Brutality, Ruthlessness, and other Virtues:
This is an "anti-ethical" essay along the same lines as Machiavelli's The Prince. I want to use this piece to explore the darker and more evil side of Europa Universalis. Dago has requested an education in this matter directly and I have been planning a document like this for a while now. So what is this essay designed to teach the reader?
1. The key components of a "rogue state" mindset.
2. A strategic philosophy to guide war-making and diplomacy.
The Rogue State Mindset
The first major step towards the "dark side" involves thinking in a manner that is very different from the traditional mindset. Large components of ethics and justice must be discarded and replaced with more useful principles to guide decisionmaking. This is what I mean by the Rogue State mindset. You must be able to think outside of the ethical box, outside of the conventional wisdom, and see the best path to take regardless of moral concerns. I think the best way to illustrate this mindset is to take "conventional wisdom" and then critically analyze it to show that is is actually non-benefitial to your nation.
Myth #1: There should be a balance of power.
There is no such thing as a balance of power in EU2. No nation is seeking a balance of power. This is an elaborate ploy to justify aggression and restricting other players. No one truly believes in balance of power or else they would consciously restrict their nation. It is extraordinarily rare to see people weaken their countries intentionally. Thus, this is a myth and is used to manipulate other nations.
Everyone actually wants to be number one. This is why they dont exercise the self-control needed to damage their own country. What people do want is for other nations to be so pre-occupied with fighting each other that they fail to notice the rise of their own nation to prominence. In real life, England used the "balance of power" justification to keep everyone on the continent weak while she dominated the colonial world. If England truly believed in balance of power, she would have tried to distribute her accumulated power and resources to the poorer states.
So what does this mean for us? First, it means dont pay attention to anyone who talks about balance of power. If you are up to it, challenge their claims directly. Point to their own personal excesses and request they self-limit their power "for the balance". Odds are that they will not do this and you will convince at least a few other countries that this whole balance thing is bullshit (at least temporarily). Second, this means that instead of wasting your time thinking about balance, you should instead be looking for ways to expand your national power at the expense of other nations. Third, it means that you should critically examine the TRUE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER and use that to guide your foriegn policy.
Myth #2: There are natural or historical patterns of development.
While the game engine may encourage historical development, I have never ever seen an MP game develop historically. If this was true, it would be pointless to have players in Poland, Venice, and Portugal. If this was true, players would limit themselves to purely historical conquests. Of course, this doesnt ever happen. That is because while EU2 is a historically based game, it is not a history book. Things will be different and so discussing what is "natural" and "historical" are a lot like discussing "balance". They ultimately are evoked to control or limit a player they view as a threat.
Natural and historical development most often comes up when one country is performing ahistorically well. The Ottomans or Spain dont decline. France or Austria becomes to powerful. Poland, Venice, Portugal, Brandenburg, Denmark, or Sweden is successful beyond their immediate confines or historical path. Why do people use this justification? They are trying to create sympathy for their actions. If Poland really shouldnt be more powerful than Russia, it creates sympathy for Russia and animosity toward Poland. The more successful a player you become, the more you will encounter these claims. It may not be phrased in these terms; you could be an "overgrown", "monsterous", "enormous", "gigantic", or "too powerful" a country. This is just propaganda. Dont listen to it and actively suppress it. Any time anyone calls your country into question, point out all the ahistorical and unnatural behavior they are engaging in.
Additionally, dont fail to pursue a strategy simply because it is unconventional. So what if Poland USUALLY doesnt behave that way. So what if Venice USUALLY doesnt dominate the Mediterranean. So what if Portugal USUALLY doesnt have a large European empire? Basically, dont let historical paths of development limit your PERCEPTION OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE for your nation. Consider anything that might possibly be useful to you, regardless of the "nature" of the world. Millions of people have been politically supressed in this world because some ass claimed it was "natural" for him to be in power. Dont listen to this bullshit. Break the rules and forge a new path.
Myth #3: Everyone gets gangbanged, it was just your time.
