Constantine XI
Even Napoleon had a plan of a tunnel I had heard.
He was in a bit of a panic like You.
Even Napoleon had a plan of a tunnel I had heard.
He was in a bit of a panic like You.
-
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.
Is almost funny how many countries (Spain, France, Germany) had tried to invade those damn isles through the centuries, always falling miserabily. Probably, England is the only country that hasn't been invaded since the Middle Ages...
what went wrong
Is there anybody outthere that can imagine any other outcome of history than the history-books?
Many of you keep refering to what went wrong with Hitler and all the others. That is eventualities, bad luck or whatever you want to call it. In history when the badboys did well in war it was luck, when the goodboys won it was military skills. We are limited to our view if history. Stuck in: "noone has done it, it's impossible"
The roman didn't conquer the hole world, but they were pretty close to conquer the hole world as they knew it.
It was a long time ago, but what has that to do with this? The point is they found a way to beat all the others in their time.
The romans had to deal with plenty of different uprises from the conquered people, but they found a way to manage it. Very Succesfully! And they had to walk around...
To succesfully deal with revolts has nothing to do with tech levels, it's a question of management. The bigger your empire gets the more difficult it becomes, but to waive it away and say it's impossible makes little sense.
Why is that so impossible to imagine that someone could repeat a conquer again?
I believe this is more a discussion between hardcore players that find it stupid/unhistorical to conquer the hole world since EU is "the best strategy game" it should rise above such meanigless action and it shouldn't be possible, and those of us that want the possibility to do so.
Where other nationleaders failed you can succeed in EU!
Is there anybody outthere that can imagine any other outcome of history than the history-books?
Many of you keep refering to what went wrong with Hitler and all the others. That is eventualities, bad luck or whatever you want to call it. In history when the badboys did well in war it was luck, when the goodboys won it was military skills. We are limited to our view if history. Stuck in: "noone has done it, it's impossible"
The roman didn't conquer the hole world, but they were pretty close to conquer the hole world as they knew it.
It was a long time ago, but what has that to do with this? The point is they found a way to beat all the others in their time.
The romans had to deal with plenty of different uprises from the conquered people, but they found a way to manage it. Very Succesfully! And they had to walk around...
To succesfully deal with revolts has nothing to do with tech levels, it's a question of management. The bigger your empire gets the more difficult it becomes, but to waive it away and say it's impossible makes little sense.
Why is that so impossible to imagine that someone could repeat a conquer again?
I believe this is more a discussion between hardcore players that find it stupid/unhistorical to conquer the hole world since EU is "the best strategy game" it should rise above such meanigless action and it shouldn't be possible, and those of us that want the possibility to do so.
Where other nationleaders failed you can succeed in EU!
Re: Constantine XI
There was a tunnel started by the British around that time, but it was abandoned when Napoleon rose to power, for fear he would invade through it. It finally got finished in the late 1990s
There was a tunnel started by the British around that time, but it was abandoned when Napoleon rose to power, for fear he would invade through it. It finally got finished in the late 1990s
Re: what went wrong
Is there anybody outthere that can imagine any other outcome of history than the history-books?
Yes .. .this is the point I repeatedly make on these board. But impossible outcomes should nevertheless not be possible.
Many of you keep refering to what went wrong with Hitler and all the others. That is eventualities, bad luck or whatever you want to call it. In history when the badboys did well in war it was luck, when the goodboys won it was military skills.
You're reading a whole lot different history books from mine - not surprising since you live in Norway, but anyway.
It has nothing to do with who's good and who's bad, people simply object to being ruled from afar, and continually make attempts to throw off the yoke. The bigger your empire gets, the more places are revolting, the more likely it becomes that multiple revolts break out at the same time. You can still only recruit loyal soldiers from your own homeland, because those from the occupied countries are likely to sympathise with the rebellions and fight against you. So your manpower pool remains constant, but the area it has to cover is growing all the time you expand, and eventually it will be stretched too thin to keep down the revolts and you'll start to lose land instead of gaining it.
The only times that it has been possible to maintain a large empire in spite of these difficulties has been when the technology difference is compltely overwhelming - Britain against the spear-wielding Africans, Cortes against the feather-armoured Aztecs, etc. Once the downtrodden nations learn the technology, you can't keep them trodden down any more.
The roman didn't conquer the hole world, but they were pretty close to conquer the hole world as they knew it.
