How is your EU3 Game going?

[Turquoiside]

That's one scary BBB.

That reminded me of last game as Milan -> Italy. Every one of their provinces shown were taken long enough ago to be a core by now:

Spoiler :

By the 1600s, France had conquered the entire peninsula save for a few of Portugal's starting provinces. So nice try balancing France Paradox, but France never ate Castile whole in IN.

That was fun game though; I had super-France (who without competition from Castile easily dominated North America), and a successful Snvwo_l_I_O, Lithuania and Bohemia. The game-breaker was the HRE Austria though, who seemed to have made it their sole mission to make me cry before I ragequit this game. After about four humiliating reloads, I finally disbanded all my cavalry and parked about 30k infantry in Hungary, right across from Wein. When they declared war I was able to seize enough of their provinces to release Tirol and Styria. That was about 40 years before the above screenshot. As you can see, they tragically recovered and the next time they declared war I gave them about half my territory (from Modena up) and hoped France would tear them apart. After France let Austria survive by taking a single piece of land on the Adriatic, I accepted that this game wasn't actually designed to be played more than a handful of ways. So I positioned myself to be elected HRE, and invested fully into military tech so that in 1821 the world looked like this:

Spoiler :

I eventually became powerful enough to knock around France whenever I was bored in Germany

 

[Leonel]

Damn I played one of the more interesting games. Started out as The Knights, conquered Constantinople, settled the Canary islands, conquered the Mexican civilizations and at the same time encompassed North America with colonies so I can take my time with the creamy center.

Before people get on my case for betraying my crusader roots, I conquered Judea as well as Acre and that other bit down below Judea with my massive and highly advanced army that I developed in the Yucatan. I think I'll do some more crusading once Knights America is settled and developed so I can get that delicious grain in the midwest.

 

[salty mud]

At least it's believable.

Those images have been posted so many times it is evidently obvious they are as fake as fake can be.

 

[Racsoviale]

Hey Bowsling I see your Scandinavia, Russia and France and raise you ALL OF EUROPE

I'm Brandenburg and haven't gotten a single core on any of my vassals and my dividing and conquering sort of broke Europe.

Here it is with all my vassals

And seeing the world map tells me that the rest of the world is just as ugly

You're welcome

 

[Jos Ballenbak]

No colonization 1524?

 

[Evie]

So nice try balancing France Paradox, but France never ate Castile whole in IN.

The issue is not so much of balancing France. France vs Castille should be a pretty foregone conclusion. Even France vs Spain starts with France as a heavy favorite from the historical perspective, and that's Aragon-Castille united. Just the population numbers from the era (or today) make it pretty clear that France, if and when fully united, would be a preeminent European power. In our history, it was only kept in check because of the infamous Bedroom diplomacy of the Habsburgs that resulted in an alliance powerful enough to both surround and outclass France (Spain-Austria-Netherlands, with the Spanish gold from the New World); then when THAT alliance finally broke because they kept running into Prussia, GB and the ilk.

It's of AI stupidity (specifically Castille's utter mental disability when it comes to forming Spain) and peace system stupidity. The AI simply is too aggressive and too willing to eat up tons of non-core every peace deal, and the peace system only too happy to accomodate the AI's rampant expansionist idiocy. Which applies to way more than just France. This means that any situation where a country can outperform its rivals as is historical, will turn into a situation where that country will gobble up the same rivals like crazy.

 

[Duke of Britain]

What an inane and Eurocentric statement.

As opposed to the very US-centric thinking of some people around there? Why is it that other american nations receive no real attention in games or mods when they could have very much be big competitors for the US, either militarly or economically?

They were advanced on some fields, but they were pathetic militarly and their states weren't that well-organized, there were some exceptions, for one i think that the Iroquois could easily deserve a country tag...combined with the Europe-native relationship events D&T has we could have them surviving and converting+modernizing with help from some europeans...

 

[Evie]

Giving the Iroquois a country tag without giving them weaker rivals to prey on - as they did historically - is a bit pointless, though.

I wouldn't include all the natives. That would be too much. But you'd want the significant players of the Beaver Wars represented one way or another - Huron, Shawnee, Miami, Susquehannock probably. Maybe not the Shawnee, come to think of it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Read 1491 by Charles C. Mann.

The natives were, in many ways, more advanced than the Europeans.

Seriously, more people needs to read this book.

As opposed to the very US-centric thinking of some people around there? Why is it that other american nations receive no real attention in games or mods when they could have very much be big competitors for the US, either militarly or economically?

