Well, everyone seems to be referencing the very end of the game for justifiable means to vassalize or conquer a very large nation.
I don't get that.
100% War Score should mean unconditional surrender
- Thread starter StatikShocker
- Start date
-
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.
Well, everyone seems to be referencing the very end of the game for justifiable means to vassalize or conquer a very large nation.
I don't get that.
That could make sense. I'd also like to see vassals joining together against their overlord (assuming similar culture and stuff, e.g. no Scots allying with Indian vassals).
Yeah, I don't either. Even if Napoleon did some impressive stuff (he certainly did) that was at the very end if EU's timeframe, and had he been born a century earlier he couldn't have done it.
Hm, what if they made it so that you can't take over 100% overextension in peace deals? That is to say, if you're at 0 overextension, then you can take 10 provinces worth 10% OE each, but if you were at 70% OE, then you could only take 3. This would also mean that you can take any number of cores in a single deal without worrying, since they won't cause OE.
Why not? It's not like he's the first person to ever conquer a huge swathe of land very quickly. Genghis Khan did it plenty, as did Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, and many others throughout history. Just because nobody happened to pull it off in the specific time period that EU4 covers (and even that is debatable, this is the time of the Ottomans, after all), doesn't mean that it wasn't possible.
I'm all for making it more difficult, such as making province sieging harder with real combat mechanics and such so that you can't blanket-siege so easily, but making it flat-out impossible through such an abstract device as war score caps is just annoying.
Battles should also give significantly more warscore. If you beat back their army a few times and siege down 3 provinces, you should have enough warscore to take those provinces. Short, decisive wars that happened so often in the time period are simply impossible because the only way to get a significant warscore is to annihilate their army and blanket siege half or more of their country. If you annihilate their army completely, you should get at least 50-60% warscore from just that alone. You still can't take any territory without sieging provinces, can't vassalize without taking their capital, but it means that it's possible to, for example, have a short war just to force trade concessions, without having to completely wreck their country in the process.
Why not? It's not like he's the first person to ever conquer a huge swathe of land very quickly. Genghis Khan did it plenty, as did Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, and many others throughout history. Just because nobody happened to pull it off in the specific time period that EU4 covers (and even that is debatable, this is the time of the Ottomans, after all), doesn't mean that it wasn't possible.
I'm all for making it more difficult, such as making province sieging harder with real combat mechanics and such so that you can't blanket-siege so easily, but making it flat-out impossible through such an abstract device as war score caps is just annoying.
Battles should also give significantly more warscore. If you beat back their army a few times and siege down 3 provinces, you should have enough warscore to take those provinces. Short, decisive wars that happened so often in the time period are simply impossible because the only way to get a significant warscore is to annihilate their army and blanket siege half or more of their country. If you annihilate their army completely, you should get at least 50-60% warscore from just that alone. You still can't take any territory without sieging provinces, can't vassalize without taking their capital, but it means that it's possible to, for example, have a short war just to force trade concessions, without having to completely wreck their country in the process.
Last edited:
Because there were specific circumstances that covered the conquests of the Ottomans, Romans, Mongols, Alexander, and Napoleon. Those circumstances aren't present for most of EU4's time period in the majority of circumstances. If you want to conquer vast areas of land quickly you can always play civilization or Total War. I prefer EU4 to be more historically accurate. (Don't get me wrong, I love Total War and Civilization. But they're different from EU4, and model different things.)
Vassal abuse is what ruins this idea ultimately. You can do like a cap to how many provinces you can release maybe?
But then you can sell them everything else so umh I have no clue. You can only release vassal after 10 years maybe?
I am not a good balance person so I have no clue but it is too easy
But then you can sell them everything else so umh I have no clue. You can only release vassal after 10 years maybe?
I am not a good balance person so I have no clue but it is too easy
I read the first 3 pages of the thread. Wow, 12 pages. Here are my thoughts.
I like the game pretty much exactly how it is . . . so far. I have yet to play more than 75 hours and I have yet to play more than one nation (France) and I have yet to play past about 1525 during the 10 or so restarts I've played.
