Talk:England strategy

From EU3 Wiki

This strategy is not well-written nor truly in-depth. Playing England as a trading nation seems to negate its strengths in an attempt to bolster its weaknesses, making it a middle-of-the-road nation as the game goes by. Should France, Sweden, or any other nation elect to go to war with England at any time during the first 125 years (by far the most important), playing this particular trading strategy will leave you ultimately defenseless due to a strong lack of naval tech (England's biggest need is to protect her home country). MattC

I'd disagree, at least for SP. AI France/Sweden/Burgundy rarely attack England anyway, the AI rarely builds large fleets, and even if it does get naval superiority, defending the Isles will most likely be a simple matter of swatting 1000-man invasion forces until the AI gives up and offers peace.

My main complaint about this strategy is that it's too conservative - England doesn't need National Bank until it starts colonising (National Trade Policy is a better first NI); there's no need to conquer Ireland (you don't need it to become Great Britain and poor wrong-culture overseas provinces do nothing for your development. If the minors make noise, vassalise them); and no real need for a Continental ally.

What strategy would you recommend for England? Merrick 10:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of parallels can be drawn between England and Japan in this game. Both of them are island nations dependent upon a powerful navy, and both of them have one major enemy directly across a body of water from them (France in England's case and Ming in Japan's). To this end, a lot of strategies mentioned in the Japan guide sort of apply to England as well, though Japan starts out unified and England needs to get GB up and going as quickly as it can.

My games as England have pointed me towards two strategies with England - an early attempt at colonizing Asia, or a quick strike at the Incan empire. Both of these involve taking what is given to England at the start of a Grand Campaign and utilizing them to the fullest extent.

The latter is probably the more revolutionary yet the more simple in design. Early on, no other colonial power has the military reserves necessary to take on the flood of Incan spearmen that descend like waves on any invading army, so they're usually left alone until other colonial reserves are built up. England, on the other hand, has a 12,000-man army, a 9-cog navy, and access to the Azores if Portugal gives you military access (which you should immediately ask them for). This provides a solid base for an early strike against the Incas and their hordes of gold. An early vassalization is entirely feasible.

The former is more difficult to manage because it minimizes your ability to affect continental Europe, but if you're fine with giving up the Italian universities, then this is probably a good one to use. The 12,000-man army and your starting navy will become the primary thrust of your effort to seize vital naval bases (St. Helena, the Cape, Diego Garcia, etc.) on the route to Asia. He who controls St. Helena and the Cape controls Europe's access to Asia, so stealing them early is a tremendous idea. When you do finally reach Asia, you'll often do so before anyone has got around to colonizing Taiwan or the Spice Islands, which are basically free money, especially when you build Workshops in them.

I'd be happy to provide specifics on either strategy if needed. MattC 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So your basic strategy would be getting QftNW first up and going for an all-out colonial blitz to get a rich empire as quickly as possible? Very interesting, and you've clearly given it a lot of thought. I do have to say though that it still sounds like a strategy for an MP game against human France/Castille/Portugal, who are going to disregard history and grab the best colonial real estate as quickly as possible. Against the poor old AI in SP I'm not convinced it's worth sacrificing development (a trader England can double its starting income by 1480, without increasing tech costs) just to kick off the colonial campaign so early.

To take your first strategy first, the Spice Islands are well worth having (and staying out of the catfight in the Americas may be wise), but constructing the "stepping stones" (St Helena, the Cape, Mauritius etc) that let your explorers get there without sinking takes time and money (which is short in the 1450s) and settling virgin territory is notoriously a slow-payback strategy. Given that the AI rarely settles the Indies before 1600, let alone 1500, do you really need to get there by 1470? Building up the economy first lets you place settlers faster later, with less risk that your precious discoveries will be turned over to the AI before you can use them.

For the second strategy, a quick looting expedition against the Incas may be viable (though it's gamey as all get out), but I don't see why such a strategy should be specific to England, rather than Castille or France or Portugal. In the time it takes to research QftNW (years), get an explorer to the Caribbean, land a conquistador and map the Inca's provinces, any major that wants to devote the resources can have a 12,000 man army and the ships to carry it. And while it may be possible to take down the Incas with 12,000 Land-1 mostly-infantry, it's a gamble, certainly compared to coming in a few years later with a better force mix and higher tech. Again, this is hardly a race - the AI rarely manages to take down the Incas by 1790.

