-
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.
He did´nt quite take Denmark but the English came and kicked our ass instead so.......and by the way Yes England IS a part of Europe.
I too think it should be impossible to conquer the entire world. And I think that the tendancy for a large empire to fall apart should be in EUII but only as long as it seems natural and there are no built-in trigger pointos to cause it to come about (like number of provinces etc.). The cultural differences shown in the screenshots may be the natural catalyst for this to occur.
Well, some small exeptions: England (as said before), Portugal iirc, Norway and Sweden. Didn't get Russia as well.
One way to stop potential power-hungry world-dominators is to reduce effects of BB. AI can take serious beating with BB, but human just gets a lot of wars without -2 stab... Just keep one CB province, and you have world war every 5 years. By 1800, historians have prolly messed up their numbers: anyone care for WW CIXL???
Originally posted by Steph
No, he didn't. He never conquered England
On a second thought, perhaps he did. Is England in Europe
Geologically it is. It's part of the same continental shelf.
Politically is open to debate, and historically, no it isn't.
World Conquest!
Hell Ya!
My million man armies will rule the world then die from attrition!
Ill do like Napoleon and invade Russia in the Winter!
yeah thats it ill conquer the world really easylike then!
Homer this is never easy to say... uh im gonna have to saw your arms off
They'll grow back right?
Oh ya!
Whew!
Homer are you just holding onto the can?
Your point being?
Hell Ya!
My million man armies will rule the world then die from attrition!
Ill do like Napoleon and invade Russia in the Winter!
yeah thats it ill conquer the world really easylike then!
Homer this is never easy to say... uh im gonna have to saw your arms off
They'll grow back right?
Oh ya!
Whew!
Homer are you just holding onto the can?
Your point being?
Originally posted by Heyesey
Geologically it is. It's part of the same continental shelf.
Politically is open to debate, and historically, no it isn't.
You Brits are always switching that around. When Europe is having difficulties you deny being European and when things are going well you claim to be the "Leading country in Europe".
(Just kididng)
I'm with Heyesey on this-culturally, there's much less of a feeling of "we're all Europeans at the core" in Britain than there is on the continent (in fact, outside some of the political elites, there isn't such a feeling at all.)
As for Napoleon conquering all of Europe-he never got Sicily or the European territories of the Ottomans either. But he did take most of the really important bits, either by direct control, or, in EU terms, vassalage.
I'm not sure how reducing the effects of BB will stop world dominators-when you get rich enough you can recover from a -2 stability hit within a year, no matter the size of your empire.
As for Napoleon conquering all of Europe-he never got Sicily or the European territories of the Ottomans either. But he did take most of the really important bits, either by direct control, or, in EU terms, vassalage.
I'm not sure how reducing the effects of BB will stop world dominators-when you get rich enough you can recover from a -2 stability hit within a year, no matter the size of your empire.
Agelastus: I beleive the point is that the cost of raising stability should increase a lot when you get bigger, a big lot...that way you can't really afford to hurry it too much, and the point should be that with a large enough country there should be so much differences of culture and religion that a simple -2 stab hit will cause lots of revolts.... Of course that is only IMHO...
Cobos beta tester
Cobos beta tester
That does seem to be an easy way out. I understand the rationale of pouring money into stability to please the folks who are upset, but I think there should be some sort of time lag no matter how much money you put into it. But then again I think that stability should be something that you have to maintain and not just buy it outright. And yet again I can't really think of a solution which would involve heavy payment along with a more fixed amount of time for recovery. Maybe Cobos' suggestion of recovery costing more the larger your empire is the right balance.
But that's basically how its' done now-but if you're certain nations (England springs to mind) you eventually hit an Omega point in the original game where the expansion of your wealth outstrips the expansion of your provinces. And then stability is easily regained with minimal pain.
I'm sure this system is being heavily revised in EU2, but as to the specifics.....your guess is as good as mine.
I'm sure this system is being heavily revised in EU2, but as to the specifics.....your guess is as good as mine.
Conqering the hole world
Jorgen wrote:
OK its not historical correct but what is...
Yeah, that is the point. Why should something be historical and something else not?
In the manual of the game is says (freely translated from norwegian to English):".. The historical persons, nations and resources are there, but you have the possibility to act differently."
