Europe Unleashed: Reloaded

[Lord Ganja]

Well, France might posess one of the larger colonial empires but that doesn't really make her a colonial nation. I lack a shipyard and a navy and my heavy colonization of Canada was mainly possible because of the lack of competition in that area, the nice deal I had signed with Denmark before it finally fell and the lack of Habsburg agression on the continent. I can't really see France owning anything outside North America at the moment and probably for about the rest of the game. I have no carribbean holdings, Louisiana is in English hands and my most eastern province is in fact Corsica.

 

[Lord Ganja]

France hereby made herself Denmarks first enemy. Congratulations.

France will happily withdraw her offer.
We expect Denmark to cede Wisconsin to the French crown instead. (You know that 1 prov near the great lakes which AI denmark set a TP for no reason.)

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Well, France might posess one of the larger colonial empires but that doesn't really make her a colonial nation. I lack a shipyard and a navy and my heavy colonization of Canada was mainly possible because of the lack of competition in that area, the nice deal I had signed with Denmark before it finally fell and the lack of Habsburg agression on the continent.

In other words, Canada is ripe for the taking by anybody with a good navy. England should certainly be able to do it on its own.

 

[unmerged(1878)]

Your arguments here make no sense.

1. In wars you tend to lose rather more troops than ships, if nothing else then because it is always possible to flee with a fleet without having it completely destroyed when routed. Ships are expensive to replace, yes, but so are hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and those are the kind of casualties most nations are suffering in wars in EU2 right now.
2. Build an extra shipyard or two or three to increase your capacity. The argument that you only have one (that you probably got for free!) and can thus build only few ships is hardly a good argument against naval conflicts

In reality, it is not a lack of opportunity or building capacity that holds you back, it is solely that you consider it uneconomical.

I never stated that it was lack of opportunity or building capacity that held us back. In fact, I specifically stated several times that the reason colonial wars weren't happening was that they are, in fact, uneconomical.

Anyway, Peter, you certainly bring up some excellent strategy if our goals were specifically to win naval wars. However, spending 1000d on shipyards does not make colonial wars any more profitable this early in the game. Naval wars can still be decided in one catastrophic battle (in any naval battle with ~100 ships on each side, casualties are enormous), because there is no way to build large numbers of ships quickly in order to replenish the fleet and react to the enemy, thus leaving your colonies open to attack. Even if I were to build 20 ships, it would cost me in the neighborhood of 800d. Consider navies around, oh, 100-150 ships and the expense really starts to add up, especially when/if you are trying to recover from battle losses. Really, the situation is such that if you lose one large naval battle, it is often more profitable to just cede what territories are being demanded of you rather than waste money fighting on, which encourages gangbangs and other uneven fights.

I never stated that colonial wars cannot be won, merely that it is too expensive to do so, especially considering the limited gains allowed by our 3 province rule. This has always been my position. Early colonial wars just have not been worth it considering the rules in our game. Maybe we'll see some now that the colonizing world has begun to crystallize into a specific balance of power.

 

[arcorelli]

Really, the situation is such that if you lose one large naval battle, it is often more profitable to just cede what territories are being demanded of you rather than waste money fighting on, which encourages gangbangs and other uneven fights.

I never stated that colonial wars cannot be won, merely that it is too expensive to do so, especially considering the limited gains allowed by our 3 province rule.

Regarding point 1: Well, that is how colonial-trading wars were decided in RL. A few catastrophic naval battle loss and you were out. The anglo-dutch wars, for example, were decided in some big naval battles.

Regarding point 2: There is no 3 province rule regarding colonies (only COTs are under the rule)

 

[unmerged(2833)]

I never stated that it was lack of opportunity or building capacity that held us back. In fact, I specifically stated several times that the reason colonial wars weren't happening was that they are, in fact, uneconomical.

Land wars are uneconomical, too, at least against remotely capable humans. Myself, i wage wars for glory, not cash. Petty merchants

 

[Rezag]

I never stated that it was lack of opportunity or building capacity that held us back. In fact, I specifically stated several times that the reason colonial wars weren't happening was that they are, in fact, uneconomical.

Uneconomical to remove your competitor from colonies sending its economy to stoneage with fleet in bottom of sea while only losing some trade, troops and ships to secure unchallenged position for years to come uneconomical .

It seems that every colonial power forgets that the longer they let their competitors stay more difficult it will be to remove them not to forget they too will get benefits of that time to build themself up but its so uneconomical when still their colonies are weakly defended and low populated......

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I never stated that it was lack of opportunity or building capacity that held us back. In fact, I specifically stated several times that the reason colonial wars weren't happening was that they are, in fact, uneconomical.

I know, you just tried sneaking the "oh, it takes such a long time to rebuild" in as an extra reason, and I just wanted to puncture theat particular delusional bubble. That part is a matter of choice, not necessity.

[snipped part about colonial wars being unprofitable, reaches the part that concerns the cost of replacements]
Even if I were to build 20 ships, it would cost me in the neighborhood of 800d. Consider navies around, oh, 100-150 ships and the expense really starts to add up, especially when/if you are trying to recover from battle losses.

