I am pretty new to EUIV but i would like to leave an opinion about this. Sorry for my english in advise 
I dont agree with letting to anex full countries in a war. That would work in 20th Century or even 19 but not in 16 or 17.
An example: Year 1530, lets say Spain and France claims navarra as part of their country. Then they start a war for Navarra, France defeat Spain armies and asks for navarra in the peace offer. Spain would say "Ok its yours". No one in the world would hate France because navarra "is considered" part of france. ( Game covers this with the CB system )
What happens if France ask for aragon too? Then Spain would say "Aragon?, what are you talking about? well, i have no armies so we could make a deal in the end...." Then, other countries would be angry with France ( Game works like this with AE) and even french people would be angry with their goverment/King ( OE reflect this ). France would need to have a bigger victory over Spain to ask for Aragon in adition to Navarre ( this is what Warscore covers. The more you want, the more i have to be defeated).
And what happens if France ask for a full anexion? Then Spain would say "hmm, full anexion? never, i wont dissaperd from the map, you can keep ocupying my country for years if you want, but i will be worse for you and you wont even get Navarra in the end" ( Game works like this not letting you full anexing big countries because they will say always "NO").
An occupation of a country like Spain, would cost to much for France. Each day of full occupation, is one more day you are being hated by the rest of the world and increasing..., one more day of french people asking why are french soldiers dying in spain everyday if you allready won the war ( i thnk the game covers this too), it would be logistically VERY hard to maintain a full occupacion for years in the 16th century, rebellions everywhere, the french soldiers would start asking themselfs what are they doing still there...
Spain knows this, so they wont ever accept a full anexion, and France knows this so they wont ever ask for a full anexion.
I think this is the key.
In my opinion the game is pretty fair in this aspect. I think the paradox view of the Warscore is the maximun things the looser is disposed to give(Regions, religion conversion, releasing countries, money...), more than that they wont accept peace terms.
Inconditional surrender should be a rare thing maybe via events.
The real problem is that it is very easy to reach 100% war score. In wars, you can see army stacks, bigger or smaller, running around in enemy countries without penalty. The atrittion for being in enemy countries should be much higher, and deeper you go, higher should be.
Like many people is saying in this post, wars in this time period were mainly in the frontiers and in the war goals regions.
I dont agree with letting to anex full countries in a war. That would work in 20th Century or even 19 but not in 16 or 17.
An example: Year 1530, lets say Spain and France claims navarra as part of their country. Then they start a war for Navarra, France defeat Spain armies and asks for navarra in the peace offer. Spain would say "Ok its yours". No one in the world would hate France because navarra "is considered" part of france. ( Game covers this with the CB system )
What happens if France ask for aragon too? Then Spain would say "Aragon?, what are you talking about? well, i have no armies so we could make a deal in the end...." Then, other countries would be angry with France ( Game works like this with AE) and even french people would be angry with their goverment/King ( OE reflect this ). France would need to have a bigger victory over Spain to ask for Aragon in adition to Navarre ( this is what Warscore covers. The more you want, the more i have to be defeated).
And what happens if France ask for a full anexion? Then Spain would say "hmm, full anexion? never, i wont dissaperd from the map, you can keep ocupying my country for years if you want, but i will be worse for you and you wont even get Navarra in the end" ( Game works like this not letting you full anexing big countries because they will say always "NO").
An occupation of a country like Spain, would cost to much for France. Each day of full occupation, is one more day you are being hated by the rest of the world and increasing..., one more day of french people asking why are french soldiers dying in spain everyday if you allready won the war ( i thnk the game covers this too), it would be logistically VERY hard to maintain a full occupacion for years in the 16th century, rebellions everywhere, the french soldiers would start asking themselfs what are they doing still there...
Spain knows this, so they wont ever accept a full anexion, and France knows this so they wont ever ask for a full anexion.
I think this is the key.
In my opinion the game is pretty fair in this aspect. I think the paradox view of the Warscore is the maximun things the looser is disposed to give(Regions, religion conversion, releasing countries, money...), more than that they wont accept peace terms.
Inconditional surrender should be a rare thing maybe via events.
The real problem is that it is very easy to reach 100% war score. In wars, you can see army stacks, bigger or smaller, running around in enemy countries without penalty. The atrittion for being in enemy countries should be much higher, and deeper you go, higher should be.
Like many people is saying in this post, wars in this time period were mainly in the frontiers and in the war goals regions.
Last edited:
