Allying natural enemy is a bad strategy IMHO. We have different perspectives anyway but that's OK.
How about an event chain to westernise Russia?
- Thread starter Casus_Belli
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Allying natural enemy is a bad strategy IMHO. We have different perspectives anyway but that's OK.
Nope. Napoleon lost because he INVADED.
Let´s see what was the outcome if the russians invaded instead?
And back to topic, which is how to make westernization better or useful.
Denmark isn´t a natural enemy. Finnish provinces are crap. Just let them integrate Sweden. Even if you have to fight them eventually, Denmark is a joke in land battles. Sweden isn´t.
i follow through that you never intended to remotely attempt to understand my point, and only seeked to mock me for things that are entirely historical.
("lol serf-armies? secret weapon!" come to mind... -_- pretend i made it up doesn't make it so!)
but the main thing which has me annoyed is the asking for citation on the source of an image which was sourced IN the citation DIRECTLY ABOVE the image, (as NOTED BY THE IMAGE ITSELF) and then pretending it wasn't given...
i took it to mean he wanted OTHER SOURCES to CORRELATE AND COMPARE the data
so I FURTHER WENT TO CITE THEM TOO
and he STILL insisted I had done nothing to provide ANY evidence of ANYTHING -_- WHILE admitting that he was IGNORING THE LINKS e.e
so forgive me for wanting to stare him in the eye as i shove my perspective down his throat :/ it happens when people are that arrogant and socially irresponsible, and admit to be doing that on purpose too
as for what you are saying, i can agree. i was mostly making the point that russia didnt keep up, anywhere near, and that crimean war is seen as another time later than the entire EU period where russia was drastically reformed to catch up to its counterparts after period of stagnation
which was to support my original point (that you say is murky so let me reiterate)
that russia doesnt NECESSARILY need to be considered to westernize in EVERY game, so an EVENT that automatically did it would not NECESSARILY be something wise.
i am not against having it as a DECISION based EVENT.
but a non-variable constant or some instance of the sort? SILLY.
now........
if you bother to READ what i say
without taking time to laugh at the plausibility of things that I will be forced to prove true 20 times and be mocked over even though they are totally legitimate, and provided evidence for, in a multitude, you will undoubtedly be able to understand what my point was, and how everything I have said, actually does correlate to it directly...
:| thank you.
("lol serf-armies? secret weapon!" come to mind... -_- pretend i made it up doesn't make it so!)
but the main thing which has me annoyed is the asking for citation on the source of an image which was sourced IN the citation DIRECTLY ABOVE the image, (as NOTED BY THE IMAGE ITSELF) and then pretending it wasn't given...
i took it to mean he wanted OTHER SOURCES to CORRELATE AND COMPARE the data
so I FURTHER WENT TO CITE THEM TOO
and he STILL insisted I had done nothing to provide ANY evidence of ANYTHING -_- WHILE admitting that he was IGNORING THE LINKS e.e
so forgive me for wanting to stare him in the eye as i shove my perspective down his throat :/ it happens when people are that arrogant and socially irresponsible, and admit to be doing that on purpose too
as for what you are saying, i can agree. i was mostly making the point that russia didnt keep up, anywhere near, and that crimean war is seen as another time later than the entire EU period where russia was drastically reformed to catch up to its counterparts after period of stagnation
which was to support my original point (that you say is murky so let me reiterate)
that russia doesnt NECESSARILY need to be considered to westernize in EVERY game, so an EVENT that automatically did it would not NECESSARILY be something wise.
i am not against having it as a DECISION based EVENT.
but a non-variable constant or some instance of the sort? SILLY.
now........
if you bother to READ what i say
without taking time to laugh at the plausibility of things that I will be forced to prove true 20 times and be mocked over even though they are totally legitimate, and provided evidence for, in a multitude, you will undoubtedly be able to understand what my point was, and how everything I have said, actually does correlate to it directly...
:| thank you.
Lol let me leave this before my brain shrinks.
Yeah good luck beating the Grand Armeé in Poland in 1810.
Anyone bordering any of my glorious empires is a natural enemy in my book. They will eventually get "Wants your provinces modifier". Danish Trade mission suggests capturing Neva after all. Agreed on relative strength of Denmark vs Sweden.
As far as I remember, he also invaded a bunch of other countries prior that and they didn't perform well, did they? :]
it doesnt leave you time to let the truce run out, and annex france before game end?
D: russians with berets are amazing! duh
To answer OP....NO!
Because the only thing Russia (Muscovy) needs is a nerf. I'm so tired of seing static Russia with the same outcome over and over and over again.
Because the only thing Russia (Muscovy) needs is a nerf. I'm so tired of seing static Russia with the same outcome over and over and over again.
Whats interesting is in all my games in 1.8 where i could see russia (as in where i discovered that region) they dont play exactly the same.
they dont annex/conquer all their vassals every time.
I saw a big polotks (spelling :S?) march against commonwealth other day.
You provide no consistent evidence, you use extreme estimates while lacking reasoning why you do so (backing down when you caught doing is no excuse), your lack internally consistent case (the mere point you are trying to prove is that Russia wasn't westernised by Crimean war without defining what "westernised" is and letting us discuss that), you consistently refer to Ad Hominem tactics. Providing a god-knows-what-link is not good enough to support your case. Your train of logic is nowhere near to be found, all people in the thread lost you already. "A because B because C because D and as we all agree upon A is adequately modeled by E in the game so..." Am I really so demanding? What's more to be said? No more honey for you baby, as I said ten times already. Get back to life, get well soon. That. Over. I don't have time for this accusative chit-chat and I'm not willing to continue. Cheers!
