By that I mean do you play by the rules of diplomacy? I.e. not attacking until you have sufficient reason to e.g. Insults/a murder/a war of succession, and with bonus points manipulating third parties to your advantage?
Printable View
By that I mean do you play by the rules of diplomacy? I.e. not attacking until you have sufficient reason to e.g. Insults/a murder/a war of succession, and with bonus points manipulating third parties to your advantage?
Well as France I invaded Wittenburg with little reason besides expansion. Savoy and Austria then declared war and I invaded the first. After this point I invaded nations based upon them declaring war.
No
Just strike whenever I want :smash:
Gah! How can you claim to be historic if you just march around stealing stuff?
I try to roleplay within reasonable limits.
I know how you feel Subotan, I can't stand taking unrealistic amounts of territory, it just does not feel right. :embarassed: I sometimes find it hard to play campaigns, as they will suggest that you take various regions, but I often just do as I please and try to stay realistic. I feel almost physically sick seeing a nation like Sweden control all of Europe, it is just wrong, so so wrong. ~:mecry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Likewise, I aim for when I start a Prussia campaign to go after Germany first, and unifiy that, either through alliances or conquest.
Well then I'll better not show a screen of my UP campaign(Flanders, France, Elsace, Spain, Portugal, Savoy, Lombardy, Genua, Italy & Würtemberg) and not to mention my possesions in America and India :juggle2:
No, it's a game. If I want history, I'll go to wikipedia.
What people did in history isn't always the best move. In fact, it's usually the opposite.
I largely try to. I started a campaign as Prussia. Spent 10 years insulting Poland, demanding the territory between my two countries, stacked troops on the borders, threatening, etc. Diplomatic relations absolutely plummeted, but they didn't attack me. So I decided to take the country anyways. This drew Saxony and Courland in, which made a great excuse for expanding. After getting the territory from Poland that I wanted, I made peace with them. Now I'm going to try and start a war with Austria by insulting them, and assassinating their politicians. Hopefully GB doesn't help them out too much...
I don't play for history. But I do try to play "realistically." Realistically, Prussia could/would not have taken over half of Europe in 15 years, so I'm not going to try to.
Well, countries had historical policies. E.g., you'd never see the Dutch swarming across the Alps like bees out of a hive, They were much more content to build a colonial and trading Empire.
What may be considered 'sufficient reason' to go to war with someone may vary greatly.
You could argue, for instance, that Spain has sufficient reason to invade the Netherlands right from the word go, to put those "damnable protestant rebels" in their place.
Or you could argue that Spain doesn't have sufficient reason to invade because the Dutch haven't been in any way aggressive within the game, yet.
It all depends on how you see it.
Let em try it, we'll just quick their ass againQuote:
Originally Posted by Maleficus
Of course, sufficient reason for me means when I'm running out of money.
If income's down, invade somewhere. It always does the trick for a while.
Until I run out of money again......
I play as correctly as i can. If a nation i'm not trading with attacks a nation i am trading with, i defend the nation i trade with. Not always by war on land, but by destroying their fleets and blockading their trade routes. If the war escalates and my trading partner is getting steamrolled i help out on land.
I never just invade somebody for expansion reasons, except in India and the new world where everything is fair game. Not other European factions there, i mean i invade the natives there purely for reasons of expansion.
A lot of nations had ancestral grievances or claims on foreign lands. Some countries just wanted to expand, period. Those that expanded without a good "reason" got snubbed on the international scene, just like that. Lots of countries with good resources had no real need to expand, they were fine on their own.
But when a nation exhausts its resources, they look elsewhere. If they can't trade for what they want, then they take it. Rule of strength, eh? The world will always have a Hitler.
Or the French Kings? They were always beating down on people for the simple reason that they could. And usually succeeded quite wonderfully. Until of course the British arrived to put the Fine Dining Panisies in their place.
I tend to play relatively historical within limits, I try to avoid getting involved in land wars in Europe as Britain for example, but I don't hold back if someone declares war.
As Prussia, I usually start off being aggressive against the German minor powers and this will almost always bring a larger power to war (Saxony & Poland, Bavaria & Austria, Hanover & Britain) and then I proceed to take territory away from the first two and get colonial or tech concessions from Britain, as invading the home isles would be just a bit ridiculous.
As Spain or France on the other hand, invading Britain is on the cards, as this was something they had wanted to do several times. As France I attempt to expand east as they did historically and as Spain I worry about the Dutch, Italy, North Africa and North America... etc
I usually wont limit myself too much, but playing with a bit of historical flare can be quite fun.
