NitramDatsgnos said:Hey, thank you
Yes, it was fun. Why did you attack little Portugal in the first place?
You were the only player who had gotten through the endgame entirely unscathed until I attacked you, basically.
-
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.
You were the only player who had gotten through the endgame entirely unscathed until I attacked you, basically.
Fredrik82 said:But everyone saw Russia as the "good guy" more or less, thus it was too late to do something when i turned "evil"
Yeah, that's the problem - a problem largely caused by Pontus being such a badboy.
Fredrik82 said:You did a great job as Holland, and you did take a hugh risk when you left the Franco alliance. Many Holland players just simply stay as French bitch through out the game.
Well, I was forced to when France was vasallized by you.
And to be honest, I was very suprised to see France join in the war on your side, because I had forgotten that we have a sub there. :wacko:
Im satisfied with the fact that Fredrik would never succeeded to beat me alone
Edit: And the fact that I was actually winning a while there even with the bad odds.
Edit: And the fact that I was actually winning a while there even with the bad odds.
World Conqueror said:Im satisfied with the fact that Fredrik would never succeeded to beat me alone
Edit: And the fact that I was actually winning a while there even with the bad odds.
I'm satisfied that *I* wasn't one of those who ended up being his bitch...
Sweden-NappyFrance-Prussia-OE-England vs Russia-Austria-Spain-Holland was quite balanced. I'd dare to say if suvorov wasn't that good to kill uber leaders then the Russian alliance would most likely loose.
I fought a 3 front war for a long time there Pontus, Which means that i could only use max 2/3 of my army against you. Which is about 800K troops, a 1vs1 between Russia-Prussia would mean that i would be able to send aprox 500K more troops to Prussia. Thus i would have succeed to break you down much earlier. In the battle of Berlin i was forced to take troops from the Turkish boarder and from the Swedish boarder, then operation Berlin was a success.
I start to belive that i should have disable Sweden first, then Prussia. Sweden was very annoying with there terrorist attacks.
They constantly attacked my reinforcements
Also, i should have used Suvorov more wisely, he was the key to take out Prussian forts. If i had more troops (Which i defenetly would have in a 1vs1) then I would take out as much forts as possible. And then go and kill your army. That would be the end of Prussia.
I fought a 3 front war for a long time there Pontus, Which means that i could only use max 2/3 of my army against you. Which is about 800K troops, a 1vs1 between Russia-Prussia would mean that i would be able to send aprox 500K more troops to Prussia. Thus i would have succeed to break you down much earlier. In the battle of Berlin i was forced to take troops from the Turkish boarder and from the Swedish boarder, then operation Berlin was a success.
I start to belive that i should have disable Sweden first, then Prussia. Sweden was very annoying with there terrorist attacks.
They constantly attacked my reinforcements
Also, i should have used Suvorov more wisely, he was the key to take out Prussian forts. If i had more troops (Which i defenetly would have in a 1vs1) then I would take out as much forts as possible. And then go and kill your army. That would be the end of Prussia.
Well, France had a big army in Prussia with Davout. I fought Sweden-Prussia-France there, mostly by myself. Austria was fighting the Turks mostly.Byakhiam said:It's not like France fought Russia at all though.
Hive said:I'm satisfied that *I* wasn't one of those who ended up being his bitch...
I'm satisfied that *I* created the better nation accounted whole game...
Last edited:
A few facts Fred:
- Russia never defeated Prussia alone.
- Russia defeated Prussia ONE time in the game; When it was Austria-Russia. (And me with no Blücher).
- Russia was poorer then Prussia most of the time.
- Russian troops sucks without any good leader
- Brandenburg was in mid 1600 nearly the best trader in game.
- Brandenburg/Prussia was NEVER funded by anyone, with the exception of some austrian gifts early some swedish-OE gifts in the end of the war.
- Russia was funded extensively by Holland+other large fundings during other wars(by your own words).
- Brandenburg/Prussia produced the best wine
- Diplomaticly Russia was opposed only by Prussia practicly the whole time. You could do whatever you want while I was always checked by the rest of the world.
- Russia never defeated Prussia alone.
- Russia defeated Prussia ONE time in the game; When it was Austria-Russia. (And me with no Blücher).
- Russia was poorer then Prussia most of the time.
- Russian troops sucks without any good leader
- Brandenburg was in mid 1600 nearly the best trader in game.
- Brandenburg/Prussia was NEVER funded by anyone, with the exception of some austrian gifts early some swedish-OE gifts in the end of the war.
- Russia was funded extensively by Holland+other large fundings during other wars(by your own words).
- Brandenburg/Prussia produced the best wine
- Diplomaticly Russia was opposed only by Prussia practicly the whole time. You could do whatever you want while I was always checked by the rest of the world.
Prussia is much harder to play then Russia, i cant argue with that.
