Is EU3 fun yet?

[sbr]

The one time I really tried was the worst one; I DOW'ed a OPM I had a Reconquest CB on, but not a vassal.  Next thing I knew England and her allies Portugal and Castille attacked me and had me in pretty bad shape; then a couple of vassals rebelled and some big rebel stacks appeared.  I was barely treading water when Burgundy kicked the back door in and ass-raped me.  It was not pretty.  I will have to make sure I spent time getting my vassals lined up before doing anything.

I don't know much about the game I am subbing into tomorrow expect that France is the junior partner in a PU with Burgundy, and the guy who was playing them the first session had his PC crash right after he was attacked by England.  I can't imagine it will go well. 

[Viking]

What Habs said, but also it helps a LOT if Burgundy is not the Emperor. Then when in war with them, it is very important to do what you should be doing in any war: combine your forces into a megastack and force decisive battles until the Burgundian armies are gone, dropping off siege forces along the way.

No, let them Doomstack and move siege, when their morale drops and they start a regular siege (when they see your army nearby then you move siege the provinces in his loc and wait for him to attitt into nothing.

[DGuller]

As an addendum, arriving "late" to the colonial grab isn't necessarily the end of the world.  As Spain, for example, I made a conscious decision to expand as rapidly as possible in the colonial sphere, without regard for anything else.

That quickly netted me ~15 points of inflation, which is only just now starting to come down, nearly 100 years later.  Probably not the best way to go about things...

Agreed.  I fell into the same trap in my Spain game in IN, and fell way behind.  I did eventually colonize every province in Americas bar one, but that just anchored me down.  It wasn't until 1700s that I started to catch up.

[DGuller]

What Habs said, but also it helps a LOT if Burgundy is not the Emperor. Then when in war with them, it is very important to do what you should be doing in any war: combine your forces into a megastack and force decisive battles until the Burgundian armies are gone, dropping off siege forces along the way.

No, let them Doomstack and move siege, when their morale drops and they start a regular siege (when they see your army nearby then you move siege the provinces in his loc and wait for him to attitt into nothing.

I also agree with that.  Doomstacking is not a good strategy.  I find that it's much more effective to fight like a pack of wolves.  You should have several mid-stack forces all next to each other and shadowing the doomstack.  Let them come to each other's aid if attacked, but otherwise don't combine them.  Let the attrition and the attack penalties work against the enemy, not against you.  With a pack of wolves, you can much easier outmaneuver the doomstack, and maybe even cut off their reinforcement line.

[Tamas]

What Habs said, but also it helps a LOT if Burgundy is not the Emperor. Then when in war with them, it is very important to do what you should be doing in any war: combine your forces into a megastack and force decisive battles until the Burgundian armies are gone, dropping off siege forces along the way.

No, let them Doomstack and move siege, when their morale drops and they start a regular siege (when they see your army nearby then you move siege the provinces in his loc and wait for him to attitt into nothing.

I also agree with that.  Doomstacking is not a good strategy.  I find that it's much more effective to fight like a pack of wolves.  You should have several mid-stack forces all next to each other and shadowing the doomstack.  Let them come to each other's aid if attacked, but otherwise don't combine them.  Let the attrition and the attack penalties work against the enemy, not against you.  With a pack of wolves, you can much easier outmaneuver the doomstack, and maybe even cut off their reinforcement line.

Meh it is risky to reinforce mid-battle, I don't like to do it on purpose.

[DGuller]

Meh it is risky to reinforce mid-battle, I don't like to do it on purpose.

It doesn't have to be mid-battle.  If you see the doomstack moving to attack one of your armies, you should immediately move the neighboring armies for support.  They may even arrive before the enemy does.  This gives you the doomstack numbers and the defense bonus.  It's a lot easier to wind up being on the defensive when you've got multiple armies.

[Viking]

This petulant little brat pisses me off. The fucking mamino doesn't want to get a fucking job. He has 7 Royal titles and countless lesser titles but does he want to work? Nooo... he's probably holed up at Hampton Court playing computer games and eating pizza.

[Alcibiades]

[dps]

So, it HttT worth getting, overall?  Not as in, "Is it worth the money?";  but as in "Is gameplay better than in IN with the lastest patch?".

[Habbaku]

As a Paradox-hater, I would say that HTTT is worth the price.  The game is fun, open to multiple sessions of gameplay and, so long as you don't deliberately game the system, can be fairly challenging at points.

I never played IN with the latest patch, though, so take my opinion for what you will.

[crazy canuck]

Having a great game with the Golden Horde.  The early game is a blast with these guys.  They get W/E decreases and prestige boosts evertime they win a siege.   When the ruler dies you get to fight a great civil war until you get a good enough leader - and good enough gov't tech to change to a feudal monarchy.

Early on I did all I could to keep the Timurads whole and Persia never formed.  I inherited them around the mid 1500s.  In the 1600s I have become the Moghul empire stretching from Siberia and Northern China to Scandanavia (formed by the Swedes) in the north and the North West India to the Ottomans in the South.

The Ottomans are about to form a Personal Union with me and so by the 1700s I will likely control either directly or by PU or vassals the whole of the Faith.

Fighting Euros is hard work though.  Now that I have disposed of the Slavs I my expansion in the West has hit a brick wall.  I will finish off China and then think about how to best bring the Europeans to the Faith.

[Galrion]

In my game it has boiled down to 3 major powers.  Russia controls the steppe, Scandinavia, and most of eastern europe.  France rules from Iberia to central Europe.  As Byzantium I control the middle east, the Balkans, Italy, and Egypt.  Spain never formed, Castille only controls a handful of territories, Portugal rules the seas and has most of the new world under its belt, but gets absolutely thrashed any time conflict on land is involved.  The UK only controls a few provinces in the British Isles.  I thought Persia was a power, it stretched from my border all the way to China, but in just a few years it completely started to disintegrate.  China has long since been fractured into a variety of smaller squabbling nations.

[sbr]

So, it HttT worth getting, overall?  Not as in, "Is it worth the money?";  but as in "Is gameplay better than in IN with the lastest patch?".

I think so.  They need to work on the life span of heirs, you seem to spent half of every game under a regency, but the new CB system, war goals and dynasty systems all add a lot to the game, IMO.

[Alcibiades]

In my game in which I had formed Italy, I was quite distressed when my Dynasty of 'Von Luxembourghs' died out.

The downfall started with Portugal, when the people overthrew my poor brother, then Bohemia's Lux disappeared, and I had annexed all of my vassals.  When my heir died I knew it was the end, and indeed it was as a Spaniard took the throne of Italy.. 

[Viking]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10441837&postcount=19

From the post your empire bit on Paradox this guy went from being Ming to being Russia to being Prussia to being Germany hoping to make France before the game ends. Something to aspire to?