Do you wait for a breach before assaulting?
Also with all those rich chiese provinces shouldnt russia be unstopable
-
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.
Do you wait for a breach before assaulting?
Also with all those rich chiese provinces shouldnt russia be unstopable
As the Netherlands player I figured I would weigh in considering my name has been tossed around a few times and I might as well briefly explain last session from my point of view.
I entered the session with the thought that I would be making continual gains on the Ottomans, however, after the original perm player left, and his co-op did not man up to face the situation he was in for two weeks in a row, Elcyion decided to take control of the nation for the session. In his mind, this was probably a good meta-game move for Elcyion (meta-gaming has never been a stranger to Elcyion). This allowed him to beat the Netherlands, something luke/Histaxin probably lacked the expertise to do, and thus remove a potential enemy for Russia from the game. Elcyion and Pilis had thus resisted playing any other country besides Russia, but when it became clear that they could as a nation benefit from doing so, Elcyion couldn't have been happier to take over the Ottomans.
I am not going to pretend that I coudln't have fought the war that I did against the Ottomans better, because I definitely could have. I made mistakes, but mistakes I imagine I could have gotten away with against a lesser player. It is interesting to note that every war I "lost" in this campaign, I lost to Elcyion, regardless of the nation I lost to. After losing the 5 provinces + 3000 ducats in Asia (with Elcyion electing to cut off many more provinces, an indication he would be back for those in 5 years), and the seven provinces I had in Europe, I decided that continuing this campaign was not something I would be interested in. This decision was made not only becuase I effectively lost my entire treasury, all of my customs houses, 20% of my provinces, and 35% of my buildings in one war, but also because any comeback I might make would not be before the inevitable campaign end, considering multiplayer campaigns never make it into the end date, and the sheer magistrate value of the provinces I lost was immeasurable. Amusingly, Elcyion criticized me for resigning from the campaign, when a day before he rage quit a campaign when faced with comparatively lesser demands.
The major thing I learned from playing with this group of players is that the minor nations really have no chance to succeed. If you do not start as one of the major powers (the major players left after this session), you are not likely to find success unless other players go easy on you. This was exacerbated by the fact that as a newcomer to the group, nobody took me seriously on the diplomatic table, and would rarely help me if it meant upsetting veterans of the group. When I raised this complaint on teamspeak before I left, Pewt made a big point of reminding me that I declined a split of China that Russia proposed when they were very weak a number of sessions ago (imo, Russia did a terrible job of nation building, they have an embarrassing amount of buildings for a nation of their size, and didn't modernize until the late 1500s.), but choosing to fight that war was the right thing to do for the Netherlands. However, Prussia blindsided me and gave Russia military access through their nation, forcing me to fight a two front war taking place in the Netherlands and China without a co-op, when Russia had one. This made an already hard war near impossible, and by the time I got a co-op I had already made so many mistakes due to the fact I could not focus on the war in Europe and Asia with as much care and attention as I would have liked to.
Had I won the war, I would have been in a position to take all of China and by doing so, be an equal power to either the Ottomans or Russia, and not dependent on other nations to help me expand.
Had I taken the deal, I would have given Russia half of China for effectively doing nothing (I did all the work in actually killing China), and plenty of time for them to become westernized, modernized, and put a huge army on my borders so they could come for what they gave me at their leisure. The only way I would have been able to defend myself would have been through outside help, which I was unlikely able to garner against Russia.
Anyways, it was an interesting experience for me as the Netherlands, but I was never more than a pawn on the board of Chess that was Europe, only there to be thanked or scorned at by the kingmakers in Europe. I will say however, I was particularly surprised Pewt came for the Dutch provinces, after the understanding I thought we had reached after I helped him in first war he would have had a much harder time winning without my support hunting rebels and fighting Hansa.
I entered the session with the thought that I would be making continual gains on the Ottomans, however, after the original perm player left, and his co-op did not man up to face the situation he was in for two weeks in a row, Elcyion decided to take control of the nation for the session. In his mind, this was probably a good meta-game move for Elcyion (meta-gaming has never been a stranger to Elcyion). This allowed him to beat the Netherlands, something luke/Histaxin probably lacked the expertise to do, and thus remove a potential enemy for Russia from the game. Elcyion and Pilis had thus resisted playing any other country besides Russia, but when it became clear that they could as a nation benefit from doing so, Elcyion couldn't have been happier to take over the Ottomans.
I am not going to pretend that I coudln't have fought the war that I did against the Ottomans better, because I definitely could have. I made mistakes, but mistakes I imagine I could have gotten away with against a lesser player. It is interesting to note that every war I "lost" in this campaign, I lost to Elcyion, regardless of the nation I lost to. After losing the 5 provinces + 3000 ducats in Asia (with Elcyion electing to cut off many more provinces, an indication he would be back for those in 5 years), and the seven provinces I had in Europe, I decided that continuing this campaign was not something I would be interested in. This decision was made not only becuase I effectively lost my entire treasury, all of my customs houses, 20% of my provinces, and 35% of my buildings in one war, but also because any comeback I might make would not be before the inevitable campaign end, considering multiplayer campaigns never make it into the end date, and the sheer magistrate value of the provinces I lost was immeasurable. Amusingly, Elcyion criticized me for resigning from the campaign, when a day before he rage quit a campaign when faced with comparatively lesser demands.
