Challenge to everyone: Play as Moldavia (for NA)

[unmerged(72352)]

Well I know that this thread is about Moldavia.
But I had played as Walachia and cancel the vassal with OE, then DoW Moldavia, annex them. Poland helped my in the siege. I was lucky to arrive 10 days before them.
After that I used a Romanian unification event, and fired it manualy. I become Romania, gained core on Moldavia. Then DoW Hungary while they were still in war with the OE. I have captured a province from them. Then I got bored and quit. But I still have the save game so maybe I will continue.
It is easier to play as Walachia.
I also like spl’s AAR about Moldavia. It is so ridiculous but fun.

Now let’s just calm ourselves. There is no reason to blame Johan for everything (we can blame that Ubik guy :rofl: , MM users will know why I said that ).
Now seriously, Johan and Paradox did a good job, not the best possible, but a good job. And I want to thank him for this great game.

 

[cocodtim]

Well I know that this thread is about Moldavia.
But I had played as Walachia and cancel the vassal with OE, then DoW Moldavia, annex them. Poland helped my in the siege. I was lucky to arrive 10 days before them.
After that I used a Romanian unification event, and fired it manualy. I become Romania, gained core on Moldavia. Then DoW Hungary while they were still in war with the OE. I have captured a province from them. Then I got bored and quit. But I still have the save game so maybe I will continue.
It is easier to play as Walachia.
I also like spl’s AAR about Moldavia. It is so ridiculous but fun.

Now let’s just calm ourselves. There is no reason to blame Johan for everything (we can blame that Ubik guy :rofl: , MM users will know why I said that ).
Now seriously, Johan and Paradox did a good job, not the best possible, but a good job. And I want to thank him for this great game.

My wallachia game strategy is first to ensure above +100 with OE so that after i cancel vassalization they are still allied with me. After that i can declare war on poland/crimea and oe will join me. And make seperate peace with poland.

I agree...it's after all a game and i'm sure we wouldn't have done it better than the game developers. Good thing is that it's easily moddable so Paradox left us the possibility to personalize our games.

 

[Elminster12]

On a related topic...anyone ever have any luck with Georgia? They have four provinces, but they seem just as doomed, surrounded by belligerent Muslim powers who're either equally as strong(Horde, Crimea, AK) or much, much stronger(QK). Weak economy too, if everything else wasn't bad enough. Well, aside from the gold province, but that doesn't even have a fort

 

[unmerged(67317)]

Elminetser, i have.
slowly but surely it is possible. the first target has to be the golden horde, since they are in a similar situation, and that enables you to get some better provinces.
i will admit that i did cheat once - as i grew larger, at some point persia decided i was nice pickings. i loaded as them, disbanded the armies, threw out the money and reloaded as myself. that neigbourhood isn't that bad really. but you *do* need some luck....

 

[unmerged(85646)]

This thread keeps bumping. I don't mind that.

As SPL has proved, it is possible to survive as Moldavia in NA: but your survival is dependent on certain chain of events to occur, that are beneficial to your faction. My simple point with all of this, is that these events are not within your control, so if other events occur in the first stage of the game--such as Poland declaring war on you--you will lose the game. You will stand little chance against Poland and as such, you will lose the game not because lack of skill, but because the system made it impossible for you to resist the AI.

You might even survive a Polish invasion, if you take a few loans, recruit some mercenaries, and seize Mazovia, which often becomes a Polish ally. But such a scenario demands a chain of events happening in the right order; and even if all goes as planned, you will face further difficulties when the conflict ends.

I've managed to survive as Moldavia by seizing territories of Crimea and the Golden Horde, but all of those provinces grant me just a little security and in return, they become a big burden. SRL was luckier, as he found his way to Africa and tried to expand there, as well as colonizing nearby territories. Needless to say, in order to manage to get to Africa and prevail the invasions of your neighbors, will challenge the odds.

 

[spl]

This threads keeps bumping. I don't mind that.

