Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Fivex's

4 (50%)

Before OOS

4 (50%)

Total Members Voted: 8

[Twiggie]

no, that was just cos i was feeling nice

[Tarran]

You were feeling nice, after such a bitter war where you got massively stackwiped? Why? Do you have some secret plan for Rome or something? Because you can't have it.

[Andrew425]

Do you guys think that if we had a bit more luck, and I was a bit more present during the battles that we could've actually won the war?

I know we had you guys on the ropes a few times, but do you think you would've been able to bounce back and clobber us, or would the replacements have been too expensive for your economies?

[Tarran]

Well, assuming you got even better battle rolls (you were already pretty damn lucky), you might have contested us a bit harder. But luck and being present aren't actually the major problems. The major problem was your strategy.

Some strategic problems you guys made, which was the real reason you guys lost the war:
You split up. Horribly. DreXav is especially guilty of this as he even split up his own army and thus can't even blame anyone else for splitting up. While half your army was running about Italy and later worthlessly besieging a province with a navy that could never threaten you all, my army was marching across Germany trying to reunite with the French and promptly wrecked quite a sizable army the French drove down to minimal morale. DreXav did try to stop me from helping Azthor, but he didn't take into account Forced March being extremely hard to catch up to nor did he stick to his decision. In addition, either neither of you actually considered what I might be doing with that stack, or you expected far too easy of a victory against the French, because you had plenty of time to get that stack out of there.
When the odds turned against you guys, you didn't look for defensive terrain, or retreat into friendly Ottoman or Spanish land, you just focused on the useless navy. It was outnumbered by a staggering amount and, quite frankly, in a tactically horrible fleet-in-being position. Not to mention you guys were in defensively useless land.
You besieged and chased through provinces way too far inside our borders, which meant your guys could not retreat to safety, meaning that even one lost battle would result in a stackwipe. And it did. Twice. Granted, we did have a manpower advantage, so you do have an excuse for chasing armies, but you have very little excuses for setting siege to Rome.
You took very little advantage of your utter naval supremacy. France is an especially obvious case. You both followed Azthor into the heartland, instead of waiting for the mercs to land. Other cases include a potential naval retreat from Italy or naval landings to help with the battle.

Well, these are just the western and Ottoman mistakes. As for Twiggie, it's up to Azthor to note his mistakes because I was busy in France and Italy for the majority of the time.

These mistakes, when combined, lead to what should have been a bitter contested fight ending up as a easy fight for our side, which is why I assume Azthor was so mad when peace was made instead of just a little bit mad. By the time we beat your two armies, and Twiggie's two armies, we were still in very good fighting shape (though I cannot promise you if we would be forever).

Also, for me, unless you stackwiped me and forced me to actually re-recruit, replacements weren't going to cripple me any time soon.

[DreXav]

Unfortunately, we probably lost the front the moment we failed to finish off French army fleeing to Paris and later Antwerpen. For some reason British attachment didn't follow properly and my part of French pursue force kept 'losing' it's British companions, resulting in couple days lost over the entire chase before we noticed and re-attached twice. Not sure what caused the faulty mechanic. Maybe it wouldn't be an issue if British mercenaries dropped sooner in Northern France and later Antwerpen, though the latter might have been impossible due long disembarkment time without basin rights (British mercs should have landed more often thorough the wall, but it may be my fault not to order a non-stop merc recruitment much earlier). There's also the current problem of defeats and forced retreat not dealing enough losses for the loser side, so you can more or less kite the enemy as long as your forces got morale, with only minimal loses.

As Tarran said, the moment I realized the pursue force has failed at Paris, I tried to break off Italian siege but we all knew we can't make it if Tarran force marched straight to Holland. When it was obvious Italy caught up way ahead of time and north army was doomed, I recalled the army back into Italy and awaited mercenary and Ottoman reinforcements to force the decisive battle there while we still had hope of matching them.

The primary role was not besieging Rome but controlling the area from raising new armies, which was paramount for success of western front. If we have failed to finish off French front standing armies and controlled raising of new regiments, it was a lost war due lack of manpower on our side. Going completely defensive was entirely pointless - the French-Italian side would just sit back at the border, fully replenishing and eventually outnumbering our forces. It was a better bet to try and force a fight when they haven't had months to rebuild. Tarran speaks of our lucky rolls (good rolls were in the first battle, but we were outnumbering them and defending in mountains, so it was their bad tactical decision), but I haven't seen any of that in our crucial battles as battle of Rome has shown.