The major thing I learned from playing with this group of players is that the minor nations really have no chance to succeed. If you do not start as one of the major powers (the major players left after this session), you are not likely to find success unless other players go easy on you. This was exacerbated by the fact that as a newcomer to the group, nobody took me seriously on the diplomatic table, and would rarely help me if it meant upsetting veterans of the group. When I raised this complaint on teamspeak before I left, Pewt made a big point of reminding me that I declined a split of China that Russia proposed when they were very weak a number of sessions ago (imo, Russia did a terrible job of nation building, they have an embarrassing amount of buildings for a nation of their size, and didn't modernize until the late 1500s.), but choosing to fight that war was the right thing to do for the Netherlands. However, Prussia blindsided me and gave Russia military access through their nation, forcing me to fight a two front war taking place in the Netherlands and China without a co-op, when Russia had one. This made an already hard war near impossible, and by the time I got a co-op I had already made so many mistakes due to the fact I could not focus on the war in Europe and Asia with as much care and attention as I would have liked to.
Had I won the war, I would have been in a position to take all of China and by doing so, be an equal power to either the Ottomans or Russia, and not dependent on other nations to help me expand.
Had I taken the deal, I would have given Russia half of China for effectively doing nothing (I did all the work in actually killing China), and plenty of time for them to become westernized, modernized, and put a huge army on my borders so they could come for what they gave me at their leisure. The only way I would have been able to defend myself would have been through outside help, which I was unlikely able to garner against Russia.
Anyways, it was an interesting experience for me as the Netherlands, but I was never more than a pawn on the board of Chess that was Europe, only there to be thanked or scorned at by the kingmakers in Europe. I will say however, I was particularly surprised Pewt came for the Dutch provinces, after the understanding I thought we had reached after I helped him in first war he would have had a much harder time winning without my support hunting rebels and fighting Hansa.
Last edited:
I think you'll find I was on holiday in Cornwall with nothing more than dial-up internet. I had subs for all my other games if you want to check.
First of all, my thanks to you explaining the situation, it adds to the reader's pleasure. This very satisfying text made me perfectly understand your motives. From my point of view, having played no MPs yet, I believe the 2 players vs 1 proved most fatal. I play EU 3 for around a year now and have mastered fighting the AI quite a bit, but I still can't do it without pausing. Interesting as well is the respect issue.
I pull my hat in respect to you and wish that you had and will have even more fun and fulfillment in playing.
nightraider
Pewt's first screenie is of 1417, by which time you'd already formed NED. Was that owing to good luck, ie, high DIP ruler and claims on our rivals event, or was forced forming of NED pre-agreed owing to Holland being very underpowered compared to the other human controlled nations？
Pewt's first screenie is of 1417, by which time you'd already formed NED. Was that owing to good luck, ie, high DIP ruler and claims on our rivals event, or was forced forming of NED pre-agreed owing to Holland being very underpowered compared to the other human controlled nations？
Luck. MP games generally don't involve starting edits, and holland isn't all that bad as far as MP nations go anyways.
--
I'd like to stress that Radioactive's post is his interpretation of what happened, not what happened.
Last edited:
1. Elcyion had two choises sub Ottoman or end the campaign, he choosed one. We can always discusee if he choose the right option but dont talk about meta-game move. The dealings between Russia and Ottoman where everyting we agreed to with previous ottoman player.
2. You did never even try to get any allies vs France in that war, just rolled over and die, Russia did have the ability to kill France armies but it would not have come cheap. I think its a bit diffrent about the 30 province demand Elcyion got on him the day before and the 5 you lost to Ottoman.
You really dont understand my view point about the Chinese question, the situation in this campaign where and is a bit strange.
In Western Europe we got a static/cold war between Austria Prussia vs France where neither side got the advantage.
Ottomans where isolated and where not going to intervene in Europe.
Then we got the two player killers in Italy and NL who are trying to kill/cripple as many players as they can, Italy i did trow off the British islands and you i did fight in China.
I where never going to allow a player killer conquer all of ming so i will become his next target to cripple, a noob in ming i where going to let live but a player killer there not a chance.
I did the diplo before our Chinese war, you did not. Austria, France and Ottomans did promise to stay out and Prussia did repay me for rebel controlling with ma for invasion.
Anyway you could become a major in our campaign but you did take to big grambles and where not able to pull them off with no prebaration and then complain that we where to good with co oping, meta gameing and etc. Just that Netherlands did try in two session to create a gang against me our Ottomans. In this campaign both Brandburg and Italy have become majors even if you say its impossible? (I have never played with Hagbard before this campaign)
Finnaly why should France not attack you because you did help him 200 years ago? This is multplayer priorities and allies chance all the time.
