Unconquerable Venice

[unmerged(8082)]

Venice DOWed on me (Portugal), which I was delighted to see since it had only two territories which were both CoT's, Veneto of course, as well as one in Africa. So I thought it would be easy to pick up the one in Africa, and perhaps Veneto next time I got a CB on them. Well, that was not to be. Sieging Veneto was easy enough, but I saw that the one in Africa had been occupied by a neighboring pagan country that Veneto was at war with, so it could not be captured. So despite the fact that Venice was totally impotent (both territories occupied and no armies, and I believe no fleets either), I could get nothing except for a few ducats in a piece deal. Now, it is about 100 years later, and the situation is the same. That one African territory is still occupied and Venice does not seem to make peace with them, which makes them unconquerable I guess. I suppose I could DoW both countries simultaneously...is that the only way to break the logjam?

Thanks

 

[unmerged(49083)]

Declare war on the African country to get the land back. Then you can get that little territory and perhaps vassalise venice?

 

[unmerged(8082)]

Don't I basically need to be at war with both countries simultaneously in order to take a province that belongs to one country but is accupied by another? That makes it virtually impossible for me this game since I am operating under a "house rule" that I only DoW with a CB.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

Don't I basically need to be at war with both countries simultaneously in order to take a province that belongs to one country but is accupied by another? That makes it virtually impossible for me this game since I am operating under a "house rule" that I only DoW with a CB.

Hmmm... I, personally, would break this rule as unwanted stall wars is just to ugly. It would also be possible to get Military Access through Venice and DoW those freaks.

 

[unmerged(40258)]

send them (the african country) a loan.
and you will get your CB.

 

[SeedSnatcher]

They're Pagans, you're Catholic, that seems like a valid enough reason, yes?

 

[unmerged(49083)]

DoW the pagan nation (no side effects) and annex it in one go (the only side effect being a negative relation with all the pagan world.

 

[Duke of Wellington]

DoW the pagan nation (no side effects)

Theres still the loss of stability for no CB.

 

[SeedSnatcher]

That is true, while I usually dismiss the -2 stab hit (Pagans give you cities, especially helpful with inland provinces, as you can't make colonies there unless a city borders them), you might not want it sometimes. As Fnuco said, you can try sending them a loan, but the AI tends to be stubborn about loans.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

You can also try to get them (the pagans) into an alliance... then you could dow some nation they don't know about and when they break the alliance (they will, bcs they won't know about that nation) you'll have your CB. Just don't forget about it 'cause it won't last for ever. Btw, are they Xhosa?

 

[Duke of Wellington]

You can also try to get them (the pagans) into an alliance... then you could dow some nation they don't know about and when they break the alliance (they will, bcs they won't know about that nation) you'll have your CB. Just don't forget about it 'cause it won't last for ever. Btw, are they Xhosa?

To get them into an alliance you will probably need to border a common enemy of theirs, i.e. both share one neighbour.

 

[unmerged(50629)]

Don't I basically need to be at war with both countries simultaneously in order to take a province that belongs to one country but is accupied by another? That makes it virtually impossible for me this game since I am operating under a "house rule" that I only DoW with a CB.

The game engine can not properly model this situation, so you would be justified in saving, loading as the pagan nation, get some peace deal, save, and reload as Portugal. After 100 years, Ventians would likely come to have accepted The rule of their Iberian Overlords (Nationalism is gone after 30).

 

[unmerged(45766)]

The game engine can not properly model this situation, so you would be justified in saving, loading as the pagan nation, get some peace deal, save, and reload as Portugal. After 100 years, Ventians would likely come to have accepted The rule of their Iberian Overlords (Nationalism is gone after 30).

I say : as long as the other country is a pagan, just DoW them, CB or not. And take the stabhit, you should have the guts to survive.

 

[unmerged(8082)]

I say : as long as the other country is a pagan, just DoW them, CB or not. And take the stabhit, you should have the guts to survive.

