@Avrelianvs That would be Liberum Veto. Sadly, Albania is too small in EU3 to use that decision.
Albania!
- Thread starter Mrdie
- 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 really don't know if I'm the only one that wants a feature like that. Anyway, I think it would improve the game overall and not only Albania. There were several small countries that were hard to conquer precisely because they could raise substantial armies. Anyway, I'm not about to scream "Nie pozwalam!" (as if somebody would care), if that's what you meant, @Hydro.
Ever noticed those rebel guys that pop up in conquered provinces even after decades? That require a numerically superior force to fight them if they have a terrain advantage (like, say, in a mountainous province)? That force you to garrison an army in some of the most notorious provinces? That prolong the revolt risk by some years every time you don't crush them in time? That might even declare independence if you ignore them for too long (though most times their new state is annexed again some months later)? That's the game engine's way of modelling Skanderbeg. Though one could make an argument for Albania province getting more and/or stronger rebels.
In theory, having an additional kB of leader names in memory will slow down the game. In practice, I doubt this will be noticeable in any way.
In theory, having an additional kB of leader names in memory will slow down the game. In practice, I doubt this will be noticeable in any way.
An introduction like that certainly provokes reminiscences of stupid nationalistic discussions on this forum. So if you have a sound idea or improvement for the game (as you have mentioned) then just refrain from an introduction like that.
I suppose that was ironic? But, yes, @Mrdie should have allowed for people with no sense of humor, I admit it.
Pfff, the only point of nationalism is to make fun of it. The introduction cracked me up so it served its purpose.
Funny how the game starts in 1444, exactly when Skanderbeg unites the country. It will certainly be one of those classic EU challenges for survival.
Well, it wasn't my 'sarcasm-o-meter' but someone else's, so I just wanted to point out, why he reacted quite harshly.I think your sarcasm-o-meter malfunctioned.
In game "annexations" can be formal "annexation" of a country that actually resists. If you have a province that brings you more expense than taxes, has a huge revolt risk, spawns hard to kill rebel every two years, you have modelled Albania fairly well, even though Albania is the same color as OE. The only thing to add would be independant diplomacy, but well... could be replaced by a huge bonus for foreign power for prompting revolt / other spy action in the province.
Yes, but you can't play Albania then. I've always consider playing Albania and trying to defeat the OE as the extreme level of the game. Never been able to do it in EU3, but I remember years ago I was able to conquer the Balkans with Albania in EU2... only once, though: never been able to repeat it.
Playing as rebel faction would solve many problems. When you, as albania, would be annexed, you could still have some income, from number of core-regions with unrest, some foregin help etc. This would be cool too to simulate other unrests, such as some revolutions around world and to support enemies rebel faction.
Ooh! Base tax (as if core, which it is) times revolt risk (as if efficiency), but none of the production.
Ah, yes, none of the production. Trade though, would be realistic. Durres was one of Venice's major ports, as far as Balkan trade was concerned. All this trade passed through Scanderbeg's territory and he actually had treaties with Venice about trade, duty, etc.
I googled Skanderbeg, very interesting.
the ottomans did not push over that one provence minor as easily as one would imagine... !
the ottomans did not push over that one provence minor as easily as one would imagine... !
They didnt conquer a small Montenegro for centuries, its right there beside Albania. Its all due to terrain and smart military leaders that have had a very long tradition of beating large empires in the mountains/hills from Byzantines (Duklja/Diocleia) to Ottomans (Albania).
Basically what you do is let the large enemy army get to the lowlands where all the crops/farms are. You run to the mountains and hide while they pillage and loot your home. Then after some time they get bored and want to go home, since they cant catch you - chasing highlanders with an army is pointless - and then as they try to pass through some bottleneck ditch you ambush them, cause land slide, create chaos in their ranks and pwn them. This kind of stuff made conquering these lands more trouble than benefit.
IMO if they really wanted to conquer them they could do it, but like you said it wouldn't be really worthwhile.In EU it is always worth the trouble to conquer any province.
More often then not the terrain modifiers in Albania, Georgia, etc. end up helping the invaders instead of the defenders. Super frustrating.
What I'd like to see would be some sort of front width system replace the terrain modifiers. The harder it should be to invade a place, the fewer troops the invader can use in it. So the Ottomans can't just crush the Albanians with numbers since they'd only get to use a few regiments in a battle. It's not an accurate representation of what Skanderbeg did, actually routing large armies in battle. But it's an abstraction for the terrain advantages he had at his disposal.
Of course making small mountain states actually able to survive would probably destroy game balance as the Ottomans collapse due to an Albanian quagmire and the French exhaust themselves against Switzerland. :/
What I'd like to see would be some sort of front width system replace the terrain modifiers. The harder it should be to invade a place, the fewer troops the invader can use in it. So the Ottomans can't just crush the Albanians with numbers since they'd only get to use a few regiments in a battle. It's not an accurate representation of what Skanderbeg did, actually routing large armies in battle. But it's an abstraction for the terrain advantages he had at his disposal.
Of course making small mountain states actually able to survive would probably destroy game balance as the Ottomans collapse due to an Albanian quagmire and the French exhaust themselves against Switzerland. :/