Aggressive Expansion modifier increased? I can't play this anymore!

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Virtually all the complaints about AE are complains about AE inside of the HRE. The AE is gigantic inside the HRE for a reason.
Seeing large repercussions within the HRE makes some sense, but I wonder if it's not blown out of proportion and spread too far at times. In a recent games as the Teutonic order pretty much all of Europe got involved when I took a few provinces (Anhalt, Lübeck, a couple of more) after what started out as the conquest of a single OPM turned into something slightly bigger thanks to alliances and the imperial mechanics. Seeing a nation like Brunswick panic or get to deal with a pissed off emperor in that situation is understandable, but I'm not sure why Cornwall, Castille or a load of Italian states would decide it's their God-given duty to punish a medium/small German state for taking a few provinces from a couple of even smaller German states.
 
In my last time dealing with the HRE, AE was not really a problem as the goal is straightforward: vassalize 3, maybe 4 of the Electors, become emperor, use the wars to release nations until you can ultimately revoke the privilegia. I never had any HRE member form a coalition on my path to world conquest (starting as England).
 
If half the world declared on you, it means you're taking big chunks of land on multiple fronts. AE has a fairly small range. Other religions won't care. Other continents won't care. Enemies of enemies won't care. Your allies won't care.
But 2/3 of the world that you live in care. Playing as Castile, there is nothing as stupid as annexing Portugal make Poland, Denmark and Hungary join coalition against you.

So to get half the world in a coalition against you, you basically have to be waging wars across half the world, and gobbling up big chunks of land. Don't do that. :)

If you're fighting in an area where AE matters (nearby neutral powers), only take land you've claimed or can release as a vassal. Let vassals occupy land. Give cores back to vassals or even weak nations you can vassalize later. And always check the AE tooltip in the peace offer to see who's going to care and if you care whether they care. :)

Just because you CAN use 100% of your war score to take land doesn't mean you SHOULD.
All war in EU4 are on the scale of Napoleonic wars, whereas all nations empty their man power pool and go bankrupt. Such kind of conflict should lead to mass land changing hand, like in Italian War, where 6 provinces can be annex in one go without much fuss. A countries should take care more about its own bussiness, not joining the free ride in coalition.
 
Last edited:
But 2/3 of the world that you live in care. Playing as Castile, there is nothing as stupid as annexing Portugal make Poland, Denmark and Hungary join coalition against you.

All war in EU4 are on the scale of Napoleonic wars, whereas all nations empty their man power pool and go bankrupt. Such kind of conflict should lead to mass land changing hand, like in Italian War, where 6 provinces can be annex in one go without much fuss. A countries should take care more about its own bussiness, not joining the free ride in coalition.

As Castille, you're a power, so people already dislike you. Taking out another power (Portugal) is a big deal. Doing it very fast and without cause/claims is an even bigger deal.

I just took over Portugal AND Spain as Muslim Granada, and did it with very little AE trouble. The only nations that declared a coalition on me were Spain, Portugal (naturally), a few minor Italian weenies, and France (logically). I made sure to only take land I had claimed or could give away (to my created vassal Aragon). Sometimes I left a province on the table and forced them to release land elsewhere to weaken them while not bringing down the wrath of Europe on me. And once in a while I took a break from pounding them to let the AE fade or let France get in a war with another coalition member so I could attack with them left out.

It's all manageable. Unless you trying to conquer the whole world, there's plenty of time to beat up on someone else for a while. :)
 
Seeing large repercussions within the HRE makes some sense, but I wonder if it's not blown out of proportion and spread too far at times. In a recent games as the Teutonic order pretty much all of Europe got involved when I took a few provinces (Anhalt, Lübeck, a couple of more) after what started out as the conquest of a single OPM turned into something slightly bigger thanks to alliances and the imperial mechanics. Seeing a nation like Brunswick panic or get to deal with a pissed off emperor in that situation is understandable, but I'm not sure why Cornwall, Castille or a load of Italian states would decide it's their God-given duty to punish a medium/small German state for taking a few provinces from a couple of even smaller German states.