And you did a good job
I think we fought three times, the first war ended up in WP, the second you had the upper hand almost during the whole war. Although, thanks to the winter and russian MP i managed to kill Fred and retake all lands captured by Prussia. The war ended up with battles along the boarder. I then offered you 500D because Russia was revolting all over. Thus 500D was very cheap to end such a big conflict. And we managed to fight back the Prussians with -1 CRT, Prussia had better morale and two uber leaders. I am quite happy with that outcome
And the third war, you lost big time. With Russia controling half of Prussia. And you ended up being vassalized. You forgot to mention that in your little fact book
And you did a good job
I think we fought three times, the first war ended up in WP, the second you had the upper hand almost during the whole war. Although, thanks to the winter and russian MP i managed to kill Fred and retake all lands captured by Prussia. The war ended up with battles along the boarder. I then offered you 500D because Russia was revolting all over. Thus 500D was very cheap to end such a big conflict. And we managed to fight back the Prussians with -1 CRT, Prussia had better morale and two uber leaders. I am quite happy with that outcome
And the third war, you lost big time. With Russia controling half of Prussia. And you ended up being vassalized. You forgot to mention that in your little fact book
World Conqueror said:
Yes, and you know that I discard them as rubbish BS.
I decided from the start to not hypertech, and take an active part in Europe. I made a bold move by challenging both Spain (for Florida) and Portugal (for Brazil) early on, knowing that it wasn't actually the best move for my nation. But it would introduce some interesting conflicts.
Furthermore, I decided to refuse to give/sell France Calais, and told him that I would fight for it. Eventually, though, I had to give it up to him because I was occupied at war with the nasty Iberians... but it was fun while it lasted. And keep in mind that Calais didn't really gain me anything, and that making an enemy of France by refusing him to have it while at the same time being an enemy of the Iberians wasn't exactly best for my nation either...
Bit I still did it, for the sake of conflict.
I was at war with Spain/Portugal (twice IIRC), Portugal/Netherlands, Netherlands, Portugal/Sweden, Prussia (twice) - and after these wars, I had fallen far behind hypertechers like yourself. I had very low income, was too far behind in tech compared to my rivals, had a small navy, etc... so naturally, I didn't initiate more wars untill I had catched up.
The final session, when I had catched up, I fought Netherlands, Venice (though AI, so doesn't really count...) and Portugal. And I expected war against OE, as it had long looked like he would attack me in Africa... furthermore, I offered my new Spanish ally to help him take provs in Italy from Austria. And before that, I offered Byak to help him against an enemy of his choice - but he declined that offer...
Sure, you fought more wars than me for the later half of the game - after you had hyperteched enough to come up ahead of your neighbours... you want a medal for that? Everyone can do so, if that's what they want.
Now you might say that "Prussia's prime only started in the 18th century, they didn't really fight wars before then..."
Yeah, that's true. But to a large degree, the same can be said about England...
Fact is, I fought many wars even though it wasn't the "best thing" for my nation. I did it to have fun. But you, on the other hand, are one of those people who only fight wars in which they are about 100% sure they can gain something, and always measure costs and gains as if they were the head of a major corporation...
World Conqueror said:I'm satisfied that *I* created the better nation accounted whole game...
Changed your post, eh?
Well I can reply to this as well: You achieved it by early hyperteching, a technique I hate. You lay low for about the first half of the game in which you tech trade and partially infra like a madman, after which you can easily crush nations who didn't do that. Nations like my England.
And this wouldn't of course be so fucking annoying if not for the fact that you want it to look like you are the best player ever to be seen on these boards just because you manage the great arts of hyperteching... please...
Oh, and dont forget that Prussia-Russia was allies for a long time also.
You have much to thank Russia for
You have much to thank Russia for
Last edited:
Sorry missed first Raiders of Lost Arch session and it was last but seems you had fun sessinon anyway .
.
Only thinkg I regret is that I spent more years with France in war than in peace by fighting first yber Spain and when players changed in Austria, Spain and Portugal against Austria&Prussia (causing me to "quit"/move to Austria when rules where allmoust changed during session). While I could have made early alliance with Spain and hyperteched along everybody else to greatness.
Hive said:Changed your post, eh?
I just want to mention that I changed it because my first comment sounded alittle too harsh I think.
Summary for Sweden
I had really pleasure to play every week, and felt nice all along. I only went paranoid once when I thought a double play was happening in a strange situation around 1700 ( Fred ).
The game was only 5 years too long for me, before the accumulation of high WE and losses left virtually defenseless against Russia and the avenging of Neth.
BTW, I think I played fair with Neth in last session : we had a rendez-vous with fleets which I won, and dowed only when embargoed : wasn't just another random warmonger
I'm still happy of my Sweden : 4th earning in end game not far from Iberians + Eng and 1st in trade (have to be 1st in sth :rofl: ), great number of colonies in NA, Malacca.
I had some hard times in the beginning when I seemed to be a malediction for my allies : first Poland dropped leaving me alone against Rus-Den and after I managed to ally with Den he dropped too.
My relief came when I managed to colonize a great deal of NA in an all-out attempt to conquer pagan nations, at the cost of high stab costs.
I could then do a sort of middle game hyperteching coming back and then being in leading nations in trade and naval.
