Europe Unleashed: Reloaded

[unmerged(16363)]

All say wellcome to the new permanent player of Venice!


Btw, can some enlighten me and remind me who was the guy who subbed for Venice last session?

 

[Hive]

All say wellcome to the new permanent player of Venice!


Btw, can some enlighten me and remind me who was the guy who subbed for Venice last session?

*sob* There goes my sub...

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Persia is about to lead in manu's. Those trading licences do help them!

Persia did not build a single manufactory last session. It went from 19 to 20 through an unexpected invention. If you want to know what the trading license money was used for, check Persian fortification levels before and after last session.

Indeed, apart from building fortresses, force-converting Aden, Zanj, and Brunei, overseing the return of Russian occupied Uzbekh lands to the Uzbekhs, and taking Syria from the Ottoman Empire, Persia was a sea of tranquillity that was at +3 stability for more than SIX years! and at positive stability for a decade. (Damn expensive to arrange, though - not sure I will do so again in this game)

 

[unmerged(18425)]

All say wellcome to the new permanent player of Venice!

Hail Anibal! The new Doge, who's first deed will be ceding Lombardia to Austria in the next Austrian-Venetian war! HAIL!

Btw, can some enlighten me and remind me who was the guy who subbed for Venice last session?

Something I would like to know too
And who was Spain?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Persia did not build a single manufactory last session. It went from 19 to 20 through an unexpected invention. If you want to know what the trading license money was used for, check Persian fortification levels before and after last session.

I had the wrong impression that Persia had 16 manu's last session

Indeed, apart from building fortresses, force-converting Aden, Zanj, and Brunei, overseing the return of Russian occupied Uzbekh lands to the Uzbekhs, and taking Syria from the Ottoman Empire, Persia was a sea of tranquillity that was at +3 stability for more than SIX years! and at positive stability for a decade. (Damn expensive to arrange, though - not sure I will do so again in this game)

That puzzles me. Is Persia *that* afraid of foreigners invading her that she needs fortresses upgraded?
What were the persian stab costs?

And *why* did you wanted to get Persia at +3 stab then? especially when scripted events are about to ruin that

 

[unmerged(18425)]

BTW Peter, there are people who think you're a skilled veteran player.
They're all wrong, you absolutely don't fall into that category.

You're still playing in reloaded

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

That puzzles me. Is Persia *that* afraid of foreigners invading her that she needs fortresses upgraded?

Well, I needed to use the money for something, and since all the Shah's palaces already have golden bathtubs, well, you know...

More seriously, I prefer having at least "small" fortresses for the increased supply limit. There are a number of strategically important provinces that I tend to lose tens of thousands of troops to due to their small supply limit. No more.

And, of course, the west can NEVER be fortified well enough. The dastardly, vicious, treacherous, not to mention thoroughly vile Ottomans are always ready to take advantage of Persia. Which is why we defensively advanced and protected Syria from Ottoman internal aggression.

What were the persian stab costs?

2,400d/point.

And *why* did you wanted to get Persia at +3 stab then? especially when scripted events are about to ruin that

For fun. I wanted to see if I could do it and I wanted to see what my tax income would be at such rarified levels. (It went from 360 census to 510 census). It is also boring being at -2 or -3 stability all the time.

Sure, I also hoped to start some trade, but, honestly, there is no way I will ever earn enough from trading to pay for the 8 stabpoints, i.e. 19,200d invested in stability.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

<snippie>It is also boring being at -2 or -3 stability all the time.

If I remember correctly, you also run mostly at negative stab with Russia in mach 2.

You aren't afraid of a civil war, are you?

 

[Hive]

BTW Peter, there are people who think you're a skilled veteran player.
They're all wrong, you absolutely don't fall into that category.

You're still playing in reloaded

Yeah. All the *true* vets quit at least once. The HoG is a real vet though, he quit twice...

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

If I remember correctly, you also run mostly at negative stab with Russia in mach 2.

Correct.

You aren't afraid of a civil war, are you?

Not really.

They happen every now and then and sure enough they hurt a bit, but not nearly as much as it hurts running at 0BB/stab+3 while taking care only to conquer the stab-cheap provinces and being a peaceful trader. I can play that way - I just prefer not to. I have the same attitude towards inflation, which makes my current extremely low inflation of 6.0% something of a rarity. I blame the trading licenses.

