RE: Nightmare scenario... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition



Message

ubik -> RE: Nightmare scenario... (4/9/2009 1:36:02 PM)

Just to echo here the words said before. Besides the designing/coding of MMP2, I have been playing CoG:EE in the last few weeks exclusively and it is such a brilliant game (8/10 barbarossa2? That's QUITE harsh! ;) ). Teleporting out of the blue is not in line with the rest of the mechanics, thus it really stands out.


I stick to my sugestion of giving a grace period after a surrender and then a nation should start paying glory per unit that continues to violate a (now) neutral territory.

Of course, one could make it all more detailed and add a special condition to peace treaties that increases by x months the presence of troops in the loser territories for no glory cost.

Besides this, it is always a must to consider how the AI deals with it. We don't want to cripple the AI with this and I can see several examples where the AI might be challenged by this. I'd go as far as saying it does not matter too much for me to have the AI play by a looser set of rules in order to help it.




barbarossa2 -> RE: Nightmare scenario... (4/9/2009 4:51:49 PM)

Ubik, with an 8/10, I am just leaving room at the top.  I am sure post first patch, the game will be a 9/10.  And I won't give a 10/10 (the PERFECT GAME) until I see a Napoleonic game with CoG:EE's inspiration, with no bugs, and with a tactical system like Total War's--BUT more realistic (more maneuver units, battles aren't so speedy, and you don't lose 80% of your troops in virtually every engagement against a human opponent).

And I didn't say SHAKY 8/10.  I said SOLID 8/10! LOL[:D]  IMHO as far as Napoleonic grand strategy goes, CoG:EE is without peer. And I hope by the time CoG:EE4 comes out, it earns my 10/10!



ubik -> RE: Nightmare scenario... (4/9/2009 7:47:51 PM)

Was just provoking you... [;)]



madgamer2 -> RE: Surrender Issues... (4/10/2009 2:25:44 AM)

I did not like CoG,FoF and now CoGEE....The whole tactical battle thing is not for me and it seems they have taken this system to bigger and bigger but not better. I read
to many strange things that can happen so I am glad I saved my money

Madgamer



morganbj -> RE: Surrender Issues... (4/10/2009 3:49:36 AM)

You don't have to play using the tactical battle "thing."



madgamer2 -> RE: Surrender Issues... (4/10/2009 4:06:51 AM)

I am aware of that but I found that in FoF tactical battle was the only way the north had a chance to win many battles and friends who played CoG reported the same thing.
That is NOT the real reason I don't play such games. It's because what you end up with is an operational level game with tactical battle options.
I also have problems with some of the design concepts used in the Cog-F0F-CoGEE series. I love the grand Strategic level games but I do not do well with the economic/build portions of the game, simple or complex.

So for the most part the games great but not for me. Sometimes just loving a game or a certain type of game is not enough, when it becomes to much work and not enough fun the failure is in me more than the game. I can no longer just buy games because I like them. With my income now $40-70 is a lot of money and I must show more care in my choices.

Madgamer

Madgamer



Anthropoid -> Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 11:42:25 AM)

I think I'm pretty badly misunderstanding the way conquering is intended to work in this game.

It is now July 1797. I have been in a war with Britain for over a year. As I pointed out in a different thread, I captured pretty much her entire navy in Hampshire in about Dec or Jan 1797. I then proceeded to besiege and occupy pretty much every single province on the main island of England, all the way up to Scotland (except Wales): Devon, Hampshire, Midlands, Anglia, York. The last couple battles were me (France) ~135K vs GB ~18K troops. In short, GB is utterly crushed as a power for the rest of the game, and I had besieged and occupied the heartland provinces of the British Empire.

Then *poof* GB surrenders, my armies all teleport back to Ile de France, and voila, GB has control of her provinces again!?

Britain just surrendered last turn. I have 12,600 surrender points. I for a Terms of Surrender Treaty and go to Cede Provinces. Nothing will select. I cannot, despite the fact that I have 12,600 surrender points, and just a couple weeks ago OCCUPIED all of England, get control of any provinces that I just conquered and occupied?

What do I have to do to take away Major Power's provinces?

This simply does NOT seem right. How the heck are you supposed to conquer Europe if conquering provinces does not lead to you keeping them when the war ends??



Hard Sarge -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 11:50:04 AM)

you have to be next to a province to claim it, that is the strength of England (and also why I said before, if you want to take England, you need to go to Total War with them)





dude -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 12:29:34 PM)

As HS pointed out, to claim a territory as a surrender term you must have another adjacent province first.  I don’t have a problem with this rule, it gives GB a great advantage but it can also hurt them… they can’t claim any territories on the continent unless they have an adjacent territory.  In most games the only place this occurs is Gibraltar where they can claim Cadiz. 