This is often told to the victim of a gangbang to justify what has happened. It isnt a justification at all because it isnt true. Some players rarely get gangbanged. This is regardless of their relative strength in the game. It is purely a result of diplomacy. Gang-bangs are an immediate consequence of diplomatic isolation. You must constantly be working to ensure that your neighbors are not all mad at you at once. If more than two of your neighbors is very hostile towards you, you have failed diplomatically.
Gang-bangs are often justified by evoking Myth #1 and Myth #2. The truth is that the nation getting attacked failed to be active diplomatically. Every nation is planning constantly. You must talk to them constantly and try to find ways to cooperate with as many as possible. You should look for goals that are mutually benefitial to both nations and collaborate with them. However, you should never permanently wed yourself to any one nation except in very rare conditions. Always keep rotating. Cooperate with neighbor A against neighbor B. Then cooperate with neighbor C against neighbor A. Then cooperate with neighbor B against C. And so on ad infinitum.
If you keep this rotating system, you will never get truly gang-banged yourself. You may eventually be forced to fight several nations at once, but you will probably at least be prepared for it and the loss from this one attack will not really cripple your country if you manage it correctly, but simply made up elsewhere through other means. No loss is permanent and the wheel will eventually come around to favor you next round. What is important is that you keep rotating and shifting your policy so that you evade the stagnation that will eventually get you truly gang-banged. This is when you have failed.
Building a Rogue Mindset:
After looking at these myths, we see some clear patterns. Success will come from constant shifting and exploiting of new opportunities. Stagnation is death. You should constantly be trying to expand your power. Dont pay attention to a concept of balance, instead keep your enemies fighting each other AT YOUR SIDE, so that they are never attacking you all at once. Dont limit yourself to "historical patterns". Exploit "unnatural" allies, expansion, power, and wealth.
I call this a rogue mindset because it resembles the way that an outlaw or criminal has rejected the social norms that limit his upward mobility. By taking these limiting beliefs and setting them aside, new doors to wealth and power are opened. Is a young man in the ghetto TRULY better of by following the straight and narrow path or is selling illegal drugs to pay for a higher quality of life justified? This is the kind of decision that faces us when playing Europa Universalis. Should I limit myself by these moral beliefs? Or should I step outside of the box and enrich my nation to the fullest? Unlike in real life, the consequences of getting caught are not jailtime or execution; thus to borrow from the PC game Dungeon Keeper: Evil is Good.
A Strategic Philosophy:
How should we view the world? As a rogue. How should we act on that new view? With care! You must be careful because the potential for "blowback" is very high. Eventually, you may be left without a chair when the music stops. I have already hinted at some strategic decisions, but lets put them into a more consolidated structure.
There are five ways to get countries to behave the way you want. They run along a continuum and are based on many factors. I call them the five F's; fortune, frenzy, fear, force, and fealty. Each motivation is more powerful than the previous ones. YOUR ULTIMATE GOAL should be to move all potential rivals along this continuum to the end. The more countries that you move to the end of the list, the stronger you will become.
Fortune:
I use this term to represent cooperation based on shared goals. The country in question is cooperating to further his own power and wealth. This is the weakest motivation because it is highly subject to perception of potential gain. This motivation can move countries to make small decisions; such as join in an attack on another nation. But it cannot affect powerful decisions unless there is the potential for enormous reward.
However, you should constantly be tempting nations to follow this motivation; especially in the early game when this is the only real motivation you have against your major rivals. You must convince nations that it is IN THEIR BEST INTEREST to cooperate with you towards some kind of shared goal; defeating AI nations in the early years, colonial coordination, cooperation against a potential future rival, and so on. You must fill their head with dreams of wealth and power that lies in every direction EXCEPT yours. You are not the threat, they are! Point out everything you can think of that would make them stronger but would also enrich you as well. Point out tasks that may be beyond their ability to achieve, but that will keep them busy. Tempation is the key to using fortune to guide the choices of others; though it may grant only limited control.
Frenzy:
This term represents an EXISTING emotional state; usually anger. Every time another player loses power to another nation, point it out to them if they dont notice and offer to help them achieve "justice". Shouldnt they really hold that COT? It isnt fair that they "stole" that province from them. This will enhance their existing negative emotions against that other player. When they are thinking emotionally, their rational barriers are reduced and they can be exploited into pursuing objectives that you "guide" them to. Frenzy is a simple motivation to exploit, but it is more rare than fortune. Frenzy is less useful against more emotionally stable players.
