|
On October 27 2011 05:47 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:23 Caller wrote:On October 26 2011 20:18 turdburgler wrote:
you can never avoid losing money/month, its by game design. your massive income is all going in to tech. if you have decent centralisation you can still mint some bonus money if you need it without inflation.
if you are taking penalities for being ahead of your time with tech its probably worth taking some money so you can build more upgrades (assuming you get enough magistrates from soi) 5/6 buildings are op. 20 colleges = 1 magistrate a year if the province is too poor to be worth building on, but tier 5/6 trade buildings give global bonus's so i just spam them all day every day, 200 production effeciency yeeee Wat. It's very easy to avoid losing money/month. Just have like national bank + centralization bonuses + maybe a tax assessor. I already upgrade all my crap, my monthly trade income is like 450+. national bank sucks, it doesnt actually make you any money, it just allows you to coin your money without suffering inflation. if you take compete chance or similar you can just flatout make more money. by the time you are able to build tax assessors the question is irrelevent because your income should be so obscene that you never need to mint anyway no point quoting a number like 450 unless you tell me the year 
it's like 1580 or something. It's kind of meh, I have both National Trade Policy and Shrewd Commerce Practice, but because I was Navarra and relied so heavily on trade income that I needed to mint, so National Bank was good. Now that I have a huge army, I absolutely need to mint. I mean have 4x the income of the next highest country and that's my PU.
|
On October 27 2011 02:21 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 20:38 Euronyme wrote:On October 26 2011 17:25 scFoX wrote:On October 26 2011 11:23 Corrik wrote:On October 26 2011 04:38 turdburgler wrote:On October 26 2011 03:01 Euronyme wrote:On October 26 2011 00:45 Corrik wrote:
I just finished a game as the Teutonic Knights.
I ended up with all of Russia, Finland, half of India, all of the Arabian Peninsula (spreading christianity to Mecca and Medina was fun), half of China, and small pockets in central and Western Europe.
It took forever to finally find a break from my bigger neighbors to finally get to expand. I was disappointed I couldn't form anything other than Prussia during my game. Wanted to become the Arab League or Russia or something. = ( You can form Prussia and Germany. maybe you can only form germany as prussia in DW or something? idk but ye, you can form germany for sure as TO You could form Prussia and then Germany. However, my empire went eastward... not westward... so I had very little cores required to form Germany. How do you guys make images of your game maps? If I remember correctly, you have to move your capital if you want to form Germany when starting as Teutonic Knights. One of the requirements is having your capital in Brandenburg (and being of Prussian or Saxon culture). On the plus side, their requirements for forming Prussia are dirt cheap -- they already have all the provinces in 1399, they just have to become Protestant or Reformed. It was rather annoying as Brandenburg to see them forming Prussia before I ever had a chance to. It doesn't help that their capital province is one of the requirements... You basically have to annex them. >_> You don't have to move your capital.. Ever. And only Brandenburg has to change their religion if they want to form Prussia, whereas the Teutonic order does not. On October 26 2011 20:11 Caller wrote:On October 26 2011 18:51 Skilledblob wrote:
did you inherit france allready? lol no they're still insulting me, even after my massive military buildup. I've ben involved in nonstop wars for a while just to keep them from insulting me but it's kinda gamy. At least my ssend gift gives back around 50+ relations on average (I have 18 or so countries in my sphere of influence, so my 9 diplo leader gets a bonus of 15) they have 240k troops to my 220k. Even though I own 4 trade centers (Lisboa at 1500, Barcelona at 750, Liguria at 600, and Constantinople at 1200) and have by far the largest income in the world (9600 to 2nd place, France, at 2400) and vassalized a shitton of rich provinces I'm running on a slight monthly deficit. I can always inflate but DoT has a mechanic where if you have exactly 0 inflation you get a slight prestige and income boost which is nice to have. So as it is I have to be very careful about forcelimits. On the