That might be an interesting challenge run actually. Maybe a possibility once I revive my topic.
Why be France when you could be England?
- Thread starter bradles0
- 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.
As France one would expect to own all of England by 1520 or so (depends a bit on what happens re Scotland). Hard to annex France as England by then, even with the PU. And French NIs are much better.
But the main reason is the colour. Red England is incorrect and best destroyed. Were it white as it should be it would hold far more appeal.
But the main reason is the colour. Red England is incorrect and best destroyed. Were it white as it should be it would hold far more appeal.
Get your maths makaramus... Your patronizing smileys mostly make you look ridiculous when you are wrong by a 10 to 1 margin on everything and pretty much every assumption is wrong or at least very casual, like "keeping it balance at %75 and %80 is not easy task".
I advise to rethink the way you behave when you're not certain that what you say is accurate.
As I'm nice, I'll still copy you a guide on how to minmax estates.
Besides events which gives you monarch points for free or ask you to choose between monarch points and another resource, or between two types of monarch points, the other source of monarch points is estates. Every 20 years, you can ask 50, 100, 150 or 200 points to estates at the cost of 20 loyalty (admin for clergy, dip for merchants and mil for nobility). This number is based on their influence. You’ll almost never have 50 and 200 is trickier. The most important number is therefore 75 influence, below it’s 100 points, over it’s 150. Always get at least 150 points, unless is some very specific situations where it’s impossible.
Here we come to our first example of learning the real value of things. You can consider an average of 150 points over 20 years, so 150 points over 240 months, which is about 2/3 point per month. That’s huge. Therefore, if you cannot get 150 points but can have them in less than 80 months (6 years and 8 months), it’s worth waiting to have 150 points instead of 100. That’s also what allows you to get 200 points in some situations. If there is a modifier, like for instance recruiting a general, and it expires in less than 6 years and 8 months, you can wait until just before it expires, push influence at 100, which means you can squeeze 200 points. That’s the kind of intense micromanaging that is required to have very successful campaigns. You have the right to consider it’s too difficult and boring to time everything, and you’ll often forget it, but that’s a perfect example on how judging the real value of things allows you to create resources out of thin air.
Most players I see asking for advice say that they only get 100 points because they are afraid of a bad event that would create a disaster. That can happen, and that’s why getting 200 is risky and I would not do it in any situation. You need to be careful and keep several things in mind. First off, every time an event-based modifier expires, you get a popup for a new event at the middle of a month, and the previous modifier expires on the first day of next month. That’s extremely important, as you should not take your decision based on the number you see when you have the popup, but based on the number you’ll have at the beginning of next month. As an event-based modifier replaces another, don’t use the 200 points thing if the modifier is event-based unless you have a backup strat, because the same modifier could replace the previous one. However, it’s entirely safe to do it with generals, admirals and ministers, as you chose to boost influence this way or not.
I mention backup strats. You should not be afraid of risking things. To get the most out of the estates, you have to put yourself at risk. Sometimes you will lose, and you will have a bad event that means you’ll have a ticking disaster. More often than not you will just win more monarch points and not have a bad event. Don’t panic anyway, a disaster is nothing so long as it only ticks. It’s +1 per month at 80, +2 over 85, +3 over 90 and so on. Below 80 it decreases by 1 every month. Only over 85 should it be a concern, and only over 90 is it extremely dangerous. Having an estate at 84 influence means you have 8 years and 3 months to fix the situation before it becomes a real disaster (actually you have more, we’ll come to it).
Other modifiers will expire (of course don’t take risks if modifiers decreasing influence will end up soon), and you can always remove provinces. That brings me to estate loyalty.
Estate loyalty is another resource, it ticks towards 50 so long as they have enough land. There are negative effects under 40 loyalty, and positive effects over 60 loyalty. That’s a bit offtopic regarding monarch points, but the clergy being over 60 loyalty will give extra conversion strength in provinces they control, which means you can convert easily very early in the game (and that’s easy to have very loyal clergy early on, as you can give them all the provinces you conquer early on and send them gift regularly). The positive effect of Merchants being over 60 loyalty is reduced development cost, scaling on their influence. You can save hundreds of monarch points by ensuring you have loyal and influential merchants before you forcespawn an institution, which is often overlooked (and obviously try to do it when you have prosperity and the proper state edict).
