• 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.
Ozzeh said:
That is interesting... the usual France/Austria fight may be avoided by two open-minded players that are new to the spot :D
Ofcourse my good catholic french brother.
 
Daniel A said:
A Daniel A tactic eh? :D The war-maniacs will be furious if you do this. And this game has a high proportion of them ;)
Make love, not war....peace man....
 
That is interesting... the usual France/Austria fight may be avoided by two open-minded players that are new to the spot

dont even joke about that. Its not funny.
 
cheech said:
dont even joke about that. Its not funny.

What was it I said. ;) The first one among the war-maniacs to line up. Watch it Ozzeh, their view on how a proper EU-game shall evolve is, shall we say, set in cement :D.

FRA and AUS must battle. And SPA must support AUS in that war. And then OE must support FRA by attacking AUS. In game after game after game after game... Their flexibility of mind is limes zero. They cannot get out of the iron grip of History :cool:
 
I actually posted that comment hoping that the likes of Cheech would jump on me like a horde of hyena's :D But seriously, why shouldn't I find another way of playing France than the usual one? I'm not saying I'll be a Daniel-like isolationist, just that I might choose different enemies than normal... or maybe I won't, but you don't know and thats the fun of it :D
 
Daniel A said:
FRA and AUS must battle.
They dont HAVE to, but game events pretty often take a course that makes it inevitable :). For example if France expands into Italy and Austria wants a piece of it (less chance of that with Venice though), if France goes beyond the Rhine etc. etc.. Basically the conflicts between Austria and France that are in a way "impossible" to avoid once certain conditions have been met are those where Austria tries to stave off the growing power of the French.

And SPA must support AUS in that war.
Once again they dont HAVE to, but in many cases, they gain from it.
Admitted, a great many players see the Habsburg alliance as obvious, even though France has not given any incentive for such a block to form. Reasons for why the Austrians should ally or help Spain is if they are offered some of that juicy Mexican cash, if the Spanish have offered to help Austria in stalling French expansion or to help against the Turks.

And then OE must support FRA by attacking AUS.
And for the last time, they dont HAVE to :). OE and Austria can make deals and survive with great prosperity, as has been shown in both devil's OE (who did it first) and later yours, which became almost as successful. However, if OE takes an aggressive role in central Europe, Austria needs help.
Why so many players (often French, Prussian and Polish) argue and bitch about a Turk that has taken a peaceful route for his northern border, is because they gain from an active OE more than from a peaceful one.

In game after game after game after game... Their flexibility of mind is limes zero. They cannot get out of the iron grip of History :cool:
If you really look at all the games that have been played, it is very rare for all these occurences to have happened in the same game. It is only just that overall, these are the most likely policies of Austria and France and being the generalization-loving race that we are, our first impressions and predictions for a game are that this is also what will happen.
 
Mulliman said:
And for the last time, they dont HAVE to :). OE and Austria can make deals and survive with great prosperity, as has been shown in both devil's OE (who did it first) and later yours, which became almost as successful. However, if OE takes an aggressive role in central Europe, Austria needs help.
Why so many players (often French, Prussian and Polish) argue and bitch about a Turk that has taken a peaceful route for his northern border, is because they gain from an active OE more than from a peaceful one.

Actually, I have seen more OE's making deals with Austria after 1540 than those who constantly invade.

If you have an agressive France, it's bound to happen that Spain and Austria cooperate, but indeed, it doesn't have to happen. It's just that the warmongers prefer to play France ;)

And if France stays passive, Austria will gobble up the HRE, becoming too powerful. France hasn't the opportunity to only gobble up AI nations like Austria has, hence the conflict that sooner or later will arrive.
 
HolisticGod said:
20 Fred, 77 Lurken , 96 Tem, 85 Waldzwerg, 72 Oz, 16 Valas, 3 Duke, 79 Cheech, 82 Juv, 100 PJL, 68 HG

Brandenburg: PJL
Sweden: Temujin
The Ottoman Empire: Waldzwerg
England: Juv
Russia: Cheech
Austria: Lurken
France: Ozzeh
Venice: HG
Spain: Fred
Portugal: Valas
Poland: Duke
This wasn't really what i had in mind :D
Although, it's relative balanced really.

Lurken will be under alot of pressure, but he will manage well with Spanish ducats ;)

Duke,
i got one more possible player joining, you're free to move to Denmark then if you want to, i know you wanted to play them, no? or you are happy with Poland?

Tem,
You having scandinavia annexed within 50 years kinda scare me :D
I think it's recomended to have Denmark played really, especially on this map. :)
 
Fredrik82 said:
Tem,
You having scandinavia annexed within 50 years kinda scare me :D
I think it's recomended to have Denmark played really, especially on this map. :)
Not that I know tem, but scandinavia is really huge now with the new map, there really should be two players there, Denmark is definately very playable, with its 3-4 new provs.

Fred, I still think you should edit in sweden as a danish vassal again, or at least edit boghuslan to denmark as it should be.
 
Valas said:
Not that I know tem, but scandinavia is really huge now with the new map, there really should be two players there, Denmark is definately very playable, with its 3-4 new provs.

Fred, I still think you should edit in sweden as a danish vassal again, or at least edit boghuslan to denmark as it should be.
Yes, Denmark must be played aswell.

I need to take a closer look at 1.4 before i can comment anything.
 
FRA and AUS must battle. And SPA must support AUS in that war. And then OE must support FRA by attacking AUS. In game after game after game after game... Their flexibility of mind is limes zero. They cannot get out of the iron grip of History

Well france can for example attack england like me in BNW but then spains like yours for example will stab them in the back. Not that you wernt perfectly entitled to despite your peacful claims but it does show why the rivalrys are so rigid. It works out like history because the map/borders are as in history, so the rivalrys will obviously be similar.

I do try myself to vary who i fight though to make it interesting for my self and others so i think this is unfair accusation. :rolleyes:
 
Daniel A said:
Devil's OE, was that DbD1 where you played Portugal?
Aye, the last two to three session, though i played Austria at start. I had to leave after a while though, mostly because of unending connection problems. :)

FAL said:
Screenshot is here: http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...eason=Valkyrie.net III&lang=eng&yearsave=1770

That's a full naval/trade OE. It can only survive if it made good deals with neighbours ;)
Devil's naval/trade OE was substantially more active on the international scene in the early years than Daniel's was, that must be said. Although i was one of the main reasons for his greatness, (as i played Austria and made a favourable peaceful deal with him even though he had stated his future aims very clearly), he often managed to carry through his policies merely by bullying or forcing other players to do his bidding without actually declaring war. He had a total strangle hold on trade and too many of the navals depended on him so that it was very hard to organize a gangbang on him. Plus, no really diplomatically skilled players existed that had a real reason to bring him down until it was too late.