It was a long time ago, but what has that to do with this? The point is they found a way to beat all the others in their time. [/QUOTE]
The point is that technology in Roman and pre-Roman times didn't spread at anything like the speed it did in Renaissance times, because there was no printing press. Take the Hittites: they were the first to discover the secret of smelting iron, and since iron weapons will slice right through bronze armour, they were completely unbeatable for a good long stretch of time, until other nations figured out the secret. A similar example from later centuries being the horse stirrup, which means a rider can wield his spear with the full force of himself and the horse behind it, without falling off the other side. The Europeans had no defence against it, and were smashed; but the fleeing Goths managed to borrow the principle and used it to shatter the Romans. And so on.
By the time of EU, this sort of thing doesn't have any long-term effect because the advent of printing means that discoveries get disseminated much more quickly. Example; the invention of the telescope, which the Dutch tried to keep as a state secret, but merely the rumour of its invention reaching Italy meant that Galileo could build his own from scratch, and within a decade of the first discovery the telescope had spread all over Europe. If all of the Roman subjects had had the printing press and been able to steal Roman tactics and techniques, the Romans would not have held down their empire for even 20 years, let alone four hundred.
It doesn't take bad luck or coincidence to stop you conquering the entire world. It's just too big and unwieldy - even with much better than average luck, over that large an empire, enough unexpected bad things will happen to wreck you. This is not to say you can't actually TAKE the whole world - when the USA had the only atomic bombs, they could have dictated to everybody - merely that it's not possible to KEEP it for any considerable length of time. (less then five years, in the case of the atomic bombs.)
Is there anybody outthere that can imagine any other outcome of history than the history-books?
Yes .. .this is the point I repeatedly make on these board. But impossible outcomes should nevertheless not be possible.
Many of you keep refering to what went wrong with Hitler and all the others. That is eventualities, bad luck or whatever you want to call it. In history when the badboys did well in war it was luck, when the goodboys won it was military skills.
You're reading a whole lot different history books from mine - not surprising since you live in Norway, but anyway.
It has nothing to do with who's good and who's bad, people simply object to being ruled from afar, and continually make attempts to throw off the yoke. The bigger your empire gets, the more places are revolting, the more likely it becomes that multiple revolts break out at the same time. You can still only recruit loyal soldiers from your own homeland, because those from the occupied countries are likely to sympathise with the rebellions and fight against you. So your manpower pool remains constant, but the area it has to cover is growing all the time you expand, and eventually it will be stretched too thin to keep down the revolts and you'll start to lose land instead of gaining it.
The only times that it has been possible to maintain a large empire in spite of these difficulties has been when the technology difference is compltely overwhelming - Britain against the spear-wielding Africans, Cortes against the feather-armoured Aztecs, etc. Once the downtrodden nations learn the technology, you can't keep them trodden down any more.
The roman didn't conquer the hole world, but they were pretty close to conquer the hole world as they knew it.
It was a long time ago, but what has that to do with this? The point is they found a way to beat all the others in their time. [/QUOTE]
The point is that technology in Roman and pre-Roman times didn't spread at anything like the speed it did in Renaissance times, because there was no printing press. Take the Hittites: they were the first to discover the secret of smelting iron, and since iron weapons will slice right through bronze armour, they were completely unbeatable for a good long stretch of time, until other nations figured out the secret. A similar example from later centuries being the horse stirrup, which means a rider can wield his spear with the full force of himself and the horse behind it, without falling off the other side. The Europeans had no defence against it, and were smashed; but the fleeing Goths managed to borrow the principle and used it to shatter the Romans. And so on.
By the time of EU, this sort of thing doesn't have any long-term effect because the advent of printing means that discoveries get disseminated much more quickly. Example; the invention of the telescope, which the Dutch tried to keep as a state secret, but merely the rumour of its invention reaching Italy meant that Galileo could build his own from scratch, and within a decade of the first discovery the telescope had spread all over Europe. If all of the Roman subjects had had the printing press and been able to steal Roman tactics and techniques, the Romans would not have held down their empire for even 20 years, let alone four hundred.
It doesn't take bad luck or coincidence to stop you conquering the entire world. It's just too big and unwieldy - even with much better than average luck, over that large an empire, enough unexpected bad things will happen to wreck you. This is not to say you can't actually TAKE the whole world - when the USA had the only atomic bombs, they could have dictated to everybody - merely that it's not possible to KEEP it for any considerable length of time. (less then five years, in the case of the atomic bombs.)
Actually....
Napoleon is the only one taking Moscow and by that actually defeat Russia.... He made the mistake to leave Moscow in the winter.....
Napoleon is the only one taking Moscow and by that actually defeat Russia.... He made the mistake to leave Moscow in the winter.....
Re: Re: Conqering the hole world
The Romans took most of the KNOWN world. If they knew about Americas I am sure they would have taken that as well. I believe that the Roman empire was the most powerful empire history ever seen......
The Romans took most of the KNOWN world. If they knew about Americas I am sure they would have taken that as well. I believe that the Roman empire was the most powerful empire history ever seen......
