Mor Scots

[gnostica801]

In 5 years of trading wars, Scots oblige the alliance with Sweden against evil Denmark, Hamburg and Styria. But the men hardly make it back before the call comes from France vs. Spain and her recent ally Venice. This war would take place on three continents, and a 64% warscore advantage lead to an old Spanish claim of a former Burgundian province to be revoked. A sheet of paper essentially. That is the epitome of prestige! During this time, while ferrying blockades and Spanish Brazilian ground conflicts, Essex and Norfolk were added into the fold.

Powhattan, Lanape and Huron took half of New England in a surprise attack where her mother Scotland could not dispatch the necessary defenses. Instead, later they settled this score and then some on offense.

Scots Indies, and New England are colonial nations, while Quebec is critical extension of Scotland interest and remains a 4 province territory. My trade flow rounds the English Channel through the North Sea, and power is amplified at each stage. I believe having trade forwarded down from the North Sea as opposed to directly into the channel from abroad is keeping potential hostilities from France and Netherlands at bay.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Did you want to ask something, or make a point about something, because this seems to be "look at my empire" kind of thing, for which there is already a thread?

 

[gnostica801]

Yes, I'm only playing with the very earliest DLCs - WON, RSP, COP and really enjoying the experience with recent updates. I've thought about expanding another DLC, but I fear using monarch points for development in CS and the tactics in AOW are just for players wanting more action and not really having to work hard? I could be wrong, or maybe they're designed for OPM or non-west types. I don't know, maybe Cossacks, but even that feels like a bunch of mini-games to give you free stuff when you want it. Feels kinda lazy.

 

[Tom D.]

I've thought about expanding another DLC, but I fear using monarch points for development in CS and the tactics in AOW are just for players wanting more action and not really having to work hard?

As someone who loves colonising and exile runs, not being able to develop your colonies is a pain. You'll be stuck with a glorious 10 dev (at most) capital for your grand Empire that might span the whole of the Americas. You can also earn a lot of money already with manufactures and workshops but if you could develop, you're going to swim in endless money. And if it's not for the mechanic it's for the roleplaying, I mean it's quite stupid your city/village would remain the same size after 200 years when you started colonising the place.

Although certain DLCs make the game easier, I think they're fun additions to the base game.

 

[gnostica801]

Well, I try and play on principle and realism with a governed amount of fantasy. I would think most do. On CS I don't trust myself enough to not turn toward the path of darkness and shrug off a tempo changing event by tossing 10-20 development points around. Or, as what I think you might be suggesting, forgoing a technology and arms race by just blowing up everyone and planting forests of development all over the new world. "Weee!" Forgive, if I am not following the trend to play this way. I see my own inner-dialogue, "Okay, today this one gets two, and over here four, and this one... maybe one, and over here..." I can't imagine playing like this after so many hours without. It feels like some real throne room flatulence, "gimme more things so I don't have to actually apply myself, just give me buttons to push so I can have a smile time." Or "When I need more monarch points now, I am so grateful to Paradox for allowing me the goodness to turn to the Burghers for some quicky-points."

Or

"Before, I may have still had things like my honor or dilligence, but the game was so hard. I'm deeply touched the gang of devs found a way for me to be my little high-chair tyrant, toss out anything good and meaningful in my life and turn my play identity into a war mongering greed-machine. Truthfully, I'm a better person because of it."

Hopefully, I'm wrong. It just sounds awful.

 

[Tom D.]

On CS I don't trust myself enough to not turn toward the path of darkness and shrug off a tempo changing event by tossing 10-20 development points around. Or, as what I think you might be suggesting, forgoing a technology and arms race by just blowing up everyone and planting forests of development all over the new world.

If you don't want to turn a 3 dev swamp into a grand 30 dev city in one go, you can just add 1 dev per year/decade, nobody says you have to dump all your point into development too. And I definitely wouldn't forego technology for dev, although I must admit it's hard to calculate how much you can spend without getting behind on technology, although that might just be because I haven't played much since I bought the DLCs. In the end, you play the game the way you want and have most fun with it. With or without DLC .

 

[Dominion]

Yes, I'm only playing with the very earliest DLCs - WON, RSP, COP and really enjoying the experience with recent updates. I've thought about expanding another DLC, but I fear using monarch points for development in CS and the tactics in AOW are just for players wanting more action and not really having to work hard? I could be wrong, or maybe they're designed for OPM or non-west types. I don't know, maybe Cossacks, but even that feels like a bunch of mini-games to give you free stuff when you want it. Feels kinda lazy.