As SPL has proved, it is possible to survive as Moldavia in NA: but your survival is dependent on certain chain of events to occur, that are beneficial to your faction. My simple point with all of this, is that these events are not within your control, so if other events occur in the first stage of the game--such as Poland declaring war on you--you will lose the game. You will stand little chance against Poland and as such, you will lose the game not because lack of skill, but because the system made it impossible for you to resist the AI.

You might even survive a Polish invasion, if you take a few loans, recruit some mercenaries, and seize Mazovia, which often becomes a Polish ally. But such a scenario demands a chain of events happening in the right order; and even if all goes as planned, you will face further difficulties when the conflict ends.

I've managed to survive as Moldavia by seizing territories of Crimea and the Golden Horde, but all of those provinces grant me just a little security and in return, they become a big burden. SRL was luckier, as he found his way to Africa and tried to expand there, as well as colonizing nearby territories. Needless to say, in order to manage to get to Africa and prevail the invasions of your neighbors, will challenge the odds.

You do that a lot

Doing a realistic European expansion is virtually impossible in the first few years, I actually have had some interesting European things in my Moldavian AAR, I will update that eventually..

 

[unmerged(18701)]

I actually have had some interesting European things in my Moldavian AAR, I will update that eventually..

Please do, it's very interesting reading.

 

[Laur]

This thread keeps bumping. I don't mind that.

As SPL has proved, it is possible to survive as Moldavia in NA: but your survival is dependent on certain chain of events to occur, that are beneficial to your faction. My simple point with all of this, is that these events are not within your control, so if other events occur in the first stage of the game--such as Poland declaring war on you--you will lose the game. You will stand little chance against Poland and as such, you will lose the game not because lack of skill, but because the system made it impossible for you to resist the AI.

Were the Moldavian princes "in control" of the historical events? Not really! Most of the time they were just lucky.
I agree, the heroism of some princes did help, but, fortunately or unfortunately, this was more the exception than the rule. The reason the Romanian principalities survived was:
(1) because of their value as a buffer state (from 17th century onward),
(2) because it was more convenient for the Porte to choose the highest bidder candidate as prince, who then bled the principality dry to pay the tribute. The Ottomans (rightly) thought that this practice brought more income and resource than the outright incorporation into the Empire. I've suggested (for EU2 AGC-EEP) a number of events that try to illustrate this 'heroic' Romanian method of resistance, and,
(3) unlike the Eastern Roman Empire, Bulgaria, Serbia and the Kingdom of Hungary, the Romanian principalities were not situated on the Ottoman path towards the centre of Europe. This is also the reason Transylvania kept her independence after Mohacs and also after the death of John Zapolja, and only Central Hungary was transformed into a 'pashalic' (Turkish military province ruled by a pasha). The Romanian principalities were peripheral to Ottoman military interest, with the exception of Dobrogea and the Bugeac, which were annexed in order to make the Black Sea a 'Turkish lake.'

I do not have EU3, but looking at the screen shots I agree that the map is a mess, but not just for the Romanian principalities.

Laur

P.S. did you know that Stefan cel Mare actually allied with Hagi Giray, khan of the Crimeans against the Poles in the 1490's? Maybe you should try this way.

 

[unmerged(85646)]

Were the Moldavian princes "in control" of the historical events? Not really! Most of the time they were just lucky.

There were many Moldavian princes. Which ones are you referring to? If we take Stephen as an example, he won 44 out of 46 battles. His father, Bogdan, defeated the Poles by the same skirmish tactics that Stephen would employ. That's not luck. It's strategy.

(1) because of their value as a buffer state (from 17th century onward)

I, along with others, have already mentioned this; but Moldavia and Wallachia worked as buffer states long before the 17th century.

because it was more convenient for the Porte to choose the highest bidder candidate as prince, who then bled the principality dry to pay the tribute. The Ottomans (rightly) thought that this practice brought more income and resource than the outright incorporation into the Empire.

This applies to the late period, when the Phanariotes joined in. I was not discussing that period of time.

unlike the Eastern Roman Empire, Bulgaria, Serbia and the Kingdom of Hungary, the Romanian principalities were not situated on the Ottoman path towards the centre of Europe.

