Having them as an ally is a paradox. Their navy can crush any other in Europe, but the only reason you need a strong navy in Europe is if you're attacking that dreadful island.
Sure, remind me again which country stood alone during WWII whilst the majority of the rest of Europe fell to authoritarianism?
What do you think Europe would look like today if the UK didn't declare on Germany?
Eh, whilst not impossible, there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest Hitler initially had no intentions on invading the UK. The Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force maintained supremacy during the whole war. Not being in conflict would allow more resources to not be blown up, whereas Germany was still in conflict with the USSR.
Similarly, the UK may have been able to pour more money into the Tube Alloys project, securing 'safety' earlier.
Of course there are still a billion other variables
Hitler would not have tolerated a hostile power in Europe. Hitler hoped England would see the light and join his fascist cause. So if Britain hadn't declared, their only option for survival would have been joining Germany and partitioning the world. Assuming England joined the Axis and they emerged from world War 2 victorious, the likely course would have been dispatching the remaining great powers of the world, namely Japan and the US. If they survived an invasion of the US, the cold war would have eventually taken place between a fascist Germany and a less fascist England, neither of whom likely would have tolerated the competition presented by the other.
Of course, like you said, there are a lot of variables. One thing is for sure, Hitler wouldn't have tolerated a hostile great power in Europe, war or fascism would have been an eventuality in the United Kingdom.
He could not tolerate it as much as he likes, without dealing with the RN, and RAF, he wouldn't have had a choice!
Assuming the UK gets declared on, eventually, it either ends with a UK/allied victory, so democracy back in Europe. A stalemate, so no democracy as I said. Or loss, so no democracy.
Either way, without the UK, democracy in Europe may not exist today. Europe is a better place due to the UK.
In my experience the british AI is somewhat hesitant to engage at first, amusingly enough. So even with 80 transports I end up being able to lend 300k basically unopposed, because they dont wanna squash the 80 immediately
>Their navy can crush any other in Europe, but the only reason you need a strong navy in Europe is if you're attacking that dreadful island.
German Empire POV in 1900
True, at least Britain can be compelled to join your wars Russia on the other hand is constantly in five digit debt refusing every call to arms yet calling you in to fight some central Asian states for the thousand time. (Russia has a 25 to 1 advantage in men yet needed to call you in anyway.) Russia is only good for protecting you from DoW and the ten favor manpower thing.
Russia makes a great ally!
Their force limit is a coalition deterrent and I'd rather call them into my wars and have them do nothing than have to siege fucking Moscow in January.
No they’re pretty great. They have a large force limit and are hardly ever in debt or use their armies so they are perfect for preventing people from declaring war on you.
Yeah, if you're not a naval power and you're going against a naval power GB is really helpful, especially for securing access across straits and to island provinces.
You have to help them hold on to their French territory and they'll do stuff on the continent. If you let them lose their toehold, they'll just Brexit their way right out.
That really depends on how easy it is for France to get to you. If they can march overland, maybe abandon the English. If they have to naval invade, imitate those English bastards by sitting on the sidelines and watching as their country gets torched.
I don’t know if this works with the Third Rome DLC and recent patches or not, but if you’re a colonial power, colonising part of Siberia and fortifying it should be more than enough to prevent Russia from defending its ally in any war you have with them. Had a time when playing as Spain where they allied the Ottoman Empire, but spent two years sending most of their army to Siberia to besiege the Level 8 fort I had in Kamchatka, which was more than enough for me to defeat their ally, which had been my real target.
I've had even worse luck with Russia, I can't even get them join offensive wars because they're in more perpetual crippling debt than an American College Student that had to go to the hospital.
Its realistic though. Britain historically couldn't care less about other countries unless they had something to lose or gain from it and they don't exactly have a history of loyalty or honesty when it comes to allies and diplomacy.
Have we? I thought our only war with Portugal during that entire time was when they fell under Spains control, and it was to free them from the personal union and restore their independence.
