Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Day of Glory (MP megacampaign)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Its interesting that the African Three are not showing more concern for the wars in Europe. They keep warring against one of the three nations that might bear Russia a grudge.

If Croatia and Russia win, is that good for their interests?
 
BlitzMartinDK said:
Doesn't he have like half the goldmines in the world? -or is it more?
Click to expand...

Ethiopia is the world's largest producer of gold. That said, tobacco and coffee are worth more than gold now.
 
BlitzMartinDK said:
So what is USA producing? lots of gold (although apparantly less than ½ of world production), and what ?
Click to expand...

Not much gold. There is very little gold in the Americas overall. Mostly coffee, fur, fish, salt, sugar and tobacco I would expect.

Forcelimits after this session:

Land
Novgorod 359
Bavaria 333
Croatia 296
Catalunya 226
England 196
Persia 165
Malaya 149
Kongo 144
Ethiopia 134
Mongol Khanate 133
Qin 102
Tripoli 83
USA 67
Tibet 64
Punjab 55
Khmer 49
Quebec 49
Bengal 26

Naval
Malaya 580
USA 299
Ethiopia 287
England 280
Catalunya 184
Kongo 93
Tripoli 75
Khmer 68
Bavaria 55
Qin 55
Croatia 46
Mongol Khanate 32
Bengal 31
Novgorod 24
Persia 21
Quebec 3
Punjab 1
Tibet 1

And a new one: Overall forcelimit (combined land+naval). Not sure how useful this one will be, but here it is.
Malaya 729
England 474
Ethiopia 421
Catalunya 410
Bavaria 388
Novgorod 383
USA 366
Croatia 342
Kongo 237
Persia 186
Mongol Khanate 165
Tripoli 158
Qin 157
Khmer 117
Tibet 65
Bengal 57
Punjab 56
Quebec 52
 
I think these combined forcelimits are just propaganda, England is peace loving nation that has no intresses to harm anyone. never ever have and never will have :D:D
 
I'll eventually comment about this in my video but it is my professional opinion that Spain sabotaged the last 2 Novgorod-BFF wars.

Essentially, in NONE of the wars Spain fought did I see them even remotely commit their full forces to Bavaria's defense, and always focused on uselessly engaging Croatia in Italy of all places.

Armchair Generalissimo quarterbacking commencing: Oddman should've left a light defense in the alps and rely on defending on mountains to hold off Croatia while focusing the bulk of their forces supporting Fivoin in the German northern european plains, at least acting as a strategic reserve for counter attacks and to provide safe havens for Fivoin to retreat to.

You should never attack if losing that battle would result in you getting chased down and stackwhiped while letting small armies occupy the whole country, where you were weak withdraw, avoid where he was strong. Whenever he was weak attack, and wth equal odds engage with caution.

I don't think you guys ever built up past your forcelimits either when you should have. I was willing to mint 60% and spent 43% of my GDP on fighting Fivoin, why don't you guys have that same willingness to sacrifice?
 
Sid Meier said:
Why didn't you guys have that same willingness to sacrifice?
Click to expand...
I am gonna have to agree here, I never got the impression from watching those wars that they were giving it their all.
When I (USA/Mayans) was preparing for what at the seemed like my end, I was spending huge amounts of gold and minting at at furious rate to keep my over-sized armed forces up.

Had they actually spent that huge income of theirs on a standing army I do think they could have done much better and have not handed Von R and Croatia Europe, and maintained their world leading position for the rest of the game.
 
I wasn't watching Europe, being occupied with two fronts myself. The Khanate was about 20% over its force limit at the start of the war. The unexpected entry of Tibet unfortunately prevented me from committing seven legions to the Russian front; my planned hell-for-leather advance to the Urals became instead a cautious skirmishing. Unhappily, I got overconfident when I managed to win a battle, committed myself fully to pursuit, and ran right into vR's reinforcements on unfavourable terms. The result was the destruction of my Siberian front. Victory on the Tibetan front, including forcing the surrender of the Kongolese Expeditionary Force, then became quite irrelevant. Still, even if my Siberian force had survived and been able to hold off the Russians, it could hardly have mattered much after the surrender of Bavaria, which must have freed up forces that outnumbered my whole army by two to one.
 
A very interesting war for me in Arabia overall. Persia, (my general impression is) stripped the northern frontiers of all but one army in an attempt to win the Arabian theatre before vR could turn his attention south; initially it faced Ethiopia and Tripoli together and was pushed back, but Tripoli soon dropped out of the offensives due to lack of manpower, and the war was between roughly equal numbers thenceforth.

