowledge of them knowledge that they ruled Mexico. That seems a lot more in EU terms like a spy; especially because you as the nation don't control them.

    2. I wouldn't say that; if you add what Cortez brought into Mexico with what the governor of Cuba sent to arrest him your already 1/5th there without them even knowing what they were confronting and so not preparing to face a massive army.

    3. A very long process; it would have been impossible for Alphonso IV to even dream he would own all the Iberian Peninsula besides Portugal; that would have been as absurd for Alphonso IV as conquering North Africa would have been for Ferdinand and Isabella, and you should try offering counter ideas for why exactly giving North Africa the power it had at the game start is a bad idea. You want colonization which was done by companies and noblemen and only very rarely by states to be difficult although for the nation as a whole it was easy while wanting North Africa to start out significantly less powerful then it was historically. I don't know any historian who thinks 400 extra soldiers and 3 more ships would have made the slightest difference in the Spanish wars for the sea next to them.

    4. It isn't that some happened haphazardly; it is that the state sending out and funding colonial expeditions was rare and overwhelmingly it was done by companies; and those companies at first had such legal ambiguity that the Portugese didn't think they were at war with the Dutch East India Company when at war with Holland; and the Dutch East India Company taking a Portugese Carrack was extremely controversial.

    5. I never said I wanted it to be easy; and I am open to suggestions on other things; and furthermore think I will just ignore the Aztecs as usual; lonely gameplay isn't appealing to me and I don't think Paradox will be putting any extra effort into them.

    6. The First Crusade, Second Third and well all Crusaders didn't actually call themselves Crusaders. The wars with the Barbary Pirates and Ottomans and Spain were Crusades; as much as the Albigensian Crusades and Northern Crusades. They aren't on the radar for standard history course because the focus of those are the historical "winners". The last Crusade to save the Byzantines ended the day before EU IV starts actually.

    7. Portugal based it's wealth on trade not gold Buillion; and look how well it did on the last Portugese Crusade to North Africa; the entire nobility dead, the king dead without an heir, a succession crisis giving the Spanish Crown the Portugese crown, extreme debt, they purchased the legend of a once and future king at the expense of well the entire expeditions lives and for a time their independence. The right way to represent North Africa is through making it as strong as it was historically when the game starts; not by making Spain have a choice of who they want to conquer; and I really don't understand why you would want the Spanish player to have only as hard a time conquering North Africa as he would Mexico in a normal game; it makes no sense.

    8. Actually historically the Spanish didn't have much problems governing what they conquered they had trouble conquering it; their first colonial revolutions were 19th century which is after EU IVs timeframe; that alone should tell you how hard administering the territory was to them. Spanish rule in Naples ends when the French put in a Frenchman, could you actually name a successful Aztec or well native revolt? The modern population of Mexico has mixed Spanish Native descent and is Catholic; Spanish Colonial Rule was unjust but successful. Of course if you consider British and French Privateers to be an administrative problem (in the case of French Privateers one dealt with when Spain nipped the French Colonization of Florida in the bud) then I would like to know your definition of an enemy actively attacking your empire.

    9. I don't want a cheat; I was open to a counter suggestion but someone else beat you to it. In general I find somethings you say interesting and like following up on your assertions the name stupid genius is because I know my view of myself is higher then it should be but you seem to treat these debates as fights (I do to when insulted and sometimes say things I regret that is meant as criticism not insult); I frankly didn't know if you considered the event too hard on the Aztec placer/ai or too easy until you said "then just cheat". You also seemed hostile to the idea that Cossack, Polish, Hungarian, Russian and Tatar and other cavalry was as good as "Western" (whatever that means they used the same types of and same cavalry tactics) Cavalry. In your opinion were the Meso and South Americans the only non-western civilization that had a chance to fight back?

    10. Your history is also flawed. Had you asked somebody during the Armada what the most powerful Christian Nation was you would have been told Spain; in the short term New World Empire really did power up Spain. This whole thread is a suggestion that North Africa should be as powerful as it was historically when the game starts; and the player or ai is free to prosper as happened historically or collapse as happens right now. The idea that the only thing protecting powers that dominated the sea should be an over extension feature is ludicrous. Had the Spanish expeditions to North Africa won Spain would have conquered it; and wouldn't have had trouble maintaining control of the coast it was interested in. A hard conquest would be a place like Moldavia, or Albania, or even Wallachia; all of which put up much stronger resistance against much greater odds then any native American Empire.

    11. I apologize if anything I said sounded condescending; but I noticed things were devolving and wanted to nip any ill will in the bud I hope your not annoyed at me; but there is no way the Virginia Company could be considered an equal challenge for England to subduing Ireland (to use English history as a comparison). You are showing that for colonists and conquistadores things were tough; I appreciate that but for the Spanish Crown and you admitted homeland so nation as a whole this was easy. The things that Spain devoted most of it's resources to were either stalemates, failures, and in some cases victories but all cost them much dearer then any conquest of natives in any colony. I'm not arguing that because Spanish are "western" (a meaningless title for the 15th century) that they are naturally superior so should get an auto-win like in todays EU3 like Joe did so no need to get annoyed.

  5. #85
    Nothing Special Futomato's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourMagickaMarch of the EaglesRome GoldSemper Fi
    SengokuSupreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae Victis500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms eventEUIV: Wealth of Nations
    EUIV: Conquest of Paradise

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, USA
    Posts
    879
    I've seen some pretty odd shit go down in iberia... I've seen a Moroccan conquests of Portugal via Ottoman and English support.
    I think the devs are trying to make war much more costly. I don't think Morocco will be conquering any major powers anymore...