flipside I have a buttload of artillery (50k artillery, 50k cavalry, rest infantry) because of semi-role playing. Horses don't grow on trees after all. Even if the french have 100k cavalry. What's the deal with cavalry anyway? If you look at their dots they're almost always inferior to infantry. When you get the longbowman you're basically already ahead from the cavalry, and the cavalry won't change until the 1600s. The way cavalry works is simple: your tech level gives a certain tech level modifier. At early levels, infantry as a modifier of .05 fire and .5 shock, and cavalry has .05 fire and 1.2 shock. So when you have 2 dots of longbowmen, its actually 2 dots x .5 shock = 1.0 shock damage. Whereas cavalry have 1 dot at 1.2 shock, = 1 x 1.2 = 1.2 shock damage, making them superior to longbows. Similarly they have 1.2 shock damage resistance. Cavalry are almost always superior to infantry until at least the 1700s. That being said, cavalry take double penalties from terrain (meaning if they are trying to cross a river for example they will get -2 instead of -1 to their roll) and are also fiendishly expensive. However, cavalry is still good to have. If you have at least 4 units of cavalry in the battle, you get a flanking bonus (as two untis of cavalry are positioned on each of your army's flank) which gives them a huge amount of damage to reflect the importance of flanking attacks (see for ex. Battle of Cannae with Hannibal). If you have cavalry = to about 50% of your infantry, you also get a combined arms bonus. As for artillery, artillery shoots from the back row, giving half their fire damage and taking no shock damage until all your infantry and cavalry are dead. So if you adopt a defense-oriented infantry and artillery, this can be very effective. Personally I love using shock-based infantry.
Wow. I did NOT know that. I always had atleast half of the army infantry, and then the rest cavalry and artillery. Basically made all armies the same - 10/5/5, or more recently 12/3/5. It's a pain to siege with cavalry ^_^
So basically what's the ultimate composition in your opinion? I'd really like to have it so that all the armies have the same composition. Just makes it easier. I'm trying to avoid having to have like two cavalry armies that beat the opponents armies and one pure infantry to siege or something like that, because I just know I'll fuck it up somehow ^_^
I also only play against the AI as I wanna pause when I want, all my friends think I'm insane for playing the, and no European that I know wanna co-up. Is there any like AI abusive composition?
|
Still need some ideas for my Knights game. Is my idea solid of just teching / trading for ~100-150 years, slingshotting in tech and then taking over Northern Africa and Italy?
|
actually i just waited until i could blitz constantinople and then used that as a base to beat up ottomans
you do want to trade/tech as much as you can but you really need to be an opportunist as knights.
|
On October 27 2011 06:22 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:21 Caller wrote:On October 26 2011 20:38 Euronyme wrote:On October 26 2011 17:25 scFoX wrote:On October 26 2011 11:23 Corrik wrote:On October 26 2011 04:38 turdburgler wrote:On October 26 2011 03:01 Euronyme wrote:On October 26 2011 00:45 Corrik wrote:
I just finished a game as the Teutonic Knights.
I ended up with all of Russia, Finland, half of India, all of the Arabian Peninsula (spreading christianity to Mecca and Medina was fun), half of China, and small pockets in central and Western Europe.
It took forever to finally find a break from my bigger neighbors to finally get to expand. I was disappointed I couldn't form anything other than Prussia during my game. Wanted to become the Arab League or Russia or something. = ( You can form Prussia and Germany. maybe you can only form germany as prussia in DW or something? idk but ye, you can form germany for sure as TO You could form Prussia and then Germany. However, my empire went eastward... not westward... so I had very little cores required to form Germany. How do you guys make images of your game maps? If I remember correctly, you have to move your capital if you want to form Germany when starting as Teutonic Knights. One of the requirements is having your capital in Brandenburg (and being of Prussian or Saxon culture). On the plus side, their requirements for forming Prussia are dirt cheap -- they already have all the provinces in 1399, they just have to become Protestant or Reformed. It was rather annoying as Brandenburg to see them forming Prussia before I ever had a chance to. It doesn't help that their capital province is one of the requirements... You basically have to annex them. >_> You don't have to move your capital.. Ever. And only Brandenburg has to change their religion if they want to form Prussia, whereas the Teutonic order does not. On October 26 2011 20:11 Caller wrote:On October 26 2011 18:51 Skilledblob wrote:
