But there IS something for the Ottoman takeover of Egypt. You get claims on all the territory and can swiftly conquer it in 2 or so wars. It is not perfect, but it is still pretty great for the Ottomans.
Am I missing something or is this game just broken?
- Thread starter unmerged(783066)
- 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.
But there IS something for the Ottoman takeover of Egypt. You get claims on all the territory and can swiftly conquer it in 2 or so wars. It is not perfect, but it is still pretty great for the Ottomans.
And there's #4: Make it possible to conquer large amounts of land when political, diplomatic, and military circumstances are right. Most logically consistent but requires most work.
Well, you can still Call to Arms. Just uncheck the box in the war summary that lets your leader negotiate for you.
Can you give me examples, please? I honestly can't remember of any other example, aside the Mamluks.
I listed the options that wouldn't:
a) Be damn near impossible to determine the conditions for in the first place, except for things like the current "We make a special rule for annexing Pagans because we want to get rid of them for gameplay purposes".
b) Set the forum afire as everybody and his donkey argued why his particular preferences reflected which should be possible and which not.
Feel free to try to come up with a set of logically consistent rules for when large conquest should be possible because that would best reflect the reality of the situation, when there is no sort of agreement as to whether things that worked in some cases would work or fail if tried in other cases, that historically were not attempted, when played out in a world where all of world history since 1444 has played out differently from how it did in our world.
You can still create a system that allow to cover more possibilities satisfactorily. Take Victoria II, for example. Over all it follows a similar system as EUIV, in which you can't take huge traks of land in a single war and can only annex small countries. However, if you have cores on all of a given country territory, it gives you an special war goal that allowed you to annex the said country in a single war. Such a system would work greatly here. The mission gives you claim on all of Egypt already, so this would allow you to annex the Mamluks in a single war, as historical (overextension would be a bitch, though).
That said, EUIV have DHE, so it is not like they were trying too hard on making the game play "consistent", as you say. Actually, even missions are like that. No other country can get annex the MAM so easily, as no one else would get as many claims so easily.
Looks like I just did.
Well there's the Aztecs and Inca. Several more colonial areas which are ingame largish nations but IRL were hardly so. Obviously the major expansive empires conquered numerous countries in single wars, in history as a whole. The Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler, all conquered whole (and later even multiple) countries in a single war. But no it was not common in the game's time period.
EDIT: Oh and Charles the Stupid (a.k.a. the Bold, the Rash, the Terrible) managed to eliminate his own country (Burgundy) in a single war.
Last edited:
...If you introduced a wargoal whereby any country in which you had claims on every single province could be annexed in EU4, I would like to see the screams of pain on the forum and the wars over how unrealistic, ahistorical, and wrongheaded this was - because fabricating claims is a core EU4 game mechanic.Looks like I just did.
Heh, it would take minimal effort for Byzantium to conquer all of Venice and all of its coastal and island possessions in one annexation war that way, which I guess would make some Byzantophiles take your side, so you would have a hardened cadre to defend your wargoal in the forum wars, but still..
If you limited it to cores, it would be pretty much irrelevant, because few countries have cores on eachothers provinces unless they have taken them in war and cored them.
Last edited:
Ok since you asked so nicely
I think Safavid rise to power can be regarded as one, although no "empires" were conquered, huge amounts of lands were.
Also you have the obvious examples of the Incan, Mayan, and Aztec empires.
Honestly, I think that in the case of Venice and Byzantium, in the event of a total defeat at the hands of Byzantium, it should be quite possible for Venice to lose all of their Greek holdings. The people who live there would be quite happy to be again under Greek rule....If you introduced a wargoal whereby any country in which you had claims on every single province could be annexed in EU4, I would like to see the screams of pain on the forum and the wars over how unrealistic, ahistorical, and wrongheaded this was - because fabricating claims is a core EU4 game mechanic.
Heh, it would take minimal effort for Byzantium to conquer all of Venice and all of its coastal and island possessions in one annexation war that way, which I guess would make some Byzantophiles take your side, so you would have a hardened cadre to defend your wargoal in the forum wars, but still..
If you limited it to cores, it would be pretty much irrelevant, because few countries have cores on eachothers provinces unless they have taken them in war and cored them.
As for when conquering huge amounts of land should be possible, I'd say any time it would make logical sense for the land to be quickly and easily intergrated without having over-extension issues. EI: If all the lands are cored already, if the people want a new lord (like Egypt and the Ottomans), if one king is claiming another throne, or for certain government systems like hordes who barely have anything like a core to begin with.
