|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Oct 10, 2015 20:14:51 GMT
The Ottomans are a top pick? Lol I think my first conquest was with the Ottoman Empire got like 90 turns
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 10, 2015 20:32:57 GMT
Ottoman has a lot of territory and is in a good position to fight most of the Coalition forces
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Oct 10, 2015 21:53:14 GMT
Yeah I know, it's just very unrealistic the Ottomans were loosing territory back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 10, 2015 22:01:08 GMT
Historically maybe. But I'm talking bout EW4 perspective
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Oct 10, 2015 22:03:51 GMT
Historically maybe. But I'm talking bout EW4 perspective True in EW4 there aren't the problems of real life like nationalism or poeple angry at the government. The Ottoman Empire has many cities which in the game is even better. It's just bad as a rushing nation because of Scandinavia and GB. Napoleon's allies are closer together that's why the two best rushing nations are HRE & GB |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 10, 2015 22:04:56 GMT
Oh right the rushing nation topic. No Ottoman isn't a top pick for speed. I just used it to answer a specific question about America being faster than Europe
|
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Oct 11, 2015 5:59:50 GMT
Is the American conquest considered easier because there are less cities or is it a smaller map? American conquest can be done faster because of smaller map, less cities and forts, and there are 2 obvious powerful nations. But I can't say that it is easier because the requirement to get a good year ruled is more demanding; less rounds. |
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Oct 11, 2015 6:06:37 GMT
Yeah I know, it's just very unrealistic the Ottomans were loosing territory back then. Ottomans were losing territories because there was no you commanding the troops. That's what the difference.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Oct 11, 2015 6:30:35 GMT
Yeah I know, it's just very unrealistic the Ottomans were loosing territory back then. Ottomans were losing territories because there was no you commanding the troops. That's what the difference. First of all congrats for 500 posts. And yeah you're right if Lannes would have commanded the Ottoman forces Suvorov would have had little to no chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Oct 13, 2015 7:52:20 GMT
Ottomans were losing territories because there was no you commanding the troops. That's what the difference. First of all congrats for 500 posts. And yeah you're right if Lannes would have commanded the Ottoman forces Suvorov would have had little to no chance. well ottoman can never be a rushing nation all thanks to the islands called Britain and his younger brother, Ireland. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Oct 13, 2015 20:49:11 GMT
First of all congrats for 500 posts. And yeah you're right if Lannes would have commanded the Ottoman forces Suvorov would have had little to no chance. well ottoman can never be a rushing nation all thanks to the islands called Britain and his younger brother, Ireland. Don't forget Portugal that often somehow beats Spain. |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 13, 2015 21:10:46 GMT
For me Portugal and Spain are always a stalemate. GB and France are also stalemates as well as Sweden and Denmark on most occasions. I have seen Austria or HRE start to lose to the AI France and Ottoman. At least Napoleon can beat Naples and Sardinia in 1798. As for Russia, they never lose as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Oct 13, 2015 21:16:43 GMT
Russia can't loose because Russia.
And yeah I forgot Scandinavia is a pain too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 13, 2015 21:17:13 GMT
Russia can't loose because Russia. And yeah I forgot Scandinavia is a pain too. Scandinavia? |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Oct 13, 2015 21:19:01 GMT
Russia can't loose because Russia. And yeah I forgot Scandinavia is a pain too. Scandinavia? Denmark, Sweden, and Norway to be exact are Scandinavia |
|