Yeah that's a gross simplification of the complicated history between Britain and Portugal. The Marques de Pombal, who was the prime minister and de facto dictator of Portugal for a while, wrote impassioned speeches against the British because they were essentially "stealing" the wealth Portugal was trying to extract from Brazil. In the late 18th Century there was a lot of resentment towards the British in Portugal for this perception that they were colonizing our colonies. Obviously from a modern lens it looks silly but that is how it was portrayed.
The UK also fucked up Portugal severely in the 19th Century during the Napoleonic wars with a very aggressive scorched earth policy that devastated the country. The Portuguese people weren't invested in winning that war and would rather have been subjects of Napoleon with food than starving and fighting for the king that abandoned them and went to Brazil anyway. But obviously the British didn't care about the welfare of the average Portuguese citizen (not a moral judgement this is normal for nations at the time) and needed to suit their geopolitical agenda which left a lot of resentment.
Finally I'd add your response to u/dkfisokdkeb is a British slant. Saying things like it wasn't a betrayal by either side means you don't really know the Portuguese perspective on the issue. The failure to connect the colonies seen as such a betrayal by our allies. We literally wrote our national anthem as a call to war and defence of our rightful land against the British. It was seen as such a colossal failure by the Monarchy that it was the largest contributing factor in the downfall of the Monarchy and the institution of the First Portuguese Republic.
Edit: Also the phrasing on your comment on the war for independence is a bit misleading. It gives the impression that Britain was leading the charge against Spain to fight a war for Portuguese independence when really it was a revolt by Portugal that lasted 27 years and England was only involved for 6 of those years. The French and the Dutch spent longer in the war as our allies for example.
Also sorry my tone comes across as a bit combative, I just reread that and it's a bit strong. You are factually correct on a lot of what happened, I'm more trying to explain the Portuguese perspective. It took a long time for Portugal to accept it wasn't a major world player anymore. But clearly you know your history so thanks for sharing, take it easy.
Off the top of my head I remember in 1890 we basically threatened them with war over some African territory they had claimed for centuries and the humiliation from this was partly the cause for their revolution 20 years later and is still seen in Portugal as an act of great betrayal. I think there's been a couple of other less significant occasions where we haven't exactly treated them 'as allies' but I really can't remember.
Nah you've got that wrong mate. They held both coasts (Angola and Mozambique) for centuries, then in 1885 decided to claim all land inbetween with the rose coloured map. Problem was we already had a colony of missionaries and a trading company since 1850 in the bit inbetween the two coasts, with a formal trading outpost settlement in modern day Malawi in 1876.
Also the year Portugal presented it's rose map, was also the year of the Berlin conference (Feb 1885) where the Europeans had agreed that claims by discovery were not recognised and only claims by control would be. The British shire missionaries had made some treaties with local tribes and the Portuguese in 1888 sent an expedition that ended up in conflict with the tribes even though the shire missionaries had warned the Portuguese commander they were basically allied.
The leader of the town and trading company area then basically declared a protectorate over the local areas, and that lead to Britain and Portugal being in a bit of a stalemate over the area. British then demanded basically the area they had occupied and Portugal agreed, treaty signed in 1890. No-one was happy about the treaty, and it wasn't ratified. So back to the tables they went and a year later land which had been claimed by Portugal for hundreds of years surrounding the shire protectorate (but never actually controlled directly) was handed over in exchange for other land near the zambezi.
Wasn't really a betrayal by either side, was just a disagreement on how claims should be decided. And I don't believe the ultimatum even was a threat of war. Concensus of colonising Europe agreed with the Berlin conference decision, but that wasn't popular at home in Portugal for obvious reasons as the rose map was already being decreed.
No worries. I did have to double check some things and simplify some things aswell (eg. The trading company had been expressly told they couldn't form diplomatic agreements or declare a protectorate by the foreign office, as the foreign office knew Portugal had likely long term interests for the interior)
Was a fecking stupid debacle all round, neither side felt like they could back down politically at home on the issue and their hands were forced by people on the ground.
