People always pick the earliest dates, because it theoretically gives you the most play time. But who seriously plays the entire game through? I generally quit when I've "won".
The earlier a start date you choose, the more ridiculous of a game world you'll have.
People always pick the earliest dates, because it theoretically gives you the most play time. But who seriously plays the entire game through? I generally quit when I've "won".
The earlier a start date you choose, the more ridiculous of a game world you'll have.
Agreed. In my Spain game I only wanted to unite Spain, but then I had hostile Muslims to the south and a hostile France north, so I expanded and attacked both, which gave me the strength to attack everyone else... I think in future games I'll stop when I've reached my goal, because once you reach a certain size conquering the whole world is just a matter of time.
I can see where everyone comes from with that playstyle, but for me the fun of the game is in not having any goals and simply having to deal with what the game throws at you. Admittedly, my time with CK2 has been more structured than EU or Victoria, but I think that's down to the more elaborate plans you can pull off now. Things like marrying the fifth-in-line to the duchy of Whereeversnia and then systematically murdering everyone, in the correct order. Or plans to remove that pain in the arse rival who keeps trying to stab you, and then remove his wife, his children, his uncle and his dogs, then taking his lands for good measure.
The fact that the world doesn't follow any semblance of history or plausibility doesn't bother me in the slightest. The weirder the better, really. Far more entertaining.
Looking back, it seems that so many problems can be solved with judicious use of fatal accidents. This is a trend I'm not too worried by. My blasé attitude to this is more worrying.
That sounds like it means the Emperor gets to also be kings of Germany & Bohemia, which effectively means they can't ever really lose power via the vote. Unless those kingdoms are created elective too, which would be really funny
Really nice changes in those patch notes. About the only thing I'm miffed about is the Amass Wealth loop. Only because my leaders in this game are continually failing in the stewardship department. Excellent at being around people who have unfortunate accidents though, so I let them off.
It's just a name change, doesn't change their great great ... great grandfather.
Doesn't this actually make them part of Charlemagne's house? Pre-1.05 I think their house changed to de Vermandois after Bernard of Italy because he was a bastard, I guess, though he doesn't have that trait.
It's just a name change, doesn't change their great great ... great grandfather.
Doesn't this actually make them part of Charlemagne's house? Pre-1.05 I think their house changed to de Vermandois after Bernard of Italy because he was a bastard, I guess, though he doesn't have that trait.
Yep, apparently Karling is another way to spell Carolingian
I can see where everyone comes from with that playstyle, but for me the fun of the game is in not having any goals and simply having to deal with what the game throws at you. Admittedly, my time with CK2 has been more structured than EU or Victoria, but I think that's down to the more elaborate plans you can pull off now. Things like marrying the fifth-in-line to the duchy of Whereeversnia and then systematically murdering everyone, in the correct order. Or plans to remove that pain in the arse rival who keeps trying to stab you, and then remove his wife, his children, his uncle and his dogs, then taking his lands for good measure.
The fact that the world doesn't follow any semblance of history or plausibility doesn't bother me in the slightest. The weirder the better, really. Far more entertaining.
Looking back, it seems that so many problems can be solved with judicious use of fatal accidents. This is a trend I'm not too worried by. My blasé attitude to this is more worrying.
Oh, I get that some people like never ending conquests. Its, just, take my screenshot of Spain on the previous page. I have all of Iberia and North Africa. Why would I expand? I guess I could take Jerusalem without making my borders ugly and I guess that'd be a fight (Seljuks outnumber me 2:1).
And when I say historically accuracy, I don't really expect the game to be historical. I like that its a sandbox. I don't like things like having no Ottomans in EU 3 or a Byzantine Empire that never crumbles. It makes the game world too silly. I finally found a start that fixes the second problem though. You start after 1080, when there's a huge sultanate of Rum.
0
Options
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Well, the patch is live because my game just updated. The launcher shows 1.05. It also mentions the new DLC but it's not on Steam yet. Definitely getting that.
