- Sep 24, 2010
The amount of Turks in the Balkans is TOO DAMN HIGH!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
Although I like to follow a form of historicity when conducting AARs and their associated play thrus per the game, convenient re-writes are always permissible. That, and I sort of integrated Hungary during the Second Italian War, and I wanted direct control over Hungary's modest size army, instead of hoping that the Hungarian AI would join me in battle, instead of sitting in the adjacent province with 12,000 or so men...Instead of the Turkish menace, the Austrians will now form an empire in fear of the French? Well-played, volksmarschall, well-played.
I really screwed myself over in the sixteenth century. I think the longest stretch of peace was between the Second and Third Italian War, on average, probably only a few years of peace before I was embroiled in another conflict. I don't think my manpower ever recovered to over 50,000 (I think I'm sitting around 90,000 in total). I'm pretty sure I took out at least a dozen loans during the Italian Wars and the aforementioned, and still to be covered, 40 Years' War. I had a huge mercenary army to offset the manpower issues, but then they just cost so much money! The joy of being Austria, and the the emperor, who was desperately making sure the prince-electors always favored me instead of a Protestant rival.Bits and pieces of the modern world begin to take shape.
Also, the scale of those wars sounds terrible.
I need more than a secret weapon. Maybe like 500,000 manpower with another 25% morale bonus to my armies and I think the BBB and I will be on level terms!Need a secret weapon :ninja:
Luckily, I only encounter the Turks once in the sixteenth century, as part of the 40 Years' War (or I'll write it up as such). The seventeenth century, already by 1601, now that's a different story about Austrians vs. Turks for the Balkans, Southern Hungary, and Transylvania...The amount of Turks in the Balkans is TOO DAMN HIGH!
I think containment is the only feasible plan. Destroying France is just unfeasible. As it stands, I'm barely able to defeat them, again, they have a +10% discipline and +0.6 morale advantage over my armies (well, +5 in discipline only because for much of the 40 years' war, I had that discipline adviser in military), and there's already an anti-French triune between Habsburg Austria and the HRE and associated allies and vassals, Burgundy, we'll revisit them later in the AAR (hint, a Habsburg is now on the throne), Spain, and England! And France is still colonizing in North America and not being punished with any loss of land. I keep checking the ledger, I get down to less than 1000 men and France still has like 30,000 men still fresh in their reserves!Francia delenda est
I know! Granted, at least there is some diplomatic game theory involved in EU4 compared to the Total War series, I own all the titles dating back to the original Shogun and Medieval, but Rome II utterly sucked, aside finished... but I've always wished for a game that had a strong diplomacy element to it. Granted, these games are all based on, let's admit it, conquest, the need for diplomacy, peace, and shifting alliances is something that makes the study of history admittedly from my perspective, far more interesting. And since I try to conduct AARs with some sense of resembling historicity, I'll be trying to recreate this. But, as you've mentioned, it can only go too far before the "Too many Great Power" allies negative kicks in. While France is rivaled with Spain, England, and me, I'm only allied with Spain (even if I have a +60 positive relationship with England). In reality, its really just me and all my vassals and allies, of which the most important is Burgundy and another nation that doesn't start in 1444, but I don't want to give the spoiler for that, fighting to contain French ambitions in the Lowlands and possibly the Rhine.Yeah...it is sad that a real diplomatic game is just impossible. Since DDRJake's Foix run and the huge malus to Great Power alliances (where the heck did that one come from?!) it is impossible to really play a game of alliances and containment. If you get more than one big ally (like I did with Muscovy and England or Austria and England), one of them is usually much weaker than normally. The need to set rivals doesn't help, either.
...Which is a real shame, looking at the history of Austria being one of the main political actors of the time and having been rescued from the Turks by big, last-minute alliances twice!
I wanted their men, their money, and to make the borders of Austria look a bit nicer than they would with just Austria or Bohemia and some German territories I decided to add for the purpose of alt history! Really, I wanted their army under my direct control of the war to help fight the French! As you'll soon find out, I was really in a dangerous predicament at the end of 1511...What does Hungary really provide in this relationship? That is to say, who is wearing the pants in the Austro-Hungarian family? (I'm tempted to say nobody)
Italy will take shape after the wars end, and the lesser states are basically easy prey to the larger Italian states. AI forming Italy is extremely unlikely, at least, I've never personally seen that happen in any of my campaigns. So for much of the EU4 time frame, yeah, Italy is pretty disjointed like it was historically.I'm so used to seeing Italy be green in HOI that seeing Italy here as a balkanized mass of colors is strange to me. Is the entire game like this?
