Change the Legacy of Alexander wars so that a province only flips once all its territories are occupied.

[WillemDeZwijger]

In most cases this effectively means sieging the capital and waiting for the automatic occupation; in the meantime it would just be occupied like in regular wars.
This prevents a lot of bordergore (I think we've all seen what happens when the Egyptian and Seleucid invasion armies meet each other in Syria), it removes carpet sieging from the equation, and is more intuitively similar to 'normal' wars.
As it stands now forts and capitals are simply territories which take longer to flip rather than the crucial war goals they should be.

Some other implications:
- It gives the defender a way to contest a province by keeping an army in it which has to be beaten away first
- Reduces possibly tedious territory flipping by that one little levy stack you can't seem to catch.
- In cases where occupation is split (e.g. Egypt has some territories, Seleucus some others and the capital) the province should flip to the power holding the capital.

 

[thibeault]

I like it, seems like a band-aid to the current situation. But the other thing that causes border gore is, transferring the land to the war leader no matter what. As long as that stands, border gore will happen. You beat Macedon with Antigonids but you can't form Macedon yourself, because somewhere, literally anywhere there can be a territory that flipped to Macedon in a war.

Just in general when a nation that is tied to a region loses that region, they should lose the tag and you should be able to form said nation.
Take Macedon for example: I am playing Epirus, I take all of Macedon but I can't proceed with my mission tree because
Macedon is in Phrygia thanks to the alexander CB. Maybe me and Macedon get a special CB or claim on each other.
For most 1 and 2 tier nations (Egypt is another prime example) this should be the case.
Tier 3 nations should probably just explode when they lose their home regions Persia for example.

 

[Nostalgium]

Just in general when a nation that is tied to a region loses that region, they should lose the tag and you should be able to form said nation.
Take Macedon for example: I am playing Epirus, I take all of Macedon but I can't proceed with my mission tree because
Macedon is in Phrygia thanks to the alexander CB. Maybe me and Macedon get a special CB or claim on each other.
For most 1 and 2 tier nations (Egypt is another prime example) this should be the case.
Tier 3 nations should probably just explode when they lose their home regions Persia for example.

Since Persia can be formed by a huge number of people and covers a vast amount of land, it's difficult to define where the "home region" is TBH. Is it Babylon, where the capital can be? Is it Media Felix? Is it Persis? Bithniya-et-Paphlagonia, if you formed with the the Achaemenids and didn't move capital? I'd rather argue that certain nations (the Diadochi for example) shouldn't actually be tied to a region, but instead be "Antipatrid Kingdom" or something, like the Antigonids and Seleukids are. ESPECIALLY Egypt. For Persia, I'd also really like a "[Dynasty Name] Empire" name. In fact I'd like that for a lot of eastern Empires, where if you take the "Imperial Ambition" decision, you change name (if not neccessarily tag) to "[Dynasty Name] Empire". It felt kind of wrong to still be "Pontus" when I stretched from Moldovia to Persis, and not, say, the "Mithridatic Empire".

 

[WillemDeZwijger]

@Arheo Any chance you could comment on whether you think this suggestion is workable/desireable or not?
I've noticed it has accumulated quite a few votes and it seems to solve a bunch of issues, but since it hasn't been implemented yet I assume there's something we're overlooking here from our armchairs.

 

[thibeault]

Since Persia can be formed by a huge number of people and covers a vast amount of land, it's difficult to define where the "home region" is TBH. Is it Babylon, where the capital can be? Is it Media Felix? Is it Persis? Bithniya-et-Paphlagonia, if you formed with the the Achaemenids and didn't move capital? I'd rather argue that certain nations (the Diadochi for example) shouldn't actually be tied to a region, but instead be "Antipatrid Kingdom" or something, like the Antigonids and Seleukids are. ESPECIALLY Egypt. For Persia, I'd also really like a "[Dynasty Name] Empire" name. In fact I'd like that for a lot of eastern Empires, where if you take the "Imperial Ambition" decision, you change name (if not neccessarily tag) to "[Dynasty Name] Empire". It felt kind of wrong to still be "Pontus" when I stretched from Moldovia to Persis, and not, say, the "Mithridatic Empire".