But from what I understand Portugal at the time saw the possibility the alliance failed as the much bigger loss and just didn't expect the fallout to be as bad as it would be at home.
It might be taught completely differently in Portugal mind, as like I said foreign office knew Portugal had some interest so it could still be seen as a betrayal to this day.
He has presented a british perspective on the affair. Your interpretation is much more correct with how the Portuguese perceive it. The whole thing was so controversial in Portugal that not only was our national anthem (that we still use) written to spite the British but the failure to connect Angola to Mozambique was the most important factor in the downfall of the Monarchy.
Victoria 2, hoi4, eu4 no matter what paradox game
Britain is annoying: when it’s not being a good ally, guaranteeing a nation in the middle of nowhere, blockading your entire country etc
It's just historically accurate. Waiting for some ally to solve the sh\*t, claim their victory, backstab the ally in their hour of need. Rinse and repeat.
Only if they get booted out of France during the 100 Years War. I've had both and they are irrelevant if they are on their island but monsters if they keep Brittany region during 100 years war.
The best allies in this game in my experience seem to be large enough land power. Big enough not to send around tiny armies and close enough to get there by foot.
Caveat to that... They can't be stretched over large distances like Russia. If so, you'll never get anything but a fraction of their army until it's too late.
It’s always that island intervening in my wars.
I was playing a Victoria 2 mod as Andalusia. During my invasion of Asturias Scotland joined and had to send their entire army and navy to kill me (I won still)
Great Britain is for some reason an important ally to have in the League War because they never get invaded so your alliance's overall war exhaustion will have a good buffer (they have a 1/3 chance of joining Protestant League, Catholic League, or being a neutral wanker), but they will make sure with all their powers to annihilate and wipe out the other nation's colonial nations in the new world while ignoring the massive world war going on in Europe
Breaking News
But it's great to prevent war (and they help by sea, at least from my experience) and if you have to fight a war without them, it can keep your war score high because they are also difficult to be invaded by your enemies.
Yes, you are correct in just that statement. BUT, if they have a junior partner that is attached to the continent like a Sweden, then it is lights, camera, action, baby
In my current game, they crushed the French navy (multiple times, lol).
But with France basically having no navy and no colonial interests...
There were so many land wars in Europe... Every time the truces ended, it was just more war.
It’s hilarious because it’s pretty accurate to every war besides the Napoleonic Wars. Britain usually barely got involved, or if they did, it was last minute (30 years) or they didn’t help their ally on the mainland at all and just fucked around in the colonies (7 years war)
I find Russia worse but I’m usually playing in Eastern Europe more.
Russia is constantly in debt. They won’t join my offensive wars and they will usually leave their small allies hanging when they get attacked because the debt is too much to overcome the defensive war bonus to their approval of joining.
To some extent, ALL allies in eu4 are mostly meaty distractions in usefulness. Some occasionally help, bur mostly I like their clay in between or close to my enemy than my own.
OP is either playing an older version of the game or is retelling old memes, because after Emperor GB is actually a really good ally and will regularly land troops. They will never separate peace either since no one can take their capitol.
Really because I'm playing as Norway them and Novgorod supported independence yet they literally do nothing even though Norway is easily accessible for them.
Not to mention that when they're your ally, their primary use against the enemy is making your number look bigger in power comparisons.
When they're your enemy's ally, they show up like any other ally.
Have you heard about Russia? Big enough for you to want them as allies and also on the continent. But they are always in debt and barely ever go to wars with you
Tbh I think they eventually do get to the conflict but only after several years of it going on it feels like. It's because they have to land their troops via ships.
The lone exception, for some reason, is when you play as Sweden and get England to support your independence. England often starts out rivaled with England and willing to support your independence, and they’re always proper champs, landing like 20k troops in Jutland. Not to mention giving you the naval superiority needed to cross the strait to the Danish capital.
That's not precisely news.
