But in this instance would the AI leave two provinces so that I may not gobble up the last one before it has a chance? I think not.
It might turn out that this does not happen too often though.
-
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 in this instance would the AI leave two provinces so that I may not gobble up the last one before it has a chance? I think not.
It might turn out that this does not happen too often though.
Okay, time for my history lesson, because I seem to be missing something.
I agree with the original premise of the thread that this one-province rule seems pretty lame. What I am questioning are the comments that the current game makes annexation through conquest too easy.
Did all of the small independent nations of Europe that existed in the year 1400 and which no longer existed in the year 1600 all disappear through royal marrigages and diplomatic annexations?
I think there's a diffence between continent-wide military conquest, such as examples given here about Napoleon, and the numerous conquests of smaller nations by their neighbors that forged larger nations.
I am wary of unbalancing things too far the other way, where military action rarely results in annexations, and diplo-annexations and dynastic inheritences are the most common ways the map is changed.
As a player, it is frustrating to see minor nation after minor nation being absorbed diplomatically when you have limited resources to compete diplomatically.
When I play as a catholic major nation, if I work at it, I can diplo-annex or inherit maybe 2-3, in some cases 4-5, smaller nations. Far fewer if I'm protestant. Yet, I am constantly surprised to see the computer players gobbling up so many minors through diplomacy.
How can an Orthodox nation grow if conquest is limited and diplomacy strengthened? Wouldn't the randomness of dynastic inheritences really unbalance the game, if the military option were curtailed?
I guess I haven't seen too many continent-wide expansions early in the game, and don't see the justification for "fixing" this problem.
I agree with the original premise of the thread that this one-province rule seems pretty lame. What I am questioning are the comments that the current game makes annexation through conquest too easy.
Did all of the small independent nations of Europe that existed in the year 1400 and which no longer existed in the year 1600 all disappear through royal marrigages and diplomatic annexations?
I think there's a diffence between continent-wide military conquest, such as examples given here about Napoleon, and the numerous conquests of smaller nations by their neighbors that forged larger nations.
I am wary of unbalancing things too far the other way, where military action rarely results in annexations, and diplo-annexations and dynastic inheritences are the most common ways the map is changed.
As a player, it is frustrating to see minor nation after minor nation being absorbed diplomatically when you have limited resources to compete diplomatically.
When I play as a catholic major nation, if I work at it, I can diplo-annex or inherit maybe 2-3, in some cases 4-5, smaller nations. Far fewer if I'm protestant. Yet, I am constantly surprised to see the computer players gobbling up so many minors through diplomacy.
How can an Orthodox nation grow if conquest is limited and diplomacy strengthened? Wouldn't the randomness of dynastic inheritences really unbalance the game, if the military option were curtailed?
I guess I haven't seen too many continent-wide expansions early in the game, and don't see the justification for "fixing" this problem.
I agree with the two or three province suggestion (I did vote for it after all!) Not a lot to add to tbat support..................
I'd also prefer that this limitation be limited to Europe (where the argument for it, while still fragmented by contrary examples, is at its' most persuasive.)
I'd also prefer that this limitation be limited to Europe (where the argument for it, while still fragmented by contrary examples, is at its' most persuasive.)
...er, maybe my last post was too much "pointlessly screaming about how poorly/well this rule models history ", sorry.
For the record, applying it only to nations of three provinces or more makes sense.
The "negative tax" idea is very interesting, and would seem to make sense as far as what it would take to actually assimilate an area into a new country. Maybe it wouldn't apply to provinces where you have a CB shield, or in EU2 terms, where you shared a common culture, but would in cases where there was a definite resistance to a new ruler?
As far as degredation of fortifications, a one level downgrade is acceptable, but it shouldn't be totally removed. As said previously, captured fortifications were very valuable and were the targets of conquests. In the new period added to the game, the English would not have been so difficult to run out of France if there were no captured French fortifications for the English to garrisson.
For the record, applying it only to nations of three provinces or more makes sense.
The "negative tax" idea is very interesting, and would seem to make sense as far as what it would take to actually assimilate an area into a new country. Maybe it wouldn't apply to provinces where you have a CB shield, or in EU2 terms, where you shared a common culture, but would in cases where there was a definite resistance to a new ruler?
As far as degredation of fortifications, a one level downgrade is acceptable, but it shouldn't be totally removed. As said previously, captured fortifications were very valuable and were the targets of conquests. In the new period added to the game, the English would not have been so difficult to run out of France if there were no captured French fortifications for the English to garrisson.
