The title is a bit of an exaggeration, but I was thinking about the various ways you can own land in EU4, and States don't seem to be all that great value overall. Maybe they're not the worst, but not really living up to their supposed status as the 'heart' of your country and as things that are supposed to become more important over the course of history.
Here are the six main kinds of land ownership, as I see it:
1. Bare territory (the 'default' form of ownership)
2. State with territorial core
3. State with full core
4. Trade Company
5. Colonial Nation
6. Owned by some other kind of subject (Vassal/March/Client State/PU junior)
Benefit of ownership (tax/production):
1: 25% 2: 50% 3: 100% (minus tax penalty if wrong culture)
4: ~0 tax, but 100% of production
5: can be over 100% with tariffs (if you deliberately dodge the treasure fleets, the CN will even amplify gold income and protect you from the inflation)
6: no production benefit; generally low tax benefit unless Scutage and/or special government/ideas
Benefit of ownership (trade):
1: 50%-100%* 2: 75%-100%* 3: 100% 4: 100%-200%*
5: 50% with no tariffs, but potentially well over 100% if you use tariff magic and let your CN collect on trade
6: 100% with Divert Trade
* the value of provincial trade power depends on how much competition you're facing
Benefit of ownership (military):
1: 25% 2: 50% 3: 100% (take some off all of these once you run out of accepted cultures)
4: essentially 0 (you just get a bit of naval force limit)
5: not much unless fighting in CN-land (although you do get some force limits I think)
6: varies depending on how efficiently you can shepherd the AI troops, but can be ~100% or higher if it's a subject with good military ideas
Miscellaneous benefits:
1: none
2,3: edicts, sometimes Estates do something good for the province (mainly in newly-cored provinces that would otherwise have high autonomy), certain special State mechanics (e.g. Banners)
4: bonus merchant(s), goods production bonus
5: bonus merchant(s), bonus to global trade power, can build/conquer stuff for you in the New World
6: extra generals, can make claims for you
What we see so far that TC and CN land overall has the potential to be economically better than State land from an economic perspective, while being mostly irrelevant from a military perspective (except in the New World); subjects can be better than State land from a military perspective (in SP at least, where you don't need such fine control of troops), while being fairly worthless from an income perspective; and Territories aren't worth much of anything (although states in territorial cores are a bit better). So far, States aren't really the best at anything but look decent for giving a combination of military and economic benefits. But now look at the costs of ownership:
Coring cost:
1,2: 50% 3: 100% 4: 50% 5,6: none
Religious unity/plurality burden:
1,2,3: Yes 4,5,6: No
Institutional embracement burden:
1: 25% 2: 50% 3: 100% 4: 100% (?) 5,6: none
Cultural burden (you have to worry about these provinces when changing culture):
3: Yes 1,2,4,5,6: No
Other costs/burdens:
1: none
2,3: state limit, state maintenance, estate/seat demands (can be very annoying for certain governments, e.g. Hordes and parliamentary governments)
4: some minor events
5: colonists (not necessarily: it's easy to conquer CNs off the AI for instance), possibly raising tariffs, LD/debt management, minor events
6: diplo slots (can be waived by being HREmperor/Shogunate), LD/debt management, minor events
Here we see fully cored States expect you to invest a lot more than other kinds of land for the benefits. There's the double coring cost, but also, states 'tie you down' in various ways, and if you turn them into anything else, the investment in the full cores is lost. States with territorial cores impose many of the same burdens, but it's a much more temporary and flexible burden as you can create/revoke them very cheaply and shuffle them around according to what you're trying to do. Subjects impose some burdens, mostly diplomatic; there's usually a limit to far you can go with them relative to your own power, but within this limit they're not a serious burden. Economy-wise they shouldn't cause problems (once the devs fix the economic AI, which is coming in 1.23) and there's no coring cost unless you choose to annex/integrate. Territories and TCs are cheap to core and don't impose any significant additional burdens.
Overall, it seems states are a rather mixed blessing in single player. (In MP it's different, as military power is king and expansion opportunities are much more limited.) They're certainly not ideal from an economic perspective, as TCs and CNs are better (on a per-development basis!) and cheaper. You probably want a few states for an adequate military, as you can't afford to rely too heavily on subjects, and for fine-tuning Estate loyalty/influence. But when you're expanding as a major power, the price of taking over land and turning it into fully cored states really makes you wonder if you're better off gaining some other kind of land instead. Especially as a European power, taking more states directly in Europe seems to be a dubious move compared to going on a conquering rampage in CN/TC land, and/or getting/feeding subjects (including the game of thrones/HRE magic). Even if you did want to have lots of States, you eventually run into the cap, whereas there's nothing stopping a generic country (with no particular CN-/TC-related specialization) owning the whole of India/China/SE Asia as trade companies, and having 12+ CNs own the entire New World.
Also notable: the strongest forms of land ownership from an economic perspective (tariffed CNs and TCs) are restricted to certain parts of the world, but also have an 'overseas' restriction, so effectively you are penalized economically on your home continent if your capital is in the New World or Asia (meaning you miss out on CNs and on most of the TCs, respectively). Bare Territory ownership isn't very rewarding, but you hopefully only resort to it when you've run out of better ways to gain land.