  6. #86
    Field Marshal Dafool's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, USA
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    1. The spies get significantly more then your entire years income; it goes somewhere. In game the spy does what the conquistador did. What the spy conquers defects (i.e. what Cortez took went to the king of Spain without any royal involvement). Again like a spy. You are reading too much into the name; a small number of people acting with permission but not orders of the crown recruited local allies who were desperate to overthrow extremely brutal Aztec rule; and defeated the Aztecs and made the crowns first knowledge of them knowledge that they ruled Mexico. That seems a lot more in EU terms like a spy; especially because you as the nation don't control them.
    If you look at that abstractly then yes. But then we could also call most diplomatic actions, rebels, and pirates as "spies", simply because they weren't completely controlled by a state. As I said, you're presenting a definition that is completely inconsistent with how the game works. Not only that, but you clearly have a very limited view of why the Aztec Empire fell. The Aztecs didn't fall because they were brutal. They fell because that was incredibly common political action in Mesoamerica. General politics dictated that 3 states form an alliance, shake off the previously dominant overlords, and then begin their own expansion. The Aztec triple alliance was not exceptionally brutal, only exceptionally successful, meaning that their fame and enemies grew. This is both how the Spanish came to hear of them and also why they were able to set up the alliances that they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    2. I wouldn't say that; if you add what Cortez brought into Mexico with what the governor of Cuba sent to arrest him your already 1/5th there without them even knowing what they were confronting and so not preparing to face a massive army.
    Yes. Cortes, when completely reinforced to the best of the Spanish colonies' ability given the situation, had a fifth of what you're suggesting. That's 20%. Imagine if France only had 20% of its historical population. Or England's fleet had only grown to a fifth of its historical size. That is a big difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    3. A very long process; it would have been impossible for Alphonso IV to even dream he would own all the Iberian Peninsula besides Portugal; that would have been as absurd for Alphonso IV as conquering North Africa would have been for Ferdinand and Isabella, and you should try offering counter ideas for why exactly giving North Africa the power it had at the game start is a bad idea. You want colonization which was done by companies and noblemen and only very rarely by states to be difficult although for the nation as a whole it was easy while wanting North Africa to start out significantly less powerful then it was historically. I don't know any historian who thinks 400 extra soldiers and 3 more ships would have made the slightest difference in the Spanish wars for the sea next to them.
    First off, how does it make sense that one thing can be "impossible", yet happened, and then something else can be absurd and therefore has no chance of happening. That's very inconsistent and contradictory. Second, you're presenting a strawman argument. No where did I say anything about the strength of North Africa.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    4. It isn't that some happened haphazardly; it is that the state sending out and funding colonial expeditions was rare and overwhelmingly it was done by companies; and those companies at first had such legal ambiguity that the Portugese didn't think they were at war with the Dutch East India Company when at war with Holland; and the Dutch East India Company taking a Portugese Carrack was extremely controversial.
    And yet, once more, I have to point out that this is all handled by the state in EU3. The VOC isn't an actual state in EU3. It's considered part of the Netherlands. You even get a decision allowing you, the overseer of the state, to found that company. So to repeat once more, your argument is terribly flawed because you're trying to separate things from the "state" even though they are one and the same in EU.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    5. I never said I wanted it to be easy; and I am open to suggestions on other things; and furthermore think I will just ignore the Aztecs as usual; lonely gameplay isn't appealing to me and I don't think Paradox will be putting any extra effort into them.
    From what we've seen it looks as if the New World nations might get slight increases in content, primary in terms of disease and First Contact. We don't know yet whether the number of nations or provinces will be increased to better represent the area.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    6. The First Crusade, Second Third and well all Crusaders didn't actually call themselves Crusaders. The wars with the Barbary Pirates and Ottomans and Spain were Crusades; as much as the Albigensian Crusades and Northern Crusades. They aren't on the radar for standard history course because the focus of those are the historical "winners". The last Crusade to save the Byzantines ended the day before EU IV starts actually.
    So, to recap again: The Papal States called this a crusade, even if it didn't really play out anything like a crusade and now modern historians don't really consider it a crusade?

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    7. Portugal based it's wealth on trade not gold Buillion; and look how well it did on the last Portugese Crusade to North Africa; the entire nobility dead, the king dead without an heir, a succession crisis giving the Spanish Crown the Portugese crown, extreme debt, they purchased the legend of a once and future king at the expense of well the entire expeditions lives and for a time their independence. The right way to represent North Africa is through making it as strong as it was historically when the game starts; not by making Spain have a choice of who they want to conquer; and I really don't understand why you would want the Spanish player to have only as hard a time conquering North Africa as he would Mexico in a normal game; it makes no sense.
    So, to point this back at your overall argument, the wealth of the New World doesn't actually have much to do with the success of the Iberians? The thesis you made earlier was that the New World was a valuable treasure trove that gave the Iberians the wealth to control larger empires? Perhaps your positions have changed a bit. Additionally, you seem to be comparing these two areas of focus as if they were identical in how they logistically functioned. Clearly it would be next to impossible to send a king into the New World. That renders one of your points completely irrelevant. Additionally, you're presenting it as if all ventures in North Africa failed. In reality it was essentially a game the Ottomans raiding to promote their dominance and the Spanish trying to hold their ground through small exclaves. They did have some successes in those endeavors.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    8. Actually historically the Spanish didn't have much problems governing what they conquered they had trouble conquering it; their first colonial revolutions were 19th century which is after EU IVs timeframe; that alone should tell you how hard administering the territory was to them. Spanish rule in Naples ends when the French put in a Frenchman, could you actually name a successful Aztec or well native revolt? The modern population of Mexico has mixed Spanish Native descent and is Catholic; Spanish Colonial Rule was unjust but successful. Of course if you consider British and French Privateers to be an administrative problem (in the case of French Privateers one dealt with when Spain nipped the French Colonization of Florida in the bud) then I would like to know your definition of an enemy actively attacking your empire.
    Well, you could look at the Maya, who openly resisted Spanish claims to sovereignty over them, resulting in a long series of conflicts that the Spanish were reluctant to engage in, despite the problem existing the heart of their colonial empire. Or you could look at some of the issues in Peru, where the Inca managed to put up organized resistance for a fair amount of time. Or you you could look at the problems the Spanish had with Natives in the southern Andes, who refused to let the Spanish into those lands and kept them out for the entirety of this time frame. Or you could look farther north to Apacheria and Comancheria, two fully independent Native states within the Spanish Empire's borders, that not only forced the Spanish to recognize their de facto independence, but also openly sacked Spanish towns and ruined many of Spain's northern settlements. You could also look at the Puebla revolt which greatly limited Spanish control in that area and even won the Natives some basic concessions. Or you could look at the British incited revolts in Mexico in the 17th century which resulted in some tribes achieving independence for a while after killing many Jesuits and Spanish settlers. Additionally, there were issues with governors acting liberally and independently, especially during times of war. There are also the many Spanish colonies in the Northeast that failed because the Spanish couldn't maintain enough presence and defense to keep them safe and productive.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    9. I don't want a cheat; I was open to a counter suggestion but someone else beat you to it. In general I find somethings you say interesting and like following up on your assertions the name stupid genius is because I know my view of myself is higher then it should be but you seem to treat these debates as fights (I do to when insulted and sometimes say things I regret that is meant as criticism not insult); I frankly didn't know if you considered the event too hard on the Aztec placer/ai or too easy until you said "then just cheat". You also seemed hostile to the idea that Cossack, Polish, Hungarian, Russian and Tatar and other cavalry was as good as "Western" (whatever that means they used the same types of and same cavalry tactics) Cavalry. In your opinion were the Meso and South Americans the only non-western civilization that had a chance to fight back?
    At what point did I say anything about cavalry? Better yet, I've already explained why the idea of event that decides a much larger process is unacceptable. The fall of the Ming dynasty or the formation of Russia could just as well be events that automatically recreate something, but we as players of a game don't want things to just happen around us with no real input into what happens. That's not a game. When we have something that involves both choice and effort, then we should have gameplay to back that up. Not auto-annexing. As I said, that might as well be cheating.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    10. Your history is also flawed. Had you asked somebody during the Armada what the most powerful Christian Nation was you would have been told Spain; in the short term New World Empire really did power up Spain. This whole thread is a suggestion that North Africa should be as powerful as it was historically when the game starts; and the player or ai is free to prosper as happened historically or collapse as happens right now. The idea that the only thing protecting powers that dominated the sea should be an over extension feature is ludicrous. Had the Spanish expeditions to North Africa won Spain would have conquered it; and wouldn't have had trouble maintaining control of the coast it was interested in. A hard conquest would be a place like Moldavia, or Albania, or even Wallachia; all of which put up much stronger resistance against much greater odds then any native American Empire.
    First, please see my previous comment where I listed about half a dozen separate challenges to Spanish rule by the Natives. Second, I've not said much about the strength of North Africa. You pretend that I have, but I haven't. I've only said that conquering North Africa should be a challenge that requires a good deal of the player's resources and attention. You may not want to have North Africa conquered at all, because it conflicts with your opinion on the matter, but ultimately this will possible because the devs will not turn it into an impenetrable fortress. So perhaps it would be better to stay in the mindset of the game when discussing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    11. I apologize if anything I said sounded condescending; but I noticed things were devolving and wanted to nip any ill will in the bud I hope your not annoyed at me; but there is no way the Virginia Company could be considered an equal challenge for England to subduing Ireland (to use English history as a comparison). You are showing that for colonists and conquistadores things were tough; I appreciate that but for the Spanish Crown and you admitted homeland so nation as a whole this was easy. The things that Spain devoted most of it's resources to were either stalemates, failures, and in some cases victories but all cost them much dearer then any conquest of natives in any colony. I'm not arguing that because Spanish are "western" (a meaningless title for the 15th century) that they are naturally superior so should get an auto-win like in todays EU3 like Joe did so no need to get annoyed.
    My point of contention is primarily with two things: First, the idea that things like conquistadors, merchants, diplomatic actions, spies, and so on are not part of the "state". You keep going back to the point that these weren't state sanctioned events, but as I pointed out, the scope of the state in EU is much larger than you're presenting it. As such, I disagree with some of your points about how things like the conquest of the New World should be handled. Second, I contest your opinion on how much room for opportunity a state should have. For me, colonizing the New World should take a mixture of focus and investment. Similarly, I think that conquering North Africa should take focus and investment. I don't think that a player should be totally limited in their choices, but makes the game significantly more interesting if you actually have to weigh your options. If you want to play a land focused England bent on subduing France, then you should be able to, but it should slow down if not halt your ability to also establish a continent spanning colonial empire. And once more, this isn't a matter of difficulty in the game as much as it is a matter of giving the player meaningful gameplay choices in how they want their nation to evolve.