did you inherit france allready? lol no they're still insulting me, even after my massive military buildup. I've ben involved in nonstop wars for a while just to keep them from insulting me but it's kinda gamy. At least my ssend gift gives back around 50+ relations on average (I have 18 or so countries in my sphere of influence, so my 9 diplo leader gets a bonus of 15) they have 240k troops to my 220k. Even though I own 4 trade centers (Lisboa at 1500, Barcelona at 750, Liguria at 600, and Constantinople at 1200) and have by far the largest income in the world (9600 to 2nd place, France, at 2400) and vassalized a shitton of rich provinces I'm running on a slight monthly deficit. I can always inflate but DoT has a mechanic where if you have exactly 0 inflation you get a slight prestige and income boost which is nice to have. So as it is I have to be very careful about forcelimits. On the flipside I have a buttload of artillery (50k artillery, 50k cavalry, rest infantry) because of semi-role playing. Horses don't grow on trees after all. Even if the french have 100k cavalry. What's the deal with cavalry anyway? If you look at their dots they're almost always inferior to infantry. When you get the longbowman you're basically already ahead from the cavalry, and the cavalry won't change until the 1600s. The way cavalry works is simple: your tech level gives a certain tech level modifier. At early levels, infantry as a modifier of .05 fire and .5 shock, and cavalry has .05 fire and 1.2 shock. So when you have 2 dots of longbowmen, its actually 2 dots x .5 shock = 1.0 shock damage. Whereas cavalry have 1 dot at 1.2 shock, = 1 x 1.2 = 1.2 shock damage, making them superior to longbows. Similarly they have 1.2 shock damage resistance. Cavalry are almost always superior to infantry until at least the 1700s. That being said, cavalry take double penalties from terrain (meaning if they are trying to cross a river for example they will get -2 instead of -1 to their roll) and are also fiendishly expensive. However, cavalry is still good to have. If you have at least 4 units of cavalry in the battle, you get a flanking bonus (as two untis of cavalry are positioned on each of your army's flank) which gives them a huge amount of damage to reflect the importance of flanking attacks (see for ex. Battle of Cannae with Hannibal). If you have cavalry = to about 50% of your infantry, you also get a combined arms bonus. As for artillery, artillery shoots from the back row, giving half their fire damage and taking no shock damage until all your infantry and cavalry are dead. So if you adopt a defense-oriented infantry and artillery, this can be very effective. Personally I love using shock-based infantry. Wow. I did NOT know that. I always had atleast half of the army infantry, and then the rest cavalry and artillery. Basically made all armies the same - 10/5/5, or more recently 12/3/5. It's a pain to siege with cavalry ^_^ So basically what's the ultimate composition in your opinion? I'd really like to have it so that all the armies have the same composition. Just makes it easier. I'm trying to avoid having to have like two cavalry armies that beat the opponents armies and one pure infantry to siege or something like that, because I just know I'll fuck it up somehow ^_^ I also only play against the AI as I wanna pause when I want, all my friends think I'm insane for playing the, and no European that I know wanna co-up. Is there any like AI abusive composition?
early on mass cavalry stacks tend to rape pretty hard, after that i would recommend a 10/4/4 or something like that.
|
On October 27 2011 06:22 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:21 Caller wrote:On October 26 2011 20:38 Euronyme wrote:On October 26 2011 17:25 scFoX wrote:On October 26 2011 11:23 Corrik wrote:On October 26 2011 04:38 turdburgler wrote:On October 26 2011 03:01 Euronyme wrote:On October 26 2011 00:45 Corrik wrote:
I just finished a game as the Teutonic Knights.
I ended up with all of Russia, Finland, half of India, all of the Arabian Peninsula (spreading christianity to Mecca and Medina was fun), half of China, and small pockets in central and Western Europe.