With equal numbers, unfortunately, Persia had the advantage; Military Drill, the Shia morale bonus, and Persia's discipline-granting ND combine to give its army a significant one-for-one qualitative advantage over mine. Also, his king was a significantly better general than my leader. :( Persia thus blunted my offensives towards Baghdad, and I never got closer than Basra. However, we both had deep manpower pools and the fight pretty much settled down to stalemate (although I had to scramble a bit to keep it there). When the war ended, Persia had pushed back slightly from the high-water mark, but the fighting and occupations were still in Persia. I didn't wipe any of his stacks and he didn't wipe any of mine, and, as far as I know, neither of us were yet low on manpower. Persian WE was higher and growing faster, perhaps 10 to my 7, but neither of us had much rebel trouble.

Bavarian surrender in Europe meant the end of Persia's war effort as well, but the peace was light: two Arabian provinces to Ethiopia, and a third which Mayi no longer wanted after the peace I bought back for the same price I once sold it to Persia for. I don't believe any land changed hands between Persia and the Slavics, but I do not remember for sure.

Ethiopia had 36k in India of which most were sent to invade the Komgol Commonwealth, but as noted, I paid very little attention to the Komgol theatre, which was hardly relevant compared to the war in Persia (which itself was hardly relevant compared to the war in Europe, I'm sure ;) ). My general impression coincides with KOM's, namely, that the Komgol Commonwealth scored several victories in Tibet but was crushed in Punjab and Siberia.
 
The entry of Tibet was unexpected? I told you before the war that the chances on winning weren't great. I thought it was clear that I had arranged for some allies to counter the allies of Bavaria - Tibet was a logical candidate to counter you.

As for the war in Europe, it was the same as the wars before. Bavaria was - despite building significantly past forcelimits - heavily outnumbered by Russian and Croatian armies. Combined with the superior quality of the Russian troops and the better generals, there was little Fivoin could do. While the Croatians remained on the defense on the south, the Russians chased and destroyed the bulk of the Bavarian army that was defending along the Oder.

Only 5 of my armies were not engaged in heavy combat in Germany - 3 were hunting rebels, one was positioned against the Mongols, and one against Persia. When KoM advanced with 2 armies into Siberia, and Persia made no move on my southern border, I relocated that Persian army to Siberia, and with these reinforcements was able to half the advance of the Mongols and destroy their forces. (My 6/6/4 general certainly helped with that.)
 
Last edited:
I am skeptical that the Bavarians have in fact built past their forcelimits, and stand certain that Catalunya did not build past their force limits; and am certain that neither Bavaria or Catalunya built past to the extant that their economies would've been economically strained as mine was.

In fact the Stats pages bear this argument out: Bavaria's inflation went down by .3% while Catalunia's went up by .4% meaning that their military buildup or lack there of, was done entirely without straining their economy.

Had they spend the money, and they certainly had the economies to fund it, they probably could have raised significant mercenary armies as well as doubling past their forcelimits.

Yeah checking the save, day 1 of the war: Bavaria has 420 regiments to a forcelimit of 340; 80 above, but they are spending virtually none of their GDP maintaining it, 90d/mo on military expdenitatures when they're total monthly income is 750d, or roughly 10% and thats without wartaxing (I was wartaxing about half my income during the war), 350d of their income is from trade, my rule of thumb is that minting about 80% of your trade income is well within sustainable for a large economy like Bavaria's.

If Bavaria minted another 200d they could have possibly fielded another 100-200 regiments depending on the price increase curve for mil-maint, and raised mercenaries.

Catalunia only has 225 regiments out of a support limit of 211, barely above it. Minting 116d per month with a total income of 500d and also spending only 80d, (corruption!) but they're economy relatively speaking while smaller than Bavaria's is still larger then Novgorods and should be in a better position to spend past their means to support a vastly larger military; I could see them easily maintaining 320 regiments.

It's like their scared of inflation, dudes, winning a war is more important then your economic health.


For comparison Novgorod has an income of 360 was only 20 regiments above their forcelimit costing them 80d.

Croatia has only 274 regiments out of a support limit of 284, spending only 70 while only having an income of three hundred.

In short Novgorod and Croatias combined totals were arguably the same or only minorly ahead of the BFFA (Best Friend's Forever Alliance, or =F=, for failure) while only minorly inconveniencing their economies while having in both absolute and relative numbers a much smaller combined economy compared to Bavaria's and Catalunias.

Meaning that if Catalunya and Bavaria been willing to walk the walk and spend as much as they could for the obviously upcoming wars for dear life, sure the immediate effect would've been to just force Novgorod and Croatia to spend more and match them, which they can. Whats not certain is for how long the two obviously hostile blocks can keep spending past their means in a race to see how blinks or otherwise collapses first. It's obvious to my mind, looking at the numbers that the combined economies of Catalunya and Bavaria are much larger then Novgorods and Croatia's, overwhelmingly so if we included their natural allies like the USA into the mix who is currently the number one world's trading economy and substantially more likely to conduct lend-lease then the African brotherhood would be.

If both coalitions spent only 10% then its 1,500d to 1,000d, a large difference; deceptively actually much worse then that because suppose that the BFFA was willing to spend 33% (I had to mint *higher* then 40% due to my income dropping to dangerously low levels, they would not have that problem) while supposing the Axis could only mint 15% thats 5,000d versus 1,500d for military spending, nearly four times difference in magnitude.

