Please link it or tell me the thread title to search it. I've never seen this answer and wonder what it is. He did confirm (quickly) that revanchism only applies to lost territory in the first thread it was mentioned, but that's of little concern when the resulting truce time allows you to outexpand the damage 5 to ten times over.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ev-diary-september-17th.882162/#post-19948644
Something to do with, the timer going away so you essentially would be left with less provinces, the feature... as it sounds... Are used to get back up on the feet, and thus might fade away swiftly...But whether it can be used to gain other lands faster... perhaps, but he seem confident that this is a stupid way to go... Someone will try it, then we will know
Would rather have revancism count due to WS, so if your about to lose you get the bonus according to how low WS are, if you manage to make a white peace the modifier goes away, if you manage to turn the war, you lose the modifier but the enemy gets it instead. The peace being made would then decide who got the modifier, since it goes to the loser. This is part of my plans to rework peacedeals
they should rather be made at 50 % and be satisfied, rather than going for the 100 %, having revanchism there, might be good thing for a losing nation, since the extra income and manpower might be enough to turn the war aroung, thus making peace before this comes into effect, say 50 % would make them more usefull also for small nations...
Obviously he also doesn't agree that large/most power nations don't need buffs since we've seen 15 year truces, primitive ship nerfs, revanchism, and removal of size scaling for ws cost. Such changes are not rational unless your goal is to buff the strongest nations or nerf the weaker ones to create a larger relative strength gap. The one thing that would keep diplomacy meaningful throughout the game, non-linear marginal utility of development, is not something that's been given much serious discussion. Essentially this game is designed to reward...and PROTECT...mega-blobs. I'm okay with challenge, not so good with a mitigation of risk. If failure were a realistic possibility in the end-game like it is early on, we'd see fewer players claim end-game is boring as the same repetitive motions while rolling is the thing generally cited as boring.
I´m currently working on a lot of reworks, just wrote a rework on CB this day over in suggestions, adding more historical accuracy, while making the game more even for smaller nations. Put simply, allies are rarely used, wars are with the two parties, unless special cases play in, like common interest, relations or promises made. Splitting the CB into minor and major, where minor would mostly be for two, think Venetian-Otto, most of these wars had no allies, those that were, were from common interest or promises to support later.
Here the kicker for the small nations... As of now, when venice want to attack Otto, Otto can call it´s allies, but you have difficulty calling 1, pretty uneven then. But using the minor trade CB, you actually can go to war against Otto alone, perhaps you promised spain some provinces or something else, so he can join. Anyway, this would actually be more evenmatched, even if venice attacked alone, it would still be way easier than defeating Otto and the 4 allies
