A little end game summary taken from correspondance with the Stadholder's Office:
Firstly a list of most influential nations over the period 1580-1820, with an overall dip/adm/mil rating for how the country was run
1) England 7-8-8: Not a lot of debate here i would think
FAL's England was quite awesome, with a strong economical base established by Elizabeth FAL was able to start intervening in continental affairs earlier than one might expect from England, quickly securing much of North America from Brandenburg and Denmark. This was soon followed by the capture of parts of Brazil, Latvia and Estonia, Norway and eventually Portugal and much of Spain and Mexico. Despite attempts in the latter half of the 18th century to push them back England at worst held there own, with the temporary loss of Chinese CoTs matched by Malacca and more gains in Spain, although these were also fleeting. Economically a strong English performance, although outteched by the Dutch and possibly Venice in the end. Diplomatically the alliance with France was most beneficial, as was its help to the fledgling Dutch Republic, allowing it to operate almost unopposed for vast periods of time. (although i hear from reports that FAL was also a tad paranoid about the Dutch
)
2) France 8-6-6
Amp's tenure in France was characterised by friendship with Engand and almost overlord status over Spain, leaving him free to concentrade on getting France to the Rhine and meddling to keep them there by playing Austria, Denmark and Brandenburg off with each other. A strategy that tended to work well and also left the Ottomans and France free to deal with Venice, something they managed admirably for the first couple of centuries. Economically a decent performance, although the decision to not bother converting indonesia for centuries was questionable, as was the race for Delhi. And militarily never really pulled off anything more than expected, with the coalition's against England failure pointing squarely at France in one instance
3) Venice 6-8-7
Venice started strongly, uniting Italy and throwing Spain off the peninsula and most of west Africa including its gold mines and CoTs, as well as establishing a strong trading presence. Unfortunately its early boom had made it enemies, and the 16th and 17th centuries were marked by stagnation as Spain, the Ottoman Empire and France beat it back, with corresponding damage to its economy. But by the 18th century Aladar had recovered, and with the weakening of the Ottomans and France's inactivity Venice was able to take its place as the strongest meditterean power, contested only by England. Eventually they were able to retake islands taken from them by the English and by the end game they were at the highest income tier and supported the second largest fleet (excluding the combined Dutch-Danish fleets)
4) Ottoman Empire 6-6-6
A tale of two halves really, under Drake the Ottomans prospered, throwing Venice out of the eastern med and cutting the Russians off from Siberia as well as spreading their influence all the way to India. Economically the Ottomans were rich but never megarich throughtout the period. Unfortunately under the exiled King of Poland things turned for the worse, a resurgent Russia and Venice, combined with an inactive or uncaring France and an expansionist England meant trouble. Russia continously pushed their borders south until Istanbul itself came under seige and Venice took over half of their european possessions by the dawn of the 19th century. The loss of Egypt also hurt the Empire and it had fallen behind in techs and navally to be the sick man of europe by the close.
5) Russia 5-7-6
Russia certainly had a turbulent time of things, their seesaw wars with Poland had them nearly at Warsaw and saw them lose Siberia but in the end Poland was crushed beneath Russia's iron boots, although the Polish decision to take Siberia rather than european land during their victories may have played a part in that....But with the destruction of Poland, Russia really started to come into their own, taking Finland, the Causcaus's and Samarkland in quick succession before taking the rest of what was Poland from Austria, Sweden and Prussia under Suvorov's leadership. Economically Russia was surprisingly rich by the end, and was able to compete toe-to-toe with Napoleon and Wellington.
