William replaced English nobles AFTER they revolted. The one who survived the initial war were confirmed in their titles, at first, and they weren't small landholders - the ones who lost their lands immediately were Harold's familiars.
100% War Score should mean unconditional surrender
- Thread starter StatikShocker
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
William replaced English nobles AFTER they revolted. The one who survived the initial war were confirmed in their titles, at first, and they weren't small landholders - the ones who lost their lands immediately were Harold's familiars.
Please explain how this is any different than Brittany annexing England if it conquered all of England in a war? It would still be two "nations"(to use a modern term) under one ruler. They would face the same problems William faced. Like William they would replace the leaders of England with their own people and they would have to suppress revolts of locals who didn't want to be ruled by outsiders.
It is totally different, but EU simply lacks a mechanic of doing it. Simply as is.
Even the Nappy example is completely off the discussion. You guys talk about annexing France in one go and come up with Nappy? Really? Did Nappy annex Austria? Did he annex Prussia? No, he annexed smaller principalities, but he did NOT annex any of the Great Powers. Not in his whole life. And FOR SURE not in one go.
Normandy didn't annex England. William became the King of England and continued as Duke of Normandy, and although he was Norman and murdered the Saxon nobles, he did that after becoming their king.
What would happen in EU4 would be that England changed culture, Saxon becoming accepted, and Normandy either ceasing to exist or becoming vassal/PU.
If you check out CK2 where PI has made mechanics to represent this exact situation, he claimed the throne for himself, attacked and won, taking the former kings land and his crown. The EU4 equivalent would be Austria invading Bohemia and saying "I'm still your King", or if Denmark had succesfully stopped the Swedish revolts, both with some kind of Restoration of Union CB.
Both of which would be much different in EU4 compared to history, since in EU4 you'd have to conquer 2/3 of Bohemia before enforcing the union, and beat down all their armies.
Actually, come to think of it, EU4 pretty much in direct contrast to history shows this as an unconditional surrender when you reach the amount necessary to enforce union.
The English 'state' (or as much of a state as can be said to exist in 1066) was not destroyed when William invaded, he just made himself the head of a political organization that already existed, and he used a claim to do so. Annexation implies the destruction of whatever state existed before and its replacement with one's own institutions, which is vastly more difficult to do.
That's not quite accurate, as William had no claim to the throne; In game terms, he wasn't the same dynasty and had no CB. He just invaded the country and made himself king, which is not represented in EU4.
It´s the main factor but overextension is also used in the algorithm. It´s easy to see that in game - reduce OE to 0 and many people will leave the coalition.
Yeah, that really didn't happen on a large scale. For the most part the English nobles swore fealty to William after the death of King Harold and many of those nobles were advanced and otherwise rewarded by William. Some Normans were given titles in England, but those were primarily created titles, with a handful of transfers of titles after failed Anglo-Saxon rebellions. In fact only one English noble was executed under King William, and he was executed for rebelling twice despite marrying a niece of William.
In fact the modern English culture came about as a result of intermixing of the Anglo-Saxons and the French Normans, but an Anglo-Saxon cultural identity was recorded well into the 13th century.
You can forge claims all the time in EU4. And William did have a clear claim as the publicly named successor of his cousin King Edward the Confessor who died childless. He actually had a better claim than Harold Godwinson and Harald Hardrada who were of no relation to Edward's House of Wessex.
ok, you all make good points for why William's win can't be repeated in game, and I am fine with that, while i am sometimes annoyed by the WS limitations, the only thing i really agree with the OP about is capital provinces...
anyways, My point was that Unconditional Surrenders were not a modern invention. William won, and the English nobles surrendered. They didn't say "you have conquered us, but you can only have cornwall(for example), go back to france!" They let him take the crown and and swore fealty to him. He chose to allow them to keep their lands and titles, they did not demand it of him(please do correct me if I am wrong, this is all to the best of my knowledge). This to me is no different than a modern unconditional surrender.
anyways, My point was that Unconditional Surrenders were not a modern invention. William won, and the English nobles surrendered. They didn't say "you have conquered us, but you can only have cornwall(for example), go back to france!" They let him take the crown and and swore fealty to him. He chose to allow them to keep their lands and titles, they did not demand it of him(please do correct me if I am wrong, this is all to the best of my knowledge). This to me is no different than a modern unconditional surrender.
Don't really like the the ws system either.
What i thought about would be some kind of "more rebels" approach, too. If you occupy a whole country, or most of it (let's say 90% ws), to allow exception of colonies, malta, stuff like that, the war score should tick up to maybe 200%. BUT:
Rebels should kick Ass. They are a joke now. More rebels while sieging, much more. No 2 stack sieges, the garrisons should be able to fight back, simulated through rebels if that's the only way possible. Also, more rebels in your homelands, think of the 30 years war where there were uprisings everywhere. Overextension has to be a bigger problem, if you are able to carpet siege France you have the men to fight some 30 stack rebels easily. Paris, Europa's biggest, wealthiest city, revolts against your occupation? Have fun with that 100k stack of rebels.
The increased attrition was a step in the right direction, but is not enough, since once you occupied something, you can unite at a no attrition zone and stomp the occasional rebels.
