Not really an AAR

[unmerged(372)]

I've been reading these forums for a while and wish I could get 10 months of playing time on EU, but I guess us illiterate Americans are going to have to wait a while for this one...

There really should be some kind of stronger anti-hegemony bias added to the AI. Essentially there really was no mass empire-grabbing in Europe during this period. The only big empires emerged after the industrial revolution. You simply needed an industrial war-machine to conquer that much land (and keep it). Even Napoleon had a state that was an industrial or proto-industrial power.

Wasn't it something about the prevalence of feudalism around 1492-1792 that made it almost impossible to keep a large empire together? This was kind of before nationalism and the nation-state emerged for real and the barons and dukes and such did not have any true allegiance to their regents. The only real empires that emerged were those in the New World, Africa (which was mostly colonized during the 'second' industrial revolution), and Asia. Those lasted up until WW2 (mostly).

Cannot EU have an added 'petty squabbling' dynamic to keep Europe from getting so polarized? Adding some hemophilitic Romanovs should help, too.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Do you mean to say that Russia of 1790 was in any means a small nation? without any large land areas???

Or that Spain controlling all of contiental america below Rio Grande and some parts above was not an empire?

 

[unmerged(330)]

Originally posted by Janbalk:
Do you mean to say that Russia of 1790 was in any means a small nation? without any large land areas???

Or that Spain controlling all of contiental america below Rio Grande and some parts above was not an empire?

Europe, not asia ,not america nor the middle east . This time in history (in christian europe) is quite uniqe , the borders where quite static wich created a competition between the states while the societies stayed relative stable during hundreds of year. Without that there would perhaps be no industrial revolution . So I think its pretty important for a game that tries to simulates this era not to become a 'djinis khan' feast. Hhhhm ...sorry ..a bit carried away there.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by netraM:
Europe, not asia ,not america nor the middle east . This time in history (in christian europe) is quite uniqe , the borders where quite static wich created a competition between the states while the societies stayed relative stable during hundreds of year. Without that there would perhaps be no industrial revolution . So I think its pretty important for a game that tries to simulates this era not to become a 'djinis khan' feast. Hhhhm ...sorry ..a bit carried away there.

I am talking European boarders for Russia. Check how they developed betwen 1492 and 1789.

As for static boarders during this period. You could also check, Poland, Prussia(or really Brandeburg), Turkey and Sweden. In Sweden case you have to check boardes during the period not just at the start and the end since they both grow and then lost most of the expansion.

Yes, we had no nation realy taking teritorial controll over all/or most of Europe but that may have been at least partly due to bad luck and not policy.

Now I will start sounding as Sapura, I think you are basing your asumption on Western Europe where the boardes if not static did not change as much as in Eastern Europe or even as in Central- and Nothern Europe



[This message has been edited by Janbalk (edited 26-10-2000).]

 

[unmerged(252)]

You guys are still arguing about this? laugh

It is funny to watch people try to justify France controlling the entire world by 1745.

 

[Johan]

Originally posted by Vurbil:
You guys are still arguing about this? laugh

It is funny to watch people try to justify France controlling the entire world by 1745.

If Karl XII also had had the opportunity to re-load a savegame, like after failed attempt to liberate Ukraine, Sweden would rule the world

/Johan

 

[Generalfeldmarschall]

lord what is going on here! i am the youngest one on this forum and you dont see me acting like a little bitch about everything... this reply was not meant to be offensive.

 

[unmerged(267)]

Originally posted by Generalfeldmarschall:
lord what is going on here! i am the youngest one on this forum and you dont see me acting like a little bitch about everything... this reply was not meant to be offensive.

how old are you?



------------------
King of the Mighty Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. decendant of the great Jagiellonian Dynasty.

 

[KRonn]

This is slightly outside of the EU timeline, but bear with me. I think this has some bearing on the current topic.

Beginning in 1206 under Genghis Khan a nation of tribal nomads embarked on a conquest that would bring under their control a huge portion of the known world. Without any established industry such as that found in Europe at a later time, using mostly cavalry armies, the Mongols conquered lands stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the present border of Poland, into the Balkans and Hungary. They ruled southward into Turkey, Syria, Persia (current Irag and Iran), Afghanistan and parts of India.

They had defeated well-organized Russian and European armies. In 1241 a powerful Polish and German army was defeated at the battle of Legnica – along the Oder River of present day Germany. This opened the way for assaults on Vienna. Only the death of the current Khan, Ogodei, the first successor of Genghis, prevented the Mongol armies from further advance into Europe.

The Mongols conquered the powerful Song (Sung) dynasty of China, one of the most advanced civilizations in the world at the time. Who knows how China would have progressed if their nation/society had not been destroyed.

The Mongols defeated Korea.
In 1274 and again in 1281they invaded Japan. Devastating storms hampered their efforts and Japanese forces defeated any troops that did land.

