Abolish Diplo Annexing

[Judge]

As many different features are discussed right now due to all the released patches I would like to take the opportunity to point out a couple of things that bothers me.

In my opinion military access is really ridiculous as it is featured right now. You pay a country a couple of hundred gold pieces and then they allow you MA to their country mostly for the rest of the game. I could accept MA for a certain period as a result of some bribes but as it is now it is just too easy to get and maintain MA. Of course this is also totally unhistorical (MA during the whole game at least).

Moreover as a result of the bribes you can get maps as well. This is a clear exploit and should be dropped as a feature. It is enough that you can send explorers and sack capitals.

The worst thing however is the use of diplo annexing. It is much too easy to diploannex as it is right now. This is unhistorical in most cases (note in most) and should be abolished if there is not some historical justification in a particular case (Poland-Lithuania, Austria/Burgundy and so on). Vassalage should be the only possibility besides the historical events.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Diploannexing should be made harder, by removing it u'd drop one of the major things that allow changing history, which is all the fun to me.

 

[artemis667]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Diploannexing should be made harder, by removing it u'd drop one of the major things that allow changing history, which is all the fun to me.

I think diploannexing should stay, but having it toned down MASSIVELY has to be good I think.
Perhaps a requirement, in addition to the current ones of course, should be some sort of cultural alignment. For example, you could require the two countries to share one culture e.g. Sweden could diploannex Denmark, but not the Teutonic Order. This would have the odd effect that Russia would be able to diploannex Sweden, but you have that anyway
Another idea would be to also add badboy points for an unsuccessful attempt at diploannexation. This ultimately wouldn't prevent it being used too much, but might prevent people being too keen trying it out.

 

[Judge]

I like to change history too but there has to be some links to what really happened in those days. If not you could actually add whatever kind of strange feature into the game.

The value of EU2 is that you are given some rules that are created from the conditions in 1419-1820 and then you are able to change history from those rules. If the rules differ too much from real life you will lose the feeling of " this could really have happened”. Then it would not differ much from civ for example. EU 2 is a great game as it is but by changing some features it would be perfect.

At least make Diplo annexing much, much harder. Sharing same culture to a certain percentage could be a good idea. Another could be that you would only be able to Diploannex a country that holds one province (same as for military annexing)

 

[Vynd]

I'm with Carolus Rex. If diploannexing was removed entirely that greatly reduce the fun and variety of the game. Without some possibility of diplomatic annexation there isn't much incentive to engage in diplomacy at all. At least not after you have become strong enough to defend yourself without a big alliance. However, I do think that diploannexation is too easy to accomplish.

 

[Arilou]

Also, depending on what you believe diploannexing (and diplovassalising) represents it's actually historical.

You see, I see it as manipulating your way (via a royal marriage9 to a position where you can actually inherit thier realm...

MA should have a time-limit (10 years sounds OK, like RM)

Exchanging maps isn't really unhistorical... If it became impossible then explorers would have to be MUCH more common (I'm pretty certain Baden knew where the Americas were, at least during the later centuries)

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Diploannexing should stay, since it has happened historically (that's how Russia ate Georgia). It should be a bit more restricted than it is now, however; there should be an overwhelming difference in size, not just ~1 province. Unless you're extremely big, only minors should be diploannexable. Perhaps a size difference of 5:1 or 10:1 (counting city provinces) should be required?

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Originally posted by Arilou
MA should have a time-limit (10 years sounds OK, like RM)

Exchanging maps isn't really unhistorical... If it became impossible then explorers would have to be MUCH more common (I'm pretty certain Baden knew where the Americas were, at least during the later centuries)

I strongly agree about the military access feature. As for map exchanges, I think it should be somewhat more restricted than now (but not impossible). Something I've been thinking about is restricting it to neighbouring countries (and then perhaps making it a bit easier to get a favourable map trade as well, in order to balance the change).

 

[Owl]

I can't see anyone bothering to change these features at this late stage, but if Mil Access were being rewritten I would like it split into naval and land. Allowing a friendly power to use your colonial ports is no a big deal, but only in exceptional circumstances would any sane government allow a large foreign army to stomp through its core national provinces.

And I never did understand why access wasn't automatically a mutual arrangement.

 

[Rundris]

I really like diplo annexing.

I like the idea of being able to expand without war.

I would be open though to making it so that you have to have 5 times as many provinces to diplo-annex instead of just one more province.

The idea of giving an expiry time do MA, similar to an alliance, maybe 10 years, is a good idea.