It sounds like you took quite a sizable chunk of land. It also makes reasonable sense to me that nations across Europe would care. If the HRE is a counterbalance to France, it would make sense that France's traditional enemies would be upset if someone starts weakening the emperor by seizing imperial lands.

Furthermore, This was a time period in Europe where land did not historically change hands quickly through conquest. Most of the large consolidations (at least in terms of how Europa paints the map very definitively one color for your kingdom) were resultant of inheritances:

- Spanish acquisition of Aragon and parts of Italy;
- Spanish acquisition of the Netherlands, parts of Germany, and France-Compte;
- Austrian acquisition of Hungary;
- Austrian acquisition of Bohemia; etc.
 
It sounds like you took quite a sizable chunk of land. It also makes reasonable sense to me that nations across Europe would care. If the HRE is a counterbalance to France, it would make sense that France's traditional enemies would be upset if someone starts weakening the emperor by seizing imperial lands.

Furthermore, This was a time period in Europe where land did not historically change hands quickly through conquest. Most of the large consolidations (at least in terms of how Europa paints the map very definitively one color for your kingdom) were resultant of inheritances:

- Spanish acquisition of Aragon and parts of Italy;
- Spanish acquisition of the Netherlands, parts of Germany, and France-Compte;
- Austrian acquisition of Hungary;
- Austrian acquisition of Bohemia; etc.
After writing the post I looked a bit closer at what I actually did, and tried reloading earlier saves to see how things went if I demanded a province or two less. I vassalized Bremen and annexed a 2PM in the beginning of the war, then I went for 4 provinces later, one belonging to an OPM whom was the target of the DOW, another OPM and 2 provinces from the current emperor, Bohemia (to keep it in check and as compensation for them being in the way). Once I scaled down the latter chunk of the 4 provinces gained to two and eventually one I started getting things in check. Otherwise France, Castille and others seemed a bit too interested. I had been pretty peaceful for several years before that, I think I had like a dozen provinces and I was allied with Sweden, Hungary and the Livonian Order. While I think the mechanic is pretty good overall I'm not sure if a smaller and not very rich province or two should make enough of a difference to go from upsetting neighbours to setting the scene for the first world war though. But I guess the line has to be drawn somewhere.
 
It sounds like you took quite a sizable chunk of land. It also makes reasonable sense to me that nations across Europe would care. If the HRE is a counterbalance to France, it would make sense that France's traditional enemies would be upset if someone starts weakening the emperor by seizing imperial lands.

Furthermore, This was a time period in Europe where land did not historically change hands quickly through conquest. Most of the large consolidations (at least in terms of how Europa paints the map very definitively one color for your kingdom) were resultant of inheritances:

- Spanish acquisition of Aragon and parts of Italy;
- Spanish acquisition of the Netherlands, parts of Germany, and France-Compte;
- Austrian acquisition of Hungary;
- Austrian acquisition of Bohemia; etc.

Oh please. The largest land acquisition was by the Ottoman Empire, which was not done by inheritance. The 1450s expansion is just a naked land grab - yet it didn't generate huge coalitions (and arguably it just got an alliance of Serbia, Hungary, and Albania). Other major land grabs include the Partition of Poland (larger than anything listed here), the expansion of the French Empire (which while generating huge Coalitions managed to fight its way to international acceptance several times), the conquests of the Mughals, the Manchu conquest of the Ming, the Russian conquest of Finland, the Ottoman conquest of the Mamelukes, the War of Spanish Succession, the British conquest of French North America, and the like.

Further the mechanism by which these "inheritances" happened is nothing like in game. Take the Brittany inheritance. In game you have to RM a monarch without an heir and hope you get really lucky with a PU or get a dynastic member on the throne and then war them for a direct PU. Historically - single girl inherits duchy, the French essentially kidnap her, force marry her to their heir, and then take the place over. In short, it was anything but random dice rolls.

