Who has the most potential?

[Zagys]

Originally posted by starbright
Yes, it's very weak.

But so it was in EU, even more so in EU 2, still in 100 years any good player had the game in the bag. One thing that I really like about the idea of Victoria is that it is not too long and ends with a bang. EU 2 ended with a bang in Europe too, but the wait was too long to get there.

Russia may start out weak but it will get stronger steadily. Taking little bites out to the South and the West, until the Tran-Siberian railway can be completed and it can conquer China.

I wouldn't consider it very weak, but it's no Soviet superpower. I just don't see how Russia can get away with conquering China in a multiplayer game.

 

[unmerged(5961)]

Originally posted by Zagys
I wouldn't consider it very weak, but it's no Soviet superpower. I just don't see how Russia can get away with conquering China in a multiplayer game.

Bah

I was talking about single player.

 

[unmerged(11089)]

Originally posted by Zagys
Just how strong do you think Russia is at the start of the game?

How about the most powerful land power in the world! It was on land what GB was on the seas. There was a reason for it being known as the "Genderm of Europe". Until Crimskaya war, Russia was the dominant land force in the World; and even during that war it took four other Great Powers(if you count Piedmonte and Ottomans as great powers at that time) to force it into a "white peace."

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

i would say russia will be very hard to invade, but for it to expand? it has enough nationalist and industrialiazing problems, without adding to them. that and if you spend your early days counquring, others will be industrializing and your large army, will be jsut that. large, but not in charge. as it will have 50 yr old equipment by the standards of other countries
again guessing, but i would be guessing technicaly speaking a new CRT level for land armies will happen each 10 years so if you let yourself fall behind by counqering, while already behind. you wont ever catch up.

again guessing as no one here knows

 

[Papa Chubby]

I would think that the British Empire would be a strong candiadate for this prize. The Industrial revolution started there and with a human AI behind the steering wheel that could prove to be an advantage the AI would find hard to overcome.
Also if the Causu Belli system is anything like it is in EU2, and I don't know wheter it is or not, then they will have alot of shields.

The Russians weren't at all powerfull through the 19th century, at least not to my recollection. They failed to followed the lead of other nations in industrialization and simple modernisation of their society. This is a fact evident by their defeat in the Crimean war.

P.S. I guess I must have read different text books than csaralex.

 

[unmerged(11089)]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
i would say russia will be very hard to invade, but for it to expand? it has enough nationalist and industrialiazing problems, without adding to them. that and if you spend your early days counquring, others will be industrializing and your large army, will be jsut that. large, but not in charge. as it will have 50 yr old equipment by the standards of other countries
again guessing, but i would be guessing technicaly speaking a new CRT level for land armies will happen each 10 years so if you let yourself fall behind by counqering, while already behind. you wont ever catch up.

Good Point!

 

[Sharur]

Russia was most certainly NOT the most powerful land force in the world in 1835... or for that matter, just about any time in history (I certainly can't think of a time when they were). Until post-WWII, Russia always lagged behind in both economic and military development. Just like in HOI: lots of manpower, low quality. I'm not sure which military should be the most powerful in 1835, but certainly not the Russian army. Maybe Britain, simply due to industrial advances, or France, due to experience from the Napoleonic Wars, though I don't know how much that carried over after Napoleon's defeat. Certainly by the mid to late 1800s, however, Prussia/Germany should have, if not the most powerful army in the world, then the most elite.

I think, though, that rather than use the Crimean War as evidence of the end of Russia's domination, one should instead view it as evidence of Russia's lack thereof (same goes for the other powers save Britain in that war, for that matter).

 

[unmerged(11089)]

Originally posted by Sharur
Russia was most certainly NOT the most powerful land force in the world in 1835... or for that matter, just about any time in history (I certainly can't think of a time when they were). Until post-WWII, Russia always lagged behind in both economic and military development. Just like in HOI: lots of manpower, low quality. I'm not sure which military should be the most powerful in 1835, but certainly not the Russian army. Maybe Britain, simply due to industrial advances, or France, due to experience from the Napoleonic Wars, though I don't know how much that carried over after Napoleon's defeat. Certainly by the mid to late 1800s, however, Prussia/Germany should have, if not the most powerful army in the world, then the most elite.

I think, though, that rather than use the Crimean War as evidence of the end of Russia's domination, one should instead view it as evidence of Russia's lack thereof (same goes for the other powers save Britain in that war, for that matter).

