Is there a limit to how many allies a player can have in a game? I'm playing a game as Austria right now, with my goal being to vassalize and ally the world. However, I can't seem to ally with my new 100+ relation vassal the Mamluks. Any advice? Pic attatched to inflate my ego.
France, Aragon, The Ottoman Empire, and the Mamluks all bow down to me in that game.I think my jaw just unhinged.
Is there a limit to how many allies a player can have in a game? I'm playing a game as Austria right now, with my goal being to vassalize and ally the world. However, I can't seem to ally with my new 100+ relation vassal the Mamluks. Any advice? Pic attatched to inflate my ego.
Less badboy points, for one thing. I also don't have to pay upkeep for my allies' armies, and they'll usually go whereever the fighting is, so it's cheaper for me. I don't have to worry about rebellion as much, too, because having less actual territory for myself means that stability research goes faster and my vassal governments generally only have to deal with one ethnicity in their territories, keeping rebellion amongst my allies also low. No worries with religion, either. There's no need to spend thousands to convert the Middle East to Christianity now.why ally and vassalise when you can annex?
Less badboy points, for one thing.
I also don't have to pay upkeep for my allies' armies, and they'll usually go whereever the fighting is, so it's cheaper for me.
I don't have to worry about rebellion as much, too, because having less actual territory for myself means that stability research goes faster and my vassal governments generally only have to deal with one ethnicity in their territories, keeping rebellion amongst my allies also low. No worries with religion, either. There's no need to spend thousands to convert the Middle East to Christianity now.
I'm really not that aggressive- I only attack when I'm pretty confident I can beat the enemy.I like being bad boy of the 'hood. Gives you opportunity to go to war and expand without suffering stability penalty (specially if you play european coutnry expanding into Europe)
You still get a small percentage of the taxes they take, which is enough. Also, I generally see these things as chances to take territory away from the enemy, not to gain more territory for myself.You can't control them and if they take a territory it's theirs, not yours
It's still decent money, and generally having military access is enough for me. Attrition isn't so much of an issue at this point, either. When I attacked the Ottomans, there was usually only a one-or-two vassal-province buffer between us, which didn't cause too much damage. The few wars I had with the Mamluks all started off with naval landings, so there was no issue of land attrition there. I had one large army march through three or four provinces in France before I reached the Aragonese border, and most of the provinces I occupied to force their vassalization were Italian provinces that shared a border with Austria proper.but you get less money from that, attrition is higher in their territory (this is specially important when you have big (20+) armies (which I do).
If I have several religions I move tolerance to maximum then eradicate them one by one, starting with smallest. Playing both austria and Rusia I had a lot of muslims so I left them alone and focused on converting pagans and other christians.
Took me ages to figure out how to declare War while getting a casus beli but now I do! Although I was unable to annex the capital of an Indian State for some reason despite occupying their entire country.
I'm really not that aggressive- I only attack when I'm pretty confident I can beat the enemy.
You still get a small percentage of the taxes they take, which is enough. Also, I generally see these things as chances to take territory away from the enemy, not to gain more territory for myself.
It's still decent money, and generally having military access is enough for me. Attrition isn't so much of an issue at this point, either. When I attacked the Ottomans, there was usually only a one-or-two vassal-province buffer between us, which didn't cause too much damage. The few wars I had with the Mamluks all started off with naval landings, so there was no issue of land attrition there. I had one large army march through three or four provinces in France before I reached the Aragonese border, and most of the provinces I occupied to force their vassalization were Italian provinces that shared a border with Austria proper.
Outright annexation is too much work for me. With vassalization, I still get more money from my conquests, as well as a huge buffer between me and any remaining enemies, and stability throughout most of Europe.
Deus Vult is great idea. Very practical if you play Russia or Ottomans, less so if you playAustria. But you get to beat up ottomans and once protestantism starts you get a free ticket
and you can't demand their capital in negotiations (except if you annex them). Also you can't annex big countries.
In all the games in the Europa Universalis series (not counting CK, etc.) you can't annex countries that own more than one province.And the state wasn't big, it was Mysore in India.
In all the games in the Europa Universalis series (not counting CK, etc.) you can't annex countries that own more than one province.
Actually, it is true. I've been playing Paradox games since EU2, and I know for a fact that you can't annex countries in EU2 or EU3 if they own more than one prov. I know in Victoria that the limit was changed to uncivs or 3 provinces or smaller, but definitely not in EU3.not true. you can annex them if they are small. I think 4 provinces is the limit.
In all the games in the Europa Universalis series (not counting CK, etc.) you can't annex countries that own more than one province.