If you want to conquer the hole world, why not? By reffering to history and say that that is stupid because nobody have done it, is meaningless. Nobody has conquered Europe some say, but people have TRIED! Hitler was close, and only an ALLIANCE between several nations stopped him from doing so. What if that alliance never happened: Russia had fallen, and it was a matter of time before England had fallen without help from overseas. This is also meanigless crap, because it's only pure speculation containing a lot of "what ifs".
Heyesey wrote:
Large sprawling empires have a natural tendency to fragment. EU2 should include this tendency, as well as more realistic (ie. hideously expensive) army maintenance costs. Which two things taken together would make it effectively impossible to conquer the world: the half you already have will shatter into pieces long before you can finish off the other half.
Pretty much true that is. Well ,I'm going to do another ressonement with meaningless "what ifs":
Pax Romana lasted roughly 200 years including most of mainland Europe (and don't give me that crap about it was 206 years or didn't include this and that province, because that is not the point here, it's AN EXAMPLE)
The romans succesfully administrated a huge empire, and that was almost 2000 years ago. 200 years is along time, Hitler lasted from 1936-1945 (the conqering part) and he was pretty close do finish off Russia and England in a few years. 9 years he lasted, but waht had happened if he had defeated Russia and England? How many years would "the third Reich" have excisted? Could he have conquered the hole world? Africa is easy, in Asia he had the japanese, South America easy, and then only North America left. Maybe it wasn't Hitler who finished it, maybe they had to spend the next 100 years.
It's definetly not unthinkable, but very difficult.
Could the romans have expanded their Empire more if they started some centuries later?
An empire fall apart if it's not well administrated, the romans lasted 200 years in their prime so it's possible according to history, for those of you that like historical happenings.
Conclusion: It's not an historical principle that conquering the world is impossible (to Heyesey), and therefore it should be possible, but how difficult it should be is another discussion.
Jorgen wrote:
OK its not historical correct but what is...
Yeah, that is the point. Why should something be historical and something else not?
In the manual of the game is says (freely translated from norwegian to English):".. The historical persons, nations and resources are there, but you have the possibility to act differently."
If you want to conquer the hole world, why not? By reffering to history and say that that is stupid because nobody have done it, is meaningless. Nobody has conquered Europe some say, but people have TRIED! Hitler was close, and only an ALLIANCE between several nations stopped him from doing so. What if that alliance never happened: Russia had fallen, and it was a matter of time before England had fallen without help from overseas. This is also meanigless crap, because it's only pure speculation containing a lot of "what ifs".
Heyesey wrote:
Large sprawling empires have a natural tendency to fragment. EU2 should include this tendency, as well as more realistic (ie. hideously expensive) army maintenance costs. Which two things taken together would make it effectively impossible to conquer the world: the half you already have will shatter into pieces long before you can finish off the other half.
Pretty much true that is. Well ,I'm going to do another ressonement with meaningless "what ifs":
Pax Romana lasted roughly 200 years including most of mainland Europe (and don't give me that crap about it was 206 years or didn't include this and that province, because that is not the point here, it's AN EXAMPLE)
The romans succesfully administrated a huge empire, and that was almost 2000 years ago. 200 years is along time, Hitler lasted from 1936-1945 (the conqering part) and he was pretty close do finish off Russia and England in a few years. 9 years he lasted, but waht had happened if he had defeated Russia and England? How many years would "the third Reich" have excisted? Could he have conquered the hole world? Africa is easy, in Asia he had the japanese, South America easy, and then only North America left. Maybe it wasn't Hitler who finished it, maybe they had to spend the next 100 years.
It's definetly not unthinkable, but very difficult.
Could the romans have expanded their Empire more if they started some centuries later?
An empire fall apart if it's not well administrated, the romans lasted 200 years in their prime so it's possible according to history, for those of you that like historical happenings.
Conclusion: It's not an historical principle that conquering the world is impossible (to Heyesey), and therefore it should be possible, but how difficult it should be is another discussion.
Yup, it is quite frustrating that a very clever feature designed to stop powermongering players actually ends helping them. The solution is not to limit BB, but to make the AI not powerless against the human player, so he restrains himself a bit for expanding too much.