If you fulfill the conditions to form Persia, granted whit out border gore, you are in control of all of it. But I do like the idea of having a more ck style of empire building when you hit great and then major power. Especially in the Persian region or for the Germans who didn't really unify. Perhaps make somewhat culture bound, to those that don't already have legacy's established?

 

[Nostalgium]

If you fulfill the conditions to form Persia, granted whit out border gore, you are in control of all of it. But I do like the idea of having a more ck style of empire building when you hit great and then major power. Especially in the Persian region or for the Germans who didn't really unify. Perhaps make somewhat culture bound, to those that don't already have legacy's established?

That's my point though - when have you conquered the "core region" that should make the power explode? To take a famous example - Rome didn't explode when it lost Italy. If I reunited the Achaemenid Empire from Heraklea Pontika and built up my capital and powerbase in, say, Syria, and the Parthians conquered away the traditional Persian Empire, but I still held on to Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt, should my empire arbitrarily explode because I lost Persia, even though my capital and seat of power resided in the west? Of course, this example is slightly flawed because Parthia cannot form Persia, but pretend that they could - obviously that formation shouldn't cause my own empire to splinter. Rather, they would've established a new Empire to compete with my own, and you'd have the Achaemenid Empire in the west fighting the Artaxid Empire in the east.

And when I say [Dynasty Name] Empires, I don't mean CK-style. I literally just mean a rebranding of the tags, so that your on-map name is dynastic, rather than "Egypt" or "Pontus" or "Persia" in cases where it is culturally relevant. Obviously you don't want Rome to rebrand into the Julian Empire or something.

 

[thibeault]

That's my point though - when have you conquered the "core region" that should make the power explode? To take a famous example - Rome didn't explode when it lost Italy. If I reunited the Achaemenid Empire from Heraklea Pontika and built up my capital and powerbase in, say, Syria, and the Parthians conquered away the traditional Persian Empire, but I still held on to Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt, should my empire arbitrarily explode because I lost Persia, even though my capital and seat of power resided in the west? Of course, this example is slightly flawed because Parthia cannot form Persia, but pretend that they could - obviously that formation shouldn't cause my own empire to splinter. Rather, they would've established a new Empire to compete with my own, and you'd have the Achaemenid Empire in the west fighting the Artaxid Empire in the east.

You're right there it should check if you still are still powerful and or even functional, but if you have only a few provinces spread all over the place you really shouldn't be able to maintain central authority. Macedon for example they fall to the Antigonids with provinces spread all around some they got from splitting the Antigonid realm, they should really not be able to claim to be Macedon. but this more for the ai than the player, a player can usually recover if there is any ai nations around.

And when I say [Dynasty Name] Empires, I don't mean CK-style. I literally just mean a rebranding of the tags, so that your on-map name is dynastic, rather than "Egypt" or "Pontus" or "Persia" in cases where it is culturally relevant. Obviously you don't want Rome to rebrand into the Julian Empire or something.

That is why you should have the option to found a new empire for example Parthia (but I don't know what the relation is between all those Persian empires, so this may not be a valid example) or claim the legacy of an old one like the Antigonids did in Macedon, as in ck.

 

[omega20056]

I forget, does Imperator have cores? I always liked how CK2 treats de jure land. For example, if you're fighting Bulgaria and you take enough of it, you can usurp the title for yourself.

 

[Bovrick]

I forget, does Imperator have cores? I always liked how CK2 treats de jure land. For example, if you're fighting Bulgaria and you take enough of it, you can usurp the title for yourself.

It does not, it just has claims. I don't miss cores and I would be happy to see the claims system go too.

 

[vyshan]

It does not, it just has claims. I don't miss cores and I would be happy to see the claims system go too.

And replaced with what?