Elizabeth I finished her rule over England in glory. All Caribbean posessions are English (well, all five of them). Trading income is almost doubled, and English income is finally larger than Spanish. It was really a time, we are already in 1604 
-
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.
HolisticGod said:
Why is Portugal, Spanish vassal and ally, not included in Spanish colonial wars? It is as Damo said: the important thing is to keep it in one not too large area.
And face it, to win a colonial war you need a navy. If not control over seas than at least a chance to move armies with ships.
If you have a problem with your navy being too big, Barnius,we could have a shoot-out in the med before my galleys get too outdated and all my great admirals die. At least I'd get some VP's and the naval balance in the colonies would be more even afterwards hopefully? What'ya say?
Heh.
If HG stays as Spain,
If Slargos still hosts,
If someone else still does the edits,
If Barnius still does his neat graphs,
If we all pitch in to help find subs,
Then I will take on the burden of making the unpopular decision making.
From the frying pan into the fire!
If HG stays as Spain,
If Slargos still hosts,
If someone else still does the edits,
If Barnius still does his neat graphs,
If we all pitch in to help find subs,
Then I will take on the burden of making the unpopular decision making.
From the frying pan into the fire!
juv95hrn said:If you have a problem with your navy being too big, Barnius,we could have a shoot-out in the med before my galleys get too outdated and all my great admirals die. At least I'd get some VP's and the naval balance in the colonies would be more even afterwards hopefully? What'ya say?
What is there for England to gain?
EDIT: I know! Genoa is still embargoing England, a mistake she fails to realise...
Last edited:
Aha, so I'm sure you're going to remove your conquistador from Russian Siberia and edit away that illegal map knowledge gained then?Damocles said:
Tut tut! 
Finally 90 ducats income, Indonesia as well as Australia is for the most part secured. A small network of naval bases are established. And with some more ports I can finally reach a naval supply limit that is above 80 ships.
All in all it is looking a bit better, but I doubt I can catch up with Barnius´ England, he knows how to play a colonial power, too.
All in all it is looking a bit better, but I doubt I can catch up with Barnius´ England, he knows how to play a colonial power, too.
TheArchduke said:Finally 90 ducats income, Indonesia as well as Australia is for the most part secured. A small network of naval bases are established. And with some more ports I can finally reach a naval supply limit that is above 80 ships.
All in all it is looking a bit better, but I doubt I can catch up with Barnius´ England, he knows how to play a colonial power, too.
Well, I try, but surprisingly, it looks like evenin colonies one has to fight with land navies
.I really don't know what is those Spaniards are eating or drinking or smoking, but their morale is just incredible
. England fears for the future: no more Spanish islands to conquer (not that even that was easy!) and a land border in North America - a thing we very much wanted to avoid .English naval support limit is about 250, English navy has 140 warships, English naval technology is the best in the world (17) and English admirals are the best in the world (well, ammong the best most of the time anyway).
England is a bit confussed, however, with the Stadtholder's choice of words
. "Secured" you say? HOW can TPs and undevelopped colonies be described as secured?
Damocles said:
I didn't notice HG saying he is quitting Spain. Hopefully he is not, although England will probably be sorry because of all that teasing on the account of Spain
. And I will have to start learning something about land combat, I am affraid. It was parhetic to see all the trouble I had in Cuba Total 50.000 troops shipped there against probably half as many Spaniards Let alone Spanish blitzkrieg in Northern America... Well, at least I remembered to use winter... But still army is for me that number showing how many solders there is. Cavalry in swamps or mountains? I don't know the difference...untill my superior leader and larger army is defeated Ah, so much to learn... Is there some thread about land combat? I wish the game have autolandcombat instead of automerchants
But seriously, I really would like to see a war for Dutch independence. I mean, that's why we did all those edits for Holland. And afterall, it was the rule.
I certainly never voted for that rule, it is hitting me so hard in france. I fail to see the reasoning I why england and france allied can't fight spain, to keep their possesions in NA. The rule is way to big a advantage for spain in its current form.Wyvern said:We tried one-on-one colonial wars in MachII for a single session. It was a complete travesty. Whyever have you introduced it again in MachIII??
What we need to do is make sure the war is limited to a certain area, such as NA, and then who ever is allied can fight there.
HG, I don't like the way you have been dismissing my thoughts on this, I want a discussion on it, you take my criticism as whining, but I think its very relevant to the game. I did it after last session where you dismissed it as settled and wouldn't even talk about changing the 1on1 rule you made ingame, and now I doing it again. Since I feel the general opinion is we need it modified.