Guess I'll have to redo my mod tweaks, but thankfully they were pretty simple.
Ha ha, it's amazing how quickly a kingdom can turn south when your shitty grandson, (who somehow in the brief 2 years I gave him the crown of Scotland managed to get himself the nickname "The Cruel,") inherits on your death and every single vassal starts demanding land, rebelling, and plotting your demise. Took my entire 500 gold surplus to put it all down, but I think I finally managed to lock up the worst offenders, and knock my biggest land holding rival, the Duke of Lombardia, down a few notches.
I can see where everyone comes from with that playstyle, but for me the fun of the game is in not having any goals and simply having to deal with what the game throws at you. Admittedly, my time with CK2 has been more structured than EU or Victoria, but I think that's down to the more elaborate plans you can pull off now. Things like marrying the fifth-in-line to the duchy of Whereeversnia and then systematically murdering everyone, in the correct order. Or plans to remove that pain in the arse rival who keeps trying to stab you, and then remove his wife, his children, his uncle and his dogs, then taking his lands for good measure.
The fact that the world doesn't follow any semblance of history or plausibility doesn't bother me in the slightest. The weirder the better, really. Far more entertaining.
Looking back, it seems that so many problems can be solved with judicious use of fatal accidents. This is a trend I'm not too worried by. My blasé attitude to this is more worrying.
Oh, I get that some people like never ending conquests. Its, just, take my screenshot of Spain on the previous page. I have all of Iberia and North Africa. Why would I expand? I guess I could take Jerusalem without making my borders ugly and I guess that'd be a fight (Seljuks outnumber me 2:1).
And when I say historically accuracy, I don't really expect the game to be historical. I like that its a sandbox. I don't like things like having no Ottomans in EU 3 or a Byzantine Empire that never crumbles. It makes the game world too silly. I finally found a start that fixes the second problem though. You start after 1080, when there's a huge sultanate of Rum.
See that's interesting. My current game, the Byzantine Empire hasn't exactly crumbled, but its already had to piece itself back together once and is certainly fractured again now. Almost all their Turkish holdings are now a part of the Byzantine Kingdom and wholly independent from the Empire.
Granted that's really little more than a name change, but its more than I've head happen to them from around a few places now. Will have to see what happens when I start another game later.
Played the new patch in my Ireland game over lunch, the changes are really nice. Still wish I could force enemies to give up any held counties/titles when I've won a war and forced their surrender. Yeah it would probably be broken as hell; I only hate it because I've been trying to whittle away at this puny little duchy neighbor of mine, but all of my claimants don't seem to inherit the damn titles when win the wars, getting so annoying.
I've been playing EU3 DW as the English. Figured they would be a nice start since there an island, and the Scots aren't that much of a problem. However, stupid France keeps declaring war on me. I wouldn't have a problem with this expect my armies cannot win a battle on the main land. Every time my loyal English soldiers set foot on the main land their slaughtered. Any advice for a noob?
They probably have a high military stat king, who is leading the armies. Leaders count for alot in EU 3. If you can't match an enemy general with one of your own, or outnumber him substantially, it can be a good idea to avoid battles until he dies.
Alternately, they either outnumber you, or are using large amounts of cavalry compared to yours.
Can't say for sure what your problem is without more info.
Alternately, stay out of land battles. Build a nice fleet to stop them ever getting to England, give up anything on the mainland. It's not glorious, but it works.
Holy crap this patch is looks amazing. Definitely putting some time into CK2 tomorrow (had to get a project milestone done today).
I didn't notice anything about reducing levy recovery though. That is probably the main reason blobs stay so strong right now - military defeats have little long term consequences because levies recover so fast that when a doom stack is obliterated the owner can almost immediately raise another stack of about the same size.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
Holy crap this patch is looks amazing. Definitely putting some time into CK2 tomorrow (had to get a project milestone done today).