Fear:
If you possess a relatively large amount of power compared to a potential rival, you can begin to use fear against them. You want to use the temptation of fortune and the exploitation of their frenzy to push them to this point. Once they have been reduced in power relative to you, you can begin threatening them. Fear is more useful at altering their foriegn policy than actually extracting wealth from them; but it can sometimes do the trick. Threaten to attack them if they dont join your alliance. Point out all the ways that they are inferior to you. Exaggerate if you have to. Put time pressure on them to enhance the effects of this.
Human beings can be prodded into doing a wide variety of things based on fear alone. This is true in real life and EU2. People are more afraid of losing something that they are aware of than losing control over decisionmaking. When the human mind is forced to choose between two negative realities; for example the threat of attack vs joining an alliance that is less benefitial ti them; they are likely to avoid the loss they view as INEVITABLE and instead choose the POTENTIALLY NON-NEGATIVE outcome. They would rather take their chances that the alliance will be negative than the INEVITABILITY that your declaration of war will be negative. The more powerful your nation is relative to the nation being threatened, the effect is magnified.
Force:
When fear fails, force must carry the day. A nation that cannot be seduced by fortune, driven into a frenzy, or cowed into submission must ultimately be forced to accomodate your demands. That which is not done willingly is done unwillingly. Force is a dangerous tool and it can backfire. It is most properly used when your relative power is strongest against the nation in question. This is not constant over time, but changes with politics.
The best time to use force is WHEN IT IS LEAST EXPECTED. Force is also best used against a nation which is "off-balance". Their armies are not in position, they are engaged in other theaters of war with other powers, or they are in the middle of a historical event like the War of Religion in France or the Beys in the Ottoman Empire. You can often push a nation "off-balance" by using the previous tools against other powers to push them into war. This draws the energy of your target away from your border right as you prepare to strike. Most dire indeed.
Force should be used as quickly as possible. The use of force places YOU off-balance and so you should prepare for the use of force by using other means to secure your own flanks from attack. The longer the force is used, the more off-balance you become. Eventually, your other methods may fail and you will end up worse off than your target. Dont allow this to happen. If you are not successful quickly or other more attractive opportunities arise while the force is being applied, you should be prepared to make peace quickly to avoid these negative consequences or to exploit other opportunities. What is lost in the shift (real or potential) can perhaps be made up with quick and decisive action elsewhere.
Fealty:
This is the end of the line. You have subdued your opponent completely. He lacks the power to seriously threaten you and perhaps even the will to try. This is your ultimate goal for all your neighbors; though it may not be possible even for most. It is rare that your skill difference will be able to totally subdue more than a couple of your neighbors.
Fealty results when the player accepts that your ability to apply force against them is so great that resistance is FUTILE. Even if they succeed in resisting you in any one instance, you will punish them severely at the next instance. Therefore, further attempts to undermine you will result in the near total destruction of their nation. They have, in essence, realized the inevitable. And so instead they are pliable and cooperative because they really have no other choice.
At this point, you should begin building up their power again. This sounds stupid, but it is logical. You should direct their energy outwards against foes that lie beyond your reach. As you strengthen them, they will usually become even more accomodating. You are their benefactor. In crude terms, the slave has learned to love the master.
It is rare that a nation is reduced to fealty, so it is hard to make generalities. However, eventually they may realize that, due to your strengthening, resisting your domination is NO LONGER FUTILE. It is important that you watch for this carefully and be prepared. It is best if they betray you, in an ironic sense, because if they betray you and you immediately subdue them again, it will REINFORCE their fealty and they may never even attempt a betrayal again. However, this would be exceptionally rare, but it is an interesting potentiality.
Conclusion:
Your ultimate goal is to push all your neighbors down this continuum. Use fortune to motivate them and keep their energies directed away from you in the beginning. Exploit frenzy when you can. Once you become dominant, use fear to subdue them. If they resist, use quick strong application of force to ultimately reduce them to absolute fealty to your nation. This strategy is one of domination. All surrounding powers and subjugated slowly and simultaneously until you emerge as the master of them all.