So I still don't know the game very well.
With that said, I think that relative to how I understand wars tended to work during the period, everything is working just fine. It is extremely difficult to achieve even fairly modest war goals. Wars drag on for years and years and have a tendency to spiral into fairly large 'free-for-alls' with multiple adversaries joining in. If you are not resolute and accept the costs, a white peace or not quite achieving your goals tends to be the easiest outcome. To achieve your goals you often have to accept a rather harsh tradeoff (e.g., diplomatic relations through the floor, huge debt, manpower reserves totally depleted, years of war and lost revenue, etc.). All of which reminds me of what I know about warfare during the period.
The things that I find unrealistic: the way the need to occupy allies territory works in order to peace them out separately before finishing off the war leader. The size of armies seems to escalate pretty rapidly with stacks of 35 and to 45 K traipsing around pretty regularly by as early as 1480. That seems a bit out of realistic bounds, but then individual armies (e.g., vassals contributions to a liege lords campaign) would often operate relatively independently.
The first example of incontrovertible unconditional surrender was Grant in Kentucky in 1863. But I'm sure it was demanded many times previously and probably often agreed to. But in 'recent' (post medieval Euro) history it is pretty unheard of until recent times. Negotiating like gentlemen was a pretty common thing, else just continuing to feud like ruffians but incapable of actually causing enough harm to force the other side to come to the table (HYW is a classic example of that).
I don't think that 100%WS allowing any and all settlements to be forced unconditionally is a good idea. There are issues to be adjusted, certainly. But just making 100% WS allow player to demand anything and everything is not a good fix.
I like the game pretty much exactly how it is . . . so far. I have yet to play more than 75 hours and I have yet to play more than one nation (France) and I have yet to play past about 1525 during the 10 or so restarts I've played.
So I still don't know the game very well.
With that said, I think that relative to how I understand wars tended to work during the period, everything is working just fine. It is extremely difficult to achieve even fairly modest war goals. Wars drag on for years and years and have a tendency to spiral into fairly large 'free-for-alls' with multiple adversaries joining in. If you are not resolute and accept the costs, a white peace or not quite achieving your goals tends to be the easiest outcome. To achieve your goals you often have to accept a rather harsh tradeoff (e.g., diplomatic relations through the floor, huge debt, manpower reserves totally depleted, years of war and lost revenue, etc.). All of which reminds me of what I know about warfare during the period.
The things that I find unrealistic: the way the need to occupy allies territory works in order to peace them out separately before finishing off the war leader. The size of armies seems to escalate pretty rapidly with stacks of 35 and to 45 K traipsing around pretty regularly by as early as 1480. That seems a bit out of realistic bounds, but then individual armies (e.g., vassals contributions to a liege lords campaign) would often operate relatively independently.
The first example of incontrovertible unconditional surrender was Grant in Kentucky in 1863. But I'm sure it was demanded many times previously and probably often agreed to. But in 'recent' (post medieval Euro) history it is pretty unheard of until recent times. Negotiating like gentlemen was a pretty common thing, else just continuing to feud like ruffians but incapable of actually causing enough harm to force the other side to come to the table (HYW is a classic example of that).
I don't think that 100%WS allowing any and all settlements to be forced unconditionally is a good idea. There are issues to be adjusted, certainly. But just making 100% WS allow player to demand anything and everything is not a good fix.
Special CBs given by missions that let you fully annex and insta-core a country ala Ottomans/Mamlukes.
And you should be able to take 25-50% of a country (Austria taking Italy and Belgium from Spain.).
Battles should give much more WS (Prussia beats Austria in a decisive battle, annexes Silesia).
And you should be able to take 25-50% of a country (Austria taking Italy and Belgium from Spain.).
Battles should give much more WS (Prussia beats Austria in a decisive battle, annexes Silesia).
I must admit that pounding down Korea (too much base tax to vassalize diplomatically) in repeated wars of annexation to get it to be small enough to force vassalize as China (to follow a historical policy) is frustrating, and unrealistically difficult, but giving 100% score an absolute sway is often going to be overreaching. Accumulating a few hundred percent over multiple conflicts - maybe that should be enough for them to acknowledge Ming suzerainty.