Pilis when you use the pronoun we, you clearly misunderstand me. I am not accusing you personally of anything, you're just an extremely average player who has a good co-op. I'm not mad at you or complaining, simply giving my perspective. You can spin the Elcyion co-oping Ottomans as the only way to save the campaign, but the fact is he was one of the most vocal critics of putting clonefusion into the Ottomans, a player with skill more comparable to Luke. If his only motive was saving the campaign it would have made much more sense to put a similar player in the nation, not one of the best fighters in the game.
Also, it's a game, I died and I am just pointing out what I believe the contributing factors were. If it would make you happy, I could add incompetence to the list, but I would have loved to see how "your" Russia turned out without Elcyion.
Also, it's a game, I died and I am just pointing out what I believe the contributing factors were. If it would make you happy, I could add incompetence to the list, but I would have loved to see how "your" Russia turned out without Elcyion.
wow in the last couple sessions it looks like Prussia has gained a lot of military power. Couple questions though.
Do you not find cavalry worth it at all in this stage of the game, or is the extra cost in maintaining them prohibative? Seems to me that about 6-7% cavalry in your armies vastly reduces the number of casualties you take, and France does not seem to be hurting for money at the moment. Ive run a few battles with no generals on either side, using the unit types currently available to France and Prussia, no terrain modifiers, and the current moral and discipline modifiers. 60 infantry and 4 cavalry for France has out performed 64 infantry for Prussia. Prussia has yet to lose 64 infantry vs 64 infantry. I realized this is a horridly simplistic model, but it does beg the question.
Also, and I realize this is dealing in minutia for this stage in the game, but is it really worth it to put conscription centers instead of stock exchanges on your provinces with cots. I would think with the extra money you get you would be able to more than offset the loss of .75*modifiers in force limits per territory. Or is it more manpower that you are concerned with?
Do you not find cavalry worth it at all in this stage of the game, or is the extra cost in maintaining them prohibative? Seems to me that about 6-7% cavalry in your armies vastly reduces the number of casualties you take, and France does not seem to be hurting for money at the moment. Ive run a few battles with no generals on either side, using the unit types currently available to France and Prussia, no terrain modifiers, and the current moral and discipline modifiers. 60 infantry and 4 cavalry for France has out performed 64 infantry for Prussia. Prussia has yet to lose 64 infantry vs 64 infantry. I realized this is a horridly simplistic model, but it does beg the question.
Also, and I realize this is dealing in minutia for this stage in the game, but is it really worth it to put conscription centers instead of stock exchanges on your provinces with cots. I would think with the extra money you get you would be able to more than offset the loss of .75*modifiers in force limits per territory. Or is it more manpower that you are concerned with?
That's interesting with regards to cavalry; I've never found them very useful later on in the game, but I may have to do a bit more testing if what you say is accurate.
About stock exchanges... considering the extra manpower, it's pretty break even either way, and honestly I just can't be bothered. The income difference when taking into account over-forcelimit penalties is quite trivial, but the extra provincial manpower isn't huge either.
About stock exchanges... considering the extra manpower, it's pretty break even either way, and honestly I just can't be bothered. The income difference when taking into account over-forcelimit penalties is quite trivial, but the extra provincial manpower isn't huge either.
That may depend on rolls, but cavalry has the advantage of being able to attack units farther from their position in the battle line, so they can be used in situations where you have numerical and/or morale advantage.
At this stage of the game the battle width is usually maxed out anyways though.
de10mile, when you say the cavalry are making the French army perform much better, are you talking about casualties or morale? I couldn't really care less about a slight morale advantage, but if there's a casualty advantage large enough to justify the increase in price I may have to reexamine cavalry.
de10mile, when you say the cavalry are making the French army perform much better, are you talking about casualties or morale? I couldn't really care less about a slight morale advantage, but if there's a casualty advantage large enough to justify the increase in price I may have to reexamine cavalry.
I didn't specifically test the casualty ratio, but I believe presence of some cavalry in your army gives you a combined arms bonus. Latin tech group armies get it as long as they have cavalry:infantry ratio less than 1:2.
Pewt my performance evaluation was based on the casualty ratio yes. Moral is pretty trivial at this stage in the game. I must stress though that my data is anecdotal, I haven't had time to test it more thoroughly yet.
hmm ... the ottomans lost and gained a few provinces to Austria , and you gained 3 provinces from Italy ... maybe other wars to show?
After further testing (5 runs with cav 5 without for a total of 10 runs), my sets of data show that the casualty ratio between armies is changed by about 30% by having 10% cavalry. So French casualties : Prussian casualties 10 : 9 ===> 7 : 9
However looking at individual rolls this data could be corrupted, as on average the French rolled 2 higher than the Prussian when they had cavalry in their army vs. only an average of 1 higher in the runs with no cavalry.
Still that seems like it is worthwhile to look into further.
However looking at individual rolls this data could be corrupted, as on average the French rolled 2 higher than the Prussian when they had cavalry in their army vs. only an average of 1 higher in the runs with no cavalry.
Still that seems like it is worthwhile to look into further.
Last edited:
Data with a roll difference doesn't mean anything. Might still test it later, but those numbers don't sound encouraging.
The problem with cavalry is the scaling cost off the over Forcelimit cost of having so many cav it scales quite badly at the Middle to End Game