Well....
The ruling people of England originate from Normandie, which in their turn originate from Scandinavia..... So I guess England is just another successful colony of the scandinavians...
The ruling people of England originate from Normandie, which in their turn originate from Scandinavia..... So I guess England is just another successful colony of the scandinavians...
World empire
Heyesey:
Yes .. .this is the point I repeatedly make on these board. But impossible outcomes should nevertheless not be possible.
I suggest two approaches to this:
1. The principle: the past is the key to the present, e.g. it has never happened before and it won't happen either. Talking about human sciences (like history) and evolution this principle is maybe a little of a narrow view.
2. We look at what went wrong and establish those factors, and keep open the view that MAYBE if they could have dealt with the weaknessnes that lead to the collapse the empire would have survived. Maybe the next nation who tries it will be succesfull. It may be unrealistic or extreme difficult, but still it's an option. Evolution is coincidental, human interactions over time is coincidental thus history is coincidental. Someone with great ideas, great tolerance and great solutions could maybe succed.
You're reading a whole lot different history books from mine - not surprising since you live in Norway, but anyway.
My biggest concern is not the books, but the fact I'm writing in my second language.
Hitler didn't conquer Moscow but he was knocking on the doors of Kreml and then the winter came. Tactical blunder? Bad luck? Coincidence? He was so close, but eventualities led him to disaster.
A different tactical move, Moscow gone. Maybe.
Many things in history goes like this: a pistol shot here and a war breaks out, some king dies there and cicil war breaks out.
Small happenings lead to big happenings.
If all of the Roman subjects had had the printing press and been able to steal Roman tactics and techniques, the Romans would not have held down their empire for even 20 years, let alone four hundred.
In the conquering stage of the empire (before pax romana) they rode on their superior military, but under pax romana that was not enough to keep peace, great management also played a big role.
If the romans could develop superior tactics and weapons, why shouldn't another nation be able to do the same parallell with the romans?
Inventions has emergeed different places at the relative same time throughout history.
History is considered coincidental over time, and in EU we replay history and new options rise.
It doesn't take bad luck or coincidence to stop you conquering the entire world. It's just too big and unwieldy - even with much better than average luck, over that large an empire, enough unexpected bad things will happen to wreck you. This is not to say you can't actually TAKE the whole world - when the USA had the only atomic bombs, they could have dictated to everybody - merely that it's not possible to KEEP it for any considerable length of time. (less then five years, in the case of the atomic bombs.)
As you say the problem is to keep your empire for any useful length of time. This is where we have opposite meanings.
I believe we shouldn't avoid the thought of an world empire, not very much likely to happen but suddenly something new comes up (like the atomic bomb, the russians got it some 5 years later but USA COULD have nuked Moscow... but just pure speculation and quite irrasional idea, still not impossible).
We replay history in EU, a new historical evolution is in your hands.
Heyesey:
Yes .. .this is the point I repeatedly make on these board. But impossible outcomes should nevertheless not be possible.
I suggest two approaches to this:
1. The principle: the past is the key to the present, e.g. it has never happened before and it won't happen either. Talking about human sciences (like history) and evolution this principle is maybe a little of a narrow view.
2. We look at what went wrong and establish those factors, and keep open the view that MAYBE if they could have dealt with the weaknessnes that lead to the collapse the empire would have survived. Maybe the next nation who tries it will be succesfull. It may be unrealistic or extreme difficult, but still it's an option. Evolution is coincidental, human interactions over time is coincidental thus history is coincidental. Someone with great ideas, great tolerance and great solutions could maybe succed.
You're reading a whole lot different history books from mine - not surprising since you live in Norway, but anyway.
My biggest concern is not the books, but the fact I'm writing in my second language.
Hitler didn't conquer Moscow but he was knocking on the doors of Kreml and then the winter came. Tactical blunder? Bad luck? Coincidence? He was so close, but eventualities led him to disaster.
A different tactical move, Moscow gone. Maybe.
Many things in history goes like this: a pistol shot here and a war breaks out, some king dies there and cicil war breaks out.
Small happenings lead to big happenings.
If all of the Roman subjects had had the printing press and been able to steal Roman tactics and techniques, the Romans would not have held down their empire for even 20 years, let alone four hundred.
In the conquering stage of the empire (before pax romana) they rode on their superior military, but under pax romana that was not enough to keep peace, great management also played a big role.
If the romans could develop superior tactics and weapons, why shouldn't another nation be able to do the same parallell with the romans?
Inventions has emergeed different places at the relative same time throughout history.
History is considered coincidental over time, and in EU we replay history and new options rise.