I'm guessing that you've just offended an entire continent of American Indians by referring to their history as "US history".

The Conquest of America (the continent, not the country) is the most important and dominating historical event in the period covered by EU3. That the complex interaction between the Indians and Colonists is represented so poorly is a disgrace.

They were advanced on some fields, but they were pathetic militarly and their states weren't that well-organized, there were some exceptions, for one i think that the Iroquois could easily deserve a country tag...combined with the Europe-native relationship events D&T has we could have them surviving and converting+modernizing with help from some europeans...

The Indians were so pathetic militarily, all the colonial powers, starting with the Spanish way back in the 1500s and continuing into the 19th century, courted their support and they were valuable allies in conflict against other Europeans and Indians. They were so pathetic, most Indian nations in North America maintained their independence until after the establishment of the United States. The Cherokee, who in EU3 are inevitably annexed by Spain or Portugal in the 1500s, weren't dislodged from their lands until 1831.

 

[Evie]

And the Indians of the Great Lakes - allied - resisted expansion through to 1795, or even 1812.

Yes, in terms of European warfare they would have been easily defeated. But the Natives did not fight European warfare, and really not much of anyone else did on the continent - America was a land of irregular warfare. But that's the game for you; it treats everything as a typical European battle of the era.

 

[sophie]

They were advanced on some fields, but they were pathetic militarly and their states weren't that well-organized, there were some exceptions, for one i think that the Iroquois could easily deserve a country tag...combined with the Europe-native relationship events D&T has we could have them surviving and converting+modernizing with help from some europeans...

Wow, what an even more inane and Eurocentric comment. Please stop talking history until you can come back here and act like a real, responsible, well-read adult. Thank you.

 

[hoplitejoe]

Wow, what an even more inane and Eurocentric comment. Please stop talking history until you can come back here and act like a real, responsible, well-read adult. Thank you.

Why educate someone on a bit of history they don't know or are wrong about when you can shout them down!
Don't tell me you have never argued a point about history and gained knowledge as it was shot down, I know I have many a time.

 

[Duke of Britain]

I'm guessing that you've just offended an entire continent of American Indians by referring to their history as "US history".

The Conquest of America (the continent, not the country) is the most important and dominating historical event in the period covered by EU3. That the complex interaction between the Indians and Colonists is represented so poorly is a disgrace.

No, i did called it US history, i just made a comparation to people calling me Eurocentric when some games are so USA-centric... (Victoria 2 comes to mind, the american countries are pathetic with the exception of the US, especially Brazil, who had one of the world's most powerful navies by the 1880s, and even before employed a modern and strong navy, where in these games it can be compared to...Sokoto)

Why not argue about every single game representing the americas wrongly?

And the interaction would be better off being based aroudn events and decisions, with the occasional tags. (they slow the game down, so the less unimportant tags the better)


(Tough their history seems to naturally receive special attention from the yankees, so if i did called their history part of the US history it would not be totally wrong either, the same can't be said to the opposite, of course)

The Indians were so pathetic militarily, all the colonial powers, starting with the Spanish way back in the 1500s and continuing into the 19th century, courted their support and they were valuable allies in conflict against other Europeans and Indians. They were so pathetic, most Indian nations in North America maintained their independence until after the establishment of the United States. The Cherokee, who in EU3 are inevitably annexed by Spain or Portugal in the 1500s, weren't dislodged from their lands until 1831.

Of course, they had knowledge of the terrain and could fight well in it, but if you compare an army of indians to an army of europeans, on open field, there isn't much to argue about.

And the Indians of the Great Lakes - allied - resisted expansion through to 1795, or even 1812.

Yes, in terms of European warfare they would have been easily defeated. But the Natives did not fight European warfare, and really not much of anyone else did on the continent - America was a land of irregular warfare. But that's the game for you; it treats everything as a typical European battle of the era.

Exacly.
Game limitations leads to them being able to be considered pathetic from a game-perspective...as you yourself said, it considers everything an european open-field battle, where their biggest advantages were probably knowledge of the terrain and experience (?) with irregular warfare
And the europeans shouldn't be able to send 10000 soldiers to conquer Mexico in 1450~ either
The game does not represents any kind of irregular warfare (unless you count scorching the land as using guerrilla tatics, and even that should have higher impacts...)

The fact that you can simply seize their land while at war does not help it either...

Wow, what an even more inane and Eurocentric comment. Please stop talking history until you can come back here and act like a real, responsible, well-read adult. Thank you.