Why the need to set up GB early? GB gives you a cool flag, some cores you would get in a few years anyway and a whole 1-base-tax increase. I'm not at all sure that it's much of an advantage over simply stripping Scotland of Ayrshire/Fife/Aberdeen in the first war and vassalising it in the second, which gives almost as much money without the drawback of 2 or 3 dirt-poor wrong-culture Highland provinces pushing up your tech and stability costs.

For me, England's advantages are that it has a good domestic economy (not as good as France, but much better than Portugal) and that the Channel lets it ignore Europe to a degree the Portuguese can only dream of. (The disadvantages are the lack of a domestic CoT and a small culture group). England can paint the map red while keeping 5 merchants in every CoT in Europe. On the other hand, Castille/Spain is better placed to play all-out conquistador (and Castille has no option - they can't keep trading if they colonise). Soldiers are cheaper than dirt in this game (5 regiments for the price of a colonist), having a big starting army really isn't a big thing unless you're planning an immediate European war. Merrick 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from what I've noticed in my games, the AI has a habit of getting bogged down in European (especially HRE) politics, so for the first 30-odd years, a quick human player has the entire world basically to themselves. England's convenient alliance with Portugal offers it ready access to most of the spots needed for colonizing (St. Helena especially), so rushing for that is not an altogether bad idea.

What I've noticed with England is that timing is critical. Making an all-out blitz in anything in this game usually leads to a massive disaster, and rapid colonization is no different. Attempting to steal everything in the first 50 years (my apologies if I gave that impression) forces overexpansion and is actually detrimental later on once the AI actually makes attacks on colonies.

The thing I like most about England is that its somewhat unique position (in the best tech group but isolated from everyone else) means that a wide variety of strategies are possible and usually effective (I'm working on one now that seizes Italy quickly before moving into Russia). Another thing I'm looking into is making a quick strike at Denmark or Pommerania, it seems entirely possible.

Upon the issue of GB. My major concern is of a strike by France coming from Scotland - probably won't happen in AI games, but in MP games it's always a scary possibility. Fighting the French on land is suicide. Uniting GB in MP games lets you now focus entirely on the Channel and your wooden wall - once you unite GB, you don't need land tech anymore save for forts. It'd be entirely possible to vassalize Scotland as a halfway means of ensuring that they don't make any sneaky alliances with the French, but that would require fighting several wars for the not-quite-so-lucrative Scottish land. My personal position is to abuse the Channel (once you get out of Gascogne, Calais isn't really necessary either) to make any early wars you fight be fought over colonies or against the Incas.

The Incas are a particular pro-England case. Early on, all they have is Spearmen, and enough money to raise lots of them. Fortunately, England gets a nice army at the start, and so can make a nice push into Incan territory (if the Conquistador heads the cavalry stack, very few Incan armies can stand against him) and usually get a quick vassalization, which is far more lucrative early on than having 5 merchants in a CoT, even if it's Vlaandaren.

Most wars early on do occur in Europe, it's true, but I've begun thinking that one of the main things that makes a colonization nation a good colonizing nation is an ability to ignore (for however long) the miscellaneous battles in Europe and move out as quickly as possible. No nation is better suited for this than England, for reasons we've both mentioned numerous times.

My main beef with making a trading England is that it forces you to take passive National Ideas to compete with the more trading-oriented nations out there. Anyone who gets Shrewd Commerce Practices can really knock your income off if they knock 3 merchants out of an important CoT, so I don't feel justified in basing early-game income off trading. If you go SCP to compete with them, I think England becomes too passive and unable to directly ensure its own prosperity.

Another thing that might be lucrative enough to merit attempting would be a blitz to discover Zacatecas (sort of the Shangri-La of CoTs). Unless I'm mistaken, a trading/colonizing England would do very well to have the Zacatecas input coming in, especially as how no New World nation is set up to be a viable trading one (their tech advancement penalty is too steep). MattC 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Zacatecas is a definite + for for 50 years before discovery sharing brings in competitors, but too early a 'blitz' may not be necessary, as tribal federation essentially matches trade tech 5, your NI slot is taken by QFTNW, every native american nation is competing at the same post, and you cannot monopoly.

