Civ'ed
I ain't gotta explain a thing
I only really cheat if I need to...
Damn, I need to rethink my strategy
Damn, I need to rethink my strategy
How is your EU3 Game going?
- Thread starter TheLastOne36
- Start date
Thanks I think I'll probably cancel the mission in this game and try it in another game where I'm a nation that it makes more sense to fight the Ottomans.
I try not to reload the game but if I'm playing a tiny nation which needs a bit of luck to get going then I'll usually reload rather than restart the game a few times.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
Hey it's all your fault for tricking me into trying PUs.
OTOH i'm proud that i don't remember ever reloading because something crappy i did/happened. I stood by even my drunken decisions. Some of them even turned out great in the long run ! Like the Ottoman conquest of Navarre - that turned out great.
Small update on my game. The Black Sea is now an Ottoman sea, Poland(catholic) was at war with the defender of the catholic faith (Austria), so they had no chance of allies joining in against my holy war.
Also got a core on Kosovo, so my long standing serbian vassal's existence is now forfeit.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
I'm personally in agreement with uat2d, and largely with warpus. Cheating/reloading in strategy... it quickly erodes the strategy. Usually I prefer to roll with the punches. The real triumphs aren't as great otherwise.
Sometime I need to conquer more of Europe as the Horde. But it is really slow progress...
Sometime I need to conquer more of Europe as the Horde. But it is really slow progress...
How does EU3 decide who won at the end of the game? Is it solely down to who has the most prestige at that point? As a follow up question do you all try to maximise prestige at the end of the game?
I'm still playing as Burgundy and have an income three times higher than second placed Great Britain but Austria (decent size but Hungary is a vassal of Bohemia) and Bohemia (expanded east to include Sibir and Western Turkey) are regularly ahead of me in prestige as they lose less prestige per year. Its likely that I'll go to war with Austria soon however I don't have a direct land border with Bohemia so it seems a bit gamey to go to war with them particularly as all three of us are Catholic (I felt I couldn't convert as I had a million Catholic vassals).
I'm still playing as Burgundy and have an income three times higher than second placed Great Britain but Austria (decent size but Hungary is a vassal of Bohemia) and Bohemia (expanded east to include Sibir and Western Turkey) are regularly ahead of me in prestige as they lose less prestige per year. Its likely that I'll go to war with Austria soon however I don't have a direct land border with Bohemia so it seems a bit gamey to go to war with them particularly as all three of us are Catholic (I felt I couldn't convert as I had a million Catholic vassals).
Bowsling
Deity
There is no winning or losing in EU3. It's like soccer for seven year olds, except instead of halftime oranges, you get halftime heresies.
How is going to war with someone that you don't have land border with gamey?
How is going to war with someone that you don't have land border with gamey?
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
Technically, yes, you are ranked by current prestige, so the civ that is "the greatest" at the end is the one with the most prestige. But Bowsling is right, too... there isn't really that much of a defined "winning". Prestige is transient, you could be first the whole game, lose a war, and be 46th in 1820, but I wouldn't consider that inherently losing. And spending it (for Spheres of Influence) is perfectly legitimate, too.
EU2 had more of a real scoring system, but the problem was the AI's didn't "get it". In particular, the AIs did very few of the quests that gave victory points, so it was quite easy to "win" because the AI got hardly any points that way. Might work well in multiplayer, though...
Waging war with someone you don't share a border with isn't inherently gamey. It's happened plenty of times throughout history (although I suppose most of the cases I'm thinking of do involve being able to reach each other by sea). Although I see what you mean, too - just going out and forcing a bunch of civs to release vassals because you can is somewhat gamey. On the other hand, "reducing to size" is a justification for war as well.
EU2 had more of a real scoring system, but the problem was the AI's didn't "get it". In particular, the AIs did very few of the quests that gave victory points, so it was quite easy to "win" because the AI got hardly any points that way. Might work well in multiplayer, though...
