Le Blob in Civ - Frenchie's beating up Europe again!

Civ'ed

Civ'ed

I ain't gotta explain a thing
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
6,315
Location
Aberdonia et Banffia
Hello y'all. This will be my - possibly last - Civ story as a whole, since EUIII is taking over.
Speaking of EUIII...
Players of EUIII refer to France as Le Blob or BBB (Big Blue Blob) for it's conquest tendencies, especially in Iberia and Germany, with some in Italy as well. So... That's what I'm gonna do!
Europe map with the The Powers that Be mod, which incidentally was seasnake's last.
On settler (I am ze Blob! It must be easy, for dieu's sake!)
All the other Powers are European: Netherlands, Holy Rome, Spain, More Spain, Portugal, Germany, Rome.

It's a history book aar. With ze French accent, non? A ridiculous one at that.
Let ze fun... BEGIN!
 
don't leave us for EUIII :cry: looking forward to the story all the same :)
 
i tried to download a demo for it but it refused to work :(
 
Waiting, waiting, coughing, waiting, waiting, sapping, backstabbing, waiting.
 
Civ'ed said:
Europa Universalis III.
Click to expand...

Oh France, I take my eyes off you for just a moment and you've blobbed all over Spain and your BB count is ridiculously high... oh France, what are we going to do with you :rolleyes:?
 
Civ'ed said:
Hello y'all. This will be my - possibly last - Civ story as a whole, since EUIII is taking over.
Speaking of EUIII...
Players of EUIII refer to France as Le Blob or BBB (Big Blue Blob) for it's conquest tendencies, especially in Iberia and Germany, with some in Italy as well. So... That's what I'm gonna do!
Europe map with the The Powers that Be mod, which incidentally was seasnake's last.
On settler (I am ze Blob! It must be easy, for dieu's sake!)
All the other Powers are European: Netherlands, Holy Rome, Spain, More Spain, Portugal, Germany, Rome.

It's a history book aar. With ze French accent, non? A ridiculous one at that.
Let ze fun... BEGIN!
Click to expand...
EU III is inferior to Civ IV, I have both...
However I have no expansions for EU III so that might be the reason.
 
yes!!! it's our daily show with ze BBB :D

it's time to cry boys! there's no mega-Burgundy out here :(
 
Oh ok...but i still think they have no chance against you, hope it will be fun,slow,and with some pain (their pain, of course)
 
I prefer Civ because of the mod ROM which goes more in-depth and is more realistic the EU III.

I also hate EU III's combat mechanics (it has a stronger emphasis on luck then EU II, so IMO is a downgrade). I think they should have just used the combat mechanics from HOI II/III.

The organization, strength and moral can still apply to EU III, and is a much more realistic and less lucked based stat.

There is no way Timur's 16,000 units could loose to an ottomon no leader 6,000 IRL (The die rolled nothing but <2s for me and nothing but >5s for him. It was bs)

I also don't like the number of canons in battles. The largest number of cannons ever used in a single batter irl was 1148 during Napoleons siege of Moscow. 1000 cannons in game represent 1 unit, and most battles I fought in after the invention had 3-4000 cannons. THATS NOT REALISTIC!

Also if luck was such a big role, why did great military commanders always win? Napoleon only lost 3 battles, one to disease, one to general winter and one to duke wellington. Hannibal only lost 1 battle, to Scipio Africanus, who went undefeated during his campaigns.

Admiral Nelson went undefeated.

Genghis Khen went 208-7 (or something like that, can't remember the exact numbers), however unlike most generals he had 30 years of non-stop campaigning so it was understandable that he did loose occasionally.

Henry V only lost once. (and went winless when I played him in EUIII...)

Timur was virtually undefeated.

JC went undefeated.

Trajan went undefeated in his campaign against Germany, which he was under supplied due to wars with Eithopia, Persia, Thrace and Scotland.

Battles irl are not decided by luck.



Also I hope England kicks your ass...
 
ilduce349 said:
I prefer Civ because of the mod ROM which goes more in-depth and is more realistic the EU III.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think so, RoM is better than Civ IV, but not as much realistic like EUIII DW. unless someday somenoe puts royal marriages,inheritances,etc... in Civ.


I also hate EU III's combat mechanics (it has a stronger emphasis on luck then EU II, so IMO is a downgrade). I think they should have just used the combat mechanics from HOI II/III.
Click to expand...
and it's not in Civ IV where you loss 3 units in a row when you have 99.9% victory chance.

