Ah, Sapura, your AARs just keep getting better. If only there had been some screenshots to go with this one! 
Seeing Venice and Hungaria join in a Commonwealth got me thinking - what were the historical goals of Venice? Could this have happened? I find that unlikely to the point of the impossible. Venice was a purely mercantile nation that acquired and held land only for the sake of profit. It never had any imperial aspirations, but fought fiercely to protect its trade ventures.
With this in mind, I don't regard Venetian colonialism as all that far-fetched. In many ways, Venice (and Genoa) were quite similar to the Netherlands. In fact, I wonder why this never happened... Treaty of Tordesillas?
What's my point? Well, when I finally get to play this game (Christmas 2010!?), I will attempt to 'role-play' the nations to a great degree because it will give me a sense of really changing history; not breaking it.
Greven playing as the Papal State could have reasonably unified Italy and started a crusade against Islam. (Some Popes were quite militant, but their hands were often tied due to intrigue and strong foreign interests.)
Sapura as King of Poland... Well, Poland(-Lithuania) could definitely have completely annexed Russia and prevented Brandenburg-Prussia from ever ascending, creating a more deadly (and more civilized) Slavic Empire than Russia became.
England and Russia... When playing as England or Russia in EU, it is more a matter of attempting to succeed as well as they actually did than to improve on history. These two nations are the historical winners (due to luck, skill and geography; not fate), thus less interesting to play IMO.
Let's take Sweden as a more detailed example (since I know its history so well). IMO, Sweden could have gone pretty much any which way - continental imperialism, colonialism or isolationism. The way I see it, in the most positive possible scenario, Sweden could have:
1) Lastingly united Scandinavia. (Very, very nearly happened under Charles X in 1660. Did happen before in the form of the Kalmar Union.)
2) Lastingly integrated the Baltic provinces Estonia, Livonia and Courland. (Estonia and Livonia were parts of Sweden until 1721.)
2) Taken and colonized Kola, Onega and Far Karelia. (A likely outcome of the Great Northern War.)
3) Vassalized Russia and/or Poland. (This nearly happened in the 'Time of Troubles' and the 'Deluge', respectively.)
4) Founded a large and prosperous 'New Sweden' in North America. (It did happen, but the budding colony was lost to the Dutch due to half-hearted interest.)
5) Integrated and held on to parts of Northern Germany. (This did happen at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.)
Concentrating mostly on colonialism, Sweden could have colonized the entire present day Canada and parts of the northern US. This could easily have happened if the idea had ever taken root in Council. (Although the Swedish nobility tended to disdain mercantilism.)
For me, anything beyond this would feel fake and detract from the gaming pleasure. Ideally, the game environment should react against extremely aberrant behaviour.
IMO, language groups should be introduced in the game to simulate ethnic barriers beyond religion. This is something to consider for EU 2.
Heh, this got longish. Maybe I should have posted it separately...
/Doomie
[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 04-06-2000).]
Seeing Venice and Hungaria join in a Commonwealth got me thinking - what were the historical goals of Venice? Could this have happened? I find that unlikely to the point of the impossible. Venice was a purely mercantile nation that acquired and held land only for the sake of profit. It never had any imperial aspirations, but fought fiercely to protect its trade ventures.
With this in mind, I don't regard Venetian colonialism as all that far-fetched. In many ways, Venice (and Genoa) were quite similar to the Netherlands. In fact, I wonder why this never happened... Treaty of Tordesillas?
What's my point? Well, when I finally get to play this game (Christmas 2010!?), I will attempt to 'role-play' the nations to a great degree because it will give me a sense of really changing history; not breaking it.
Greven playing as the Papal State could have reasonably unified Italy and started a crusade against Islam. (Some Popes were quite militant, but their hands were often tied due to intrigue and strong foreign interests.)
Sapura as King of Poland... Well, Poland(-Lithuania) could definitely have completely annexed Russia and prevented Brandenburg-Prussia from ever ascending, creating a more deadly (and more civilized
) Slavic Empire than Russia became.England and Russia... When playing as England or Russia in EU, it is more a matter of attempting to succeed as well as they actually did than to improve on history. These two nations are the historical winners (due to luck, skill and geography; not fate
), thus less interesting to play IMO.Let's take Sweden as a more detailed example (since I know its history so well). IMO, Sweden could have gone pretty much any which way - continental imperialism, colonialism or isolationism. The way I see it, in the most positive possible scenario, Sweden could have:
1) Lastingly united Scandinavia. (Very, very nearly happened under Charles X in 1660. Did happen before in the form of the Kalmar Union.)
2) Lastingly integrated the Baltic provinces Estonia, Livonia and Courland. (Estonia and Livonia were parts of Sweden until 1721.)
2) Taken and colonized Kola, Onega and Far Karelia. (A likely outcome of the Great Northern War.)
3) Vassalized Russia and/or Poland. (This nearly happened in the 'Time of Troubles' and the 'Deluge', respectively.)
4) Founded a large and prosperous 'New Sweden' in North America. (It did happen, but the budding colony was lost to the Dutch due to half-hearted interest.)
5) Integrated and held on to parts of Northern Germany. (This did happen at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.)
Concentrating mostly on colonialism, Sweden could have colonized the entire present day Canada and parts of the northern US. This could easily have happened if the idea had ever taken root in Council. (Although the Swedish nobility tended to disdain mercantilism.)
For me, anything beyond this would feel fake and detract from the gaming pleasure. Ideally, the game environment should react against extremely aberrant behaviour.
IMO, language groups should be introduced in the game to simulate ethnic barriers beyond religion. This is something to consider for EU 2.
Heh, this got longish. Maybe I should have posted it separately...
/Doomie
[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 04-06-2000).]
