How do you play?

[Merrick Chance']

I was wondering, how do you guys play your games of EU3?

Because I tried the whole 'set easy, but long term goals for yourself' idea, I decided to play as Tuscany and make Italy, but by 1540, Italy was made, it was both the HRE (and, since I did a bit of cheating to spread the HRE to all of the countries in Europe, I doubt that they'll ever stop being HRE unless I change them to a republic), it had all of Egypt and most of the Carribean in its hands, and was on its way to colonizing India.

So I decided to play as England in the same game and try to continue it this way, this time with England colonizing S.A. and trying to become G.B.

Has anyone played like this? I imagine that I could do this, 1 country per century, until I reach the end of the game, though the AI has taken to colonizing on their own, they have a tendency to not declare war on NA or CA minors, which means that I'll be able to play as a country that hasn't been all they can be, and pick up the slack, as it were.

Though it'll be hard if I'm not playing as GB, because nearly all of Europe has blobbified. D=

 

[Wizzington]

My favorite kind of game is picking some poor 1-province nation like Leinster or Navarra and just trying to survive. WC doesn't interest me at all and colonization is pretty boring (albeit very profitable, so I still do it). The only problem with this is that a couple hundred years in, I've always progressed from dirt poor one province to superpower and the game gets dull.

Other than that, HRE Emperor or HRE Elector with Magna Mundi is always a lot of fun.

 

[unmerged(65202)]

someone did an ARR about switching countries every 10 years as the game progressed

i forgot how it turned out

 

[grievous5226]

My game for the week was to create Germany. Became a hyper power and it just gets boring....

 

[Nilmerf]

I have an intense fascination with breaking up the inevitable blobs into small vassalised countries. Then we all join together and beat on the Ottomans.

 

[unmerged(84859)]

I usually play with minors or medium powers in the HRE or Italy. Usually I end up being one of the blobs, between the Ottomans and France. And too chicken to attack either of them.

I prefer a mixed game. Some periods of war, some extended periods of peace, in which I trade and colonise.

 

[unmerged(80814)]

I play realistically. If, as example I play as Sweden I'll expand my borders to what they had historically, then stop. If I feel like increasing my power I'll just vassalize and never diplo-annex.

Also when I'm colonizing, I'll only colonize to where historically that nation colonized. If they didn't, then I don't.

If they AI is colonizing stuff it didn't however, then I go into the realm of plausibility. So if Portugal is colonizing Northern America then I'll colonize the Carribean (As G.Britain).

 

[kierun]

I set myself goals and try to get them done. Most games, I tend to end mid 17th or early 19th century as my nation tends to dominates around those times.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

I set myself a long-term goal, and work towards that. In my current game, started as Aragon, my goal was that of the dream Manfred inherited from the Stupor Mundi: a Mediterrenean empire. It's currently 1608 and I've formed Spain (took a number of wars to whittle down Castille to the point I could force vassalize them), have vassalized ~2/3 of northern Italy, conquered most of North Africa, Judea and points south, and close to half of Anatolia. I have a colonial holding around Manhattan, own Cuba and Jamaica, and control most of Venezuela and Brazil. Most of that I took solely to bring down Castille. My biggest challenge has been my two wars (so far) against QK, would-be Persia. They're big and I only had a few provinces nearby with no cores; they're the only time I've hired mercs.

-Pat

 

[fuzzbug]

a little bit this, a liitle bit that

I was wondering, how do you guys play your games of EU3?

I decided to play as Tuscany and make Italy, but by 1540, Italy was made...

So I decided to play as England in the same game...

This is how I play all the time. I never play one country all the way though (except when I am testing a mod). Typically I might have two main overall aims plus minor "corrective play". For example, during one game I might:
- play Muskovy off and on trying to form Russia
- play the Timurids off and on trying to create the Mughal empire
- in between take over a wide variety of countries with very limited goals e.g. (a) I might notice that one country is one province away from being able to form a new country (such as Holland) so I take over, create the conditions for Holland to form and then leave it alone. (b) I might notice that England is doing nothing about Brittany or France conquering Ireland (yes, yes, yes, I know, EU3 is supposed to be unhistoric but this sort of thing is not simply "unhistoric" it is ABSURD - no real country would ever stand aside while a rival country put it in such a strategically vulnerable position as England would have been if it had allowed a rival to conquer Ireland).