Not that I disagree on the point that Hitler was far better than Rome at piling up Badboy points, but it's also true that wars were a bit more long-lived in 200 A.D than in 1942.
Napoleon's a good example, though...
And I agree with the already stated opinion that Revolts should be much more likely in a grand empire... I love seeing independant states pop up regularly during the game... adds more flavor to it.
Hmm... why did I actually write this post? Nothing new in it... ahh, well... one more post, and on my way to beat His BiBness...
Claus
Napoleon's a good example, though...
And I agree with the already stated opinion that Revolts should be much more likely in a grand empire... I love seeing independant states pop up regularly during the game... adds more flavor to it.
Hmm... why did I actually write this post? Nothing new in it... ahh, well... one more post, and on my way to beat His BiBness...
Claus
revolts in empires
Not neccecarely, only if you as a leader mess it up.
Pax romana was pretty stable for an empire.
I don't see any logical reason hence gameplay reason that it should be impossible to manage an enormous empire without the empire breaking up in bits (also refering to the manual about the basic of the game, read my post above).
And I agree with the already stated opinion that Revolts should be much more likely in a grand empire... I love seeing independant states pop up regularly during the game... adds more flavor to it.
Claus [/B]
Not neccecarely, only if you as a leader mess it up.
Pax romana was pretty stable for an empire.
I don't see any logical reason hence gameplay reason that it should be impossible to manage an enormous empire without the empire breaking up in bits (also refering to the manual about the basic of the game, read my post above).
Oh now, conquering the world is great. I mean, you take the former Roman possesions and you control the scene. Of course the germans are always a pest for a roman..
And Napoleon did rule Europe. He had so much of it under his thumb, that even the Ottomans wouldn't dare defy him. Russia survived by pure luck. England survived because they are on a damned island..
Grr that just makes me mad, having 200,000 troops sitting around Normandy and have to wait a few years for those lousy ships to build.. Ahh if only one could bridge the English Channel. >
Anyhoo.. Take the roman possesions and VOILA. You can tell other countries what to do and when to do it. They declare war, you win. They don't declare war, you win. Hey, that sounds nice eh?
Oh and attrition is bad enough as it is.. rediculously bad. I mean, in one month a 14k army was down to 7k because it had to pass through a mountain?? Not only is that un-historical, it's a major pest. I look at the attrition history in the ledger in 1792, and I have lost over 3 million troops just to attrition, and maybe a few hundred thousand to combat. ????????!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?
Now thats just plain dumb, and must be changed.
And Napoleon did rule Europe. He had so much of it under his thumb, that even the Ottomans wouldn't dare defy him. Russia survived by pure luck. England survived because they are on a damned island..
Grr that just makes me mad, having 200,000 troops sitting around Normandy and have to wait a few years for those lousy ships to build.. Ahh if only one could bridge the English Channel. >
Anyhoo.. Take the roman possesions and VOILA. You can tell other countries what to do and when to do it. They declare war, you win. They don't declare war, you win. Hey, that sounds nice eh?
Oh and attrition is bad enough as it is.. rediculously bad. I mean, in one month a 14k army was down to 7k because it had to pass through a mountain?? Not only is that un-historical, it's a major pest. I look at the attrition history in the ledger in 1792, and I have lost over 3 million troops just to attrition, and maybe a few hundred thousand to combat. ????????!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?
Now thats just plain dumb, and must be changed.
Perhaps attrition rates are a big inflated, but bear in mind that actually most of the army losses at the time where due to it. Battles were armies battled each other until extermination were EXTREMELY rare, and casualties were very low. I recall a battle between 5 000 Austrians and 10 000 hungarians resulting in an Austrian victory with just 150 casualties for both sides...
Re: Conqering the hole world
200 years is only half the game and the Romans didn't conquer the whole world.
200 years is only half the game and the Romans didn't conquer the whole world.
Matter of semantics. At no time did Napoleon have the whole of continental Europe directly under his control, which is the point at issue. Admittedly at one time he was so strong nobody would have dares stand against him ... except ... that they did. Repeatedly and often, until eventually, he crashed and burned. That's what happens to world-conquering types. In EU terms, it's called a badboy value.
The Romans are way too far back to be a useful example; in 50BC, a small technological advance could make you utterly dominant for a long time, because nobody else would be able to figure out how to copy it. With the advent of printing, secrets just can't be kept for that length of time, so you can't defend a massive empire on the basis of superior technology.
