Military & Naval tech start outs at 1492 for various countries

[unmerged(13)]

There are more stats than this and various values and rules apply and are fairly complex some of them but this gives you a a general view. I've picked countries at random, some are playable (i.e. major powers in gc), others are not.


Remember this is at the start of 1492.

Poland, land 2 / naval 1
England land 1 / naval 1
France land 1 / naval 1
Portugal 1 / naval 2
Muscovy 1 / naval 0
Spain 2 / naval 2
Turkey 3 / naval 2
Sweden 0 / naval 0
Persia 2 / naval 2
Prussia 2 / naval 2
Teutonic K. 2 / naval 2
Hansa 2 / naval 3
Kurland 2 / naval 2
Scotland 1 / naval 2
Japan 4 / naval 1

(note Japan has a higher land tech to keep itself free from China in the early stages of the game ..)

Going by these stats (and others, + experience from the game), Poland, Spain, France, Turkey are the major land based powers at the start of the game. They have an advantage, though France might be at 1, they have many resources and a plethora of good generals.

Navy wise, Portugal, Spain and Turkey have the upper hand, (may have the same stat, but have more ships and better Admirals.)


Sapura

------------------
'Kill first, calculate later'

Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, Polish-Lithuanian Hetman

 

[unmerged(312)]

Thx Sapura!

It seems I will have to reconsider my plans for Sweden.... 0/0, the worst backwater in the whole world Lot of money on techimprovement will be needed here I suppose... How does Sweden generally manage itself in GC?

/Janus

 

[unmerged(13)]

Janus,

the stats for Sweden maybe improved for the Scandinavian version of the game since Sweden will be playable there. In this version its not as default. The low stats also reflect the military power of that area during that time. Sweden is much more potent from 1550-> onwards.

Sweden manages itself very well in the GC. There are many wars against the Danes and the Muscovites / Russians. Not as much warfare against Poland as one might expect. Usually Denmark and Russia ally together against Sweden, which is in an alliance with Poland and warfare breaks out everywhere. At other times the Hansa, Teutonic Knights, Muscovites, Denmark alliance vs. Sweden and/or Poland.

Sapura

------------------
'Kill first, calculate later'

Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, Polish-Lithuanian Hetman

 

[unmerged(312)]

Yes, I suppose that in 1492 Sweden wasn´t much of a military power. After all, the danish controlled Sweden as late as 1520...

What I wonder now is if not all versions of the game (Scandinavian, German and so on) will be the same? It feels wrong that it would be easier to win with Sweden in 'our' version just becourse we live here. I wish it to be as historically accurate as possible and I hope Paradox understands that it should be that way (don´t think any other swedes wants 'phony wins' either). Can you shed some light on these issues Sapura?

And thanks for putting upp with all these questions

/Janus

 

[unmerged(13)]

..and that my dear Vurbil is to protect the Scots against the English. The English and the French will pass Scottish strength within several years whilst the Scottish tech continues to roll on slowly. Again I'm not giving you the full stats, and information so please treat this as more general.


Needless to say the Scots don't even have a navy or a very small one, whilst the English / French already have huge starting out navies. Do you see where I'm going with this? You always see things in black and white..

Sapura

 

[unmerged(13)]

Janus,

Well I dunno if it'll be improved, but if it will be it'll be because of two reasons:


a) thems' dah perks.

b) if Sweden is a 'major power' i.e. playable in the GC it has to have more balanced starting out stats with other countries. <- Something Vurbil doesn't understand is : gamebalance. Oh well.

Sapura

 

[unmerged(252)]

Well, I understand that the game as to be balanced to some degree, but I thought the main focus was historical accuracy. You can only have so much balance because in history things are very unbalanced. Scotland is a minor nation so I'm not sure why it would need to be balanced with, say, France, who in 1492 was on the verge of being by far the most powerful nation on the continent. Or with England who later on in the GC becomes the most powerful nation in the world. Especially in an area like naval tech. To my knowledge the Scots never even had something that could rightly be called a navy. And also, how does naval tech save them from England when they share a land border?

 

[unmerged(13)]

Well, I understand that the game as to be balanced to some degree, but I thought the main focus was historical accuracy

It always is, but what restricts total accuracy is the game engine. Whether its EU or any other there are always boundaries, do you understand ?

so I'm not sure why it would need to be balanced with, say, France, who in 1492 was on the verge of being by far the most powerful nation on the continent

That is purely your opinion, other people have different opinions.