    And to add, I am not angry or frustrated with you. You've yet to delve into name calling or general insults and as such I consider this a fairly civil conversation. Differences in opinion on subjective matters like gameplay or the difficulty of something will obvious bring up room for debate, but need not be treated as life or death arguments.

  7. #87
    Field Marshal
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteHeir to the ThroneVictoria: Revolutions
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Abandoned this account
    Posts
    7,729
    Oh Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you people. This thread started out about north Africa and now we're three pages into a weird debate over whether the conquest of America was easy or not. Your walls-of-text are nothing but hot air unless you realize the fundamental idiocy that started the debate: That someone said Spain in 1491 was "destined" to conquer something, and that if it hadn't been Mexico/America it would certainly have been North Africa.

    This is a grandiose misunderstanding of history. Yet it's a myth that is played out in the EU games every time anew.

    Your debate has gone in circles because you have not addressed this point. Do so please, and debunk this silly notion.
    Last edited by Leviathan07; 28-01-2013 at 12:22.

  8. #88
    Private Laguna's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria: RevolutionsVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House Divided500k clubEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    24
    Repeat after me: portugUese.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Laguna View Post
    Repeat after me: portugUese.
    Wait, what? [checks online] Damn it! I'll have to hand over my Grammar Gestapo license.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Leviathan07 View Post
    Blah.
    I also wonder why the mods haven't deleted all those off-topic posts.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    I just looked up what that is, and the Corsairs were largely the state arsenal of the Barbary states, not random pirates. The most famous example executed nobles Charles V tried to ransom, then when he offered a smaller ransom for their bodies chopped them up and dumped them into the sea; not the action of simple pirates out for money. The Knights should be essential to any euro state that intends to have an economy in that area; instead of a useless lump.
    There are two systems: the generic system and the Barbary Pirate system. The latter is treated like you describe them.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Dafool View Post
    If you look at that abstractly then yes. But then we could also call most diplomatic actions, rebels, and pirates as "spies", simply because they weren't completely controlled by a state. As I said, you're presenting a definition that is completely inconsistent with how the game works. Not only that, but you clearly have a very limited view of why the Aztec Empire fell. The Aztecs didn't fall because they were brutal. They fell because that was incredibly common political action in Mesoamerica. General politics dictated that 3 states form an alliance, shake off the previously dominant overlords, and then begin their own expansion. The Aztec triple alliance was not exceptionally brutal, only exceptionally successful, meaning that their fame and enemies grew. This is both how the Spanish came to hear of them and also why they were able to set up the alliances that they did.



    Yes. Cortes, when completely reinforced to the best of the Spanish colonies' ability given the situation, had a fifth of what you're suggesting. That's 20%. Imagine if France only had 20% of its historical population. Or England's fleet had only grown to a fifth of its historical size. That is a big difference.



    First off, how does it make sense that one thing can be "impossible", yet happened, and then something else can be absurd and therefore has no chance of happening. That's very inconsistent and contradictory. Second, you're presenting a strawman argument. No where did I say anything about the strength of North Africa.



    And yet, once more, I have to point out that this is all handled by the state in EU3. The VOC isn't an actual state in EU3. It's considered part of the Netherlands. You even get a decision allowing you, the overseer of the state, to found that company. So to repeat once more, your argument is terribly flawed because you're trying to separate things from the "state" even though they are one and the same in EU.



    From what we've seen it looks as if the New World nations might get slight increases in content, primary in terms of disease and First Contact. We don't know yet whether the number of nations or provinces will be increased to better represent the area.



    So, to recap again: The Papal States called this a crusade, even if it didn't really play out anything like a crusade and now modern historians don't really consider it a crusade?



    So, to point this back at your overall argument, the wealth of the New World doesn't actually have much to do with the success of the Iberians? The thesis you made earlier was that the New World was a valuable treasure trove that gave the Iberians the wealth to control larger empires? Perhaps your positions have changed a bit. Additionally, you seem to be comparing these two areas of focus as if they were identical in how they logistically functioned. Clearly it would be next to impossible to send a king into the New World. That renders one of your points completely irrelevant. Additionally, you're presenting it as if all ventures in North Africa failed. In reality it was essentially a game the Ottomans raiding to promote their dominance and the Spanish trying to hold their ground through small exclaves. They did have some successes in those endeavors.



    Well, you could look at the Maya, who openly resisted Spanish claims to sovereignty over them, resulting in a long series of conflicts that the Spanish were reluctant to engage in, despite the problem existing the heart of their colonial empire. Or you could look at some of the issues in Peru, where the Inca managed to put up organized resistance for a fair amount of time. Or you you could look at the problems the Spanish had with Natives in the southern Andes, who refused to let the Spanish into those lands and kept them out for the entirety of this time frame. Or you could look farther north to Apacheria and Comancheria, two fully independent Native states within the Spanish Empire's borders, that not only forced the Spanish to recognize their de facto independence, but also openly sacked Spanish towns and ruined many of Spain's northern settlements. You could also look at the Puebla revolt which greatly limited Spanish control in that area and even won the Natives some basic concessions. Or you could look at the British incited revolts in Mexico in the 17th century which resulted in some tribes achieving independence for a while after killing many Jesuits and Spanish settlers. Additionally, there were issues with governors acting liberally and independently, especially during times of war. There are also the many Spanish colonies in the Northeast that failed because the Spanish couldn't maintain enough presence and defense to keep them safe and productive.



    At what point did I say anything about cavalry? Better yet, I've already explained why the idea of event that decides a much larger process is unacceptable. The fall of the Ming dynasty or the formation of Russia could just as well be events that automatically recreate something, but we as players of a game don't want things to just happen around us with no real input into what happens. That's not a game. When we have something that involves both choice and effort, then we should have gameplay to back that up. Not auto-annexing. As I said, that might as well be cheating.