I also have to disagree on the overexpansion part from taking over the american indians. With early game production efficiency so low, EACH gold prov earns you 2-3x as much as a sugar colony, minus the 500+ducats colonist cost. Training 20 units of latin knights cost about the same 500, and between inca/aztec, will net you 15 or so gold producing provinces + 2 CoT, producing as much income as 40 or so overseas colonies. They are easy to defend too as the AI is horrible at attacking overseas. 4-5 cav regiments and a conquistador should more than suffice.

England should def focus on navy, although I prefer caravels, one fleet of 10 caravels should obliterate anything coming its way, and simpler than micromanaging/repairing multiple galleys.

Also great is seizing colonies, usually little or no resistance, saves $, and much better success %'s for future settlers. protestant, deus vult, and sending insults are all great tools, free too. why overmint for colonists and suffer inflation costs for the rest of the game. Alawon 11:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Because stealing a colony usually involves some form of land warfare, which is arguably more risky than a high inflation cost. While the British navy should be able to beat any other in a straight-up slugfest, very very few battles in this game are every that simple. Attempting to fight a major war on land as England with any other European nation is more than likely far too costly.

The issue of warfare as Britain is something I feel any guide on the country should address. At all costs, war should be kept offshore as often as inhumanly possible. Later on when colonies become targets, any attempt to keep up with the land powers (France, Burgundy if they're still around, whomever dominates Germany, etc.) on land will result in destruction.

Assuming you're good enough, however, there's no reason why you shouldn't rush the Incan empire or Zacatecas, because you start out with a major advantage over any New World nation in military power. Getting a large stack of cavalry, though, is probably impractical for England due to the ground disadvantage mentioned above.

Properly abusing the power of Zacatecas would merit a strategy guide in and of itself. Suffice to say that the first person who discovers Zacatecas will gain an immense knowledge of the current situation in the New World, and therefore an excellent idea of how to abuse it to the fullest advantage. Needless to say, he who discovers Zacatecas first has a great advantage over his fellows in controlling the New World.

I begin to think that we should collaborate on a British guide. MattC 00:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends a lot on what game you're playing. In an MP game that allows player-on-player warfare, your wooden walls will be the only thing that saves you when the other players decide you're getting above yourself (which will be about 5 seconds after you blitz the Incas). In SP, the AI is a weak enough threat to make colony-grabbing a viable strategy. A rich England can research everything up to the ahead-of-time penalties, so your land tech should be - at worst - 2-3 levels behind the leaders, Britain has quite a lot of manpower, and if the worst happens, a couple months' minting and 10,000 mercenary cavalry should take care of most invasions.

Is there a reason why all the discussion has been about rushing the Incas, when the Aztecs have almost as many gold mines, are closer, easier to map and much weaker?

I'm hesitant about putting New World gold-rush strategies into the country files, because I don't think the strategy is specific to one (or a few) countries. Pretty much any country that can reach the Atlantic can grab QftNW, map the Caribbean, then send over an army to blitz the Aztecs. The Knights could probably do it if they were prepared to go bankrupt.

On the other, a specific page on "Exploiting the New World" sounds like an interesting read. Merrick 01:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two excellent points, Merrick. I'll answer them in order.

Rushing the Incas is (for England I think) the better move, mainly due to the free army you have in Gascogne at the start. For size alone, only France has as big of a starting army as you do, and France has its own worries. This army (if abused properly with QftNW) means that it is entirely possible to go after the bigger, more lucrative, and harder target (the Incas) rather than the smaller, weaker, less lucrative target (the Aztecs). There are also many other gold provinces lurking about near the Incas in South America that are worth colonizing if you get a free few years (almost never happens, but if it does colonizing these are a good way to use them). If you rush the Aztecs, you're basically gaining an empire a stone's throw away from the Caribbean, and presenting that sort of a target isn't a good idea unless you go first for a Caribbean base. England has many different colonization strategies that can be used depending upon what the rest of Europe is up to, all of which work well for the situations they're used in and not so well in any other one. England is a plotter's nation, one willing to give up power now for wealth later.