That'd even be a good thing. Instead of taking the annexatuon BB and relations hit someone else takes it for u? Now in çorder to get that province (if u want it in the first place) u just need to win a war against another nation and take a province. No relations hit and very low on BB.
As I've said before, the Inca are a bad example to give here as a nation annexed all at one time. Pizarro began the conquest of the Inca in 1531; he annexed much of it and vassalized the rest. But a vassal Inca state still existed until 1571! The Spanish didn't totally annex the Inca state until the revolt of Tupac Amaru against their rule a full 40 years after the beginning of the conquest. So the Inca are definitely not a good example to use when talkinga bout nations annexed all in one go...
shouldn't it be up to the player?
create a smaller vassal-states produces less bb than an annexation and less unrest, so why wouldn't it be a reasonable choice anyway - chosen by the player - where it was possible to annex a large nation totally the player should be discouraged from this course not by in game rules, but by the effects that this has on his stability (maybe the option includes a stab hit?) and his relations would stop him or if not, cause severe problems in his nation.
create a smaller vassal-states produces less bb than an annexation and less unrest, so why wouldn't it be a reasonable choice anyway - chosen by the player - where it was possible to annex a large nation totally the player should be discouraged from this course not by in game rules, but by the effects that this has on his stability (maybe the option includes a stab hit?) and his relations would stop him or if not, cause severe problems in his nation.
BTW, just to add some more info. A player can both take provinces from a country and vassalize the country. So you don't necessarily have to leave that last province independent.
Hmmm, that's interesting...............since although it did occasionally happen historically, this is surely more advantageous to the human player even given the "new, improved" AIs (and yes I do believe they're improved, but they won't be able to mattch a human's "creative judgement".)
I think this was mentioned in the original announcement though...........I'm trying to remember what's been said about military vassalisations as opposed to diplomatic vassalisations (there was yet another thread on it I think.
)
Originally posted by Agelastus
Hmmm, that's interesting...............since although it did occasionally happen historically, this is surely more advantageous to the human player even given the "new, improved" AIs (and yes I do believe they're improved, but they won't be able to mattch a human's "creative judgement".)
I think this was mentioned in the original announcement though...........I'm trying to remember what's been said about military vassalisations as opposed to diplomatic vassalisations (there was yet another thread on it I think.
I'm a bit sceptical of all these people claiming the AI is oh so great. Xure, it's improved but it's still human versus ai. Don't expect when starting with for example England they'll kick the living shit out of u.
I still like my idea best
Either that, or Sean and Anowack's (I think?) more explicit/less abstract ideas for the same thing.
If it is expensive to keep provinces occupied (either in money or troops) then there will be much greater pressure on a nation to accept peace, even if they are winning.
Also this won't prevent large nations from swallowing much smaller ones since the cost then won't be as high relative to their income.
If you march a 30,000 man army into a two province neutral to occupy it, it probably will have to surrender Trying to use that same army to occupy a 10 or 15 province nation would be much more difficult.
Annexation of a nation is such utter defeat that I have a hard time imaging any large nation accepting such a fate. They will cease to exist! Why would a monarch accept this unless there was no chance of them resisting at all?
The problem is there is little reason for a human (or AI for that matter) AI to accept anything less, other than badboy.
Oh yeah, the AI would have to be made a little more stubborn about accepting annexation proposals - perhaps that is already in EU2 though?
Either that, or Sean and Anowack's (I think?) more explicit/less abstract ideas for the same thing.
If it is expensive to keep provinces occupied (either in money or troops) then there will be much greater pressure on a nation to accept peace, even if they are winning.
Also this won't prevent large nations from swallowing much smaller ones since the cost then won't be as high relative to their income.
If you march a 30,000 man army into a two province neutral to occupy it, it probably will have to surrender Trying to use that same army to occupy a 10 or 15 province nation would be much more difficult.
Annexation of a nation is such utter defeat that I have a hard time imaging any large nation accepting such a fate. They will cease to exist! Why would a monarch accept this unless there was no chance of them resisting at all?
The problem is there is little reason for a human (or AI for that matter) AI to accept anything less, other than badboy.
Oh yeah, the AI would have to be made a little more stubborn about accepting annexation proposals - perhaps that is already in EU2 though?
The real problems is the whole concept of annexing other european countries: Milan? the last duke died whithout heir. Hungary? the last king died whithout heir. Bohemia? diplo-annexed by Hungary, the diet accepted the Habsburgs as rulers after the last king of Hungary died, _and_ the turks were advancing. Portugal? the king sebastian was dead whithout heir. Scotland? the queen (of England) died whithout heir...