Or with England who later on in the GC becomes the most powerful nation in the world. Especially in an area like naval tech.

later, yes about 200+ years later. Even Matthew Walhead, the guy that built England said himself that England was a backwater for much of the period of the game. He has more knowledge of the area, is a beta tester, knows much about history so his comments should be better regarded than yours, mine or anyone elses on the team.


To my knowledge the Scots never even had something that could rightly be called a navy. And also, how does naval tech save them from England when they share a land border?


That does not mean that naval battles cannot take place. Scotland is already in a weak position at the start of the campaign. One thing you're forgetting, you can edit the stats of the game however you see fit. You can give France super stats, if you believe (rightly or wrongly, and wrongly in my opinion) that she was by far the most powerful nation in Europe. You have your opinions, I have mine and so has the beta team. The combined knowledge of the team in military history is by far superior to any one person's (including your own) and it seems they made the decision to give France the stats that she has at the start of the game.

Sapura

 

[unmerged(252)]

Well, some things are opinion and some things are historical fact. France was the most powerful nation of continental Europe from about 1600 until probably 1871 (with the formation of the German Empire). Although the French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars left France greatly weakened both physically and diplomatically, I still think they were considered the most powerful, and the policies of many nations were still motivated by fear of France.

Here is a quote from a source I have:

'In international politics on the continent, the most significant development of the early stages of the modern era was the appearance of allied coalitions, designed to challenge and counter-balance the power of aggressive nations. The first of these alliances, formed by the British, Dutch, and Swedes in 1668, was aimed at France, which had become, under the absolute rule of Louis XIV, the strongest nation in Europe. A series of wars ensued, each followed by a stronger alliance against France. Louis XIV's ambitions to attain mastery of Europe were finally crushed in the War of the Spanish Succession...'

Okay, first of all, it took England, Netherlands, and Sweden to counter France. Then in subsequent wars the alliance needed to be strengthened to match France. Also, it clearly states France was the most powerful, even to the point of saying France was seeking total mastery of Europe. The French were finally defeated by a coalition of almost all of Europe, with the French having only declining Spain as an ally.

Of course I don't base my opinion solely on this source, but simply present it as a small example. I, too, was a History Major at University, so although there are areas in which you clearly are more knowledgeable than I, I don't think everything I say should be dismissed offhand. France's land power was overwhelming for much of the period that this game covers.

And lest you think I am somehow pro-French, quite the opposite. I am actually of British descent and in general an Anglophile.

Last point. Yes, in 1492 England wasn't nearly the power it would later become, but still, compared to Scotland? Just look at the population difference.

[This message has been edited by Vurbil (edited 11-10-2000).]

 

[unmerged(13)]

was aimed at France, which had become, under the absolute rule of Louis XIV, the strongest nation in Europe


OK and I'll give you a dozen sources saying something different. Each person has his bias and his thoughts on the matter. One source doesn't qualify it as correct. Maybe this may have been so in Western Europe, but not in eastern Europe. Historians usually can't discern the two, having little or no information on the other area of Europe they make generalised statements. .e.g another misguided view that western European armies were superior to eastern armies. A myth destroyed by Norman Davis in 'Europe'.


The French were finally defeated by a coalition of almost all of Europe, with the French having only declining Spain as an ally.


Polish power was reduced by a coalition of: Sweden, Prussia (traitors who switched sides 3x), Muscovy, Transylvania, the Tartars and help from rebelling Cossacks in 1648-1660. It is exactly the same sort of thing you are describing with France. The only difference is, France recovered from it, Poland did too but only for a time (until the early 1700's)

Having read many history books on both the west and the east I've come to the conclusion that both France, Poland and Spain were the main land based powers of Europe in the 16th and early 17th centuries. Later as French power grew, Polish and Spanish inevitably dropped off, due to various internal problems. Until you are proficient with the history of eastern Europe (not just Poland, but Hungary, Bohemia, Muscovy (not RUSSIA), the Baltic States and _then_ say France was 'this or that', I'll respect your views. From what I've seen and heard you have not read much about this area of Europe, most 'Anglophiles' don't, and that included Matthew Walhead. He slowly came to the realisation that not EVERTHING was centered around France, England and Spain. There is a whole other world out there, Vurbil, but if you dont have the inclination to study it.. whats the point of this discussion?

Last point. Yes, in 1492 England wasn't nearly the power it would later become, but still, compared to Scotland? Just look at the population difference.