I didn't notice anything about reducing levy recovery though. That is probably the main reason blobs stay so strong right now - military defeats have little long term consequences because levies recover so fast that when a doom stack is obliterated the owner can almost immediately raise another stack of about the same size.
You should've been apart of the MP game last night: the ERE suffered serious losses (nine or ten duchies broke off).
Levy reinforcement rates are a bit silly, I'll agree, but blobbing has just suffered a serious blow with this patch.
Holy crap this patch is looks amazing. Definitely putting some time into CK2 tomorrow (had to get a project milestone done today).
I didn't notice anything about reducing levy recovery though. That is probably the main reason blobs stay so strong right now - military defeats have little long term consequences because levies recover so fast that when a doom stack is obliterated the owner can almost immediately raise another stack of about the same size.
You should've been apart of the MP game last night: the ERE suffered serious losses (nine or ten duchies broke off).
Levy reinforcement rates are a bit silly, I'll agree, but blobbing has just suffered a serious blow with this patch.
How so? I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just curious about the implications of the changes. I'm not familiar enough with the game to really parse the changelog all that well.
Holy crap this patch is looks amazing. Definitely putting some time into CK2 tomorrow (had to get a project milestone done today).
I didn't notice anything about reducing levy recovery though. That is probably the main reason blobs stay so strong right now - military defeats have little long term consequences because levies recover so fast that when a doom stack is obliterated the owner can almost immediately raise another stack of about the same size.
You should've been apart of the MP game last night: the ERE suffered serious losses (nine or ten duchies broke off).
Levy reinforcement rates are a bit silly, I'll agree, but blobbing has just suffered a serious blow with this patch.
How so? I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just curious about the implications of the changes. I'm not familiar enough with the game to really parse the changelog all that well.
They changed independence wars so that when the war begins the rebel gains an immediate (and rather fast moving) ticking score towards victory so long as he's in control of his lands, so the moment they rebel the liege is on the clock to re-assert their authority over them. The ERE had an unlikeable ruler (French kid, lol...) take over so a bunch of the vassals rebelled, and they just didn't have enough time to lockdown, well, most of em' before they won their freedom thanks to a ticking score and just a handful of sieges.
THAT, and now when a vassal rebels, there's new rules for people attacking the rebel: if, say, Armenia where to rebel against the ERE, then they cannot white peace out of the war if an enemy force occupies any of their lands. Conversely, now the ex-liege is hostile towards the people invading their rebelling vassal. So there's much less of that "Oh, we're rebelling... but we'll white peace the moment the Caliph looks at us" crap, but on the flipside the invader may have to worry about the liege.
But the ERE in that game is a good enough example for me. I think back to all the times I've seen the HRE in an uproar, and I'm confident that if the rules were like they are now that it would've lost some territory.
Holy crap this patch is looks amazing. Definitely putting some time into CK2 tomorrow (had to get a project milestone done today).
I didn't notice anything about reducing levy recovery though. That is probably the main reason blobs stay so strong right now - military defeats have little long term consequences because levies recover so fast that when a doom stack is obliterated the owner can almost immediately raise another stack of about the same size.
You should've been apart of the MP game last night: the ERE suffered serious losses (nine or ten duchies broke off).
Levy reinforcement rates are a bit silly, I'll agree, but blobbing has just suffered a serious blow with this patch.
How so? I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just curious about the implications of the changes. I'm not familiar enough with the game to really parse the changelog all that well.
They changed independence wars so that when the war begins the rebel gains an immediate (and rather fast moving) ticking score towards victory so long as he's in control of his lands, so the moment they rebel the liege is on the clock to re-assert their authority over them. The ERE had an unlikeable ruler (French kid, lol...) take over so a bunch of the vassals rebelled, and they just didn't have enough time to lockdown, well, most of em' before they won their freedom thanks to a ticking score and just a handful of sieges.