Mongol sea borne forces attacked Java and other areas in the South China Sea but were generally unsuccessful.

Vietnam, Burma, Ceylon and kingdoms in India became vassals of or were conquered by the Mongols. The Khmer Empire of Cambodia survived only because of the difficulties jungle terrain presented for Mongol cavalry.

By the year 1260, Kublai Khan, Genghis’ grandson, ruled a mighty empire. He had reunited a fragmented China, and began to re-establish the great society, culture, science, industry and agriculture of China. He reigned until 1294.

In order to rule the huge empire, it was split into large autonomous kingdoms ruled by separate Khans.
Mongol lands would shrink over the years, until about 1368, when Chinese peasant uprisings overthrew the Chinese Khan and formed the beginnings of the Ming dynasty.

Now, I don’t think it’s really possible for anyone to conquer the ENTIRE world, but the Mongols gained huge successes through conquest with their ‘low level tech’ cavalry armies.
I’m not going to bet that a 1600-1700’s era nation, with a lot of luck, good leadership, judicious pick of allies, the inevitable fog of war and the vagaries of history, couldn’t do at least quite a bit better than the great Khans. Such an empire would never last, of course, but it certainly has possibilities – to a point.

Anyway, if this wasn’t reality it could be my first “AAR”. Used references but my own wording - had to leave out a lot of detail of course.

 

[unmerged(175)]

Vurbil, it wasn't controlling the word. It was controlling the majority of europe and the east coast colonies.

Also, does the white lands mean?

 

[unmerged(267)]

Originally posted by KRonn:
This is slightly outside of the EU timeline, but bear with me. I think this has some bearing on the current topic.

Beginning in 1206 under Genghis Khan a nation of tribal nomads embarked on a conquest that would bring under their control a huge portion of the known world. Without any established industry such as that found in Europe at a later time, using mostly cavalry armies, the Mongols conquered lands stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the present border of Poland, into the Balkans and Hungary. They ruled southward into Turkey, Syria, Persia (current Irag and Iran), Afghanistan and parts of India.

They had defeated well-organized Russian and European armies. In 1241 a powerful Polish and German army was defeated at the battle of Legnica – along the Oder River of present day Germany. This opened the way for assaults on Vienna. Only the death of the current Khan, Ogodei, the first successor of Genghis, prevented the Mongol armies from further advance into Europe.

The Mongols conquered the powerful Song (Sung) dynasty of China, one of the most advanced civilizations in the world at the time. Who knows how China would have progressed if their nation/society had not been destroyed.

The Mongols defeated Korea.
In 1274 and again in 1281they invaded Japan. Devastating storms hampered their efforts and Japanese forces defeated any troops that did land.

Mongol sea borne forces attacked Java and other areas in the South China Sea but were generally unsuccessful.

Vietnam, Burma, Ceylon and kingdoms in India became vassals of or were conquered by the Mongols. The Khmer Empire of Cambodia survived only because of the difficulties jungle terrain presented for Mongol cavalry.

By the year 1260, Kublai Khan, Genghis’ grandson, ruled a mighty empire. He had reunited a fragmented China, and began to re-establish the great society, culture, science, industry and agriculture of China. He reigned until 1294.

In order to rule the huge empire, it was split into large autonomous kingdoms ruled by separate Khans.
Mongol lands would shrink over the years, until about 1368, when Chinese peasant uprisings overthrew the Chinese Khan and formed the beginnings of the Ming dynasty.

Now, I don’t think it’s really possible for anyone to conquer the ENTIRE world, but the Mongols gained huge successes through conquest with their ‘low level tech’ cavalry armies.
I’m not going to bet that a 1600-1700’s era nation, with a lot of luck, good leadership, judicious pick of allies, the inevitable fog of war and the vagaries of history, couldn’t do at least quite a bit better than the great Khans. Such an empire would never last, of course, but it certainly has possibilities – to a point.

Anyway, if this wasn’t reality it could be my first “AAR”. Used references but my own wording - had to leave out a lot of detail of course.

you have very good points here.
but technology wasn't everything in those times. Mongols were skilled archers, lasso-ers (is that a word?), and horse riders.
they were tought horseback riding, archery, and lasso-ing from early childhood. their , qhorses were light, quick, manueverable. hit and run missions were able to crush the advanced armies of China and mighty European nations. most european knights wore heavy armor which slowed them down, a lot. mongols used short but accurate bows. they would shoot at their enemies and run.
another tactic which they used was a simple trap with a bait. some Tatars would hide in a forested area, then as their commrades were being chased by the enemies, Tatars would come out of hiding and lasso the persuers.
but, once you think about it, lasso and short bow was a kind of technology which they used. so their technology wasn't primitive, it was different because it was developed for warfare on the steppes. besides that was before Europeans had fire weapons. none the less, they tought everyone a valuable lesson. DON'T UNDERESTIMATE PEOPLE, BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF.


