Hello there. This is my first AAR, and I am not 100% sure how to get to the work on it, so forgive me if I make mistakes. I am also brand new to this forum, so all advice is highly appreciated.
Enough said that AAR's I've found here really inspired me to play the game once again - its main problem was that it gets ahistorical at some stage, and pointless (at least to me - history fan), and I encountered it since very first EU.
But maybe the story that comes from making AAR will keep me interested - we will see.
Sarmatism in history was sort of "sub-culture" in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in XVI-XVIII century (though in the end it degenerated to a joke of itself). Polish, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian nobles concidered themselves decendants of Sarmates - ancient tribe that was supposed to be known for bravery, horse-mastery, personal freedom, and strong heads. That was something nobility of Commonwealth related to, with freedom taking most special part. Sarmates used to say "other countries belong to their kings and dukes, but Commonwealth belongs to us", and they were by all means right at that time.
As most know, Sarmatism degenerated, and turned into narrow-mindness, which, combined with bordering three power hungry empires resulted with it disappearing from the map.
What I want to achieve is to play a game that'd be somewhat historical, and take my Commonwealth as far as I can as strong as I can (preferably to change history a bit, with it not getting wiped off the map
). At the same time I want to keep faithfull to what Commonwealth was about:
- No warmorgering, and no conquests beyond lands that were historicaly in vicinity of Commonwealth. Nobility liked to fight, but didnt like to be the agressor, unless they had "personal" grudge against someone (hi there, mr Teuton
). Many wars were lost because they simply refused to attack other country.
- Max. centralisation I have can be 0 (meaning that either its balanced or Im decentralised). Every Sarmate is his own master.
- Country shouldnt get free subjects like at all (0 is all peasants can count for). Well - there's legend of Jafet, Sem and Cham, which learly says that peasants were made by god to serve nobles.
- Aristocracy all the way (generally nobles should have upper hand in the country). Pretty much clear I believe
- Commonwealth in its golden age was tolerant, openminded, and multicultural. While Catholic faith was "first among equals", and some orders and kings tried to convert "heretics", every faith was equal to law. That means that pure-one-faith country is not my aim (I reserve right to play with missionaries a bit though - jesuites were welcome to open their schools and monasteries after all
)
- Nobles concidered trade something below their status, they had jews and foreigners to do it for them. They also didnt like to pay high taxes, and didnt pay THAT much attention to business in general = no purely economical ideas, and dreams of economical powerhouse.
- Cavalry. In Poland concidered "queen of battlefields", was main force until the end. While it might seem gamey to use it at the beggining, I am planning for it to dominate my armies for the whole duration of the game - also when its less beneficial (if I get that far).
While I want game to keep sort of historical character, I know that sole purpose of EU series is to change history. I've chosen MMP 1.5 mod, before playing it ever before, as I've heard it counters fantasy game that vanilla EU3 tend to turn into after 100-150 years. I do hope really, that combined with my home rules it will keep game challenging for as long as possible (thats another problem of the series - human player gets too powerfull too easy). Also interesting even for someone who doesnt wage offensive wars all that often (after few days of playing it I have to say that it seems like it can achieve that). And now big thing: while I know MMP is designed to be started at 1453, I decided to go from 1399. It is supposedly going to result with some odd situations, but tbh I am very curious what those can be, as long as they dont mean France ruling 80% of Europe.
So more about the game:
Im starting as Poland, with all settings except lucky nations being default (lucky nations are on random). Goal is to form Commonwealth as a land of freedom and tolerance (well... at least for nobles), and then survive with it. Ofcourse it doesnt start as the country I am aiming for, and I plan to take it there through the story (which means that different choices can appear along the way, with everything going into that direction) - it's going to be even more interesting as I dont know Magna Mundi like at all.
MAIN GOAL is to keep the story interesting - both for myself, and for those who for some reason decide to read it.
Also like I said - this is going to be a story. Not purely a history book, not pure game-story, but something in between. I like idea of using screenshots here, but two first chapters won't provide those, as I simply didnt make any, when making notes.
I'm doing it mainly for myself - to find new amusement from great game, but ofcourse I will be more than happy if others will enjoy it.