Art of war and Rights of Men

 

[gnostica801]

@Tom D.
I shouldn't give Common Sense so such pressure. You're right, I don't have to juice up a province, it's me I suppose, I fear going there and never coming back. There can be balance in it, and you're right, otherwise a swamp is always a swamp.
@Dominion
I like the Rights of Man suggestion with Art of War.
I'm studying up on the particulars, seems like a good combination. I'm leaning toward going in a linear direction with DLC buys. Which means Rights of Man would have to wait a while. But it's very tempting. I have over 1500 loving hours in this game without any DLC beyond 2014.

Right now, I'm wondering sometimes if I would enjoy the control more if I hadn't created the Colonial Nations. Could be there's little choice though as the AI will definitely do it. Thinking about staying small and not creating colonial nations, but having presence. Colonial militia have a tendency to not accomplish much, I almost prefer my vassals. I wonder if I could stay 4 settlements in multiple theaters and use more navy to press trade. Maybe?

 

[Tom D.]

I was quite sceptical too about DLCs, but I realised that DLCs aren't necessarily a bad thing, they offer new ways to play. I only bought my current EU4 DLCs this Summer, and I play the game since it came out. But once I got them, I realised how much I actually loved all these new stuff and how much I missed them before.

From what I know, there are quite a few issues with CN currently, from wars where you aren't called into and they subsequently failing and losing a bunch of provinces without you as the overlord having anything to say about it. If you move your capital to Thirteen Colonies region you can keep all the land for yourself and micro it more to your taste. I also do the same as you say, colonise 4 provinces in each colonial region and when I'm ready to move, move capital and start colonising the rest in the area. If you have Caribbean you can move all trade to Thirteen Colonies or even Gulf of Saint-Lawrence and keep all the money for yourself instead of letting it go to the Europeans.

If you play it right and maybe ally another coloniser you could well settle yourself in the Americas and roll in dosh when manufactures and workshops arrive. It's an enjoyable strategy IMO.

 

[gnostica801]

Yes, this happened with New England where a party of 4 native nations rose up against the CN. I wasn't called in and could only participate if I declared a separate war against the coop. I elected to see how it would turn out, not well for the colony - Massachusetts fell to the red hatchets. Later I turned it into a liberation, but I made claims on the land which later created a CB against my CN. This is strange. I'm not certain I understand the dev's intention here?

I'm glad you are responding. It's been some time since I've participated on the boards. I remember you and the AAR. I remember your proponence to vanilla. I see your points and frankly you are probably the most influential advocate to DLC now, for me at least. So thank you.

Aside from software, I'd prefer discussing some plans. Here is my thinking as Scotland (not a WC, going for top 3 finish):

Ideas (in order) - Exploration, Humanist, Quality, Trade, Aristocratic and Espionage
Ireland, Northumbria and some from Norway
Wait to reach, colonize Quebec then Mass and Curacao.
Keep Quebec 4 provinces and build them
Mass stretches to NY, build trade prior to setting CN
Same with Caribbean
If I take England, I'm forced to take Denmark if any hopes of a most expensive Printing Press
As it turned out, I swept Musica for Cartagena's port to the chagrin of Colonial Portugeuse
But prior to this I couldn't help continuing gains vs. England as Scotland's 3-4 province Colonies brought many more men to bear.
-This could be where the mistake began-
The over-reaching goal was to eventually colonize in Africa and beyond, and I don't see how the North sea could profit from it unless through Caribbean (heavy investment in West Africa transfer, which I never did)
I went down and gradually took London transferring from the North Sea to the Channel. Thought here, am I lessening tension in the Channel by rounding trade from the North Sea as opposed to directing straight in via Chesapeake and Caribbean?
Other thought, perhaps elementary, is taking England's end point of trade actually making France, Brittany and Netherlands richer? While I focus on Mercantilism and building the ashes of London, Essex, Gloucester, am I just handing those other nations a lion's share of the trade by taking England? I don't mind building myself up, but the power shift in the Channel seems like I'm actually buttering France's muffins?

 

[Tom D.]

I'm glad you are responding. It's been some time since I've participated on the boards. I remember you and the AAR. I remember your proponence to vanilla. I see your points and frankly you are probably the most influential advocate to DLC now, for me at least. So thank you.

Thanks, hope you enjoyed reading it. It's funny how I've turned from the one side to the other side, although I'm still convinced the base game is still enjoyable, every DLC you get just makes the game more fun and gives you more ways to have fun. It's great to have the game, and it's even better if you have some DLC.

