Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Taking over provinces/countries of enemies?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(3486)

unmerged(3486)

Private
Apr 29, 2001
17
0
Visit site
Community,

I take over a province and my border doesn't extend over to the province I just defeated. How do I claim it?

(I know that they will ask for alliances and ask to give me pieces of land that I have defeated....but Is that the only way you can take over a province?)

I don't understand is land offered to me by the country I defeat the only way I can obtain that land? Or is there some button I am missing or command I am missing?
 
The only way you can claim conquered land is through a peace treaty. Either your opponent offers you some provinces in return for peace or you send a diplomatic offer to your opponent. If you want to make an offer click on the diplomacy menu, click on the country you are at war with and then clik on the offer peace line in the menu. You'll then get a list of provinces you've occupied and a number of stars at the top of the screen. Each province is two stars, so you can't ask for more than three provinces unless you completely annex that country. When you've selected the province(s) you want send the offer - your opponent might refuse though.

Tue
 
Yes, unless you conquer every province in which case you get the option to annex it in the peace offer.

Tue
 
So for me to actually CONQUER the entire country(3 at a time) I would just have to keep on making alliances then destroying them then I would make an alliance(or them offer me an alliance) asking for 3 provinces.

This would just be an endless cycle of making treaties and breaking treaties just to gain land.

I think that this part of the game is very dumb.

If the game were more like "Romance of the three kingdoms" where you conquer a province then you have the territory that would make the gameplay more exciting. That's just my personal opinion though. How many people agree with me?

How many people on this forum have played "Romance of the Three Kingdoms"? Excellent game for the SNES!
 
You don't have to make an alliance to seize a province. You just have to make a war with someone, conquer some provinces then make peace and ask these provinces as part of the peace agreement. Your allies (assuming you have any) are supposed to help you during your wars (if you ask them to), not to be your targets.

By the way conquest doesn't seem to always (often) be the better way to receive victory points.


The whole diplomacy/treaties thing (as opposed to the usual I conquered it so it's mine) is one of the many elements which make the game historically more accurate, more subtle, more challenging and more fun (I suspect most of the people here will agree with me on this one).
 
Also, as several people pointed out, if you really want to conquer the whole country, you can try to seize all of its provinces during the war and then you'll have the choice to annex it instead of making a "regular" peace. However, you can't annex the major powers and also your neighbours don't like it when you annex other countries.
 
What I mean is the country you are slaughtering will always ask for peace in exchange for 3 or less provinces...

If you want their land you have to accept the peace treaty/alliance then you have to break it if you want to conquer more of their land----inturn, making you look bad and decreasing you stability because you are breaking the peace treaty/alliance.....

I don't like that part of the game but everything else is good
 
Hey! the game is 300 years long! You can wait 5 years (until the treaty isn't compelling any more)! Actually, I believe it's your best interest not to be fighting all the time (and once again quite realistic). If you're really in a hurry, annex it (If you're able to do so).

I'm playing a major country (I'm a newbie too, it's my first game) and though I only "swallowed" something like 6 provinces and 2 colonies in over 100 years, I'm leading the game. Why being so hasty?
 
If you want their land you have to accept the peace treaty/alliance then you have to break it if you want to conquer more of their land----inturn, making you look bad and decreasing you stability because you are breaking the peace treaty/alliance.....

I don't like that part of the game but everything else is good
Click to expand...

Again, don't think of a peace treaty as an alliance. It just means that you agree to a break in open military hostilities.

And why shouldn't repeatedly declaring war on someone for whom you share the same religion or don't have a CB against, etc. decrease your stability and relations?

If you really want the target country's land quickly, just annex them completely (assuming it's a minor or you have allowed annexation of majors). Just be prepared for the BadBoy hit...
 
Originally posted by Insalubrity
This would just be an endless cycle of making treaties and breaking treaties just to gain land.

I think that this part of the game is very dumb.
Click to expand...

Pick up a history book and read about hwo war was conducted at the timeperiod.

This is a very historical feature and not something the programmers made up by them selves.
 
Pick up a history book? You are amuzing me.

This game is supposed to be about making your own history not following the actual history and ACTUAL chain of events and how it actually happened, that would be a little impossible(and stupid) don't you agree?

Maybe my idea of a good STRATEGIC game is a little bit more action or maybe a lot more conquering and killing.

History book...lol...you are funny.
 
History Book

Yes Insalbrity a history book, I agree with Huszics. While this game does indeed allow you to create your own history via your game play, it still has the historical feel of the time period its set in. During this time period, total war as was seen in the 1st and 2nd world wars didn't exsist. Rulers of the time didn't take over whole countries it wasn't the done thing. Besides the ruler of that other country was probably your half brother or something. The way the peace terms and only being able to take over 3 provinces at a time is the way the game reflects this historical feel. Of course if you want to buck history and change things take over every province and anex the country. However the games historical thing will come into play, because you will be regarded as a badboy for breaking the 'rules' of the time. This is more than just a wargame it is an historical simulation with you able to bend events how you think history should have gone, ie Russia settles America. I also think you will find most of the people who play it love it because of that.
 
Co-signer

Anyways,

When I bought this game it looked to me like a STRATEGY game (that's what it said on the label when I bought it at BEST BUY). It didn't say HISTORICAL SIMULATION.....

I should have bought a real STRATEGY game. What is the strategy of this game anyways? It seems to me like it is just endless waiting(I know about the time adjustment settings so before any of you wise guys come and post something about that you can just not waste your time writing about time adjustment). Strategy and Historical simulation are two totally DIFFERENT games.

What they should do is make a setting in the game that gives you the option of picking Conquer Mode -alot of the, "rules" are taken off about the bad boy thing. If I'm a bad boy then so be it.

I would just like to destroy more nations without the BB effect.
 
Originally posted by Insalubrity
Pick up a history book? You are amuzing me.
Click to expand...

Is the concept of reading an history book so incredibly amazing???


This game is supposed to be about making your own history not following the actual history and ACTUAL chain of events and how it actually happened, that would be a little impossible(and stupid) don't you agree?[/QUOTE]

We're not talking about following the actual chain of events, but about creating new chains of events in a historical setting. Anyway, the rules in any game aren't less artificial than the historical rules included in EU.

"Maybe my idea of a good STRATEGIC game is a little bit more action or maybe a lot more conquering and killing.[/QUOTE]


I'm wondering if you're not actually "trolling". Anyway, my idea of a good strategic game is something along the line of the Operational Art of War, which is certainly not about conquering and killing. I tend to consider EU more as a "management" game than as a strategic game.

And there's tons of games about "conquering and killing". There's no need for more, and I'm happy that some designers still take the time to create intelligent games like EU though they certainly earn less money that way. Anyway I don't consider the kind of games you're refering to as "Strategy games". Strategy is about thinking (and, in a game, within a set of *rules*), not destroying everything.


History book...lol...you are funny [/QUOTE]

This last sentence seems so weird to me that once again I'd tend to think you're trolling. But perhaps I'm overestimating the average computer gamer. I can understand one doesn't like history (though...what a loss!) but I'm amazed that the mere concept of reading an history book could seems so laughable. Anyway, I guess that most EU players are indeed interested in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back