Beca
 
As Castille, you're a power, so people already dislike you. Taking out another power (Portugal) is a big deal. Doing it very fast and without cause/claims is an even bigger deal.

I just took over Portugal AND Spain as Muslim Granada, and did it with very little AE trouble. The only nations that declared a coalition on me were Spain, Portugal (naturally), a few minor Italian weenies, and France (logically). I made sure to only take land I had claimed or could give away (to my created vassal Aragon). Sometimes I left a province on the table and forced them to release land elsewhere to weaken them while not bringing down the wrath of Europe on me. And once in a while I took a break from pounding them to let the AE fade or let France get in a war with another coalition member so I could attack with them left out.

It's all manageable. Unless you trying to conquer the whole world, there's plenty of time to beat up on someone else for a while. :)
My Granada try, taking four province from Portugal cause a coalition of France, Spain, Aragon (those are reasonable), but also Burgundy, Venice and a bunch of medium size state like Province, Savoy, East Frisia (lolwut). And after I finally vassalized Portugal, pretty much the entire Catholic join a crusade for Granada.
Pretty much, coalition in EU4 is a free ride that AI join in because they have nothing better to do. Countries in real history has their own interest, and no one gonna march their army through half of Europe because some guy annex 4 provinces there.
 
Oh please. The largest land acquisition was by the Ottoman Empire, which was not done by inheritance. The 1450s expansion is just a naked land grab - yet it didn't generate huge coalitions (and arguably it just got an alliance of Serbia, Hungary, and Albania). Other major land grabs include the Partition of Poland (larger than anything listed here), the expansion of the French Empire (which while generating huge Coalitions managed to fight its way to international acceptance several times), the conquests of the Mughals, the Manchu conquest of the Ming, the Russian conquest of Finland, the Ottoman conquest of the Mamelukes, the War of Spanish Succession, the British conquest of French North America, and the like.

I was specifically referring to Europe here. Outside of Western and Central Europe, territorial expansion by conquest tends to generate a much smaller amount of AE because of reductions from distance, different religion, and different culture.

But, as you've pointed out, the Ottomans and France at certain times did attempt to conquer large swathes of European land and both generated coalitions/leagues against them, as would happen the same way in the game.
The war of Spanish succession models pretty similarly to any succession war in the game.


Further the mechanism by which these "inheritances" happened is nothing like in game. Take the Brittany inheritance. In game you have to RM a monarch without an heir and hope you get really lucky with a PU or get a dynastic member on the throne and then war them for a direct PU. Historically - single girl inherits duchy, the French essentially kidnap her, force marry her to their heir, and then take the place over. In short, it was anything but random dice rolls.

I'm not aware that Isabella of Castille was kidnapped. Bohemia and Hungary ended up in Austrian hands not through any marriage (forced or otherwise) but because their kings died without heirs.
 
I was specifically referring to Europe here. Outside of Western and Central Europe, territorial expansion by conquest tends to generate a much smaller amount of AE because of reductions from distance, different religion, and different culture.

No, I've been consistently complaining about the coalitions Ottos face where they are DoW'd by Austria, Venice, the steppe hordes, and the civilized Muslims simultaneously for historic conquests.
 
My Granada try, taking four province from Portugal cause a coalition of France, Spain, Aragon (those are reasonable), but also Burgundy, Venice and a bunch of medium size state like Province, Savoy, East Frisia (lolwut). And after I finally vassalized Portugal, pretty much the entire Catholic join a crusade for Granada.
Pretty much, coalition in EU4 is a free ride that AI join in because they have nothing better to do. Countries in real history has their own interest, and no one gonna march their army through half of Europe because some guy annex 4 provinces there.

Was taking 4 lands from Portugal your first move against Spain/Portugal? So most/all of them were w/o claims? That hurts.

And the AI doesn't join coalitions for no reason. If you're strong, big nations will stay out of them a lot longer. When I attacked Iberia, I was already a world power. That basically kept Austria away from the party. England HATED Spain, so agreed to an alliance - that kept almost everyone else out. Just like you can get someone to leave a coalition if you crush them, you can also accidentally encourage them to join if your victory weakens you too much. Once a power joins the coalition, you have to take it seriously, or as you saw it can become a dogpile.