THAT, and now when a vassal rebels, there's new rules for people attacking the rebel: if, say, Armenia where to rebel against the ERE, then they cannot white peace out of the war if an enemy force occupies any of their lands. Conversely, now the ex-liege is hostile towards the people invading their rebelling vassal. So there's much less of that "Oh, we're rebelling... but we'll white peace the moment the Caliph looks at us" crap, but on the flipside the invader may have to worry about the liege.
But the ERE in that game is a good enough example for me. I think back to all the times I've seen the HRE in an uproar, and I'm confident that if the rules were like they are now that it would've lost some territory.
That makes sense. Sounds like a really good set of changes. I really need to put some more time into this game.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
So playing EU3 HTTT and goddamn I didn't realize that annexing was so bad. 72 Bad Boy. Definitely trying a different tack.
Holy crap this patch is looks amazing. Definitely putting some time into CK2 tomorrow (had to get a project milestone done today).
I didn't notice anything about reducing levy recovery though. That is probably the main reason blobs stay so strong right now - military defeats have little long term consequences because levies recover so fast that when a doom stack is obliterated the owner can almost immediately raise another stack of about the same size.
You should've been apart of the MP game last night: the ERE suffered serious losses (nine or ten duchies broke off).
Levy reinforcement rates are a bit silly, I'll agree, but blobbing has just suffered a serious blow with this patch.
How so? I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just curious about the implications of the changes. I'm not familiar enough with the game to really parse the changelog all that well.
They changed independence wars so that when the war begins the rebel gains an immediate (and rather fast moving) ticking score towards victory so long as he's in control of his lands, so the moment they rebel the liege is on the clock to re-assert their authority over them. The ERE had an unlikeable ruler (French kid, lol...) take over so a bunch of the vassals rebelled, and they just didn't have enough time to lockdown, well, most of em' before they won their freedom thanks to a ticking score and just a handful of sieges.
THAT, and now when a vassal rebels, there's new rules for people attacking the rebel: if, say, Armenia where to rebel against the ERE, then they cannot white peace out of the war if an enemy force occupies any of their lands. Conversely, now the ex-liege is hostile towards the people invading their rebelling vassal. So there's much less of that "Oh, we're rebelling... but we'll white peace the moment the Caliph looks at us" crap, but on the flipside the invader may have to worry about the liege.
But the ERE in that game is a good enough example for me. I think back to all the times I've seen the HRE in an uproar, and I'm confident that if the rules were like they are now that it would've lost some territory.
The first change doesn't actually matter unless you're fighting a dozen rebels at once, grab a territory and that free war score should go away. The second is only relevant for blobs vs blobs because now you're always fighting the biggest blob.
They probably have a high military stat king, who is leading the armies. Leaders count for alot in EU 3. If you can't match an enemy general with one of your own, or outnumber him substantially, it can be a good idea to avoid battles until he dies.
Alternately, they either outnumber you, or are using large amounts of cavalry compared to yours.
Can't say for sure what your problem is without more info.
Basically this. England vs France early on is a sucker's game for England; France has better generals, more troops, more land, more money and better mobility. You can beat them, I've done it, but you have to be very careful in doing it.
One of the problems with France is there are a ton of defensive terrain modifiers, if you're attacking you're probably fighting in forests (bad for the attacker) and/or across a river (also bad for the attacker). What you really, really want to do (besides go after Burgundy first if you can) is stay near the coast, let them come to you and identify the best places to attack, if you have to, the best place to retreat is onto your ships because France can't follow and doesn't have the navy to challenge you
Surprise the AI with reinforcements too, the HTTT AI doesn't properly look at travel times, so if you have a 5k stack being attacked by a 15k stack and you can drop 20k on the province on the same day, do it, the AI will often still go for it
Attrition is also a big thing, you will be suffering it, France likely won't because the provinces are fairly rich. Also, keep in mind that a retreating army gains morale, but doesn't reinforce; an advancing army gains both, so if you can get a French army to retreat, keep going after it until you crush it
You should not be fighting land wars as England if at all possible. I play Magna Mundi, so YMMV, but as ultra-wealthy, ultra-naval, ultra-colonial Scandinavia just about the only kingdom that was a push over for me and my 20K incredibly crappy troops was England.
