[1.13] Intentions of change to peace deals and uncoreable provinces?

[Jeggred86]

I was reading the thread for the 1.13 patch notes and a lot of people where asking about this change:

In order to demand provinces you must now be able to make them your core (if not already), either directly or eventually through other provinces you are taking at the same time.

I would like to know your intentions behind this change.

I guess you want to prevent the player from giving uncoreable provinces to an ally so that he gets too much overextension and has to sell provinces giving negative prestige (weakening them and canceling PUs etc.)

But there are other consequences to this change… are those intended too?

• Releasing vassals

For Example: Playing as Ottomans it is common to fight Qara Qoyunlu, take Maragheh and release Persia without connecting them to your territory.​

• Separate peace deals

You attack a bordering enemy A, who is allied to B and C that border A but not you. You could peace out B and C and take uncoreable provinces and then take a province from A so you can core the provinces from B and C.
​

• Strategic taking of uncorable provinces

In one of my last games I was going for the “Master of India” achievement. I had a westernized mega Ming who DoWed a country that held two provinces I needed for the achievement. I DoWed them as well and took the provinces before Ming could. I couldn’t core them for the next 20 years but otherwise I would have to fight a long and costly war against mega Ming.​

Could you change it to only affect provinces you give to allies when the above is not intended?

 

[Wizzington]

1) Consistency: All other forms of taking land require range to the province.
2) Clarity: If you take a province, you now know that you didn't waste AE for something out of range.

There are also minor reasons, such as being able to give uncorable land to allies, but if that was the main issue we'd only have blocked that.

 

[Me_]

I wonder how will this change affect colonial conquest. Does it mean that I won't be able to demand an overseas province I cannot core?

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

The main reason I would want an uncoreable province is if I was planning on coring it in the near future. Like if I was taking a coastal province in India, and I was planning on coring it as soon as I picked up that last stepping stone port in Africa.

I wish we could at least take any province provided it was accessible by the sea. Maybe add in a gradually increasing unrest or local autonomy to uncored provinces, to make it undesirable to hold onto them uncored for too long. But this sits wrong with me as is.

 

[Jeggred86]

1) Consistency: All other forms of taking land require range to the province.
2) Clarity: If you take a province, you now know that you didn't waste AE for something out of range.

There are also minor reasons, such as being able to give uncorable land to allies, but if that was the main issue we'd only have blocked that.

Thanks for the reply... but I don't really get the reasons.

1. There is colonizing... what other kind of conquest takes range?

• Diplo vassalizing doesn't need range (there is a negative modifier but you can counter that by enough positive modifier)
• Force vassalizing doesn't need range
• PUs don't need range
• Protectorates don't need range

(range = don't need a land connection or port in colony range)

2. If it's for clarity it would be enough to implement a warning when you try to take uncoreable land.


Most of the fun (for me) in EU4 comes from planning and making strategies. When I attack A then I can pull in B to take core of C, release C and take back cores from D etc.
If I take province E (that I can't core) than I can prevent F from attacking G etc.

The change will restrict separate peace deals and releasing of vassal and will take a lot depth out of the game...

 

[Sunspawn]

Most of the fun (for me) in EU4 comes from planning and making strategies. When I attack A then I can pull in B to take core of C, release C and take back cores from D etc.
If I take province E (that I can't core) than I can prevent F from attacking G etc.

The change will restrict separate peace deals and releasing of vassal and will take a lot depth out of the game...

I somehow get the feeling that separate peace was not meant to be "exploit AI for 400% WS from one war". If you want something, take all of it when peacing out with the warleader.

 

[Jeggred86]

I somehow get the feeling that separate peace was not meant to be "exploit AI for 400% WS from one war". If you want something, take all of it when peacing out with the warleader.

Then I could make the allies co-belligerents... another part of separate peace are the truce timers. You can use them to create a short peace with A and a long peace with B, let them cancel alliance and attack A before they get back the alliance... thats strategy... and EU4 is a strategy game... I think most people don't play it to see two stacks of armies marching against each other and look at the floating numbers...
The change to coring cost is something you can plan around, there are alternatives. You can get Admin ideas earlier, you can vassalize or you can conquer cheaper provinces etc. Restricting gameplay without creating alternatives is not good. Maybe we could get a new peace deal option where we can demand the release of a country and make them our vassal in the same step. That would create an alternative for taking a non coreable province and releasing a vassal.

 

[kitemasaki]

I agree with the changes.

1) Consistency: All other forms of taking land require range to the province.
2) Clarity: If you take a province, you now know that you didn't waste AE for something out of range.

There are also minor reasons, such as being able to give uncorable land to allies, but if that was the main issue we'd only have blocked that.

I am happy with the upcoming change, but you still allow seizing colonies that are out of coring range...which allows a colony to form (with a core).
This is currently a very gamey/gimmicky loophole to westernize or gain colonial range without the accompanying tech.
So no, not all forms of taking land require range.

