Machiavelli II: The Rebirth

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Barnius

• Russia made the largest progress. So, my assessment stays: east is way to peaceful comparing to the west. How opportunistic and peaceful you have to be to build 7 new manufactories in 17 years, while the rest of the world is at war?

It helps that two of them are from events. Let me tell you a secret, Barnius. Portugal, with approximately twice the disposable income of Russia, could easily have built up as many (and more!) manufactories over the years of peace if

1. You didn't try to minimize inflation
2. You didn't spend your monthly income in becoming an incredibly high-tech economic nation: 23/29/9/5

From 1669-1680 (before the war), a period of merely 11 years, given how many you had before, you could have built approximately 14 extra manufactories by coining money, gaining an extra 11% inflation. You chose to invest in tech instead (your tech in 1669 was 22/28/8/5, in 1680 23/28/9/5), which is fine: Your choice.

But do not moan that other nations are too peaceful and that it is proved because they choose to invest their money differently from you. That argument is really too weak.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Mulliman
Aw come on Barnius! OE is far from the richest nation! This is bollocks!!

Not really, it is a casualty of two things:

• Barnius' figures are inflation adjusted (which provides the best model of relative power)
• In 1687 substantial parts of France, Spain, and the Netherlands is undergoing looting as a result of war, which means a very considerable decline in monthly income. As such, 1687 is useless to show the true strength of these warfaring nations. A 1680/1687 comparison showing just the warfaring nations to indicate the loss of income during wars makes sense. A 1669/1687 comparison, however, is mostly bollocks

As a prime example of it, check Spain's census taxes. 160d? Yeah, right. When the looting stops it will skyrocket to near its former glory, even with the loss of two provinces to Venice. (Was 403d in 1669)

Even so, I am pretty confident that even when the world is at peace, the Ottomans will be the richest power when the figures are inflation-adjusted - and tech-investment is counted as equivalent with money. With 8/8 economic techs, you are not that far behind Portugal (you have the third best trading efficiency in the world at 101%, your production is merely 77%), and your taxes and production base income are much, much, higher. Barnius is not cheating on that part.

EDIT: Not, of course, that Barnius would ever cheat with respect to posted information, mind you. Any wrong conclusions drawn by the reading of his often slanted presentation of materials is purely the fault of the reader, not Barnius. Any belief that Barnius' conclusions following each economic chart installment are an accurate description of reality shows a lack of critical faculty on the part of the reader, not deceitfulness on Barnius' part: He is merely trying to teach the reader how to notice loop-holes, for the edification of all. Any wrongly coloured provinces in PTC maps are caused by accidental flood-fills, not wilful deception.

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Slargos
See, there is little here implying that I cannot under any circumstances take this to the colonies.

Especially given that Barnius answer to my suggestion that this war be kept in europe was "We will see". Not really an agreement rather than a "Oh, if I don't change my mind, maybe.."

See you in Brazil, Barns.

Moving the war to colonies now is kind of...wrong
It was agreed between FRA+SPA and HOL+allies that is's European war.

Sure, France can now assault all of Portuguese Africa, as Spain can Brasil. But that leads us again to total war concept we tried to avoid.

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
It helps that two of them are from events. Let me tell you a secret, Barnius. Portugal, with approximately twice the disposable income of Russia, could easily have built up as many (and more!) manufactories over the years of peace if

1. You didn't try to minimize inflation
2. You didn't spend your monthly income in becoming an incredibly high-tech economic nation: 29/30/9/9

From 1669-1680 (before the war), a period of merely 11 years, given how many you had before, you could have built approximately 14 extra manufactories by coining money, gaining an extra 11% inflation. You chose to invest in tech instead (your tech in 1669 was 24/29/8/8, in 1680 27/29/9/9), which is fine: Your choice.

But do not moan that other nations are too peaceful and that it is proved because they choose to invest their money differently from you. That argument is really too weak.

As I said, it was your choice. And I didn't say it but I do believe Russia played a role in the last war, if not in the field of battle than on the green diplomatic table.
But I still can't not to notice that strong powers are looking mainly their own interests, while weak are left at mercy of their enemies.

 

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Barnius
Moving the war to colonies now is kind of...wrong
It was agreed between FRA+SPA and HOL+allies that is's European war.

Sure, France can now assault all of Portuguese Africa, as Spain can Brasil. But that leads us again to total war concept we tried to avoid.

France has no intention of taking it to the colonies - sure I have over 100k in North America that could at any time have swept aside English colonies and knocked them out of the war with ease (which in a standard power game I'd have done), but England wasn't mine or Spain's target and eveyone was content to keep it to Europe - same for Danish and Portuguese possessions where similar forces were (and still are) ready in Africa. France takes her colonial defense forces seriously! - Austria should be thankful that such a large part of our support limit has to go to maintaining credible forces in the colonies .

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Barnius

But I still can't not to notice that strong powers are looking mainly their own interests, while weak are left at mercy of their enemies.

And this violates your notions of reality exactly how?

I don't remember many cases of strong powers aiding and defending weak powers unless it was in their own best (perceived) interest, really.

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Barnius is not cheating on that part.

I suppose you have some examples in which parts barnius IS cheating

I can only repeat: to my best knowledge statistics that I post (income and battle losses so far) are correct. Mistakes are possible, but are only mistakes and nothing more.