As Estate loyalty is a resource, it is absolutely useless to have them at 50 all the time. If you can gain something by putting it under 50, or even below 40, that’s good, it will tick up again. That’s why overinfluential estates is not a problem, especially between 80 and 85. In 8 years you have time to play around the rules I mentioned. Wait 3 years, remove a province, that put them to for instance 43% loyalty and below the number of provinces they want, you have 2 years and a half before they go disloyal, during which the disaster almost entirely ticks down, then you give the province back, the loyalty ticks up again, and you still have almost 8 years before the disaster. With that example, not wasting the resource that estate loyalty is means you have 13 years to solve the fact an estate is between 80 and 84 influence, and that’s what sometimes enables the 200 monarch points gain, and always guarantees a 150 gain.
To make it short, Nobility guarantees you an early Mil 4 on the AI, and the lack of it and the terrible starting ruler delays England by A LOT.
Add Lollards and War of the Roses on top of that, and even with the PU, England is forced to play passive early on until they catch up in manpower and miltech.
England can't do much in the first 30 years besides a PU on France and uniting the British Isles. During that time, France, as I said, is the Emperor, has their cores, owns all of Ireland, Scotland, half of Portugal, Catalonia, and may have had full BI or a bridgehead in Central Europe. More if you no do no CBs. And for the first 60 years of the game, you benefit more from land than from a PU.
I advise to rethink the way you behave when you're not certain that what you say is accurate.
As I'm nice, I'll still copy you a guide on how to minmax estates.
Besides events which gives you monarch points for free or ask you to choose between monarch points and another resource, or between two types of monarch points, the other source of monarch points is estates. Every 20 years, you can ask 50, 100, 150 or 200 points to estates at the cost of 20 loyalty (admin for clergy, dip for merchants and mil for nobility). This number is based on their influence. You’ll almost never have 50 and 200 is trickier. The most important number is therefore 75 influence, below it’s 100 points, over it’s 150. Always get at least 150 points, unless is some very specific situations where it’s impossible.
Here we come to our first example of learning the real value of things. You can consider an average of 150 points over 20 years, so 150 points over 240 months, which is about 2/3 point per month. That’s huge. Therefore, if you cannot get 150 points but can have them in less than 80 months (6 years and 8 months), it’s worth waiting to have 150 points instead of 100. That’s also what allows you to get 200 points in some situations. If there is a modifier, like for instance recruiting a general, and it expires in less than 6 years and 8 months, you can wait until just before it expires, push influence at 100, which means you can squeeze 200 points. That’s the kind of intense micromanaging that is required to have very successful campaigns. You have the right to consider it’s too difficult and boring to time everything, and you’ll often forget it, but that’s a perfect example on how judging the real value of things allows you to create resources out of thin air.
Most players I see asking for advice say that they only get 100 points because they are afraid of a bad event that would create a disaster. That can happen, and that’s why getting 200 is risky and I would not do it in any situation. You need to be careful and keep several things in mind. First off, every time an event-based modifier expires, you get a popup for a new event at the middle of a month, and the previous modifier expires on the first day of next month. That’s extremely important, as you should not take your decision based on the number you see when you have the popup, but based on the number you’ll have at the beginning of next month. As an event-based modifier replaces another, don’t use the 200 points thing if the modifier is event-based unless you have a backup strat, because the same modifier could replace the previous one. However, it’s entirely safe to do it with generals, admirals and ministers, as you chose to boost influence this way or not.
