Most worthless province? - Post your opinion!!

[ReiseReise]

Greetings everyone,

In the spirit of the "Most valuable province" thread, I ask the opposite question:

What is the most worthless, useless, dangerous, or otherwise undesirable province in the game?

I anticipate some responses for Arguin but I hope to focus on provinces that are bad because they have a poor economy, constantly rebel, are always under attack, etc., rather than just impossible to get to.

[_Tristan_]

I would nominate Ajaccio... It is generally the target of all Italian factions, the French, Moors and even Spain and Portugal...

Added to its relatively poor economy that makes it one of the most worthless in my opinion...

[Old Geezer]

But, the more worthless a province is the more valuable it is, because you can give it to the Pope! Then, assuming you were smart enough to convert it to a city if it was a castle, after selling off all improvements except the church, you can get it to rebel. Recycling is so green.

[Zim]

There's a North African province, the first one west of Tunis I think, that seems to be a magnet for attacks by sea from Italy and Iberia, and has little economic potential ad a low growth rate. I'd rate it second most worthless in its region after the one Tristan mentioned, Ajaccio, which is attacked by even more factions.

Inverness has also been pretty worthless in my games, unless I'm playing Scotland and turtling (in which case it's useful until I conquer my first other castle). It has a low growth rate and doesn't make much money even if converted to a city, and is in a pretty poor position to supply troops to anywhere. I suppose the only good thing about it is that noone lands troops there.

Some of the crappier far eastern steppe settlements would make such a list as well. They may not be targets for lots of AI attacks, but they make up for that by not only being worthless but taking so long to get to. Every turn an army is moving towards one is a turn's wasted upkeep, and the payoff for getting them is extremely small. I suppose at least they're good places to bleed the Mongols before they reach your more valuable settlements.

[ReiseReise]

But, the more worthless a province is the more valuable it is, because you can give it to the Pope!

Great strategy!

[Dead Guy]

Dongola

Trade: Poor
Troop Supply: Useless if you have Gaza etc
Public Order: if you're not Egypt, horrible.

And to top that off, if a rebel stack spawn there I never have the energy to even recruit some militia to squash it!

Jedda is pretty smashing too... All of these provinces that have long land routes are also great if the flood/earthquake bug strikes, so it takes 7 years to pass through =)

[Gray Beard]

Durazzo takes the cake for worst province because if you are the Byzantines you have to hold it to keep it from becoming a jumping off place for the Sicilians and as a buffer against the Venetians. However, it is so small, very isolated because of the terain and simply worthles unless you can hold for something like 150 years. And yet Thesiloniki Constantinople and Corinth are to far away to protect each other so you have to take it and keep a big honking hairy legged army garrisoned there to protect the other three places from a Venetian sneak attack until you can take Ragussa. Then you have to defend it to keep the Sicilians landing there and turning your flank.

[Ramses II CP]

Fortaleza (sp?) in Brazil. Horrible public order problems, incredibly distant from everywhere, frequent storms, no sea trade zones nearby, and if you happen to lose it to rebellion it will be ~10 turns before you can get troops all the way back to it to recapture it.

Oh, and the trade goods aren't that impressive. The only times I've taken it were for story reasons.

Dongola and Jedda can have sea trade which, if nothing else, boosts your income at Cairo. Dongola, Arguin, and even Jedda have trade goods that it's worthwhile to park a merchant on. Provinces that are heavily contested just mean that you can have some fun battles! Since when is that a negative?

I would say only Bulgar approaches the uselessness of Brazil, but even Bulgar has land trade routes and can be used as a bulwark in the Mongol or Timurid wars.

No contest. Fortaleza.

[PrestigeX]

Iverness
Rhodes
and all the ones which are where you'll find the last of teh russians (so far away and only accessible by long march

[Grombeard]

Durazzo takes the cake for worst province because if you are the Byzantines you have to hold it to keep it from becoming a jumping off place for the Sicilians and as a buffer against the Venetians. However, it is so small, very isolated because of the terain and simply worthles unless you can hold for something like 150 years. And yet Thesiloniki Constantinople and Corinth are to far away to protect each other so you have to take it and keep a big honking hairy legged army garrisoned there to protect the other three places from a Venetian sneak attack until you can take Ragussa. Then you have to defend it to keep the Sicilians landing there and turning your flank.

That's definitely it! Couldn't have said it better! It takes ages until it grows and it's at a horrible position where you would need something... stronger... than some wood sticks placed around a few huts. So mostly i just leave it alone and take the castle north of it...

