EU3: Heir to the Throne
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- 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.
No....but I'm beginning to think you are.
No clue whatsoever.
Edit: Thee ghost page! It is back!
You can't compare military conflicts five hundred years apart, and say they are identical!
I'm not comparing the conflicts, I'm comparing the politics of it.
So tell me, oh wise one, what is the difference in the politics of a leader choosing the best way to make war against another leader in 1440 as opposed to 1940?
Wouldn't leaders in both times look for the best way to get around certain alliances or guarantees to make the situation best for their country in the upcoming war?
But the US and USSR were not in fact IN the war as they would be in the EU3 case. In fact the whole point of the 'proxy war' concept was that the big countries would not be at war with each other, meaning that in EU3 terms they could not make any peace demands on each other so all 'proxy wars' are irrelevant to this argument.
I doubt it was his intent to go to war with France & England at that time.
I'd also like to see this list.
The concept of declaring war on one country with the intent of actually mostly fighting (and making peace demands on) one of his allies doesn't make much sense in the real world. More likely is the WW2 Poland example where you hope that the allies do not join the war (even if you have plans to deal with them if they do). This is basically just exploiting the AI's bad judgement on honoring guarantees. Just ask yourself what percentage of humans playing that third country would honor the guarantee, especially if by not honoring it they might hurt you (e.g. maybe you can't even reach the DoW target if they don't join the war).
Last edited:
That's not how it worked back then.
Show me one example of that happening in the EUIII timeframe.
Well, many wars were just a lot more complex than the game makes them appear.
For example the 30 years' war had an African theatre where a Dutch invasion of Angola provoked war with Portugal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
Could be described as france attacking indians leading to conflict with Britain.
But besides that, small scale border conflicts were just very plentiful and such an attack shouldn't always provoke a huge counter alliance. Consider this: if the Ottomans invaded Naxos, some Venetian vassal, then that's Venice's problem. If instead they take the city of Venice, that's bound to evoke a big response from fellow Christians, cf. Vienna 1683.
It's not perfect, but it's a reasonable way to model a limited war. The real problem is not that you can attack a vassal as a pretext to get to the master, but that it's possible in this game to wage a 19th century style total war against the master, without allowing others to intervene in an ongoing war.
I realized that, and I have moved on from just proxy wars.
AFAIK he had planned to go to war with England and France the whole time. He had long ago made plans for a European war.
I don't even know where to look for it.
Not so much in modern times with things like NATO and the EU, but it made even more sense in the EU3 time period. Rulers wouldn't always want to go to war, so if there was no direct reason for them to (like a CoA or CB in EU3 terms) they wouldn't.
Sure, a lot of the problem in the game is the AI, but it isn't that far off.
And yes, and "Call in Allies" option would also be good for the game and also realistic, because that also happened in RL. At least it would be good if the AI didn't always say yes.
Why? Were the leaders dumb back then? They didn't know that if you went through certain channels you wouldn't have to do as much fighting? They were just like the AI in our games?
Show me one reason that the leaders back then wouldn't want to do something like that.
I can't find that list.
Things were just... different. Sure leaders cared about politics. But they were also led by concepts which have much less meaning today, like family, heirs, religion, prestige, noble quarrels. But at the core, yes, setting up the stage for successful war is a timeless exercise.
I recommend the mini-series 'The Tudors' for a remarkable outlook on how Kings behaved and thought back in the era of absolutism.
I recommend the mini-series 'The Tudors' for a remarkable outlook on how Kings behaved and thought back in the era of absolutism.
To end this going nowhere dispute I feel that I must point out that while nobody I know of in the era DoW'd someone to get at their ally, it was also unheard of for a ruler to gaurantee the independence of everyone anywhere near them. Hell, even the amount of wars you see in EUIII is also wildly ahistoric.
Well, I believe his hope was that Western Europe would stay out of it. The common German sentiment of the time was surprise as well once England decided for war. After the Munich conference, everyone figured that the West wanted peace, and they were willing to give away Eastern Europe to get it. In their minds, nothing had really changed between Munich and Poland either.
Well, I believe his hope was that Western Europe would stay out of it. The common German sentiment of the time was surprise as well once England decided for war. After the Munich conference, everyone figured that the West wanted peace, and they were willing to give away Eastern Europe to get it. In their minds, nothing had really changed between Munich and Poland either.
For the record I can assure you that Hitler did NOT want war with the west... yet. He had promiced Italy he would wait until 1942 before he started a war between the Axis and the UK. In a way attacking Poland was his way of dragging Italy into a big war before they would otherwise.
Not the same thing though.
Not the same thing though.
If you wanted to discredit your contributions, you could not have done a better job. Wikipedia? Seriously? Come one!
And that the Seven Years War (which some people call the "French and Indian War") "could be described as france attacking indians leading to conflict with Britain" - that smells like one of these historiographical attempts to make it all about North America.
I just read the Treaty of Paris (1763) with my students this week, and really, that was not the main point of that war.
Indeed, the North American conflict was at best the powder keg that drew Britain and France in. It's a damn shame that over here in North America, we weren't even taught that there was a European theatre to the Seven Years War. All Louisbourg this, and Plains of Abraham that.
Speaking of features once more, it might be interesting to see an option to switch sides in a war. 
Let's say a Prussian-French War occurs and as Bavaria (Ally of Prussia), I joined the war on the Prussian's side. However, over the course of the war, the French offered me money to turn on the Prussians. Thus, I switched sides.
This may be difficult to implement but I hope to see the option to switch sides in an on-going war included in HttT along with a "Call-to-Arms" Option.
Let's say a Prussian-French War occurs and as Bavaria (Ally of Prussia), I joined the war on the Prussian's side. However, over the course of the war, the French offered me money to turn on the Prussians. Thus, I switched sides.
This may be difficult to implement but I hope to see the option to switch sides in an on-going war included in HttT along with a "Call-to-Arms" Option.
I reallly object to this. Of course Wikipedia by itself is not a scientifically valid justification of a point by itself. Specific views and facts there should not automatically be taken for granted, yes. But as a reference to a concept at large, as an answer to a request for examples, it is still an encyclopedia.
There's no need to be so dismissive. Wikipedia is a serious and significant project with definite merits, and if you think it's so unreliable that it would have the basic facts of wars wrong (like belligerents and years), you're absolutely mistaken.
Okay, it was an European war, my wording was a bit off there. I meant to say the part of it that occurred in NA could be described like that, not the whole war.