The only problem I see in the surrender is the teleporting of the French army back home.  Otherwise the surrender of GB should be very hard and in my opinion a risky operation if someone want to risk sending their army across the channel making them dependent on ships to return home.



barbarossa2 -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 1:15:37 PM)

It seems that stripping England of Wales and Scotland should be easier than stripping it of pieces of pure England. 

If you can gain Ireland in a treaty following a conventional war, then you should really be able to gain Scotland and Wales.  Especially as France.

Has anyone tried to for Britain to liberate Scotland or Wales or Ireland in a peace treaty?

I don't know if the adjacency rule works for Britain.  Plus, there is the problem that you can't escalate from normal war to total war (though I somewhat understand the rationale for this--in game terms). The outright annexation of a whole country might have created all kinds of rebellions and uprisings.  When taking over a single provence, an occupying power might be able to deal with this.  However, if you multiply these problems times twelve and then add fire to the problem, it could quickly become virtually impossible in a nation with any sense of national identity (I don't know how to explain Poland's division and disappearance in the late 18th century).



dude -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 1:41:30 PM)

I think the difference is that Ireland's provinces are listed as conquered while Wales and Scotland are listed as Home Provinces.  If you look in the Provinces.txt file you’ll see that Wales and Scotland are listed as Player = 2; while S.Ireland = 87 and N.Ireland = 88. 

If you want Scotland and Wales to be cedeable… you’d need to change a few things in the files.  But it should be doable to mod this.

You would most likely need to add a Scottish and Welsh Player in the Players.txt file.  Then set the Player values in the province list to match these player numbers.  Likewise for the Start.txt file for each city's entry.  Then in the Relations.txt file you would need to set the status (war, alliance, protectorate, or conquered).

That should do it if you wanted to have Scotland and Wales as possible independent nations.  Might make for an interesting mod.



morganbj -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 1:59:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I think I'm pretty badly misunderstanding the way conquering is intended to work in this game.

It is now July 1797. I have been in a war with Britain for over a year. As I pointed out in a different thread, I captured pretty much her entire navy in Hampshire in about Dec or Jan 1797. I then proceeded to besiege and occupy pretty much every single province on the main island of England, all the way up to Scotland (except Wales): Devon, Hampshire, Midlands, Anglia, York. The last couple battles were me (France) ~135K vs GB ~18K troops. In short, GB is utterly crushed as a power for the rest of the game, and I had besieged and occupied the heartland provinces of the British Empire.

Then *poof* GB surrenders, my armies all teleport back to Ile de France, and voila, GB has control of her provinces again!?

Britain just surrendered last turn. I have 12,600 surrender points. I for a Terms of Surrender Treaty and go to Cede Provinces. Nothing will select. I cannot, despite the fact that I have 12,600 surrender points, and just a couple weeks ago OCCUPIED all of England, get control of any provinces that I just conquered and occupied?

What do I have to do to take away Major Power's provinces?

This simply does NOT seem right. How the heck are you supposed to conquer Europe if conquering provinces does not lead to you keeping them when the war ends??


You will frequently have somebody surrender to you that you have no shared border, so do damage to them some other way. One thing I do with countries that just love to DOW me (Russia), is establish an extended enforced peace. I've never liked the "forced war" on a third party, the treaty compleexities amoung all the countries never makes that work out well for me. Every so often, yes, but it's never a guarantee.

When Britain surrenders, I ALWAYS take colonies and have them scuttle ships, as many as I can. Their army is fairly small (but good), and they are at little risk of taking too much of Europe. BUT, they can do serious damage with their diplomats, so set a high priority of kicking them out when you see one anywhere in your area. They can flip countries red like crazy. When I play Britain, I buy all 7 diplo's and send them into central Europe. I usually have all of what used to be West Germany red after five years or so. That really irritates the French (who never invade them, for some reason. Don't know why.)

As France, I can always paint the continent mostly blue in a very long game (I usually play 23 years, regardless of scenario). And England frequently never surrenders to me, but other than through diplomatic action, I don't fear them too much. They do screw up my merchant income, that's why I like to see those ships of theirs being burned in Portsmouth by their own hands.



barbarossa2 -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 2:11:23 PM)

One way to test the validity of the requirement that a nation have a provence adjacent to any provence they wish to claim is like this:

We know that France can't gain any English provences following a limited war. (Kent, Sussex)

Can England gain any French provences following a limited war? (Brittany, Normandy, etc.)