Now regarding combat, It still seems odd that I losing against spanish troops, with all my advantages. All combats have been very random, But late session my war luck was changing, I am beginning to win some encounters in NA, as I am soon tech 18, and a new leader spawned in NA, after henry was killed in combat.
Barnius said:England is a bit confussed, however, with the Stadtholder's choice of words
Secured from foreign colonization. Militarily this another issue, but I only had 15 years and 2 settlers by year to establish myself..
devil said:
Realistically, Spain is not that much stronger if France and England would be allowed to fully cooperate in America. But nobody ever said Spain can't invite her allies, and than suddenly it's much harder for England to control the seas...
Barnius said:Ah, so much to learn... Is there some thread about land combat?
I wish the game have autolandcombat instead of automerchants
I just played a couple of ours with the new patch and after that experience i can say that the only thing you have to care about in land combat is superior morale.
With the new system for battles it is almost impossible to win a land battle if you start the battle with a lower morale than your enemy.
I do not know what was the reason to change the system for land battles but i can not say that this was astep forward!
Barns,
I very much agree with you.
Kalpeti,
It is sad but true, morale means the world right now
I very much agree with you.
Kalpeti,
It is sad but true, morale means the world right now
devil said:Kalpeti,
It is sad but true, morale means the world right now
What's up with this then?
I lost 19/20 battles with henry leading them, I am 9 qual, low serf, 9 land, 8
off. doc. So I am very pusseled I never seen so weird combats before
spanish morale and leaders are sadly better than mineFAL said:
I had some good fights with HG though, battle raged back and forth, at one point i had control of 5 spanish prov, but now he controls 3 of mine
Last edited:
devil said:
Doesn't matter. We agreed on the rules and everyone who plays have accepted the rules. If you wanted a rule to be different you should've spoken up BEFORE the game started, not now when it suddenly isn't convenient for you.
Slargos,Slargos said:
It was a fact I wrote, If you read all I wrote, you would know I tried to do that last week, but I was ignored and the issue was said to be settled, without no form of discussion nor answer to me and barnius' posts. Combined with HG being gone for a week, we had no means to change the 1on1 rule, that is not even on the rule page. Hence I am now trying to change it again this week, this is no outburst just because the rules don't fit me, its because its ruining ingame dynamics. Even if I was poland, who has no interrest at all in colonial war rules, I would be discussing this rule. You simply can't dismiss people with one sentence and then be gone for a week. While continuing to destroy ingame dynamics with 1on1 colonial wars, where the small can't help eachother. From what I head the majority believes the rules has to be changed. I only said I fail to see how this rule was even accepted, since Wyvern told wrote this was tried in mach2, then removed asap. And I said we need to take a discussion about this.
Last edited:
I support the thought of a civilized and polite dicussion of rules between sessions. If a majority feels that a rule needs to be reomved, created or changed it should be, if there is no clear majority the GM should decide, if there is only a few in favour of a change the rules should stay as they are.
All new rules should be added to the rules post in the beginning of this thread by the GM. I tried to give my, very limited, view of colonial warfare. I'm not a colonial power, I have no experience with the new patch in the colonies so I have a hard time telling what would be the best way of dealing with the issue.
I do think that Devil and Barnius presents an argument convincing enough to be wortwhile of a discussion and even if my voice should not count the most in this issue I have stated before that I lack convincing arguments to understand why two allied powers couldnt co-operate in the limited colonial war area chosen for the colonial war?
I won't start a discussion about gameyness but using someone elses territory to explore in peacetime against that powers will should be disallowed.
All in all I think the campaign is doing good at the moment especially compared to the first weeks when there was a total flame war here and everyone, including myself, felt a strong urge to quit. Keep up the good work and the nice spirit and we might have a good campaign after all.
All new rules should be added to the rules post in the beginning of this thread by the GM. I tried to give my, very limited, view of colonial warfare. I'm not a colonial power, I have no experience with the new patch in the colonies so I have a hard time telling what would be the best way of dealing with the issue.
I do think that Devil and Barnius presents an argument convincing enough to be wortwhile of a discussion and even if my voice should not count the most in this issue I have stated before that I lack convincing arguments to understand why two allied powers couldnt co-operate in the limited colonial war area chosen for the colonial war?
I won't start a discussion about gameyness but using someone elses territory to explore in peacetime against that powers will should be disallowed.
All in all I think the campaign is doing good at the moment especially compared to the first weeks when there was a total flame war here and everyone, including myself, felt a strong urge to quit. Keep up the good work and the nice spirit and we might have a good campaign after all.
devil said:
Last week was not before the game.
That was before the SESSION.
We made a draft of the rules before the GAME and everyone agreed that they were good.