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.
North Africa
- Thread starter unmerged(612669)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
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.
In a perfect world, Aragon and Portugal would have made peace with castille and allied to stop Granada taking land in Castille. I don't know if the threat system will be weighted by religion though - would be awesome if heathen nations generated +50% threat points, or whatever.
Agreed. But I would like to see a serious nerf to Holy Warring. Also it would be nice if you couldn't easily convert, culture shift, obtain cores on huge swaths of North Africa, Anatolia, etc. I would like to see higher revolt risk, more negatives in terms of income levels, things that would make the AI reevaluate conquering 25 or so wrong religion, wrong culture provinces before 1500.
Some places should just be easy to conquer and have a penalty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayreddin_Barbarossa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aruj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ward
A 300 year threat shouldn't be represented by 5% higher revolt risk after there is no longer any threat (a revolt risk solved by create vassal) it should be solved by modelling it in as a threat that the Spanish have ups and downs against which can't be conquered easily and has a chance of making it's own conquests.
The issue isn't nations of a different religion surviving, it is that some of the most powerful meditterranian factions which defeated Spanish Lead coalitions regularly during our time period are represented as easy conquests and die in 99% of games. The issue is a power issue that the North African Factions don't have the power they should for a game starting during any point 17th century or earlier. That is the issue, it is ahistorical and horrible gameplay.
Well, with NIs they will probably be getting lots of galley bonuses, which means they should hold their own against the Iberians until later on when the Iberians will have better pickings in the New World.
Guess some determinism is not a bad thing?
missed the whole thread and if i was portugal and aragon, id want granada to beat up castille somee so that way castille isnt stronger than either, let granada beat em up some then intervene
heck granada lived for so long because portugal and aragon didnt want castille to conquer it and be way stronger than them. offcourse the castille-aragon PU put an end to that....and granada
A lot of the problems with North Africa could be solved if it took Castilla+Aragon longer to finish of Granada... Historically the reconquista lasted until 1492 not two years after the start of the game. If it took a lot of wasted time for Castille and Aragon to push out the last of the moors it would also give North Africa time to stabilize and make it easier for them to hold on to there land rather than large swathes of North African sand turning yellow.
Bonus Feature it allows portugal a headstart in colonization and the capture of provinces like Ceuta, Tangiers, Mellila, as it did historically, which then further lead to the headstart of Portuguese exploration and discovery.
Bonus Feature it allows portugal a headstart in colonization and the capture of provinces like Ceuta, Tangiers, Mellila, as it did historically, which then further lead to the headstart of Portuguese exploration and discovery.
The North Africa problem was already solved in 5.2. The North Africans are quite powerful can can repel attempted European invasions.
In my current 5.2 game, "Portuguese Algiers" is marked on the map. (As is Castilian Syria.)
Barbarossa was an Ottoman admiral and it was the Ottoman fleet that defeated the Holy League in Preveza. He was a corsair to begin with, but became the Grand Admiral. He was no more a pirate than the Knights in Malta or Andrea Doria were.
Barbarossa also had technological superiority at Preveza: he had better artillery built by the Imperial Arsenal in Constantinople. The Muslims did not lack firearms. OE used them more than the Latins until the 1550s or so, and the Barbary states were Ottoman vassals. They reason they used them less on fleets was because they had enough bowmen in the 17th century. Turkish composite bow was a superior weapon to the 16th century matchlock. The problem was it was hard to use so people who could use it were expensive. Firearms took over because they were easy to make and you could give one to any peasant and he could shoot it in the general direction of the enemy.
As to Barbary states, they are underpowered. Spain tried to invade them in history and failed miserably. I won't even comment on Castille invading Turkey proper, which happens in every EUIII game. The problem is Western Europe is extremely overpowered in the EU series. Unfortunately I don't expect it to change in EU IV.
Barbarossa also had technological superiority at Preveza: he had better artillery built by the Imperial Arsenal in Constantinople. The Muslims did not lack firearms. OE used them more than the Latins until the 1550s or so, and the Barbary states were Ottoman vassals. They reason they used them less on fleets was because they had enough bowmen in the 17th century. Turkish composite bow was a superior weapon to the 16th century matchlock. The problem was it was hard to use so people who could use it were expensive. Firearms took over because they were easy to make and you could give one to any peasant and he could shoot it in the general direction of the enemy.
As to Barbary states, they are underpowered. Spain tried to invade them in history and failed miserably. I won't even comment on Castille invading Turkey proper, which happens in every EUIII game. The problem is Western Europe is extremely overpowered in the EU series. Unfortunately I don't expect it to change in EU IV.