I'm pretty sure their leaders are better. How do I raise my army and navy tradition? I believe battles help, but then I'm in a catch 22 where I need to win land battle to win land battles. Also, i just gave France what they wanted, but then I lost prestige from having uncontested cores. So, I i surrender to France and the also renounce my claims will that help?
Giving up cores is usually something you don't want to do, the prestige hit isn't so bad really. You raise tradition mainly from battles, but there's an idea that will give you 1/year and an advisor that will give a bunch too
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
Well, finally gave EU:3 a spin (because, and this may shock yall, I've had fun with EU:Rome)... and despite all the similarities, I'm still mostly confused right now.
Also, I chose Muscowy in 1399 and my game is already looking over as more Mongols than I could hope to ever fight off have gone right after me, and I have no idea how to get them to piss off. I've heard "just offer to pay tribute at the start", but I've yet to have the Mongols accept.
I know, I know, I should've used Castille or England or something to learn the ropes... but I wanna be a slight underdog and in Russia, so I can go on to try and replicate history and push from Moscow to the Pacific, and recreate the conquest of Siberia and colonization of western North America. I'm a huge fan of Eastern European history, and Russia during THIS period is one of my favorites... and I'll be honest, I'm chomping at the bit to play it.
I suppose I could either...
A. Start up with the larger, already paying the GH tribute nation of Novgorod at the start (but I wanna be Muscowy, darnit!)...
B. Start at a later date than 1399 after the Golden Horde has splintered apart, and accept losing ~50 years of gametime.
Also, question: how do rebelling vassals in the New World work? I know a few of the countries like the USA and Brazil can be founded after breaking free... but what determines what? If I were to colonize Alaska and the west coast as Russia and they broke free, would they potentially become the USA or something entirely different? And to throw in, I'd totally save my game and reload as the new Russian speaking nation in Alaska if given the opportunity.
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
...
Now I almost want to boot up Civ IV: Colonization with the extra nations mod. I had such a freakin' blast slapping down the natives with Russians. I just wish they'd expanded on that game. It's great to be able to set up a colony and ultimately rebel... but once you rebel, that's it. There's no expansion post-rebellion, nothing regarding the history of your new nation beyond the war for its independence. I suppose EU:3 can give that opportunity, minus the part I won't be able to be in charge of the new country until after the rebellion.
Quickly someone, combine EU:3, CKII, and Civ4: Colonization into one super game.
New World rebellions are pretty simple: you get a bunch of events, eventually, once the colonists get pissed off (which may or may not ever actually happen) they just up and get cores on a bunch of territory and declare independence. Since it's an independence war, you can re-annex them if you win. Who they become depends on where they are - the US always forms in the same region, same with all the others. They can be a little off, but not by much. I don't think the west coast would ever rebel, just east coast is scripted I think (in north america anyway)
New World rebellions are pretty simple: you get a bunch of events, eventually, once the colonists get pissed off (which may or may not ever actually happen) they just up and get cores on a bunch of territory and declare independence. Since it's an independence war, you can re-annex them if you win. Who they become depends on where they are - the US always forms in the same region, same with all the others. They can be a little off, but not by much. I don't think the west coast would ever rebel, just east coast is scripted I think (in north america anyway)
Now I almost want to boot up Civ IV: Colonization with the extra nations mod. I had such a freakin' blast slapping down the natives with Russians. I just wish they'd expanded on that game. It's great to be able to set up a colony and ultimately rebel... but once you rebel, that's it. There's no expansion post-rebellion, nothing regarding the history of your new nation beyond the war for its independence. I suppose EU:3 can give that opportunity, minus the part I won't be able to be in charge of the new country until after the rebellion.
Quickly someone, combine EU:3, CKII, and Civ4: Colonization into one super game.