    First, please see my previous comment where I listed about half a dozen separate challenges to Spanish rule by the Natives. Second, I've not said much about the strength of North Africa. You pretend that I have, but I haven't. I've only said that conquering North Africa should be a challenge that requires a good deal of the player's resources and attention. You may not want to have North Africa conquered at all, because it conflicts with your opinion on the matter, but ultimately this will possible because the devs will not turn it into an impenetrable fortress. So perhaps it would be better to stay in the mindset of the game when discussing it.



    My point of contention is primarily with two things: First, the idea that things like conquistadors, merchants, diplomatic actions, spies, and so on are not part of the "state". You keep going back to the point that these weren't state sanctioned events, but as I pointed out, the scope of the state in EU is much larger than you're presenting it. As such, I disagree with some of your points about how things like the conquest of the New World should be handled. Second, I contest your opinion on how much room for opportunity a state should have. For me, colonizing the New World should take a mixture of focus and investment. Similarly, I think that conquering North Africa should take focus and investment. I don't think that a player should be totally limited in their choices, but makes the game significantly more interesting if you actually have to weigh your options. If you want to play a land focused England bent on subduing France, then you should be able to, but it should slow down if not halt your ability to also establish a continent spanning colonial empire. And once more, this isn't a matter of difficulty in the game as much as it is a matter of giving the player meaningful gameplay choices in how they want their nation to evolve.

    And to add, I am not angry or frustrated with you. You've yet to delve into name calling or general insults and as such I consider this a fairly civil conversation. Differences in opinion on subjective matters like gameplay or the difficulty of something will obvious bring up room for debate, but need not be treated as life or death arguments.
    1. The problem is you know I'm right about what the spy represents in EU3; any Byzantine player will confirm the possibility of using spies to conquer provinces, and the spy can also commission privateers. The spy just represents the non-official army related wing of war; which is what Cortez was. He had no authority over anybody including his own men. Legally had his men all deserted him in front of witnesses and it had been proven in a Spanish court nothing would happen. Also check the prices spies charge; awfully expensive for a spy in light of the fact that it is mostly higher then a years income for Genoa.

    2. true; but you forget that 1000 men is an auto defeat. The historical results shouldn't be rare and nigh impossible to achieve; and I think mesoamerica could have after being explored supported 5000 easily; it was providing food and equipment in a new colony that kept numbers down (see numbers in French and Indian War in other words after the colonies developed).

    3. Because I accidently said Alphonso IV instead of VI (in Alphonso's lifetime there was no reconquesta) and second as impressive as the fall of Valencia and capitulation of Seville was the reconquesta had hardly begun in the 12th century and Spanish States Christian or Muslim tended to just join together to defeat any state emerging as too successfully expanding (similar to Italy). The greatest achievement of Alphonso VI and the start of Reconquesta was starting to try and persuade Christian States to join together (which wasn't totally successful; see Berengar of Barcelona). The situation for conquering North Africa in the 15th century well didn't exist; it was as viable as a conquest of France or England or Denmark. It was impossible for Alphonso VI to conquer all the muslims which is why the successful blow took centuries to deliver and was done piece by piece.

    4. The EU3 mechanics also make it significantly easier; which indicates the developers agree that the colonial campaigns by individuals was not the same level of difficulty for the nation as a whole as the foreign wars were. I agree it should be harder; but not as hard as the fighting against people who equaled Spain in power. the thing is for the nation as a whole the conquest of the new world was done by a small number of men with private funding. At the time there was even legal ambiguity about the relationship of company to nation which is why the eu3 mechanics make colonial wars so easy. I agree with you it makes it far TOO easy which is why I tried to come up with ideas for what I think would make the campaign funner and more challenging for everyone involved (without of course making the historical outcome rare).

    5. Unfortunately even an accurate representation of the area doesn't solve the gordian knot of mixing accuracy with difficulty (someone said my event was too easy which is why I agree with his internal politics idea) and the knowledge that the Spanish did win so it shouldn't be rare to see it in game.

    6. I am glad I was wrong about how you feel about the Barbary Powers; they need to be given the strength they had at the gamestart then be allowed to sink or swim.

    7. Actually nobody called themselves Crusaders; "The Crusades" refers to a set of expeditions; just crusades refer to the great religious wars of which the Barbary and Ottoman Empire definitely were taking part in during the 15th century. As late as the 17th century Jan Sobieski was named defender of the Faith and savior of Christendom for saving Vienna; and had you talked to anyone involved in these wars they would have told you they were armed in defense of the christian faith (our idea of a crusader). The actual "crusaders" would have told you they were armed pilgrims going with charity. The age of "The Crusades" was over but the age of "crusades" was not. Of course eventually the "crusading" powers stagnated.

    8. Portugal isn't Spain; Portugal certainly profited but it had much sounder economic basis for it's empire and actions. Spain depended on it's new world gold and silver which Portugal although using them didn't; which is why I brought Portugal's worst defeat into the conversation. What kept Spain from taking North Africa wasn't that it had poor economics or was overstretched; it was militarily defeated multiple times; and limited victories were without exception reversed. This doesn't mean make it a fortress; everyone should be able to fall but they should be given as close to the chance they had at the start date as possible.

    9. A lot of what you said just falls under "conquest" as opposed to "rebellion" in terms of what the problem was. The Inca were much harder to conquer then the Aztecs; the only ones where you mentioned that are rebellion are the british backed mexican rebels and of course Pizzaro. Would you mind providing more information? It doesn't have to be in this thread. In general Spain administered well; the first colonial independence movements was caused by the idiot Ferdinand VII; which shows Spanish colonial structures did last a very long time intact and working.

    10. I don't care if it loses; only for it not to be a rigged to be conquered state. What I objected to about your assertion is the idea of Spain having a choice of North Africa or The New World which would mean they could conquer NA as easily and ahistorically shows Spain's greatest resource hurting Spain's ability to wage war; when in truth the Spanish won or lost based on military factors and their military funding came from the new world (which is why as you pointed out inflation came). In 1600 when asking for the most powerful christian nation you would have been told Spain. Also what if the Spanish did better? Do you really think the people who created a colonial infrastructure that ruled with more or less success an area thousands of miles away for hundreds of years would have struggled with a nearby coast after the most important hostile fleet in the area was destroyed?

    11. I'm glad you agree a player shouldn't be completely restricted and I agree there should be some restrictions and that this has stayed civil; but I disagree with the idea that that the Aztecs/Inca could be considered an equal investment for the Spanish Nation as Europe itself. I also think in order to simulate the rise of Spain resulting from the conquest of the new world and Spain's imperial ambitions being funded by those. It shouldn't seem as if the aztecs incas and smaller groups are an end to themselves but they should seem like a great helping hand. The New World really did fund Spain, 1/5th of it's budget was from new world silver mines; think of what may have happened if Spain sent a force to Italy only 80% of the force that struggled to defeat the French there? Or if the Spanish fleet at Lepanto had only 80% of it's historical strength; and by silver I am deliberately excluding gold. If the Spanish conquer the Aztecs that should make North Africa more vulnerable; but it should have at least at game start the full military strength it historically had. If the ai or player makes idiot decisions I am ok with the result being British or Spanish North Africa; but if it doesn't it should be able to defend itself. Historically the Barbary States stagnated when Spain did; and the colonization process started 1830 because they engaged in unprovoked piracy against France after the United States stood up to them. I have never seen them survive the 15th century in Vanilla and rarely see them survive in OSC (which is clearly despite a great mod design). It would be interesting to weigh options; but because Spain is tier 1 perhaps the cost for the new world should be significantly less then say Naples (a great point of contention with France)? How would you feel if every game you saw Spain invade the Aztecs; and every game you saw the Aztecs win very easily and still be around with every province on the last day? To tell the truth the most absurd eu3 conquest of NA is "Byzantine North Africa".