I mention backup strats. You should not be afraid of risking things. To get the most out of the estates, you have to put yourself at risk. Sometimes you will lose, and you will have a bad event that means you’ll have a ticking disaster. More often than not you will just win more monarch points and not have a bad event. Don’t panic anyway, a disaster is nothing so long as it only ticks. It’s +1 per month at 80, +2 over 85, +3 over 90 and so on. Below 80 it decreases by 1 every month. Only over 85 should it be a concern, and only over 90 is it extremely dangerous. Having an estate at 84 influence means you have 8 years and 3 months to fix the situation before it becomes a real disaster (actually you have more, we’ll come to it).
Other modifiers will expire (of course don’t take risks if modifiers decreasing influence will end up soon), and you can always remove provinces. That brings me to estate loyalty.
Estate loyalty is another resource, it ticks towards 50 so long as they have enough land. There are negative effects under 40 loyalty, and positive effects over 60 loyalty. That’s a bit offtopic regarding monarch points, but the clergy being over 60 loyalty will give extra conversion strength in provinces they control, which means you can convert easily very early in the game (and that’s easy to have very loyal clergy early on, as you can give them all the provinces you conquer early on and send them gift regularly). The positive effect of Merchants being over 60 loyalty is reduced development cost, scaling on their influence. You can save hundreds of monarch points by ensuring you have loyal and influential merchants before you forcespawn an institution, which is often overlooked (and obviously try to do it when you have prosperity and the proper state edict).
As Estate loyalty is a resource, it is absolutely useless to have them at 50 all the time. If you can gain something by putting it under 50, or even below 40, that’s good, it will tick up again. That’s why overinfluential estates is not a problem, especially between 80 and 85. In 8 years you have time to play around the rules I mentioned. Wait 3 years, remove a province, that put them to for instance 43% loyalty and below the number of provinces they want, you have 2 years and a half before they go disloyal, during which the disaster almost entirely ticks down, then you give the province back, the loyalty ticks up again, and you still have almost 8 years before the disaster. With that example, not wasting the resource that estate loyalty is means you have 13 years to solve the fact an estate is between 80 and 84 influence, and that’s what sometimes enables the 200 monarch points gain, and always guarantees a 150 gain.
To make it short, Nobility guarantees you an early Mil 4 on the AI, and the lack of it and the terrible starting ruler delays England by A LOT.
Add Lollards and War of the Roses on top of that, and even with the PU, England is forced to play passive early on until they catch up in manpower and miltech.
England can't do much in the first 30 years besides a PU on France and uniting the British Isles. During that time, France, as I said, is the Emperor, has their cores, owns all of Ireland, Scotland, half of Portugal, Catalonia, and may have had full BI or a bridgehead in Central Europe. More if you no do no CBs. And for the first 60 years of the game, you benefit more from land than from a PU.
I think it's doable if you consider, for the sake of the challenge, provinces of your french PU as your own.
and there I stood aganist "1m each month" while you writing complately someting else
oh and....
seriusly althought I am not saying english is better than france or vice versa... I just saying it has benefits of its own and losing only nobles is not end of world since military monarch points are one of worst ones (or was... since absolutism is a thing its more important now yet you can max without it too) its not so much a thing... usual monarch point generating is enought to be leader of mil tech + starting WHAT LOLLARDS ARE GREATEST THING EVER LOL! +1 free tolerance of anyting I want? I love it
bbb does not consider vassal land, only cores (territorial are fine though), it is still doable though
Does owning the entirety of France count as opening a front? Because you kinda run out of targets- Burgundy, Austria, and Spain are easy enough targets- maybe Denmark? Who else am I to target?
And in the early stages of Colonization, an extra colonist not only saves a LOT of money, but also means you are colonizing more quickly, as the %chance is rather important- and indeed, all the other bonuses one can obtain from Parliament. England essentially gets free admin and diplo from several of its Parliamentary debates, so mil focus more than compensates- as well as the fact that the Nobility are often the most unruly estate and effectively consume a good chunk of development. The War of the Roses is more than avoidable, and by the time getting rid of English monarchy is really necessary, one can go revolutionary. The games in which I have played as England, I've been more than able to outdo what I'm capable of as France- I can eat northern Iberia, eat much of Norway and Denmark, make incursions into Italy and crush the HRE (which I prefer to playing emperor) at a much faster rate- I'd say that as England one gets about 50 years ahead of what one can do as France. While a PU France isnt as good as being france, a PU france +having an incredible Navy basically means you can crash into Iberia and use the age ability to take Naples from Aragon no problem. I dont think theres any way you dont end up at a higher development (+vassals and PU's) when starting as England than as France.
