Not useless at all, if your only goal is to open up your enemy's COT, 'concede defeat' is quite useful. And if you can't see the uses from being able to make the loser annul treaties with a targeted nation.... well then I can't help you.
Unrealistic conquests?
- Thread starter unmerged(150720)
- Start date
-
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.
Not useless at all, if your only goal is to open up your enemy's COT, 'concede defeat' is quite useful. And if you can't see the uses from being able to make the loser annul treaties with a targeted nation.... well then I can't help you.
I was also thinking, how exactly would Henry V expect to see any return from holdings in Portugal that didn't get lost through; defiance, corruption, theft, piracy and overheads involved with its collection? With new possessions in general, it should be a lot harder to extract wealth from them. Remove the economic reasons for silly conquests in the game and turn them into faraway burdens that are nothing but trouble and we'll have a sense of historyOh, and someone tell the AI about the new setup too...
That was the answer i was looking for!
Indeed
"Had the Plantagenets, as at one time seemed likely, succeeded in uniting all France under their government, it is probable that England would never have had an independent existence. Her princes, her lords, her prelates, would have been men differing in race and language from the artisans and the tillers of the earth. The revenues of her great proprietors would have been spent in festivities and diversions on the banks of the Seine. The noble language of Milton and Burke would have remained a rustic dialect, without a literature, a fixed grammar, or a fixed orthography, and would have been contemptuously abandoned to the use of boors. No man of English extraction would have risen to eminence, except by becoming in speech and habits a Frenchman........"
Sir Thomas Babington Macauley.
I was shocked when i saw this
Byzantium in Estonia and the West Russian coast.
Realism or not, it is very lame.
Byzantium in Estonia and the West Russian coast.
Realism or not, it is very lame.
So... you guys do not grant the AI the right to conquer some land somewhere, but when you conquer the whole world, or maybe just half of it, that is Historical Accurate, and Realistic. Come on.... realistic? Reality is not written in books or anywhere, it just happens, who can give reasons for anything? People just do whatever crossed their mind. What were the french looking in America, is so far away... they had so good wine and beautiful women at home. Oh, and what are they looking for in Russia, some vodka?
I said practical difficulties. Why should I or the computer find it easy to world conquest without political and cultural alignment to make it difficult.
The AI can't do a WC worth shit. I wish they could, but the AI is utterly incapable of holding together a semi large empire.
Other than that, Eu3 is a sandbox game. Think about that. With the tools we are given we should be allowed to do what we want and not be needlessly restricted, but and here comes the big one: If the game evolves in such a way that even though you are not at war you still have enough to do so you have to play at less than maximum speed, then you can start with restricting warfare and subsequent conquest. I'll be damned before I play a game that in the name of realism forces me to spend 90% of my time watching as times flies by at 5* speed, because "in real life" you can't conquer more than 1 province every decade.
Just saying that since there is nigh to NO active player involved peaceful internal development possible in Eu3, what else is there to do but to go for a WC?
Easy? I am playing a Transylvania, started 3 weeks ago, and I can barely survive. My economy is crap, I have huge rebellions every 4 months, I have lost 2 wars to Austria, and I reloaded, because they are particularly fond of me, and I cannnot fight them in any way, so Austria next to me, and France a little far, and Sweden
)) bigger than both. It is hard as hell. I do not understand why you call this game easy. I conquered land, and the land came with rebels . Lots of rebels. Conquests are not easy. Are you saying that the AI expands too fast? In my games, only Austria and France are very big, but the other nations play some waltz, they grow and fall one at a time. In this game Poland fell and rose again 3 times. But if you say it is easy, well, please play Moldova. And tell me how you survive, I could not. I am playing on Very easy., but it ain't. Actually, I find the game too hard, and too restrictive. And, talking about history issues, Transylvania maybe is Hungarian, thanks to the better Hungarian propaganda, but in definitely not catholic. That is not historical
)) 10% catholic, 90% orthodox. Nowadays I think there are more protestants than catholics here, but in the Middle Age the majority was orthodox, except for the Hungarians, of course, who were actually more calvin and protestant than catholic, in Transylvania.
Last edited:
Easy? I am playing a Transylvania, started 3 weeks ago, and I can barely survive. My economy is crap, I have huge rebellions every 4 months, I have lost 2 wars to Austria, and I reloaded, because they are particularly fond of me, and I cannnot fight them in any way, so Austria next to me, and France a little far, and Sweden
I am playing on Very easy., but it ain't. Actually, I find the game too hard, and too restrictive.
You think it's hard because:
1. You have choosen a difficult nation.
2. You are (probably) playing the same way as the computer does. And the computer is quite bad at playing as have been stated a couple of times. If you practice with some easier nations and experiment with different tactics you will learn the finer details about the game and learn that conquering doesn't have to mean constant rebellions.