[glyphz]

I also think Durazzo is the most worthless province, but that's based on my limited experience, meaning in all of my campaigns not one has yet to go farther than 80 turns, so I havent gone to the New World, nor held the NE provinces yet.

a 400 pop. village at the start located between 2 potentially dangerous foes (Venice, Byzantines) that want it. A large garrison is needed to protect it w/c costs a ton more than what Durazzo can offer you. Indeed, in 2 campaigns of mine (Sicily, Venice), I gave the province to the Pope, and he was so happy to get it that he would have been on his knees kissing my iron greaves in private if he had the chance . I offer it very soon after taking a large hit in the Pope-O-Meter, due to conquering Christian settlements. I believe that's better than getting at an early war w/ a neighbor just for a slow growing, high-maintenance town.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ajaccio and Cagliari, once with port, tend to create more income than some inland provinces of the same population, though I am still squeezing the most out of v1.0 before upgrading to v1.2/3, where i heard AI tend to be more aggresive . I guess I might also give Ajaccio to the Pope if multiple factions are so obsessively attracted at that island resort.

Dongola and Jedda do get some trade income from ports and definitely add to Cairo's trade, but they're not top priority and only go after them when I have an army to spare. It does get annoying though when you try to wipe out the Egyptians quickly and turn those pesky Egyptian stacks to rebel, only to find them take Jedda or Dongola. Tsk!

Inverness as well as all settlements in the British Isles become cities once they're all mine. Separated from the main continent, there is no need to have a large garrison, and the trade becomes very nice later on. I'd leave a high chiv general (or maybe 2 + some boats) to guard the isles, and increase public growth in all settlements (esp. dublin. caenarvon, york and inverness) till at least 6000

[Rhyfelwyr]

I was going to say Ajaccio, but then Ramses reminded me about Fortaleza.

In one campaign, I saw a Papal army, Milanse Army, Spanish Army, and Portuguese army all on Ajaccio at the same time, surrounded by their fleets. And the Moors travelled there shortly after as well. And in other campaigns the Sicilians often show interest in Ajaccio after they take Cagliari. Its just an absolute nightmare to defend, you need an expensive fleet just to ferry reinforcements there.

As the Turks I've found Durazzo doesn't cause too much trouble, I've had it attacked by the Papacy (bizarelly agressive in this campaign), but that is all, although I have admittedly wiped the Byzantines out.

Dongola and Jedda seem to be generating some good income for me just now, although I did have trouble with public order in Jedda, largely because a couple of Heretics had been camped there.

Fortaleza is a waste of space as a settlement, you don't even need to conquer it to use it resources, which is all its good for. At least if you convert Mikosukee and the Cuban city to Castles you can reinforce your armies when fighting the Aztecs.

Trebizond is another pretty useless settlement, very slow growth and is stuck behind a network of mountains. I suppose it can reinforce armies in Tblisi/Yerevan when the hordes arrive.

And Arguin is pretty useless.

Nicosia isn't good for much either.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Arguin.

It's only neighbor is Timbuktu. And it's more valuable for merchants if someone ELSE holds it for trading purposes.

Ummmm how about Helsinki for an actual province near real factions?

It's like the tiniest in the game, and is barely worth having as a recruiter of basic horse. It's worthless as a trading partner until 100 turns have passed.

I dont use new world provinces because by the time you've gotten to the new world the game is over.

Bottom line: Arguin is the MOST WORTHLESS PROVINCE EVER

No strategic value. No economic value. More useful for someone else to hold it for your merchants to make more money.

[Guru]

Ummmm how about Helsinki for an actual province near real factions?

It's like the tiniest in the game, and is barely worth having as a recruiter of basic horse. It's worthless as a trading partner until 100 turns have passed.

I must disagree. Helsinki is very small in the beginning, true, but It'll make a good trade city when it grows. It has some resources and it'll boost the trade in other coastal towns nearby, too. Has to be converted into a town though. To be honest it didn't even exist by 1100s. I'd say Bulgar, Ajaccio and Arguin are the most worthless provinces. Dunno about New World provinces.

[Philbert]

I'm ambivalent about Ajaccio being worthless. It is certainly true that it will be attacked every other turn, but I found (as the Sicilians) that it was fun defending it, and it became an excellent training ground for troops and generals.
The ground around Ajaccio became fertilized with blood from all over the known world.