  13. #93
    Field Marshal Dafool's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, USA
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    1. The problem is you know I'm right about what the spy represents in EU3; any Byzantine player will confirm the possibility of using spies to conquer provinces, and the spy can also commission privateers. The spy just represents the non-official army related wing of war; which is what Cortez was. He had no authority over anybody including his own men. Legally had his men all deserted him in front of witnesses and it had been proven in a Spanish court nothing would happen. Also check the prices spies charge; awfully expensive for a spy in light of the fact that it is mostly higher then a years income for Genoa.
    I see two fundamental problems here though. First, a spy is state sanctioned in EU. Your definition of these events clearly sticks to the thesis that these didn’t actually involve the state. Therefore a spy would go against your argument just as a much as an army would. Second, in EU, and most especially EU4 where envoys have names, it’s clear that the spy you send isn’t actually the rebel or privateer that you sponsor. There’s no way to raise a rebel in the Aztec Empire that will be called Hernando Cortes and will fight for Spain.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    2. true; but you forget that 1000 men is an auto defeat. The historical results shouldn't be rare and nigh impossible to achieve; and I think mesoamerica could have after being explored supported 5000 easily; it was providing food and equipment in a new colony that kept numbers down (see numbers in French and Indian War in other words after the colonies developed).
    After the colonies developed is the key phrase here. In the early 16th century this was a completely different story. There were only a few thousand Spaniards in the New World and most of the colonies were fledgling trading posts. There simply wasn’t the infrastructure or population to support that kind of campaign yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    3. Because I accidently said Alphonso IV instead of VI (in Alphonso's lifetime there was no reconquesta) and second as impressive as the fall of Valencia and capitulation of Seville was the reconquesta had hardly begun in the 12th century and Spanish States Christian or Muslim tended to just join together to defeat any state emerging as too successfully expanding (similar to Italy). The greatest achievement of Alphonso VI and the start of Reconquesta was starting to try and persuade Christian States to join together (which wasn't totally successful; see Berengar of Barcelona). The situation for conquering North Africa in the 15th century well didn't exist; it was as viable as a conquest of France or England or Denmark. It was impossible for Alphonso VI to conquer all the muslims which is why the successful blow took centuries to deliver and was done piece by piece.
    But, the point is that something both unlikely and difficult came to be through a determined cause. Conquering North Africa would not have been particularly easy, but Christian states did make some headway during this period. If the player really wants to focus on it, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be beyond his reach. This is no different than the player conquering France or England. Both are entirely possible, even if they should be fairly difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    4. The EU3 mechanics also make it significantly easier; which indicates the developers agree that the colonial campaigns by individuals was not the same level of difficulty for the nation as a whole as the foreign wars were. I agree it should be harder; but not as hard as the fighting against people who equaled Spain in power. the thing is for the nation as a whole the conquest of the new world was done by a small number of men with private funding. At the time there was even legal ambiguity about the relationship of company to nation which is why the eu3 mechanics make colonial wars so easy. I agree with you it makes it far TOO easy which is why I tried to come up with ideas for what I think would make the campaign funner and more challenging for everyone involved (without of course making the historical outcome rare).
    The difficulty comes from the fact that EU3 didn’t have much to stop the player from immediately conquering the New World. Shipping 5k soldiers over and conquering the Aztecs and Inca without setting up a colonies or bothering with any of the historical factors was too easy. North Africa faces a similar problem, where it is too often targeted and conquered without the invaders facing any of the logistical or administrative problems that would have followed.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    5. Unfortunately even an accurate representation of the area doesn't solve the gordian knot of mixing accuracy with difficulty (someone said my event was too easy which is why I agree with his internal politics idea) and the knowledge that the Spanish did win so it shouldn't be rare to see it in game.
    The problem is consistency. The Spanish won two big victories and had many small defeats. How exactly are we supposed to represent that? If we make Natives too weak, they’ll stand no chance. If we make the too strong, Spain might never recreate its conquests. As I said before, I think this is best represented through gameplay mechanics such as diseases and differences in overseas warfare.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    6. I am glad I was wrong about how you feel about the Barbary Powers; they need to be given the strength they had at the gamestart then be allowed to sink or swim.
    With that I have no problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    7. Actually nobody called themselves Crusaders; "The Crusades" refers to a set of expeditions; just crusades refer to the great religious wars of which the Barbary and Ottoman Empire definitely were taking part in during the 15th century. As late as the 17th century Jan Sobieski was named defender of the Faith and savior of Christendom for saving Vienna; and had you talked to anyone involved in these wars they would have told you they were armed in defense of the christian faith (our idea of a crusader). The actual "crusaders" would have told you they were armed pilgrims going with charity. The age of "The Crusades" was over but the age of "crusades" was not. Of course eventually the "crusading" powers stagnated.
    My point, that you seem to confirm in most respects, is that crusade was an ambiguous and unspecific term. Calling the wars with the Barbary pirates a crusade can be done, but it’s a label that doesn’t tell us much about what happened or why.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    8. Portugal isn't Spain; Portugal certainly profited but it had much sounder economic basis for it's empire and actions. Spain depended on it's new world gold and silver which Portugal although using them didn't; which is why I brought Portugal's worst defeat into the conversation. What kept Spain from taking North Africa wasn't that it had poor economics or was overstretched; it was militarily defeated multiple times; and limited victories were without exception reversed. This doesn't mean make it a fortress; everyone should be able to fall but they should be given as close to the chance they had at the start date as possible.
    The Iberians actually made some fair headway in terms of capturing and holding exclaves in North Africa. Indeed, there were even a few points at which the North African states entered de facto vassalage. Going back to the point though, Spain’s economy received a short term boost from the New World, but not one particularly healthy or long lasting. Controlling a vast European empire would certainly have had more to do with Spain’s ventures in North Africa than their ability to conquer the Aztecs.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    9. A lot of what you said just falls under "conquest" as opposed to "rebellion" in terms of what the problem was. The Inca were much harder to conquer then the Aztecs; the only ones where you mentioned that are rebellion are the british backed mexican rebels and of course Pizzaro. Would you mind providing more information? It doesn't have to be in this thread. In general Spain administered well; the first colonial independence movements was caused by the idiot Ferdinand VII; which shows Spanish colonial structures did last a very long time intact and working.
    A rebellion isn’t the only type of administrative problem. Many of the examples that I provided were groups within the Spanish colonial empire which rather defeated Spanish attempts to control them or even achieved de facto independence. When one cannot defend, govern, tax, or even travel through a portion of their own empire, then there is indeed an administrative issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    10. I don't care if it loses; only for it not to be a rigged to be conquered state. What I objected to about your assertion is the idea of Spain having a choice of North Africa or The New World which would mean they could conquer NA as easily and ahistorically shows Spain's greatest resource hurting Spain's ability to wage war; when in truth the Spanish won or lost based on military factors and their military funding came from the new world (which is why as you pointed out inflation came). In 1600 when asking for the most powerful christian nation you would have been told Spain. Also what if the Spanish did better? Do you really think the people who created a colonial infrastructure that ruled with more or less success an area thousands of miles away for hundreds of years would have struggled with a nearby coast after the most important hostile fleet in the area was destroyed?
    It’s always possible, and often likely, that the player will do better than their historical counterpart. What I was getting at though is there should be a certain degree of control over how quickly and aggressively a player can expand. If the player decides that the Reconquista needs to push across North Africa, then that’s fine. But the player should have to devote a good deal of attention, resources, and time to it. In doing so, they should have to sacrifice other goals. Colonization and exploration are vastly different focuses from waging war and converting Muslims.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    11. I'm glad you agree a player shouldn't be completely restricted and I agree there should be some restrictions and that this has stayed civil; but I disagree with the idea that that the Aztecs/Inca could be considered an equal investment for the Spanish Nation as Europe itself. I also think in order to simulate the rise of Spain resulting from the conquest of the new world and Spain's imperial ambitions being funded by those. It shouldn't seem as if the aztecs incas and smaller groups are an end to themselves but they should seem like a great helping hand. The New World really did fund Spain, 1/5th of it's budget was from new world silver mines; think of what may have happened if Spain sent a force to Italy only 80% of the force that struggled to defeat the French there? Or if the Spanish fleet at Lepanto had only 80% of it's historical strength; and by silver I am deliberately excluding gold. If the Spanish conquer the Aztecs that should make North Africa more vulnerable; but it should have at least at game start the full military strength it historically had. If the ai or player makes idiot decisions I am ok with the result being British or Spanish North Africa; but if it doesn't it should be able to defend itself. Historically the Barbary States stagnated when Spain did; and the colonization process started 1830 because they engaged in unprovoked piracy against France after the United States stood up to them. I have never seen them survive the 15th century in Vanilla and rarely see them survive in OSC (which is clearly despite a great mod design). It would be interesting to weigh options; but because Spain is tier 1 perhaps the cost for the new world should be significantly less then say Naples (a great point of contention with France)? How would you feel if every game you saw Spain invade the Aztecs; and every game you saw the Aztecs win very easily and still be around with every province on the last day? To tell the truth the most absurd eu3 conquest of NA is "Byzantine North Africa".
    I think on this we fundamentally disagree. I think that the New World, while certainly a land of many new resources, was a goal and part of the larger process of building an empire. I do not agree with the assertion that it was just a means to funding European powers. This ignores significant investment in developing and protecting colonies, and not just because they provided income, but also because they were distinct yet integral parts of the European empires.