This is false. Mehmed did try to annex Wallachia in 1467, but failed. There are sources that mention Mehmed's advisors urging him to take on Moldavia, because the country was deemed as the portal to Poland. The Ottomans wanted also to create a landbridge to their Crimean allies; and they wanted to control the ports of Akkerman and Chilia, because they controlled the trade to the Baltic. The Moldavians also controlled the mouths of the Danube (as did Wallachia); and in the 15th and early 16th century, the Ottomans worried that the West could sail on the Danube, from the Germanic states, to launch an offensive against them.

The strategic countries, that the Ottomans wanted to subdue, were Wallachia, Moldavia, and what is now Albania--which was under Venetian control. Mehmed would use Albania as an operational base to invade southern Italy. Mehmed's plans in 1475 was to subdue Moldavia and thereafter, make an incursion into Poland, and then into Hungary. His expansionistic policy ended with his death, as his son, Bayezid, adopted a different approach.

P.S. did you know that Stefan cel Mare actually allied with Hagi Giray, khan of the Crimeans against the Poles in the 1490's? Maybe you should try this way.

Stephen allied with Bayezid, and as such, the Crimeans were automatically included in the operation. The Crimean trade was based on enslaving the populace and sell it to the Porte. The Moldavian-Ottoman campaign ended with the seizure of more than 100,000 Poles.

 

[Hypnotoad]

When i play Morea (yes they have it a little easier but i think the same tactic applies) i usually go for Rome or one of the other Italian minors right away. Papal states very often gets attacked by Austria or Aragon/Sicilly right at start (they usually cede Romagna and release Avignon). A mighty 1k army is most of the time enough to conquer Rome, and annex Papal states. The +1 prestige and +1 missionary bonus for Rome is really nice.

But to hold Rome early is quite hard, i suggest trying to get Siena or Urbino as Vassal so they can help you with revolts. If you can get over 150 relation with a western country you will get the arms trade event that gets you +6 land investment/month.

And remember you can always get nice peace settlement with the AI, even if you have -50-80% battle score. Try demanding max cash and stuff like that, they often accept.

 

[Laur]

There were many Moldavian princes. Which ones are you referring to? If we take Stephen as an example, he won 44 out of 46 battles. His father, Bogdan, defeated the Poles by the same skirmish tactics that Stephen would employ. That's not luck. It's strategy.

And what happened afterwards? Stefan himself, despite his record, could not help but to lose the Bugeac (with the citadels Chilia and Cetatea Alba), thus allowing Bayazid II to transform the Black Sea into a Turkish lake. He even had to pay tribute. I do not want to detract from Stefan's merits, yet he merely delayed the inevitable. His father ruled before the timeline of the game, so bringing him up is pointless. After Stefan, the rulers that actually raised their sword against the Ottomans, Tatars or Poles can be counted on the fingers of one hand (Petru Rares, John the Terrible, Razvan... did I miss anyone?)

This applies to the late period, when the Phanariotes joined in. I was not discussing that period of time.

Actually putting the throne up for sale for the highest bidder was practiced way before the 18th century (the 'Phanariote' period) due to unclear succession rules and weakness of the central power. Anyone who could prove that he had 'os domnesc' (royal bone), including the bastard sons of princes and, also, a few adventurers, could partake in the auction at Istambul (sometimes at Buda, Krakow or Vienna; Petru Cercel even went to Paris to seek support for his claim!). For Moldova (the subject of this discussion) this started after Petru Rares was forced to flee in 1538 by a Ottoman-Tatar-Polish invasion. He spent the next three years begging the Sultan for forgiveness and bribing anyone in Istambul who could help him regain his throne, which he did in 1541. It was downhill from then onward.

This is false. Mehmed did try to annex Wallachia in 1467, but failed. There are sources that mention Mehmed's advisors urging him to take on Moldavia, because the country was deemed as the portal to Poland. The Ottomans wanted also to create a landbridge to their Crimean allies; and they wanted to control the ports of Akkerman and Chilia, because they controlled the trade to the Baltic. The Moldavians also controlled the mouths of the Danube (as did Wallachia); and in the 15th and early 16th century, the Ottomans worried that the West could sail on the Danube, from the Germanic states, to launch an offensive against them.