Yes. It adds up. It becomes nearly as expensive as a typical land war, and possibly more expensive for the loser.

Really, the situation is such that if you lose one large naval battle, it is often more profitable to just cede what territories are being demanded of you rather than waste money fighting on, which encourages gangbangs and other uneven fights.

So, being beaten encourages you to accept defeat? That sounds fairly sensible. What is NOT fairly sensible is having a group of chicken-hearted monarchs in the trading nations, who each conclude that since they MIGHT risk losing in case of a colonial war, it pays better not to risk it in the first place.

Indeed, if you really believe that losing a major battle is likely to make the opposition fold, why are you not building a couple of shipyards and a larger fleet than his, followed by a devastating surprise attack that will sink his fleet and allow you to claim victory?

I never stated that colonial wars cannot be won, merely that it is too expensive to do so, especially considering the limited gains allowed by our 3 province rule.

There is an awful lot of colonial territory around that is at LEAST as valuable as most any three European provinces - and easier to defend from the mighty continental powers of Europe. Brazil, Mexico, the Caribbean, the NAm East Coast, Borneo & environs, the Chinese coast, and Japan come to mind.

The idea that colonial wars do not pay has always, to me, seemed partly a self-fulfilling myth actively encouraged by players. The major problem, as I see it, is that colonial wars tend to spill over into a general continental brouhaha, which is a different issue.

If you consider actual costs and gains of European wars vs colonial wars, colonial wars do not look nearly half that bad.

 

[unmerged(1878)]

I certainly don't think that colonial wars are forever an impossibility. I'm in between classes and don't have a terrible amount of time to respond point by point, but I've said many times at the conclusion of my posts that I believe that now that everyone feels secure enough in their positions, we will see some competition especially now that aggressive moves have been made in the eastern CoTs. My aim was never to deride colonial wars in general but merely explain why none have happened so far - It's not been worth it (at least for me). I don't suppose anyone cares, but there has been furious diplomacy flying back and forth to keep the balance of power in check, which has largely assuaged the need for wars.

Peter, my point about rebuilding was that, unlike a land power, which if beaten in the field can often raise troops to defend itself quickly, a naval power cannot. And, as you acknowledged and I've said before, this promotes quick wars where the victor is almost certain from the beginning of the conflict. I have never disputed this. In fact, I've said many times I think it will happen now.

Personally, I am a pragmatic player and I prefer at all junctures to have people fight my wars for me. Indeed, I am much more enamored of diplomacy (sweetened by cash) than dangerous and expensive wars. It's always a laugh to see you landies whining about how much expense you have incurred in war.

 

[Lord Ganja]

The idea that colonial wars do not pay has always, to me, seemed partly a self-fulfilling myth actively encouraged by players. The major problem, as I see it, is that colonial wars tend to spill over into a general continental brouhaha, which is a different issue.

If you consider actual costs and gains of European wars vs colonial wars, colonial wars do not look nearly half that bad.

Colonial wars are a disaster for France and will be much more costly than any continental war and therefor France will take any colonial war to the continent and steamroll her enemies :rofl:

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Peter, my point about rebuilding was that, unlike a land power, which if beaten in the field can often raise troops to defend itself quickly, a naval power cannot.

...Unless it has multiple shipyards, and builds new ships for the duration of hostilities. Just like land powers do not wait until they have suffered catastrophic losses to begin recruiting troops, naval powers hould not wait until they have been defeated to build ships.

And, as you acknowledged and I've said before, this promotes quick wars where the victor is almost certain from the beginning of the conflict.

No, I acknowledged that IF people were not serious about their shipyards you were right, which is not quite the same.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Colonial wars are a disaster for France and will be much more costly than any continental war and therefor France will take any colonial war to the continent and steamroll her enemies :rofl:

That's why England is the prime rival of france

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Btw, I think Peter would make an awesome france

 

[Damocles]

I think Lotus is trying to play in the spirit of a real 17th century Hollander

That comment is an insult to 17th century Hollanders! Some of the most warlike, fanatic, economically brilliant people to ever grace Europe. God, I miss them. I strongly recommend the oxford history of The Golden Age of the Dutch Empire.

Lotus is trying to play in the spirit of a 20th century Hollander. Whom believes in state-controlled prostitution, the euro, and cheap pot to cater to British tourists.

If he was playing Holland as it was in it's golden age, he'd be declaring war on Portugal every other decade, trying to grab Brazil, South Africa, India, and everything he could get his grubby hands on which is how the Dutch Empire was created.

It was an Empire forged almost soley through blood and cannon, striding over the corpses of the Old Nations of Portugal and Spain that had gone before it. Reformed whereas before there had been only catholic, it emerged with a massive wealth and influence that belied it's small size.

Eventually, England surpassed it. Though due to it's own internal decadence more then inability to compete. And the fact that it had to deal with Louis XIV's France.

Whereas England had the channel, the Dutch had one of the most well trained armies in the *world* capable of defeating the Spanish tercios long before the French managed to. They also had their handy dikes and marshes, which is why I feel the Dutch should be given an automatic maximum fort in Zeeland in 1600. But thats another topic.