  14. #94
    First Lieutenant
    Crusader Kings II

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Occitania
    Posts
    231
    Just to get back to the topic... Spain (or Portugal) wasn't even interested in conquering NA for one simple reason... At that time, spanish rulers were too occupied with achieving " limpieza de sangre" in their mainland (the translation gives "cleanliness of blood")... which meant, completely erasing demographic and cultural remains of muslims' rule over Andalusia...

    here is an interesting link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre


    So it made no sense for Spain and Portugal to conquer places full of people they're trying to get rid of... They were only interested in keeping few costal footholds for two reasons :

    - to alert the mainland in case muslims are preparing a come back...

    - to supply naval expeditions to the new world...

    As far as we've been told, EU4 seems to poorly model the "getting-foothold" strategy, as colonial powers have no choice but conquering big parts of NA...

    The only fix I can think of is making places that were historically occupied in NA on a distinct province... which means NA coastal provinces needs to be redesigned... but that's not gonna happen!
    Last edited by bigfoxy; 30-01-2013 at 19:09.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfoxy View Post
    Just to get back to the topic... Spain (or Portugal) wasn't even interested in conquering NA for one simple reason... At that time, spanish rulers were too occupied with achieving " limpieza de sangre" in their mainland (the translation gives "cleanliness of blood")... which meant, completely erasing demographic and cultural remains of muslims' rule over Andalusia...

    here is an interesting link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre


    So it made no sense for Spain and Portugal to conquer places full of people they're trying to get rid of... They were only interested in keeping few costal footholds for two reasons :

    - to alert the mainland in case muslims are preparing a come back...

    - to supply naval expeditions to the new world...

    As far as we've been told, EU4 seems to poorly model the "getting-foothold" strategy, as colonial powers have no choice but conquering big parts of NA...

    The only fix I can think of is making places that were historically occupied in NA on a distinct province... which means NA coastal provinces needs to be redesigned... but that's not gonna happen!
    You're probably bringing your own line of reasoning too much into it; if this were the case, Spain would not have put so much effort into colonizing and Christianizing the new world. Isabella I and Cardinal Cisneros were actually quite zealous, and the queen actually wanted to continue the Reconquista into North Africa; had she not died so soon (and the New World didn't beckon), it's very likely that they would have made North Africa their next target and focus. Ferdinand, hailing from the more maritime-oriented Aragon, shifted the state policy towards the Mediterranean when he was the sole ruler, and then exploits from the New World drew the attention away from Africa still further. Still, he pursued a more prudent strategy of establishing presidios from which to project Spanish influence in NA (with the idea of de-facto vassalage), as opposed to Isabella's desire for outright conquest.

  16. #96
    Major TheLionHeart's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThronePenumbra - Black PlagueSemper FiVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    Mount & Blade: Warband

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Haarlem, Netherlands
    Posts
    792
    Ahhhhhh the text walls!!!!! My brain!!!!!!

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfoxy View Post
    Just to get back to the topic... Spain (or Portugal) wasn't even interested in conquering NA for one simple reason... At that time, spanish rulers were too occupied with achieving " limpieza de sangre" in their mainland (the translation gives "cleanliness of blood")... which meant, completely erasing demographic and cultural remains of muslims' rule over Andalusia...

    here is an interesting link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre


    So it made no sense for Spain and Portugal to conquer places full of people they're trying to get rid of... They were only interested in keeping few costal footholds for two reasons :

    - to alert the mainland in case muslims are preparing a come back...

    - to supply naval expeditions to the new world...

    As far as we've been told, EU4 seems to poorly model the "getting-foothold" strategy, as colonial powers have no choice but conquering big parts of NA...

    The only fix I can think of is making places that were historically occupied in NA on a distinct province... which means NA coastal provinces needs to be redesigned... but that's not gonna happen!
    You forgot about the knights; Spain backed the knights and tried to take over the coast to give to them; and even without them what you said was different from monarch to monarch; I highly doubt it applied to the last Portugese King.

    I see two fundamental problems here though. First, a spy is state sanctioned in EU. Your definition of these events clearly sticks to the thesis that these didn’t actually involve the state. Therefore a spy would go against your argument just as a much as an army would. Second, in EU, and most especially EU4 where envoys have names, it’s clear that the spy you send isn’t actually the rebel or privateer that you sponsor. There’s no way to raise a rebel in the Aztec Empire that will be called Hernando Cortes and will fight for Spain.
    But it is still closer than dropping a 1000 men in the new world and direct it; the spy does go in, make local alliances, raise a local army along with the retinue he brought, and then defects to you. I admit the gameplay way to represent 400 conquistadores coming in; making clever alliances; taking advantage of the complete hatred everyone had for the triple alliance, and overthrowing an empire is very hard to depict; the tens of thousands of men being able to just pour in in EU3 and conquer the aztecs in a few months was meant to simulate lack of state involvement/private funding/volunteers who could have left at any point without the death penalty or any penalty for desertion etc was a horrible system; but I admit coming up with a better one is very tough to say the least. Even in mods trying to put the difficulty in the Aztecs still fall.