You're right in saying that any country CAN rush any New World power, but very few are wise to do it. If the Knights actually does it, it gains comparatively little for what it's lost. It also has to spend time and money (two things the Knights don't have) to actually make a stab at colonization without being taken over themselves. That's the main reason why I'm hesitant to suggest playing the Italian states as colonial powers, because the threat of land invasion is (in my mind anyway) simply too great. Once Italy unites, on the other hand, it's a different story. England, on the other hand, is one nation that can make a strike on a New World empire, and also one of the few that's set up well enough to win it (or take enough of it to force a vassalization). Though attrition in the New World is always a problem, England's wealth and transport navy can easily ship new troops over if need be.

A page on "Exploiting the New World" would be fun, and I'd be happy to contribute if need be. To return to the matter of this guide, though, one thing any guide to England should harp on is that there are a variety of effective strategies for this island nation. I'd recommend that any guide list things England needs and then possible methods of acquiring them, rather than a do-X-first-then-Y format. MattC 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

lol so many colons. up to 7now. When I talk about stealing colonies, i mean white/peace or pay some small of ducats to end the war after seizing them. Definitely no landing troops on Normandy=) With a large navy, your home provinces should never be under threat, likewise with the Americas.

def agree on the last part about variety of strats too, but i think historically and location-wise any england strat should emphasize a strong navy. kind of makes sense to develop into a colonial power as well since land war in france is impractical and nordic provinces are poor. I have my doubts on any trading focus, but thats more personal as I hate micromanaging sending merchants and prefer to make my $ by gold rushing. lol i think we might be editing at the same time, i'll stop now=) Alawon 04:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll just stick with six colons, easier for me to type out quickly. =)

I'm not editing the page now because I'm still working out the late-game effects of a few of my other strats (the rushing Taiwan one mainly).

I've tried out a few Trader England strategies (personal variation), but I don't see that there's a way to strictly play GB as a trading nation without at least some focus on colonizing - it's the logical step due to your large navy. If England wants to build a large navy (and it ALWAYS should), no other European power save a united Spain is wise to try and take it on, which means that any other power's colonies are fair game. I've found, though, that neglecting your colonies to steal theirs is a bad idea. MattC 13:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1.2.1 has significantly changed the way I feel England should be played. Any objections to me overwriting the current guide? MattC 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My guide is up. Have fun reading the overly-long descriptions. =) MattC 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been attempting to follow this strategy in 1.3 and have a few points to make. I should note that this is all in normal difficulty. 1) It seems that France and Brittiny in 1.3 are, in fact, allied. I've been able to stop the war with everyone by giving Calais to France. I then usually sell Gascone to Brittiny for no gain (selling it to them for any money is impossible) to try and trip them and France up with each other, as suggested. 2) Scotland seems extremely more aggressive in 1.3 that this strategy would seem to suggest. Namely, every time I enter into a Royal Marriage with them, without fail, no matter how good I get our relations or granting military access/etc, they will invariably claim my throne and start a very distracting war on my northern border in which France gets dragged into. One can choose to give up one's French cores to France (as alliance leader) to gain peace, but the point remains that all the effort to win over Scotland seems to be a waste, at least in the early game. 3) The French and Spanish AI seem fairly aggressive about colonizing the Caribbean in 1.3, whereas they seem to ignore the North American seaboard. In other words, it makes a certain amount of sense to rush for the Carribean and nab as much as you can before anyone else does before moving on to North America and/or playing conquistador with the Aztecs or Incas. 4) England starts with no merchants in 1.3, and since stability essentially starts at -1 (after slider adjustment), it has trouble getting any. Additionally, they seem to die very easily and not make much profit at all, so I would suggest not recommending the player to count on this as a source of early income. I've found that the yearly tax is just about it, more or less. WWhetehr the recommended monthly tax gain needs to be adjusted in light of this is also something to consider. Chilango2 15:07 8 Oct 2007 (UTC)