For eastern front, I believe Russians should have stalled the confrontation until Ottomans have gotten together their army in Anatolia and went to reinforce them. I haven't seen final moments of Russian army, just suddenly noticed that instead of pursuing shattered French, the Russians are shattered themselves.

All in all, it was all about stackwiping the enemy western front and playing whack-a-mole with new regiments, while reinforcing the Russian front with boatloads of mercs. It didn't help that I haven't finished Offensive Idea, making Tarran the only one on the front with that unbalanced ability. Tarran's suggested strategy of continuing the stalemate or returning to it after failed chase would have been catastrophic for us. All it would result in was us burning more money and suffering WE for even longer.

[Tarran]

The primary role was not besieging Rome but controlling the area from raising new armies, which was paramount for success of western front.

Well, sorry to tell you, but I wasn't planning on raising much at all unless I lost my army. You would've done much better doing that in France. The most I even planned to recruit was those 4 arty units. That's it, I don't have the economy to support massive recruitment.

Tarran speaks of our lucky rolls (good rolls were in the first battle, but we were outnumbering them and defending in mountains, so it was their bad tactical decision), but I haven't seen any of that in our crucial battles as battle of Rome has shown.

Well, you actually did have lucky rolls prior to the end of the battle in Rome. Consider that we frequently suffered more casualties than you on a shock phase while I had a whopping 5-shock general when the Ottomans had a 1-shock leading your side, and at most we were fighting on a river crossing. Only at the last moment did our roll turn an about-face. Otherwise, the shock rolls were really poor as we usually lost more men than you or lost just a little bit less. You were not lucky on getting absolutely crushing rolls, you were lucky on my side not getting crushing rolls, where I'd imagine a 4-point difference would mean a large advantage.

Though checking in the save file, you did lose more men than we did, but only by less than 3K. I assume it's mostly as a result of the massive losses at the very end of the battle, not as a result of the majority of the battle, where I distinctly remember your side frequently rolling high while my side rolled low.

In addition, prior to that in Toulouse we lost 5K more on another battlefield with that same 5-shock general, versus a 2-shock general.

Either generals are far, far less useful than in EU3, which I'm in the dark about if it's the case, or my side rarely got good rolls. If I'm just not knowing of how strong generals are anymore, please inform me because frankly I am still under the EU3 the assumption that generals can affect the tide of battle drastically.

All in all, it was all about stackwiping the enemy western front and playing whack-a-mole with new regiments, while reinforcing the Russian front with boatloads of mercs. It didn't help that I haven't finished Offensive Idea, making Tarran the only one on the front with that unbalanced ability. Tarran's suggested strategy of continuing the stalemate or returning to it after failed chase would have been catastrophic for us. All it would result in was us burning more money and suffering WE for even longer.

Only the french were really making new regiments in large amounts. And I don't believe I ever suggested a stalemate, I suggested caution and staying together.

[Dutchling]

No screenshots D:?

[Tarran]

Wasn't aware anyone was going to come back, and the last two sessions had my full attention and were rather insignificant on border changes, so screenshots were very low on my list of priorities.

[DreXav]

Well, sorry to tell you, but I wasn't planning on raising much at all unless I lost my army. You would've done much better doing that in France. The most I even planned to recruit was those 4 arty units. That's it, I don't have the economy to support massive recruitment.

That's what was going in your head, which we couldn't have known. On our part, we had to act with consideration for the possibility that you would try to raise armies, with or without being stackwiped. If French part of army was stackwiped as planned, we'd control their land with the detachment sent there and continuous mercenary reinforcements. Instead, our forces that were meant to pacify attempts of raising new army were forced to chase the French.
If we had rushed all of our army north, it would leave entire south free to rebuild armies. Plus considering the attachment failure, we still had lost days of chase.

Well, you actually did have lucky rolls prior to the end of the battle in Rome. Consider that we frequently suffered more casualties than you on a shock phase while I had a whopping 5-shock general when the Ottomans had a 1-shock leading your side, and at most we were fighting on a river crossing. Only at the last moment did our roll turn an about-face. Otherwise, the shock rolls were really poor as we usually lost more men than you or lost just a little bit less. You were not lucky on getting absolutely crushing rolls, you were lucky on my side not getting crushing rolls, where I'd imagine a 4-point difference would mean a large advantage.