6) Denmark 6-6-5
Danish fortunes were extraordinarily changeable, making enemies and then friends with France and Brandenburg in the 1500's and vice versa of Austria, in the end waxing their fortunes to controlling a sizeable portion of Germany along with Norway and parts of Sweden after defeating a Swedish-Brandenburgian attack. Combined with control of large swathes of Canada Denmark looked set to be the pre-eminent Scandavian, if not baltic power. Things then took a turn for the worse, first with the English annexation of nearly all of Canada, then with Gustav Adolf taking back Skane and Bohus and finally with De Ruyter seizing Fyn and Jutland for the aid of Sweden. Managing to buy back Denmark itself with the selling of Norway and replacing non-existant French support with Dutch by 1750 Denmark was an entirely different beast. Heavy Dutch investment and protection had given Denmark significant wealth and the ability to compete with Prussia and Austria for hegemony over Germany, with territory stretching down nearly the entire length of the Rhine and a navy of not inconsiderable strength. Quite a success for a country that once controlled barely anything outside its capital.
7) Prussia 5-4-5
Allying with France and Sweden early on brought benefits in the form of French aid in stopping annexation by Austria, but also drew them into Ampo's diplomatic orbit and relegated them to a second class power at best. Alliance with Sweden was even less beneficial as Brandenburg lost parts of Germany to Denmark. This continued for a while, without me really remembering other foreign adventures, alongside colonisation of Columbia and knocking out people's merchants. The 18th century was much more exciting however, with Denmark and Prussia successfully taking the fight to Austria and conquering much of central germany, and despite the loss of some of recently conquered Poland to Suvrorov Prussia remained a significant military power in central europe.
8) Austria 4-4-5
Peaked a bit too early perhaps, by 1600 Austria was left facing France, the Ottomans, Denmark and Brandeburg with only Venetian help. Its constant warring with its weaker northern neighbour had left it isolated and it gradually began to lose its border provinces back the Elector. Eventually as the 18th century dawned Austria was overshadowed by the Prussian-Danish-Dutch powerbloc and pledged allegiance to England, further isolating it in Europe as Frederick wreaked havoc on its armies. And even this vassalage did not stop Russia from taking back Polish lands, Austria surrendering without a fight. Austria never really achieved true wealth and losing their tax revenues to England may not have helped, despite recieving some funding.
9) Poland 3-4-5
An odd history for Poland, littered with amazing victories and catastrophic defeats that in the end just saw the noose being closed around it. Made an attempt at early colonisation in America that was economically and strategically questionable, and a later attempt in Siberia was even more so. Despite this they did achieve some success against Russia and Austria, but they were playing a losing game, and eventually met their end after agreeing to become Austrian vassals, in exchange for absolutely nothing as it turned out, and were annexed.
10) Sweden 5-4-4
Suffered with two scandavnian powers, its manpower and income were never really enough to make best use of its leaders. The decision to take pagan central africa was questionable and certainly slowed its stability growth, and thus trading income. An attempt to take down Denmark early failed, and further attempts produced little success apart from with foreign aid. In the east Sweden had more success, beating back Russia once or twice and gaining signifcant holdings on the other side of the baltic at Poland's expense, which did make enemies unfortunately. Had become a bit of an irrelevance in the end game except as a means to divert Russia's attention.
11) Portugal/Spain 2-3-3
Oh dear...well Spain under BGW was focused on italy, which it lost, to the exclusion of any other ventures, excepting a disastrous Portugese led invasion of Holland. Economically speaking, no serious trading took place for Spain and it was an almost complete irrelevance in world affairs, even eclipsed by Porto, who also suffered from a lack income and a hostile England and Holland. When merged an improvement was seen, but alas, it was too little too late and England were able to carve up the country almost at will.
And finally a note about Holland: When i decided to play holland i thought i would see how far peace could get me for once, so i only declared war if i had already been attacked or in defense of my vassals. I decided to try to see if i could in effect buy influence, with my vassalisation of Denmark being the only successful example of that unfortunately. In other affairs i tried to stay neutral and out of Ampo's increasingly threatening attempts to bring me into his orbit to fight against England on the seas. Which i think i was largely successful in, and would hope no one saw Holland as an enemy
Later on i became more involved with Denmark's wars in Germany because land warfare is a hell of a lot more fun and less potentially devastating than naval war, plus i thought Spain had suffered enough and that attacking England was probable suicide. I also think i must have lent a hell of a lot of ducats in that game, to Spain, Prussia, Russia, Denmark to name a few