[Eikon the Magistrate]

Bulgar is my worst province. Sooo far away and whenever I have a full army waiting for the Timurid party to show up, they siege it for 1 turn and move on the other far off russian provinces are pretty much the same sarkel etc

Corinth/Rhodes fun but pretty useless to own

Inverness is a dissapointment because it never produces enough..just sits there and pickles itself for 200 turns sure no civil unrest but no money either. When I play as the Scots I take York right away and it always turns into a bigger and richer city even tho its many turns behind initially.

Helsinki is great!! 4 trade items in the province... turn it into a city as the danes or russians and it gets big fast.

Nicosias location is why its valuable I keep raiding armies there all the time.

Once you control dongola and jedda your trade in cairo and alexandria almost doubles...

Arguin is the closest city in the old world to the new world.

Fortaleza is the closest city in the new world to old world.

Ajaccio does get alot of attacks, but that means they arent attacking elsewhere...and they are attacking you in sieges....and it is an island after all... IMO few provinces with sea access are entirely useless

[Askthepizzaguy]

I must disagree. Helsinki is very small in the beginning, true, but It'll make a good trade city when it grows.

When it grows?

What good would that do? I've got to conquer the world in the time it takes the average person to sneeze. I haven't got the time to coddle the peasantry. I'm far too busy chopping off heads and setting fire to the broken bodies of the vanquished.

If I wanted to build cities... I wouldn't spend all my time destroying them!

[Grombeard]

When it grows?

What good would that do? I've got to conquer the world in the time it takes the average person to sneeze. I haven't got the time to coddle the peasantry. I'm far too busy chopping off heads and setting fire to the broken bodies of the vanquished.

If I wanted to build cities... I wouldn't spend all my time destroying them!

So this is what comes out when you let a pizza guy rule an empire...

Hmm... Taking that one step further: Do you think there is a connection between the Romans conquering the whole world and pizza coming from italy? And did Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan started their lives as pizza delivery boys? Should we stop ordering pizza to not support a possible future warlord?

[Guru]

When it grows?

What good would that do? I've got to conquer the world in the time it takes the average person to sneeze. I haven't got the time to coddle the peasantry. I'm far too busy chopping off heads and setting fire to the broken bodies of the vanquished.

If I wanted to build cities... I wouldn't spend all my time destroying them!

Makes me question what you're doing in a thread like this then (I'm not being rude or anything, don't take offence.) If your goal is to burn the city and slaughter the population, does it really matter what the city is like? You can slaughter the population like you can do in any other city, right?

Helsinki grows like any other city, when you use the end turn button. Of course settlements won't grow very big when you kill everyone inside, don't build any buildings and your game lasts for 10 turns. If you occupy instead of extermination and play a long game, the settlements won't be just small villages of widows in the end.

And I hope you know what happens to you when the peasantry gets bored of your rule... It'll happen in the 1700s or so. And you'll be the main ingredient of "Pizza the Cruel".

[The Wandering Scholar]

Small settlements are like puppies, nurse them and treat them good and they will come out good in the end.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So this is what comes out when you let a pizza guy rule an empire...

Hmm... Taking that one step further: Do you think there is a connection between the Romans conquering the whole world and pizza coming from italy? And did Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan started their lives as pizza delivery boys? Should we stop ordering pizza to not support a possible future warlord?

You know where all this anger comes from?

People who refuse to tip the pizza guy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Makes me question what you're doing in a thread like this then (I'm not being rude or anything, don't take offence.) If your goal is to burn the city and slaughter the population, does it really matter what the city is like? You can slaughter the population like you can do in any other city, right?

Helsinki grows like any other city, when you use the end turn button. Of course settlements won't grow very big when you kill everyone inside, don't build any buildings and your game lasts for 10 turns. If you occupy instead of extermination and play a long game, the settlements won't be just small villages of widows in the end.

And I hope you know what happens to you when the peasantry gets bored of your rule... It'll happen in the 1700s or so. And you'll be the main ingredient of "Pizza the Cruel".

Actually there is a very good argument for why a blitzer would care. As opposed to a turtle, who has the time and patience to raise ANY worthless province into something almost worthwhile, the Pizzaguy, er, the Blitzer has to conquer the map in a set number of turns, and only certain provinces, when conquered early or in succession, assist me in rolling up the map.

Good castles in strategic positions, large cities for sacking florins and militia recruitment and vital trade for supporting my vast armies, as well as sentence fragments.