    After the colonies developed is the key phrase here. In the early 16th century this was a completely different story. There were only a few thousand Spaniards in the New World and most of the colonies were fledgling trading posts. There simply wasn't the infrastructure or population to support that kind of campaign yet.
    I agree completely; although the more developed local cultures could supply such an army but that would require diplomacy; and doesn't last when most of the natives die of disease.

    But, the point is that something both unlikely and difficult came to be through a determined cause. Conquering North Africa would not have been particularly easy, but Christian states did make some headway during this period. If the player really wants to focus on it, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be beyond his reach. This is no different than the player conquering France or England. Both are entirely possible, even if they should be fairly difficult.
    I absolutely agree; but the key is if Spain declares war on France it has to work hard to win; and it is possible Spain will lose. If it declares war on a Barbary State there is a 100% chance it will win. The gameplay has to accurately give the Barbary States a chance to survive because it would have been as tough to conquer them as it would be to invade France or England.

    The problem is consistency. The Spanish won two big victories and had many small defeats. How exactly are we supposed to represent that? If we make Natives too weak, they’ll stand no chance. If we make the too strong, Spain might never recreate its conquests. As I said before, I think this is best represented through gameplay mechanics such as diseases and differences in overseas warfare.
    That is a big problem; although the new game mechanics seems to favor being able to easily keep together large peacetime armies.

    My point, that you seem to confirm in most respects, is that crusade was an ambiguous and unspecific term. Calling the wars with the Barbary pirates a crusade can be done, but it’s a label that doesn’t tell us much about what happened or why.
    Well it tells us it was a religious war in the tradition of "defense of Christendom" called for by the Pope; there is a great deal more to it; but then again there is also a great deal more to the Crusaders than most people today acknowledge. Of course the same excuses by the Barbaries in the 18th century just made people openly refer to them as pirates.

    Going back to the point though, Spain’s economy received a short term boost from the New World, but not one particularly healthy or long lasting. Controlling a vast European empire would certainly have had more to do with Spain’s ventures in North Africa than their ability to conquer the Aztecs.
    While it did hurt in the long term the short term did I think you agree make them much more dangerous to powers at home they faced. It's long term effects also weren't inevitable; Portugal avoided them. It was the decisions of Spanish Monarchs that made the long term effects what happened.

    A rebellion isn’t the only type of administrative problem. Many of the examples that I provided were groups within the Spanish colonial empire which rather defeated Spanish attempts to control them or even achieved de facto independence. When one cannot defend, govern, tax, or even travel through a portion of their own empire, then there is indeed an administrative issue.
    Then there were some administrative problems; but as far as having stability and being able to hold the area as Spanish territory the Spanish Colonial Administration was even if not that good at getting tax to Spain and encouraging innovation was good at stability; and because the Spaniards wanted gold and silver that was kept rolling except when attacked by British and French forces it was a situation acceptable for most people involved. Of course defacto independence for some tribes was eventually considered unacceptable. Of course the post colonial administrations often had to make similar concessions and face the same problems the Spanish did.

    It’s always possible, and often likely, that the player will do better than their historical counterpart. What I was getting at though is there should be a certain degree of control over how quickly and aggressively a player can expand. If the player decides that the Reconquista needs to push across North Africa, then that’s fine. But the player should have to devote a good deal of attention, resources, and time to it. In doing so, they should have to sacrifice other goals. Colonization and exploration are vastly different focuses from waging war and converting Muslims.
    Unfortunately it seems your right that gameplay may keep Spain from taking over two things at the same time; while it may be good gameplay and the powerful factions of EU3 aren't restricted enough so it seems like a good fix it just hits me as odd for Spain's ability to wage war to go down during colonization. Of course strictly speaking it wasn't inevitable that Spain would be intolerant to muslims or jews. Before continuing I'm not a Spaniard (because people get called nationalists a lot here) but the expulsions and intolerance was a brainchild of Ferdinand; there should be a motive to follow his path but there should also be a motive not to (i.e. the fact that the Pope thought the idea of secret Jews was lunacy and ordered the Spanish Inquisition to stop; the massive lost trade and lost connections to other nations high muslim revolt risk following an intolerance policy) but there should of course be high and good quality rewards to. It wasn't inevitable that Spain would end in a conversion policy in the old world. The Spanish states of the middle ages were as tolerant as the Ottoman Empire or the Italian city states and we do start very close to that legacy.

    I think on this we fundamentally disagree. I think that the New World, while certainly a land of many new resources, was a goal and part of the larger process of building an empire. I do not agree with the assertion that it was just a means to funding European powers. This ignores significant investment in developing and protecting colonies, and not just because they provided income, but also because they were distinct yet integral parts of the European empires.
    Even as the agricultural output of the new world became higher Spain did leave a lot of people alone; had their goal been the land wouldn't it have made sense to subdue people as soon as possible? They often chose stability over control over a region; as long as the Spanish had what they wanted and enough natives were subject to corvee periods to make large plantations profitable the Spanish were often willing to let sleeping dogs lie.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLionHeart View Post
    Ahhhhhh the text walls!!!!! My brain!!!!!!
    Let them. It started reasonably, I assume it's still in normal tone. I'm not sure, I no longer read the walls.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