What I want is a Warhammer 40k and CK2 crossover. Start out as a planetary governor and work your way up through the Imperial hierarchy while dealing with demons, xenos, and everyone else trying to stab you in the back.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Posts
The earlier a start date you choose, the more ridiculous of a game world you'll have.
Agreed. In my Spain game I only wanted to unite Spain, but then I had hostile Muslims to the south and a hostile France north, so I expanded and attacked both, which gave me the strength to attack everyone else... I think in future games I'll stop when I've reached my goal, because once you reach a certain size conquering the whole world is just a matter of time.
The fact that the world doesn't follow any semblance of history or plausibility doesn't bother me in the slightest. The weirder the better, really. Far more entertaining.
Looking back, it seems that so many problems can be solved with judicious use of fatal accidents. This is a trend I'm not too worried by. My blasé attitude to this is more worrying.
I like this bit:
Edit: This is going to make landgrabbing a billion times easier:
Oh and thank god they fixed this:
Good thing you already got all those Caliph assassinations out of the way!
Finally
Noooooo the infinite loop!
Ebum ragequits
That sounds like it means the Emperor gets to also be kings of Germany & Bohemia, which effectively means they can't ever really lose power via the vote. Unless those kingdoms are created elective too, which would be really funny
Doesn't this actually make them part of Charlemagne's house? Pre-1.05 I think their house changed to de Vermandois after Bernard of Italy because he was a bastard, I guess, though he doesn't have that trait.
Yep, apparently Karling is another way to spell Carolingian
Oh, I get that some people like never ending conquests. Its, just, take my screenshot of Spain on the previous page. I have all of Iberia and North Africa. Why would I expand? I guess I could take Jerusalem without making my borders ugly and I guess that'd be a fight (Seljuks outnumber me 2:1).
And when I say historically accuracy, I don't really expect the game to be historical. I like that its a sandbox. I don't like things like having no Ottomans in EU 3 or a Byzantine Empire that never crumbles. It makes the game world too silly. I finally found a start that fixes the second problem though. You start after 1080, when there's a huge sultanate of Rum.
Guess I'll have to redo my mod tweaks, but thankfully they were pretty simple.
See that's interesting. My current game, the Byzantine Empire hasn't exactly crumbled, but its already had to piece itself back together once and is certainly fractured again now. Almost all their Turkish holdings are now a part of the Byzantine Kingdom and wholly independent from the Empire.
Granted that's really little more than a name change, but its more than I've head happen to them from around a few places now. Will have to see what happens when I start another game later.
Alternately, they either outnumber you, or are using large amounts of cavalry compared to yours.
Can't say for sure what your problem is without more info.
I didn't notice anything about reducing levy recovery though. That is probably the main reason blobs stay so strong right now - military defeats have little long term consequences because levies recover so fast that when a doom stack is obliterated the owner can almost immediately raise another stack of about the same size.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You should've been apart of the MP game last night: the ERE suffered serious losses (nine or ten duchies broke off).
Levy reinforcement rates are a bit silly, I'll agree, but blobbing has just suffered a serious blow with this patch.
How so? I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just curious about the implications of the changes. I'm not familiar enough with the game to really parse the changelog all that well.
seems pretty neat if you like missiles and boats
They changed independence wars so that when the war begins the rebel gains an immediate (and rather fast moving) ticking score towards victory so long as he's in control of his lands, so the moment they rebel the liege is on the clock to re-assert their authority over them. The ERE had an unlikeable ruler (French kid, lol...) take over so a bunch of the vassals rebelled, and they just didn't have enough time to lockdown, well, most of em' before they won their freedom thanks to a ticking score and just a handful of sieges.
THAT, and now when a vassal rebels, there's new rules for people attacking the rebel: if, say, Armenia where to rebel against the ERE, then they cannot white peace out of the war if an enemy force occupies any of their lands. Conversely, now the ex-liege is hostile towards the people invading their rebelling vassal. So there's much less of that "Oh, we're rebelling... but we'll white peace the moment the Caliph looks at us" crap, but on the flipside the invader may have to worry about the liege.