This test will show us if Great Britain is a special case or if the "adjacency rule" is being applied uniformy.

I haven't played the game as Great Britain yet, so I don't know.



dude -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 2:23:12 PM)

I've played GB a number of times now... you can't get a French province either unless you are adjacent.  What you can do is grab a protectorate like the Dutch or Hanover and then work your way into France that way [:D].  But you can't take Brest without having an adjacent province... so the Brits are under the same restriction... so I feel the rule is fairly balanced in that respect.  You can't take a GB province but they can't take yours either (unless you are Spain).  Just make sure GB doesn't get a foothold somewhere on the continent.




Hard Sarge -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 2:28:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

One way to test the validity of the requirement that a nation have a provence adjacent to any provence they wish to claim is like this:

We know that France can't gain any English provences following a limited war. (Kent, Sussex)

Can England gain any French provences following a limited war? (Brittany, Normandy, etc.)

This test will show us if Great Britain is a special case or if the "adjacency rule" is being applied uniformy.

I haven't played the game as Great Britain yet, so I don't know.


the rules work the same for all

England with a Protectorate on the mainland, can force another Nation to cede provinces that are next to that protectorate

you can also play with the treaty terms, to get somebody to "lend" you a province, which is then seen as your "province" until the treaty time runs out, which then expands your borders



barbarossa2 -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 2:31:09 PM)

By the time the game starts, Scotland had only been part of Great Britain for around 100 years--after a long and complicated process of conquest and independence and personal union and finally legislative coup.  And to this day, there is still a very pro-independent mentality among the Scots.  Being somewhat of a student of Scottish history, I would say that treating it and England as a monolith is an error.  I know very much less about Welsh history, but they also have a proud history independent of the English.  One of the best books I ever read was Magnus Magnussen's, "A History of Scotland".  I recommend it to any student of European history.  Indeed, I just mentioned to a Scottish friend of mine that Scotland, Wales and England are being treated as a monolith...and I was instantly told, "Oh! That never goes down well with any of us." Indeed, the feeling that Scotland is NOT part of England has lead to the construction of a Scottish parliament and an ever growing machinery of independence. Scotland and Britain don't even share the same legal systems.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 2:41:22 PM)

ahhhh, you can make the same claims about almost any province in the game, just depends on the time, most of Russia's "home" provinces should be Polish

how much of Spain, would be seen as Spainish to the people who lived there

so would say, some of this is playbalance (my point of view, not the designers)



barbarossa2 -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 3:07:03 PM)

True Hard Sarge. :)

However, I had noticed that many of these provences which you mention have the conquering nation's flag behind them and the old nation's flag in front.  For instance, most of Hungary is like this.  Much of eastern Prussia is like this.  I don't remember how Russia's status is in the west. I am a fan of CoG:EE for many reasons, and this is one of those reasons. It allows the differentiation of these subtle relationships. I merely feel that Wales, Scotland, and Ireland should be considered for the same status as say parts of Poland under Prussia have with Prussia. Or the same relationship which Hungary has with Austria.  That is, for instance, a small Scottish flag in front and a large British flag in back. 



Randomizer -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 5:16:54 PM)

The start of the CoG-EE period was less than 50-years after the Battle of Culloden and the brutal Highland Clearances that followed so it seems perfectly reasonable to consider all of Scotland as conquored.  On the other hand, Wales had been under the English Crown for generations so it being a home province seems more reasonable.

One of the few nagging little things about CoG-EE that bugs me is the continual use of "Britain" rather than "England" in the 18th Century.

In this pre-Nationalist era there are many areas that might not be considered as home provinces; the Basque and Brittany areas of France and the Basque and Catalonian areas of Spain immediately jump out as candidates along with Scotland.

Fortunately modding this seems pretty straightforward provided there are no unintended consequences waiting in the wings.

Does anybody know what Province 81, named "this_province_no_longer-exists" in the 1792 scenario used to be?  It flags as a Russian objective and I hope this is fixed in the first patch.

Best Regards



barbarossa2 -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 5:52:02 PM)

I see merit to the argument Randomizer. 