I once switched dynasty to Trastamara soon after game start, PUed Castille/Aragon/Naples, became Emperor, got the inheritance, PUed France. Owning the provinces might take longer but I was effectively the Western Roman Empire before 1500. It was pretty easy. Arguably a bit luck-based (getting the heir and not WotR, both Burgundian inheritance and Iberian Wedding firing at good times), but easy.
No, it does not count as a new front AE wise. Get a PU on France, then you have to wait until AE decays, Burgundy is not a valid target because it shares the same culture group. France has this unique ability to get land that annoys people (Provence) AND land from two areas noone care about early game (British Isles and Portugal) so they can basically expand three times faster without triggering a coalition. Which is why 100 provinces in 55 years is doable as France but impossible as England imo. England can PU France but then Britanny/Provence/Burgundy would create a continental coalition, and they can't get to Portugal without fighting Castile, while France can thanks to the England-Portugal alliance. England can't release Catalonia from Aragon as fast as France, so they can't cripple Iberia before IW as efficiently (or it's more luck based). And obviously they can't take land from themselves.
I'm curious as to how you say you can outpace France by 50 years as England to own something similar to what you describe. Which is also why I don't think you can wait Revolution to change government. Better players than me finish their One Tag as France by that point, and I would be at that point as well on 1.20.
Then again, I'm not good with England and excellent with France, so I'm biased, and you may very well have the opposite bias.
Late game France also has the advantage with an easy revolutionary republic, and I am the state decision. Along with numerous other positive events that are on par with England's late game events.
You do flip to France as England, unless you intentionally cripple yourself with bad ideas. And it's L'Etat c'est moi, I am the State is the end of C&C unless I'm mistaken (even if L'Etat c'est moi means I am the state).
You do realize making a PU gives almost no AE, right? You can easily eat Provence and Brittiany and Burgundy with little coalition risk- a PU gives like 1/100th of the AE of an annexation or something stupid.
And I had little idea what you meant by "opening a front", but theres next to nothing stopping England from doing exactly what france does- just with more troops. A lot more troops. And a lot more ships. Iberia can easily be eaten with a few wars with little AE risk, and your biggest AE sink should be getting Burgundy to transfer its subjects to you- not all at once, of course. You at least want Holland before the inheritance fires. After that, you take Naples from Aragon and start invading the Balkans- exactly as you can with france. You're also taking those provences from Norway that cost no AE. There's literally nothing France can do that England with a PU on France cant do better, at least in the first 50-100 years.
That's about 40 AE with Burgundy/Provence and 30 for HRE members from what I remember to PU France, but I only did it once. I can't find the formula on the wiki for the AE from forcing unions, so I'm willing to have the exact number if you can provide it.
Which is why you begin by rotating into northern Spain first, also so you can attack portugal. And yeah, it gives more AE than I remember- dunno if that changed, or if it depends on HOW you PU France (through the missions or surrender of Maine) but regardless that matters little, as with care its relatively easy to just focus on Iberia and pay for an improve relations advisor. So long as you're attacking Castile and Portugal you're issue-free.
I'd argue Imagawa and Sweden are better. Dont get me wrong, Scotland's are fantastic, but they dont kick in until you start getting blobbing a bit- force limit is not so much the limiter as is simple gold, manpower, and combat strength.
I mostly meant relative to the early game, where a shock pip beats practically any other military bonus (maybe not 15%+ morale). Western infantry also kind of sucks early game, you want to use as much cavalry as possible in your early armies so Sweden's combat ability is not too great.
to PU you use 80% warscore iirc, so it should be 80 ae worth, but maybe the cb has 50% ae