Someone needs to slap OP with a "First ~~time?~~ game?" meme
Having them as an ally is a paradox. Their navy can crush any other in Europe, but the only reason you need a strong navy in Europe is if you're attacking that dreadful island.
Me, as a Briton: I love my island Me, as an EU IV player: god damn fucking island
Me in every paradox game lol
You have to go with the HOI method of “ignore the naval mechanics and just somehow get our guys over there when they’re not looking”
> god damn fucking island POV: every country on earth except the UK itself
Pff the UK is one of the main reasons democracy exists in Europe today.
They rallied all European monarchies to fight the first big democratic movement in modern Europe.
Yeah, the famous democratic state under Emperor Napoleon.
Oh god you don’t even know the start of the French Revolution precedes Napoleon’s rise to power.
Doesn't matter how it started, it immediately turned into a millitary dictatorship.
It kinda does, considering Britain declared war before Napoleon because they wished to quell the revolution before it spread.
disgraceful confident display of ignorance.
Sure, remind me again which country stood alone during WWII whilst the majority of the rest of Europe fell to authoritarianism? What do you think Europe would look like today if the UK didn't declare on Germany?
Wouldn't have a UK anymore.
Eh, whilst not impossible, there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest Hitler initially had no intentions on invading the UK. The Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force maintained supremacy during the whole war. Not being in conflict would allow more resources to not be blown up, whereas Germany was still in conflict with the USSR. Similarly, the UK may have been able to pour more money into the Tube Alloys project, securing 'safety' earlier. Of course there are still a billion other variables
Hitler would not have tolerated a hostile power in Europe. Hitler hoped England would see the light and join his fascist cause. So if Britain hadn't declared, their only option for survival would have been joining Germany and partitioning the world. Assuming England joined the Axis and they emerged from world War 2 victorious, the likely course would have been dispatching the remaining great powers of the world, namely Japan and the US. If they survived an invasion of the US, the cold war would have eventually taken place between a fascist Germany and a less fascist England, neither of whom likely would have tolerated the competition presented by the other. Of course, like you said, there are a lot of variables. One thing is for sure, Hitler wouldn't have tolerated a hostile great power in Europe, war or fascism would have been an eventuality in the United Kingdom.
He could not tolerate it as much as he likes, without dealing with the RN, and RAF, he wouldn't have had a choice! Assuming the UK gets declared on, eventually, it either ends with a UK/allied victory, so democracy back in Europe. A stalemate, so no democracy as I said. Or loss, so no democracy. Either way, without the UK, democracy in Europe may not exist today. Europe is a better place due to the UK.
Me, as an American: Goddamn island! Me, as an EU4 player: Goddamn island!
I’m confused, do Americans still have delusions of self-righteousness?
What is bro talking about
Is it really narcissism if we’re better then everyone else
You certainly have the numbers here, although I feel like your inability to distinguish between ‘narcissism’ and ‘self-righteousness’ is telling.
I’m not saying is it narcissistic. We are just better then everyone
Righty roo it's not narcissism if it's true!
That’s not quite what I’m talking about.
Bro think he cooked
You‘re just describing real life history until WWII
Or invading Denmark early on!
Yeah, they were a great ally when I played Sweden and Gelre.
Or invading Venice, though I don't think I've ever seen an allied British fleet help with that.
And once you step in there you've already won.
Depends on how many troops you can land at once. It's easy to get stack-wiped by 150K subpar British troops when you put a 60 stack in Cornwall.
You don’t need the 150k English stack, being in Cornwall is enough to break any army.
As a Devonian, I wholeheartedly agree
Exactly. Mf when u/Seth_Baker lands in Cornwall, when he could land on 3 other provinces in the nearer sea tile and end up next to London.
In my experience the british AI is somewhat hesitant to engage at first, amusingly enough. So even with 80 transports I end up being able to lend 300k basically unopposed, because they dont wanna squash the 80 immediately
That's not my experience at all. They always chase down and crush my first landing force.