The Ottomans gave him rank because he came with his own fleet; you also know that the Barbary States submitted to Ottoman suzerienty (sp) so it makes sense that they would give the best Barbary Officers rank and better equiptment. Pirate may be a wrong term; perhaps a better term would be a significant and powerful tool of the state which defeated enemy fleets, enslaved large numbers of cities and towns, and raided countless people and died undefeated. Of course Barbary Corsair also describes that because everyone knows (or should know) they weren't just common pirates; but a tool of their nations.
Barbarossa (or his brother, can't remember right now) gave his land and ships to the Ottoman Sultan. And got even more ships from him. In Preveza he commanded the fleet built for him in the Imperial Dockyards in the Golden Horn. He wasn't from the Barbary states anyway, he was Turkish, from the Aegean. He retired to and is buried today, in Istanbul.
After the 16th century, OE decentralised and Algerians etc started acting more independently.
Increased costs for holding such areas will do the following:
1. Decrease the short term value of the area for conquerors, AI will have to be told about this.
2. Simulate minor attacks and other relevant modifiers that made holding much of Marocco expensive.
3. Leave the conqueror with less money for ie troops and buildings to effectively defend the area.
This combined with increased aggression from those relevant (tell AI about that aswell), in the case of the barbary coast; ottomans + african north coast, will mostly produce a historically sound outcome.
Especially if there's such things as limited wars.
4. Oh, and slower and more logical expansions. Atleast if AI is told that even if it can, doesn't mean it should...
North Africa suffers from the same issue, that affects a lot of other so-called ROTW places : the lack of a proper logistical system. Places that were historically incredibly hard to conquest, because the aggressors could not supply the army there, in EU3 is just a matter of throwing thousands of new troops until eventually you take it all. Look at the Native American states, or at any place around the world. If you want you can, as any European country, load 10-20k troops aboard your fleet and send them all across the globe (maybe with 1-2 stops), declare war versus anyone there, unload your troops and you'll do probably fine. Without any bases, logistical support, connection to the country and under constant threat from the natives. Sure - the attrition will hit you, but the troops will get replenished anyway. What is probably the main cause of the problem: troops sent overseas should NOT be automatically replenished from the manpower pool. Plus attrition values should be doubled, or tripled if they are to fight in hostile conditions, especially one unfamiliar to them.
Spain held more than 2 cities on the coast. This is from the wiki on the Spanish Empire:
If they had wanted to the Spanish certainly had the power to take North Africa. Basically the Spanish took all the valuable cities on the coast, but it wasn't economical to take the hinterland. Even if they had conqured the inland they couldn't have conqured and held it all (there would always have been a border with aggressive Muslim countries further inland). Given the Spanish attitude towards Muslims after the fall of Granada there would also have been significant immegration over the border, strengthening the opposition to Spanish conquest.
Because they didn't conquer the hinterland the Spanish conquest was always tenious. When Charles V was distracted with the Ottoman siege of Vienna, Piracy from Barborossa, Frances I's agression in Italy, the Reformation, the Schmalkaldic league of German princes becoming virtually independent, stopping Henry VIII from devorcing his Aunt, the conquest of the new world and many other things then holding isolated cities on the African coast just wasn't near the top of his list of priorities. Without help most of those were lost relativly quickly.
To me the flaw in EU is that conqureing North Africa often you end up with lands which aren't borderlands, but are instead isolated and easy to protect, and once the initial revolts die down cheap to look after. Thats certainly wrong. North Africa should be hard to hold, and difficult to tame. The Spanish Dev diary sounds like they are heading in the right direction, but time will tell if they have gone far enough.
To me thats exactly the sort of fix we want. Make it expensive to hold those areas (eg rework attrition so that armies sufficiently large stationed in Africa always suffer attrition), and make the AI take that into account when looking at conquering them.Increased costs for holding such areas will do the following:
1. Decrease the short term value of the area for conquerors, AI will have to be told about this.
2. Simulate minor attacks and other relevant modifiers that made holding much of Marocco expensive.
3. Leave the conqueror with less money for ie troops and buildings to effectively defend the area.
This combined with increased aggression from those relevant (tell AI about that aswell), in the case of the barbary coast; ottomans + african north coast, will mostly produce a historically sound outcome.
Especially if there's such things as limited wars.
4. Oh, and slower and more logical expansions. Atleast if AI is told that even if it can, doesn't mean it should...
Well the Ottomans were also distracted by a great many things, including piracy from the so-called Knights and Andrea Doria, aggression of the Persian Empire on their far eastern border, various rebellions, Harem intrigues, but they held North Africa, and prevented Spanish expansion there. NA was not an Ottoman priority either. Also it is very far from Constantinople, but is near Spain. Even before the Ottomans were involved Spain wasn't very successful there.
Also, should write this again: Suleyman told Barbarossa when and whom to attack, and whom to protect (e.g. he was in France at one time). Spanish admirals similarly ravaged Greek coasts when Suleyman was deep into Austria. They were not pirates, but admirals during war. No pirate in history commanded 200 vessels. Not even the Grand Master of the Knights.