Though checking in the save file, you did lose more men than we did, but only by less than 3K. I assume it's mostly as a result of the massive losses at the very end of the battle, not as a result of the majority of the battle, where I distinctly remember your side frequently rolling high while my side rolled low.

Tarran, I think you are either confused or just making up stuff here. The only battle where we had good rolls was the first battle where you guys have rushed us in the mountains, which is huge penalty in itself - we had over 30k advantage on top of that. Do not attribute that victory to our superior rolls, you just went against all the odds and lost.
There were only three others battles and the last one in Rome, where we have lost horribly due unremarkable rolls and slight disadvantage of numbers, was the only time where Ottomans' general has led, over a river too. You didn't get crushing rolls, we didn't get good rolls. I do not see where your claims about our luck comes from.

In addition, prior to that in Toulouse we lost 5K more on another battlefield with that same 5-shock general, versus a 2-shock general.

Either generals are far, far less useful than in EU3, which I'm in the dark about if it's the case, or my side rarely got good rolls. If I'm just not knowing of how strong generals are anymore, please inform me because frankly I am still under the EU3 the assumption that generals can affect the tide of battle drastically.

Not sure if you remember, but in Toulouse we had more discipline for some reason as well as superior numbers. Generals do change the fight drastically and are the reason why you haven't terribly lost all of those encounters. But they aren't magical loss-less I-win button, either. It's enough that they win battles that should have been lost.

Only the french were really making new regiments in large amounts. And I don't believe I ever suggested a stalemate, I suggested caution and staying together.

You suggested retreating into the defensive, which was the stalemate we have suffered prior the session. And again, we could not know that you were unwilling to raise armies. Odds are you would have if we had wiped France and left you alone.

It's only natural we all have different point of view.

No screenshots D:?

Sorry, Dutchling, the two previous session I have played on weak, substitute graphic-card - my game was so choppy and slow I had to focus on only most important things and had no thought to spare for screenshots except for one instance =\
Hell, it was so bad, I missed Andrew saying he starts the war!

I will see if I can cook up some maps and time to describe them sometime this week.

[Tarran]

That's what was going in your head, which we couldn't have known. On our part, we had to act with consideration for the possibility that you would try to raise armies, with or without being stackwiped. If French part of army was stackwiped as planned, we'd control their land with the detachment sent there and continuous mercenary reinforcements. Instead, our forces that were meant to pacify attempts of raising new army were forced to chase the French.
If we had rushed all of our army north, it would leave entire south free to rebuild armies. Plus considering the attachment failure, we still had lost days of chase.

My line there was less of an argument as just informing you that your assumption was, unfortunately for you, not true.

Tarran, I think you are either confused or just making up stuff here.

DreXav, I think you have a tendency to accuse people often. While I might be misremembering, there is absolutely no reason for me to make stuff up on an internet argument for a video game, unless you can somehow figure out some reason for me to lie for some sort of personal gain that doesn't sound completely absurd.

The only battle where we had good rolls was the first battle where you guys have rushed us in the mountains, which is huge penalty in itself - we had over 30k advantage on top of that. Do not attribute that victory to our superior rolls, you just went against all the odds and lost.

Did I ever specifically mention that battle? Have I ever complained about you guys getting good rolls in that battle? No and no. The scope of my argument is about more even battles in relations to terrain and numbers. There is no reason to continue talking about that one.

There were only three others battles and the last one in Rome, where we have lost horribly due unremarkable rolls and slight disadvantage of numbers, was the only time where Ottomans' general has led, over a river too. You didn't get crushing rolls, we didn't get good rolls. I do not see where your claims about our luck comes from.

I already stated that I believe you were lucky on us not getting crushing rolls, not on you getting good rolls like you seem to be thinking I'm implying. We were unlucky, thus in comparison you were lucky.

You suggested retreating into the defensive, which was the stalemate we have suffered prior the session.

I suggested retreating, but in no way did I suggest staying retreated and defending for the entire war.

Plus, there are more defensive positions than just on the border of Spain. There are plenty on French and Italian lands, in the Alps, where you can siege provinces and control re-recruitment... like you were doing and trying to do with Rome.

Odds are you would have if we had wiped France and left you alone.