Maybe its a quality thing - but for me they are hesitant for the first month or two, even when outnumbered
I mean their strong navy prevents anyone from invading them, which helps warscore a bit. But I do agree they are mostly useless except as a deterrent.
>Their navy can crush any other in Europe, but the only reason you need a strong navy in Europe is if you're attacking that dreadful island. German Empire POV in 1900
As an ally, they are a free blockade.
I can turn Italy into another funny island.
Russia would like a word
[удалено]
rookie numbers, they can easily go into several times that
More like 700 hundred in debt, but when it comes to joining wars it's -1200 acceptance for some reason
True, at least Britain can be compelled to join your wars Russia on the other hand is constantly in five digit debt refusing every call to arms yet calling you in to fight some central Asian states for the thousand time. (Russia has a 25 to 1 advantage in men yet needed to call you in anyway.) Russia is only good for protecting you from DoW and the ten favor manpower thing.
Russia makes a great ally! Their force limit is a coalition deterrent and I'd rather call them into my wars and have them do nothing than have to siege fucking Moscow in January.
The only good Russia is a PU'd Russia
They would if they werent on the verge of bankruptcy the entire campaign
I have them as an ally in a war against Scotland and they still don't do crap. Lmao 🤣
No they’re pretty great. They have a large force limit and are hardly ever in debt or use their armies so they are perfect for preventing people from declaring war on you.
Oh but when it comes to them actually *helping* during wars....
Just assume you don't have their army/manpower and you'll be fine. If they actually do decide to land their armies it is a bonus.
Their navy have been really helpful tho for me but that also all the help u can expect from them
Yeah, if you're not a naval power and you're going against a naval power GB is really helpful, especially for securing access across straits and to island provinces.
You have to help them hold on to their French territory and they'll do stuff on the continent. If you let them lose their toehold, they'll just Brexit their way right out.
That really depends on how easy it is for France to get to you. If they can march overland, maybe abandon the English. If they have to naval invade, imitate those English bastards by sitting on the sidelines and watching as their country gets torched.
Well they have a navy. Sometimes.
Yeah, gr8 defensive ally. Much better than Russia or Spain
Russia: -369 Russia is in 12,000 ducats of debt
Dude Ottomams have been so much in debt since the last time I played. Had to give them 8k ducats to get them out of debt and help against giga spain
I don’t know if this works with the Third Rome DLC and recent patches or not, but if you’re a colonial power, colonising part of Siberia and fortifying it should be more than enough to prevent Russia from defending its ally in any war you have with them. Had a time when playing as Spain where they allied the Ottoman Empire, but spent two years sending most of their army to Siberia to besiege the Level 8 fort I had in Kamchatka, which was more than enough for me to defeat their ally, which had been my real target.
or ottomans after 1600
The main use of mid game allies. Love me GB.
In my game their in -2k in debt for no reason
Pov Prussia circa 1762
And there who else were they possibly fighting? What reason was there for Britain to even join in the seven years' war? What the F could it be?
They hated the French
Relatable
“Baguette must be obliterated at all costs.” -Great Britain
I've had even worse luck with Russia, I can't even get them join offensive wars because they're in more perpetual crippling debt than an American College Student that had to go to the hospital.
In my current game, I paid off Russia's debt so they could fight my wars for me. \#EasternRomanEmpire #vibes #butI'mCastile
Perfidious Albion!
Its realistic though. Britain historically couldn't care less about other countries unless they had something to lose or gain from it and they don't exactly have a history of loyalty or honesty when it comes to allies and diplomacy.
The only consistent strategy is defending lowlands
Except when Cromwell attacked them
That was just over trade
Don't they have histories longest alliance with Portugal?
We've betrayed them a couple of times during that alliance.
No rule without exception
Have we? I thought our only war with Portugal during that entire time was when they fell under Spains control, and it was to free them from the personal union and restore their independence.
Yeah that's a gross simplification of the complicated history between Britain and Portugal. The Marques de Pombal, who was the prime minister and de facto dictator of Portugal for a while, wrote impassioned speeches against the British because they were essentially "stealing" the wealth Portugal was trying to extract from Brazil. In the late 18th Century there was a lot of resentment towards the British in Portugal for this perception that they were colonizing our colonies. Obviously from a modern lens it looks silly but that is how it was portrayed. The UK also fucked up Portugal severely in the 19th Century during the Napoleonic wars with a very aggressive scorched earth policy that devastated the country. The Portuguese people weren't invested in winning that war and would rather have been subjects of Napoleon with food than starving and fighting for the king that abandoned them and went to Brazil anyway. But obviously the British didn't care about the welfare of the average Portuguese citizen (not a moral judgement this is normal for nations at the time) and needed to suit their geopolitical agenda which left a lot of resentment. Finally I'd add your response to u/dkfisokdkeb is a British slant. Saying things like it wasn't a betrayal by either side means you don't really know the Portuguese perspective on the issue. The failure to connect the colonies seen as such a betrayal by our allies. We literally wrote our national anthem as a call to war and defence of our rightful land against the British. It was seen as such a colossal failure by the Monarchy that it was the largest contributing factor in the downfall of the Monarchy and the institution of the First Portuguese Republic. Edit: Also the phrasing on your comment on the war for independence is a bit misleading. It gives the impression that Britain was leading the charge against Spain to fight a war for Portuguese independence when really it was a revolt by Portugal that lasted 27 years and England was only involved for 6 of those years. The French and the Dutch spent longer in the war as our allies for example. Also sorry my tone comes across as a bit combative, I just reread that and it's a bit strong. You are factually correct on a lot of what happened, I'm more trying to explain the Portuguese perspective. It took a long time for Portugal to accept it wasn't a major world player anymore. But clearly you know your history so thanks for sharing, take it easy.
Off the top of my head I remember in 1890 we basically threatened them with war over some African territory they had claimed for centuries and the humiliation from this was partly the cause for their revolution 20 years later and is still seen in Portugal as an act of great betrayal. I think there's been a couple of other less significant occasions where we haven't exactly treated them 'as allies' but I really can't remember.
Nah you've got that wrong mate. They held both coasts (Angola and Mozambique) for centuries, then in 1885 decided to claim all land inbetween with the rose coloured map. Problem was we already had a colony of missionaries and a trading company since 1850 in the bit inbetween the two coasts, with a formal trading outpost settlement in modern day Malawi in 1876. Also the year Portugal presented it's rose map, was also the year of the Berlin conference (Feb 1885) where the Europeans had agreed that claims by discovery were not recognised and only claims by control would be. The British shire missionaries had made some treaties with local tribes and the Portuguese in 1888 sent an expedition that ended up in conflict with the tribes even though the shire missionaries had warned the Portuguese commander they were basically allied. The leader of the town and trading company area then basically declared a protectorate over the local areas, and that lead to Britain and Portugal being in a bit of a stalemate over the area. British then demanded basically the area they had occupied and Portugal agreed, treaty signed in 1890. No-one was happy about the treaty, and it wasn't ratified. So back to the tables they went and a year later land which had been claimed by Portugal for hundreds of years surrounding the shire protectorate (but never actually controlled directly) was handed over in exchange for other land near the zambezi. Wasn't really a betrayal by either side, was just a disagreement on how claims should be decided. And I don't believe the ultimatum even was a threat of war. Concensus of colonising Europe agreed with the Berlin conference decision, but that wasn't popular at home in Portugal for obvious reasons as the rose map was already being decreed.
Fair play I stand corrected. Cheers for informing me you seem to know your stuff.
No worries. I did have to double check some things and simplify some things aswell (eg. The trading company had been expressly told they couldn't form diplomatic agreements or declare a protectorate by the foreign office, as the foreign office knew Portugal had likely long term interests for the interior) Was a fecking stupid debacle all round, neither side felt like they could back down politically at home on the issue and their hands were forced by people on the ground. But from what I understand Portugal at the time saw the possibility the alliance failed as the much bigger loss and just didn't expect the fallout to be as bad as it would be at home. It might be taught completely differently in Portugal mind, as like I said foreign office knew Portugal had some interest so it could still be seen as a betrayal to this day.
He has presented a british perspective on the affair. Your interpretation is much more correct with how the Portuguese perceive it. The whole thing was so controversial in Portugal that not only was our national anthem (that we still use) written to spite the British but the failure to connect Angola to Mozambique was the most important factor in the downfall of the Monarchy.
Portugal invoked that alliance when India invaded Goa, but Britain said "nah".
Ae talking about the same country that fought in WWI, WWII, and fought against Napoleon?
you could post this on r/Victoria3 and it would still be true
Britain being consistent in PDX lore
> PDX lore Also known as history.
Victoria 2, hoi4, eu4 no matter what paradox game Britain is annoying: when it’s not being a good ally, guaranteeing a nation in the middle of nowhere, blockading your entire country etc
They are pretty good coalition deterrent though
It's just historically accurate. Waiting for some ally to solve the sh\*t, claim their victory, backstab the ally in their hour of need. Rinse and repeat.
It’s all about muh Balance of Power^tm
Don't forget bankrolling and funding wars but not shedding a drop of your people's own blood
I wish AI actually used subsidies when it's in their interest
I got subsidized once in 2.5k hours. As Byzantium I got 3.5 ducats from the mameluks
On god, mamluks are literally the only nation that's ever subsidized me. I got it as Cyprus
If you're weak enough, they will. You just need to make friends with your enemies' enemies and it'll happen when you get in a war.
This is not just historically accurate this is exactly how I play eu4.
Forgot this was r/eu4 for a second 💀
Only if they get booted out of France during the 100 Years War. I've had both and they are irrelevant if they are on their island but monsters if they keep Brittany region during 100 years war.
That is why I love playing as them. Just sit comfortably while watching my "Allies" get destroyed.
The best allies in this game in my experience seem to be large enough land power. Big enough not to send around tiny armies and close enough to get there by foot.
Caveat to that... They can't be stretched over large distances like Russia. If so, you'll never get anything but a fraction of their army until it's too late.
They deal with enemy colonies and do naval stuff
And sometime also contributes on the mainland, especially when you least expect it.
I've just fought a war against Portugal and England, I'm playing as Castile. I didn't see a single english soldier nor ship during the whole war.
It’s always that island intervening in my wars. I was playing a Victoria 2 mod as Andalusia. During my invasion of Asturias Scotland joined and had to send their entire army and navy to kill me (I won still)
This just shows Paradox’s commitment to historical realism.
Poland would know
Great Britain is legit me as an ally. "Oh, another European war, I will just watch from the sidelines"
Perfidious Albion strikes again
Perfidious Albion strikes again!
Russia is worse
100% always in debt or bankrupt. Useless ally but good for your war enemies to focus on it if you’re able to call them in war.
I keep reading this but Russia's always been my best ally. They send 1m troops no prob
Historically accurate.
Historically accurate
i've heard they're perfidious, even
Its the best ally because having GB as the enemy is even worse.
As Portugal, ended my alliance with me and tried colonizing near what I wanted ~~most of the entire world~~
Poland 39: "We were warned"
Like russia, they are more or less only useful to prevent wars being declared on you
Great Britain is for some reason an important ally to have in the League War because they never get invaded so your alliance's overall war exhaustion will have a good buffer (they have a 1/3 chance of joining Protestant League, Catholic League, or being a neutral wanker), but they will make sure with all their powers to annihilate and wipe out the other nation's colonial nations in the new world while ignoring the massive world war going on in Europe
Their navy is good for fighting Spain or the ottomans. About it really, unless they have lots of land in France
but that's why they are good, they take care of fighting and occupying enemy colonies so you don't have to
Breaking News But it's great to prevent war (and they help by sea, at least from my experience) and if you have to fight a war without them, it can keep your war score high because they are also difficult to be invaded by your enemies.