It took forever to finally find a break from my bigger neighbors to finally get to expand. I was disappointed I couldn't form anything other than Prussia during my game. Wanted to become the Arab League or Russia or something. = ( You can form Prussia and Germany. maybe you can only form germany as prussia in DW or something? idk but ye, you can form germany for sure as TO You could form Prussia and then Germany. However, my empire went eastward... not westward... so I had very little cores required to form Germany. How do you guys make images of your game maps? If I remember correctly, you have to move your capital if you want to form Germany when starting as Teutonic Knights. One of the requirements is having your capital in Brandenburg (and being of Prussian or Saxon culture). On the plus side, their requirements for forming Prussia are dirt cheap -- they already have all the provinces in 1399, they just have to become Protestant or Reformed. It was rather annoying as Brandenburg to see them forming Prussia before I ever had a chance to. It doesn't help that their capital province is one of the requirements... You basically have to annex them. >_> You don't have to move your capital.. Ever. And only Brandenburg has to change their religion if they want to form Prussia, whereas the Teutonic order does not. On October 26 2011 20:11 Caller wrote:On October 26 2011 18:51 Skilledblob wrote:
did you inherit france allready? lol no they're still insulting me, even after my massive military buildup. I've ben involved in nonstop wars for a while just to keep them from insulting me but it's kinda gamy. At least my ssend gift gives back around 50+ relations on average (I have 18 or so countries in my sphere of influence, so my 9 diplo leader gets a bonus of 15) they have 240k troops to my 220k. Even though I own 4 trade centers (Lisboa at 1500, Barcelona at 750, Liguria at 600, and Constantinople at 1200) and have by far the largest income in the world (9600 to 2nd place, France, at 2400) and vassalized a shitton of rich provinces I'm running on a slight monthly deficit. I can always inflate but DoT has a mechanic where if you have exactly 0 inflation you get a slight prestige and income boost which is nice to have. So as it is I have to be very careful about forcelimits. On the flipside I have a buttload of artillery (50k artillery, 50k cavalry, rest infantry) because of semi-role playing. Horses don't grow on trees after all. Even if the french have 100k cavalry. What's the deal with cavalry anyway? If you look at their dots they're almost always inferior to infantry. When you get the longbowman you're basically already ahead from the cavalry, and the cavalry won't change until the 1600s. The way cavalry works is simple: your tech level gives a certain tech level modifier. At early levels, infantry as a modifier of .05 fire and .5 shock, and cavalry has .05 fire and 1.2 shock. So when you have 2 dots of longbowmen, its actually 2 dots x .5 shock = 1.0 shock damage. Whereas cavalry have 1 dot at 1.2 shock, = 1 x 1.2 = 1.2 shock damage, making them superior to longbows. Similarly they have 1.2 shock damage resistance. Cavalry are almost always superior to infantry until at least the 1700s. That being said, cavalry take double penalties from terrain (meaning if they are trying to cross a river for example they will get -2 instead of -1 to their roll) and are also fiendishly expensive. However, cavalry is still good to have. If you have at least 4 units of cavalry in the battle, you get a flanking bonus (as two untis of cavalry are positioned on each of your army's flank) which gives them a huge amount of damage to reflect the importance of flanking attacks (see for ex. Battle of Cannae with Hannibal). If you have cavalry = to about 50% of your infantry, you also get a combined arms bonus. As for artillery, artillery shoots from the back row, giving half their fire damage and taking no shock damage until all your infantry and cavalry are dead. So if you adopt a defense-oriented infantry and artillery, this can be very effective. Personally I love using shock-based infantry. Wow. I did NOT know that. I always had atleast half of the army infantry, and then the rest cavalry and artillery. Basically made all armies the same - 10/5/5, or more recently 12/3/5. It's a pain to siege with cavalry ^_^ So basically what's the ultimate composition in your opinion? I'd really like to have it so that all the armies have the same composition. Just makes it easier. I'm trying to avoid having to have like two cavalry armies that beat the opponents armies and one pure infantry to siege or something like that, because I just know I'll fuck it up somehow ^_^ I also only play against the AI as I wanna pause when I want, all my friends think I'm insane for playing the, and no European that I know wanna co-up. Is there any like AI abusive composition?
you only need 1 cav army per side to get the flanking bonus
first 100 years pure cav stacks with 1 large infantry stack for siegeing
once tech advances to allow ~20 supply before stupid lvls of attrition 10/10 to allow instant siegeing of lvl 1 forts (assuming you have decent morale)
once you unlock cannons you should start reducing cav numbers, 15/5/0 or so. have a large artillery core in 1 stack to siege lvl 3 forts at the few places they exist.
assuming you have been sliding toward quality you should be able to stay below attrition limits until 1650 or so, depending on who you fight. most european powers should be expanding through the middle east in this time as it allows you to become a super power, with the best casus beli. this means 20-25k stacks are all you need.
