Europe's Golden Age 6: The last EU2 chapter

[admiral drake]

Well K'shar, what this does is forces players to make consecutive gangs on a country to accomplish anything worthwhile. Just as an example, say England controls a bunch of coastal provs all around Europe, and has close to 2000 naval support because of it. All the other European powers combined can barely counter this together, so they form together and try to stop England.


They win the war, but, oh, sadly they can only demand 5 provs . Thus England only loses 50 naval support despite losing a huge war against the gangbangers. And lets say that the English player was smart enough to hide his fleet during the war, and just said "fuck it, take whatever 5 provs you want to devide amongst yourselves, I'm not even going to fight over this".

5 years later, he DOWs one country, rapes it easily, then another, and another. The coalition won a major war against England, so it should be crushed, right? But 5 provs wouldn't even make a dent against such a power country.

England defeats all its enemies in turn, we'll say it attacked 6 countries. All in all, it takes 30 provs off them combined and is now far, far more powerful than it was.

The nations pull together and try to defeat England again, but so what if they win? The best they can do is take 5 provs between all of them, who cares if they accomplish that much? War is hardly worth fighting for such scraps.

And no, 5 years is not a short amount of time. It's 1/4, or often in our cases, 1/2 of a session. And assuming a country is not at war with another country in the interval, it's ussually more than enough time to recover and start over again.


.

thats what you could have expected in cqs if we didn't end right after your gang kj

 

[K'shar]

Well K'shar, what this does is forces players to make consecutive gangs on a country to accomplish anything worthwhile. Just as an example, say England controls a bunch of coastal provs all around Europe, and has close to 2000 naval support because of it. All the other European powers combined can barely counter this together, so they form together and try to stop England.


They win the war, but, oh, sadly they can only demand 5 provs . Thus England only loses 50 naval support despite losing a huge war against the gangbangers. And lets say that the English player was smart enough to hide his fleet during the war, and just said "fuck it, take whatever 5 provs you want to devide amongst yourselves, I'm not even going to fight over this".

5 years later, he DOWs one country, rapes it easily, then another, and another. The coalition won a major war against England, so it should be crushed, right? But 5 provs wouldn't even make a dent against such a power country.

England defeats all its enemies in turn, we'll say it attacked 6 countries. All in all, it takes 30 provs off them combined and is now far, far more powerful than it was.

The nations pull together and try to defeat England again, but so what if they win? The best they can do is take 5 provs between all of them, who cares if they accomplish that much? War is hardly worth fighting for such scraps.

And no, 5 years is not a short amount of time. It's 1/4, or often in our cases, 1/2 of a session. And assuming a country is not at war with another country in the interval, it's ussually more than enough time to recover and start over again.


-------------------


That's just one argument. There are quite a few other reasons that this peace rule is indeed retarded, and why it does not belong in this game. Most of the other reasons, whether you choose to ignore them or not, have been touched on already, so I may let them go.

However, whatever the final decision is on this, I expect the decision to not be retroactive. If sufficient clarity was not given about this rule earlier, it's the GM's fault, not mine or Zeits, so I expect no editor to lay a cursor on the provinces I or any other country gained during the session.

A very rare example of a gang John, more often then not they take the form of what just happened where a practically defeated nation gets more land leached of off it, but feel free to choose releativily rare examples to prop up your argument which is mainly based on the characters of players.

You should edit: Well K'shar, what this does is forces players to make consecutive gangs on a country to accomplish anything worthwhile.

To: Well K'shar, what this does is forces certain players to make consecutive gangs on a country to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Yeah, some individuals can only see the benefit in hitting their enemy only when their pants are down or in an unbeatable gang. Most don't however.

Not to mention, that historically few if any peacedeals were as extensive or altering as you seem to prefer. To beat a nation down in 1-2 wars and never give them a chance to fight back.

Note, that the EU2 equivilant of 13 European provinces being lost during the timeperiod is practically unheard of in Europe. Most wars had minor gains/losses, and most rivalries did extend over several decades and several wars , and often, yes, several coalitions .

 

[Zeitgeist]

Frankly, the rule wasn't applied consistently in any case:

I, when I subbed England, attacked Spain for some colonial provinces. This was slightly prior to the war with Venice-OE-Austria vs Spa-France. I certainly made all parties aware of it. Nab can certainly confirm that I was insistent on taking something for England.

I made it clear to all parties involved that I wasn't fighting for Venice, and I didn't give two shits about Venice, but rather had as my objective Spanish colonies. OE, Venice, and Austria should all have been aware of this.

Venice peaced for two provinces and a CoT IIRC. I was planning to peace for 4 provinces, Hispaniola. DoA pointed out that this might not be legal, due to the province rule, and I stopped and asked the GMs if this was legal. It was confirmed to be.

Now in this case, the deal never occurred because KJ returned to the throne and made a separate peace with Spain. But still, that is an example . If we were "in the same war" certainly nobody bothered to make that clear. I wouldn't have gone to war if it was "the same war", since there was nothing in it for England. As it is England, took 10k ducats of losses in ships that session for not much gain. If the rule is to be applied, it has to be applied consistently. Nobody even bothered to say anything last session when England DoWed Russia.


I will also say this: if a province rule is intended to protect a country, then what's going to bring it to the bargaining table? If I'm fighting England as France and losing badly why should I care if Spain invades me too? The worst case is still that I lose 5 provinces, there's no additional threat from current events if you're losing a war already. Heck, if I just built no troops, and I started a war with someone, I could give up 5 provinces to another player, and then never give up another province all game. I don't even have to build troops anymore! Alright, enough hyperbole, but I think you see my point.

It allows players to neglect diplomacy. If there's any problem, it's the recurrent NAPs and static diplomatic behavior that seems to be recurrent to every EGA game I have ever subbed in. I like all you guys, so this is not personal, but the diplomacy is terrible or nonexistent.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

Well K'shar, what this does is forces players to make consecutive gangs on a country to accomplish anything worthwhile. Just as an example, say England controls a bunch of coastal provs all around Europe, and has close to 2000 naval support because of it. All the other European powers combined can barely counter this together, so they form together and try to stop England.


They win the war, but, oh, sadly they can only demand 5 provs . Thus England only loses 50 naval support despite losing a huge war against the gangbangers. And lets say that the English player was smart enough to hide his fleet during the war, and just said "fuck it, take whatever 5 provs you want to devide amongst yourselves, I'm not even going to fight over this".

5 years later, he DOWs one country, rapes it easily, then another, and another. The coalition won a major war against England, so it should be crushed, right? But 5 provs wouldn't even make a dent against such a power country.

England defeats all its enemies in turn, we'll say it attacked 6 countries. All in all, it takes 30 provs off them combined and is now far, far more powerful than it was.

The nations pull together and try to defeat England again, but so what if they win? The best they can do is take 5 provs between all of them, who cares if they accomplish that much? War is hardly worth fighting for such scraps.

And no, 5 years is not a short amount of time. It's 1/4, or often in our cases, 1/2 of a session. And assuming a country is not at war with another country in the interval, it's ussually more than enough time to recover and start over again.


-------------------


That's just one argument. There are quite a few other reasons that this peace rule is indeed retarded, and why it does not belong in this game. Most of the other reasons, whether you choose to ignore them or not, have been touched on already, so I may let them go.

However, whatever the final decision is on this, I expect the decision to not be retroactive. If sufficient clarity was not given about this rule earlier, it's the GM's fault, not mine or Zeits, so I expect no editor to lay a cursor on the provinces I or any other country gained during the session.

That is one possible and very unprobable case. Let's take other, more real: you have country with 50 or 70 provs (most countries in our game are like that).

Then you have a gang of 4 countries (also not uncommon) which demolishes that country for 20 provs.

And then we have no game. That is more usuall scen then England that can't be beaten by whole world.

 

[K'shar]

Indeed a certain type of player may do that Zeit, that is the whole issue isn't?

As for diplomacy, not true for alot of players, but yes, for others. I hate long NAPs, I change allegiences and still do well.

But as I said, alot of different personalities in EGA.

 

[admiral drake]

That is one possible and very unprobable case. Let's take other, more real: you have country with 50 or 70 provs (most countries in our game are like that).

Then you have a gang of 4 countries (also not uncommon) which demolishes that country for 20 provs.

And then we have no game. That is more usuall scen then England that can't be beaten by whole world.

tbh nab its perfectly possible for what kj used as example it happend twice where he ganged me like that(or close to that ) o

 

[unmerged(41172)]

tbh nab its perfectly possible for what kj used as example it happend twice where he ganged me like that(or close to that ) o

I was ganging you with him m8 in a simmilar situation

IIRC you refused to sign peace untill we made less moderate terms and we were forced to do so which is impossible in this game.

 

[admiral drake]

I was ganging you with him m8 in a simmilar situation

IIRC you refused to sign peace untill we made less moderate terms and we were forced to do so which is impossible in this game.

tfg ye i was pretty stubborn there i think
cqs pretty sure i wasn't o but then again 400k russians 600k ? frence ect landing in england was kinda messed up even tho i also had a million standing army

 

[King John]

A very rare example of a gang John, more often then not they take the form of what just happened where a practically defeated nation gets more land leached of off it, but feel free to choose releativily rare examples to prop up your argument which is mainly based on the characters of players.

My argument shows one example of how poorly your proposed version of the rule would operate. I don't see what it has to do with the characters of the players at all.

And what was the matter with what happened? Sweden and England fought a long drawn out war, and England triumphed, taking 3 provs and a cot. Realistically speaking, why should England have to wait for Russia to peace Sweden to DOW again? Or why should Russia then be unable to take any demands from Sweden, just because England already peaced out? That just encourages Sweden to draw the war out forever, so it has time to rebuild its fleet, and so it can avoid future losses against Russia or England.

You should edit: Well K'shar, what this does is forces players to make consecutive gangs on a country to accomplish anything worthwhile.

To: Well K'shar, what this does is forces certain players to make consecutive gangs on a country to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Certain players being the players that actually give a damn about the BOP? Yeah, you really nailed a point there.

Yeah, some individuals can only see the benefit in hitting their enemy only when their pants are down or in an unbeatable gang. Most don't however.

Not to mention, that historically few if any peacedeals were as extensive or altering as you seem to prefer. To beat a nation down in 1-2 wars and never give them a chance to fight back.

Note, that the EU2 equivilant of 13 European provinces being lost during the timeperiod is practically unheard of in Europe. Most wars had minor gains/losses, and most rivalries did extend over several decades and several wars , and often, yes, several coalitions .

Wrong. How bout the Ottoman conquest of Hungary? The war of Spanish succession, in which Spain lost all of its European possessions outside of Iberia? The two Swedish invasions of Denmark after the TYW, that nearly resulted in Denmark's annexation? The Hundred Years war? The seven years war, in which the very existence of Prussia was at stake, and in the end France lost all of NA, and Spain lost quite a few colonies as well, and Gibralter? Want me to think of a few more? The only reason that a lot of wars resulted in only small shifts of territory is that it was difficult to seige forts at this time, and it cost a lot of money to keep a large army in the field. Besides that, there were a lot of other forms of peace that rulers imposed that had a greater effect than demanding land, like putting a pretender on the throne. This would be the equivalent of kicking a player out of a country and replacing them with another one that you like. We don't even allow that in Eu2. 13 provs is unprecedented? 13 provs, at least, 13 European provs, would be a momentous change, of which there were many in history, but it was not by any means unprecedented.

 

[King John]

Indeed a certain type of player may do that Zeit, that is the whole issue isn't?

As for diplomacy, not true for alot of players, but yes, for others. I hate long NAPs, I change allegiences and still do well.

But as I said, alot of different personalities in EGA.

If the issue is the players, don't play with certain players. If the issue is the rules, which it is, improve the rule, don't expect the players to adhere to whatever your definition of proper play is in order to compensate for the problems your rule has.

You've been pretty dodgy about all the points we've made about how sucky this rule is. How bout a real reason in favor of this rule, rather than blaming the players for not being compatible with it and/or making arguments that basicly amount to not wanting to hurt players feelings by allowing them to lose more than 5 provs. It's a game, people win and lose. Adding a rule like this is like bowling with bumpers to prevent you from getting a gutter ball.

 

[K'shar]

Wrong. How bout the Ottoman conquest of Hungary? The war of Spanish succession, in which Spain lost all of its European possessions outside of Iberia? The two Swedish invasions of Denmark after the TYW, that nearly resulted in Denmark's annexation? The Hundred Years war? The seven years war, in which the very existence of Prussia was at stake, and in the end France lost all of NA, and Spain lost quite a few colonies as well, and Gibralter? Want me to think of a few more? The only reason that a lot of wars resulted in only small shifts of territory is that it was difficult to seige forts at this time, and it cost a lot of money to keep a large army in the field. Besides that, there were a lot of other forms of peace that rulers imposed that had a greater effect than demanding land, like putting a pretender on the throne. This would be the equivalent of kicking a player out of a country and replacing them with another one that you like. We don't even allow that in Eu2. 13 provs is unprecedented? 13 provs, at least, 13 European provs, would be a momentous change, of which there were many in history, but it was not by any means unprecedented.

John, your entire personality and what you get out of this game will probably disenable you from seeing what im trying to make evident here, EU2 is a game, yes it can be cuthroat, but no, most players aren't indeed ready for that, and I have a softness in my heart towards them. If I had my way, there would be no province peace rules, for people to avoid. We do need a seperation of players .

About historical precedents, yes there were major wars, but no, abrupt, brutal and rapid wars of change were rather uncommon. I'll rebute all the examples here if you like; and then advise you not to get into such a historical debate with me sporting such a belligerant attitude

1) The Ottoman Conquest of Hungary: There were inconclusive wars with Hungary for nearly 100 yrs prior to the successful conquest of that Kingdom, and even after Mohacs, only the southwest was occupied, Hungary needed to fight the Hapsburgs for many decades longer to get the rest. (nonetheless, this is one of the most dramatic wars).

2) Well lets see, France-Spain lost but France won too. A frenchmen still gained the throne of Spain for all intents and purposes, while Spain did lose maybe 3 provinces in Belgium and Milan, while its other holdings in Italy were more client (vassal) kingdoms, not Spanish or Austrian lands, they essentially exchanged vassals. So all in all, not massive province changes.

3) Swedish-Danish wars, well by EU2 standards, Denmark/Sweden were rather minor powers and even then Denmark only lost the equivelent of 4-5 provinces to Sweden, not to mention that their rivalry stretched many yrs with a chance for reprisal on both sides .

4) The Hundred Years War!!! Need I go into this one, it lasted a hundred yrs, feel free to destroy or change the balance of power between nations over that time; bad example John . This is precisely what should happen between nations over an EU2 century.

5) Seven Yrs war? Well it was possibly the first global war, so yeah, it was major, and of course there were several nations vs. several nations so the demands could be spread around . Firstly, colonial territory is represented very fallaciously, 1-2 caribbean colonies were valued close to all French NA, and therefore the equivilent of 2-3 provinces in terms of wealth, Prussia would doubtfully itself hardly felt the pressure of partition, France was mainly interested in gains from Britain (two nations would again spread the demand) and Russia would have been interested in some Baltic land of Prussia, while Austria would have been happy to retain Silesia and acquire a subservient Prussia (see vassal), and then *poof* remember leaders change . p.s. Spain lost very little, it gained as much by France by agreement, and Gibraltor was lost earlier in the War of Spanish succession .

Now, in all these examples, again it was rare that a nations power was close to unequivocably broken, or that land the size of nations switched hands, (bar colonially and as you can demand 10 colonial provinces, I think that accounts for French NA as an example). Yes, these were major wars, and some major shifts in the BOP did occur, alas that is often hard to emulate in EU2, or to draw specific parallels between EU2 wars and the real world.

The point holds, 13 provinces lost in one war is very major, and the like of it was usually only seen over a 15 plus yr war in Europe, where the losing side usually consisted of more then just one nation bearing the brunt.

This rule was a lot better then what we had in EGA5, where it was horrendously simply to pretend to be in seperate alliances, or peace out and re-dow, and peace and re-dow all the while racking up more and more provinces, it is far from perfect, but far better then most. Of course I advise the GM's to allow John to draw up a new ruleset and let others pick it apart, reversing the position may be healthy for him.

Post ended, and Shark shall now exit the arena and leave this argument to the real GM's. Have fun Nab :rofl: . Just another reason I left EU2 .

 

[BurningEGO]

Mhhh, yet another discussion. EU2 MP forums are becoming a hot place.

Anyway there are some really important things i have to point out, that some people just do not seem to know:

- War of Spanish Sucession? Are you mad Kshar? Did you ever heard of the treaty of Utrech? Do you know how many lands Spain had to give? Gibraltar, Minorca (an island in the baleares), all of the Spanish Netherlands, Milan, Sicily and Sardinia. In game terms Gibraltar is one province, Baleares is one, Milan is another one, Spanish Netherlands are 4, Sicily are 2 and Naples are 3. That makes 12 provinces. The peace was most cripling. Did anyone apart from the beaten countries care? Of course not.
- In the so famous Seven Years War, not only Prussia gained absolut control of Silesia, recognized by everyone, but France also lost New France. This New France was all lands east of the Mississipi River, except for New Orleans. Spain also lost Florida. I am also pretty sure that all provinces France lost were more then 12.

Now i will give far better examples then John gave, and these ones you will not be able to protest again

- Ottoman conquest of the Mameluk Sultanate by Selim the Grim, aka Yavuz. I am pretty sure that even a blind man can see that the Mameluks arent smaller then 12 provinces.
- The war of indepedence for USA. Perhaps not the best example, but well whatever. In this war England lost pretty more then only 12 provinces.
- The Spanish conquest of the Incas and the Azteks. Anexating whole countries is unheard in Europe? Does anyone even care? It seems no one does, because 2 great empires disapeared from the night to the day.
- The Partition of Poland. One could argue "No, that happened in 3 wars". Yes, it did. So what? Did you see the huge amount of territory lost only in the 1st partition? It lost about 7 provinces in eu2 terms. Not to speak about the 3rd one which led to the anexation of the same realm. Did europe even care about Poland? No, in fact, they couldnt care less.
- The Portuguese-Dutch war. Are you aware that when Portugal was a mere puppet of Spain, and that the dutch were fighting Spain for independence they attacked Portugal seizing whatever possible colony? They even took northern Brazil. Lots of territories in India and Indonesia were lost. The spice monopoly that Portugal fought so much to maintain was taken by the filthy dutch scum. Thanks to Spanish incompetence, Portugal lost an awesome amount of provinces. Again, i believe that amount was far more then 12 provinces in eu2 terms.
- The Napoleonic Wars. Why did everyone fail to remember this one! Yes, many wars were fought. But some peaces were highly punitive for certain countries. I could be wrong, but for instance, Austria lost all of italy plus the Tyrol, where Prussia even nearly got annexed. Mainland Portugal/Spain were totaly overrun as well.

The concept you are stating that "taking 12 provinces in a war" is total out of eu2, is not real. However, i have to agree that for game playing balance there has to be a "maximum provinces taken in a war" rule, since there are big smart minds like Ear around, that just love to beat already beaten countries.

P.S. Drake, your England in CQS was only huge because of: Spain/Denmark were always AIed/ghosted for nearly half of the game. I was always busy with my artilery fire lessons together with Russia. Austria/Prussia/France were always busy kicking each other butt in countless wars. I, for instance, never managed to make the so wanted war vs England, taking all their Indian possessions for cheap WS to initiate stab hiting procedures, thanks to the "i want the whole BoP for myself" French motto, combined with "I want my georgians/Khazak culture provinces back" Russian motto.

 

[unmerged(40517)]

In what concerns my wars, i blame it on my poor diplomacy, but also largely on the fact that my nominal ally at the beginning of last week's session (Spain) only informed me in-game, a few seconds after we entered the game and a year(in game terms) after i got Dowed by Russia, that he "had a NAP with England until 1681" so i better prepare.

I think you can’t call me an ally at any time because allies help each other. You never helped me. I sent you approximately 15.000 ducats and helped you against Russia. (I only peaced out because it was expensive and didn't help you due to the fact that we fought seperate wars and so I couldn't gain warscore for you.)

I never have got any consideration from you unless you count a declaration of war as consideration.

And the NAP? It wasn’t my free will to sign a NAP with England. It was a part of the peace deal I have to sign after the war in the 1650s. The war in which you didn’t lift even one finger to help me. I think you are the last who can get upset about a dormant ally.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

I never have got any consideration from you unless you count a declaration of war as consideration.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[unmerged(40517)]

I would suggest such a province rule:

Max. 3 provinces can be demanded by one country. In an alliance war a country can lose max 4 provinces. An alliance is defined as any number of nations fighting a common enemy at the same time. Is there a disagreement about who will get what, the max number of possibly demanded provinces have to be spitted by the alliance members.

Provinces count as follows:

European provinces: 1
Cots (everywhere): 2
Gold provinces (everywhere): 1
Provinces outside Europe and the Mediterranean: 0.5
Trade posts: 0

Example: Russia fights Sweden. England attacks Sweden some years later. Russia don’t want to sign peace. England can demand 2 provinces. Russia is still fighting Sweden. England attack s again. England can again demand 2 provinces.

Example: France and Brandenburg win a war against Austria and Venice. France can take 2 provinces from Venice and 1 provinces from Asutria. Brandenburg can take 2 provinces from Austria and 1 province from Venice.

The numbers of provinces can be changed but I think the structure of the rule is quit good in order to avoid that a country suffer too lot as a result of a gangbang.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

I would suggest such a province rule:

Max. 3 provinces can be demanded by one country. In an alliance war a country can lose max 4 provinces. An alliance is defined as any number of nations fighting a common enemy at the same time. Is there a disagreement about who will get what, the max number of possibly demanded provinces have to be spitted by the alliance members.

Provinces count as follows:

European provinces: 1
Cots (everywhere): 2
Gold provinces (everywhere): 1
Provinces outside Europe and the Mediterranean: 0.5
Trade posts: 0

Example: Russia fights Sweden. England attacks Sweden some years later. Russia don’t want to sign peace. England can demand 2 provinces. Russia is still fighting Sweden. England attack s again. England can again demand 2 provinces.

Example: France and Brandenburg win a war against Austria and Venice. France can take 2 provinces from Venice and 1 provinces from Asutria. Brandenburg can take 2 provinces from Austria and 1 province from Venice.

The numbers of provinces can be changed but I think the structure of the rule is quit good in order to avoid that a country suffer too lot as a result of a gangbang.

This sounds good. It would prevent vultures from using situations to their benefit only. It would also enable people to plan fights with more codex. That also means KJ will go berserk :rofl:

 

[Casluerj]

Your rule is good Duke...

What we have to keep in mind is how can we prevent a nation to lose 10 lands in one single war... This is bizarre and cant happen if we really want to play a stable MP game.

 

[King John]

That's even more restrictive than the current proposed rule .

Folks, the precedent we've been using, Zeit's example points out and as other examples would if we looked, has been that only official alliances count as alliances in a war. If you attack seperately, it counts as a different war. That is how it has been, so if you change it, you will not be establishing an interpretation of the rule, as we already have done this. you will be changing the rule itself.

Since this rule is sooooo important, this is very serious business. If you want to do this, I suggest getting the approval of pretty much every player in the game first.



K'shar, what EGO said. But also remember that countries in Eu2 are WAY bigger than they were historically. Whereas historically France never really expanded into Italy or established a Rhine border until the Napoleonic wars, in Eu2 France almost always expands into Italy and goes to the Rhine. And Austria always units most of Germany. Almost all of the world gets colonized by 1800, which did not happen.

Basicly, to make peace's that matter, you have to take more land than was taken in peace's historically.

Another factor in this is that in Eu2, unfortunately provs do not affect income hardly at all. If a nation trades and has any colonies, they can lose a ton of land and not feel it, because it's not their prime source of income, nor does it affect trade in any way unless its a cot. This is a big problem. If you don't have a retarded cap on the provs you can take, then it's not so much a problem, because you can overcompensate for this. But otherwise, once a nation colonize's well and trade's well, there's nothing that can possibly bring that nation down.

 

[K'shar]

That's even more restrictive than the current proposed rule .

Folks, the precedent we've been using, Zeit's example points out and as other examples would if we looked, has been that only official alliances count as alliances in a war. If you attack seperately, it counts as a different war. That is how it has been, so if you change it, you will not be establishing an interpretation of the rule, as we already have done this. you will be changing the rule itself.

Since this rule is sooooo important, this is very serious business. If you want to do this, I suggest getting the approval of pretty much every player in the game first.



K'shar, what EGO said. But also remember that countries in Eu2 are WAY bigger than they were historically. Whereas historically France never really expanded into Italy or established a Rhine border until the Napoleonic wars, in Eu2 France almost always expands into Italy and goes to the Rhine. And Austria always units most of Germany. Almost all of the world gets colonized by 1800, which did not happen.

Basicly, to make peace's that matter, you have to take more land than was taken in peace's historically.

Another factor in this is that in Eu2, unfortunately provs do not affect income hardly at all. If a nation trades and has any colonies, they can lose a ton of land and not feel it, because it's not their prime source of income, nor does it affect trade in any way unless its a cot. This is a big problem. If you don't have a retarded cap on the provs you can take, then it's not so much a problem, because you can overcompensate for this. But otherwise, once a nation colonize's well and trade's well, there's nothing that can possibly bring that nation down.

Yes, the matter of grotesquely sized nations is an issue John, that i'll agree. As for Ego, I dont think you read the whole post, a vital difference in many of these wars was is directly administered land vs not. Colonially, well that is a different matter and I think restrictions should be raised on those.

The war of Spanish succession, as I said the main combatent France lost almost nothing, Spain was practically AI , the way it was fought over, and it's land in Italy was administered more like Vassals then direct, that is a major difference that sadly rarely occurs in EU2 ... and im wondering if that could be instituted better.

Now for most of your other examples, im talking about Europe, not asian wars of collapse, or wars of independance, something that can't really be covered in EU2. So the mameluke intergration, the war of Independance, the aztek/incas :rofl: , how are you even including those on the same lvl.

The premise of this discussion is on Large European states, the states that are the premier and played nations in EU2, not OMG Bohemia was annexed in one swoop .

The Partition, well there again you said it, thats a good gang example I wont deny, but then again it took 3 wars. The Napoleonic wars, yes, major changes but again over many yrs and many wars, and mainly a matter of client kingdoms again.

I didn't say that large exchanges of territory didnt happen, but was uncommon, that examples of state annihilation like 3 nations attacking Austria out of the blue and taking 20% of its territory (that is massive because like KJ said these nations are so large) is not very commonplace.

About your portuguese example, I won't even go there, for obvious reasons.

p.s. While Duke's rule is good, it is practically the same as the one already present.

 

[Joohoo]

Cas, what is it with your forum?