Waging war with someone you don't share a border with isn't inherently gamey. It's happened plenty of times throughout history (although I suppose most of the cases I'm thinking of do involve being able to reach each other by sea). Although I see what you mean, too - just going out and forcing a bunch of civs to release vassals because you can is somewhat gamey. On the other hand, "reducing to size" is a justification for war as well.
Bowsling
Deity
Conquering Siberia and Armenia as Bohemia is gamey, not going to war to free those oppressed Siberians.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Bordering the nations you declare war upon in OTL isn't really something to consider. You considered supply lines, of course, but there were plenty of wars that were done without the countries bordering each other. The Thirty Years War (and Sweden's role in that) comes to mind - that's how I handle pretty much all European wars in EU3. It certainly isn't gamey, at least.
shadowplay
your ad here
I'm still a novice since I don't play a lot but I'm loving this game. I'm playing as Portugal and I've started colonizing Brazil. I've also managed to get a hold of Gibraltar. I'll probably ruin everything so I'll keep you posted. 
I'm still a novice since I don't play a lot but I'm loving this game. I'm playing as Portugal and I've started colonizing Brazil. I've also managed to get a hold of Gibraltar. I'll probably ruin everything so I'll keep you posted.
make sure to grab Cape Verde and Madeiras in addition to Azores to block others. Also grab St. Helena and Cape Town so you can get to the Indies easier.
Okay I guess the bordering comment was a simplification, partly because its easier to fight a war when you have direct access and can invade from several points. Bohemia are Catholic, have been going to war with non Catholic nations and aren't even the emperor anymore so in the storyline that I've made up it seems unlikely that Burgundy would choose to fight them, particularly as the most likely peace treaty would be to force them to release some vassals. I have attacked other nations across the sea instead though.
Thanks though for the replies. Presumably they could implement something similar to Victoria to work out who is winning rather than solely relying on prestige as it was always slightly annoying to be told in EU2 that you had lost when taking a 1 or 2 province minor to be one of the largest countries in Europe etc.
Thanks though for the replies. Presumably they could implement something similar to Victoria to work out who is winning rather than solely relying on prestige as it was always slightly annoying to be told in EU2 that you had lost when taking a 1 or 2 province minor to be one of the largest countries in Europe etc.
I'm still a novice since I don't play a lot but I'm loving this game. I'm playing as Portugal and I've started colonizing Brazil. I've also managed to get a hold of Gibraltar. I'll probably ruin everything so I'll keep you posted.
Despite my long experience with the game, I've never played Portugal--I've opted for playing Castille, Aragon, France, England, Scotland, Normandy, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Sicily, and the Byzzies.
Colonial-wise, take as many early islands as you can to hold back the other guys from grabbing the territories you want in the New World. The Caribbean has particularly good resources for its colonies.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
And the Bermudas as well.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Or you can just colonize North America if you're late. Poorer provinces but no natives to speak of.
madviking
north american scum
North America is actually my second most preferred place to settle. A lot of the New England/Mid-Atlantic territories have some useful resources (fur, tobacco, cotton). The Caribbean has lots and lots of unhappy natives and, in the vanilla version, no easy way to move troops around the islands (D&T adds water crossings to all of the islands). Brazil is obviously the best place as it has sugar, tobacco, gold and pretty friendly locals.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
Just make sure to at least take the sea bordering provinces from the native American tribes.
Yeah, I also like North America.
I tend to go, by order of colonial range and trying to cover all the shores to held a monopoly, Atlantic Islands (and African Coast) => Brazilian Coast => Caribbean => Mexico and Eastern Seaboard => Argentinian Coast => Newfoundland, Labrador and Greenland => South African Coast => Rupert's Land => Chilean and Peruvian Coast => rest of the world.
The natives are very easy to deal with, if their aggressiveness is over 5 then just send some troops to clear them out while the colonists don't arrive. The new world countries are a joke, they're only there so that you can farm gold out of them.
As for the islands, what's wrong with your troops not being able to move around? They're islands, armies don't move on water, besides, whom are you going to be fighting there? Well, if you can cross it freely without boats in D&T, all the more reason to not get it, that's so silly, what, the troops there have so high morale and discipline they walk on water or ride the rainbow?