It's a balancing act, but it's definitely manageable. If a Grenadan jihad can take Iberia w/o ever fighting an outside world power, the systems not crazily punitive.
 
Was taking 4 lands from Portugal your first move against Spain/Portugal? So most/all of them were w/o claims? That hurts.

And the AI doesn't join coalitions for no reason. If you're strong, big nations will stay out of them a lot longer. When I attacked Iberia, I was already a world power. That basically kept Austria away from the party. England HATED Spain, so agreed to an alliance - that kept almost everyone else out. Just like you can get someone to leave a coalition if you crush them, you can also accidentally encourage them to join if your victory weakens you too much. Once a power joins the coalition, you have to take it seriously, or as you saw it can become a dogpile.

It's a balancing act, but it's definitely manageable. If a Grenadan jihad can take Iberia w/o ever fighting an outside world power, the systems not crazily punitive.
The system is crazily unrealistic. In fact, the unity of Iberia is not something Austria or Burgundy should care. Same as England and her business in British Isles, those are not thing Spain or Austria should pay their attention for.
Even hundred years wars war basically a matter between France, England and Burgundy, but never a matter for Venice or Hungary. Even war that can paint the color of half of the world like War Of Spanish succession, only a few directly neighbor states are involves.
The AE and coalition should only limit to neighbor, countries in same region and rival, not the entire continent and religion group.
 
But 2/3 of the world that you live in care. Playing as Castile, there is nothing as stupid as annexing Portugal make Poland, Denmark and Hungary join coalition against you.


All war in EU4 are on the scale of Napoleonic wars, whereas all nations empty their man power pool and go bankrupt. Such kind of conflict should lead to mass land changing hand, like in Italian War, where 6 provinces can be annex in one go without much fuss. A countries should take care more about its own bussiness, not joining the free ride in coalition.

The system is crazily unrealistic. In fact, the unity of Iberia is not something Austria or Burgundy should care. Same as England and her business in British Isles, those are not thing Spain or Austria should pay their attention for.
Even hundred years wars war basically a matter between France, England and Burgundy, but never a matter for Venice or Hungary. Even war that can paint the color of half of the world like War Of Spanish succession, only a few directly neighbor states are involves.
The AE and coalition should only limit to neighbor, countries in same region and rival, not the entire continent and religion group.

perhaps it makes more sense if far away countries limited their 'revenge' to diplomatic or espionage options ... instead of joining a military coalition against you

also i agree with the statement that all wars in eu4 now are "on the scale of Napoleonic wars, whereas all nations empty their man power pool and go bankrupt." ideally a war over something minor like a diplomatic insult...should not be so large scale as a war for provinces.

this could happen if wars are won automatically once the warscore reaches a certain point.

like say for diplomatic insult...automatic win at 10% ??

but i guess this wont go down well with players, because right now all CBs are the same, just a pretext for landgrabs. u know what i mean right ?
 
No, I've been consistently complaining about the coalitions Ottos face where they are DoW'd by Austria, Venice, the steppe hordes, and the civilized Muslims simultaneously for historic conquests.

I guess I need to take a better look at the conquest timeline, but in my Otto games I can basically annex/vassal all of the Balkans and Anatolia without anyone caring. The one huge AE generator would be the annexation of the mamlukes (Which I don't usually bother with). I understand there is an event chain to make that happen, but I'd need a better understanding of it to see what the AE impact is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png


If I have some time this weekend, I'll likely run a game to see how feasible it is to match the historic Ottoman conquests up to 1520. The 1520 - 1566 expansion seems fairly easy (the post 1566 absurdly so), that first part is the only one that looks at all tricky.
 