when the wars return to europe get a gauge on your opponent, any moderate sized power you will need to merge stacks but in general a ratio of 10/2/10 is the late game comp to max your damage.
the computer is stuipid and will build 10 stacks of 25k even in the late game, roll through them with 1 60k stack and you will take barely any losses.
ai, y u so bad at fighting.
|
On October 27 2011 06:26 Candadar wrote:
Still need some ideas for my Knights game. Is my idea solid of just teching / trading for ~100-150 years, slingshotting in tech and then taking over Northern Africa and Italy?
race purely for the requirements for QFTNW, drop current NI and put in quest, take azores, take all of america. you dont need to wait 150 years, this can be done in something like 30. you will need to wait 50 years for azores to core but thats still only 80 years. once you have decent colonisation you can do what you want, you have completely blockaded the colonial powers leaving them with shitty naval slider hurr
On October 27 2011 06:11 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 05:47 turdburgler wrote:On October 27 2011 02:23 Caller wrote:On October 26 2011 20:18 turdburgler wrote:
you can never avoid losing money/month, its by game design. your massive income is all going in to tech. if you have decent centralisation you can still mint some bonus money if you need it without inflation.
if you are taking penalities for being ahead of your time with tech its probably worth taking some money so you can build more upgrades (assuming you get enough magistrates from soi) 5/6 buildings are op. 20 colleges = 1 magistrate a year if the province is too poor to be worth building on, but tier 5/6 trade buildings give global bonus's so i just spam them all day every day, 200 production effeciency yeeee Wat. It's very easy to avoid losing money/month. Just have like national bank + centralization bonuses + maybe a tax assessor. I already upgrade all my crap, my monthly trade income is like 450+. national bank sucks, it doesnt actually make you any money, it just allows you to coin your money without suffering inflation. if you take compete chance or similar you can just flatout make more money. by the time you are able to build tax assessors the question is irrelevent because your income should be so obscene that you never need to mint anyway no point quoting a number like 450 unless you tell me the year it's like 1580 or something. It's kind of meh, I have both National Trade Policy and Shrewd Commerce Practice, but because I was Navarra and relied so heavily on trade income that I needed to mint, so National Bank was good. Now that I have a huge army, I absolutely need to mint. I mean have 4x the income of the next highest country and that's my PU.
most people playing navarra allow aragon to vassalise them, then when aragon gets inherited, castille can own you instead. protecting you from the blue blob that way, trade till qftnw then take all of america. ive never understood wanting to play an opm as a warmonger its just the same as playing a larger country except starting 150 years earlier you can get in a few intense situations but if you want hard to fight wars just start the game as burgundy and do all your reconquests at once. even intense situations, when you are an opm theres barely anything to do ;<
|
On October 27 2011 07:43 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 06:26 Candadar wrote:
Still need some ideas for my Knights game. Is my idea solid of just teching / trading for ~100-150 years, slingshotting in tech and then taking over Northern Africa and Italy? race purely for the requirements for QFTNW, drop current NI and put in quest, take azores, take all of america. you dont need to wait 150 years, this can be done in something like 30. you will need to wait 50 years for azores to core but thats still only 80 years. once you have decent colonisation you can do what you want, you have completely blockaded the colonial powers leaving them with shitty naval slider hurr Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 06:11 Caller wrote:On October 27 2011 05:47 turdburgler wrote:On October 27 2011 02:23 Caller wrote:On October 26 2011 20:18 turdburgler wrote:
you can never avoid losing money/month, its by game design. your massive income is all going in to tech. if you have decent centralisation you can still mint some bonus money if you need it without inflation.
