Europe domination as England v1.5

[XELANAMYT]

Just been looking through all the patch notes and some of the other threads that other people have been posting in about the new patch and it seems like my plan to dominate Europe (win HYW, take Ireland & Scotland, vassalise HRE electors, then start conquering the rest of Europe) will be scuppered due to AE penalties leading to coalitions?

Bare in mind I have coalitions issues in my last game with 1.4 (basically all of central Europe), it seems like I won't be able to do anything along those lines now?

 

[MadDjinn]

you can still do all of that, but just beware that it'll take a lot longer to do, unless you want to fight a coalition every 5 yrs.

 

[XELANAMYT]

It was taking long enough in 1.4! I just wish there was a way to reduce the coalitions without either waiting for decades or having huge wars that take ages just for a few provinces.

 

[Miganto]

I don't get the mentality of people who believe conquering all of Europe in a couple of hundred years should be easily doable in this type of game....

 

[Shivah]

Well it kinda is a game about conquest, so there's that. And if there was something to do when not at war, like real diplomacy or dynasty building, maybe the interminable downtime while waiting for AE to drop would be less annoying.

 

[Korashy]

I don't get the mentality of people who believe conquering all of Europe in a couple of hundred years should be easily doable in this type of game....

I don't get the people that conquer historical borders and then sit around at speed 5 doing nothing.

 

[Demonsul]

I don't get the people that conquer historical borders and then sit around at speed 5 doing nothing.

You know you can expand at a speed which doesn't keep you perpetually overextended and below cap manpower, right?

 

[Andy_Dandy]

It was taking long enough in 1.4! I just wish there was a way to reduce the coalitions without either waiting for decades or having huge wars that take ages just for a few provinces.

I think the fastest way is to do some map editing and paint the whole map red there. I've heard it's rather fun, interesting and quite challenging too from time to time.

 

[Miganto]

Well it kinda is a game about conquest, so there's that. And if there was something to do when not at war, like real diplomacy or dynasty building, maybe the interminable downtime while waiting for AE to drop would be less annoying.

This game isn't really about world domination, as such, but I do get your point. I would suggest that you do what would need to be done more in real life, which is expand in different directions. Your AE is location based, so go towards Europe until it gets high, then head in to the US for a bit, then a bit more of EU, then a bit of Africa, etc etc.

If the game was designed to allow us to conquer unconditionally (like the total war series - not bashing the TW series as it has other qualities that make them good), then I think it would be rather dull as it would just be "war ==> wait for truces to end ==> war ==> wait for truces to end ==> war"

I don't get the people that conquer historical borders and then sit around at speed 5 doing nothing.

My view was based on the original post, you're going to an extreme that isn't relevant to anything anyone has said, so, my come back to you is that I don't get people that like to cheat on their partners.

Your turn.

 

[Korashy]

This game isn't really about world domination, as such, but I do get your point. I would suggest that you do what would need to be done more in real life, which is expand in different directions. Your AE is location based, so go towards Europe until it gets high, then head in to the US for a bit, then a bit more of EU, then a bit of Africa, etc etc.

If the game was designed to allow us to conquer unconditionally (like the total war series - not bashing the TW series as it has other qualities that make them good), then I think it would be rather dull as it would just be "war ==> wait for truces to end ==> war ==> wait for truces to end ==> war"



My view was based on the original post, you're going to an extreme that isn't relevant to anything anyone has said, so, my come back to you is that I don't get people that like to cheat on their partners.

Your turn.

I don't like people that don't appreciate the Doener.

And conquering all of Europe in 400 years seems pretty plausible to me if you manage to win every war you get into. It's just the limit of WS and OE that really holds you in check.

 

[Miganto]

Look in to any country that has tried to do that and see the coalitions created to go against them stopping them getting too big.

I am not saying it should be 100% historical, but the game is trying to re-create historic expansionism.


Plus - I can't stand people that park in a way that takes up 2 bays.

 

[Korashy]

Well they didnt win every war. Coalitions themselves aren't the problem. The problem is fighting all of europe over 2 provinces.