Do you remember the fact that Russian troops paraded through almost every European capital in the Early 19th Century?
You got to be joking about Britain the most powerful on land? Great Britain didn't even dare challenge Napoleon on the continent before he was DONE in by Russia.(Anyone reminded of WWII? )
IMHO, Brittain hasn't been the best land millitary power since the longbow went out of style!
As for Prussia in early 19th Century-it was as powerful as France in 1960's. How strong can you be after being conquered two decades earlier?
As for France- As I remember, it was a Russian Emperor that banished a French one, and not the other way around?
As for the US- The potential was there, but no true demonstrations of power until Fort Sumter. ( I don't consider a war with Mexico much of a showing )

As for your comment about that Russia has never been the most powerful land power in the world- 1770's-1805, 1812-1854, 1943-1981. Please tell me who was stronger on land?

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Sharur
I think, though, that rather than use the Crimean War as evidence of the end of Russia's domination, one should instead view it as evidence of Russia's lack thereof (same goes for the other powers save Britain in that war, for that matter).

Yeah I wonder why he brought that up. Acknowledging that very modest sized British and French expeditionary forces with pitiful Turkish support were able to defeat Russia in it's own homeland, does not make Russia look good in my opinion.

 

[unmerged(8303)]

why the roll eyes? Mexico wasnt that weak in 1848, they just had unstable leadership and poor military commanders.

It was the first time the world really got to see the muscle power of the USA.

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Jaron
why the roll eyes? Mexico wasnt that weak in 1848, they just had unstable leadership and poor military commanders.

It was the first time the world really got to see the muscle power of the USA.

They were that weak. Mexico wasn't even strong enough to defeat Texas, much less the entire United States.

 

[Tim O]

How the hell is Russia going to get it's armies to China? They're gonna have to build the trans-siberia railroad first.

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
How the hell is Russia going to get it's armies to China? They're gonna have to build the trans-siberia railroad first.

Yeah, and even then they could only really take the peripheral areas. I find the Russians being able to launch a credible offensive into the core Han Chinese heartland highly unlikely.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by starbright
Yes, it's very weak.

Actually, after the Napoleonic Wars Russia appeared to be the strongest nation on the Continent in military terms and to reinforce this appearance even after the end of the war Russia maintained an enormous standing army as large as those of Prussia and Austria combined. The expense of maintaining these troops, however, put an enormous strain on the state budget, which over time prevented Russia from maintaining the relative quality of its army in comparison with the rest of Europe. Furthermore, because Russia had so many different frontiers to potentially defend (Baltic, Prussia, Austria, Ottoman Empire, Caucasus, Persia, Central Asia, the Far East) and had to contend with enormous distances and poor transportation infrastructure, most of the troops were needed for permanent stations near the borders or in the constant fighting in the Caucasus and it was difficult to move troops to meet increased threats. Thus, in the Crimean War, Russia found itself having troops of signficantly poorer quality than France and Britain, having to maintain forces near the Baltic to guard against possible landings from Britain even though they never came, and experiencing greater difficulty supplying its armies than France and Britain were by sea.

Nonetheless, in 1835 (18 years prior to the Crimean War), Russia was widely considered still to be the most powerful military (land) force by far in the world, and, even if the reality didn't match up to appearances, it was certainly one of the great powers of the world.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

It sure would be nice if the various AIs would gang up on any human player who attempted such overly agressive tactics as Russia trying to invade China...

 

[unmerged(502)]

I would say Brasil has a huge potential in game terms - huge territory, all the resources in large amounts, no strong neighbours, good climate etc. etc. It is a shame they never fully realized this potential in real life - maybe in the game it will be easier to do that,

 

[peo]

The ones that became great powers in reality should have the greatest potential

IE:
UK
US
Preussia/Germany
Russia

But even if Russia would have been able to expand westwards they would probably have encountered a coalition to prevent them from annexing anything.
Just as it happend in the crimean conflict.

As the saying goes "Size doesn't matter"
Russia had a huge army.
But it was mostly obsolete. Russia didn't have the economy to do much towards the more developed nations.
That is why they attacked the Ottoman empire.

 

[peo]

Originally posted by webbrave
I would say Brasil has a huge potential in game terms - huge territory, all the resources in large amounts, no strong neighbours, good climate etc. etc. It is a shame they never fully realized this potential in real life - maybe in the game it will be easier to do that,

I think Brazil faces much of the same problems as Russia does.
Poor infrastructure. Most of the resources are in the inner parts of Brazil and they are hard to get to.

 

[Zagys]

Isn't Brazil still controlled by Portugal in 1835?

 

[peo]

Originally posted by Zagys
Isn't Brazil still controlled by Portugal in 1835?

Quote from the CIA world factbook:

Following three centuries under the rule of Portugal, Brazil became an independent nation in 1822. By far the largest and most populous country in South America, Brazil has overcome more than half a century of military intervention in the governance of the country to pursue industrial and agricultural growth and development of the interior. Exploiting vast natural resources and a large labor pool, Brazil is today South America's leading economic power and a regional leader. Highly unequal income distribution remains a pressing problem.

So they were independant.