 

[Lord Ganja]

I seriously screwed up my chances to surpass Austria in LT last session.
Because I have absolutly no knowledge of any of the events (well I know that Nappy will appear at some point) I choosed the wrong option in the Mississippi Company event. That state bancrupcy costed me about 5 years of developing. My Infra upgrade was delayed 3 years, my stab went down -6, I got like 15% inflation and 3 manus were burnt.
Despite that, the session was pretty much fun for me.

 

[Hive]

I seriously screwed up my chances to surpass Austria in LT last session.
Because I have absolutly no knowledge of any of the events (well I know that Nappy will appear at some point) I choosed the wrong option in the Mississippi Company event. That state bancrupcy costed me about 5 years of developing. My Infra upgrade was delayed 3 years, my stab went down -6, I got like 15% inflation and 3 manus were burnt.
Despite that, the session was pretty much fun for me.

Heh. I did the same thing with that event in HGIII...

 

[devil]

I seriously screwed up my chances to surpass Austria in LT last session.
Because I have absolutly no knowledge of any of the events (well I know that Nappy will appear at some point) I choosed the wrong option in the Mississippi Company event. That state bancrupcy costed me about 5 years of developing. My Infra upgrade was delayed 3 years, my stab went down -6, I got like 15% inflation and 3 manus were burnt.
Despite that, the session was pretty much fun for me.

you just need to be above innovative value = 6, or above stab 1 iirc to avoid the bankrupcy event

 

[smn_]

All say wellcome to the new permanent player of Venice!


Btw, can some enlighten me and remind me who was the guy who subbed for Venice last session?

That would have been me (and AI for the first 10 years or so). Apart from losing some 140 warships against the english, the session went quite well for Venice

 

[unmerged(18425)]

If I understand correctly, we need a new Spain too, right?

 

[Hive]

If I understand correctly, we need a new Spain too, right?

What about Poland? AI from now or what?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

What about Poland? AI from now or what?

AI, unless someone wants to play them. But they just serve as partition food for Prussia, Russia & Austria

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Despite desperate attempts, I am unable to get a log from last session.

Perhaps someone of you is willing to send me the player save of last session. I can search and replace all the privatic conversations or you can do it by yourself if you want. My goal is to get a history log of all the wars and stuff which happened

EDIT: Already fixed!

 

[unmerged(18425)]

AFAIK, last session the following happened:

- Prussia and Russia are code allied
- Prussia and Russia dow Poland (separately)
- Both Prussia and Russia took three provinces from Poland.

IMO, the three province rule does not forbid this. HOWEVER, I think it's violating the spirit of the rule.

If code allied countries are together in a war with another country, they may very well declare that war separately, but in the end, they still fight together as an alliance versus that country.
IMO, Prussia and Russia weren't allowed to take six provinces from Poland, though the rule doesn't forbid it by the letter.

I would like to hear some opinions here, but I suggest that we include this sitation in the rule too and that we edit three provinces back to poland.

Otherwise, for example, why shouldn't Denmark and Austria dow Prussia separately and take six provinces from him coming session?

 

[Rezag]

AFAIK, last session the following happened:

- Prussia and Russia are code allied
- Prussia and Russia dow Poland (separately)
- Both Prussia and Russia took three provinces from Poland.

IMO, the three province rule does not forbid this. HOWEVER, I think it's violating the spirit of the rule.

If code allied countries are together in a war with another country, they may very well declare that war separately, but in the end, they still fight together as an alliance versus that country.
IMO, Prussia and Russia weren't allowed to take six provinces from Poland, though the rule doesn't forbid it by the letter.

I would like to hear some opinions here, but I suggest that we include this sitation in the rule too and that we edit three provinces back to poland.

Otherwise, for example, why shouldn't Denmark and Austria dow Prussia separately and take six provinces from him coming session?

What 3 province Russia and what 3 province Prussia took as I didnt play so dont know what happened?

Edit: If I understund right making separate dow:s against same opponent and staying allied means its alliance war and 3 province is max what can be taken. So if Russia and Prussia stayed in alliance during the war it means 3 province return for Poland. If they proke alliance and remake it after wars there was nothing wrong in it as then it would have been to separate wars against not allied countries.