England did surrender unconditionally to Italy earlier when no one where going to come for his help and he where going to lose his main land.
-
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.
England did surrender unconditionally to Italy earlier when no one where going to come for his help and he where going to lose his main land.
Yes, you can end it without war.
The glory in EU3 multiplayer is in Europe. There are some campaigns that could get interesting in other areas, but in this one it was very quiet outside of Europe, except race for China/India.
Brandenburg starts in a terrible position. It has second worst starting sliders in Europe (only Milan has worse), starts in a PU and most neighbours either wants it dead or relatively weak. One diplomatic blunder can get it crippled or annexed.
So the usual plan is to get out of PU in the first year, complete mission on Pommerania, vassal minors that join in the war and wait for 50 legitimacy to start forcing personal unions. This usually takes 5-10 years before BB can start rolling in Germany. Which means that in that time a good Austrian player can claim most of HRE around Brandenburg (or simply annex it).
Here is my previous Brandenburg game in which Austria and Poland were not nearly as skilled as Rayzee. Austrian player was not fast enough with HRE minors which gave me opportunity to take it for myself. So as Brandenburg, you can go crazy in Germany only if other players allow you or they are not that good. This map was from 1492.
Rayzee is a tough player so I had two options, seek help from France or Ottomans before game start or make a deal with him. There was no interest from those two, so I made a deal in which he got good chunks of HRE. Of course, Rayzee claimed our agreed border in those opening years as expected. That 200 year German alliance in which we bled together against France was a result of it, because I have been extremly weak for most of the game.
The only easy expansion in this game was Scandinavia. That is where I actually got my power. Even though I had the poorest land in Europe, it was still good enough for conscription centers.
Prussian military reforms were definately game changing because combined with CC's from Scandinavia, Prussia had finally become a great power. It was stronger then Austria for the first time in the game, so the German alliance ended and with it the game.
Eh, "never ending alliance". I think I told everyone that I've talked about it, that I'd take 1v1 with Austria. But there was almost no chance of it because of the alliance with Italy and Russia.
So I fought Austria/Italy last session. I also didn't wait for France, even though I knew France was joining soon because that would mean Russia would dow me and it would become silly. So I peaced Austria/Italy. Russia then dowed me anyway to retaliate against France?
Then Austria and Italy became Russian vassals and Russia invaded Ottomans. So I basically wasn't able to expand anymore unless I invaded Russia. I could wait for them to murder Ottomans then come for me again. Or I could build some troops (invaded with only 600k and 150k manpower reserves) and drive through Russia and try to help Ottomans in Caucasus where it looked like we could win.
In short, me and France never fought together in the last session. So much of this "alliance of doom".
And Pewt says othervise, from our game chat.
Pewt said:
When you lost to Austria, Pewt did come to save the day in last session also.
I didn't lose to Austria, I lost to Austria/Italy. It was basically 1v2, because Ottomans got wiped in the first months, then Italy moved forces north. So I was forced to move back to the border. If I would want for Pewt to save the day, I would just sit there one more year, defending against their attacks. Instead I attacked and then surrendered to them before France dowed.
Thank you Pewt. I've read lot's and lot's of AAR's, but this is the only one I've ever found worthy of a comment. Thank you for, as a previous commenter said, a gameplay focused, no
bullshit AAR. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this. I hope to read your future AAR's, if you do more.
bullshit AAR. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this. I hope to read your future AAR's, if you do more.
I never said that it would never end.
I said that I didn't feel comfortable NAPing Italy/Austria (so that they could kill Prussia) only a few years after our previous NAP had expired and Prussia had switched sides.
I also said that I had no control over what OE wanted to do, because I didn't. Prussia and I were only allied to OE in a de facto sense; we had no choice, since he was going to join any wars against Austria whether he was wanted or not.
I may misremember (it was 3 months ago, after all) but I don't recall you contacting me much in the early stages of the game. In fact, I basically just remember clearing wars vs Austria with you.