But the ERE in that game is a good enough example for me. I think back to all the times I've seen the HRE in an uproar, and I'm confident that if the rules were like they are now that it would've lost some territory.
That makes sense. Sounds like a really good set of changes. I really need to put some more time into this game.
The first change doesn't actually matter unless you're fighting a dozen rebels at once, grab a territory and that free war score should go away. The second is only relevant for blobs vs blobs because now you're always fighting the biggest blob.
Basically this. England vs France early on is a sucker's game for England; France has better generals, more troops, more land, more money and better mobility. You can beat them, I've done it, but you have to be very careful in doing it.
One of the problems with France is there are a ton of defensive terrain modifiers, if you're attacking you're probably fighting in forests (bad for the attacker) and/or across a river (also bad for the attacker). What you really, really want to do (besides go after Burgundy first if you can) is stay near the coast, let them come to you and identify the best places to attack, if you have to, the best place to retreat is onto your ships because France can't follow and doesn't have the navy to challenge you
Surprise the AI with reinforcements too, the HTTT AI doesn't properly look at travel times, so if you have a 5k stack being attacked by a 15k stack and you can drop 20k on the province on the same day, do it, the AI will often still go for it
Attrition is also a big thing, you will be suffering it, France likely won't because the provinces are fairly rich. Also, keep in mind that a retreating army gains morale, but doesn't reinforce; an advancing army gains both, so if you can get a French army to retreat, keep going after it until you crush it
Also, I chose Muscowy in 1399 and my game is already looking over as more Mongols than I could hope to ever fight off have gone right after me, and I have no idea how to get them to piss off. I've heard "just offer to pay tribute at the start", but I've yet to have the Mongols accept.
I know, I know, I should've used Castille or England or something to learn the ropes... but I wanna be a slight underdog and in Russia, so I can go on to try and replicate history and push from Moscow to the Pacific, and recreate the conquest of Siberia and colonization of western North America. I'm a huge fan of Eastern European history, and Russia during THIS period is one of my favorites... and I'll be honest, I'm chomping at the bit to play it.
I suppose I could either...
A. Start up with the larger, already paying the GH tribute nation of Novgorod at the start (but I wanna be Muscowy, darnit!)...
B. Start at a later date than 1399 after the Golden Horde has splintered apart, and accept losing ~50 years of gametime.
Also, question: how do rebelling vassals in the New World work? I know a few of the countries like the USA and Brazil can be founded after breaking free... but what determines what? If I were to colonize Alaska and the west coast as Russia and they broke free, would they potentially become the USA or something entirely different? And to throw in, I'd totally save my game and reload as the new Russian speaking nation in Alaska if given the opportunity.
Now I almost want to boot up Civ IV: Colonization with the extra nations mod. I had such a freakin' blast slapping down the natives with Russians. I just wish they'd expanded on that game. It's great to be able to set up a colony and ultimately rebel... but once you rebel, that's it. There's no expansion post-rebellion, nothing regarding the history of your new nation beyond the war for its independence. I suppose EU:3 can give that opportunity, minus the part I won't be able to be in charge of the new country until after the rebellion.
Quickly someone, combine EU:3, CKII, and Civ4: Colonization into one super game.
New World rebellions are pretty simple: you get a bunch of events, eventually, once the colonists get pissed off (which may or may not ever actually happen) they just up and get cores on a bunch of territory and declare independence. Since it's an independence war, you can re-annex them if you win. Who they become depends on where they are - the US always forms in the same region, same with all the others. They can be a little off, but not by much. I don't think the west coast would ever rebel, just east coast is scripted I think (in north america anyway)
Interesting...
And I have DW.
What I want is a Warhammer 40k and CK2 crossover. Start out as a planetary governor and work your way up through the Imperial hierarchy while dealing with demons, xenos, and everyone else trying to stab you in the back.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".