In end game, in the great war, I did all I could to stop Russia and help Prussia but ultimately my lack of MP, despite a great number of CC, didn't allow me to resist.
Hoping that various players don't regret now to have let a newbie like me take the charge of a country in this game.
I hope to see you all again in some other games as I was happy to play this game with you
I had really pleasure to play every week, and felt nice all along. I only went paranoid once when I thought a double play was happening in a strange situation around 1700 (
Fred ).The game was only 5 years too long for me, before the accumulation of high WE and losses left virtually defenseless against Russia and the avenging of Neth.
BTW, I think I played fair with Neth in last session : we had a rendez-vous with fleets which I won, and dowed only when embargoed : wasn't just another random warmonger
I'm still happy of my Sweden : 4th earning in end game not far from Iberians + Eng and 1st in trade (have to be 1st in sth :rofl: ), great number of colonies in NA, Malacca.
I had some hard times in the beginning when I seemed to be a malediction for my allies : first Poland dropped leaving me alone against Rus-Den and after I managed to ally with Den he dropped too.
My relief came when I managed to colonize a great deal of NA in an all-out attempt to conquer pagan nations, at the cost of high stab costs.
I could then do a sort of middle game hyperteching coming back and then being in leading nations in trade and naval.
In end game, in the great war, I did all I could to stop Russia and help Prussia but ultimately my lack of MP, despite a great number of CC, didn't allow me to resist.
Hoping that various players don't regret now to have let a newbie like me take the charge of a country in this game.
I hope to see you all again in some other games as I was happy to play this game with you
Hive said:Yes, and you know that I discard them as rubbish BS.
I decided from the start to not hypertech, and take an active part in Europe. I made a bold move by challenging both Spain (for Florida) and Portugal (for Brazil) early on, knowing that it wasn't actually the best move for my nation. But it would introduce some interesting conflicts.
Furthermore, I decided to refuse to give/sell France Calais, and told him that I would fight for it. Eventually, though, I had to give it up to him because I was occupied at war with the nasty Iberians... but it was fun while it lasted. And keep in mind that Calais didn't really gain me anything, and that making an enemy of France by refusing him to have it while at the same time being an enemy of the Iberians wasn't exactly best for my nation either...
Bit I still did it, for the sake of conflict.
I was at war with Spain/Portugal (twice IIRC), Portugal/Netherlands, Netherlands, Portugal/Sweden, Prussia (twice) - and after these wars, I had fallen far behind hypertechers like yourself. I had very low income, was too far behind in tech compared to my rivals, had a small navy, etc... so naturally, I didn't initiate more wars untill I had catched up.
The final session, when I had catched up, I fought Netherlands, Venice (though AI, so doesn't really count...) and Portugal. And I expected war against OE, as it had long looked like he would attack me in Africa... furthermore, I offered my new Spanish ally to help him take provs in Italy from Austria. And before that, I offered Byak to help him against an enemy of his choice - but he declined that offer...
Sure, you fought more wars than me for the later half of the game - after you had hyperteched enough to come up ahead of your neighbours... you want a medal for that? Everyone can do so, if that's what they want.
Now you might say that "Prussia's prime only started in the 18th century, they didn't really fight wars before then..."
Yeah, that's true. But to a large degree, the same can be said about England...
Fact is, I fought many wars even though it wasn't the "best thing" for my nation. I did it to have fun. But you, on the other hand, are one of those people who only fight wars in which they are about 100% sure they can gain something, and always measure costs and gains as if they were the head of a major corporation...
Hive I am sorry that I don't understand your reasoning. You are saying you decided involve in european matters early, because you would have more fun doing it. I can tell you, I had damn fun charging up in half the game and then go on a full blown attack the other half. What's wrong with that?
If I could create an economical powerfull BB/Prussia, what's wrong with doing it? If I could tech away from Russia and a small tech from other nations(which is practicly my only way to get advantage to alone beat those huge MP/leader nations), what's wrong with that? If I then take advantage of my superior tech, what is wrong with that? Apparantly my strategy worked better then yours, and I had fun also.
We clearly have different views on hyperteching. Keeping it at a lvl of propaganda in game is one thing(Stop that evil hypertecher etc. etc.) But when it turns more personal I do not agree.
And you say I brag about it, well let me tell you why: When you, and in a smaller degree Fredrik, starts to nag about me getting vassalised, having no honour and being a bitch I get mad. Just because Russia succeeded to vassalise me the last 10 years of gameplay it is going to overshadow my accomplisments during the other hundreds of years totally? Notice first THEN I start to bring up those facts. Edit:+ I am annoyed by you nagging about that you COULD had hyperteched, and that you COULD had just thought of yourself. But no, poor little you are the good guy and "restrain" from hyperteching and creating an economicall powerfull England. Like doing that wouldnt require any skill at all.
And Yes, I regard this Prussia as my greatest success yet in EU-gaming; Even with the unfortunate end.
Last edited:
feanor73 said:Hoping that various players don't regret now to have let a newbie like me take the charge of a country in this game.
Of course not, was fun to play with you.