I don't artificially limit my strategic choices, although I generally wait for a war to start rather than openly invading. I also don't usually attack someone unless I can split them out of an alliance. The biggest 'rule' if any is playing in the mindset of the faction. Poland never had designs on India, Great Britian didn't want to conquer Russia, Austria didn't have South American colonies. So within reason I tend to try and win as the faction might have.
In then end you usually end up owning half the known world anyway, but hey.
I have found in my one campaign that do to the AI's anti expansionism mindset once you start taking a little and the wars just start rolling in.
I never really have a desire for expanding as greatly as I do, but in the end it is just to tempting to wipe out a faction rather then just have them build on your door step for years, and years, and years.
When I took half of Pol-Lith, I was more then content to just let them be till the end of time as a Russian buffer. Once they started moving 2000-3000 troops along my border though, it was time to deal with it.
Russia became my enemy when they invaded and burned much of my city.
Venice I took do to the fact they took out my fleet.
Saxony and Wutemburg do to refusal to become Protectorates, same with Hanover. Which later leads others to become my protectorates.
The only groups I fight without much reason other then land were the Ottomans (but my prince starts off with a hate ottoman trait so with in reason as Austria)
and the Natives of America
In my British game the French declared war on me in 1704 I smashed their navy then raided their commerce for ten years then made a peace treaty. I haven't thought of invading their territory. Oh I could of, but i sent my two generals and their armies to my war in Canada with the Huron confederacy. Its a brutal and ugly war we have going on there, their capital is taken and their people enslaved.
I started off as the dutch playing fairly er, fairly, taking belgium then making peace with france and spain etc. I tried to play the global peacemaker, and it kind of worked, until Prussia declared war on my austrian allies. I physically could not make peace with them. I offered 50k and 3-4 techs for peace, after numerous state gifts, and they flat out refused. Then I went on an impulse invasion, which took my border up to next to Prussia, and then I just went on a conquering splurge and gave up on realism
usually i get to bored by conquering splurges. I mean it's nice to see the map your color but without some personalized reason and roleplay it's just a single faction conquest that kind of kills the replayability.
I went conquer crazy in Rome as Carthage and regretted it, made later game rather dull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael
I've also found that Prussia are virtually impossible to make peace with. :furious3:
It's as if they actually enjoy being massacred in their thousands..... :whip:
I've made peace with Prussia, even made them a protectorate, and a military ally at one point. It's all about how much you are willing to give to achieve those ends.
I attack the little factions closest to me in the Denmark side (playing as Sweden) and on the Russian side (made peace and an alliance with them) attacking Poland and then Prussia.
It depend of the faction i play.
With Prussia i don't play by the rules
With France i play by the rules
With UK i play by the rules, most of the time...
I found out that playing a diplomatic game in Europe with France as many advantage: it helped secure alliance with All Germans OPM (except Savoy, they declared war on me:inquisitive:, but they are more "Italian" than German, strike that they are French:2thumbsup:.)and when Austria declare war for the succession of the throne all Germans OPM + Prussia (my good tech partner) sided with me, so my border were secure and i could sent my army to help my fellow German allies and impose a quick peace to Austria. Sadly i had to declare war on Poland because they had refused all alliance (even if i had send a lot of gifts) and they attacked Prussia. Since I was so well liked in Europe (the Dutch even ask me for an alliance!) I could focus on strengthening my position in America and be ready when the UK try something. I've trashed the pirate and i have quite a few trade ship around the globe. I've only declare war to the Amerindian nation i needed territories because of a mission (i treated that as a casus belli), so the Huron and Plain nation are my American Allies, I wish The USA could pop up to so and had them to my long allies list.
I'm playing for the prestige goal and i'm in the lead far in the lead with a high tech and a massive fleet. Having steady peace mean lots of income cash and low army upkeep. Lots of cash mean you can buy tech and sent gifts that translate to more allies.
When did they claim to be historic? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Anyways I don't, I'm not a role player. However I did think it was cool when I controlled the eastern us at Britain and did stop, and think that me taking Madrid and Paris made the map look kinda...wrong. I guess whilst it do think about it, it doesn't stop me. The French and Spanish have been bugging me for 50 years, I want their capitals :2thumbsup:
I was going to role play as a Netherlands trade empire, but thanks to the new bug, it just ruined that game experience for me. I would have to restart this game again.