This is an "anti-ethical" essay along the same lines as Machiavelli's The Prince. I want to use this piece to explore the darker and more evil side of Europa Universalis. Dago has requested an education in this matter directly and I have been planning a document like this for a while now. So what is this essay designed to teach the reader?
1. The key components of a "rogue state" mindset.
2. A strategic philosophy to guide war-making and diplomacy.
The Rogue State Mindset
The first major step towards the "dark side" involves thinking in a manner that is very different from the traditional mindset. Large components of ethics and justice must be discarded and replaced with more useful principles to guide decisionmaking. This is what I mean by the Rogue State mindset. You must be able to think outside of the ethical box, outside of the conventional wisdom, and see the best path to take regardless of moral concerns. I think the best way to illustrate this mindset is to take "conventional wisdom" and then critically analyze it to show that is is actually non-benefitial to your nation.
Myth #1: There should be a balance of power.
There is no such thing as a balance of power in EU2. No nation is seeking a balance of power. This is an elaborate ploy to justify aggression and restricting other players. No one truly believes in balance of power or else they would consciously restrict their nation. It is extraordinarily rare to see people weaken their countries intentionally. Thus, this is a myth and is used to manipulate other nations.
Everyone actually wants to be number one. This is why they dont exercise the self-control needed to damage their own country. What people do want is for other nations to be so pre-occupied with fighting each other that they fail to notice the rise of their own nation to prominence. In real life, England used the "balance of power" justification to keep everyone on the continent weak while she dominated the colonial world. If England truly believed in balance of power, she would have tried to distribute her accumulated power and resources to the poorer states.
So what does this mean for us? First, it means dont pay attention to anyone who talks about balance of power. If you are up to it, challenge their claims directly. Point to their own personal excesses and request they self-limit their power "for the balance". Odds are that they will not do this and you will convince at least a few other countries that this whole balance thing is bullshit (at least temporarily). Second, this means that instead of wasting your time thinking about balance, you should instead be looking for ways to expand your national power at the expense of other nations. Third, it means that you should critically examine the TRUE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER and use that to guide your foriegn policy.
Myth #2: There are natural or historical patterns of development.
While the game engine may encourage historical development, I have never ever seen an MP game develop historically. If this was true, it would be pointless to have players in Poland, Venice, and Portugal. If this was true, players would limit themselves to purely historical conquests. Of course, this doesnt ever happen. That is because while EU2 is a historically based game, it is not a history book. Things will be different and so discussing what is "natural" and "historical" are a lot like discussing "balance". They ultimately are evoked to control or limit a player they view as a threat.
Natural and historical development most often comes up when one country is performing ahistorically well. The Ottomans or Spain dont decline. France or Austria becomes to powerful. Poland, Venice, Portugal, Brandenburg, Denmark, or Sweden is successful beyond their immediate confines or historical path. Why do people use this justification? They are trying to create sympathy for their actions. If Poland really shouldnt be more powerful than Russia, it creates sympathy for Russia and animosity toward Poland. The more successful a player you become, the more you will encounter these claims. It may not be phrased in these terms; you could be an "overgrown", "monsterous", "enormous", "gigantic", or "too powerful" a country. This is just propaganda. Dont listen to it and actively suppress it. Any time anyone calls your country into question, point out all the ahistorical and unnatural behavior they are engaging in.
Additionally, dont fail to pursue a strategy simply because it is unconventional. So what if Poland USUALLY doesnt behave that way. So what if Venice USUALLY doesnt dominate the Mediterranean. So what if Portugal USUALLY doesnt have a large European empire? Basically, dont let historical paths of development limit your PERCEPTION OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE for your nation. Consider anything that might possibly be useful to you, regardless of the "nature" of the world. Millions of people have been politically supressed in this world because some ass claimed it was "natural" for him to be in power. Dont listen to this bullshit. Break the rules and forge a new path.
Myth #3: Everyone gets gangbanged, it was just your time.
This is often told to the victim of a gangbang to justify what has happened. It isnt a justification at all because it isnt true. Some players rarely get gangbanged. This is regardless of their relative strength in the game. It is purely a result of diplomacy. Gang-bangs are an immediate consequence of diplomatic isolation. You must constantly be working to ensure that your neighbors are not all mad at you at once. If more than two of your neighbors is very hostile towards you, you have failed diplomatically.
