We've all been there, standing by helplessly as your one or two-province minor is utterly destroyed by the sheer numbers of a larger army. Wallachia is completely helpless against its Ottoman and Hungarian neighbors because it just doesn't have the size to fight back. Sure, you can scorch the land, but if the enemy has enough troops to assault your forts, you're still in bad shape. At face value, you can understand why the 15,000 Ottomans crushed the 3,000 Wallachians without much issue...but we all love history here, so let's take a closer look, eh?
Voivode Vlad III Draculae, better known as Vlad the Impaler. Under EU3 mechanics, when the Ottomans marched in, he would've been screwed and his country annexed in about four months. In history? The Night Attack. The Wallachians infiltrated the Ottoman camp and killed 15,000 soldiers, coming this close to assassinating Mehmed II.
Stefan III the Great of Moldavia. Between borders with Poland, Hungary, and the Ottomans, he should have been swept to the side without a second thought. Not the case whatsoever. Even in his defeat, like the one at Valea Alba, he was able to force invaders back out of his country.
History wasn't just a straightforward progression of great empires swallowing up tiny principalities; sometimes, it was the smallest states that did the greatest damage. It's worth noting that the armies in these battles, especially those of Wallachia and Moldavia, were much larger than shown in EU3; I'm not interested in that. We don't exactly need armies of 100,000 running around in the 15th century. However, I am of the belief that there should be some sort of nod of the hat to the minors of the game, such as a guerrilla warfare mechanic, the effectiveness of which could be decided by the monarch's military skill. This mechanic would serve not only the minor states of Europe, but the African, American, and Asian nations that were so often subjected to one-sided conquests by European powers in EU3. Between a superior knowledge of local terrain and a determination not to let the neighboring tyrants take over, some sort of defensive advantage would make sense. It would keep the gamey expansion of the AI empires in check, which has always been a major complaint of EU3 players, and provide unique and interesting challenges for the player themselves; rather than regarding the neighboring minors as fodder for expansion, they would have to account for extra resistance of some sort.
In a sense, the unwillingness of small countries to give up their independence to larger ones is already shown through nationalist or patriot rebels, the latter of whom may sometimes spawn in occupied territory, but this is random and unreliable. Why would everyone in a country be relatively fine with the destruction of their country up until AFTER the country ceased to exist?
Voivode Vlad III Draculae, better known as Vlad the Impaler. Under EU3 mechanics, when the Ottomans marched in, he would've been screwed and his country annexed in about four months. In history? The Night Attack. The Wallachians infiltrated the Ottoman camp and killed 15,000 soldiers, coming this close to assassinating Mehmed II.
Stefan III the Great of Moldavia. Between borders with Poland, Hungary, and the Ottomans, he should have been swept to the side without a second thought. Not the case whatsoever. Even in his defeat, like the one at Valea Alba, he was able to force invaders back out of his country.
History wasn't just a straightforward progression of great empires swallowing up tiny principalities; sometimes, it was the smallest states that did the greatest damage. It's worth noting that the armies in these battles, especially those of Wallachia and Moldavia, were much larger than shown in EU3; I'm not interested in that. We don't exactly need armies of 100,000 running around in the 15th century. However, I am of the belief that there should be some sort of nod of the hat to the minors of the game, such as a guerrilla warfare mechanic, the effectiveness of which could be decided by the monarch's military skill. This mechanic would serve not only the minor states of Europe, but the African, American, and Asian nations that were so often subjected to one-sided conquests by European powers in EU3. Between a superior knowledge of local terrain and a determination not to let the neighboring tyrants take over, some sort of defensive advantage would make sense. It would keep the gamey expansion of the AI empires in check, which has always been a major complaint of EU3 players, and provide unique and interesting challenges for the player themselves; rather than regarding the neighboring minors as fodder for expansion, they would have to account for extra resistance of some sort.
In a sense, the unwillingness of small countries to give up their independence to larger ones is already shown through nationalist or patriot rebels, the latter of whom may sometimes spawn in occupied territory, but this is random and unreliable. Why would everyone in a country be relatively fine with the destruction of their country up until AFTER the country ceased to exist?