It can be said that a blitzer cares MORE about WHICH provinces he owns than a turtle does!

As for raising puppies... I'd rather raze cities. Treat them terribly and they will all be forced to accept your brutal rule in the end.

[ReiseReise]

It can be said that a blitzer cares MORE about WHICH provinces he owns than a turtle does!

Very interesting. The turtle can say "Oh well, whats another 30 turns while this grows into something useful, I will be supported by all my pretty buildings in my other cities in the meantime."
The blitzer does not have that luxury and says "wtf is this worthless pile of filth, the sacking proceeds won't even cover the funeral expenses of the soldiers who died taking it." And considering the funeral expenses are the wages of a dirty peasant with an even dirtier shovel and a very strong leg from kicking all the bodies into a trench.... thats saying a lot.

[Malkut]

When it grows?

There are other options. I took an already developed Helsinki in the Late Campaign in Stainless Steel, converted it into a city, and it wasn't particularly bad. More advanced units at the beginning, too.

On the other hand, SS makes you feed and rest your troops, so I don't know if you can have armies of Borg relentlessly crushing the entire world in 28 turns.

[Guru]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It can be said that a blitzer cares MORE about WHICH provinces he owns than a turtle does!

Says the Blitzer.

Blitzer's games are short. He needs to conquer all (or set amount of) settlements. Settlements are his objectives. If he is going to take every settlement, he'll need Arguin and Constantinople. Of course he'll get more money from 'nople but nevertheless, he'll need Arguin too.
It won't take many turns until the Blitzer will own all settlements, which, in my humble opinion, eliminates the "WHICH" question to some extent. You, dear pizzaboy, have already proven that an experienced Blitzer can effectively blitz regardless of what provinces he has in the beginning. The blitzer plays to win. To conquer. To chop off heads for fun.
Turtle's games are long. He'll build and tech up with a handful of provinces. Settlements like Arguin or Inverness have little potential to grow big even in the hands of a turtle. They'll grow slowly or even stop growing when they're still small. Bigger settlements are the key to teching up. The Turtle may stick with a couple of settlements for hundreds of turns. He prefers provinces with decent potential. He doesn't really need settlements like Inverness but the Blitzer does, for different reasons obviously.. The Blitzer doesn't have to care about that potential, he's games are so short and he is not going to tech up.

It can also be said that a turtle cares MORE about WHICH provinces he owns than a blitzer does! I'm also sure that a turtle cares longer.

And by the way, the settlement you suggested to be the most worthless province (near real factions) is the capital of the country I live in!
Think about that!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Says the Blitzer.

Blitzer's games are short. He needs to conquer all (or set amount of) settlements. Settlements are his objectives. If he is going to take every settlement, he'll need Arguin and Constantinople. Of course he'll get more money from 'nople but nevertheless, he'll need Arguin too.
It won't take many turns until the Blitzer will own all settlements, which, in my humble opinion, eliminates the "WHICH" question to some extent. You, dear pizzaboy, have already proven that an experienced Blitzer can effectively blitz regardless of what provinces he has in the beginning. The blitzer plays to win. To conquer. To chop off heads for fun.
Turtle's games are long. He'll build and tech up with a handful of provinces. Settlements like Arguin or Inverness have little potential to grow big even in the hands of a turtle. They'll grow slowly or even stop growing when they're still small. Bigger settlements are the key to teching up. The Turtle may stick with a couple of settlements for hundreds of turns. He prefers provinces with decent potential. He doesn't really need settlements like Inverness but the Blitzer does, for different reasons obviously.. The Blitzer doesn't have to care about that potential, he's games are so short and he is not going to tech up.

It can also be said that a turtle cares MORE about WHICH provinces he owns than a blitzer does! I'm also sure that a turtle cares longer.

And by the way, the settlement you suggested to be the most worthless province (near real factions) is the capital of the country I live in!
Think about that!

Tsk tsk, Guru!

You and I both know that Helsinki in this particular game, in the vanilla version, is the least developed or populated province, or darn close to it. PS it did not exist in the year the campaign begins anyway, so that's giving it more credit than it even deserves. I don't imaging New York City or Washington D.C. would be very 'useful' or 'populated' in 1080ad either. Helsinki didn't exist until 1550.