Hitler did pretty well on the offensive; he conquered huge chunks of Europe in a very short time. But he hit the same problems... even the parts that he had conquered, kept rebelling (French Resistance..) ...even though he was far too strong for anybody to attempt to fight him ... they still did... and eventually, the whole shebang just falls to the ground. It can't be done on a long-term basis.
You conquer France, and you need to station troops to keep the French under control, and now you have a border with Germany, and they fight you, so you conquer Germany, and now you need to station troops to keep the Germans under control and you have borders with Austria and Poland, who fight you ... so then you have to leave even MORE troops away from the front line to keep Austria and Poland under control ... and you're going to run out of troops. Eventually you are stretched so thinly, and so many places are fighting for their freedom at once, that the elastic snaps. You can avoid this in EU, only because of the ability to raise insanely large armies (total number of troops currently in service: 2,625,731. Yeah right ... most countries didn't have a population that big, and if you were raising French/German/Austrians as your army, you're adding to your problems because they will try to rebel against you.) If the army size was kept to some sensible limit - even only by making it cost far too much money to maintain a 2 million man force - then you simply would not be able to keep the whole of Europe under your thumb. You'd never handle the multiple revolts, and it would all fragment before you could finish the job.
I take exception to the fact...
that Russia and England were pretty well finished off by Germany in the second world war. This is so untrue as to be laughable. Quite frankly, Germany let her economy stagnate, due mainly to the fact that absenteeism was a major factor(same thing happened in Japan, BTW), mainly due to the effect of strategic bombing. Quite frankly, why will you walk down main street, if you may be subject to 10000 allied bombs on your city. This was not the case in Allied Cities. As Effective fighter cover was there. And they were not spread out over a large area.It is disruptive to have bombs falling on cities, on factories. And the fact that the Russians had to adapt to German Tactics and machinery paved the way for the T-34's, which quite frankly blew the German Panthers away. Same goes for air superiority. After the failed attempt to bomb Britain into submission, Germany had very few effective bombers on the Western Front. And on the eastern front, they had to contend with the Russian winter. One of the things that EU does excellently is portray this in game. It really was this bad in real life. And another, fairly interesting thing about Germany's march inot Russia. Although they had a "mobile army", they still used the most horses of any nation in the war(exact number slips my mind ). And they used them to drag artillery to the front. They had a severe oil shortage, which effectively grounded many planes in the Eastern Front, as well as Tanks, Trucks,etc;
They even had to salvage parts from other vehicles to repair the front line troops.
So, to say that Russia and England would be defeated is not even worthy of a "what if?"
That's like me saying "What if, several billion years ago, the first amoeba had not formed on earth?" It is meaningless. Using those two words causes more stress than most anything else
that Russia and England were pretty well finished off by Germany in the second world war. This is so untrue as to be laughable. Quite frankly, Germany let her economy stagnate, due mainly to the fact that absenteeism was a major factor(same thing happened in Japan, BTW), mainly due to the effect of strategic bombing. Quite frankly, why will you walk down main street, if you may be subject to 10000 allied bombs on your city. This was not the case in Allied Cities. As Effective fighter cover was there. And they were not spread out over a large area.It is disruptive to have bombs falling on cities, on factories. And the fact that the Russians had to adapt to German Tactics and machinery paved the way for the T-34's, which quite frankly blew the German Panthers away. Same goes for air superiority. After the failed attempt to bomb Britain into submission, Germany had very few effective bombers on the Western Front. And on the eastern front, they had to contend with the Russian winter. One of the things that EU does excellently is portray this in game. It really was this bad in real life. And another, fairly interesting thing about Germany's march inot Russia. Although they had a "mobile army", they still used the most horses of any nation in the war(exact number slips my mind
). And they used them to drag artillery to the front. They had a severe oil shortage, which effectively grounded many planes in the Eastern Front, as well as Tanks, Trucks,etc;They even had to salvage parts from other vehicles to repair the front line troops.
So, to say that Russia and England would be defeated is not even worthy of a "what if?"
That's like me saying "What if, several billion years ago, the first amoeba had not formed on earth?" It is meaningless. Using those two words causes more stress than most anything else