The over-reaching goal was to eventually colonize in Africa and beyond, and I don't see how the North sea could profit from it unless through Caribbean (heavy investment in West Africa transfer, which I never did)

The Ivory Coast (and everything that flows into it, from the Cape to Zanzibar to basically anything that could flow into Zanzibar), has a direct transfer route to the English Channel. You could transfer the Ivory Coast ducats to the Caribbean, but if you can do it in one go I don't see why not directing straight into English Channel. Unless that would strengthen your trade power in the Caribbean if you have too few there to your liking, but that should be something you should test. It also depends how much you own in Africa, I only focused my efforts in my runs on the (Northern) Americas.

I went down and gradually took London transferring from the North Sea to the Channel. Thought here, am I lessening tension in the Channel by rounding trade from the North Sea as opposed to directing straight in via Chesapeake and Caribbean?

If I understand it right this is the same as with Ivory Coast: you can go straight from the Americas into the English Channel or first go to Gulf of Saint-Lawrence > North Sea > English Channel. For the trade of the Gulf you can only get that home via the above chain, so if you want that money in the Channel it's best to do it that way (although I can't think it's worth much). If not, I would direct straight into the English Channel. At this point though, I would be concerned about how much merchants I have to create all the chains.

Other thought, perhaps elementary, is taking England's end point of trade actually making France, Brittany and Netherlands richer? While I focus on Mercantilism and building the ashes of London, Essex, Gloucester, am I just handing those other nations a lion's share of the trade by taking England? I don't mind building myself up, but the power shift in the Channel seems like I'm actually buttering France's muffins?

Only way to find is to compare the numbers in the trade screen before taking over and after taking over. Although my guess would be no, as you just switch rulership. The only thing I think that would change for your competitors on the other side is the control of the majority of the trade share in the node. I don't think it gives them more money, in the end the most important thing is for you to grow in strenght.

 

[gnostica801]

Yes, I have an inkling trade pressures in the channel (if directly sent from WA, CAR or CPK) would increase tension. Rounding them up and over Scotland could be the difference between the French hating my guts and not. I could just be making this up (story) or lucky right now. I've seen games where French are coring Island Brittain, and those times Scots took London. Not happening here, only thought is I have trade going up instead of straight in.

For the sake of creating more control and action in the new world, I'm debating some of my decisions when first developing provinces. I picked up some of the more valuable ports and estuaries. Now I'm wondering if I can get those back under Scot control, and release colonial nations with the still good but lesser strategic property.

Thought is, how to do it? Those "CN's losing provinces from time to time" might be a good start. I'm getting the idea that my liberating Mass from the Huron overtaking should've been my saying "New England, I'll just leave you to your own losses and handle the Huron for the new Scottish port (like the original plan)."

I would have to have the CN released. Otherwise every gain would just transfer over to them. I am not sure if releasing them (trade, capital loss) and taking land previously part of their nation for the parent would be more trouble and less money or just one of the two?

New England area is about 15-20 provinces right now, I would be quite happy with 4. Caribbean has reached its full and I wouldn't mind releasing and having 3 Scots territories there. Same with Columbia, which is more of a hot zone.

 

[Tom D.]

I would have to have the CN released. Otherwise every gain would just transfer over to them. I am not sure if releasing them (trade, capital loss) and taking land previously part of their nation for the parent would be more trouble and less money or just one of the two?

That would mean that you lose your CN (and they might get declared upon by other nations before your truce runs out) and if you want it for yourself you'll only be able to only take 4 provinces, unless you move your capital OR if you are able to not core the provinces and keep the amount of cored provinces under 5. Although that would essentially mean you can't colonise more, as a colony turns automatically in a core.

 

[gnostica801]

You're right, I'm beginning to enjoy the CNs more, even if they're not as smart. But, CN rule question... I colonized St. Martin, Porto Rico, Jamaica and Curacao. Then later Maricaibo and four others heading south, this caused the first CN. But my Caribbean isles were not included? I was beginning to wonder as I had 10 or so provinces in Caribbean and no CN. Later, I took St. Kitts, St. Thomas and Antigua from England and their proximity to each other gives me another 5 and another CN in the same Caribbean. Didn't know this. Could it be that Maricaibo hit their last of 5 provinces in a different trade zone? 4 in Caribbean, 1 in Columbia, hence Scottish Columbia was default name. Scottish Indies came about after the takes from England.

 

[Tom D.]

Could it be that Maricaibo hit their last of 5 provinces in a different trade zone?

It's not trade zones but colonial regions that decides whether you form a CN when you have 5 cored provinces, there's a separate button for that at the minimap which shows the colonial regions.