I think you missed my point. If I aim for worthless provinces right off the bat, I waste a LOT of money to gain a province which cannot defend itself, build itself up for many, many turns (thus rendering it worthless to me, given the short duration of my campaign... as Jedda is worthless to Scotland) or even contribute any sizeable taxation towards my campaign.

In short, what a province is worth to me is what remains for the 10-20 turns after I sack/occupy it. That's what it's value is to the blitzer. Some provinces, Helsinki for example, provide almost no sacking florins, provide no income, and if I left it truly undefended and wasn't heading into Russia, Russia would take it, as it is Russia's second or third "objective".

Vienna, on the other hand, is IMMENSELY useful to the blitzer. Central location to blitz from, can support itself, can generate ballista, can be converted into a castle, can develop itself in the span it takes to blitz, and is profitable even whilst defending itself!

See the argument?

From my perspective, a turtle has 50 or more turns to spare to turn Dublin, Helsinki, or God-forsaken Arguin into a major province capable of supporting or defending itself. Ok ok, Jedda will always suck.

I don't have such luxury. And although Helsinki or Arguin are on my list of objectives, it's about as worthless to me as a used tin can on my scavanger hunt list. Once obtained, it's completely worthless, and is in fact a drain on my time and resources.

But I can understand your perspective, even if I disagree with your premise, honourable sir.

Salute!


PS- I think very highly of Finland, by the way. A friend and trading partner, home of some very nice and friendly people, with a seemingly functional government with very well-funded social programs. Not to mention the women are VERY attractive. Plus they don't go around bombing everyone like some preeminent yet failing superpowers I happen to claim residence within. Go USA and such. I love my country, but.... sometimes... damn.

[Guru]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Tsk tsk, Guru!

You and I both know that Helsinki in this particular game, in the vanilla version, is the least developed or populated province, or darn close to it. PS it did not exist in the year the campaign begins anyway, so that's giving it more credit than it even deserves. I don't imaging New York City or Washington D.C. would be very 'useful' or 'populated' in 1080ad either. Helsinki didn't exist until 1550.

Yes I know. My "Helsinki" comment wasn't really a serious argument, more of an ice-breaking ending line or something like that. The town was ordered to be built by some Swedish king (Gustav?) in 1550 to compete in trade with Reval (Tallinn). I wonder why the developers didn't include Turku rather than Helsinki...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think you missed my point. If I aim for worthless provinces right off the bat, I waste a LOT of money to gain a province which cannot defend itself, build itself up for many, many turns (thus rendering it worthless to me, given the short duration of my campaign... as Jedda is worthless to Scotland) or even contribute any sizeable taxation towards my campaign.

In short, what a province is worth to me is what remains for the 10-20 turns after I sack/occupy it. That's what it's value is to the blitzer. Some provinces, Helsinki for example, provide almost no sacking florins, provide no income, and if I left it truly undefended and wasn't heading into Russia, Russia would take it, as it is Russia's second or third "objective".

Vienna, on the other hand, is IMMENSELY useful to the blitzer. Central location to blitz from, can support itself, can generate ballista, can be converted into a castle, can develop itself in the span it takes to blitz, and is profitable even whilst defending itself!

See the argument?

From my perspective, a turtle has 50 or more turns to spare to turn Dublin, Helsinki, or God-forsaken Arguin into a major province capable of supporting or defending itself. Ok ok, Jedda will always suck.

I don't have such luxury. And although Helsinki or Arguin are on my list of objectives, it's about as worthless to me as a used tin can on my scavanger hunt list. Once obtained, it's completely worthless, and is in fact a drain on my time and resources.

But I can understand your perspective, even if I disagree with your premise, honourable sir.

Salute!

Our playing styles are quite different, and it was obvious to me that we'd have different opinions on this matter. I've played Blitz games too (tho very few I must admit) and I understand the blitzer's priorites. For the Blitzer, the most important province is the one that assists him in his mission the most; helps him to conquer the whole known world. That could very well be Vienna, as you argumented in that earlier thread. Faraway, small settlements do not help the blitzer, even though he needs to capture those provinces too.
The Turtle can turn small faraway settlements into major cities only if they have the potential. Settlements like Stockholm have great potential for the Turtle. Settlements with little potential do not interest the turtle.
Again, just like in that "best province" thread, we have different definitions for the province we're trying to choose here. It cannot be said that a turtle's way of approaching this matter is better than the Blitzer's, neither the other way around. I think I understand both approaches, but as a turtle(ish) player I had to bring forth the turtle's opinion in contrast to your Blitzking's views. I like the way you argument to support your views. Where's pizzaguy, there's discussion (of varying quality )

PS What a time-consuming discussion, I really should be doing something else!