Gang-bangs are often justified by evoking Myth #1 and Myth #2. The truth is that the nation getting attacked failed to be active diplomatically. Every nation is planning constantly. You must talk to them constantly and try to find ways to cooperate with as many as possible. You should look for goals that are mutually benefitial to both nations and collaborate with them. However, you should never permanently wed yourself to any one nation except in very rare conditions. Always keep rotating. Cooperate with neighbor A against neighbor B. Then cooperate with neighbor C against neighbor A. Then cooperate with neighbor B against C. And so on ad infinitum.
If you keep this rotating system, you will never get truly gang-banged yourself. You may eventually be forced to fight several nations at once, but you will probably at least be prepared for it and the loss from this one attack will not really cripple your country if you manage it correctly, but simply made up elsewhere through other means. No loss is permanent and the wheel will eventually come around to favor you next round. What is important is that you keep rotating and shifting your policy so that you evade the stagnation that will eventually get you truly gang-banged. This is when you have failed.
Building a Rogue Mindset:
After looking at these myths, we see some clear patterns. Success will come from constant shifting and exploiting of new opportunities. Stagnation is death. You should constantly be trying to expand your power. Dont pay attention to a concept of balance, instead keep your enemies fighting each other AT YOUR SIDE, so that they are never attacking you all at once. Dont limit yourself to "historical patterns". Exploit "unnatural" allies, expansion, power, and wealth.
I call this a rogue mindset because it resembles the way that an outlaw or criminal has rejected the social norms that limit his upward mobility. By taking these limiting beliefs and setting them aside, new doors to wealth and power are opened. Is a young man in the ghetto TRULY better of by following the straight and narrow path or is selling illegal drugs to pay for a higher quality of life justified? This is the kind of decision that faces us when playing Europa Universalis. Should I limit myself by these moral beliefs? Or should I step outside of the box and enrich my nation to the fullest? Unlike in real life, the consequences of getting caught are not jailtime or execution; thus to borrow from the PC game Dungeon Keeper: Evil is Good.
A Strategic Philosophy:
How should we view the world? As a rogue. How should we act on that new view? With care! You must be careful because the potential for "blowback" is very high. Eventually, you may be left without a chair when the music stops. I have already hinted at some strategic decisions, but lets put them into a more consolidated structure.
There are five ways to get countries to behave the way you want. They run along a continuum and are based on many factors. I call them the five F's; fortune, frenzy, fear, force, and fealty. Each motivation is more powerful than the previous ones. YOUR ULTIMATE GOAL should be to move all potential rivals along this continuum to the end. The more countries that you move to the end of the list, the stronger you will become.
Fortune:
I use this term to represent cooperation based on shared goals. The country in question is cooperating to further his own power and wealth. This is the weakest motivation because it is highly subject to perception of potential gain. This motivation can move countries to make small decisions; such as join in an attack on another nation. But it cannot affect powerful decisions unless there is the potential for enormous reward.
However, you should constantly be tempting nations to follow this motivation; especially in the early game when this is the only real motivation you have against your major rivals. You must convince nations that it is IN THEIR BEST INTEREST to cooperate with you towards some kind of shared goal; defeating AI nations in the early years, colonial coordination, cooperation against a potential future rival, and so on. You must fill their head with dreams of wealth and power that lies in every direction EXCEPT yours. You are not the threat, they are! Point out everything you can think of that would make them stronger but would also enrich you as well. Point out tasks that may be beyond their ability to achieve, but that will keep them busy. Tempation is the key to using fortune to guide the choices of others; though it may grant only limited control.
Frenzy:
This term represents an EXISTING emotional state; usually anger. Every time another player loses power to another nation, point it out to them if they dont notice and offer to help them achieve "justice". Shouldnt they really hold that COT? It isnt fair that they "stole" that province from them. This will enhance their existing negative emotions against that other player. When they are thinking emotionally, their rational barriers are reduced and they can be exploited into pursuing objectives that you "guide" them to. Frenzy is a simple motivation to exploit, but it is more rare than fortune. Frenzy is less useful against more emotionally stable players.