Your failure to come up with proper arguments instead of insults saddens me, i suggest you walk out of this discussion and go back to your playground.

 

[Tee Kay]

Of course, they had knowledge of the terrain and could fight well in it, but if you compare an army of indians to an army of europeans, on open field, there isn't much to argue about.

(Repeats Oda's point about Indians not conforming to traditional modes of European warefare).

And even so, Indians could sometimes hold their own against Europeans even on the open field. Incans with anti-cavalry slings come to mind.

The game does not represents any kind of irregular warfare (unless you count scorching the land as using guerrilla tatics, and even that should have higher impacts...)

And that is not a trivial flaw.

 

[Duke of Britain]

(Repeats Oda's point about Indians not conforming to traditional modes of European warefare).

And even so, Indians could sometimes hold their own against Europeans even on the open field. Incans with anti-cavalry slings come to mind.




And that is not a trivial flaw.

Well, i suppose being used to the climate and altitute helps a lot as well (on the Incans)

Anyway, 1 to 1 on open field the europeans would usually exceed, generally more advanced weaponry and used to fighting these kind of battles, on the jungle however?
Cortez would have failed if he had not managed to ally some natives...

The game is surely not focused on the colonization of the Americas

In fact, you keep arguing all the day about native americans not being in a mod, check over in India or the muslim world, that is somewhere that currently deserves way more attention.

 

[W|M]

Those aren't nearly as mangled as how Native Americans are portrayed. Cortés and his Spaniards relied on quite a lot of luck, and it was extremely hard to carve out the Spanish Empire - Even in places which have no native Civilizations (such as Virginia), it took years for the settlers to even survive sustainably, let alone establish themselves as a power in the region.

 

[sophie]

Why educate someone on a bit of history they don't know or are wrong about when you can shout them down!
Don't tell me you have never argued a point about history and gained knowledge as it was shot down, I know I have many a time.

What is there to educate him on? If he's going to go around making statements like "Native Americans were more primitive and technologically inferior than Europeans," there's really not much I can help him with.

 

[Tee Kay]

The game is surely not focused on the colonization of the Americas

It's focused on the period AD1399 to AD1821; it should focus on the colonisation of the Americas, or that should be one of the main focus. I know it doesn't, but it should. I'm talking about what can be done better, not what the game is.

In fact, you keep arguing all the day about native americans not being in a mod, check over in India or the muslim world, that is somewhere that currently deserves way more attention.

I'm making a mod with Oasis that has Native Americans and an improved Asia and Africa, so there.

Those aren't nearly as mangled as how Native Americans are portrayed. Cortés and his Spaniards relied on quite a lot of luck, and it was extremely hard to carve out the Spanish Empire

Colonial America doesn't fare much better in representation, either.

 

[Evie]

As far as quality of representation goes, Asia is, luckier than most of the Rest of the World. Africa had it the worst, followed shortly behind by America. Asia comes a good bit behind - yes, there's shortcuts, simplifications and representations of one tag with another, and yes the map is horrendous in Asia, but it's still a far better representation than the tragi-comedies of Africa and the Americas.

(Even within Asia, India is far from the worst part off - South East Asia and the Middle East share that crown, not India))
Oceania is not worthy of discussion.

That said I disagree that "This game should focus on colonization fo the Americas". As I said before, the game's focus, is, and should be, on the discovery of the world, and the contact and interactions between Europeans and the many different people they encountered along the way.

That's really the great flaw of Paradox's approach. They do piecemeal improvement to how things work in an individual region, but European contact with the RoW are governed in exactly the same way as contact between European nations. This is the biggest flaw of the game - contact with the great established empires of the East should be about sending missionaries to their provinces and trying to get access to the trade in their markets. Contact with the natives of north america should be about forming trade leagues with them that direct their furs to your markets (subtle but important distinction), and purchasing provinces from them to expand your colonial holdings. Contact with japan should involve backing one side or another in the civil war (rather than having all contacts be with main Japan) - not by direct military intervention, but by providing advice and armament to the side most favorable to you. Etc, etc, etc.

Instead, it's all the same, without any distinction. They'Re all just victims to be conquered - all the more so than western tech nations because they suffer from ridiculously overblown technological penalties.

 

[hoplitejoe]

What is there to educate him on? If he's going to go around making statements like "Native Americans were more primitive and technologically inferior than Europeans," there's really not much I can help him with.

Do you really think he thinks that due to some strange hatred of native Americans? Or perhaps lack of knowledge on the subject and false assumptions?