if you are taking penalities for being ahead of your time with tech its probably worth taking some money so you can build more upgrades (assuming you get enough magistrates from soi) 5/6 buildings are op. 20 colleges = 1 magistrate a year if the province is too poor to be worth building on, but tier 5/6 trade buildings give global bonus's so i just spam them all day every day, 200 production effeciency yeeee Wat. It's very easy to avoid losing money/month. Just have like national bank + centralization bonuses + maybe a tax assessor. I already upgrade all my crap, my monthly trade income is like 450+. national bank sucks, it doesnt actually make you any money, it just allows you to coin your money without suffering inflation. if you take compete chance or similar you can just flatout make more money. by the time you are able to build tax assessors the question is irrelevent because your income should be so obscene that you never need to mint anyway no point quoting a number like 450 unless you tell me the year it's like 1580 or something. It's kind of meh, I have both National Trade Policy and Shrewd Commerce Practice, but because I was Navarra and relied so heavily on trade income that I needed to mint, so National Bank was good. Now that I have a huge army, I absolutely need to mint. I mean have 4x the income of the next highest country and that's my PU. most people playing navarra allow aragon to vassalise them, then when aragon gets inherited, castille can own you instead. protecting you from the blue blob that way, trade till qftnw then take all of america. ive never understood wanting to play an opm as a warmonger its just the same as playing a larger country except starting 150 years earlier you can get in a few intense situations but if you want hard to fight wars just start the game as burgundy and do all your reconquests at once. even intense situations, when you are an opm theres barely anything to do ;<
because being an opm warmonger is awesome
you see, because i'm basque culture, i'm not in any other person's culture group. Why would I want to get vassalized by aragon or castille? That requires luck and the hopes that they don't annex you. I play skill only.
The other thing is Navarra has really, really good sliders, like -2 centralization and +4 free market, and other things, which makes it hilarious. Being an OPM also allows you to have much faster tech than your larger country allies. And besides, having the and also by removing Portugal and Castille from the picture, we have a more interesting North America.
More importantly though, BASQUE FOR THE BASQUE GOD. It's a lot more fun roleplaying as an OPM than it is as Castille. We all know how Castille ends up uniting Aragon in 1480ish to form Spain, but isn't it more entertaining to have Castille stomped into submission? It's the same reason you play Byzantium instead of the Ottomans. It's so much damn fun to fuck with history.
|
I mean honestly colonization is nice and all that, I already did it with Switzerland (yeah figure out how THAT happened) but once you move your capital overseas to get the insane amounts of income (it's totally worth it) you basically can stomp on anybody and everybody. It's not very fun. Being an OPM warmonger is nicer because it's a lot easier to snowball as Castille than Navarra. Also you get to vassalize fucking everybody which is awesome, to have your own little minions with their puny 2 or 3 regiment armies just zerging over large opponents.
|
they just need to adjust the alliance system to allow alliances up to the size of the biggest alliance in the world, the ai refusing to alliance up is unrealistic and allows you to snowball. in real history many countries banded together to beat off the huge empire of the time
|
On October 27 2011 08:40 turdburgler wrote:
they just need to adjust the alliance system to allow alliances up to the size of the biggest alliance in the world, the ai refusing to alliance up is unrealistic and allows you to snowball. in real history many countries banded together to beat off the huge empire of the time
I usually note that whenever I become huge all the other nations get pissed off at me and tend toi all war me when I'm off in another country. Besides I tend to expand very cautiously and with good reason, and also I vassalize a lot of shit.
|
that is just an affect of wars / infamy. you can easily war all around the world as long as you keep your infamy low people will love you. even easier with a german country, royal marriage gives 3 relations per year, 0.3 more if you ask for mil access etc etc to wipe out infamy gains.
|
On October 27 2011 08:52 turdburgler wrote:
that is just an affect of wars / infamy. you can easily war all around the world as long as you keep your infamy low people will love you. even easier with a german country, royal marriage gives 3 relations per year, 0.3 more if you ask for mil access etc etc to wipe out infamy gains.
nononono I make it a policy to keep my infamy under 10 because I am a trading nation and infamy absolutely kills traders. Even without the infamy though, people always get pissed off at me. Like I have never been in a war with Bohemia yet our relations are -199.
|
0 free trade is enough of a bonus to mean you out compete every other nation except swiss and nederlanders so it doesnt even matter : D atleast on d&t with stronger sliders
|
So I was playing a D&T Byzantium game, and for the heck of it, decided to throw caution to the winds and try to grow as fast as I possibly could. After grabbing all my cores in Turkey and Greece, I suddenly got this handy CB against the Papal State. I was like "hell yes!" and declared war and sent my invincible armies to Italy to oust the Pope from what is by all rights my city.