 

[unmerged(6909)]

Very good ideas!

Diploannexing is too much of an exploit. Attack someone, get 99% by outmanouvering the AI, vassalize, wait 50 years.....and you'll get them with a good King.
Did it in a WC with Spain: Diploannexing of Austria, France and England. Bit ridiculous.

Your own size isn't really a problem when you're a colonial power...but what about measuring the chance of success by the size of the victim?
Let's say: it's not possible to annex a nation with more than 10 provinces.


The ideas concerning the MA are also very good....should expire after some years!

 

[Judge]

As for Diploannexing; why should some country be willing to be incorporated into your country just because you throw in some money ? That is more a sort of business merger in my opinion and it does not belong in this game (Business Tycoon maybe?). .

Ok if two countries with predominantly the same culture, same religion and close borders should merge but as it is featured now? No; it is too unrealistic and above all too easy. So at least make it much harder and apply the same conditions as for military annexations.

 

[unmerged(14597)]

Forget culture, and don't make it any more difficult. Just use the one province rule for all annexations. Those extra freebees are what make diplo-annex so attractive.


I would really prefer the 50 year limit be imposed on vassalages, automatically annexed if only 1 prov, cancellation if not. None of this "should I ask today?", "next year?", "10 years from now?" nonsense.

-stillzig

 

[Rundris]

One way to make diplo annexing harder would be to make it so, in addition to having to be 5 times the size of the target, and/ or the target having to be 10 countries or less making it so:

**The annexing country must keep relations with the target country above 190 for the entire 10 year period.**

I think that would make it more realistic and way harder. I think the way it usually happens now is you get relations to 190, get the alliance and then vasilize them. Then you let relations go to crap. Then once the 10 year waiting period is up you pump in cash to get relations back up and then annex them. That's kind of lame.

This way, if your relations with your vassel ever dropped, the 10 year timer would start over and that would make things pretty hard.

Maybe it would make it too hard, because if you failed your attempt to annex, relations would drop and that would start the whole process over again. Maybe that would be realistic though.

Maybe it's not a good idea. Just throwing it out there.

 

[daedalus]

Diploannexing is a vital portion of the game. If you dont like it, dont use it. However, I agree that it should be tone down a little bit, like by extending the vassalage period to 30 years and take into consideration the relative size of the countries.

 

[Arilou]

Originally posted by Judge
As for Diploannexing; why should some country be willing to be incorporated into your country just because you throw in some money ? That is more a sort of business merger in my opinion and it does not belong in this game (Business Tycoon maybe?). .

Ok if two countries with predominantly the same culture, same religion and close borders should merge but as it is featured now? No; it is too unrealistic and above all too easy. So at least make it much harder and apply the same conditions as for military annexations.

It's not just a matter of money... They are your VASSALS (sometimes the Central Authority managed to peacefully reduce the independence of their vassals... Sometimes not) and they are related to you by blood (Royal Marriage.)

 

[Judge]

There are some different opinions but the majority seems to share my concerns to some extent. If I sum my opinions up after one nights sleep and after reading through the posts maybe these suggestions could be implemented into the game to make it perfect (not too much work I hope).

1. Map trading- Should be made a bit harder.

2. Military access – Should expire after a defined period of 5-10 years.

3. Diploannexing – Should be restricted at least. Vassalage should automatically be cancelled if you fail in an attempt to annex. The vassalage period should be extended to 20- 30 years instead of ten.

 

[unmerged(5934)]

My two cents

- Map trading: the last beta has just changed map trading, now you get to know the colonies and seas, but NOT the not yet colonized provinces (I think it is so, I haven't played the new beta at this moment). With this change I think that the exploits related with map trading are far less important.

- Military access. Good idea.

- Diploannexing. At the very least it should be restricted, but, do someone know of one historical example of 'diploannexion'? Do inheritances qualify as diploannexions? I'm not sure. It was equally possible for a minor to inherit a major as it was for the major to inherit the minor (but when Scotland 'inherited' England it was England the dominant power). On the other hand, an enemy could inherit another (Scotland and England weren't exactly in the best of terms in 1600...)

 

[Languish]

Interesting thread... i would personally like to see it remain, but become even harder to actually pull off.

 

[JohnMK]

Dear God. Abolish diplo-annexing? Nahhhhh. Just make it harder. After 10 years they should reject 90% of the time. After 20 years, 60% of the time, after 30years, 30% of the time, etc. And countrysize is already a factor. As is your infrastructure level IIRC.