The problem with sieging seems to be that it is detrimental to siege with large stacks - even large stacks full of artillery.
Using the chart on sieging from the wiki against a landlocked level 2 fort with 0% defensiveness.
3 infantry + 10 artillery = +3 starting bonus = 2.1 sieges per year using 13 regiments.
(3 infantry + 1 artillery) * 3 provinces = -1 starting bonus = 3.9 sieges per year using 12 regiments.
Using small siege groups is twice as effective as using large siege groups and with sufficient groups it blocks new enemy group formation with limited risk.
Using the chart on sieging from the wiki against a landlocked level 2 fort with 0% defensiveness.
3 infantry + 10 artillery = +3 starting bonus = 2.1 sieges per year using 13 regiments.
(3 infantry + 1 artillery) * 3 provinces = -1 starting bonus = 3.9 sieges per year using 12 regiments.
Using small siege groups is twice as effective as using large siege groups and with sufficient groups it blocks new enemy group formation with limited risk.
Last edited:
ITT: casuals who want to make the game easier by allowing them to annex whole countries instead of using strategy\\
both of these arnt possible due to Over-extension and AE you get from taking provinces not because you cant instant annex
I was able to conquer the entirety of India as the Timurds in less than 100 years but because of huge coalitions and OE I wasn't able to do it in a shorter ammount of time
I mean why would ming join a coalition against someone conquering claims? if I take the time to fabricate a claim I should bet getting 50% AE and 50% coring cost lower cost for claims would solve these historical conquests problems you have
both of these arnt possible due to Over-extension and AE you get from taking provinces not because you cant instant annex
I was able to conquer the entirety of India as the Timurds in less than 100 years but because of huge coalitions and OE I wasn't able to do it in a shorter ammount of time
I mean why would ming join a coalition against someone conquering claims? if I take the time to fabricate a claim I should bet getting 50% AE and 50% coring cost lower cost for claims would solve these historical conquests problems you have
Last edited:
The current game is balanced around vassal mechanics picking up the tab for coring provinces, you wont be able to pay the costs in normal circumstances and stay anywhere near the tech race.
Since when does "fight the same war 8 times, each time easier than the last" take strategy? All it takes is time.
because not all the time will the enemy be weaker than the last time you fought
Overextension (and, in general, warscore requirements for annexation) likely needs to scale with the conqueror's size--after all, Ming absolutely should have the resources and the administrative capability to handle the absorption of a much smaller country. Maybe since we're already using base tax (which I'm not wild about), a comparison between the BT of conqueror and conquest could be used as a scalar.
Generally speaking, I'm all for letting countries overextend as long as there's a proper comeuppance (revolts that are actually dangerous, diplomatic consequences with neighbours, etc.) and as long as the war itself is actually dangerous. Right now, it's sort of the worst of both worlds. Wars are extremely easy to fight, but the rewards for pressing them through to completion are arbitrarily limited. I'd like to see more war exhaustion for both sides, more manpower drain through attrition, a flatter tech curve* and less compliant vassals. But I also think the player should be allowed to hang themselves with OE if they so choose.
I completely agree that the game should reward a measured style of play that's concerned with realm stability and sustainable gains, but it should do so through mechanics more elegant than a simple 'no'.
*My Westernized Malaya just defeated a balanced Ming 40 stack with 4 infantry regiments and no special territory bonus. That's absurd.
I believe there should be some cases where WS demands over 100% should be allowed (in some cases, you're effectively limited to demanding one or two provinces by this if they're richer provinces, for example)...but perhaps having a scalar on demands over 100% WS would help? i.e. Each 1% counts as 2-5 points rather than 100% auto-tripping the limit (and perhaps getting worse as egregiousness grows...i.e. 100-110% gets 2 points, 110-125 gets 3, etc.)? It's very frustrating to get blocked on taking certain province pairs/trios (or getting blocked in on monetary demands) simply because it would get you to 101% WS even if you can theoretically take far over that in 3-4 rapid-fire peace deals with allies in a war.