Why are you arguing with me on this point? I agree with you that England was much more superior to Scotland, by far. I did not edit England nor Scotland, ask Paradox and ask the other beta testers. I've answered you and I think that it works fairly and justly, considering the game (every game) has boundaries.

A balance has to be created between historical accuracy and maintaing an equality in the game at the very start, otherwise we'd have Poland annexing Muscovy, Denmark annexing Sweden, France staging invasions of England from the very start and so on..


Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 11-10-2000).]

 

[unmerged(172)]

I can see both points to this conversation. Yes Scotland should not have a navy to speak of (yet they did manage some colonialism of their own you know-and with it destroyed all hope of eventual independance), and Engalnd did have a reasonable sized navy at the start of the period in question (1492?) and would eventually usurp the other 'world powers'. BUT.... Then again playing a country such as Engalnd in Imperialism was generally BORING due to their inherent strengths. For gameplay purposes I can understand (and agree with) why they (the developers) should try and give England a more challenging game. It is after all a rather large for a historical strategy game.

Storm.

[This message has been edited by Balders (edited 11-10-2000).]

 

[unmerged(172)]

Bloody hell I'm a sergeant. At last. It's taken nearly a year!

Storm.

 

[unmerged(328)]

Just out of curiosity, did any nations at this time have real standing navies? Were any ships built solely for naval duty? Due to my mid-atlantic point of view, the first such ships that I can recall were the ones built by Henry VIII of England.

 

[unmerged(262)]

I support Sapura in this question.

When I first visited Poland, I went to a museum. There I saw something that really shocked me. There was a map of Europe of that period: Poland was the greatest country in the continent. I had never repaired in that. I didn't even know that the Swedes invaded Poland, that there were wars with the Teutonic Order and so on. I really didn't know so much about Polish history, indeed.

And that for an european country. Just imagine all the history of China. Europe is a PENINSULA of Asia. We were fighting with stakes when they have already discovered powder. We are very etnocentric, I dare to say.

/Laruku

 

[unmerged(172)]

The first standing navy was set up by King Alfred d.899 to try to defend Britons against the Vikings (I learnt this from a recent BBC documentary). A bit before this time [of the game], and not esp relevent I admit. But you may be interested.

Storm.

 

[unmerged(206)]

Originally posted by Balders:
The first standing navy was set up by King Alfred d.899 to try to defend Britons against the Vikings

Slight correction. Alfred's navy was built to protect the *English* from the Vikings. The Britons at that time (ie. the Welsh) were, more often than not, allied with the Vikings.

Luke

 

[Mariani]

Kind, sweet, gentle Mr. Sapura...um...er...I was wondering...could ya...um... :shuffles feet:

could y'post the starting tech stats fer Venice, and any other small italian/german states?

:bows at his aussie feet:

------------------
'A set of local sovereign states can be no more than a transitory political configuration.'- Toynbee

 

[unmerged(13)]

Laruku,

Thanks for your support Much of the fact that were egocentric is the fact that 'eastern Europe' was under the might of foreign powers for the last 200+ years. Historically, France, England, Russia are the countries that 'made it' and managed to survive, despite having their own problems. I do find the fact that many 'Anglophiles' simply don't know or don't care about other countries histories but that of western Europe. Eastern Europeans on the other hand have no qualms about learning Western European history, in fact its bombareded at them in tv, books, everywhere in fact. Can you say the same for eastern Europe, and even Asia? For God's sakes even China and Japan are even more widely known about historically than eastern Europe.


Mariani,

I'll give you the stats, very soon, old chap


Sapura

------------------
'Kill first, calculate later'

Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, Polish-Lithuanian Hetman

 

[unmerged(90)]

Purely empirical constatation :
After playing extensively, I can say that all countries can succeed as well as fail in EU. There is no predetermination that Poland or France or whoever will survive/die...

Poland is strong, Poland can survice and expand or get crushed by a swarm of ennemies.
France has strengths that can make her a formidable power from 1600 but it is not written in the bible.
Etc, etc, etc.

 

[Doomdark]

Ok, here's my view on the starting tech stats...

They look ok on the surface - Sweden was a backwater vassal of Denmark after all - but when you start to compare the values you get the feeling that something is dreadfully wrong.

Russia should not have higher land tech than Sweden. That is absurd. Furthermore, Poland should not have higher naval tech than Sweden. The Teutonic Knights have naval tech 2 compared to Sweden's 0? Insane. Scotland has much better stats than Sweden here. I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Balance issues? Why should Sweden have worse tech levels than all of its neighbors? That is both unbalanced and inaccurate.

/Doomie