Yeah; I had explicitly agreed to stay out of any wars Prussia didn't want me in. For example, I offered to rejoin the war vs Austria/Italy last session when my truce expired, but he said he didn't want me to, so I waited for him to surrender.
Pilis, why do you have such a strong stake in this when you weren't even there and didn't see what happened?
It was before the game started. It went something like this: you said I should talk to Ottomans, he said I should talk to you.
Yeah, in retrospect I think I remember that now. Oops! Can't remember why I did that.It was before the game started. It went something like this: you said I should talk to Ottomans, he said I should talk to you.
Edit: Here we are. Don't remember why I did it at the time, and I suppose I paid for it:
Code:
[1/29/2013 2:45:35 PM] Hagbard: hey, when austria goes for the kill, will you help if possible?
[1/29/2013 2:45:45 PM] Sean H: "when"?
[1/29/2013 2:45:48 PM] Sean H: is it confirmed?
[1/29/2013 2:46:06 PM] Hagbard: well i dont know, but he doesnt want to make deals
[1/29/2013 2:46:13 PM] Hagbard: saying, we both want land in hre
[1/29/2013 2:46:14 PM] Sean H: have you asked histaxin?
[1/29/2013 2:46:23 PM] Hagbard: not yet
[1/29/2013 2:46:45 PM] Sean H: after all, you dying doesn't really make austria stronger relative to me
[1/29/2013 2:46:50 PM] Sean H: so preferably ask him for help
[1/29/2013 2:46:55 PM] Sean H: since it's much more in his interest than mine to care
[1/29/2013 2:51:08 PM] Sean H: back
[1/29/2013 2:51:16 PM] Sean H: but yeah, I'll consider it as the situation develops, but I'd prefer for you to ask histaxin
[1/29/2013 2:51:25 PM] Sean H: since I think he has more stake in the situation than I do
[1/29/2013 2:52:07 PM] Hagbard: ok sure, we'll see how it goes first
[1/29/2013 2:52:20 PM] Hagbard: not sure if i'll see guarantee on lux :/
Last edited:
A very clear and solid AAR, thank you very much as I have greatly enjoyed it.
Was not aware of vassalisation issues. Certainly seems like there needs to be house rules against player vassals beyond X amount of provinces.
Was not aware of vassalisation issues. Certainly seems like there needs to be house rules against player vassals beyond X amount of provinces.
Oh yes, I didn't imagine MP being that extreme. Too bad it ended in a cheesefest.
Thanks for this Pewt, this has been a thoroughly interesting AAR. I've been very impressed with the players knowledge of the game, you guys certainly know your stuff and I wouldn't have lasted the first session!
Just a few comments as the Austrian Player. I enjoyed the campaign as it was non stop action for Austria as we were always attacking someone in every session, though Austria probably would have benefited from a session of peace. My only regret as Pewt knows is that I was unable to bring France to it's knees before the Prussians sided with them. I also did a rough calculation to see the early game performances of Austria and Prussia vs France before Prussia sided with them. France took 2,170,000 losses whilst Austria and Prussia took 2,750,000 losses throughout the entire series of wars between us from 1399-1570.
The vassel thing with austria and Italy was BS. You should meke a house rule against that.
It can be abused easily and I would be inclined to agree that it would benefit campaigns if they introduced some form of limitation. Then again, I believe this campaign is the first where player vassals actually became a issue. But it isn't without drawbacks as you lose all your vassals when you surrender to vassalisation from war, which could have been used against Austria as I lost all my HRE vassals in one sweep.
No, it was before the manpower changes.
Yeah. Honestly, I didn't mind it hugely at first (while the advantage in force limit you got from italy was a bit silly, him being your vassal wasn't too inconvenient for anyone) but by the time Russia had you both vassalized it had just started getting destructive. Definitely needs to be house ruled in the future, and it's also the first time I've seen it become an issue in a campaign.
I really enjoyed this AAR so thank you for that but I find it strange that in the OP's first post he does this "and got a player to cancel all my 1399 vassals to drastically reduce my infamy and save prestige compared to manual cancellation." then ends the session due to other players abusing the vassal system.