  19. #99
    Field Marshal Dafool's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, USA
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    But it is still closer than dropping a 1000 men in the new world and direct it; the spy does go in, make local alliances, raise a local army along with the retinue he brought, and then defects to you. I admit the gameplay way to represent 400 conquistadores coming in; making clever alliances; taking advantage of the complete hatred everyone had for the triple alliance, and overthrowing an empire is very hard to depict; the tens of thousands of men being able to just pour in in EU3 and conquer the aztecs in a few months was meant to simulate lack of state involvement/private funding/volunteers who could have left at any point without the death penalty or any penalty for desertion etc was a horrible system; but I admit coming up with a better one is very tough to say the least. Even in mods trying to put the difficulty in the Aztecs still fall.
    As I said, there are some espionage related aspects to what happened in the New World. I said that originally when I suggested it was a mix of war, diplomacy, and subterfuge. However, I still hold that spies simply can't represent the entire process and, given EU's general level of control, this is essentially a player's decision and responsibility to engage in. Even if the system we currently have doesn't really portray it all that well, there's no reason to further simplify it.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    I agree completely; although the more developed local cultures could supply such an army but that would require diplomacy; and doesn't last when most of the natives die of disease.
    To an extent. Cortes and were highly reliant on Native help not only for manpower, but also for resources and especially information. Even with only a few hundred men, Cortes had a hard time maintaining his (the Spanish) soldiers. Gunpowder, steel, and horses couldn't be easily replaced.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    I absolutely agree; but the key is if Spain declares war on France it has to work hard to win; and it is possible Spain will lose. If it declares war on a Barbary State there is a 100% chance it will win. The gameplay has to accurately give the Barbary States a chance to survive because it would have been as tough to conquer them as it would be to invade France or England.
    I have no problem with that assessment. North Africa should be a pain to conquer and a pain to administer. Even the North African states had problems with controlling the area.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    That is a big problem; although the new game mechanics seems to favor being able to easily keep together large peacetime armies.
    Armies look to be a bit more expensive in EU4. Additionally, it would be nice to see colonial upkeep increase. The piece de resistance would be if EU4 includes new mechanics from handling overseas wars. Smaller levels of warfare, more logistical concerns, and the ability to enlist local forces would all be quite welcomed.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    Well it tells us it was a religious war in the tradition of "defense of Christendom" called for by the Pope; there is a great deal more to it; but then again there is also a great deal more to the Crusaders than most people today acknowledge. Of course the same excuses by the Barbaries in the 18th century just made people openly refer to them as pirates.
    I think this only goes back to the point I made before though, namely that "crusade" is a very ambiguous term. This ambiguity makes it difficult to say exactly what it might mean in a certain context.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    While it did hurt in the long term the short term did I think you agree make them much more dangerous to powers at home they faced. It's long term effects also weren't inevitable; Portugal avoided them. It was the decisions of Spanish Monarchs that made the long term effects what happened.
    Perhaps, but I would view that as a double edged sword, not a temporary boost. Most European nations avoided economic repercussions from their colonies for two reasons. First, Spain gained its wealth through precious metals, as to where many others colonized with natural resources, agriculture, and trade in mind. Second, for most empires, their colonies weren't the backbone of their economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    Then there were some administrative problems; but as far as having stability and being able to hold the area as Spanish territory the Spanish Colonial Administration was even if not that good at getting tax to Spain and encouraging innovation was good at stability; and because the Spaniards wanted gold and silver that was kept rolling except when attacked by British and French forces it was a situation acceptable for most people involved. Of course defacto independence for some tribes was eventually considered unacceptable. Of course the post colonial administrations often had to make similar concessions and face the same problems the Spanish did.
    Of course. Comancheria ruined northern Mexico and more or less handed that area over the United States during the Mexican-American War. Spain had dealt with similar problems for centuries by that point. In EU we tend to associate things like rebels, stability, infrastructure, and centralization as part of governing and administering your nation. While Spain's colonial empire was long lasting, it can't easily be said that it was the most ably governed area either. They simply faced too much resistance from Natives, too much interference from outside powers, and too much political and racial tension.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    Unfortunately it seems your right that gameplay may keep Spain from taking over two things at the same time; while it may be good gameplay and the powerful factions of EU3 aren't restricted enough so it seems like a good fix it just hits me as odd for Spain's ability to wage war to go down during colonization. Of course strictly speaking it wasn't inevitable that Spain would be intolerant to muslims or jews. Before continuing I'm not a Spaniard (because people get called nationalists a lot here) but the expulsions and intolerance was a brainchild of Ferdinand; there should be a motive to follow his path but there should also be a motive not to (i.e. the fact that the Pope thought the idea of secret Jews was lunacy and ordered the Spanish Inquisition to stop; the massive lost trade and lost connections to other nations high muslim revolt risk following an intolerance policy) but there should of course be high and good quality rewards to. It wasn't inevitable that Spain would end in a conversion policy in the old world. The Spanish states of the middle ages were as tolerant as the Ottoman Empire or the Italian city states and we do start very close to that legacy.
    As I said, it's less about you can do this or this, but more about "we have these resources, what can we accomplish?". EU3 often made things too easy. This is why Spain could annex North Africa, colonize the New World, wreck the Ottomans, and invade Scandinavia at the same time. By making the player and AI weigh options and make tough decisions about what's worth it and what isn't, we get a much richer experience and a larger sense of accomplishment when our plans pan out.

    Quote Originally Posted by StupidGenius View Post
    Even as the agricultural output of the new world became higher Spain did leave a lot of people alone; had their goal been the land wouldn't it have made sense to subdue people as soon as possible? They often chose stability over control over a region; as long as the Spanish had what they wanted and enough natives were subject to corvee periods to make large plantations profitable the Spanish were often willing to let sleeping dogs lie.
    The Spanish were often keen to expand with little economic justification. For example, Columbus was primarily sent out because the Spanish were resentful of the Portuguese hegemony in the Atlantic and less because they hoped for some great economic return. They sent him out on a minimal budget, using secondhand ships, and promised him his rewards only when he got back. Similarly, if you want a more extreme example, the Spanish very briefly considered invading China because the Chinese were less than receptive to Christian influence. When we break it down to the cliche but largely true factors of "Gold, God, and Glory", it's only one part economic consideration. Certainly the economic benefits were known and considered when it came to exploration and colonization, but we can't forget that these things were also part of empire building, which was far more than economic competition.
    Last edited by Dafool; 31-01-2013 at 04:13.

  20. #100
    First Lieutenant
    Crusader Kings II

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Occitania
    Posts
    231
    During the 16th century, Castille had its hands full with the struggle to achieve religious unity, revolts' repression, diseases, succession crisis... Conquering NA was definitely at the bottom of its priorities...

    While enacting the " limpieza de sangre" policy, Spain faced many major revolts from 1519 to 1523 (the revolt of the brotherhoods in the kingdom of Aragon), from 1568 to 1571 (the revolt of Las Alpujarras in Granada), and in 1520 (the revolt of the Comuneros against Charles V) ...
    By 1609, king Philip III decreed the expulsion of all moriscos (converted muslims)...

    According to the capitulation agreement of Granada, muslims had the right to stay in Iberia and to keep their religion!

    But when Castilla realized it won't be easy to achieve religious unity peacefully, getting baptised became mandatory in 1502. Everyone who stayed, was assumed to have converted, and therefore, could be investigated by The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Once someone is convicted of secretly practicing his original religion, he was burned alife in ceremonies called autos-da-fé... regardless of whether people confessed under torture, a pratice that, btw, was of common use. These are facts!

    Quote Originally Posted by taxinimon View Post
    You're probably bringing your own line of reasoning too much into it; if this were the case, Spain would not have put so much effort into colonizing and Christianizing the new world.
    Oh! Please! Like if new world's expeditions could rely on mainland's support in critical moments !!! Conquistadors and colonists were on their own once they left Iberia!

    Quote Originally Posted by taxinimon View Post
    Isabella I and Cardinal Cisneros were actually quite zealous, and the queen actually wanted to continue the Reconquista into North Africa; had she not died so soon (and the New World didn't beckon)...
    First... the conquest of Granada (1492) was The End of the Reconquista which basically was a war to take back what muslims conquered since 711! So landing troops on the other side of the straight couldn't fit in the Reconquista, was spanish kings zealous!

    Second... Queen Isabel The Catholic died in 1504... twelve years after the capture of Granada! She had plenty of time to start conquering NA... had it been that easy!

    Quote Originally Posted by taxinimon View Post
    it's very likely that they would have made North Africa their next target and focus. Ferdinand, hailing from the more maritime-oriented Aragon, shifted the state policy towards the Mediterranean when he was the sole ruler, and then exploits from the New World drew the attention away from Africa still further. Still, he pursued a more prudent strategy of establishing presidios from which to project Spanish influence in NA (with the idea of de-facto vassalage), as opposed to Isabella's desire for outright conquest.
    Now who's bringing his own line of reasoning!!!

    After the death of Queen Isabel the catholic, her husband Ferdinand V was reluctant to let Philip the Handsome (husband of Ferdinand's daughter Joanna of Castile) become King of Castilla...

    Along with the succession crisis, plagues and famines was devastating the country...

    Not to mention that Spain wasn't confortable with dragging the threatening Ottomans to its doorsteps... Full conquest of NA by Iberian powers could have triggered a switch in ottoman's focus from the Balkans to NA... Despite all the tensions with Morocco, it was a convenient buffer state between Ottomans and Spain...

    Plus, North Africans were never as out-teched as the game imply they were... The severe defeat of the portuguese crusade on Morocco in 1578 showed that...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts