Grand Campaign questions start to finish for the newbie

[ProfCC]

QUESTION SERIES #31
__________________
Nocuous

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
Went with the vassel option.

Have taken Aztec and Maya.

Then you should go further south and take out Chimu and Inca. They have quite a lot of gold...

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
Allied myself with Sweden as directed, but that could prove to be problematic has she seems to be as war-happy as Scotland was. However, since Freisland is next door to Denmark now, that could open a door that I will have to go through, whether I want to or not. And eventually, should I bump into the very large Russia, having Sweden on their other side could be good for me.

If Sweden is strong it is quite nice against Russia and Denmark, but I don't understand why you will feel compeled to fight Denmark. Most of their provinces will be wrong culture and religion, and unless you plan a WC I would try to avoid taking them. If you get into a war you can go for some money, a force conversion or getting them as vassals. What you decide on is a matter of taste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
Questions--still not sure about the governors in 1.07. Do I put them in everywhere even though my inflation is at 0% (yes I am minting) to get the growth bonus in the province? Or do I hold a governor until such time that my inflation goes up a point?
In 1.07 you shouldn't promote governors unless you need to reduce your inflation. When I played that patch I usually minted 50%, so I needed a new governor every second year. I would try to time it so that as soon as I reached 1% inflation another governor was ready. The extra pop growth isn't worth the cost, and it is better to save the province until you need to reduce the inflation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
The event that gave me core on about 15 provinces came up and the promise of the League of Augsburg came up. Now Austria and Spain are in the alliance with me and Sweden (Sienna and Naples are annexed). Will some event come up that takes them out of my alliance and into some League of Augsburg war thingy?

There are very few events that break up existing alliances (I think that the "Auld Alliance" between France and Scottland is one). AFAIK the League of Augsburg only affect the relations of several nations and give out some CBs.
__________________
Morlac

It might be helpful to think of governors under the "old" system you're using sort of like emergency cash in your sock drawer (or wherever one hides emergency cash).

That is, you want to be able to promote enough governors right away to be able to meet both your current needs and reasonably foreseeable emergencies. You don't want to build govs needlessly. Their inflation-fighting is their biggest benefit. (Though you may also want to ensure that they're placed first in the cities that will most benefit from the extra pop growth!)

So keep some number of govs unbuilt just to handle the emergencies -- random inflation events, times you need to mint like mad, etc. Then you can calculate a safe and happy minting rate.

For big colonizers and/or major expanding empires, minting's not likely to ever be a problem. You acquire new cities faster than you promote governors.

For others, you should do a bit of planning. Figure out how much you'd like to mint, and how often that will require a new governor. So for example, if you mint at the above-suggested rate of .5%/year, that's one gov/2 years. We've already talked about how you're unlikely to do much big expanding in Europe given your high BB. between conquering pagans and building colonies, how fast will your empire grow? If it's more than one new city/2 years than you have a sustainable rate of governor building.... If not, you need to either mint less or you'll be eating into your "reserve" of currently owned cities w/o govs.
__________________
lawkeeper

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
I've basically colonized all of N.A. Since the Portugal war, at least 5 of their S.A. colonies defected to me which was very nice and recently 2 of Spain's places (near the old Maya provinces that I took). In that hemisphere, I've started moving on the Inca's, but its going to take me at least 2 wars to get them. The attrition is horrible and I can't keep a strong enough army all at once. Anyway, I could have brought the thunder, but other issues were at me.
With three or four CRT advantage, you don't need many troops. Use infantry only armies (no real need for cannons), siege the provinces (with 6k troops) when supply is high enough, or assault them (they're all minimals, or should mostly be - if not, bring a few cannons).

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
Siberia is on track for colonization. Not sure if the game will play long enough for this (currently 1710 or so), but a looming confrontation between a large China and an expanding Russia is possible. Not sure how I want to proceed. Korea just broke away and I thought of allying with them, but my colonies in Siberia aren't really strong enough to produce the army needed to deal with China, though I am very far ahead in all techs.

If you see a war is coming with China, you should build heavily in all Siberian provinces, and amass some armies along the border. But building fortresses in all provinces should be enough to slow China before they take all your cities, and to allow you to send reinforcements from bigger colonies (either America or India).

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
I know I didn't need to do all of that, but it was basically historical (under Louis XIV) and I was getting a bit bored. I let Austria alone just to see if she would attack me or perhaps BAvaria would. Doubtful since once the RM dropped with Austria, she begged me to have it again. We'll see how it all works out.
Once you become powerful enough, the AI won't DoW you directly. But your allies could bring you into wars, whether in offensive or defensive.

 

[ProfCC]

Early Strategy on France in the 100 Year’s War
__________________
sheridan

Oh - Don't knock Brittany out - occupy them but don't make peace. You can't forcevassal as they're still an English vassal in the first war, but using this technique you can get extra warscore against England and (just maybe) get them off the continent without having to amphib-assault into England itself.

Generally (and I play early France a lot; it's fun being able to expand that much without much BB, and the central position gives you lots of options for what to do after) - I send my armies to Artois and Franche Comte on day one (which means you get there ahead of your allies; none of you have any leaders); after taking those I go for Fladers and Bourgogne. Once you or (in the case, often, of Bourgogne) your allies have taken those four provinces, you can often get Burgundy to make peace for Artois, Franche Comte and cash, maybe even military access too. (Or Flanders if you want it, though I generally don't take it.) Then do the same to arrange peace treaties giving you Bearn (if Navarra is allied with England) and Rousillion (if Aragon is in the English alliance), taking Navarre, Genoa, and Aragon/Catalonia if needed for warscore.

By then, England has probably forceannexed Orleans, which means they have 6 provinces in France. Take control of these - or help your allies do so - and all 3 Brittany provinces, but don't make peace with Brittany. Under these circumstances, you should start getting offers from England to give up all 6 continental provinces.

If not, that's probably because of how the war is going with your ally, Scotland; you can send them money (if you can afford it) and simply wait until they either make a seperate peace or are winning.

__________________
lawkeeper

Heed sheridan's strategy for beating England : I fully agree with him. To get England's provinces without controlling its allies, you'd need to drop an army on the british islands. You can always take Britanny and Burgundy later.

BUT, a more efficient strategy (which demands more work tough) is to let England not only annex Orleans, but also take Maine from a separate peace with Provence, and the second province of Bourbonnais and Auvergne. These provinces are cores to you : getting them in peacedeal is BB free, while a diplo-annex is 1 BB/provinces, core or not. So, let your vassals lose a province in the first war, and die in the second (since a diplo-annex is also worth -1 Centralization).

France is very fun to play, especially when you're still in the learning curve.
__________________
sheridan

- Go ahead and grab control of Calais if you like. It doesn't really matter what stage of the war you capture the English and Breton provinces, except for the fact that if you take out the English *allies*, rather than England themselves, it prevents them from tossing troops at you at the end. Either by making a seperate peace (in all other cases) or by occupying all of their provinces so that they cannot build (in the case of Brittany).

In the case of Navarre, the problem is probably their mountain province (the brown one), which imposes heavy defensive modifiers on combat, especially if you have a lot of cavalry. Try to cut their army down to size in their northern province first. Or even get military access from Aragon (assuming they aren't allied with England too; both countries start out unallied and England's alliance has room for both) and sneak around them and into their mountain province while it is undefended.
__________________
sheridan

Build some armies and conduct more than one seige at a time. Ideally, you should be able to manage 3 or more. That many troops, in these early days, may be expensive, but once you are out of the first war, your back is no longer to the wall (assuming you win, of course). And, generally open-field battles are to be avoided *unless* you have an advantage - defensive terrain, overwhelming force, or a historical leader. I see your point about Navarra, but at those proportions, it sounds like you just caught the wrong side of luck.

Don't try to protect Orleans - it's virtually a lost cause, and you can get that province for yourself using my strategy - and Maine will revert to Provence in the peace treaty unless they make a seperate peace.

You won't be able to get anyone into your alliance, because computer-player countries will not join an alliance that already has 5 countries in it - you start with 6, so your alliance is still full even after Orleans is conquered. The only chance of a spot opening up in the opening war is if England forcevassals Scotland, and it almost never does. As far as Aragon, the best case scenario for you is if Aragon allies with someone other than England or Castile; ditto for Navarre, since their allies will then not be in a position to help them against you. Computer players generally do not send diplomatic messages other than RMs, alliances, peace and war declarations, and vassalizations, so don't hold your breath for gifts.

Stability is one of the easiest things in the game to recover - once the war is over, you can drop your whole income into it for a bit and gain a point a year, if you like, so don't worry *too* much about it. If it concerns you later, you can build a few fine arts academies (I usually build them in the grain provinces in the Maine-Nivernais region), which give bonuses to the stability recovery speed.

Once you've successfully seiged Brittany's provinces, you shouldn't need any troops to defend it, though you should chase away any English or allied armies in the area. As for Navarra, if you can stand in their provinces (not be driven off) you can send enough troops to seige, and you should do so and knock them out of the war the way you did with Burgundy, taking their northern province.

As for Burgundy - they are still part of the English alliance; however, that alliance will expire if they are not at war with anyone for 10 years. Burgundy gets an event which shifts their diplomatic relations in a very pro-France direction in 1435, so if the English alliance expires around then (and you have annexed some of your vassal states, which you can start trying in 1429), you may be able to get them in your alliance - or they may start their own. Burgundy itself is rather easy to defeat now that you have F-C and Artois though; you can immediately seige Bourgogne and Flanders, and they will beg to make peace after you control those two provinces, as their values are very high.
__________________
sheridan

If Navarre and Aragon (and Savoy, etc) remain neutral, don't try to get them into the war; you have enough on your hands and can deal with them seperately, and later, after you are in a much stronger position. The mention of them was to knock them out of the war, Burgundy-style, *if* they enter.

Be persistent about Burgundy early. They have the potential to field armies as large as yours (and so does England), so you need to knock them out ASAP. Brittany can wait. As for waiting until Bourgogne and Flanders fall - you may get better peace offers (in terms of cash or even an extra province) but all you really need are Artois and FC - for one thing, FC allows land access to your southern provinces, which removes an income penalty. Before I developed the strategy of forcing Burgundy into an early seperate peace, the opening war was much more of a headache for me.

You don't really need to destroy England's army; in fact, that's probably a bad strategy, with all their leaders. Just interfere with them enough to prevent them from completing any seiges, and meanwhile, have smaller forces off conducting seiges of your own. In terms of peace calculations, a captured province is worth 8-10 times as much as a victory in battle.

Yes - refuse all peace with Brittany. Why? Because a) you can use the credit for occupying them against England, and b) they are an English vassal, which means you cannot forcevassal them yourself. After they break vassalage with England, you should be able to approach them diplomatically, or attack them when they have useless/no allies and forcevassal them. Taking the provinces *now* is tempting, but ultimately, getting rid of England is better and safer (and the provinces they have are richer).

To put it shortly:
- Knock out Burgundy, taking FC and Artois at least
- Knock out any other English allies other than Brittany, taking any provinces you have claims on (Navarre has Bearn, Aragon has Rousillion - these are most common)
- Completely control but do not make peace with Brittany
- Control (or allow your allies to control) all English-owned provinces with French culture (Calais, Caux, Normandie, Gascogne, Poitou, and Orleans if they conquered it)
- Make peace with (or accept peace offer from) England granting you (or your allies) those five (six, if Orleans) provinces
(you automatically get peace with Brittany because they are part of England's alliance; keeping them in war makes your negotiating position stronger)

These goals can be taken up earlier in the war, but should be *completed* roughly in this order. If you have enough forces to purse two or three at a time, more power to you.
__________________
Isaac Brock

Ignore the English army. If they really have four sieges going at once one or two of those will be smallish mostly infantry armies in the plains. These sieges you can readily lift with a decent sized cavalry army that ought to able to wipe out these armies. Armies that are big, not in the plains, or have large cavalry components you're best off ignoring. Keep sieging Brittany and accept the attrition. It shouldn't be too bad anyway. If you are getting a lot of attrition pull your cavalry out of the siege and let the infantry suffer.

Leave the ships in port unless there is a siege to support and no enemy fleet in sight.
__________________
lawkeeper

Guess what I advice you ? Don't siege Maine and Orleans, not until Orleans is annexed and Provence has given Maine to England. March across them, straight to Britanny (by Maine, since it's plains) : unless your armies are bigger than 20k, you won't suffer from attrition for any province in France (cores or culture), supply limits is almost always 18 or higher.

Your navy is crap, it's useful only for blockade, but not in the channel (since you're bound to encounter the Home Fleet there). Your ships are expensive, and they'll come useful later, to take Portugal's or Denmark's isles and maps.

As Isaac Brock said, small infantry armies in plains are like apples on the tree : free for the taking. Especially if they're just built, since their morale is lower for a couple of months.

Good point to take Flanders. It's not a money-pit. Due to the CoT, it'll always be one of your richest provinces, and if you survive to the dutch rebellion events, it will convert (1648, as long as Netherlands never declared independent). Even the other dutch provinces are rich, try to take and keep Brabant, Zeeland and Holland later. You'll get less tax income due to wrong culture and wrong religion, but like the italian provinces, their inner wealth makes for this gap.

As long as an enemy army sieges a province, it won't attack you with this army. Never accept battle without tech advantage, numbers advantage, defensive advantage, morale advantage and leader advantage. Not if you want certain success. Don't be afraid to flee.

Besides, I think that an exploit is still possible in 1.07 : when an army battles, its movement is cancelled, however close it was to exiting a province. By sending a regular flow of 1000 cavalry to Henry, and retreating immediately, you'll ruin his move. Cavalry moves 50% faster than infantry, so sending 1000 cav (or less) when it starts to move will delay them for nearly a month usually. The downside is that you'll lose warscore, but winning provinces earns a lot more. Only do this if desperate to slow down enemy army.

RMs don't prohibit DoW, they simply make a loss of 1 stability. And having RMs with two countries in war with each other bears no penalty.
__________________
sheridan

As long as you pick up those two southwestern provinces (away from Aragon or Navarra, whichever) before they become part of Spain, you should be okay; with land tech 5 and assault infantry, it's rather easy to take them in a blitzkreig-style war in the late 1460s-early 1470s. Take them, of course, if their owning countries declare war or join an alliance against you before that, but you can afford to wait until then to declare war to take them if that doesn't happen.

Flanders is a point of debate for me - yes, early in the game - at least until the reformation - it is profitable. However, I'd rather leave it alone and stabilize borders where they will not inherently create conflict with other nations (Flanders being a core province to Austria if the usual Burgundy inheritance happens, and then to Spain and then the Netherlands later). If you *do* want to bother with it, I'd set it free as a vassal when the Calvin event pops up. For the amount of resources you'd need to put in to keep it profitable after that, you can build several colonies.

As for the DP sliders - for the first couple of moves, I choose from those five for the first move or two, and a couple moves toward Aristocracy after the first war. The late 1400s, I generally push toward Naval and Innovative a tick or two, and Centralization once I've unified France (since I use diploannexation a lot).

One quibble I have with lawkeeper's strategy of letting your vassals get conquered and then taking the provinces back - it's probably impossible to get enough warscore for more than the 5 starting provinces plus Orleans (from England) in the first war, and after that, your vassal states are fairly untouchable. It might save you some badboy points, but if you're sitting peacefully long enough to execute the diploannexations, that's probably not an issue anyway. (I have played whole games with France where my badboy points never exceeded 10, and you can go all the way to 18-20 with almost no negative effects.) And I've found that it is practically impossible to save Orleans anyways.

 

[ProfCC]

QUESTIONS/IDEAS ABOUT ANNEXING

NOTE TO READERS: This was part of a MUCH LONGER SECTION where a few posters got into a very animated discussion about the issue of army size for annexation. Eventually about 2 whole pages got taken up in the various posts. For this thread, I decided to delete most of the charges and counter-charges and skip to the final issues. By all means go back to the original thread to see the blow-by-blow account. It was on page 3 or 4, somewhere up early.
__________________
robin74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarkko Suvinen
Well, the requirement is to have three times stronger army,

I'm sorry, but that's completely untrue. Yes, larger army helps with your chances (I don't know if there is anything magical about having it 3 times bigger), but it's not a requirement, and I have successfully managed to diploannex other countries with smaller armies. In fact, I have just run a test and I succeeded (on the first try) to diploannex Courland with 43 thousand soldiers as Poland with no army or navy at all.

Yes, sheridan is right. Larger army helps but is not necessary, and yes, it is easy to test.

__________________
sheridan

The point, though, of the original statement was that you do not have to have any specific (or indeed any) military forces in order to *attempt* the diploannexation - you still get the annex button if all of the other conditions are met, it's just a modifier on the chance of success.
__________________
Daniel A

I've always thought that the program adds different things together and ends up with a sum for each. Based upon that it sets the odds for a dice roll. If your own sum is "much" greater than the nation to be annexed you will always "win" the dice roll.

- What "much" is I don't know, perhaps at least 10 times
- What these "things" are I don't know.
- What their relative weight is I don't know

I have never read anything definitive about either of these.

What I have seen is statements from people in the knowhow that size of economy (i.e. income) and time of vassalship (with the magical but unconfirmed 30 years period) are the two big things and I guess most of us also have had that experience. But other candidates are

(in alfabethical order)

- army at their border or inside their territory
- army size
- culture
- religion
- relation
- size in provinces
- tech level

Culture and religion really should be among the criterias if we want the game to be realistic. And also tech level. Economy should also be a factor but I believe the current may be wrong. I believe income per inhabitant is more important than total economy. I will explain by giving an example:

Fifty years ago any Swede would laugh if someone proposed that Norway should annex Sweden. Today all Swedes would just love it... Because small economy Norway owns a lot of oil so every Swede would "become richer" if they were annexed by the Norwegians On the other hand, Russia has a bigger total economy than Sweden but if they annexed us our average wealth would go down and we would live a worse life (in terms of money). Therefore I believe that the EU model is wrong. It's not the total economy that should be the important factor. But, perhaps people 500 years ago looked upon these things in a different way? Probably military strength and general might was relatively more important at that time than it is today, at least for a peace-having nation as Sweden (190 years ago we were in war the last time).
__________________
lawkeeper

As about the army factor in diplo-annexation, I'll let Daniel A and robin74 take the matter in hand, as it seem you guys are rather doing it well (have you been doing anything else than browsing the forum this morning ? ). I'll just send my two cents worth that:
1) I agree (yes, you read it well) with Daniel A's propostion about the factoring of economy, but I recall you that diplo-annexations in EU2 are more like coup d'état than inheritance (hence the BB you get - at least, that's what I've always read and understood -), not democtratic overtures of mergers.
2) about the military factor, I have the same experience as you, and I confirm it's possible to diplo-annex with non-existent army.

__________________
lawkeeper

For diplo-annexations, [wait] 30 years is to give you a certainty, but given the other advantages in your favor, you may annex them earlier. Make sure, by sending gifts, that your relations with the other vassals don't plummet to low while you annex them one after another.

For the peace of your vassal not avertised, go in the options - message settings. There, you should make the tuning to suit you : put some on display&pause (when a country DoWs you e.g.), most on display in a big box (successful sieges, armies arrived at destination, alliances between AI, etc), and a few to display in message window only (discoveries, battles, RMs between AI).
__________________
robin74

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawkeeper
Otherwise, 30 years is to give you a certainty
Well, "certainty" is an overstatement. 30 years will increase your chances, but I don't think you can ever get certainty - I would expect the chance is capped somewhere below 100% (the same way the chance of successful colonization is capped at 95%), so there will always be some small chance that your diploannexation attempt will fail.
__________________
lawkeeper

Quote:
Originally Posted by robin74
Well, "certainty" is an overstatement. 30 years will increase your chances, but I don't think you can ever get certainty - I would expect the chance is capped somewhere below 100% (the same way the chance of successful colonization is capped at 95%), so there will always be some small chance that your diploannexation attempt will fail.

Well, it's a rough estimate, not a detailled debate here. Given the size of the vassals and suzerain here, 30 years make it very-very-very probable. In fact, even when not waiting full 30 years, and often diplo-annexing them after 15 years or so, I never failed a diplo-annex of french vassals. I think I would remember it, so the cap is rather high (probably 95% too, but it's just a guess). If I had to put disclaimers and notices under each posts, I wouldn't have time for other threads here.
__________________
Daniel A

Quote:
Originally Posted by robin74
Well, "certainty" is an overstatement. 30 years will increase your chances, but I don't think you can ever get certainty - I would expect the chance is capped somewhere below 100% (the same way the chance of successful colonization is capped at 95%), so there will always be some small chance that your diploannexation attempt will fail.

Indeed that would be expected. However, in my experience when you are really big and the other much smaller (even including cases in late BB starts when you diploannex "biggies" like France/Spain etc) you will never fail. I do not know how many instances I've done it. Perhaps 100 or 200. And I cannot recall I ever failed in such a situation. Perhaps the cap is 99% or even higher...
-------------
Just the other day I failed in a situation were I as Assam had had China vassalised for 30 years. They owned some 40 odd provinces and I owned perhaps around 50. My army was about the same size as their and my army moral (the new important factor first revealed to the public by Jarkko in this thread!) was probably slightly worse than their (because I had gone max naval) and I was just one CRT level ahead of them. My economy was due to trade and COTs + gold provinces around 3 times as big as their. I was max Aristocratic but I had a bad monarch so my monarch's DIP value probably was 5 or 6. I failed the first time and succeded the second.

 

[ProfCC]

MILITARY TECHS vs. ECONOMIC TECHS DEBATE

NOTE TO READER: This debate, primarily between Sheridan and lawkeeper, was probably the most fundamental issue to comprehend for my game play. Do you, as a nation in the early years, focus on long term economics or do you try to get yourself militarily superior? It is still debated on our boards here, but this discussion was solid and I think clear. You will, of course, draw your own conclusions.
__________________
carlec

Do I focus the budget on Land (I think sheridan, you told me that) or do I focus on infrastructure (others said that, but not sure, maybe I even read that from you sheridan)?
__________________
sheridan

After getting TC's, you don't need more infrastructure immediately; your goals should be land and naval. Ideally, you can pick up land tech 5 around 1460-70, and use the new assault ability to storm fortresses and complete your unification of France in a series of short, fast-moving wars, and then pick up naval tech 11 and build a shipyard, starting construction in 1518 or so. (This allows you to use it to support your first explorer, Verrazano, who arrives in 1522.)

Eventually, yes, you'll want higher infra for judges and such, but at this stage those are rather far off and you have more immediate needs.

You will have to do the annexing one vassal at a time; annexing one will drive down relations with the others. You may want to leave Provence for last; there's an inheritance event for it in 1451. (Note that there is also one for Brittany in about 1492, which you should *avoid* if possible - it will make you give up F-C to Austria if the historic path is taken, and the choice is not yours.)

I'm guessing what probably happened with the peace thing is that one or more of your allies had made a seperate peace with Burgundy or Brittany while you were still fighting them; this often happens if one of them captures the other's capital province.

As far as the army thing for annexation - you don't *strictly* need a larger army, but it does seem to help. Your economy will be so much larger though that you already have a huge modifier in your favor. (Though picking up one or two ticks of Aristocracy, or waiting until you get a really good monarch or monarch-boosting event could strengthen your case even more.)

That quiet peacetime of yours? For the first century, yes - mainly, you'll want to get into diplomacy as much as you can, focusing on keeping Castile, Austria, and your allies happy, and (once you have what you want from them) England too. Those are your three main threats. After you start getting explorers and conquistadors, you'll be using that time to work on your colonies.
__________________
lawkeeper

Here I have to disagree with sheridan. Research in infra and trade are definitely the way to go for a very successful GC. It's not only the officials you could build (judges and governors), but also the manufactures (refineries and Fine Arts Academies - make sure to build a couple of each rather soon-) and the increased efficiency in trade and production income. For the moment, your main income is tax (and census once a year). But given time, production and trade will rule. The sooner you achieve a high TE and PE (Trade and Production Efficiencies), the sooner you'll make tons of money. You'll have ample time to catch up later in the military techs : France is rich, so you won't have any problem to do it since you'll be richer.
__________________
sheridan

On the technology part - no argument; trade and infra are the road to riches. However, I stand by my assertation that you should get land 5 and naval 11 as fast as possible. Why?

- Land 5, and the attendant ability to assault fortresses, allows blitzkreig-style warfare which you can use to complete your intended European expansion in the late 1400s - *before* religious issues surface, before Spain has the chance to consolidate and become a major threat, and before Austria can get big enough to be a threat as well. The key is to execute these wars during the small window of time when *you* have this ability but the AI countries *don't* - much the way that the Germans stormed France in 1940, because they had a motorized army and France did not.

- Naval 11 and shipyards - which in addition to the shipbuilding boost, you get an extra colonist a year, which allows much quicker colonization (or, greater Mercantilism or Innovativeness with the same colonization rate).

After getting to those two specific points, I would certainly follow lawkeeper's suggestion of trade and infrastructure.
__________________
lawkeeper

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheridan
On the technology part - no argument; trade and infra are the road to riches. However, I stand by my assertation that you should get land 5 and naval 11 as fast as possible.

Getting to land 5 will take approximately 30 years (or more), and land 9 is IMO much more important. Trying to make assaults at land 5 will trigger heavy losses in your infantry, meaning more money lost to get a province. And naval 11 will take at least 50 years, possibly more.

You don't need extra colonists before you have the requisite discovered provinces, not the money to place them. Moreover, a high trade will open all the CoTs, for tons of ducats. By the time you get trade 5, 30-40% of your income will be trade, and 20% production, while tax will be the same. Income increases 4- or 5-fold by researching infra and tech.

Developping your economy will allow you to skyrocket your military techs, even if you started low. By 1600, you'll have one CRT advantage in comparison to other Europeans (both land and naval), and much greater income. And a big economy makes diplo-annexation much easier (if you accept permanent decentralization).
__________________
carlec

lawkeeper, are you discussing that option from sheridan's POV related to his intended goal? I mean, perhaps you are both right depending on what you are trying to accomplish. Of course, remember newbie here, but when you read sheridan's France strategy (he posted the link somewhere on page 2 I think), he's not trying to win any other wars in Europe.

Anyway, I don't know the answer, but I just wondered as I read that perhaps you are both right.

sheridan, lk does have a good point though. With my sliders all where you said, I still can't move to land level 2 before 1430 something. How am I supposedly going to get to level 5 before 1460? Does it get quicker the more levels you pick up? Most games are the opposite--the early levels are easier than the harder levels.
__________________
sheridan

Each level has a different cost, so it varies. You can (and I have) get land 5 by around 1465, and then naval 11 by 1518, and then research those other things.

__________________
lawkeeper

sheridan : by starting researching infra and trade early on, by 1520 I usually have land 9-11, naval 9-11, trade 4, infra 4 (and a nice way to 5 for both due to refineries). The research you don't make early on is not lost. When researching infra/trade, it's probable you'd max out techs by 1750 or so for every latin (a bit later for orthodox and muslims).

As for quickness, the 5 first levels of land are really slow and expensive, but the 4 next are really fast to have, and it's definitely more interesting to get land 9 before the other, not land 5, as it will make you win all your battles (or close to it, as I sense robin74 comment here if I speak of another certainty ).

carlec, you're playing 1.07, do I remember correctly ? Then, you'd get the tech levels a bit earlier, since 1.08 augmented the costs by 15% IIRC.
__________________
robin74

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawkeeper
Then, you'd get the tech levels a bit earlier, since 1.08 augmented the costs by 15% IIRC.

Relative to plain un-beta'ed 1.07, the research cost has been increased by about 24% in 1.08.
__________________
carlec

Hmmm---the quandry, huh? You can't do both (land and infrastructure) or at least not as quickly as all deem important. sheridan seems to be basing his assumptions (and experience) on the importance of being able to effectively and quickly make the final attacks on any English provinces left, and the southern provinces that Aragon and Navarre hold (sheridan, am I trying to take Navarre completely out or just the one province?). THen, have the naval build up to effectively do the colonization issue, staying out of European wars. BTW, sheridan, pulling that off (staying out of European Wars) would be a quite significant counterfactual for France who, along with England, Spain and basically everyone else, fought in continental wars of some magnitude from early 1300 through 1945.

lawkeeper seems to be basing his assumptions (and experience) on the importance of perhaps a more general approach (rather than the more specific approach of colonies only, peace in Europe of sheridan) thus the need for a very strong economic base founded on a solid European France.

And apparently both of you end up, around 1520-1550, in the same place developmentally with land around 9, naval at 9-11, infra and trade at 4.

It would appear then that one has to choose between the need to militarily crush your opposition quickly (hence the need for assualts) in the late 1460s or the belief that you can still accomplish your overall goals of a fully united France through economics by the early 1520s.

Am I reading this correctly?
__________________
sheridan

My thought was that by fully uniting France early, you'd then have a stronger economic base for the research. And by not engaging in wars against major powers where it can be avoided, you can throw the extra money you're not spending on troops into things like manufactories and reconverting the Huguenots earlier than was historically done.

*After* land 5 and naval 11, I completely agree with lawkjeeper's infra-and-trade-first strategy; I just think that those techs offer oppotunities that are too good to pass up. Keep in mind that shipyard of yours means you can afford 2 more clicks toward Innovative - and thus faster research - with the same number of colonists. And that around 1475-85, all three of your main enemies get some really beneficial events! (the end of the War of the Roses, the Iberian wedding, and Austria's inheritance of Burgundy)

The theory behind my strategy was mainly to avoid wars with those three major powers that can directly threaten mainland France (Spain, England, Austria) especially in the 1480-1560 period, when a lot of the events and leaders you get are nowhere near as nice as theirs; whether you go colonial or engage in a series of brush-fire wars or even go on a few late Crusades, I believe it does work quite well.
__________________
lawkeeper

For keeping peace until you have the leaders, you can usually achieve it by allying with Spain and Austria, and maybe England too. But you don't really need to be afraid to go to war. You unification of France will be done without much BB, so you can go for some dutch, german and italian provinces. You have huge manpower, you'd be capable to easily battle Spain, England and Austria - at the same time. Moreover, Aragon only gets annexed by Spain 50% of the time (don't ask me why), and you can easily diplo-annex them. And you can strip Burgundy of all its provinces (without annexing them), as you'll get Bourgogne when it gets inherited by Austria : they won't get anything in the process, but you'll get Bourgogne for no BB.

Sure, you'll say italian, german and dutch are wrong cultures, but they're lavishly rich, you can make it. You'll probably have to release Netherlands unless you can convert them, but all the other are fine.

Having a stronger economic base by conquering more provinces doesn't help for research, as the costs are scaled by the number of provinces. But by increasing infra and trade, you increase your income without increasing the number of provinces : that's what I mean when I talk about skyrocketing your techs.
__________________
carlec

Well. . . I've decided to try a shared strategy of the best of both of you--overall strategy of peace in Europe and colonization (sheridan) with the financial emphasis being infrastructure/trade (lawkeeper). Perhaps it'll all fall apart. NOTE: It did not; instead it did EXACTLY as lawkeeper said it would; by early 1600s I was a dominate economic powerhouse--unstoppable!

 

[ProfCC]

MINTING AND INFLATION TO ACCOMPLISH GOALS

carlec

Let me see, you want me to build Manus or Refineries (easily 3-4 years savings for just one), level 2 fortresses in some places, keep the diplomatic edge up (sending gifts and such), build a navy of 200 ships, keep the army to full capacity (I'm sure, though you didn't say exactly) and colonize the rest of the world besides North America. Exactly how is one supposed to pay for all of that?

I mean seriously my friend, I have to sit on my hands for 3-4 years straight to have enough to build only 1 factory. But of course I can't do that for colonists, diplomats and merchants also cost money. And there is the risk of an occasional war. So, make that 4-5 years for just one deal (and then of course like happened before, they burn down, 2 in less than 5 year span). I know "this is part of the deal, part of the fun and pressure of being a real country" learning to juggle it all. But that leads me back to the time issue.

I should do all of that, like, when or in how much time? 50 years? 100 years? 5 years? I mean if there was a simple chart somewhere that said something like "Ok, once you can build then you should build 1 factory every 10 years for success" or something that said "1 factory every 50 years=lame; 1 factory every 25 years = average; 1 factory every 15 years=a bit above average; 1 factory every 5 years = too much" Or something like that. I mean, I guess after you play several games and such, you can get a feel for it, but for me its hard to tell how I'm doing.

__________________
lawkeeper

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
Let me see, you want me to build Manus or Refineries (easily 3-4 years savings for just one), level 2 fortresses in some places, keep the diplomatic edge up (sending gifts and such), build a navy of 200 ships, keep the army to full capacity (I'm sure, though you didn't say exactly) and colonize the rest of the world besides North America. Exactly how is one supposed to pay for all of that?

I mean seriously my friend, I have to sit on my hands for 3-4 years straight to have enough to build only 1 factory. But of course I can't do that for colonists, diplomats and merchants also cost money. And there is the risk of an occasional war. So, make that 4-5 years for just one deal (and then of course like happened before, they burn down, 2 in less than 5 year span). I know "this is part of the deal, part of the fun and pressure of being a real country" learning to juggle it all. But that leads me back to the time issue.

That's where infra 5 and a high TE matter. Once you have governors everywhere, you can put your treasury slider to 25%, and easily make 100d/month. This will handily pay for all colonists, building a ship/month (or less, you don't need 200 ships instantly, as long as you have a bigger navy than the AI - IMO, 200 warships by 1600 is fine), replenish the armies (at 50% maintenance and without going over support limit).

If you don't have inflation problems, and manu's prices are low, you'd mint for a few years (when at stability +3 and with 5 merchants in every CoT), hoarding money, before ordering a couple of manufactories. Once you've ordered the manus, continue to mint for two years, ordering more manufactories as you get enough money (to benefit from decreased costs).

After that, reverse to 25%, and build the judges progressively, with the 100d/month (or even more, thanks to the manus ).

When you're too far ahead in every tech (look at the cost at the turn of the year, if it decreases by more than 1% on January 1st, you're far ahead ), it can be worthy to mint to build more manus, rather than pounding your money in costly techs (and let the cost decrease a bit). You don't need to finish all techs in 1700, you only need to be in advance compared to the AI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
I should do all of that, like, when or in how much time? 50 years? 100 years? 5 years? I mean if there was a simple chart somewhere that said something like "Ok, once you can build then you should build 1 factory every 10 years for success" or something that said "1 factory every 50 years=lame; 1 factory every 25 years = average; 1 factory every 15 years=a bit above average; 1 factory every 5 years = too much" Or something like that. I mean, I guess after you play several games and such, you can get a feel for it, but for me its hard to tell how I'm doing.
It depends on your economy. If you can build a manu after saving for four years, you'll build more than if you had to save for twenty years. But the relative benefit (compared to your overall economy) will be more pronounced if you had to wait 20 years than if you had to wait 4 years (because in the latter, your economy is bigger already, and the benefit of manufactories is not tied to size).

There're never "too much" factories. At a certain time, it doesn't pay to build them (that's when you're closing to the end of the game, when the benefits you'll get won't be higher than the cost to build it), but if money flows and you don't have anything to use it (techs maxed out, or currently too costly - see previous paragraph), it's fine to build more.

 

[ProfCC]

ATTRITION DISCUSSION

NOTE TO READER: Ah, attrition--as you will see it was a very hard thing for me to understand and poor Daniel A tried everything in the book, including quoting part of his FAQ on the subject. I'm still not sure I get it well today, many GC's later

carlec

What's the deal with Winter (and perhaps equally the South American region)? I've read the FAQs so I know that winter ("General Winter"?) is harsh (duh!) however I'm not sure I understand the attrition information that I read with the unit.

There is a + to province size and then some -for leader and stuff, then winter comes and there is a +10. Is that real numbers or percentages? Is it factored daily or monthly? Is there any way to really beat it off (hiding in city province vs. colony/TP)?

It appears that a city holds more advantage than a developing province. Right? So am I missing something? Is there any general strategy to the process? And I'm thinking of that advice of "amass some armies"---I've already dumped a ton of troops for dealing with some unruly natives and every time I turn around, my 12 army is down to 1 (or less--yikes!).
__________________
Nocuous

You should read the Army Attrition FAQ. It will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about attrition...

My personal favourite way to deal with the Incas is to have several attacing armies. Try to attack them from north, south and center at the same time. In 1710 they will most likely have small fort in all their provinces. They will probably also have a large army with 40-50 k men. As long as you avoid them on the plains (they probably have more cav than you) you should be fine. Assault every province as soon as possible, and have some reinforcements ready at all times. As soon as one of your armies is starting to dwindle (less than 12k) put 5-10k extra soldiers into it. You will probably lose 30-60k soldiers during this campaign, but the gold will soon make up for it. Since you are France you should also have several Conqistadors to lead your attacking armies. Even if some of them have worse stats than generic leaders, it will still save you some men and reduce the time it takes to overrun the Incas.
__________________
Daniel A

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
What's the deal with Winter (and perhaps equally the South American region)? I've read the FAQs so I know that winter ("General Winter"?) is harsh (duh!) however I'm not sure I understand the attrition information that I read with the unit.

There is a + to province size and then some -for leader and stuff, then winter comes and there is a +10. Is that real numbers or percentages? Is it factored daily or monthly? Is there any way to really beat it off (hiding in city province vs. colony/TP)?

Sad to hear you have trouble understanding it. I released a new version yesterday. Some minor changes and some clarifications. But nothing about the +10 for winter. Hrm. I think that if you read it slowly you will understand. If not it's really bad. Then it must be clarified.

Anyhow I will give you a short explanation.

For each province a supply limit exists. It may be e.g. 25. If so you can have 25.000 men cavalry/infantry without suffering attrition. In the province screen there is one row that says "Supply limit". This is not THE supply limit. Very unfortunate.

The real supply limit is a calculation that takes about 20 different things into consideration. That row referred to above only considers about 10 or so of them. However, in most normal situations that figure is not far from the truth.

If you really want to know the exact real supply limit you have to calculate it yourself using the info in the FAQ.

The largest modifier to the supply limit is winter. It is 10 in your own provinces. And it is a negative modifier, something that shall be subtracted.

Thus you subtract 10 from the figure in the province info screen. So if that figure is 25 only 15 is left. This means you can have 15.000 men without suffering from attrition. The unit for the winter modifier is thus "number of 1.000 men" or more correctly "army units", a concept used and defined in the FAQ.

So, if you are above this "limit", 15.000 men in the example used, you will suffer attrition. The next question is how much attrition you will suffer and that I hope you understand when reading the FAQ.
__________________
carlec

Thanks Daniel Aand Nocuous---I just re-read it. I guess, as with many of the FAQs, once we get to "algorithms" and "complex formulas" you lose me. It's not that I can't do math, I just don't like it. So, I re-read it and I think I get it.

The green number on a province (say 25) is the total number of supportable troops (10,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalry, 50 artillery for instance--right?) [side note, still not fully seeing in my mind the artillery figure whenever I try to determine the max troops I can have--any help there?]. When winter hits in said province, then the number drops by 10, so that I can only support 15. Am I right so far?

But how come it seemed to be worse in colonies/TPs? Perhaps its the same, but it seemed that even though I had a conquistador with small troops (5,000 calvary for) and even not moving, they would dwindle to nothing. However, same sized unit, no leader but in a city province that I have developed (Same area, Siberia) that unit never seems to suffer any noticable loss?

I think another thing that was throwing me (Still does) is the % term. When I see that 25 number saying it can handle 25,000 troops, well that means 25,000. -10% of that would be minus 2500 troops (10% x 25,000), not minus 10,000 troops. If I've got it right above (that winter drops the supportable amount from 25,000 (-10) to 15,000, then using a percentage term makes no sense to me.
__________________
Daniel A

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec

The green number on a province (say 25) is the total number of supportable troops (10,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalry, 50 artillery for instance--right?) [side note, still not fully seeing in my mind the artillery figure whenever I try to determine the max troops I can have--any help there?]. When winter hits in said province, then the number drops by 10, so that I can only support 15. Am I right so far?

But how come it seemed to be worse in colonies/TPs? Perhaps its the same, but it seemed that even though I had a conquistador with small troops (5,000 calvary for) and even not moving, they would dwindle to nothing. However, same sized unit, no leader but in a city province that I have developed (Same area, Siberia) that unit never seems to suffer any noticable loss?

I think another thing that was throwing me (Still does) is the % term. When I see that 25 number saying it can handle 25,000 troops, well that means 25,000. -10% of that would be minus 2500 troops (10% x 25,000), not minus 10,000 troops. If I've got it right above (that winter drops the supportable amount from 25,000 (-10) to 15,000, then using a percentage term makes no sense to me.

Thanks carlec!

Your last point is very good. I have this evening PMed Castellon with an update to make it clear. Winter adds 10% to MAX and subtracts 10 army units from the actual supply limit.

When we discuss SL we use army units (AU). When we discuss MAX we use percentages.

Colonies works the same as any other province. Perhaps the colony had a tropical penalty of 5% and 5AU?

Also remember that the supply limit info in the province screen does not take the modifiers into consideration. Thus you must always add your Leader value (4 AU for a normal Leader) and subtract tropical and winter penalties. Then you have the actual supply limit (ASL). That is the supply limit figure that counts, not the one in the province screen. This all you need to know for being able to construct the ASL from the DSL (the displayed supply limit in the province info screen).

Artillery must always be multiplied by 100. I myself mentally imagine the window were you buy troops. There you buy either 1000 infantry/cavalry or 10 artillery, i.e. a 100 times more of the two former categories.
__________________
carlec

Man, am I slow or what. . .

OK, so the province screen says 25 (in green).

I click on my unit there and the little skull shows a 0. I mouse over that and it says
-25 for province
+15 for unit
+4 for leader

and below that it says
-10 for winter
-5 for mountain.

Does that mean, in the end, the province (in winter) can support 14? 25-10-5=10+4=14?

If that is correct, does it just take my 1 unit and kill it?

The reason I keep struggling with this is due to the wars vs the incas. Obviously South America is not North America, so it's different, but I've just really struggled there. I mean, I win and all, but I am constantly sending in reinforcements. It's like there is some big sucking drain grabbing my troops just for being there. I'm sure there is something else to do with supply lines, being in enemy territory and such, but the attrition is huge compared to other places. I'm sitting there seiging away and all of a sudden no seige. Of course, I learned my lesson from my first war with them, so I just kept on building and building troops in MExico and the Atlantic side of South America, over and over, and dumping new troops in.

Its gotten better in Siberia and I just feel (can't prove) that there is some major difference being in a neutral province/colony than a city.

But mostly I'm just struggling to understand the math behind it and I'm not all that interested, but I sure hate to see my army just vanish into thin air.
__________________
Daniel A

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
Man, am I slow or what. . .

OK, so the province screen says 25 (in green).

I click on my unit there and the little skull shows a 0. I mouse over that and it says
-25 for province
+15 for unit
+4 for leader

and below that it says
-10 for winter
-5 for mountain.

Does that mean, in the end, the province (in winter) can support 14? 25-10-5=10+4=14?

If that is correct, does it just take my 1 unit and kill it?

25 + 4 for the leader = 29. Then subtract 10 for winter. That makes 19 and that is the ASL - the actual supply limit. The mountain % only add to MAX, it does not decrease the supply limit.

I.e., if you have 19 AU you will suffer no attrition. If you have 20 you will suffer 1% at the turn of the month. If you have 21 2% etc up to the MAX value which you find just below the 25 figure in the province info screen. You can never suffer more attrition than the MAX value, that's why it is called MAX, it stands for maximum

When you calculate the supply limit, start with the DSL (25 in this case) and then add for your leader and subtract for winter or tropical. It's all in chapter 5 in the FAQ.

I can tell you that I did not understand this properly until I wrote the FAQ, and that I did after having played the game for 3 years and 9 months (I'm no mathematician either)! Now you know it after having played for just a couple of months. You are a lucky man
__________________
carlec

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel A
25 + 4 for the leader = 29. Then subtract 10 for winter. That makes 19 and that is the ASL - the actual supply limit. The mountain % only add to MAX, it does not decrease the supply limit.

OK, but using the term % still makes no sense to me. Look at the equation---25 + 4 =29 - 10 = 19 Using percentage like it shows you during the game would imply 24 + 4 = 29 - 10% = 26.1 I mean, I got it like you show it up there, but just don't see the point of them saying 10%. But, hey, there are many things in life like that I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel A
I.e., if you have 19 AU you will suffer no attrition. If you have 20 you will suffer 1% at the turn of the month. If you have 21 2% etc up to the MAX value which you find just below the 25 figure in the province info screen.

1% or 1.

1% = 1900 2% = 3800
1 = 1000 2 = 2000

Thanks for taking time to share your 3+ years of experience with me.

The game is almost over now. Using the Louis XIV issue with the shields on some German minors has opened up the conflict within the German plains, as I mentioned above. It's been fairly easy sledding. I'm sure most of that is because 1)I played on normal, 2)I played a major country so was already stronger, 3)I took lawkeeper's et al great advice about economy and that has made me a giant--it would probably take every country to DoW me at one time along with tons of revolts to overpower me now, AND 4)I had the overall great advice from these boards. Maybe my own 25+ years of wargaming didn't hurt either.

I'm going to finish just to say I did, but I won't attack anyone else unless they come after me. I'll post one last set of screen shots just in case some other newbie gets in here too. This way they can see how the sheridan plan was worked out over the 400 years. The game can be played.

Man, I still remember my first attempt, after working through the tutorials, just staring at the screen with no idea of what to try, where to go or anything. Fun times, fun times.

Nocuous

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
1% or 1.

1% = 1900 2% = 3800
1 = 1000 2 = 2000

It's 1%, and 1% of 20000 is 200, not 1900...
__________________
carlec

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nocuous
It's 1%, and 1% of 20000 is 200, not 1900...

Actually, what I should have said was 1% of 15000 (if you scroll back up to see the orginial equation/example). But you are right that 1% of 19000 is 190 and 1% of 15000 is 150. And therein lies my question or confusion. Am I losing 150 men (1%) or 1000 (1)? When I'm in the Siberian area and I have an army with a conquistador and only about 4000-5000 men (heck then 1% would only be 4 and 10% would only be 400. I'm certainly losing more than 4 men or 400. Same in the South American areas. I mean, I just don't see how the equation is actually working.

If you tell me that, well, the province ASL in winter is 10 or even 5, there ought to be a clear cut way to determine exactly how many my army can be and, if I'm over that amount, then exactly how many I will lose. Since I started this line of questioning, I have certainly paid better attention to the ASL and all that, looking at each unit in question to determine their standing and in some cases, they are under the ASL yet, when I check back in a month or so, they have attritioned down to nothing. I just don't really get it. Troops on station in some far distant place that perhaps I don't even need to have there---well, okay no big deal right? But armies in the field and in battle--it kind of matters so that you don't all of a sudden notice that your army of 20,000 is now down to 150 cavalry and a few scattered infantry. That is certainly a lot more than just some small percentage.

That's the part I just don't get.
__________________
Daniel A
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlec
OK, but using the term % still makes no sense to me. Look at the equation---25 + 4 =29 - 10 = 19 Using percentage like it shows you during the game would imply 24 + 4 = 29 - 10% = 26.1 I mean, I got it like you show it up there, but just don't see the point of them saying 10%. But, hey, there are many things in life like that I guess.

1% or 1.

1% = 1900 2% = 3800
1 = 1000 2 = 2000

You remember I thanked you for pointing out something that was less than perfect in the FAQ (an euphemism for "error" )? It was the percentage-chaos. I rewrote the FAQ as I mentioned and chapter 5.3 now says:

"5.3 TYPE 3 – ADD TO MAX AND SUBTRACT FROM DSL

Tropical: add 5% to MAX, subtract 5 AU from the DSL

Winter: add 10% (25% if you do not own the province) to MAX and subtract 10 (25) AU from the DSL."

So you see, when we are discussing the size of the ASL we are not talking about percentages anymore , we are talking about AU = army units.

BTW, it was only in 5.3 we did talk about percentages, and that was a mistake, a sloppy wording. Please erase all memory of percentages when it comes to the size of the ASL!

But the actual attrition that sets in is, and has always been, a percentage, as described in for example 4.2:

"4.2. SUPPLY ATTRITION SUFFERED

NORMAL CASE
----------------
Rule: For each AU above the ASL you will suffer 1% attrition. For each additional AU you suffer 1% more attrition up to MAX, the cap."

So, if the ASL is 10 AU and you have 11 AU (say an 11,000 men all infantry army) you will suffer 1% attrition (because you are 1 AU above the ASL). 1% of 11,000 is 110 men. That is the attrition you will suffer.

----------------------------------------------------------------
The core of the attrition math is

1. Calculate the ASL.
Start with the DSL (25 in this case) and then add for your leader and subtract for winter or tropical. It's all in chapter 5 in the FAQ.

2. Calculate the attrition.
If you are below the ASL you will suffer no suplly attrition.
If you are above the ASL, then calculate how many AU above the ASL you have. If that number is higher than the MAX value replace it with the MAX number.

3. This number is the percentage of supply attrition you will suffer at the turn of the next month. If you have 80,000 men and your attrition percentage is 10% then 8,000 men will die from attrition.

4. There are also detailed rules about e.g. dispersion of the attrition between different kind of armies and also two minor exceptions concerning artillery and small armies but they are not something a new student of the art of attrition calculation should pay too much attention to.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I do hope carlec that this is now crystal clear for you!

If not I am going to shoot myself...
__________________
carlec

Thanks! Got it.

 

[ProfCC]

FINALE

carlec

On a different front, the game now sits in the 1730s and I (silly me) took the French bank in Louisiana thing crisis. I mean, they give it away with the option of "looks like easy money to me," and I knew it ended up bad for France, but I wanted to see what they did. Wow--was that a huge punch in the head. And coming on the heels of my war with the Incas, my stability was already low, so man, it was a thrilling 10+ years trying to hold my empire in order.

The results of the second event (the bad failure event) said that I went bankrupt. They took 1000 from me, but since I had that in the bank anyway, it was no big deal. But is there some hidden thing I'm missing about going bankrupt? I have expected them to take my bank to "0" and force loans on me or something, but nothing like that happened.

I have now gotten it all under control and am merely marking time till the end of the game. Am considering some European wars just to have something to do since no one is dumb enough to attack me or my allies. I have a permanent CB against Venice (not sure why, but they have certainly embargoed me multitple times), so since they are in alliance with Denmark (who know has a couple of N.A. provinces that I never developed), I think I might attack them to take the NA provinces and some more north German provinces.

Austria has annexxed Bavaria and BAden, so we are eyeing each other, but she knows better I think.

Anyway, am excited about finishing and starting a new one with a smaller country.
__________________
carlec

The game is almost over now. Using the Louis XIV issue with the shields on some German minors has opened up the conflict within the German plains, as I mentioned above. It's been fairly easy sledding. I'm sure most of that is because 1)I played on normal, 2)I played a major country so was already stronger, 3)I took lawkeeper's et al great advice about economy and that has made me a giant--it would probably take every country to DoW me at one time along with tons of revolts to overpower me now, AND 4)I had the overall great advice from these boards. Maybe my own 25+ years of wargaming didn't hurt either.

I'm going to finish just to say I did, but I won't attack anyone else unless they come after me. I'll post one last set of screen shots just in case some other newbie gets in here too. This way they can see how the sheridan plan was worked out over the 400 years. The game can be played.

Man, I still remember my first attempt, after working through the tutorials, just staring at the screen with no idea of what to try, where to go or anything. Fun times, fun times.
__________________
Nocuous

It would be a shame to end the game as France and not go for broke against the rest of Europe. You have a lot of great leaders in the last years, and keeping Nappy as a garrison commander is almost unforgivable.
__________________
carlec

Oh, and I thought about the final last grand assault, but for what purpose is how my mind has responded. I'm a fairly typical American and regardless of what the press around the world thinks, we're not a bunch of warmongering freaks. Certainly we've had our moments (can we say Mexican war 1840s?) and at times people don't really agree with us on stuff (sorry again, not trying to even go there), but for me I'd rather have some good reason. I'd be totally happy to leave the German minors alone, but once that "core provinces" thing with Louis XIV happened, I at least had some reason to attack. And then later, Denmark decided they were going to get into it with my ally and plus they had provinces in "my North America" so of course that couldn't stand. Then Saxony couldn't leave well enough alone, so. . . And Austria decided they needed the smack down, Venice too.

But in each case, I took just want I felt was proper and left well enough alone. Heck, Austria was trying to give me more than I wanted, so I kept saying no and finally got her to accept the smaller amount that I wanted. Anyway, unless someone like Russia decides they need a beat-down, I'm content to just watch the clock roll by. I thought about looking at China, who I am neighbors with near Siberia (and obviously she is nervous since she has beefed up her Siberian armies), but again, there's no good reason to get into it with her.

Who knows, maybe my recent "advancements" (which have put me right at the BB limit) will call down the wrath of Johan from the AI and they'll all decide to join forces against me. That would actually be a fun engagement and really challenge my tactical skill to manage dealing with Spain and Portugal in the new world, England/Sweden/Austria/Russia in the Old World. But I don't think the AI can quit fighting itself to look at me. And my economic strength (I think I am up to like 8 CoTs now) is simply huge.

I know, I know--next game I'm upping it to hard or very hard. I'm sure it'll be much, much harder also playing a mid-major or even smaller country. We'll see. . .

__________________
carlec

Still not sure how I kept losing that many men in Siberia and Inca land. At least in the Inca story, I know that there was also the war issue and a looted province thingy. But in both cases, my army was WAY BELOW the ASL. I'm positive. Anyway, thanks for the valuable time and insight.

Got exciting last time I played. I'm happily humming along, 1803-4, doing nothing much but watching the clock. A few events later, my stability was at +1--no big deal as I am completely maxed out in all 4 financial areas (land, naval, tech, trade), right?

Then the computer went crazy and BOOM civil war. What the heck did I do to deserve that? I know my BB is very high (50/60.5) and I did get the French Revolution event thing, though nothing much happened then. I was shocked and stunned. Happily, though lawkeeper had said there was no need, I still had many armies around the globe to deal with it. Sadly, many of those armies became rebels. Happily, my economy was strong enough that I could quickly build up enough armies to start fighting back. Sadly, did you know that if you have a fortress in a province and it falls, you have to then re-conquer your own land (of course you experts knew that). Happily, I did have those great leaders with strong siege value.

Two years later, I had it under control. Whew--what a last second rush. Crazy!
__________________
Daniel A

Ah, a CW! In your first game. Some would call you lucky carlec. lawkeeper for instance. He has never had one

CWs only happen on stab 0 or lower. But that was perhaps introduced in a later release than the one you are playing. Previously it could happen regardless of stab. So nowadays one can say you deserve to get a CW but not in the earlier releases

Also centralisation lessens the chance to get it but Johan never revealed how much importance that has.

In the latest betas on 1.08 the chance for CW has been increased. I believe BB has a role in the equation also (see beta release notes), but it did not in your release.

The fact that a province not only rebelled but that it immediately got captured by the rebs is something that happens now and then. Some randomsing going on. It really ought to have happened to you before.

Concerning the Incas. Perhaps the Incas had an army in the same province. Then you have to add them to your own to get the total number of men present in the province. Then count the number of army units. Could this be the reason?

Incidentally, two years for quelling the revolts and recapturing lost provinces is a quite normal time and therefore an excellent achievement by a first-timer!
__________________
carlec

Thanks for the props!

No, no Incan army--I mean, there was at first, but most of the time, it was just me sieging the country. Oh well, I just kept building new troops and sending them in. I just like to truly understand so I could plan effectively.

Yes, I had several provinces simply switch. I think it sucks, especially when I have an army there. But I suppose that is the price you pay. I thought I read somewhere that it didn't happen as often with 1.08. I guess I'll see.
__________________
Fodoron

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel A
Ah, a CW! In your first game. Some would call you lucky carlec. lawkeeper for instance. He has never had one.

CWs only happen on stab 0 or lower. But that was perhaps introduced in a later release than the one you are playing.

For some reason, CWs are a lot more common in 1.07 and perhaps by playing EU2 in the mac. It is not only that in 1.07 you get them at stability up to +1. I have played a few GCs and I average 1 CW / GAME !! meaning in two games I had two CWs. So according to you I am the luckiest. When I was a poor Sweden in 1470, Norway managed to independize. When I was an overextended Spain in my first GC I was hit by two CWs, one in 1721 and the other in 1723 when I was only half way to recover. My goverment fall and I lost more than half of my empire. A very sad, very historic, first game . I tells a lot about my determination that I still play EU2.

But for some time I had been working on your little "no armies rebelled" trick . Now that 1.08 is out for the mac it might not be so necessary.
__________________
carlec

Well, I did it. I finished my first and only game. Below are the final screen shots. So, if any other newbie gets here, they can see that a rookie can accomplish this game.

France in all its glory. You can see by checking back on page 10 how much further I went into central Germany. I'll explain the missing Spain below.

North America was never much of an issue once I had those two early wars with England. You can see that Mexico and Haiti had broken away from Spain (Colombia did too).

South America just to bring the final picture into focus.

I didn't want to bore anyone with the shot of Siberia stretching into Eastern Russia. I got as far as the central Asian area. I also kept control of Southeast Asia and Australia (I'm not sure the AI ever found Australia). And finally I held onto South Africa and a few provinces in India.

I had made Austria my vassel while keeping the Papal Estates that way too. I was in an alliance with Poland and a couple of other minor states (letting the small guys hang out with the big boys).

Well, toward the end, it was just marking time down. Spain had gotten into major revolts (Mexico, Haiti, Columbia mentioned above) and I thought that since I was using this game as a learning event anyway, might as well see what happened when I annexed.

My BB shot way over the threshold, but no one attacked me. Of course, remember I was playing a normal game with aggressive AI. However, except for in Africa and India, there had been no European wars since the late 1600s. It seemed that once I beat up a country (England, Spain, Netherlands, Austria, Russia) they all stayed within their own little world lest they incur my wrath. LOL

Again, MAJOR THANKS To all of you who helped me figure this great game out--sheridan, robin74, lawkeeper, Daniel A, Incompetent, Nocuous, and any others that I might have forgotten. Major props and thanks to you friends for your effort and time. My applause and thanks to you all. Hopefully any others who tread through here will see some of their own issues and questions answered about the issues we covered: early France strategy, economic strategy, alliances, vassels, colonization, attrition and whatever else we looked at.

Looking forward to diving into a new game as a mid-major or even smaller. See you on the boards.
__________________
Daniel A
Great game carlec!

This must be the most instructional newbie thread we have ever had! Thanks to your perseverence

BTW, did you find Wewak? You know I tried to get you around looking for that little cute and "hidden" gold province
__________________
lawkeeper

Indeed, great game. Don't be too modest : we gave you the advice and some informations, but you are the one who played it out.

BTW : I think this thread is listed in Flame of Udun's list of strategic threads, with the mention that it's also a global aid to newbies. They will thank you too.

And thanks for the praise.
__________________
carlec

Thanks you two--you guys were great. And don't think I'm going to let you vanish from my radar of needing help or advice.

Yes, Daniel I think I did. I never got down into Asia or involved deeply into India, so I'm sure there were some gold sites that I missed, but I certainly got most of them. And I crushed everyone in the CoT category, holding the following sites: Isle de France, Flandern, Holland, Mecklenberg, Liguria (Genoa), Andalusia (only at the very last), Tiracambu, Cuzco, Zacateuas, Manhattan, Yukon, Towoomba, Sunda, Csikei, Demianka, and Magadan.

This thread is listed in the Udun thread with France and a note that there is tons of great newbie info. I hope that it's of use to others. Hopefully, the clear economic strategy would be the best thing they take away from it. Remember when I was debating between your idea (lawkeeper) and that of sheridan? I still remember thinking it through here in my house and determining that your long range promise made more sense. I didn't make it in land and naval exactly when you said, but that was due (I think) to other issues like stability where I would have to switch resources. But it was close enough and I certainly passed everyone during the 1500s.