------------------
King of the Mighty Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. decendant of the great Jagiellonian Dynasty.

 

[unmerged(267)]

I've noticed that the capitals weren't blue. am I to understand that capitals cannot be annexed?

------------------
King of the Mighty Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. decendant of the great Jagiellonian Dynasty.

 

[unmerged(267)]

Originally posted by APKicks:
Vurbil, it wasn't controlling the word. It was controlling the majority of europe and the east coast colonies.

Also, does the white lands mean?

well, at those times, Europe had the most powerful nations. so if a nation can conquer Europe, then I think they can conquer the primitive tribes. besides, by 'The whole world', I think he meant 'the known world'.



------------------
King of the Mighty Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. decendant of the great Jagiellonian Dynasty.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by APKicks:
Also, does the white lands mean?

This is undiscovered territory (including permanent terra incognita).

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Hetman Polski:
I've noticed that the capitals weren't blue. am I to understand that capitals cannot be annexed?

Capitals of major (read: playable) powers cannot be annexed.

 

[unmerged(372)]

Okay, now. The thing with Russia and the Balkans and the lands out to the East, I do not really consider expansion in Europe. The land that the Russians conquered to expand their empire was not really much like the rest of Europe at all. It was populated by pagan Mongols who had no knights or fortresses or advanced diplomacy or a contemporary infrastructure for the era of EU. The EU timeperiod is a little bit different from that of the rampaging Mongol Hordes (and Viking Hordes, and Hungarian Hordes and all sort of other Hordes that went around raping and pillaging and raping some more in the lands that are now Europe).

It is definately true that France could start off as a normal state in the Age of Exploration and be the ultimate superpower on the globe. However, empires do not last. Especially considering that all these people of different religions, societies and strengths would be conquered by a single distant power in a blazing feat of ass-whoopery. And, of course, France would be the same old monarchy with the same Christian-type religion and tax-the-peasants-raise-the-armies kinds of policies. How could such an empire exist for any real length of time? How would it be possible that such relentless expansion would continue unabated? If France has conquered the mother-chunk of the world in x-odd years, and population growth remains believable, would not 99.9999% of the empire's population consist of non-French people, in fact people who bitterly hate their new French overlord?

Maybe the problem is that Europa Universalis' game model is not built to handle such ponderous concepts in the first place. It is just a game about what happened (or could have happened) to the world in 1492-1792 from the viewpoint of Europe. The model is most accurate for a certain set of parameters, I am guessing. It kind of reminds me of those amazingly huge WW3 scenarios for The Operational Art of War 2. Each army has unlimited nukes, about 50,000 ICMS, 1,000,000 T-90's or M1A2's, 50,000,000 infantry...Things will obviously not work out, since TOAW2 is a game about operational combat, not global war. And maybe EU is not really a game about total world domination never yet seen on this earth.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by driedcow:
Okay, now. The thing with Russia and the Balkans and the lands out to the East, I do not really consider expansion in Europe. The land that the Russians conquered to expand their empire was not really much like the rest of Europe at all. It was populated by pagan Mongols who had no knights or fortresses or advanced diplomacy or a contemporary infrastructure for the era of EU. ...

Russia conquerd/partitonated Poland during this time. Sapura do you have a comment

I am running for cover.

 

[unmerged(13)]

Yes I do.
---
'Russia conquerd/partitonated Poland during this time. Sapura do you have a comment '

---
Firstly, it wasn't just Russia but Austria and Prussia as well.

Secondly, they didn't 'conqueor' her, Poland was a Russian puppet since 1717, and virtually had no standing army since the Great Northern War. It was in a state of almost complete anarchy after Sobieski died in the late 17th century.

Thirdly, the revolts / battles that _did_ occur were fought mostly by Polish peasants (mostly armed with scythes) against regular, veteran Russian armies. Outnumbered, outgunned, against one of the finest armies of the 18th / 19th centuries, it's difficult to put up resistance. Especially with no decent standing army.


An amusing thought. The Russians finally managed to do so easily what they couldnt for over 700+ years and they did it not through a successful war, but mostly through legislation in the sejm forcing the senators to agree to the partitions.


Sapura

 

[Generalfeldmarschall]

Originally posted by Hetman Polski:

Originally posted by Generalfeldmarschall:
lord what is going on here! i am the youngest one on this forum and you dont see me acting like a little bitch about everything... this reply was not meant to be offensive.

how old are you?

a year younger then you friend!!!!!!

 

[unmerged(164)]

I am not sure if anyone suggested this but it seems like it would be easy to do, programing wise.

1. Cap the tech progress so it can never be more than 2 steps over the least developed of you techs. Sure you have Austria buying naval Tech but it keeps tech development under control.

expample: Austrian Naval Tech is 1 then Austrian Land Tech could be no greater than 3.