Sure mate, whatever. Hungary stronk, Hungary relevant, Hungary can into space. Oh, wait....
While discussing Napoleon, let`s not forget how many times did Russia and other coalition members lost before they finally won. Russian army performed more or less average, overall. It didn`t win any(AFAIK) large battle against French forces alone, it (arguably) lost Borodino, the only large battle of Russian invasion. And when Napoleon retreated back into Germany, everyone who fought him jumped on him as well.
Russia couldn`t finish France alone even after they managed to drive them out of their land, in fact, Napoleon managed to beat both Russian and Prussian army in 1813, but then Austria jumped on him as well, and he lost.
I seriously don`t see how one can draw any conclusion about the quality of Russian army from there. It was weaker than French one and needed serious allies to fight France, is the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from the war, but then the same conclusion is true for the rest of continental powers, so that is quite meaningless.
Russia couldn`t finish France alone even after they managed to drive them out of their land, in fact, Napoleon managed to beat both Russian and Prussian army in 1813, but then Austria jumped on him as well, and he lost.
I seriously don`t see how one can draw any conclusion about the quality of Russian army from there. It was weaker than French one and needed serious allies to fight France, is the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from the war, but then the same conclusion is true for the rest of continental powers, so that is quite meaningless.
That's true. France was an uncontested hegemon of Europe back then. Hard to argue with that. Puny "western" Austria and GB accomplished nothing against France as well. Moreover, "western" Austria could not even handle Hungarian revolt without Russian help. That doesn't mean Austria wasn't western. That does mean nothing, it's a mere history and the only thing we can debate is whether this history adequately represented in the game (in terms of overall balance and the average result of simulation by AIs). I think it is the case because Russia usually lives up to its historical borders (not conquering Poland quite often so it's need buffing not nerfing). So does France (the Big Blue Blob), so does Austria.
it was consistant though, and you ask for citation, what the hell else would be expected but links, but you turn down links, what do you want from me, to have a military hellicopter drop a crate of encyclopedias relevant to the matter on your head....
what you are trying to press into this situation's relevance limit is what i do not understand
it is either a language barrier
or your intentions are to cause misunderstanding and enjoy results of it. :|
so what did you mean with citation, and how is it
that you ignored the link that was the citation for the data, which was the first random thing on the subject i found, and i followed it up with tons of other sources that were all independant of eachother.... and you continuously ignored it...
so WHAT citation would you need?
HOW could it be MORE consistant of an argument?
how could it be ANY MORE RELEVANT
explain this to me, because as far as I can tell, you are the ONLY one backing down from anything, by IGNORING everything i have contributed and pretending i have not done any.
"random links"
what sources would not be random?
i would certainly assume an assortment of independant random links are more trustworthy than something i had predisposed and prepared for the situation, and taken the time to scour for things that may contradict my argument...
but YOU the supposed 'debate' opponent NEVER once tried to contradict any of my findings
intsead you only consistantly ignored them, and while doing so, contested their legitimacy without providing anything to back up YOUR insistance of their unreliability?
teach me what it is to be MORE relevant. because it seems to me you are the only one derailing anything. and YOU happen to be the one stepping away. :| i even tried to take it private and try to gain understanding of these facets of the conversation
you summarily ignored that too.
so i will not 'walk away' and allow you to misunderstand me and be 'ok with it' simply because you don't want to try and make anything you say validated in any way other than arrogant self-righteous preservation of ego -_-
i am getting more annoyed with you every single time you insist that the citations you asked for are illegitimate while you admitted you didnt even look at them.
there is no way this would hold up for any actual debate... .but funnily enough listing sources for information does hold up in debates, and essays, and even a thesis.
so... i am going to wait for you to either explain, or at least appropriately respond.
you can act high and mighty and pseudo-intellectual, and superior all you wish.
make make believing you have bested someone because you refused to even enter the debate, and then accusing THEM of derailing by following YOUR convoluted requests for CITATIONS is NOT proper debate lol
and i attacked your character yes, after you mocked me for something i said which was 100% historical about the serf armies of russia.
something you refused to look up, OR accept citations for AS WELL.
Neat concept, forcing yourself into ignorance and then pretending you are right by leverage of simply NOT KNOWING x-x
Are you a kind of BDSM or what? If you are getting more annoyed just stop it. I already told you ten times or more to abandon this discussion and that I am not willing to continue. I don't appreciate the way you think, the way you type (how many enters do you hit and why? are you fishing for attention), the way you present the case. I ignore you from now one. Feel free to do anything with anything whenever you want. Reserve the right to proclaim victory. Whateva.
P.S. I looked through all your links however there was no explanation of their relevance and reliability for your case. If they did your thinking for you that would be fine but they don't.
i do not WANT to proclaim victory i do not CARE about 'victory' i WANT you to understand and for ME to undestand YOU
------
and for who does the thinking for me... how does 'thinking for yourself' effect historical information..... do you mean to tell me you are using your opinions to formulate your understanding of the crimean war...? were you...there? where do you get your opinions from....
the only way to know about the past that far back is to study the records... that is what history is... how can you form understanding of something you had no experience of without using information relayed from people who did... do you hear a new word and decide what it means, or wait to learn what other people think it means in order to communicate with them using the word in a way which it will be universally understood....