Combined this with strategic misconduct; they failed to appoint common military leadership and more or less struggled separately in different disjointed theaters leaving it so that if ONE of the partners failed his front the whole war was arguably lost and then you have the questionable tactics of either commander in each theater.

Bavaria aimed to strike across the Oder first seeking a "knock out blow" which is about strategically on par with the Schiffilen Plan and equally doomed to failure, losing any defencive modifiers they might have had while facing headfirst into VonR's abundantly available ubergenerals from the previous wars when they lacked the strategic reserve to fall back on in case of failure. When it would have been more prudent to engage defencively along the Oder and whatever hills they might have possessed, widening the front to force VoNR to also widen his forces; doomstack tactics don't work all that well in EU3 due to attrition mechanics and the relative ease in being able to shuttle reinforcements into a battle using defencive bonuses to their best.

In the south Catalunya put some forces to engage the Croatians in hills and mountains basically gauranteeing defeat when a defencive strategy while shifting forces to Germany to act as support would have been best, the Croatians would've had difficulty in forcing Catalunya out with high casualties and would've been very time consuming.

Wars are not won by the winner, they are lost by the loser and it was the BFFA's war to lose.

aar reward 10 army tradition.
 
great post Blayne, thougth I migth have my own impressions of why the slavic hordes constantly win the wars in europe, the analyzis of the bavarian/catalunian non-willingness to not to meet their full military potentiall is suprise. War needs three things, money, money, and money ;)

I recall some of the pro-players telling me sometimes that doupling one's army from the force limits is easily possible if there is urgent need for it, and if money allows, go even futher. In deffensive wars against huge foe I always automatically turn my minting slider into max (unless some cruisal tech is soon to come).
 
Lets see if I understand : There was a major war, with roughly three fronts : europe : line running north/south thru real-life former eastgermany/austria/italy, persia ..more or less persia/arabia, and mongol/russia/tibet.
Front in europe : major victory to Russia/croatia with results of : armyloss % for looser ? provinces?
Persian front : limited, but costly, win for United African Forces (UAF), and threatening reinforcements in the north accelerated peace talks, ending in 3 provinces to Ethiopia, and money to ?mayi?
Asian front : a lot of back an forth ending in ? tibet being shifted like it was modern Poland, and what more?

And to Sid's analysis : nicely argued, a lot is right.. but in olden times (I haven't played in recent years) wars might come and go, and provinces likewise, but Inflation is for life! -Is it still so?
 
Not when someone clearly wants to omnomnom half your country.


AND ESPECIALLY now that losign a province means losing all your buildings and hence population.
 
It's a bit easier to kill inflation than it once was, given that masters of mint can be recruited on demand. And as Sid says, there's the buildings to consider; in IN being fought over had no lasting effects on the value of a province since buildings and such would stay as the province changed hands, but that's no longer true in DW.
 
BlitzMartinDK said:
Lets see if I understand : There was a major war, with roughly three fronts : europe : line running north/south thru real-life former eastgermany/austria/italy, persia ..more or less persia/arabia, and mongol/russia/tibet.
Front in europe : major victory to Russia/croatia with results of : armyloss % for looser ? provinces?
Click to expand...

Entire Bavarian army annihilated, 300-350 regiments by the Russian Army, the rest by the Croatians. 3 provinces were ceded to Russia, 3 to Croatia.

BlitzMartinDK said:
Persian front : limited, but costly, win for United African Forces (UAF), and threatening reinforcements in the north accelerated peace talks, ending in 3 provinces to Ethiopia, and money to ?mayi?
Click to expand...

It was mostly a stalemate, back and forth. Russian victory in Europe meant the end to this conflict. Noteworthy is that Bavaria was the alliance leader, so even if Persia would have had the strength to fight on, it could have been force-peaced trough Bavaria.

BlitzMartinDK said:
Asian front : a lot of back an forth ending in ? tibet being shifted like it was modern Poland, and what more?
Click to expand...

The Mongol armies invading Russia were destroyed. Since I was still busy in Germany at that time, I did not advance deep into Mongol territory. In Tibet fierce fighting took place, the Mongols seemed to have a slight advantage, but invading Tibet - enough to force it to a peace - is nearly impossible, since it's all-mountains. When Bavaria surrendered, I was able to pay more attention to the east, wipe a few more Mongol armies and put enough pressure on KoM so he would agree to cede two provinces to me and 3 to Tibet, along with four provinces gained at the expense of Punjab. Sadly, getting the right provinces occupied for the peacedeal took a loong time, and that kept me at max WE longer than necessary.
 
Just a note to say I liked Sid's big post - people may disagree with him (What I hear you say, people disagree with Sid!) but it's certainly a clear sensible and well argued viewpoint and as such has no place on the Internet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back