EDIT: But if you want better and more detailed help, start your own thread and take some screenshots and show us how your game is and we could help you a lot more..
"Historically" speaking, this game is 110% incorrect.
Spain had trouble just holding on to Aragon, Portugal and the Netherlands.
They still have trouble today holding on to the basque country and catalunya just like England had trouble with Ireland and does anyone remember the IRA 15 years ago?
England holding territory outside of France is incorrect. Actually, most countries holding territory very much outside of their immediate cultural borders (countries create the kingdom, kingdoms dont create the country, except for Spain and England IRL) But this is a game.
I would think the Normans themselves would be a great example of how explosive growth and a firm purpose can achieve remarkably odd results. So you have Scandinavian vikings and then they are going to go from pagan to christian, adopt western french culture (with their own tweaks), and take over England, Normandy (lending it their name), parts of Wales, Ireland and Scotland, and also Sicility, Malta, parts of southern Italy, and for extra fun make attempts at setting up in Asia Minor (a strong enough attempt that Alexius Komnenos himself had to put it down, while also becoming the favored mercenary continents of the Byzantines and leaving a legacy that included many noble Byzantine families during the reign of the Komnenos emperors. Then to cap it off of course Bohemond and crew went along on the 1st crusade and formed Antioch. So we go from cold Scandinavian to the Eastern med, forming nations lasted short term and long term both.
So I figure if England wanted to take part of Portugal, and had the right conditions, they could manage it, holding it would be harder, but again depending on variables (how they ruled, how popular they were with the peasants and nobles, how well they got along with the neighbors, etc) it's very possible.
So I figure if England wanted to take part of Portugal, and had the right conditions, they could manage it, holding it would be harder, but again depending on variables (how they ruled, how popular they were with the peasants and nobles, how well they got along with the neighbors, etc) it's very possible.
However this happened very long after the picture i posted.
We can all agree on England taking far away land, but it happened a few hundred years later, not in the 15th century.
Very long BEFORE in fact. Normans got to France in the Xth century. They were in the Mediterranea by the XIth.
There was no Norman Empire however. Sicily became an independent kingdom, it wasn't controlled by Denmark...
I believe that in the Middle Age there was no empires, only kingdoms. If by empire you mean administration and military force holding together 10,000,000 square miles. Anyway, there was no empire that lasted too long. I recall that Charles V had a lot of possesions in Europe, which he could not unite. Charlemagne - his France dissappeard after his death. I think an empire that cannot survive his first emperor is not much of an empire. . Napoleon, too. But Napoleon is not Middle Age, anyway. When I think of middle age, I have in mind knights and monks and Francois Villon stealing gold from the church, I do not have an imperial image about this timeframe, I may be wrong though.
I see the reasons of both sides in this debate:
On the one hand, the English king forcing the portuguese one to give up the crown of, say, the Algarve could conceivably have happened. Logistically, holding it is no more challenging than Genoa holding Kaffa, Venice holding Crete or Burgundy being made up by disjoined territories. Nobility support could be garnered under the appropriate set of circumstances: a sense of national identity was essentially non-existent for the nobles and irrelevant for everyone else. History has shown really weird things can be made to work, if there is sufficient will and good luck
On the other hand, the English wanting to hold the Algarve, or much worse the Caucasus, is questionable or downright ludicrous, and that is the part that is truly unrealistic. Game mechanics has some difficulty with these.
Part of the reason is that the timeline over which benefits are calculated is much longer than that of a person: who wants to hold a place that will be plagued by rebellions and will require huge military ependitures for next to no benefit for the rest of their life (e.g. 30 years)? Well, no one IRL. But in the grand scheme of the game, what are 30 years? Benefits will eventually accrue, and so in game Castille occupies all of North Africa, and England happily rules Mali and Nigeria by 1500. It is not that they couldn't conceivably have, it's that there was nothing in it for them. In fact, Castille did occupy north African strongholds, including faraway Tripoli, to protect against Barbary pirates; they simply had no interest, relative to every other goals, to hold huge swathes of land there, given the costs.
I think what is maddening to players that see 'unrealistic' outcomes is really the fact that they seem to make no sense from a human perspective. That is, the AI sometimes chooses pirzes that the rulers of those nations would not have wanted.
These 'unrealistic' expansions derive also from two other game features contrary to real life.
1) the inability of the game engine to represent cities and strongholds apart from their surrounding countryside: naval bases and forts may be useful to keep, but not their hinterland.
2) keeping a standing army is easy right from 1399; it's cheap in terms of money, and costs nothing in terms of manpower.
