Question

[Duuk]

I've noticed that in most MP games, the Ottomans make some form of agreement with Austria almost immediately.

I mean, in every game I've ever played. It really is a smart move from the Austrian or Ottoman point of view, but is a terrible move for game balance.

In effect, the game swings instantly in the favour of that unholy alliance.

Is there any way that could be avoided, do you think?

Honest question.

Duuk

 

[Prince Eugene]

Normally the problem would be that Austria and Spain gang up on France. The Ottomans just want peace with Austria while they should fight them to balance things. If there is a French player he should inform the Ottoman that victory is certain if they are allies. France alone is hard enough for Austria-Spain. With the Ottomans they would ravage.

 

[Duuk]

Ahh, so a Franco-Ottoman agreement (which DID happen historically) is the safest way to keep Austria in check?

That would make good sense. I think my last game would have gone MUCH better if there had been a France.

Duuk

 

[Prince Eugene]

Poland also can work well with France.

 

[Duuk]

I was playing as Brandenburg, and I was doing fairly well. If there had been a France for me to ally with, I could have been ok. However, Austria and OE were the only majors. Once they allied the game wasn't worth playing out.

No point trying to compete with an extremely powerful steamroller when you're a minor.

Duuk

 

[BiB]

That's what happens when u get unbalancing alliances in the game ... This isn't as much a country specific problem but a player personnel one.

 

[Prince Eugene]

The Austrians and Ottomans are allied? That doesn't make sense at all. If I am correct you have a Polish player in that game. Since you are a minor it might as well have been a 3 player game and those are not very balanced. For multiplayer games if you are going to have 4 players all of them need to be majors. When you get to hgiher player numbers though, minors don't upset the game like they would otherwise.

Now if you really want to get things back in shape ally with Poland and to counteract Austrian movements in Germany. The situation looks grim, but a skilled player can possibly get out of that mess.

 

[unmerged(9895)]

to stand in on my behalf, minors and majors have there place in the world, and untill a minor can become strong enough to defend itself from a major they should not act up. Now if Duuk (if you can really call brandenburg a minor, i think its more somewhere inbetween a minor and a major) attacked Bohemia, austria's ally. austria was only doing its rightful duty, protecting lands it considered her own, or atleast soon to be. Even with the protesting of Austria, Duuk(remember he is still a 4 province brandenbrug right now) took two provinces from Bohemia, austria had offered up one, but protested loudly against two.

now the turks (me) and austria had no alliance. It was a small agreement that our border would be peaceful, since both are intents were in the opposite directions currently. with one peaceful border we could put full efforts towards the other one. a win win situation for the moment, but who knows how long it would last once i turned towards europe.

so when austria DoW'ed brandenburg, which it had warned of if brandenburg took two from bohemia, bohemia insisted i attack to stop the austrian monster. first of all, that is not a very good diplomatic action, you need to give to get , and he gave nothing, nor did he really have anthing to give. then he promply got his butt beat by austria, like we all knew he would, simply cause he was too aggresive into austrian lands.

the only problem i see with player personnel here is brandenburg. in actuality , austria was just responding to the bad boy actions of brandenburg, who was not strong enoug to enforce its own rule. austria played very well, and i give him compliments for protecting what was his , and for backing up his words with his sword.

brandenburgs only tactic against a human austria is to stay quiet untill it becomes an obvisous danger to austrian HRE dominance. Once that point is reach , brandenburg must expand quickly and gain allies , before an austria attack devolpes. Anywhere austrias says "dont go" brandenburg should listen or have to play the price. I think most of the people who read this will agree. and besides, we dont play multiplayer to beat up on the ai all day, whats so wrong if one person is defeated and his country is done for. only problem with this one is duuk quit the game, and he just happened to be our host at the moment.

now that the whole situation has been put out, lets see what you guys think

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Actually I would say that your first problem was a poor selection of countries. Unless you are deliberately trying to handicap a player, either all should play majors, or all should play minors.

Having Austria and Ottomans the only majors makes the game highly unbalanced to begin with.

The next problem is that people don't play to win. They pick some hairy fairy goal of their own, and try to achieve it. This has to be a competitive game to work. With majors everybody should be ganging up on Spain until they are weakened enough for another leader to be a threat (well, not everybody, but significant countries). If Austria and Ottomans were the only majors, they should have been looking for ways to weaken each other off the bat, not allying.

Nobody should be content with second, you should always at least TRY to improve your position within the balance of power.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

And another thing...

I think Duuk was asking a general question, but if you want to personalize it Kris, I'd say the main country that screwed up was the Ottomans in the example you gave.

Brandenburg might have been over-aggressive, Austria was certainly just reacting to that aggression, but any decent Ottoman player should have been looking for any opportunity to attack and weaken Austria. Brandenburg provided the perfect excuse, and would have taken most of the damage, while the Ottomans would only have been helped by this.

 

[unmerged(9895)]

ah, but satan i may be a near perfect eu2 player, but i suffer greatly from overconfidence. I had no fear of austria(especially since i know what austrian manpower is like) and decided to let them go about there thing while i did mine, i had a plan in action and would of rather waited to strike austria then adjust my plan of action........ok i guess i suffer two things, overconfidence and stubbornness

 

[metroncho]

Yes, historically its a perversion, but from the game point of view, it isn´t a illogical one. Start a bloody war over a few small Balkanic provinces, many times with different culture or religion to that of the state, is a non sense when you can expand easily in richer lands West and East. And from the balance of power view, it should be France who must seek the help of Turkey, but what could she offer in exchange? Just lets others die.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by metroncho
Yes, historically its a perversion, but from the game point of view, it isn´t a illogical one. Start a bloody war over a few small Balkanic provinces, many times with different culture or religion to that of the state, is a non sense when you can expand easily in richer lands West and East. And from the balance of power view, it should be France who must seek the help of Turkey, but what could she offer in exchange? Just lets others die.

That is a foolish strategy that will both ruin games and might lead to you losing.

Sometimes it is a better strategy to expand into the AI, if there are particularly juicy targets available, but usually it is much better to take on a major while they are attempting to expand, particularly if you have the help of another player. If Austria is allowed to gobble up Germany then Ottomans will likely lose more than they gain.

The game will also lose much of its interest if players gobble all minors before turning on each other. One of the main appeals of EU is the sheer number of nations and their activity level. They aren't just passive neutrals waiting to die.

 

[unmerged(9895)]

satan you are correct in your thinking

but wrong in the way this game was going

austria was not trying to gobble anything, let alone germany. Personally, if i had been playing austria, with no french player mind you, i would of gobbled up plenty more countries than kyran had done. He was actually being very peaceful, content on being elected holy roman emperor over and over again. the only reason austria attacked into brandenburg, was because of the hostile antics of the german state, and i am sure nobody can have any argument about defending what is yours, or who your ai friends are.

ottoman expansion was much faster than that of austria, why not let them gain a provinces, while i take down nations. nothing wrong with that philoshpy. i am sure brandenburg would of found no enemy in austria if they had struck towards the netherlands first, but that is a question for the austrian monarch only and i am presuming the know more than i do.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

All of that is fine Kris, and you make some good points.

Still, Duuk was asking a general question, and as a general answer the Ottomans and Austrians shouldn't be friends. Usually that happens through players not being aggressive enough, but in your specific example it might have been just poor country selection.

I can very much sympathize with Brandenburg's actions in your example. He has to expand quickly or he won't have a chance at all, and his best opportunity for staying alive would be help from an Ottoman player, who should be his logical ally just like France would be Ottomans logical ally in a more conventional game.