I love the "Shit shit shit, i have to end this war now!" moments in game, but they are so rare. Maybe nationalist uprisings are a bit ahistorical, but i see no other way without changing the siege system from scratch.
What i thought about would be some kind of "more rebels" approach, too. If you occupy a whole country, or most of it (let's say 90% ws), to allow exception of colonies, malta, stuff like that, the war score should tick up to maybe 200%. BUT:
Rebels should kick Ass. They are a joke now. More rebels while sieging, much more. No 2 stack sieges, the garrisons should be able to fight back, simulated through rebels if that's the only way possible. Also, more rebels in your homelands, think of the 30 years war where there were uprisings everywhere. Overextension has to be a bigger problem, if you are able to carpet siege France you have the men to fight some 30 stack rebels easily. Paris, Europa's biggest, wealthiest city, revolts against your occupation? Have fun with that 100k stack of rebels.
The increased attrition was a step in the right direction, but is not enough, since once you occupied something, you can unite at a no attrition zone and stomp the occasional rebels.
I love the "Shit shit shit, i have to end this war now!" moments in game, but they are so rare. Maybe nationalist uprisings are a bit ahistorical, but i see no other way without changing the siege system from scratch.
So, both halves of this are silly sophistry - William clearly couldn't have used the claim throne CB, because a member of his dynasty wasn't ruling the country at the time. And, he didn't force a PU, because he had to deal with ten years of local revolts as he incorporated the lands into his own and established cores.
The invasion of England absolutely is not modeled by EU4 mechanics. But ... neither is the manchu conquest of china or the ottoman conquest of egypt, both of which occur during the game's timeframe.
100% warscore should be able to give you everything. Yes!
if a province is only accepted culture, you should have 1% minimum rebel chance.
if it's not even accepted, there should be 5% minimum rebel chance.
If rebels rise somewhere then your revolt risk should raise everywhere. If a rebel wins a siege revolt risk should rise everywhere.
Overextension should be based on non cored base tax to cored base tax. If i am a big russia why is it so bad to take 5 provinces?
The current system is fine as it comes to gameplay. It limits blobbing. But for the wrong reasons.
If you have a 100% warscore you should be able to take all. But it should be difficult as hell to control people of another culture.
Vassals and PU should be much harder to keep. Like revolts because their leader is bending to another.
It would even be imaginable that you loose manpower for provinces that are not your culture. Accepted culture gives like 0 MP.
if a province is only accepted culture, you should have 1% minimum rebel chance.
if it's not even accepted, there should be 5% minimum rebel chance.
If rebels rise somewhere then your revolt risk should raise everywhere. If a rebel wins a siege revolt risk should rise everywhere.
Overextension should be based on non cored base tax to cored base tax. If i am a big russia why is it so bad to take 5 provinces?
The current system is fine as it comes to gameplay. It limits blobbing. But for the wrong reasons.
If you have a 100% warscore you should be able to take all. But it should be difficult as hell to control people of another culture.
Vassals and PU should be much harder to keep. Like revolts because their leader is bending to another.
It would even be imaginable that you loose manpower for provinces that are not your culture. Accepted culture gives like 0 MP.
This has been brought up several times in the past decade. People can be surprisingly good at defending BS.
This has been brought up several times in the past decade. People can be surprisingly good at defending BS.
It hasn't been brought up because it was much worse in EU3. There, a coastal capital was impossible to take without annexing the whole damn country.
In ye old days, you had to annex entire countries to take inland capitals as well. Go ahead and start a thread if you like and I'll reprise my old role of arguing that capitals should be treated like any other province.
Last edited:
Unconditional surrenders really are modern. It was demanded of Napoleon at Waterloo, do you have any earlier examples? You may want to look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debellatio , if you want an actual historical thing to claim to do. Unconditional surrender is not that.
When William took the crown the nobles swore oaths to him and he swore his oaths to them. He replaced their (dead) king, they didn't surrender in any meaningful fashion.
I implore you, please, look up unconditional surrender. It seems you don't know what it is.
As for the "you can only have xyz provinces, go back to France", that actually did happen to William. He took the holdings of the dead King Harold and his family, and went back to Normandy when he had to.
The problem becomes worse, actually, because the Battle of Hastings was essentially the end of the war. There were a minor battle somewhere afterwards, but no carpet sieges, no "Must take provinces for 100% warscore".
AT MOST he could have some WS from a won battle and the first tick from wargoal.
And that's really the issue: Your "unconditional surrender" is ahistorical. What happens ingame is the seemingly total destruction of a nationstate (Which is also ahistorical, both nationstate and destruction thereof) because you have to get ridiculous WS to get land, and at the same time the conquest of several provinces is actually possible, even without claims or specific casus belli.
What the "unconditional surrender" crowd wants is the wrong disguise of the symptom of the problem.
EU4 is a great game, franchise and entertainment, but there is still room for improvement before it is able to simulate history. :wub:
Well, he did have a claim on the English throne through Edward the Confessor, who IIRC tried to designate William the heir to his kingdom.Riidi said:
He wouldn't be able to get a CB through EU4 mechanics, true, but if we took this discussion to CK2 forum he would have a claim.