Fear:
If you possess a relatively large amount of power compared to a potential rival, you can begin to use fear against them. You want to use the temptation of fortune and the exploitation of their frenzy to push them to this point. Once they have been reduced in power relative to you, you can begin threatening them. Fear is more useful at altering their foriegn policy than actually extracting wealth from them; but it can sometimes do the trick. Threaten to attack them if they dont join your alliance. Point out all the ways that they are inferior to you. Exaggerate if you have to. Put time pressure on them to enhance the effects of this.
Human beings can be prodded into doing a wide variety of things based on fear alone. This is true in real life and EU2. People are more afraid of losing something that they are aware of than losing control over decisionmaking. When the human mind is forced to choose between two negative realities; for example the threat of attack vs joining an alliance that is less benefitial ti them; they are likely to avoid the loss they view as INEVITABLE and instead choose the POTENTIALLY NON-NEGATIVE outcome. They would rather take their chances that the alliance will be negative than the INEVITABILITY that your declaration of war will be negative. The more powerful your nation is relative to the nation being threatened, the effect is magnified.
Force:
When fear fails, force must carry the day. A nation that cannot be seduced by fortune, driven into a frenzy, or cowed into submission must ultimately be forced to accomodate your demands. That which is not done willingly is done unwillingly. Force is a dangerous tool and it can backfire. It is most properly used when your relative power is strongest against the nation in question. This is not constant over time, but changes with politics.
The best time to use force is WHEN IT IS LEAST EXPECTED. Force is also best used against a nation which is "off-balance". Their armies are not in position, they are engaged in other theaters of war with other powers, or they are in the middle of a historical event like the War of Religion in France or the Beys in the Ottoman Empire. You can often push a nation "off-balance" by using the previous tools against other powers to push them into war. This draws the energy of your target away from your border right as you prepare to strike. Most dire indeed.
Force should be used as quickly as possible. The use of force places YOU off-balance and so you should prepare for the use of force by using other means to secure your own flanks from attack. The longer the force is used, the more off-balance you become. Eventually, your other methods may fail and you will end up worse off than your target. Dont allow this to happen. If you are not successful quickly or other more attractive opportunities arise while the force is being applied, you should be prepared to make peace quickly to avoid these negative consequences or to exploit other opportunities. What is lost in the shift (real or potential) can perhaps be made up with quick and decisive action elsewhere.
Fealty:
This is the end of the line. You have subdued your opponent completely. He lacks the power to seriously threaten you and perhaps even the will to try. This is your ultimate goal for all your neighbors; though it may not be possible even for most. It is rare that your skill difference will be able to totally subdue more than a couple of your neighbors.
Fealty results when the player accepts that your ability to apply force against them is so great that resistance is FUTILE. Even if they succeed in resisting you in any one instance, you will punish them severely at the next instance. Therefore, further attempts to undermine you will result in the near total destruction of their nation. They have, in essence, realized the inevitable. And so instead they are pliable and cooperative because they really have no other choice.
At this point, you should begin building up their power again. This sounds stupid, but it is logical. You should direct their energy outwards against foes that lie beyond your reach. As you strengthen them, they will usually become even more accomodating. You are their benefactor. In crude terms, the slave has learned to love the master.
It is rare that a nation is reduced to fealty, so it is hard to make generalities. However, eventually they may realize that, due to your strengthening, resisting your domination is NO LONGER FUTILE. It is important that you watch for this carefully and be prepared. It is best if they betray you, in an ironic sense, because if they betray you and you immediately subdue them again, it will REINFORCE their fealty and they may never even attempt a betrayal again. However, this would be exceptionally rare, but it is an interesting potentiality.
Conclusion:
Your ultimate goal is to push all your neighbors down this continuum. Use fortune to motivate them and keep their energies directed away from you in the beginning. Exploit frenzy when you can. Once you become dominant, use fear to subdue them. If they resist, use quick strong application of force to ultimately reduce them to absolute fealty to your nation. This strategy is one of domination. All surrounding powers and subjugated slowly and simultaneously until you emerge as the master of them all.
Last edited:
