-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by strategy
I'm at 649 in my current game, so that sounds pretty reasonable.
That's quite a feat. Perhaps we shall have to turn Barsebäck
off with you around
Mostly TPs at that stage. The important thing is to settle them before someone else does. You can always build cities later on. Of course you try to build one or two cities on every fron so that you can raise local troops.
Dude!!
I've been really really close to taking it all as Sweden. About 10 provinces or so.
I've been really really close to taking it all as Sweden. About 10 provinces or so.
and what were your losses, one hundred million of soldiers?
can ou still check it? died from attrition or combat?
can ou still check it? died from attrition or combat?
You have to rip out the major powers from the game files
by hand. Details in the FAQ.
I've checked now. Losses weren't all that staggering, actually.
10 million combat losses - 14 million attrition for a nice
combined sum of 28 million lost. Not so bad for the time
period in question.
It'd be interesting to see how much people you could burn if they
ever do a EU:WWII
I'm totally confused now, it appears that we are talking about that losses in two different threads
Well, my biggest campaigns was by PL, and then most of my losses ( about three quarters) came from attrition. But you have more combat losses.
You are responsible for death of millions of people, and you call it a "low number"
aaargh
just kidding
Well, my biggest campaigns was by PL, and then most of my losses ( about three quarters) came from attrition. But you have more combat losses.
You are responsible for death of millions of people, and you call it a "low number"
aaargh
just kidding
Q: research funding?
Wow!!!
I would like to ask about funding vs. research.
Could you please give a short summary about your strategy?
How about stability, was it -3 all the time??
(One easy way is to take pictures of some pages in the book)
And another thing is then the size of your army, was it max all the time?
Wow!!!
Wow!!!
I would like to ask about funding vs. research.
Could you please give a short summary about your strategy?
How about stability, was it -3 all the time??
(One easy way is to take pictures of some pages in the book)
And another thing is then the size of your army, was it max all the time?
Wow!!!
Re: Q: research funding?
Stability was always in the 1 (after declaring war) to 3 range. When stability drops happen all reaserch is cancelled and all the money go into stability until it reaches 3. When stability is at 3, all money go to reaserch...
I don't really understand your second question. If you're asking if I kept all troops I could by bought out then the answer is no - soon enough you can raise enough armies without having to go through every sad backwater province to do so. I just had as much troops as I had to have
Skål på dig.
Originally posted by Jeje2
Wow!!!
I would like to ask about funding vs. research.
Could you please give a short summary about your strategy?
How about stability, was it -3 all the time??
(One easy way is to take pictures of some pages in the book)
And another thing is then the size of your army, was it max all the time?
Wow!!!
Stability was always in the 1 (after declaring war) to 3 range. When stability drops happen all reaserch is cancelled and all the money go into stability until it reaches 3. When stability is at 3, all money go to reaserch...
I don't really understand your second question. If you're asking if I kept all troops I could by bought out then the answer is no - soon enough you can raise enough armies without having to go through every sad backwater province to do so. I just had as much troops as I had to have
Skål på dig.
adamxxx:
Tackar och bockar, för informationen.
Some more...
If I have concluded correcty you palyed something like:
Mainly trying to have all possible funding an research in the beginning, with the exception of when stability was < 3.
=> This meant that funding new troops relayed on what you earned 1.1. every year.
This strategy until you had reseacherd everything.
What I meant with my second question is that - did you save money until war or bought troops as fast as possible all the time? (I've had some problems with my annual max new troop value. I could have raised more troops than had reserves)
Am I correct in my assumptions or?
Tackar och bockar, för informationen.
Some more...
If I have concluded correcty you palyed something like:
Mainly trying to have all possible funding an research in the beginning, with the exception of when stability was < 3.
=> This meant that funding new troops relayed on what you earned 1.1. every year.
This strategy until you had reseacherd everything.
What I meant with my second question is that - did you save money until war or bought troops as fast as possible all the time? (I've had some problems with my annual max new troop value. I could have raised more troops than had reserves)
Am I correct in my assumptions or?
Vassego! Slit den med hälsan...
If I have concluded correcty you palyed something like:
Mainly trying to have all possible funding an research in the beginning, with the exception of when stability was < 3.
Yep. Try to get into a cycling pattern of war and peace where
the wars last 1-2 years and the peace lasts 2-3 years. Spend money toward reseach in peace time and toward stability in war time. Repeat ad nausam.
=> This meant that funding new troops relayed on what you earned 1.1. every year.
This strategy until you had reseacherd everything.
Mainly, yes. Sometimes I had to dip into monthly income for troops, but you shouldn't have to do so on a regular basis.
What I meant with my second question is that - did you save money until war or bought troops as fast as possible all the time? (I've had some problems with my annual max new troop value. I could have raised more troops than had reserves)
Oh, I see. Look, always have as much troops bought out as your economy can sustain. Especially make sure you buy troops like crazy while at peace. The AI failure to buy troops at peace is probably it's strongest liablity overall... when war breaks out it's too darn late to start building troops. Mass troops at the border and overwhelm every single province they have - now they can't build troops - you win. Too easy, really.
This reinforces my belief that the only worthwhile game (for experienced players) involves 8 humans...
I recommedn you duplicate this feat with IGC2.1/v1.09 Very Hard/Furious.
I attempted it as Russia but I was stymied in two regards:
1: The Time of Troubles... in between 1602 and 1612 My government fell 3 times and every terriotry I had painstakingly conquered went independent, and some new ones were formed (Ukraine...) the only state which didn't go independent was Novgorod, and that's because I carefully guarded it with half my army.
As a result, I had to spend the next 30 years re-acquiring all my wayward possessions.
2: China... MUCH tougher. Thinking that China would be a pushover (as it had been in my standard GC games), I carefully gathered a large force on their border in about 1640 with several decent leaders. I was shocked to discover that China had NOT ONLY lvl 4 fortresses, but several 100 strong armies and aggressive land tech.
I made no progress. The war ended eventually in a white peace with my entire eastern army destroyed. So I fortified the Chinese border and let sleeping dogs lie after that. I should have clued in after China annexed both Japan and Dai Viet, followed later by Ayahuttyha.
End of game I controlled 90% of Europe, 100% of Siberia, and the Chinese economy was the same as mine. Shocking.
Probably if I tried it again I could devise a way of defeating China, but it looks like a LOT of work.
I recommedn you duplicate this feat with IGC2.1/v1.09 Very Hard/Furious.
I attempted it as Russia but I was stymied in two regards:
1: The Time of Troubles... in between 1602 and 1612 My government fell 3 times and every terriotry I had painstakingly conquered went independent, and some new ones were formed (Ukraine...) the only state which didn't go independent was Novgorod, and that's because I carefully guarded it with half my army.
As a result, I had to spend the next 30 years re-acquiring all my wayward possessions.
2: China... MUCH tougher. Thinking that China would be a pushover (as it had been in my standard GC games), I carefully gathered a large force on their border in about 1640 with several decent leaders. I was shocked to discover that China had NOT ONLY lvl 4 fortresses, but several 100 strong armies and aggressive land tech.
I made no progress. The war ended eventually in a white peace with my entire eastern army destroyed. So I fortified the Chinese border and let sleeping dogs lie after that. I should have clued in after China annexed both Japan and Dai Viet, followed later by Ayahuttyha.
End of game I controlled 90% of Europe, 100% of Siberia, and the Chinese economy was the same as mine. Shocking.
Probably if I tried it again I could devise a way of defeating China, but it looks like a LOT of work.
congrats, glad to see someone else doing it I conquered the world with England, France, Spain and then Russia and I have to say I will probably never do it again. The sheer irritation from the countless rebellions puts me off completely. Now I settle for only a third of the world or so
as I was preaching aeons ago on here, conquering the world is not only possible but actualy quite achievable and the BB is overrated.
I conquered the world with England, France, Spain and then Russia and I have to say I will probably never do it again. The sheer irritation from the countless rebellions puts me off completely. Now I settle for only a third of the world or so as I was preaching aeons ago on here, conquering the world is not only possible but actualy quite achievable and the BB is overrated.
Originally posted by Shaytana
congrats, glad to see someone else doing it
as I was preaching aeons ago on here, conquering the world is not only possible but actualy quite achievable and the BB is overrated.
I rather thought someone else was bound to have done it already - it such an obvious thing to do. And yes, it's a royal pain in the derriere... the way the game designers failed to allievate end-game micromanagement is really just awful. Some serious thought going into this for EU2 would be high on my wish list. It seems they seriously expected everybody to play it as a historic slideshow, bumbling along with two dozen provinces or something.
Sounds interesting. But frankly, I'm not sure I even want to play EU any more - it feels as if I've gotten my fill of the game already. Also, the tedium of lategame and endgame micromanagent is worse than CIV - which has always been my personal standard of bad end game design...
I think the problem for most people who consider world conquest is that it really gets boring at the end. Up till now, I have never completed a game of EU.
I'll see if I can make the Empire of the North the first I do complete (though its hard...)