Well, the ahistorical largish nations are a problem in itself, so they are not a good example. The Aztecs are one of such, I believe. As for the Inca, I don't know much of the history of the region, but from what I've heard the Spaniard actually did not conquer the whole region in a single bound and annexed to the Spanish Empire. Instead, they took a couple of regions and placed a puppet state there with the locals. This is more like "make vassal".
I was specifically thinking on inside the time frame. The EUIV is not supposed to emulate the whole story, after all.
And that exception is already in the game as its own DHE. Also, Burgundy is not that big.
...If you introduced a wargoal whereby any country in which you had claims on every single province could be annexed in EU4, I would like to see the screams of pain on the forum and the wars over how unrealistic, ahistorical, and wrongheaded this was - because fabricating claims is a core EU4 game mechanic.
I hate this fabricate claim thing, myself.
I even modded it out my demo. But I thought you could only fabricate in provinces that border your territory? That way it is rather difficult to fabricate claim on all of your enemy. Also, maybe it could limited so you can't fabricate a claim on capitals, unless it is an OPM. That would solve everything.Well, it would be nice for revolter countries. Which is where the war goal is most used in Vic, anyway. But then this wouldn't be relevant for the Mamluks-Ottomans war.
Well, you can do that in EUIV already. Just declare war on a bunch of minors and annex them all. We are not talking about quick land grabs, but about annexing huge states (or taking much land from huge empires).
Already mentioned the other two, but I believe the Mayans were not an Empire at the game start. And in the game they are not so big that they can't be annexed, I think.
Oh, yeah, that is an important one. Still, that makes 2 examples in 400 years of history. I think emulating the rule is more important than emulating the exceptions.
Or start with the box unchecked and let you tick it if you really want to have your provinces given away
(And yes - I know that in some very rare circumstances the AI may give you provinces rather than take them away)
But all of the current gen Paradox grand strategy titles do the third option, CK2 has event wars (Hungary, England), not to mention invasion cb's, EU3 had it's modified warscore values that where probably event driven, and HoI3 and Vicy2 where practically giant events.
Considering this is just a demo version anyway and might simply not contain all events yet I see no reason why they might not do the modified warscores again like in EU3 or just drive it with events, not to mention that inbetween DLC's a lot of events get added, and that I would not be surprised that they focussed more on making the entire world playable for the initial game and expand upon certain areas in DLC's, like they did for EU3 and CK2.
And EU4 is the next generation PDS grand strategy title, featuring a considerable redesign of existing last-generation game mechanics, purging some, greatly changing others, introducing new ones, and leaving only few entirely unchanged, as was warned of in the early developer diaries.
EU has been PDS flagship product since EU1, so it will be interesting to see how the success or failure of these very considerable changes will impact future games.
Neither does letting only a single country get partitioned between two countries when certain conditions apply (Burgundy), neither does letting a certain country get an automatic easy PU and then merge with another country when the conditions are right (Poland-Lithuania), neither does giving a certain country big bonuses for taking over certain areas it ruled centuries ago (Byzantium), neither does a whole lot of things that are actually in the game. Are you vocally against all of them, and every other DHE in the game, all of which violate your ideal of "logically consistent gameplay"?
Not a single one of the things I mentioned was as historically important as the Ottoman takeover of Egypt. Which actually happened, incidentally, unlike a resurgent Byzantium or a unified Holy Roman Empire, both of which are mechanically supported by special rules in the game.
If the Ottomans have nothing letting them take over the Mamluks, why on earth should Spain and Portugal get any special bonuses to let them colonise the New World? Without an Ottoman monopoly on the spice trade they likely wouldn't have gotten there anywhere near when they historically did anyway, so it even makes sense.
Let's be honest here. The real reason that the partition of Burgundy, the War of the Roses, the unification of the HRE and the Polish-Lithuanian merger are given special mechanics by the game and the Ottoman annexation of the Mamluks is not is not because they were more important (because they weren't) or because they were more likely (they weren't). The reason is because those are events (including a fictional event) that directly involved European Christian countries, and the Ottoman annexation of the Mamluks was not. It is what it is, but in this case it is the wrong call. Not just for historical reasons, but for game balance reasons and to have something that even vaguely resembles the actual strength the Ottoman Empire possessed in the time period (but let's be serious, even with Egypt the Ottomans won't be as strong as they were historically, it'll just help), it is necessary for there to also be a special mechanic to deal with the Ottoman annexation of Egypt.
The Inca Empire was the same size as the Western Roman Empire. Yes, really.
There's also the fact that the Mayan's weren't conquered quickly - it took about a century and a half for the Spanish to seize their territory.
The OP reminds me of my first game of EUIII as Burgundy. Damn I was pissed.
Just stick with it and learn the rules of the game, and it'll really reward you.
Just stick with it and learn the rules of the game, and it'll really reward you.