 

[Damocles]

...And one that can to a large degree be overcome by building multiple shipyards. In fact, NOT building multiple shipyards as a naval nation is a criminal oversight, as shipyards are the closest you get to a manpower pool for ships, since relative ship replacement in war is almost wholly determined by the number of shipyards on each side.

Not to mention, 40d warships for the Dutch is a bit of a lie. With normal Dutch sliders (Or English/Portugese) , full naval, full pluto, etc, they cost less then cavalry! Warships can be insanely inexpensive with optimized sliders. Somewhere around 29d in reality. Not to mention, nations like Portugal, England and the Dutch are the few nations whom can safely go full free subjects and offensive without the drawbacks. Assaulting afterall, is determined by siege value, and large continental empires give up those incredible fortifications events if they go offensive. The new morale rules really benefit the colonizers, who have events pushing them towards quality and free subjects anyways.

Especially since, after new morale rules, most Infantry will have to cost at least 10d. Unless you are willing to forgo the .50 morale of Quality. Which atm, the only nation who receives enough morale to make this a possibility is Persia, CCR or Hindu. The morale bonus for Reformed was wiped away, and with it, the one reason France might ever have gone that route.

I suppose quantity might be possible under a couple other circumstances. But its difficult to see. Which is generally, a good thing. I like infantry being more expensive, making wars more costly.

 

[Damocles]

Well, France might posess one of the larger colonial empires but that doesn't really make her a colonial nation. I lack a shipyard and a navy and my heavy colonization of Canada was mainly possible because of the lack of competition in that area, the nice deal I had signed with Denmark before it finally fell and the lack of Habsburg agression on the continent. I can't really see France owning anything outside North America at the moment and probably for about the rest of the game. I have no carribbean holdings, Louisiana is in English hands and my most eastern province is in fact Corsica.

So build a shipyard, and invest in a navy.

France is one of the only nations, along with Spain, that can get away with going full land and still keeping a sizable navy. Not to mention, France has a roster of late admirals and explorers that is only bested by England. France's support limit is HUGE and it can afford to shell out the extra d for warships due to it's HUGE manpower and AMAZING generals.

Its only due to slightly cheaper warships that England even has a chance of competing with France at all, whilst Spain and Dutch face massive disadvantages due to bordering it. Which is how it worked historically, dominance wise. Whereas it went PORTUGAL & SPAIN 15th-16th < DUTCH 17th < FRANCE late 17th to 18th < ENGLAND mid 18th-19th (< AMERICA 20th? lol)

Thats what France did in RL. France was one of the foremost colonizers of the last two centuries! England's main competitor, and the bane of the Dutch whom they built their Indian Empire on. Hell, France declared war on England during the American Revolution to gain a few precious Indonesian sugar islands.

 

[Damocles]

Anyway, Peter, you certainly bring up some excellent strategy if our goals were specifically to win naval wars. However, spending 1000d on shipyards does not make colonial wars any more profitable this early in the game.

People don't seem to mind spending it on manufacturies or Conscription centers. lol.

The only time I ever see most people build shipyards en masse is like post 1780 because they never have to worry about colonial warfare till then which is when everyone is ready to suffer damage to their economies since the game is ending and tech is maxed.

 

[Lord Ganja]

So build a shipyard, and invest in a navy.

France is one of the only nations, along with Spain, that can get away with going full land and still keeping a sizable navy. Not to mention, France has a roster of late admirals and explorers that is only bested by England. France's support limit is HUGE and it can afford to shell out the extra d for warships due to it's HUGE manpower and AMAZING generals.

Its only due to slightly cheaper warships that England even has a chance of competing with France at all, whilst Spain and Dutch face massive disadvantages. Which is how it worked historically. Whereas it went PORTUGAL & SPAIN 15th-16th < DUTCH 17th < FRANCE late 17th to 18th < ENGLAND mid 18th-19th (< AMERICA 20th? lol)

Thats what France did in RL. France was one of the foremost colonizers of the last two centuries! England's main competitor, and the bane of the Dutch whom they built their Indian Empire on. Hell, France declared war on England during the American Revolution to gain a few precious Indonesian sugar islands.

Thanks for the update on history but I was talking about my current INGAME situation which didn't really allow for building a navy.
However this will change soon as I have built almost all governors and mayors and should have more resources to be put into such things now.

 

[Damocles]

Thanks for the update on history but I was talking about my current INGAME situation which didn't really allow for building a navy.
However this will change soon as I have built almost all governors and mayors and should have more resources to be put into such things now.

France should be exploding on the colonial scene aggressively around 1680+, which is after the pivotal years where the navy was radically overhauled and a strong naval tradition was instituted. This was begun under Richelieu and Mazarin (sp).

So you got 40 years until anyone expects France to wage active colonial war.
But you should still definitely be colonizing everywhere you can.

 

[unmerged(1878)]

Lotus is trying to play in the spirit of a 20th century Hollander. Whom believes in state-controlled prostitution, the euro, and cheap pot to cater to British tourists.

Hear hear.