I guess I need to take a better look at the conquest timeline, but in my Otto games I can basically annex/vassal all of the Balkans and Anatolia without anyone caring. The one huge AE generator would be the annexation of the mamlukes (Which I don't usually bother with). I understand there is an event chain to make that happen, but I'd need a better understanding of it to see what the AE impact is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png


If I have some time this weekend, I'll likely run a game to see how feasible it is to match the historic Ottoman conquests up to 1520. The 1520 - 1566 expansion seems fairly easy (the post 1566 absurdly so), that first part is the only one that looks at all tricky.

Getting to 1481 borders will get you a global coalition. Getting to 1520 borders will collapse your empire.
 
I was specifically referring to Europe here. Outside of Western and Central Europe, territorial expansion by conquest tends to generate a much smaller amount of AE because of reductions from distance, different religion, and different culture.
And this is completely ahistorical. I recently took Andalucia from Spain as Austria. I got AE with Poland - with whom I had RM. Now it was like 1 AE or something ... but the point is Denmark and Poland have zero strategic interest in me and they both face far bigger concerns (like Sweden rebelling and the Russians/Turks coming for them).


But, as you've pointed out, the Ottomans and France at certain times did attempt to conquer large swathes of European land and both generated coalitions/leagues against them, as would happen the same way in the game.
Nope. The OE took out all of Greece, Constantinople, most of Serbia, most of Bosnia, while making a few vassals in a 10 year period. Add it up, the base AE is something around 150-180 AE.

Historically what did they get? Well, Hunyadi managed to cobble together a force which didn't even have the entirety of Hungary behind it to hold Belgrade - oh and Albania was active.

Is that at all like in game? In game, we aren't talking a 3 state coalition, but something that is Christendom spanning with that much AE.

Likewise, when Napoleon wins his wars he manages to force people out of coalitions, when the French go to war in Italy they get decades of peace with no coalitions.

The war of Spanish succession models pretty similarly to any succession war in the game.
BS. In EUIV succession wars get no discount to province AE. According to the EUIV engine there are no Austrian cores on Spanish holdings in Italy, the Low Countries, or elsewhere. The war is fought and Spain loses ... and Austria takes 17 provinces or just around 255 AE base (and remembe there will be HRE modifiers here too).


I'm not aware that Isabella of Castille was kidnapped. Bohemia and Hungary ended up in Austrian hands not through any marriage (forced or otherwise) but because their kings died without heirs.
Lol, are you serious. Let me count the problems:
1. Isabella became her brother's heir even after her niece was born (as a negotiated settlement to rebellion), yet somehow I can't support rebels to alter the succession of a foreign state.
2. Isabella married against the will of her brother(and Castillean policy) having to flee the court.
3. The main potential rival of Aragon was France, yet somehow it was Portugal that contested the succession (you know backing the old King's underage daughter with the intention of force marrying her).

In short, no the Iberian wedding wasn't some dumb blind luck. It was heavily shaped by long standing political intrigue and was anything but a dice throw. Afterall - the king had legitimate issue, yet the PU still happened.

But fine, let's be moronic and ignore Poland, Russia, the Balkans as not being "European enough". The French losses in Italy are well outside of any succession war (where the CB is lost after one war), the Swedish vasslizations in the HRE, the Polish annexation of Teutonic territory. The Torstenson War (you know where Sweden took: Halland, Jamtland, Gotland, Harjedalen, Idre, Sarna and Osel. Or the Second Northern War where Sweden took Blekinge, Bohuslen, Bornholm and Trondhjem. Then there were the mass vassalizations during the Thirty Years War (let me dictate your foreign policy while you supply me with gold and soldiers). Or pehaps you'd prefer the Great Northern War - where Russia took 9 Swedish provinces.

But let me guess, those are mysteriously also not allowed for some reason. Frankly, you are just cherry picking. Big wars happened and they happened along the lines of interest of the states involved and they happened so often that picking a random period in time in the EU era is more likely than not to see a country waging such a war.

Peace systems that railroad the player to minimalist gains via magical coalitions or other crap are simply wildly ahistorical. Sure a lot of wars ended with status quo ante bellum, but big wins were somewhat common and certainly possible.