Is this a sign of being a bad player to abandon the continent as England ?

[BaronNoir]

In EUIV, England is by far the European country I play the most. I use the subtle and completely ahistorical approach of ''stealing everyone colonies using the Royal Navy''

While the HYW remains winnable (altough requiring some Iron Man luck, such as Margaret of Anjou popping quickly) I realized years ago that for all their wealth, French lands can be attacked by people when you are doing the said colonial caper, and...well..I find that making England utterly impossible to attack by European powers is '' worth'' more than France...

 

[Sfan]

To be honest, England is utterly impossible to attack by European powers if you own France, so that would just make your more powerful and it would actually be less risky after the first 10 years.
But if you don't feel like doing it, you don't have to feel ashamed or think that you are a bad player. Getting the early PU on France is not the easiest war of the game, if you have fun without it there is no reason to stick to the "optimal" play style.

 

[Pile_O_Gunz]

Holding onto the French land is abit of a pain but they are the only decent nearby competition id probably get bored without the French punching bag.

 

[Snake_Squeezins]

Another option is to release Gascony as a vassal and destroy the fort in Normandy. Then it really doesn't seriously affect a warscore or exhaustion if you get occupied. Been a while since I played as England but I recall doing that, then blockading France and dragging the war out long enough that 1-2 other majors declared war on France, which made it pretty easy to eventually swoop in and destroy them.

 

[makaramus]

I dont like to hold main land cores actually... I prefer abandon
I prefer to conquer britannia first before than all... reason behind this is I can allways get union over france anytime with quest... demand of it is you need to have more soldier and more dev than france(wich is not too hard... in worst case just cripple him then you can feed him with cores back even better just before annexing him so he can be a good boy until that

Reason? because england starting shitty Lollards? Rose war? Scotland? OH MY GOD O_O I find it more powerfull start to first conquer your main land then set union with france I can also set strong alliances with favors to aid me in that war too

 

[Sfan]

I agree with that, except that in that case you don't need to abandon mainland. You can ally Austria, France won't attack you, and you can eat up the British Isles and then turn on France without having to abandon the cores.

 

[ThatRabidPotato]

You're only really a "bad player" if you don't have a clue what you're doing. Preferring to play a certain way does not make you bad.

 

[szmik]

when I play casual colonial (ignore Europe) England->GB game I sell French provinces and watch the wars from behind the Channel

So no, it has nothing to do with how good/bad a player you are.

 

[holyvigil]

The only bad player in EU4 is one that isn't having fun. I'm not going to get angry at you for not dominating your trade node so I don't really care if you think you're bad or not. Having said that though I never surrender THYW as England. They are too bitter historical rivals for me to keep France free as England in good faith.

 

[makaramus]

I agree with that, except that in that case you don't need to abandon mainland. You can ally Austria, France won't attack you, and you can eat up the British Isles and then turn on France without having to abandon the cores.

Well I dowing scotland soon as I can AFTER they ally with france(MUST ALLY FRANCE!) , take 12 dev province from them and make them quit their alliance with france...

but before this ofcourse france conquering my provinces... I prefer to give him his cores back so I can bully scot alone and since france gonna be my in future cores I give him means nothing and this should trigger an event to gain bonus stabilty too + this will stop trust reduce between use

Ofcourse others may prefer other way too but I think this strategy is easier and better

 

[Rikissa]

Gaining an early PU over France as England makes the game incredibly boring. Not going for the PU makes for a more interesting game.

 

[Tarkilth]

Nothign "bad" about evaluationg your options and choosing the strategy you believe will be most beneficial in the long run.

My personal take? I love forcing hte union if at all possible - sometimes it's just far too much opposition if you get unlucky. Still, for me when I play I sort of roleplay a territorial ruler so I never give up land. (We will fight to the last man for every inch of our sovereign soil). A lot of times this leads to me keeping my provinces and thanks to alliance chains keepign France off my back forever, or, more often, I end up conquering France bit by bit the normal way when the situation allows for it.

I much prefer continental England to colonial england, simply because colonizing and seizing colonies abroad doesn't hold as much appeal and fun-value to me. In this case, my islands mostly simpyl act as a secure prosperous base that provides me with the gold and men I need to make my ambitions fulfilled.

 

[cristofolmc]

Basically this

Holding onto the French land is abit of a pain but they are the only decent nearby competition id probably get bored without the French punching bag.

Plus, its just not worth it. I prefer to give it up and use my money and manpower to easily win the war of the roses and further my country next getting read for overseas expansion and have a strong frence to compete with and keep the game both historical and challenging.

 

[BaronNoir]

I dominate the Channel by massing frigates (100-120 ish are enough usually)

 

[Badesumofu]

It depends, really. If you just want to play a more historical game, or have particular goals that don't involve the continent then it may well be ideal to abandon it. Maybe you just can't be bothered with it or you want to develop the heck out of your English land and make colonies.

If you were trying to play a more optimal style and you thought that abandoning the continent was the best move then I'd certainly scratch my head. That opening war is entirely winnable if you know what you are doing. On the other hand if you're trying to be optimal and playing in England/France area then starting as England was already a mistake (France is a stronger start) so it always depends on what you're saying is a deliberate restraint on yourself and what you're choosing on the basis of believing it to be optimal. If you want to conquer the world then starting as an OPM is not optimal but people do it for a challenge, for example.

 

[YuriiH]

You are bad in game if you constantly make decisions unfavourable for your gameplay style.

 

[Mantis42]

Continental wars are for continentals.

 

[CoolSpin]

Well there is always paint india GB red

 

[Sinroth]

Real players can win the hundred years war, PU Scotland, sink the Spanish armada, colonise India, and make a cup of tea before 1500

 

[makaramus]

by the way sometimes losing is a huge victory too... as example as muscovy I allways lose some land to commonwealth at start of game because I having hard time at starting then I conquer them back next war with ease (Its not so easy when you dont backstab the guy who fighting with 4 horde at the same time HUH!!!! HUH!!!!!!)