There is no way Timur's 16,000 units could loose to an ottomon no leader 6,000 IRL (The die rolled nothing but <2s for me and nothing but >5s for him. It was bs)
Click to expand...
armies never have no leaders, sometimes captains can end up leading their men better than some "generals". and this probably happened because you attacked when they had defensive terrain, try invading Switzerland and you'll get what i mean, you may even win the battles and rout their army, but attrition will kill you, and it will be a pain to siege their provinces. many things can change the course of battle, see the Spartans in Thermopylae


I also don't like the number of canons in battles. The largest number of cannons ever used in a single batter irl was 1148 during Napoleons siege of Moscow. 1000 cannons in game represent 1 unit, and most battles I fought in after the invention had 3-4000 cannons. THATS NOT REALISTIC!
Click to expand...
actually, these numbers are not the ammount of cannons, but the cannon crew.


Also if luck was such a big role, why did great military commanders always win? Napoleon only lost 3 battles, one to disease, one to general winter and one to duke wellington. Hannibal only lost 1 battle, to Scipio Africanus, who went undefeated during his campaigns.
Click to expand...
Again, great commanders took into consideration the terrain and also there was the training and equipment of troops


Admiral Nelson went undefeated.
Click to expand...
He created a new kind of awesome naval tatics, what the hell did you expected?


Henry V only lost once. (and went winless when I played him in EUIII...)
Click to expand...
How could you lose with him?!? (and the game is not meant to be like history)
i conquered entire north france in his rule in my England game :rolleyes:


Timur was virtually undefeated.

JC went undefeated.

Trajan went undefeated in his campaign against Germany, which he was under supplied due to wars with Eithopia, Persia, Thrace and Scotland.
Click to expand...
And then, think about how you possibly ignored terrain, modifiers, morale,maintance, supply, and tech level of your enemies, and possibly yours as well.

Battles irl are not decided by luck.
Click to expand...
they aren't, but luck always had a big role in battles
 
I wouldn't think so, RoM is better than Civ IV, but not as much realistic like EUIII DW. unless someday somenoe puts royal marriages,inheritances,etc... in Civ.
Click to expand...
Nah, the stability factors, tech rates etc are much more realistic in civ. Also TW has better Royal Marriages and inheritances...

and it's not in Civ IV where you loss 3 units in a row when you have 99.9% victory chance.
Click to expand...
Hence why I compared it to HOI not Civ

armies never have no leaders, sometimes captains can end up leading their men better than some "generals". and this probably happened because you attacked when they had defensive terrain, try invading Switzerland and you'll get what i mean, you may even win the battles and rout their army, but attrition will kill you, and it will be a pain to siege their provinces. many things can change the course of battle, see the Spartans in Thermopylae
Click to expand...
And EU III they do. It was a province in central turkey, and besides a good general can use any terrain to his advantage.

actually, these numbers are not the ammount of cannons, but the cannon crew.
Click to expand...
That makes more sense

Again, great commanders took into consideration the terrain and also there was the training and equipment of troops
Click to expand...
Yes, because Hannibal won the battle of Cannea because his troops were worse trained then the Romans.

All I am saying is I don't know a single battle were luck was the deciding factor. Yet my first 9 combats in EU III had luck being the deciding factor.

How could you lose with him?!? (and the game is not meant to be like history)
i conquered entire north france in his rule in my England game
Click to expand...
I am unlucky, battle of Orleans:
England 3,000-18,000-0
vs
Orleanis 6,000-9,000-0

Battle of Tryoes:
England 1,000-12,000-0
France 4,000-6,000-0
lost

Battle of Normandy
England 1,000-3,000-0
France 0-2,000-0
lost

All of those were with Henry V as the general, in the final 2 I was defending, in all 3 I started with the higher moral.

And then, think about how you possibly ignored terrain, modifiers, morale,maintance, supply, and tech level of your enemies, and possibly yours as well
Click to expand...
Terrain doesn't mean anything. It means one player will have an advantage from the begining, but any good general will know that Fabian and Scipio both used a common tactic. Only fight when you have the advantage. Terrain Modifyiers, unless defending a city, wont mean anything.

Hannibal vs Fabian proves that.

morale
Click to expand...
I never engage unless I have the higher moral.

tech level of your enemies
Click to expand...
This was 2 years in to the campaign, so I doubt and ground breaking techs were discovered...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jkchart
Jkchart Test Game - France v90
Replies
8
Views
1K
Rhye
Rhye
Z
historical mod
Replies
8
Views
2K
Dracosolon
D
B
Proposal for More Conditional Spawns and slightly different starting conditions
Replies
12
Views
2K
merijn_v1
merijn_v1
clapyourhands
Creating Every Possible Civ that Can Fit into Civ VI
Replies
6
Views
3K
Bradypus
B
humble serf
[Vanilla] Vanilla Civ Design
Replies
11
Views
2K
ferretbacon
ferretbacon
Top Bottom