Because the EU3 AI is IMHO rubbish, for me this is the only way to play that does not make me really cross.

 

[spl]

Besides testing to figure out why the hell my little events/mod for NA is ditching rulers while reloading saves.......I like to........Release countries at the start or pick a small one and role play with it!

I have to ones that I am actually using actively now
1.Netherlands-Controls all of my region, slowly annexing Cherokee/Creek, and colonizing parts of North America and the West Indies while fighting France occasionally...(About 1540)
2.Papal State- Rule all of Italy except for 1 province vassals Tuscany and Sicily, have southeast coast of US, northern Brazil, and Indies, just took the Ottomans on and was able to re-take Rhodes after losing a war where I tried to defend the Knights. (About 1560)

 

[Bad Nerd]

Other than the geography and the troops available, I find that most games turn out reasonably similarly.

It goes:
1) Survive
2) Build Up
3) Expand
4) Domminate

Depending on which nation I choose, I may be starting out at point 2 or 3 and/or it'll take longer to move through the list. And I suppose that #4 can be either literal or relative.

I *COULD* increase dificulty further, or choose a country that is even more of an under-dog, forcing a full game of teetering around point 1 and occasionally 2. But I don't think I would enjoy that in the long run.

-And ofcourse, as a Danish player, I have an ongoing game attempting complete world domination by the Danish crown. But that's mostly because of my personal nationalistic affiliations.

 

[Xam Enyap]

I dont play it at all coz the game is absurd and ahistorical rubbish IMHO.
Thought I could die to get some of those features in EU II

 

[unmerged(75884)]

i agree to Wiz in everything he says. If you're new start with a minor. Althugh I started as Leinster and ended up as the biggest empire on earth. Try not to expand to much then the game gets to easy.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

If you're a fairly experienced player, can you still have a challeging campaign as a strong power like England or Austria if you set all of the various Napoleon's Ambition pre-game options to their most difficult settings and play on "very hard" difficulty? -and perhaps start a few decades after 1453, so that some of your main competition has already formed (like Spain or Russia)? I purchased Napoleon's Ambition a while ago, but I haven't had a chance to play until now. I'm trying to decide how I should set the pre-game options and which country to choose. Ideally, I'd like a challeging game which takes me late into the campaign (early 19th century) as either England or Austria.

Thanks in advance

 

[StephenT]

I'm currently playing as England (well, Great Britain now), it's about 1760, and things are still challenging.

Of course, the definition of "challenging" changes when you're so powerful... my current objective, for example, is to conquer India. And meanwhile, I've been fighting a war with Portugal, Castille, Aragon, Poland, Lithuania and Sweden simultaneously, and my objective there was simply "come out of the war with more provinces than I went in with." My other objective is "end the game with my technology level in each category in the top half dozen nations in the world", which is immensely challenging in NA.

Oh, and I also decided to spice things up by converting to Protestantism, which is fun when you've already got 200 or so provinces.

 

[unmerged(83622)]

I generally play as Sweden, since it is my home-country and all. Not for patriotic reasons, mind you, but since it is the country which history I know the most about.

Then my games tend to proceed as some minor role-playing/story-telling with me muttering narrative phrases... In fact, nowadays I have a problem playing EUIII or CK without writing something about it, I get bored too quickly.

 

[unmerged(86922)]

I play like Napoleon(though I dont have Napoleons ambition). I conquer whole area's such as Italy and conquer all the small states there and then form Italy as a satelite nation.

 

[unmerged(78999)]

I don't make goals. I go with the flow, trying to play the game as a ruler would have had to play it. Of course, there are exceptions, like when I was Utrecht which became the Netherlands which became the Papal State, and that game is all about the blobbifying of four or five nations.

Need a challenging goal. There is a thread somewhere with challenges for one player games. It's jolly good fun.

 

[spl]

I dont play it at all coz the game is absurd and ahistorical

That is the point. They said this would not be a game where everything must go like history.