Any thoughts? Do you feel that fully cored states are really the heart of the country, or just one kind of land ownership that isn't even especially valuable?
Here are the six main kinds of land ownership, as I see it:
1. Bare territory (the 'default' form of ownership)
2. State with territorial core
3. State with full core
4. Trade Company
5. Colonial Nation
6. Owned by some other kind of subject (Vassal/March/Client State/PU junior)
Benefit of ownership (tax/production):
1: 25% 2: 50% 3: 100% (minus tax penalty if wrong culture)
4: ~0 tax, but 100% of production
5: can be over 100% with tariffs (if you deliberately dodge the treasure fleets, the CN will even amplify gold income and protect you from the inflation)
6: no production benefit; generally low tax benefit unless Scutage and/or special government/ideas
Benefit of ownership (trade):
1: 50%-100%* 2: 75%-100%* 3: 100% 4: 100%-200%*
5: 50% with no tariffs, but potentially well over 100% if you use tariff magic and let your CN collect on trade
6: 100% with Divert Trade
* the value of provincial trade power depends on how much competition you're facing
Benefit of ownership (military):
1: 25% 2: 50% 3: 100% (take some off all of these once you run out of accepted cultures)
4: essentially 0 (you just get a bit of naval force limit)
5: not much unless fighting in CN-land (although you do get some force limits I think)
6: varies depending on how efficiently you can shepherd the AI troops, but can be ~100% or higher if it's a subject with good military ideas
Miscellaneous benefits:
1: none
2,3: edicts, sometimes Estates do something good for the province (mainly in newly-cored provinces that would otherwise have high autonomy), certain special State mechanics (e.g. Banners)
4: bonus merchant(s), goods production bonus
5: bonus merchant(s), bonus to global trade power, can build/conquer stuff for you in the New World
6: extra generals, can make claims for you
What we see so far that TC and CN land overall has the potential to be economically better than State land from an economic perspective, while being mostly irrelevant from a military perspective (except in the New World); subjects can be better than State land from a military perspective (in SP at least, where you don't need such fine control of troops), while being fairly worthless from an income perspective; and Territories aren't worth much of anything (although states in territorial cores are a bit better). So far, States aren't really the best at anything but look decent for giving a combination of military and economic benefits. But now look at the costs of ownership:
Coring cost:
1,2: 50% 3: 100% 4: 50% 5,6: none
Religious unity/plurality burden:
1,2,3: Yes 4,5,6: No
Institutional embracement burden:
1: 25% 2: 50% 3: 100% 4: 100% (?) 5,6: none
Cultural burden (you have to worry about these provinces when changing culture):
3: Yes 1,2,4,5,6: No
Other costs/burdens:
1: none
2,3: state limit, state maintenance, estate/seat demands (can be very annoying for certain governments, e.g. Hordes and parliamentary governments)
4: some minor events
5: colonists (not necessarily: it's easy to conquer CNs off the AI for instance), possibly raising tariffs, LD/debt management, minor events
6: diplo slots (can be waived by being HREmperor/Shogunate), LD/debt management, minor events
Here we see fully cored States expect you to invest a lot more than other kinds of land for the benefits. There's the double coring cost, but also, states 'tie you down' in various ways, and if you turn them into anything else, the investment in the full cores is lost. States with territorial cores impose many of the same burdens, but it's a much more temporary and flexible burden as you can create/revoke them very cheaply and shuffle them around according to what you're trying to do. Subjects impose some burdens, mostly diplomatic; there's usually a limit to far you can go with them relative to your own power, but within this limit they're not a serious burden. Economy-wise they shouldn't cause problems (once the devs fix the economic AI, which is coming in 1.23) and there's no coring cost unless you choose to annex/integrate. Territories and TCs are cheap to core and don't impose any significant additional burdens.
Overall, it seems states are a rather mixed blessing in single player. (In MP it's different, as military power is king and expansion opportunities are much more limited.) They're certainly not ideal from an economic perspective, as TCs and CNs are better (on a per-development basis!) and cheaper. You probably want a few states for an adequate military, as you can't afford to rely too heavily on subjects, and for fine-tuning Estate loyalty/influence. But when you're expanding as a major power, the price of taking over land and turning it into fully cored states really makes you wonder if you're better off gaining some other kind of land instead. Especially as a European power, taking more states directly in Europe seems to be a dubious move compared to going on a conquering rampage in CN/TC land, and/or getting/feeding subjects (including the game of thrones/HRE magic). Even if you did want to have lots of States, you eventually run into the cap, whereas there's nothing stopping a generic country (with no particular CN-/TC-related specialization) owning the whole of India/China/SE Asia as trade companies, and having 12+ CNs own the entire New World.
Also notable: the strongest forms of land ownership from an economic perspective (tariffed CNs and TCs) are restricted to certain parts of the world, but also have an 'overseas' restriction, so effectively you are penalized economically on your home continent if your capital is in the New World or Asia (meaning you miss out on CNs and on most of the TCs, respectively). Bare Territory ownership isn't very rewarding, but you hopefully only resort to it when you've run out of better ways to gain land.
Any thoughts? Do you feel that fully cored states are really the heart of the country, or just one kind of land ownership that isn't even especially valuable?
.png){kind=avatar}