In Scotland, in the 18th century alone, there was a rebellion in 1719, a French invasion planned in 1744 with the help of Jacobites (individuals loyal to the Stewart dynasty), and the major rebellion of 1745 which culminated in the battle of Culloden that Randomizer mentioned.  Indeed, if nothing else is considered to be conquered, the "Highlands" region should be, as this was not even effectively assimilated into rule under the Scottish crown during the 18th century and was, indeed the center of many of these "troubles" (lol...I am a closet Jacobite myself :D)

Unlike other rebellions throughout Europe perhaps, the Scottish efforts were born of a sense of naitonal identity--not just poor living conditions leading to overt frustration and an attempt to overturn the status quo.

You will always find a large portion of Scots who would be willing to take independence if offered to them.  However, one reason that the case of Scotland is so different than the case of Brittany or Champagne, is the fact that, in theory, it WAS a unique political entity. Scotland is not listed along side the provences of Kent, Sussex, etc. No. Scotland stands alongside England in the Union. Which is why the flags were integrated (the Scottish blue field and white cross with the English white field and red cross, giving us the "Union Jack").

I don't know if you would find these kinds of statements to be true about Champagne, or Kent, or Pomerania in the time frame of CoG:EE. 

What would the opinion be of a Welsh historian?  I don't know. 

Randomizer, I do agree that England had in effect gained control of Wales for some time, but I don't know how effectively it was assimilated.  So, if we could assign degrees of "independence" I would agree with Randomizer, that Wales would be less deserving of this status than Scotland.



Kingmaker -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 6:50:58 PM)

HiHi

By the time the game starts, Scotland had only been part of Great Britain for around 100 years, moot point I suppose but the same is true for England.

If the game designers are going to re set the national flags etc over this issue, pretty please, but can England have 'the Leopards of England' rather than the Cross of St George, Ta everso [:)]

All the Best
Peter



Mus -> RE: Surrender Issues... (4/10/2009 7:18:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: madgamer

I am aware of that but I found that in FoF tactical battle was the only way the north had a chance to win many battles and friends who played CoG reported the same thing.


I find this to be a really odd statement.

Tactical battles allow quality to shine over quantity. Quick/Instant Battles quantity starts to take more of a front seat. If anything I would think its the other way, that the South would have trouble in a purely quick battle environment, particularly if the Northern player was fully exploiting his advantage in producing large amounts of artillery.



Anthropoid -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 7:34:21 PM)

So let me get this straight: the only way to take and hold provinces in the British Isles is if you declare Total War on Great Britain (which you cannot do if you are already in a state of limited war, which in itself is peculiar if not gamey) and then _win_ a total war against GB (meaning, I'm guessing, you conquer all her provinces? have not read the rules on Total War  . . .)?

No offense meant, and I am not a Western Europe specialist, but . . . that just seems silly.

During the Hundred Years War, significant chunks of "France" were under English control (no I don't remember dates and fiefs/provinces but it is true). Indeed, as late as the 1500s the Spanish were sending this rather signifcant Armada to invade England! I doubt that the intent was to invade and conquer some territory only to pack up and return it to the English AFTER the English had been decimated militarily, provinces were being gobbled up one after other, and then because the English surrender we are all going to just pack up and sail at top speed back to Spain!?

That is exactly what happened in my game: I _CONQUERED_ England! She has maybe ONE fleet left (if that) and perhaps a merchant or two, and her military was decimated. The best resistance she could put up in her front line provinces as I marched north was ~18K man armies! And I am to believe that under those circumstances, my nation would just HAND BACK the conquered core provinces of England simply because there was an English Channel between them and our "home" provinces?"

Its absurd, and not the least bit realistic. If you completely conquer a province, and your enemy surrenders to you, you should retain some sort of influence in that province irrespective of whether it is adjacent to your home provinces you own or not. Perhaps it is only a right of passage and the ability to view province infrastructure and garrisons, or perhaps it should actually be collecting a levy. Certainly I can agree that conquered provinces that are not adjacent to home provinces should not necessarily be cedeable and become part of home national territory, but the idea that the enemy surrender can just automatically get all their lost territory back is absurd!

Moreover, Hampshire province IS adjacent to Picardy else Normandy. The English Channel is pretty dang narrow! Sure if I conquer a province that is 100 or 200 miles away and lying on ther other side of an intervening foreign territory, having only "Limited Ceding" seems reasonable enough. But if we are talking about the two sides of the English Channel, well in my opinion that should count as being adjacent just like the two sides of the Dardanelles, Denmark to Norway or Gibraltar to North Africa.

Hampshire should count as being "adjacent" to Picardy and/or Normandy. Corsica should count as being 'adjacent' to Marseille. Corfu should be counted as adjacent to whatever major landmass it is immediately next to.