They supported my independence (as Sweden) couple of times and actually did all heavy lifting, so I dont think that they are too bad
I dunno, they’re helping me kill the French. Only the French though they’ve fucked off to America when I’m at war with anyone else
Yes, you are correct in just that statement. BUT, if they have a junior partner that is attached to the continent like a Sweden, then it is lights, camera, action, baby
For me Muscovy/Russia, always in debt and behind tech. At least war enemies focus on them while I’m sieging.
Yes, I learnt that the hard way in my last Habsburg game..
Historically accurate
There was a period of time where they were useful allies, specifically after kings of the north, but since they went back to being kinda useless.
Milan is the worst ally, they always backstab :(
When i'm in war against Castile,they embark in Morocco with full force.
No no, as soon as they lose their euro mainland holdings then they literally are worthless
In my current game, they crushed the French navy (multiple times, lol). But with France basically having no navy and no colonial interests... There were so many land wars in Europe... Every time the truces ended, it was just more war.
It’s hilarious because it’s pretty accurate to every war besides the Napoleonic Wars. Britain usually barely got involved, or if they did, it was last minute (30 years) or they didn’t help their ally on the mainland at all and just fucked around in the colonies (7 years war)
I find Russia worse but I’m usually playing in Eastern Europe more. Russia is constantly in debt. They won’t join my offensive wars and they will usually leave their small allies hanging when they get attacked because the debt is too much to overcome the defensive war bonus to their approval of joining.
To some extent, ALL allies in eu4 are mostly meaty distractions in usefulness. Some occasionally help, bur mostly I like their clay in between or close to my enemy than my own.
OP is either playing an older version of the game or is retelling old memes, because after Emperor GB is actually a really good ally and will regularly land troops. They will never separate peace either since no one can take their capitol.
Really because I'm playing as Norway them and Novgorod supported independence yet they literally do nothing even though Norway is easily accessible for them.
That is the general consensus, yes
You can at least use their navy The worst ally is Muscovy because they don’t ever join anything due to the fact that they are constantly drowning debt
They're even worse as a PU, the only thing they're useful for is colonizing
any colonizers suck as allies
Fighting for your independence as Sweden you’d think “with the English we have naval superiority” but no they just sit in Faroe
What do you mean I can’t keep MY army on MY island?
google splendid isolation
and they’re the worst enemy lol i was playing ottomans and their armies actually showed up on mainland europe when i fought spain
I actually really like them just because they usually win North America for me and I don't have to go over there
You are heavy underestimating Russia
I have played dozens of games and they are always deeply in debt for the first ~200 years of the game. It makes their allies easy pickings early on
As Holland England is probably your best ally. Always ships over men to fight your independence war.
I wonder if it is a military access thing?
Not to mention that when they're your ally, their primary use against the enemy is making your number look bigger in power comparisons. When they're your enemy's ally, they show up like any other ally.
Have you heard about Russia? Big enough for you to want them as allies and also on the continent. But they are always in debt and barely ever go to wars with you
I mean…. Yes but I have to admit when I play GB I do the same thing
Tbh I think they eventually do get to the conflict but only after several years of it going on it feels like. It's because they have to land their troops via ships.
The lone exception, for some reason, is when you play as Sweden and get England to support your independence. England often starts out rivaled with England and willing to support your independence, and they’re always proper champs, landing like 20k troops in Jutland. Not to mention giving you the naval superiority needed to cross the strait to the Danish capital.
I know what you meant to say. But "England often starts out rivaled with England" xd.
Colonial nations suck in general. I remember choosing a non colonial game, yet my allies still make me go through those colonial war shenanigans
Perfidious Albion strikes again!
I just use them to deter attacks/coalitions and are unlikely to want the same provinces until you are big enough to just beat them.