They could make Casus Belli's get stronger at later levels.
Example:
Rev and Counter Rev could get stronger at tech 30 (about 1790 never played that far so not sure of the tech level).
The idea being it adds force-vassalise to the list of demands and lowers the cost down to 25% or something.
Or make it more gradual and the last 5 admin techs each bring the cost down by 10%.
This seems to me to be a good way of simulating what happened. As a country's military/supply chain gets bigger/stronger (Mil tech/buildings already works like this) they were able to supply large forcelimits for longer periods. Therefore allowing them to more completely enforce their demands (casus belli gets stronger mechanic).
I would also add in that vassals can turn on their master during a war if the master has -40% WS (randomly chosen, would need to be tested for balance) and this gets added at the same time as force vassal.
I'm not sure what to do with other CB's that was just my idea for R+CR
Example:
Rev and Counter Rev could get stronger at tech 30 (about 1790 never played that far so not sure of the tech level).
The idea being it adds force-vassalise to the list of demands and lowers the cost down to 25% or something.
Or make it more gradual and the last 5 admin techs each bring the cost down by 10%.
This seems to me to be a good way of simulating what happened. As a country's military/supply chain gets bigger/stronger (Mil tech/buildings already works like this) they were able to supply large forcelimits for longer periods. Therefore allowing them to more completely enforce their demands (casus belli gets stronger mechanic).
I would also add in that vassals can turn on their master during a war if the master has -40% WS (randomly chosen, would need to be tested for balance) and this gets added at the same time as force vassal.
I'm not sure what to do with other CB's that was just my idea for R+CR
What makes you think the whole country is de facto under your control simply because you have "occupied all the enemies provinces" (and likely destroyed all his regiments)?
1. You cannot build anything there.
2. You get no taxes or trade from there.
3. Occupied provinces count for zip when it comes to manpower, force limits, borders, etc.
4. If you go off and leave them be, rebels will spawn and return provinces to their rightful owner.
The only way that "occupied provinces" are a beneficial asset is in using them as leverage to convince a rival to accept your peace demands. Having 100% of a rival countries "provinces occupied" DOES NOT MEAN that you have de facto control of their country nor that they have zero chance or ability to resist your demands.
Rebels can liberate provinces, and those can be used to recruit mercs or muster new native regiments. A countries rate of manpower renewal is (I'm guessing) reduced for occupied provinces (if not eliminated) but the pool does not get eliminated. Also, if I am not mistaken, the enemy regime retains a portion of its tax revenues even from provinces that are enemy occupied, and there is virtually no impact on tech or diplomacy (apart from indirect effects from things like prestige). Hypothetically, a very popular and diplomatically influential sovereign could still kick your ass even AFTER you get them to 100%WS, though admittedly the chances of that ever happening seem to be slim.
People take the "occupied province" status far too literally. It doesn't mean WWII style total war destruction of all warmaking capacity and armed garrisoning of every single village and crossroads. Hell, you can siege an "entire province" into occupation with 2000 guys!? Even 1000 guys if you are talking about colonies pre rampart building.
"Occupying a province" obviously just means, you have taken control of one or two key strategic points (maybe a castle and a village that are at a travel nexus) and they have de facto lost control, but that doesn't mean that you have de facto gained control. You are simply denying control to them.
Last edited:
Yes, none of this may have anything to do with what information the game actually presents to the player, but this is OBVIOUSLY what the game meant to say with its warscore system. I think the fact that defending this system requires such convoluted made-up information speaks for itself... Your hypothesis about occupying a couple strategic points per province across a country is just completely ahistorical, and so is your theory that a monarch whose entire country has been occupied could still be a formidable opponent. But that's fine because we're just making stuff up to defend a poorly-designed aspect of a video game.
Well your free to disagree and simply conclude that its a piece of shit game. Despite its imperfections I have enjoyed the game a great deal, so I'm inclined to analyze it in a less hostile way.