It doesn't take bad luck or coincidence to stop you conquering the entire world. It's just too big and unwieldy - even with much better than average luck, over that large an empire, enough unexpected bad things will happen to wreck you. This is not to say you can't actually TAKE the whole world - when the USA had the only atomic bombs, they could have dictated to everybody - merely that it's not possible to KEEP it for any considerable length of time. (less then five years, in the case of the atomic bombs.)
As you say the problem is to keep your empire for any useful length of time. This is where we have opposite meanings.
I believe we shouldn't avoid the thought of an world empire, not very much likely to happen but suddenly something new comes up (like the atomic bomb, the russians got it some 5 years later but USA COULD have nuked Moscow... but just pure speculation and quite irrasional idea, still not impossible).
We replay history in EU, a new historical evolution is in your hands.
Last edited:
Re: World empire
No. History is not replayed. But we played in a historical context. Otherwise, there shouldn't be a Hungary which survive the game...
No. History is not replayed. But we played in a historical context. Otherwise, there shouldn't be a Hungary which survive the game...
Re: Re: World empire
I agree, read my posts again!
We replay history with our own actions.
I agree, read my posts again!
We replay history with our own actions.
Firstly nothing should be impossible in the game. Why-because nothing was impossible in RL. Many things are highly highly improbable but not impossible. I want the creation of large empires to be almost as hard as it is in RL, however what I dont want is for me empire to just start breaking up just because my empire has reached a certain limit.
Re: Re: Re: Conqering the hole world
The "most powerful empire ever seen" and yet it fell apart.
And while they were sailing to the Americas (or would that have been Americus in Roman times) the Germanic folks still would have invaded and things would have fallen apart. I accept the point that the Romans counquered (most of) the known world but that was a lot smaller than what the known world becomes in EU times. So while the Roman empire would be a nice chunk of land to have in EU it would be nowhere near conquering the whole world. When you get to EU (global) size world there are many more peoples who have a lot more differences in culture than most of the Roman empire. And the more differences there are, the more difficulty you have.
Could any of the Italian states (just as an example of a country) have had an atomic bomb in the EU time period? This would be an alternative history. Would you like that included? Or the possibility of having it? If so then CIV2 is the game for you but I would rather keep EU & EUII closer to the actual possibilities of history.
The "most powerful empire ever seen" and yet it fell apart.
And while they were sailing to the Americas (or would that have been Americus in Roman times) the Germanic folks still would have invaded and things would have fallen apart. I accept the point that the Romans counquered (most of) the known world but that was a lot smaller than what the known world becomes in EU times. So while the Roman empire would be a nice chunk of land to have in EU it would be nowhere near conquering the whole world. When you get to EU (global) size world there are many more peoples who have a lot more differences in culture than most of the Roman empire. And the more differences there are, the more difficulty you have.
Could any of the Italian states (just as an example of a country) have had an atomic bomb in the EU time period? This would be an alternative history. Would you like that included? Or the possibility of having it? If so then CIV2 is the game for you but I would rather keep EU & EUII closer to the actual possibilities of history.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conqering the hole world
What possibilities in history? What you feel is possible?
Who's to decide what is possible and what's not? (not talking about the game programmers...)
Maybe you will be close to the actual history, and not adding too much of "historical coincidene" to the game. Just fine.
What possibilities in history? What you feel is possible?
Who's to decide what is possible and what's not? (not talking about the game programmers...)
Maybe you will be close to the actual history, and not adding too much of "historical coincidene" to the game. Just fine.
Re: Re: Re: Conqering the hole world
I disagree. The Romans knew about the Pandya Kingdom in India, yet they never conquered them. i believe that the Mongolian Emnpire was the greatest ever. Genghis Khan conquered the largest Empire conquered by a single person and at its height the Mongolian empire was the largest land Empire in the world.
I disagree. The Romans knew about the Pandya Kingdom in India, yet they never conquered them. i believe that the Mongolian Emnpire was the greatest ever. Genghis Khan conquered the largest Empire conquered by a single person and at its height the Mongolian empire was the largest land Empire in the world.
Re: Well....
And they can´t play decent football without our help!Originally posted by bmolsson
The ruling people of England originate from Normandie, which in their turn originate from Scandinavia..... So I guess England is just another successful colony of the scandinavians...
Atomic bomb
You could have the atoimc bomb, but then you're talking a change into a "research and building infrastructure" game.
You don't need the bomb to conquer the world.
You could have the atoimc bomb, but then you're talking a change into a "research and building infrastructure" game.
You don't need the bomb to conquer the world.
Re: Atomic bomb
Although I did not state it clearly, the remark about the atomic bomb was in reply to the statement about anything should be possible.
Although I did not state it clearly, the remark about the atomic bomb was in reply to the statement about anything should be possible.