Fast forward 20 years. The Pope's allies in Italy all banded against me and fell like flies. I annexed pretty much all of Italy and my infamy grew high, but still a few points under the limit. All this time, the Mamluks (presumably they're pretty pissed about my annexation of the Ottoman Empire) would declare war every chance they got. Also, the war in Italy had some how managed to piss off both England and France (I think they both had allies among the Italian minors).
10 years after this, my empire is in shambles. The Mamluks kept sending massive amounts of guys to screw with me in Turkey, and my conversion efforts in Italy spawned obscene amounts of rebels. The death blow came when England AND France declared war on me, (albeit from different alliances, I think this is the first time I've seen England and France agree on anything) started blocading Constantinople so I couldn't reinforce the the front against the Mamluks in the southeast.
I couldn't defend Italy either since I had relied on military access to get there, and this was revoked when one of the nations had joined England's alliance. Shipping troops were not an option either because England.
My economy started to break down. While I had loads of cores everywhere, many of them were under occupation and my war exhaustion was really high. This is when I stopped playing.
TL;DR I don't know if this is D&T specific, but in my experience, major powers DO seem to care if someone grows too big even if it's nowhere near their territory.
|
On October 27 2011 10:04 beef42 wrote:
So I was playing a D&T Byzantium game, and for the heck of it, decided to throw caution to the winds and try to grow as fast as I possibly could. After grabbing all my cores in Turkey and Greece, I suddenly got this handy CB against the Papal State. I was like "hell yes!" and declared war and sent my invincible armies to Italy to oust the Pope from what is by all rights my city.
Fast forward 20 years. The Pope's allies in Italy all banded against me and fell like flies. I annexed pretty much all of Italy and my infamy grew high, but still a few points under the limit. All this time, the Mamluks (presumably they're pretty pissed about my annexation of the Ottoman Empire) would declare war every chance they got. Also, the war in Italy had some how managed to piss off both England and France (I think they both had allies among the Italian minors).
10 years after this, my empire is in shambles. The Mamluks kept sending massive amounts of guys to screw with me in Turkey, and my conversion efforts in Italy spawned obscene amounts of rebels. The death blow came when England AND France declared war on me, (albeit from different alliances, I think this is the first time I've seen England and France agree on anything) started blocading Constantinople so I couldn't reinforce the the front against the Mamluks in the southeast.
I couldn't defend Italy either since I had relied on military access to get there, and this was revoked when one of the nations had joined England's alliance. Shipping troops were not an option either because England.
My economy started to break down. While I had loads of cores everywhere, many of them were under occupation and my war exhaustion was really high. This is when I stopped playing.
TL;DR I don't know if this is D&T specific, but in my experience, major powers DO seem to care if someone grows too big even if it's nowhere near their territory.
I think your problem was your refusal to a) compromise and b) take it easy. Nations will war you if they consider that you are a threaat, and that you are vulnerable. You should've given into the Mamluks after smashing their armies and blockading their ports. I would advise that you made them release, say Syria, so that you have a buffer to your South.
|
As I said, the game was an experiment in recklessness. I was actually pretty happy to see the European majors declare war on me.
|
Christ, Ethiopia is the most frustrating thing I have ever done man.
I got Adal and Swahili as my vassals. Yet I need to go take out Mutaba for their gold so I can start making any money at all, but their 6 stacks with no general beat my 12 stack with a general by a ridiculous margin. So there is nothing I can do against them. Swahili is also ravaged by revolts, so much that they can't come back at all from them so I need to diplo annex them and take the tribal territory hit just to stabilize the area.
Screw this, time to go conquer Asia as Japan.
|
On October 27 2011 10:38 Candadar wrote:
Christ, Ethiopia is the most frustrating thing I have ever done man.
I got Adal and Swahili as my vassals. Yet I need to go take out Mutaba for their gold so I can start making any money at all, but their 6 stacks with no general beat my 12 stack with a general by a ridiculous margin. So there is nothing I can do against them. Swahili is also ravaged by revolts, so much that they can't come back at all from them so I need to diplo annex them and take the tribal territory hit just to stabilize the area.
Screw this, time to go conquer Asia as Japan.
why not just send your troops in to kill their rebels
|
'cuz rebels always have the western tech group? Seriously whomever at Paradox decided that must be the biggest troll ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
