Sure thing.
Is there a premade sheet for it, or do you want me to make one?
So Boerd Member
- Last Seen: 11 yrs ago
- Joined: 12 yrs ago
- Posts: 2579 (0.58 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- So Boerd 12 yrs ago
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
Want a player controlled Byzantine empire? The story could be the better for an alternate perspective.
IMHO, the war is on track to complete in the same way and at the same time.
Lord Monbodo said
At least it's not as bad as my game where England has a union with Castile and rules 80% of the colonies in the world.
Actually, it is probably worse. France has integrated Spain in this Friesland->Netherlands game by 1540 and has destroyed the Royal Navy, giving it naval supremacy. I only survive because as a member of the HRE, Megafrance would have to fight me, Austria (who hates me but is the Emperor), the Hansa, and England along with my minor German allies. That is of course a war it could probably win, but it has a constantly low manpower thanks to incessant protestant, revolts. All but two provinces in France proper are protestant.
Outcast said
Alright, y'all are going to have to calm the fuck down and realise that this is just a game. Not every single little deal needs to be considered. Just chill out and roll with it.
Fair. We can have some pretend elements, this is after all a pretending forum. However, I really do think Austria's population is way way way too small, by a factor of six.
I haven't availed myself of the save converter all that much, as it's too easy to create a megastate that can't be challenged since AE and Overex don't exist in CK2. That, and what always happens is that Spain gets balkanized by gavelkind, Portugal never forms, and France gets gobbled by HRE, so when the game is converted there is only one colonial power, England.
It boggles my mind that 11th century Byzantium is better able to incorporate an Indian conquest than 19th century Britain.
It boggles my mind that 11th century Byzantium is better able to incorporate an Indian conquest than 19th century Britain.
Kho said
That is a temporary circumstance as Dedonus has pointed out. The rest of the economy is in complete disarray. Not until the reign of Ismail does Egypt really pick up. Right now though, the economy isn't great, literacy is very poor - apart from the rising middle class - and the nation is generally not in a good way. Anyway, what's this whole debate leading to? Is there a point you're trying to make?
That they won't roll over.
What economic weakness? Egyptian cotton is in huge demand!
But he was fighting the empire. If the Ottomans thought they could just declare the Eyalet at an end and waltz in without firing a shot, why didn't they ever?
© 2007-2026