France is, legitimately in my eyes, the only nation that the AI can be potent with and truly risks beating a human player of a moderately to powerful state, especially if one gets extremely unlucky in a string of battles in a row. Plus, I prefer to play with "historical lucky nations" on since I hope it gives the AI an added boost. Naturally, while I have no gripes stomping the AI in all my campaigns except those I'm going to do an AAR out of -- when taking a game and making an AAR, the historian inside me goes, "400 years of domination, that's just not right..."I guess their provinces are just too valuable - there is always someone bigger (and with an "Italian Ambitions" mission) after them.
I still remember a game in EU3 where I just formed Italy - and then Purple "France", my long-time (and only useful) ally, got that mission. And declared right away. I could keep them out for one war. For two wars. But I had to cancel their mission manually or they would have murdered me with their hands tied behind their backs in the next one.
And I guess this is what happens in these games, too. Get a little bit too mighty (as the AI) and everybody's grandma is after your ass.
...Which is nice for you, since you don't need to invest time and thought into Italy's well-being during your AAR.
It went extremely well for the Protestants and Calvinists, and therefore, not so well for me as the Habsburgs, leaders of the Counter Reformation, and Defenders of the Faith!How is the Reformation going? Or went?
If I didn't know any better, I would say this Machiavelli fellow is a rear end kisser.Machiavelli, the famed Renaissance political theorist, who was travelling with Duke Francesco, described the event:
“It was the most splendid sight to see. Louis was the true embodiment of the human soul, a lofty man of high aspirations and spirit that could not be tamed. He even led his army from the dangerous position at the head of his infantry columns through the small Alpine passes. Surely, this is what it must have been like to watch Hannibal cross over the Alps during his invasion of Italy a millennia and half ago. The King was such a charming, striking, and charismatic figure – far more than the beast of Satan himself, the emperor Matthew. Louis stood over the Alps like a phoenix, a sight for the world to behold in his magnificence – a splendid creature and a wonderful soul if there ever was one.”
Perhaps in the other 3 wars we are still going to fight in Italy?That sucks. Better luck next time. :laugh:
He has some very nice things to say about certain historical figures in his own writings anyway, so I'm not far off in thinking he would see the King of France, in coming to liberate the Italians from the menacing Habsburgs, as something too far fetched!If I didn't know any better, I would say this Machiavelli fellow is a rear end kisser.
Winning!Ooh! Machiavelli and Lake Constance? You do aim to please volksmarschall. What's your next moves?
It was well-played by them, and the German minors. Had they gotten any radical ideas, I would have very easily crushed them. Just because I had a few military setbacks, my army was still over 50,000 with additional reserves from vassals and allies. At this point in the game, Saxony still only had two provinces, they didn't expect until later in the sixteenth century -- and then we get into conflicts a bit later as you'll see. I may taken a severe setback in Italy if Bavaria or Saxony or Brandenburg got any ideas however, but we were still on very cordial terms -- expect Bavaria, who is a rival.Still no Saxony...well, of course, they are lacking a capable "shadow minister". Heinrich V. would have made short process with such a weakened Austria...but I guess, they won't fare well in your game. Or create a big fleet. Or kill off Bavaria.
But please: At least hone their legacy!
Francia delenda est!Big Blue Blob is out of control!
As a historian, and from my historiographical background, I try to avoid laying a single cause as the catalyst for a chain of events. There's a lot of other things going on too. The most familiar argument of the Little Ice Age and its impact on history is with Sweden's March Across the Little Belt to defeat Denmark in the Second Northern War, and how the Little Ice Age distrupted agriculture production in France, one of the major reasons for food shortages and an angry populace leading to the French Revolution. Of course, there are a multitude of other facts for each event. I greatly dislike the one-size fits all policy in any mode of thinking since it discredits other events that are going on. Weather in history is a wild card. It may have certainly influenced certain outcomes, but it remains doubtful that one should say it definitely caused a chain of events, at least under modern methodological practices of doing history. Geography may be a better alternative than pure weather, cf. Jared Diamond Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997).It seems to me as though there was a fair amount of upheaval, in both EUs timeline and our own, especially in the 15th-17th centuries (Peasant war, reformation, end of the black death, Ottoman succession war, 30 years war). I have heard several historians claim that this was caused in fact by the so-called "Little Ice Age", and was wondering your opinion on the matter. If this seems too irrelevant to the topic at hand, I apologize.