I would suggest two changes:

1) A new Treaty Clause: "Limited Ceding" in which occupied provinces that are not adjacent to home territory can be included. Ideas for what a Limited Cede results in: collect a certain amount of resources from the province. Enjoy an ROP, and ability to view the infrastructure and garrison.

2) Certain provinces that are separated by fairly narrow strips of ocean are demarcated as being "adjacent" with respect to the full "Cede Province" clause (e.g., Hampshire and Picardy and/or Normandy; Corsica and Marseilles, etc.)



Mus -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 7:52:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

I don't remember how Russia's status is in the west.


Lots of Russias western provinces have the Lithuanian flag.

Actually I just checked, they might be flags from individual provinces/citys/duchys in the area that used to be Lithuania.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 8:00:28 PM)

hassle is, it happens in every war, you give back everything you took (other then captured protectorates) and then ask for them in a treaty

in the 1792 campaign, the same thing can happen to France, vs Prussia, Russia or Sweden, even Turkey

but...

that said, if you defeat England in the first war, they are shot, the 2nd war is normally a war over a weaken enemy

I not heard back about what we are allowed to talk about, but we are working on a number of issues, either brought up, or now seen in a different light







barbarossa2 -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 8:21:23 PM)

I have to admit, I enjoy the "giving everything back" aspect of the game.  It is what makes it different than the gamey Total War series. 

See what happened to Prussia when after France attacked them in 1870. Prussia advanced on the French armies and crushed them, then went on to invest Paris.  At that time, Britain was on Prussia's side.  However, when Prussia announced it would not be accepting just a plain surrender, but instead wanted Lorraine and Alsace, and horrible stories of privation started being leaked out of Paris by balloon (the scale of which would be totally dwarfed by 20th century conflict), English sentiment turned decidedly against Prussia--and all Bismark and the Kaiser wanted was PART of a single provence in CoG:EE terms. 

On top of that, the French were able to raise another 150,000 troops easily (who were squandered militarily) to try to beat out the Prussian enemy. 

And on top of that, this ongoing war lead to the collapse of French society in some respects and lead to the famous (infamous) Paris commune which no one could put down easily.  I have a feeling that outright annexation of a whole country would be viewed as so unjust and destabilizing you would immediately rocket to the "All of Europe is alarmed at your rise" status and result in major levels of unrest in every provence you came to occupy in any nation with any sense of national identity.

BUT!!!!! Anthropoid, I DO think that you have a valid point that several regions which are separated by bodies of water should be connected in the game for annexation purposes. However, it is interesting that historically, Kent was never ceded to a continental European power. What should we make of that? Since history is a game which has only been played once...what to make of it is extremely difficult and open to much speculation. I have a feeling that the longer it did not happen, that the more resistant any English/British monarch would have been to such terms.

Unfortunately, the CoG:EE system doesn't allow for real treaty negotiations. I think if it did, players would be able to negotiate things like this--and the British player might in several instances be just as unwilling to surrender for that. At the moment, a "conditional surrender" in CoG:EE is not controlled in any way and is really unconditional. The surrendering power can't say, I will surrender ONLY if you don't take any provences from me. This is where Empires in Arms (board game) shined and CoG:EE should play catch up.



Anthropoid -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 9:17:17 PM)

quote:

I have to admit, I enjoy the "giving everything back" aspect of the game.  It is what makes it different than the gamey Total War series. 


I admit I don't know my Napoleonic history too well, but didn't Napoleon effectively conquer most of Western Europe?



Mus -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 9:28:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I admit I don't know my Napoleonic history too well, but didn't Napoleon effectively conquer most of Western Europe?


About the only thing you cant do very easily that Napoleon did is create the Duchy of Warsaw. I did it in one game by declaring Total War against Prussia. In another game I used a diplomat to have warsaw rebel and then conquered the minor independent and forced prussia to cede me the newly neighboring provinces.

[:D]



barbarossa2 -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 9:52:31 PM)

Here is a great map of Napoleonic Europe at the height of Napoleon's power.

The dark blue areas are regions which were incorporated directly into France. This is equal to annexing territories. Or conquering minors and not setting them free.

The light blue areas are similar to protectorates or regions which were conquered and then turned into protectorates.