False? Then why didn't Mehmet simply annex Walachia in 1467, and only allowed his favourite (lover?), Radu the Handsome to become prince? I think he considered to have been an unnecessary waste of resources. The Ottoman policy towards the Danubian principalities was that, as long as they pay tribute and don't ally with the enemy, everything is alright. The Ottomans targeted Vienna, not Krakow.
It is true that the Danube was important for the Ottomans because it was a navigable path to the heart of Europe (Vienna again?), and this is why the Walachian cities of Braila and Giurgiu, on the Danube, were annexed by the Porte (they became rayas) while Bayazid II annexed the Bugeac, creating the landbridge you mention.

Laur

 

[cocodtim]

Stephen allied with Bayezid, and as such, the Crimeans were automatically included in the operation. The Crimean trade was based on enslaving the populace and sell it to the Porte. The Moldavian-Ottoman campaign ended with the seizure of more than 100,000 Poles.

well actually Bayezid is 100 years before Stephen so its out of disccussion and Stephen never allied with the tatars/ottomans - just recognized the suzeranity of the Porte and Poland.

Edit: Bayezid II yes... but still didn't ally with TUR or CRI.

 

[G-Klav]

Wouldn't the historical approach work? Submitting to the Ottomans, letting them help you against Hungary, Poland and whoever.

 

[unmerged(85646)]

And what happened afterwards?

You said the princes were lucky. I said that their success was not based on luck. You are deviating from the point that you brought up.

Stefan himself, despite his record, could not help but to lose the Bugeac

True, but Buceag was not under Moldavian control when Stephen took over, so in terms of loses and gains, he ended with more land than he possessed over when he seized power. According to the Polish chronicler, Jan Dlugozs, the Wallachians caused great damage to Moldavia by helping Mehmed. But then again, when have the Wallachians not caused great damage to the rest of the Romanian people?

He even had to pay tribute.

Yes, he did pay tribute, but without becoming a vassal. Venice also paid tribute to the Porte. Stephen would've gladly continued to pay tribute to the Porte, in order to be left alone. The conflict started with Buceag, not over the tribute.

yet he merely delayed the inevitable

That delayement was a valuable thing for other factions that were waiting to grow strong.

After Stefan, the rulers that actually raised their sword against the Ottomans, Tatars or Poles can be counted on the fingers of one hand (Petru Rares, John the Terrible, Razvan... did I miss anyone?)

Dimitrie Cantemir, but he failed more miserably than the rest.

For Moldova (the subject of this discussion) this started after Petru Rares was forced to flee in 1538 by a Ottoman-Tatar-Polish invasion. He spent the next three years begging the Sultan for forgiveness and bribing anyone in Istambul who could help him regain his throne, which he did in 1541. It was downhill from then onward.

You make a fair point, here. I don't understand what Rares was thinking. His downfall came with his shameful defeat at Obertyn.

False? Then why didn't Mehmet simply annex Walachia in 1467, and only allowed his favourite (lover?), Radu the Handsome to become prince?

because he was forced to retreat; and he sent Radu not to conquer Wallachia, but to covince the boyars to switch sides--which they did. The contemporary sources clearly state that Mehmed had enough of Dracula's disobedience and wanted to annex Wallachia.

I think he considered to have been an unnecessary waste of resources.

And it was. In fact, the two principalities didn't became a profit to the Porte until much later.

The Ottoman policy towards the Danubian principalities was that, as long as they pay tribute and don't ally with the enemy, everything is alright.

This was the case for most of the time, but there have been exceptions.

The Ottomans targeted Vienna, not Krakow.

Vienna became a target later on. Mehmed wanted to weaken the regional powers of Poland and Hungary (Moldavia was in the way); but in terms of conquest, he had the Italian peninsula in mind. The Pope was giving him a headache and he needed to subdue the Catholic Church and make it harmless, as he did to the Orthodox church.

Mare Ban al Craiovei

Ewww...