Raaage!
- Thread starter AlHasanAlbaghdadi
- Start date
-
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.
At a minimum, yes. But according to the save-file he was 81 when he died, which I refuse to believe. Unless the heir for a regency can have a son... at seven years old? Nope. Bad monarchs live forever. They don't actually die, they retire.
It is possible, but unlikely, to have an heir older than the monarch. Think of the heir as the monarch's uncle or cousin. The issue, of course, being that the uncle isn't retired when your monarch has children. The drawback of the fairly simplistic dynastic system in EU 3.
Just another day in the life of Pommerania.
EDIT: And for the record, yes, I HAD a leader... I just wasn't aware how completely incompetent he would be when Sweden used a time machine to teleport Robert E. Lee to their front lines.
This post went unappriciated. It is really awesome. I congratulate you Comradebot.
Thanks. I stumbled across this thread just recently (as I just started playing EU:3 recently) and figured this was a moment worth sharing.
For the record, Pommerania eventually had her revenge. I would push a crappy Alliance CB on Sweden while they were busy elsewhere and put them in their place... freed Finland and made them my (crappy) ally, and a few decades after they'd given up their dreams of conquering me, Sweden is now a lesser member in a PU with us. Still, losing this single battle was one of the most frustrating moments I've ever experience in a game. They had to cross a river and walk up a mountain to face technological equals who had more than thrice their numbers... :-/
This is why i would like see the dynasties... but propably then EU3 would be too good for my PC...
Well possibly super leader + super luck. Such battles just happen...
Hey guys, i'm back.. kind of
:blink:
........
:blink:
........
lolol that is seriously the worst. What I'd love is to see him besiege a settlement on his lonesome. "BREACH IN THE WALLS! RUSH OUR ONE GUY THROUGH!"
:rofl: Thats the funniest thing i've seen for a long time. :rofl:
Well said*snif **nasal inhalation*** well said *snif **nasal inhalation***
No, it's a peace offer I gave to Manchu in my latest game. I played as France and invaded Manchu with help from Korea. After 95% blockade, their armies smashed and all provinceses occupied, I sent them a peace offer (actually a peace offer better than they expected), but they refused and started losing stability. I tried to change it, but they kept refusing until they had -3 stability and rebels popping up over they whole country. They agreed after 8 tries, but this time with 65% war score :glare:
Don't you hate it when you blanket siege an entire nation and suddenly eight massive rebellions occur, wiping our your tiny siege forces? I might think that the rebels were some kind of freedom fighters, but even when the war ends they keep fighting the nation of origin. I lose at least three regiments to rebels in every notable conflict. A few too many wars have been decided by rebels in such a scenario.
i experienced my first cascading alliances today haha. I was playing England, and im some how allied with france, and i got an alliance cassus bellis against Scotland and ceased the oppertunity to go to war without loosing stability. over the war more and more countries joined the opposition with more peacing out on myside. in the end it was just me and france against, Castille, Scotland, Ulster, Leinster, Munster, Aragon, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Milan, Naples, Milan etc. i was like oh hell no so restarted haha :rofl:
huh, such war would be easily winnable.
EDIT: Even if france would be destroyed in the process... you got biggest fleet as england, so it should not be problem to deter any invasions...