However, notice that Prussia and Austria still existed and were here not indicated to be directly under Napoleon's boot. What Napoleon did was defeat them in campaigns, and then came to terms with them which everyone could live with given the situation at hand. Prussia and Austria still have their own governments (he didn't remove their governments...had he requested that, he might have found himself in protracted campaigns against total resistance and revolts which would have cost more effort than he was ready to invest to do this). You can see the areas which Napoleon did strip from Prussia (all of the regions annexed from Poland through the late 18th century, which he used to create the nation of Poland) and Austria (regions of western Austria which he gave to Bavaria and regions along the Adriatic which were directly annexed into France). So, he beat these countries and demanded several things...all costs which the losing monarchs were willing pay rather than continue their war by any and all means possible.

Spain is blue because I believe Napoleon's brother was put on the throne. I don't know how this is represented in the game. And now I wonder about this tricky question. How does a French player get to the point where he can put a relative on the throne of Spain? Total war? Limited war? Coup? I don't know. Is it an event in the game I have not discovered?

I wonder what would have happened if Napoleon would have beaten Austria and at the initial peace negotiations if he would have said, "You are all losing all of your power, and every provence of your country is being incorporated into France." It is difficult to draw direct comparisons with the Prussian defeat of France in 1871, but one can draw some conclusions... resistance in Europe would have grown immeasurably. Perhaps even among his own advisors.

Who would have tolerated the complete disappearance of a nation like Prussia at the treaty of Tilsit? However, absolutes aren't useful. Poland disappeared without any real problems. Just went poof. However, all of its neighbors were complicit in the act and many Polish nobles were as well. I am not sure which absolute rules to draw from Poland...again, history being a game played once.

An interesting historical example I can think of which might be on point was Bismark's resistance to the Kaiser's desire to annex portions of Bohemia from Austria following the quick defeat of Austria in the war of 1866. Bismark's rationale was this would create a permanent enemy in Austria and might have risked the ire of Europe. He may have been right. But this tug of war between people who understand these things and people who don't does occur even in the most powerful nations ruled by monarchs.

My guess is that, while doing his best to bring Europe under his boot, Napoleon had to appear reasonable enough so as not to scare the **** out of every single landed aristocrat in Europe.

Totally taking over a region and assimilating it must be a very expensive prospect, which can be frought with dangers and difficulties, which is why most powers probably only bit off small chunks at any one time for this treatment. There must have been a strategically important reason for this decision. Napoleon may have felt the political benefits to him would be rather great and the costs relatively low to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire and then turn portions of it into a "puppet" organization known as the Confederation of the Rhine. Then you can con people into thinking they are free... when in fact they are slaves. And conning people is something Napoleon was good at. And he did get his way with it*.

Can anyone else add anything to this discussion? I cannot pretend to be an expert in all of this. But I have to admit that the mystery of annexation of foreign lands was always an interesting topic to me. I think I may even have a book buried in my boxes somewhere on that specific topic. Damn. Where is it!!!

*One example of how well he understood PR was his letter to Cairo on his retreat and total defeat at Acre. The letter he dictated claimed he had raized Acre to the last stone and forced its people into the sea and he was bringing many prisoners and standards. It was a total lie. Acre had been a major defeat and the reteat turned into a deadly rout. But he could not afford a mutiny in Cairo--and there was apparently a great risk of it. When his aid raised questions about how wise it was to send such a letter in which "each word was a deception". Napoleon repeatedly replied, "My dear fellow, you are a simpleton; you don't understand anything." Napoleon got his way. There was no mutiny in Egypt.

[image]local://upfiles/19419/8E367B3CBFF14186AA17535ECCC8C9F2.jpg[/image]



Anthropoid -> RE: Conquering: More than Just Defeating & Occupying!? (4/10/2009 9:55:21 PM)

Thats real purty, but my intent once this forced peace is over in a year or so is to declare Total War on GB and CONQUER England! Did you see how much industrial might and wealth she has!? With no Navy, England _will_ be mine [:D]

ADDIT: In fact, no. That will _NOT_ be enough! I intend to conquer _ALL_ of Western Europe . . . not sure how well-worth it Spain is. Might just set up a couple armies as defensive forces in my two Pyrennes provinces: good target practice whenever the Spaniards come down out of the mountains . . .

England is WAY too wealthy, and way too easily defended to NOT conquer her now that I've trounced her navy and army. Then, I will just spread west and south, keeping the best provinces and protectoratizing the less juicy ones, and making sure I create a "pathway more or less through the middle of the conquered territory so I can always have the option to add more new conquered territories on the extreme margins.

How many provinces would you guys say is a max before your Empire is really troubled with waste?

Awright, so I admit, maybe it should be as hard as it is to conquer . . . but I still think that the English Channel should be considered "adjacent."



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.9375