I'd be more leaning towards me not raising that much. I, personally, only joined the war because Azthor asked me to, not because I hoped to gain anything, nor because I was especially friendly with Fivex. Thus, I wouldn't bring my nation down to the bottom with multiple loans.

[Twiggie]

so many words!

EDIT: check the update notes, in case you're not subscribed to the eu4 thread. lots of changes it seems

[DreXav]

My line there was less of an argument as just informing you that your assumption was, unfortunately for you, not true.

Your 'informing' is an argument pertaining our strategy which you have determined as flawed based on your inside knowledge of... of yourself. It's only natural I'm addressing it as an argument.

DreXav, I think you have a tendency to accuse people often. While I might be misremembering, there is absolutely no reason for me to make stuff up on an internet argument for a video game, unless you can somehow figure out some reason for me to lie for some sort of personal gain that doesn't sound completely absurd.

People are making up things all the time, especially on the internet and over games. People always see themselves more unfortunately, this war has shown that no side is an exception. Excuse me for not assuming you are a saint or a man of unfaltering character.

Did I ever specifically mention that battle? Have I ever complained about you guys getting good rolls in that battle? No and no. The scope of my argument is about more even battles in relations to terrain and numbers. There is no reason to continue talking about that one.

You wrote about us having luck more than just one time followed by the mention of that battle, especially when you have mentioned that Ottomans' general example which I found silly to begin with, so excuse me for assuming that was your example to support your claims. Especially since you fail to mention any other battles where we had good rolls other than the first battle, where we had big terrain and numerical advantages there anyway. Paris? Unremarkable rolls, we lost almost as much troops as France despite catching them with inferior morale, they got away with mere flesh wound. Battle outside Antwerpen? Utter defeat with barely scratching you. Then there was Rome, which was even in rolls but we lost it anyway.

I already stated that I believe you were lucky on us not getting crushing rolls, not on you getting good rolls like you seem to be thinking I'm implying. We were unlucky, thus in comparison you were lucky.

<sighs> you are calling yourself unlucky because you weren't extremely lucky, but just plain even. If one side is not lucky, the other one must be. I'm speechless.

I suggested retreating, but in no way did I suggest staying retreated and defending for the entire war.

Which is why I have disagreed with that shortsighted suggestion - there was no chance of come back after retreat and rest.

Plus, there are more defensive positions than just on the border of Spain. There are plenty on French and Italian lands, in the Alps, where you can siege provinces and control re-recruitment... like you were doing and trying to do with Rome.

I think you are arguing for sake of it because what you just wrote is completely senseless - we have failed to stackwipe you, you had larger army roaming in France after the northern failure, we had no means of retreating my army without being caught (lack of sufficient transports) even if we did want to retreat. We had no chance of controlling France nor I had a chance of surviving if I alone would sit on Spanish-French border because you already had almost double my troops. Retreating was pointless because you'd spend all the time reinforcing to simply crush us. So we had forced a battle by using the bait that you cared for so much. Numbers turned out to be not in our favor - France has managed to get more fresh regiments while my mercenaries didn't manage to disembark into battle in time.

I'd be more leaning towards me not raising that much. I, personally, only joined the war because Azthor asked me to, not because I hoped to gain anything, nor because I was especially friendly with Fivex. Thus, I wouldn't bring my nation down to the bottom with multiple loans.

You know yourself best, so it's pretty pointless argument. We could not have known that and I do not see any basis for us to believe that you would simply give up and await our mercy. Couple loans are a small price as opposed to potential land losses and other sanctions. Not that any were planned towards you, but I don't think you knew that?

While I welcome discussion of strategy, I believe you are too hung up on imagined roll misfortune (in only one instance, where you have made a bad tactical decision to engage), nevermind that rather egocentric argument of 'hey, I wouldn't act that way, why would you assume otherwise!'.

The battle is now over, you have won. Right? Let's clear up the air and work on restoring cordial relations.

[DreXav]

so many words!

EDIT: check the update notes, in case you're not subscribed to the eu4 thread. lots of changes it seems

Wordswordswords!

But yeah, those are some big changes. Not enough changes, but a good start.

[Twiggie]

Orthodox countries now gets +2% missionary strength from full patriarch authority.

AWWWWW YISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[DreXav]

Orthodox countries now gets +2% missionary strength from full patriarch authority.

AWWWWW YISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Meanwhile, Spanish ambitions are gutted. Damnation!