Thanks everyone for all these suggestions. The -2 stab hit is not completely trivial...even with the slider all the way to restoring stability, that takes about 6 years for me in this game, given my horrific BB

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Thanks everyone for all these suggestions. The -2 stab hit is not completely trivial...even with the slider all the way to restoring stability, that takes about 6 years for me in this game, given my horrific BB

Two mistakes here : investing money in stability, and too-high a BB.

BB should get above 10-15 only when planning a WC, otherwise the effects on diplomacy and stability are too harsh.

And you should only rely on FAAs to increase your stability. Save the money for the other techs or for investments, unless you're in a WC.

 

[unmerged(24512)]

Investing money in stability is a mistake? What if he doesnt have FAAs, and his country is of such a size that the monarch bonus is useless?

Why would he build FAAs anyway, except maybe one in his capital? Why not build other manufactories and invest in stability when needed?

 

[unmerged(45766)]

1) because he should have built FAAs, so the question of not having FAAs doesn't need an answer
2) because overall it's more effective to build FAAs, stability-wise. You shouldn't build only FAAs, you should build every sort of manus, including a fair share of FAAs.

FAA's not only invest 5d/month apiece in stability, but they also reduce stabcosts by 1% (cap at 50%). So, you get automatic investments and you have to invest less to get a level-up.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

One fix for this situation would be this: pull your troops out of Venice and wait for a revolt to occur there. As soon as it does, sign a peace with Venice at any price - give them a load of money if you must. The revolters against you will stay on and bring down the Venetian government, allowing the African pagans to turbo-annex the other province. Wait 5 years, then declare war again and force annex Venice.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

2) because overall it's more effective to build FAAs, stability-wise. You shouldn't build only FAAs, you should build every sort of manus, including a fair share of FAAs.

FAA's not only invest 5d/month apiece in stability, but they also reduce stabcosts by 1% (cap at 50%). So, you get automatic investments and you have to invest less to get a level-up.

I'm sorry this argument won't fly. You can't build as many manu's as you want - the price escalates quite quickly. Every FAA you build is a refinery you will not be able to build at a similar price.

At some point no manufactory is worth it. Perhaps this is when they start costing 5,000 d each, perhaps 10,000, perhaps 2,000. But no matter what at some price they aren't worth it. And the price is driven by the number of manufactories built, so each refinery you build jacks up the cost of fine arts academies and vice versa.

So in arguing that he should have lots of FAAs you're arguing that the FAA is more valuable than a refinery. And whether that's true depends on how much time you spend at +3 stability. At +3 the 5d per month from the FAA is completely wasted.

Now it is true that when you are investing all of your money in stability the 1% reduction in cost of the stability point by 1% is more valuable than a 1% increase in trade income (well technically 1% of base, so maybe more like 1.5% to 2% depending on your trade efficiency). But, broadly speaking, if the proportion of all of your revenue from trade is the same as the proportion of that revenue that is typically spent on stability (including research from the refinery and stab from the FAA), then the two are a wash.

If all of your income came from trade, then a 1% increase in trade income (which means you'd have trade efficiency of 100%) would have exactly the same value as a 1% reduction in stbaility costs when you are investing everything in stability. If 1/3 of your income comes from trade, then a 1% increase in income is just as good as a 1% drop in stbaility costs if about 1/3 of your income goes into stability.

In other words, under your approach, I think that unless the 5d per month from the FAAs adds up to about 1/3 of your monthly income (assuming 1/3 of income from trade) you'd be much better of building refineries for the extra trade revenue, and spending that revenue on stability.

 

[unmerged(24512)]

Yep, i wasnt asking because i have no clue, i was asking because i was very surprised by your advice.

In the late game vs the AI at least, the refinery is extremely good. 1% better trade efficiency can mean a lot of money when you dominate world trade, like you should late in the game in single player.