 

[alanthe]

1) Consistency: All other forms of taking land require range to the province.
2) Clarity: If you take a province, you now know that you didn't waste AE for something out of range.

There are also minor reasons, such as being able to give uncorable land to allies, but if that was the main issue we'd only have blocked that.

Could we have it in defines so that we can mod this out if we want?

 

[cpm4001]

1) Consistency: All other forms of taking land require range to the province.
2) Clarity: If you take a province, you now know that you didn't waste AE for something out of range.

There are also minor reasons, such as being able to give uncorable land to allies, but if that was the main issue we'd only have blocked that.

I'm not completely okay with this, but it'd be a lot easier to take if we could at least get a toggle for it in defines.lua. Would that be at all possible?

EDIT: Sorta got ninja'd...

 

[NightKev]

Could we have it in defines so that we can mod this out if we want?

Yes, please. Seconding this.

 

[Benjamintf1]

I somehow get the feeling that separate peace was not meant to be "exploit AI for 400% WS from one war". If you want something, take all of it when peacing out with the warleader.

Lets say country a and b are allies, I want to go to war against both of them.(and lets say I make b a co-beligerant). Why shouldn't I be able to seprete peace them and take 200% warscore. I already took the time to occupy both of them,(which already takes a lot of time and effort) and in practice setting them as co-beligerants makes it as if I am fighting two seperate wars. And even if its not a co-beligerent, Im already facing higher AE and warscore costs for taking land from a non co-beligerant.

 

[Aquae Sulis]

I agree with the change completely, though it could do with a little bit more flexibility built in.

• Releasing vassals

For Example: Playing as Ottomans it is common to fight Qara Qoyunlu, take Maragheh and release Persia without connecting them to your territory.​

​

I never really liked the idea that you could take vast swathes of land that were uncoreable to release a vassal that you can later annex for cores.

It's even less understandable when you consider that the warscire cost for releasing the nation is very similar.

​

• Separate peace deals

You attack a bordering enemy A, who is allied to B and C that border A but not you. You could peace out B and C and take uncoreable provinces and then take a province from A so you can core the provinces from B and C.​

​

I agree there are situations when this arises.

​

• Strategic taking of uncorable provinces

In one of my last games I was going for the “Master of India” achievement. I had a westernized mega Ming who DoWed a country that held two provinces I needed for the achievement. I DoWed them as well and took the provinces before Ming could. I couldn’t core them for the next 20 years but otherwise I would have to fight a long and costly war against mega Ming.​

Again I sympathise with this - but it's not a very grounded mechanic so don't mind seeing it restricted.

 

[Guardian54]

So if I fight Cherokee for my Ming Eastern America CN so that I can annex their land and give it all to Ming Eastern America, then I can't demand their land because I can't core it.

We all know Grand Strategy is a map painting simulator, they just keep on cutting the hairs off my brush so that I can't paint as fast... pisses me off.

EDIT: I was informed later that this would not be the case

 

[TheChronoMaster]

So if I fight Cherokee for my Ming Eastern America CN so that I can annex their land and give it all to Ming Eastern America, then I can't demand their land because I can't core it.

We all know Grand Strategy is a map painting simulator, they just keep on cutting the hairs off my brush so that I can't paint as fast... pisses me off.

...Don't CNs give coring range?

 

[Guardian54]

...Don't CNs give coring range?

...Crisis averted, thanks!

 

[Themus]

So I'm playing as the Teutonic Order and selected the "Restore the Holy See" mission which gives me a claim on Roma and one of the requirements for completion of the mission is to "Own Roma". Once Roma is owned (doesn't need to be cored) the game immediately transfers ownership of the province to The Papal State and the mission is accomplished.

And encountered this issue with the Beta Patch 1.13:

I am now unable to demand this province because it is outside of my coring range even though I have a claim on it! In 1.12 and previously, I would be able to take this province and satisfy the mission. Now, I'd instead have to cancel the mission and never think of taking it again unless I had a Mediterranean province.

I imagine this issue also affects England's "Gain a foothold in the Indian Trade" mission, where England gets claims and may not have close enough provinces to actually press those claims.

Could it be allowed that you can take provinces outside your coring range if you have a claim on those provinces? I just want to complete this mission!

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Could it be allowed that you can take provinces outside your coring range if you have a claim on those provinces? I just want to complete this mission!

It'd be better just to make it impossible to take provinces that won't end up with a land or sea connection to your country. Those are the truly ridiculous cases where you really shouldn't be able to take a province, because you wouldn't even be able to reach it with troops, and it could lead to horrible, hideous borders.

But you can always project power overseas, even if you can't core. You can get fleet access along the way, or just eat the attrition to get your ships over.

 

[wraithstalke]

That's not a bad point about claims.

Normally you'd gain claims only by proximity or missions, so it probably isn't a bad idea to let you always take them in peaces.

 

[MiniaAr]

I agree, if you have claims for whatever reason, you should be able to bypass the "outside of coring range" rule to take provinces in peace deals.