It might also help if the cost of provinces in peace negotiations took into account the value the province may have for the winner, rather than just the value for the loser. But that would close many opportunities to players' strategies. HttT already moves in the right direction, in this respect.
On the one hand, the English king forcing the portuguese one to give up the crown of, say, the Algarve could conceivably have happened. Logistically, holding it is no more challenging than Genoa holding Kaffa, Venice holding Crete or Burgundy being made up by disjoined territories. Nobility support could be garnered under the appropriate set of circumstances: a sense of national identity was essentially non-existent for the nobles and irrelevant for everyone else. History has shown really weird things can be made to work, if there is sufficient will and good luck
On the other hand, the English wanting to hold the Algarve, or much worse the Caucasus, is questionable or downright ludicrous, and that is the part that is truly unrealistic. Game mechanics has some difficulty with these.
Part of the reason is that the timeline over which benefits are calculated is much longer than that of a person: who wants to hold a place that will be plagued by rebellions and will require huge military ependitures for next to no benefit for the rest of their life (e.g. 30 years)? Well, no one IRL. But in the grand scheme of the game, what are 30 years? Benefits will eventually accrue, and so in game Castille occupies all of North Africa, and England happily rules Mali and Nigeria by 1500. It is not that they couldn't conceivably have, it's that there was nothing in it for them. In fact, Castille did occupy north African strongholds, including faraway Tripoli, to protect against Barbary pirates; they simply had no interest, relative to every other goals, to hold huge swathes of land there, given the costs.
I think what is maddening to players that see 'unrealistic' outcomes is really the fact that they seem to make no sense from a human perspective. That is, the AI sometimes chooses pirzes that the rulers of those nations would not have wanted.
These 'unrealistic' expansions derive also from two other game features contrary to real life.
1) the inability of the game engine to represent cities and strongholds apart from their surrounding countryside: naval bases and forts may be useful to keep, but not their hinterland.
2) keeping a standing army is easy right from 1399; it's cheap in terms of money, and costs nothing in terms of manpower.
It might also help if the cost of provinces in peace negotiations took into account the value the province may have for the winner, rather than just the value for the loser. But that would close many opportunities to players' strategies. HttT already moves in the right direction, in this respect.
Whilste I get what unddu is saying, I cant help feeling like there is a huge element missing from the game for fun. I dont play the game for world conquest or to reach the end date. In fact if I play to the end date it is because I start in the 1700s and play as cologne or something for the fun. What I play for is to reach a series of goals I set for myself, the missions be damned. I dont want to conquer the crimea by occupying the settlements with troops for 50 years to lower revolt risk. That is to gamey. I expect the game facilities to represent real problems with the options to fix them in multipul ways with advantages and counter disadvantes. If I wanted to steamroller the world I would play a total war game or command and conquer. If I wanted to steamroller the world I would not be waiting in anticipation for the Mod Dominion of the Sword which attempts to bring conflict points and fun back into the game. If I wanted to achieve victory damned of game play I would select The Sejulks and declare a Jihad on somewhere in Spain conquering the whole map in 20 turns no matter what difficulty.
I want to be able to conquer and turtle my way to victory with simiulated conditions. I dont want total emersion but practical difficulties. The AI does not achieve WC. However I dare you to play as Bohemia, stay as HRE, only do enough to keep yourself as HRE and put down imediate conflict and watch Castile and GB own the world which they always do. In HttT I have never seen France survive as GB/Burgundy or Castile always own it usually forcing release vassals which take south France and England/GB picking up the pieces.
I want to be able to conquer and turtle my way to victory with simiulated conditions. I dont want total emersion but practical difficulties. The AI does not achieve WC. However I dare you to play as Bohemia, stay as HRE, only do enough to keep yourself as HRE and put down imediate conflict and watch Castile and GB own the world which they always do. In HttT I have never seen France survive as GB/Burgundy or Castile always own it usually forcing release vassals which take south France and England/GB picking up the pieces.
What are the purpose for England to hold the most southern parts of Portugal in 1414?
Of course it could be real that Portugal and England ended up in a war, but i guess in reality if England won they would have demanded cash instead of land long away from them. When the age of colonialism begun it could be right maybe, but not in 1414...
Think Genoe.... and venice...etc. If they have a good navy it's no trouble.
It takes more than, build the ships, to make a good navy. It is ethos and idea, pluss your nations outlook and manpower. Ever notice that the Navy does not with the manpower issue that the army has yet there were at the hight of the Royal Navy over 800 people serving on board a first rate ship.
It is not navy. In reality it is the people on the spot who stop insurgency. Without them it all goes to pot. Either character governors are required or resolutions to assymilate are necessary.
It is not navy. In reality it is the people on the spot who stop insurgency. Without them it all goes to pot. Either character governors are required or resolutions to assymilate are necessary.