I don't like people that call huneys bit***

 

[RandomZach]

I played this scenario in the beta quite a bit, and the only major AE i got was vassalizing the electors. If you attack Austria directly, they'll usually be allied with 3-4 electors who will join the war that you can vassalize via separate peace all at once. You'll gain a huge amount of AE, but just the once, and the coalition that forms against you, while large, should be mostly HRE minors that won't be willing to go to war with both you and france. Once you've become emperor the only wars you should be fighting are to free nations, return cores, or force religion, none of which generate AE. While you are recovering from the AE hit from vassalizing, you can feed castille and portugal to aragon and galicia, which should generate no AE for you if you allow them to siege. You can also force burgundy to release nations for IA, again causing no additional AE.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't get the mentality of people who believe conquering all of Europe in a couple of hundred years should be easily doable in this type of game....

I don't get the mentality of people who mistakenly think we believe it should be easy and ignore points made.

Fighting AND joining coalitions should both carry serious risks.

Look in to any country that has tried to do that and see the coalitions created to go against them stopping them getting too big.

I am not saying it should be 100% historical, but the game is trying to re-create historic expansionism.

What happens in the game if you destroy a coalition to a man?

What do you think would have happened in reality?

The outcome defeating a coalition is 100% ahistorical.

 

[RaptorCommander]

I don't get the mentality of people who believe conquering all of Europe in a couple of hundred years should be easily doable in this type of game....

It is time (you personnel put in the game) vs reward satisfaction of playing. A normal game period would be 30-50mins (the range most strategy games target for skirmishes e.g. CoH, SC2 even lol and Dota). If the game pace of EU4 drops so much that nothing note worthy can be done within 30-50mins playing speed 2 (the speed at which muilty player over the internet is practical at with more then 4-6 people) then there is no point playing the game any more.

To play EU4 I want to actually be able to achieve something per session played but if it takes from 1444 to 1700 for east freesia to form the Netherlands (cause of AE/coring times) then the game is broken.

In 1.4.1 (and earlier) to play muilty player games without getting bored I was watching TV/movies on my second screen or listening to podcasts etc. Except during player vs player wars which ends up once ever 1.5 sessions of 4 hours in my experience.

Clarification: By Note worthy I mean things like the following (Not just doing but preparing, securing and defending):
- Set up a new colonial government
- explore the new world
- As England conquer either Ireland or Scotland
- Build a fleet and dominate a trade node (beat up competitors)
- Kick and conquer the TO and pom as brand
- Change government type

 

[Shivah]

Can we please dispense with the argument that "no one conquered all of Europe historically." I see Napoleon's defeat brought up often as if were a fair comparison. No, it is not. If he had 300+ years to run France it would be. Also if he had our ability to see any army's position in or bordering his, or an allies nation. Or all the other informational advantages we have over real life rulers due to us playing a simulation. It is a crap comparison.

 

[RaptorCommander]

+1

If Napoleon knew he would live for 300 years with no dispute to his absolute power he would of conquered and held the world not just Europe.

 

[FrigidSoul]

+1

If Napoleon knew he would live for 300 years with no dispute to his absolute power he would of conquered and held the world not just Europe.

Hell, he probably could have conquered more than one planet.

 

[XELANAMYT]

The problem that I really have is that the game goes so slowly when you waiting for coalitions to die down, also there isn't much else to do, especially since I dislike the new colonial nations mechanics. All of the other ways of expansion is very luck based (PUs for example).

Maybe its because I nearly always play as England and they are already a large nation.

 

[Korashy]

The problem that I really have is that the game goes so slowly when you waiting for coalitions to die down, also there isn't much else to do, especially since I dislike the new colonial nations mechanics. All of the other ways of expansion is very luck based (PUs for example).

Maybe its because I nearly always play as England and they are already a large nation.

If AE in northern Europe is too high head into the Medi and expand there while AE cools of else where. If you wanna be expanding non stop you basically have to move your armies around multiple areas.