it should be. afterall this is the age of nationalism
Maybe it should be more tied to having POPs of your nationality living outside your borders?
i think what provinces you can claim from a peace treaty without bb should be more stable and only added from start or via event, decision etc. It would be wierd if irland suddenly would get a core on new york
I wonder if they will bring across this new concept from HttT of specific casus belli.
I would certainly hope to see an end to some of the frankly ridiculous borders you could get in Vic 1.
Like France conquering the entire europe in the 1850s? :rofl:
I'd like the expand on this, it is a major, major issue. In 99% of games that I played where Hungary "successfully" revolted, it consisted of four non-contiguous provinces and was easily gobbled back up. Why did it even bother revolting? It should have just stayed as rebels.not to mention the awful parcelly borders you got when anyone emerged by revolt.
I hope that we don't get the EU3 system of random cores from events every now and then. Even the "get a core after XX years" seems strange for this game. Or even losing cores from peace treaties.
I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of "soft cores" or "colonial cores" to represent colonial provinces that a country might start to consider rightfully theirs, but please no changes in the mainland.
The only random cores were the ones you got from the nationalism event and for some reason 99.9% of the time they ended up being part of a superpower or a god-forsaken province.
It would be wierd if irland suddenly would get a core on new york
i think what provinces you can claim from a peace treaty without bb should be more stable and only added from start or via event, decision etc. It would be wierd if irland suddenly would get a core on new york
then maybe you only get a core if they are in a majority?
To me cores represent a percieved "national right" that wouldn't necessarily be reflected by population numbers. For instance, at the start of the game, the US feels that it has the right and destiny to expand west to the pacific and will have cores all the way west, even though most of the population in those provinces will be native american or mexican. Some, in fact, won't have any american POPs. This is contrasted to, say, the Phillippines, which the US may get control of in a war with spain, but obtaining control over the Phillippines is never going to be a major part of the American psyche like spreading west was.
Also, if cores are limited to the majority culture they cease to have any point: cores make the game interesting when two countries have competing claims on the same province i.e. Germany and France over Alsace-Lorraine, UK and Ireland over N. Ireland, etc.
If the cultural conversion system is any good, the rate of Irish immigrants arriving in New York will not outstrip the rate at which they become "Americanised" and as such, Ireland will never have a claim on New York. This will be because the USA would (Presumably) have a liberal immigration policy et al that leads to high rates of cultural assimilation.
By contrast, Germany would have poor policies in terms of converting the French in Alsace to German, thus the French would continue to have a casus belli on them.
Surely the Locarno treaty removed Germany's cores on Alsace-Lorraine.'Core' in the Vic period means something less mutable than it did in EU, I agree, and should not be forfeited if you lose a war.
Surely the Locarno treaty removed Germany's cores on Alsace-Lorraine.