Oh yes, and two things: First is that English is not my first language, meaning that I can do funny things here and there. Other thing is that I tend to write a lot, and get lost in my walls of text :/... I hope it will be forgiven.
Enough said that AAR's I've found here really inspired me to play the game once again - its main problem was that it gets ahistorical at some stage, and pointless (at least to me - history fan), and I encountered it since very first EU.
But maybe the story that comes from making AAR will keep me interested - we will see.
Sarmatism in history was sort of "sub-culture" in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in XVI-XVIII century (though in the end it degenerated to a joke of itself). Polish, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian nobles concidered themselves decendants of Sarmates - ancient tribe that was supposed to be known for bravery, horse-mastery, personal freedom, and strong heads. That was something nobility of Commonwealth related to, with freedom taking most special part. Sarmates used to say "other countries belong to their kings and dukes, but Commonwealth belongs to us", and they were by all means right at that time.
As most know, Sarmatism degenerated, and turned into narrow-mindness, which, combined with bordering three power hungry empires resulted with it disappearing from the map.
What I want to achieve is to play a game that'd be somewhat historical, and take my Commonwealth as far as I can as strong as I can (preferably to change history a bit, with it not getting wiped off the map
- No warmorgering, and no conquests beyond lands that were historicaly in vicinity of Commonwealth. Nobility liked to fight, but didnt like to be the agressor, unless they had "personal" grudge against someone (hi there, mr Teuton
- Max. centralisation I have can be 0 (meaning that either its balanced or Im decentralised). Every Sarmate is his own master.
- Country shouldnt get free subjects like at all (0 is all peasants can count for). Well - there's legend of Jafet, Sem and Cham, which learly says that peasants were made by god to serve nobles.
- Aristocracy all the way (generally nobles should have upper hand in the country). Pretty much clear I believe
- Commonwealth in its golden age was tolerant, openminded, and multicultural. While Catholic faith was "first among equals", and some orders and kings tried to convert "heretics", every faith was equal to law. That means that pure-one-faith country is not my aim (I reserve right to play with missionaries a bit though - jesuites were welcome to open their schools and monasteries after all
- Nobles concidered trade something below their status, they had jews and foreigners to do it for them. They also didnt like to pay high taxes, and didnt pay THAT much attention to business in general = no purely economical ideas, and dreams of economical powerhouse.
- Cavalry. In Poland concidered "queen of battlefields", was main force until the end. While it might seem gamey to use it at the beggining, I am planning for it to dominate my armies for the whole duration of the game - also when its less beneficial (if I get that far).
While I want game to keep sort of historical character, I know that sole purpose of EU series is to change history. I've chosen MMP 1.5 mod, before playing it ever before, as I've heard it counters fantasy game that vanilla EU3 tend to turn into after 100-150 years. I do hope really, that combined with my home rules it will keep game challenging for as long as possible (thats another problem of the series - human player gets too powerfull too easy). Also interesting even for someone who doesnt wage offensive wars all that often (after few days of playing it I have to say that it seems like it can achieve that). And now big thing: while I know MMP is designed to be started at 1453, I decided to go from 1399. It is supposedly going to result with some odd situations, but tbh I am very curious what those can be, as long as they dont mean France ruling 80% of Europe.
So more about the game:
Im starting as Poland, with all settings except lucky nations being default (lucky nations are on random). Goal is to form Commonwealth as a land of freedom and tolerance (well... at least for nobles), and then survive with it. Ofcourse it doesnt start as the country I am aiming for, and I plan to take it there through the story (which means that different choices can appear along the way, with everything going into that direction) - it's going to be even more interesting as I dont know Magna Mundi like at all.
MAIN GOAL is to keep the story interesting - both for myself, and for those who for some reason decide to read it.
Also like I said - this is going to be a story. Not purely a history book, not pure game-story, but something in between. I like idea of using screenshots here, but two first chapters won't provide those, as I simply didnt make any, when making notes.
I'm doing it mainly for myself - to find new amusement from great game, but ofcourse I will be more than happy if others will enjoy it.
Oh yes, and two things: First is that English is not my first language, meaning that I can do funny things here and there. Other thing is that I tend to write a lot, and get lost in my walls of text :/... I hope it will be forgiven.