Conclusions you can draw for yourself

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Barnius
I suppose you have some examples in which parts barnius IS cheating

I can only repeat: to my best knowledge statistics that I post (income and battle losses so far) are correct. Mistakes are possible, but are only mistakes and nothing more.

Conclusions you can draw for yourself

You are right, Barnius

As a result, I have edited my original post to clearly show that I do not believe you to be cheating.

 

[ForzaA]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
27/29/9/9

hmmm.. for some reason my save file shows 23/29/9/5 (1688)

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by ForzaA
hmmm.. for some reason my save file shows 23/29/9/5 (1688)

...which is correct. Portugal intended to build some manufactories, but we didn't have time to do it. And a lot of money went to our allies.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by ForzaA
hmmm.. for some reason my save file shows 23/29/9/5 (1688)

You are, of course, right.

For some strange reason I was thinking of Barnius as the Netherlands when I dug up the tech numbers. :rofl:

I have now amended the post with the Portuguese tech levels

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
And this violates your notions of reality exactly how?

I don't remember many cases of strong powers aiding and defending weak powers unless it was in their own best (perceived) interest, really.

Except that you are FAR better in managing your country than any monarch of that time was.

You know what I am talking about. I will again use my own countriy as the example, which could be than interpreted as a propaganda, but I can't do anythng against that.

Portugal made France sort of enemy when prevented FRA-SPA alliance around 1650. Because we saw it as a great threat to our independence.

And with joining English alliance in the last war Portugal again tryed to do something for the benefit of the balance of power. The result will probably be very bad for Portugal, but at least we tryed.

And all that wars cost our economy a lot. I am definitelly not doing the best what could be done with Portugal. While some other countries are just looking thir own interests and maximising income/gains/1820 victory score or whatever.

 

[Wyvern]

For once I think the propaganda is coming from Peter and not Barnius .

How many player wars has Russia actually been involved in?

Same question for the OE?

Facts speak for themselves imo....

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen

EDIT: Not, of course, that Barnius would ever cheat with respect to posted information, mind you. Any wrong conclusions drawn by the reading of his often slanted presentation of materials is purely the fault of the reader, not Barnius. Any belief that Barnius' conclusions following each economic chart installment are an accurate description of reality shows a lack of critical faculty on the part of the reader, not deceitfulness on Barnius' part: He is merely trying to teach the reader how to notice loop-holes, for the edification of all. Any wrongly coloured provinces in PTC maps are caused by accidental flood-fills, not wilful deception.

Well, now you are naturally exaggerating . Everything can be regarded as "information". I strictly mentioned income and military losses data. Not comments. Not maps.

And even maps were always correct, except in this one example, but that was explained in the AAR.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Wyvern

How many player wars has Russia actually been involved in?

Three, all vs. Sweden.

But the real question is, given the diplomatic situation, how many should Russia have been involved in? It is all well and good to advocate that Russia attacks its neighbours, but NONE of you have answered my question from a page or two back why Russia should attack any specific neighbour.

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
You are, of course, right.

For some strange reason I was thinking of Barnius as the Netherlands when I dug up the tech numbers. :rofl:

I have now amended the post with the Portuguese tech levels

You are forgiven, because even I often think I am Netherlands

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Wyvern
For once I think the propaganda is coming from Peter and not Barnius .

How many player wars has Russia actually been involved in?

Same question for the OE?

Facts speak for themselves imo....

EXACTLY! Thanks for mentioning it. When I read Russian and OE posts I always notice this, but later when I respond on them I forget to mention it. Those two "powers" are chosing their opponents so carefully that it would be funny if it wasn't sad
NO RISK AT ALL. That's Russian and OE strategy and tactics and day-to-day routine.

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Three, all vs. Sweden.

But the real question is, given the diplomatic situation, how many should Russia have been involved in? It is all well and good to advocate that Russia attacks its neighbours, but NONE of you have answered my question from a page or two back why Russia should attack any specific neighbour.

Because Russia is big and strong and mean? It was your choice to become this sort of Russia. I much more prefered Russia under Ivan The "Benevolent"

Anyone can think of any RP excuse, and you, who invented RP style of playing EU2 can do whatever you wish, I am sure.

Rught, there are some secret agreements between Russia and OE, with the goal them to be tech monsters in 100 years and divide the whole Europe between them. That's OK. But why did you than stay neutral when Venice was fighting France and Spain? And don't give me the "good in game relations" excuse. It's cheep. Just sitting up there strong and untouchable and collecting the money from everyone else for...what?

Give us some action on the east. Destroy a few manufactories, spend some money...Yes, I repeat, I am jealous And tempted to give Spain what she wants and retreat to isolation and make money for the rest of the game and do nothing else. Certainly not such stupid moves like that one in the last war.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

How many player wars has OE actually been involved in?

5, having fought Hungary, Poland, Austria, Spain, Venice, Brandenburg (yeah!) and France, so dont come bitchin!!!

 

[unmerged(10915)]

And come on, theres always a hotspot and a nothotspot in eu2 games. Remember Mach 1 when all the eastern nations were bugging the west to go to war? There was at LEAST one war per session over there back then....