- Regards, Guru

[Eikon the Magistrate]

Well after abit of experience with it Ill have to correct myself and agree with most.... Arguin is a terrible, terrible place. I thought I could correct it...I spammed priests and assasins and spies and kept full garrisons tried to keep a governor always built EVERYTHING and the dam place still rebels... whats worse I never made any money from it really.. at least not enough to ever warrant me making the effort to capture it again!

I thought I was the ultimate turtle... I guess wild hearts cant be tamed

[Czar Alexsandr]

I'm a turtle, no doubt about that. For me, one of the worst provinces was Durazzo. Playing as the Byzantines Durazzo was, for me, a battleground that I had great difficulty sending reinforcements to. I lost a general in the mountain passes near the settlement that had a decent army too. I got so angry I sent Prince John from Constantinople and defeated the Venitians that had attacked it and then latter took Ragusa. It has slow growth and the income was very meager. The amount of resources I poured into it was, of course, easily more than the tangible value of the settlement. To it's credit.. it can be called useful only in the way that it's a staging ground to attack or defend from Venice or Sicily. But I would also say it was the most useless settlement in my game.

As Russia Helsinki is acctually useful. In the early period I use it to train and send the troops available in castles to Riga and Novgorod. That's useful for dealing with the Polish, Germans, and Danes that usually end up being my enemies. However, when I capture Vilnius I can send them by land or just increase the garrison at Vilnius. I think Helsinki can be seen as a strategic postion though. I use it to reinforce my armies in the region and to launch naval invasions against the Danes. It does have rather slow growth though, however I always think I'm safe leaving it as a viable option to get good troops to Novgorod and Riga quickly.

Bulgar and Sarkel, sigh, alas I must confide, Bulgar and Sarkel are pretty poor. ^_^; They're good for absorbing the invasions but that's just about it. It's hard to use them as bases to attack the Mongols and Timurids cause their economy is poor, they don't grow fast so there's limited troop production, and they're hard to send reinforcements to. I like to think of them as.. the very poorly defended eastren front of Russia that is a constant thorn in the side for me. Lol. I do send reinforcements from Sarkel to Caffa though. Caffa, Kiev, Ryzan, and Moscow are much more important to protect than Bulgar and Sarkel. Sarkel and Bulgar are good for monitering the progress the invaders are making... not much more. If I'm lucky the hordes arrive in Baghdad and I can take Tiblisi, a much better position in every way. Along with Trebeizond I can acctually send men to Kiev and Caffa way more efficently, as well as the fact the regions make better frontlines. I think they have their uses though. (Mostly mental. Think about it, they're big provinces, tricks you into thinking you've got a good sized empire. XD )

I played a short Scotland game once, Iverness is a rather slow growing low output settlement, but I wouldn't call it the worst. I used it to recruit my "good" troops. Somehow I managed to keep the English from taking York until Iverness was a fortress and I had more options. (Canervon was lost tragicaly, seems it was hard to send reinforcements there, for me anyhow.)

On a final note, the Czar would like to remind everyone the steppe settlements are not useless! In fact, they are the grandest and mightest most beautiful and powerful provinces in all of the world. Yes.. that is why everyone wants them. Bah. Didn't work for you did it Napolean? HAHAHAHA!!! ... Ahem.. Yes.. Russia is grand, truely.

[Zanar]

Rome, amirite?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I can't say Rome is worthless or even all that dangerous.

Not only does Rome trade with most of the prosperous Italian peninsula, but the islands and Palermo as well. It is a large city at the start, making enough money to defend itself easily. The only drawback to Rome is making the Pope your enemy, and by extension, any non-excommunicated Catholic willing to crusade.

However, I find that the benefits far outweigh the risks once a crusade has been already called, or if I am blitzing, which is always...

Besides, holding Rome and slaying the current Pope is the easiest way to curry favor with the new Pope. Offer him rome, and all of a sudden you will be good buddies.

But what is even more effective is slaying Pope after Pope in succession until you can put your own man in office. Then reconciliation happens for Catholic nations.... and spells doom for all those opposing the Pope's home Empire.

Don't let the man in the silly hat boss you around. BECOME the Pope and tell everyone else what to do. That's what he did, and it worked well for him. It's what I do... and I happen to be somewhat good at what I do.