Ireland? there was no king of Ireland... Genoa and Venice? disappeared in 1815 because they were republics, no need to restore them. Poland? there was no heir, as kings of Poland were elected. even Pomerania was annexed by Sweden only after the last duke died whithout heir.
Lorraine is an interesting case: The last duke married Maria Theresa of Austria, so his sons were to be HRE emperors! maybe in EU terms Austria diploannexed Lorraine and ceded it afterwards to France.
The bottom line is: you couldn´t strip your fellows kings, dukes, etc, of every province they owned.
The case of annexions between Islamic and Christian countries is less clear, but Spain at least preferred operating trough puppet rulers if possible, appointing friendly beys (?) in Algiers and Tunis, which could qualify as vassalization; Russia and Turkey seem to have had less scruples about annexing, but in the case of Russia maybe the majority of the population of those provinces was orthodox (do someone know any better?); Turkey did annex big chunks of catholic and orthodox territories, but later did change to supporting vassal states like Wallaquia and Moldavia (too high BB value?)
I don't know anything about sunnis and shiites... or islamic versus indian/pagan religions.
Ireland? there was no king of Ireland... Genoa and Venice? disappeared in 1815 because they were republics, no need to restore them. Poland? there was no heir, as kings of Poland were elected. even Pomerania was annexed by Sweden only after the last duke died whithout heir.
Lorraine is an interesting case: The last duke married Maria Theresa of Austria, so his sons were to be HRE emperors! maybe in EU terms Austria diploannexed Lorraine and ceded it afterwards to France.
The bottom line is: you couldn´t strip your fellows kings, dukes, etc, of every province they owned.
The case of annexions between Islamic and Christian countries is less clear, but Spain at least preferred operating trough puppet rulers if possible, appointing friendly beys (?) in Algiers and Tunis, which could qualify as vassalization; Russia and Turkey seem to have had less scruples about annexing, but in the case of Russia maybe the majority of the population of those provinces was orthodox (do someone know any better?); Turkey did annex big chunks of catholic and orthodox territories, but later did change to supporting vassal states like Wallaquia and Moldavia (too high BB value?
)I don't know anything about sunnis and shiites... or islamic versus indian/pagan religions.
I don't think further limit for seized provinces is the right way to more realistic model.
I think rather about increased maintenance cost for armies, harder "war exhaustion" factor and harder strongholds availaible to build in the beginning of the game period (In 15th century castles were already huge and till design of heavier cannons almost invincible). Strongholds' endurance should be balaced with technological level of land troops sieging it. It could be better not naming them by levels. Istead of it they should rather be: wooden fort (for colonies only, stone keep, stone castle, bastion, fortress, citadel etc. Technological advance could enable you to build more suitable updated fortifications, however you would be able to erect some smaller (for less money) if you want.
I think rather about increased maintenance cost for armies, harder "war exhaustion" factor and harder strongholds availaible to build in the beginning of the game period (In 15th century castles were already huge and till design of heavier cannons almost invincible). Strongholds' endurance should be balaced with technological level of land troops sieging it. It could be better not naming them by levels. Istead of it they should rather be: wooden fort (for colonies only
, stone keep, stone castle, bastion, fortress, citadel etc. Technological advance could enable you to build more suitable updated fortifications, however you would be able to erect some smaller (for less money) if you want.
I think a good way to limit expansion without hindering a player's strategic flexibility in determining how much to annex can be solved by a few things
(1) Every province you annex that is not the same culture as you will have triple the revolt risk.
(2) Each provinces (irregardless of culture) will give only a certain percentage of their tax value depending on the level of destruction that occurred during the occupation (looting level?) Over a period of time, say 30 years, this value will recover fully, however the player should be allowed to invest money in this province to recover the value more quickly.
(3) When a siege is won, the fort level should be diminished depending on the length of the siege. 1-3 months, no change, 4-8 momths - 1 level, 9-15 months - 2 levels, 16-24 months - 3 levels, and so on in whatever degree of time people feel is appropriate.
(4) It should cost a lot of money to garrison forts...i.e. in maintenance costs, and the garrison should be a slider, much like the army and navy sliders for maintenance costs.
(5) Non-annexed, controlled provinces should have a major revolt rate during the war. Maybe 25-50% depending on culture and CB shields and other things. This forces people to garrison conquests and not being able to blitzkrieg.
(7) A nationwide revolt risk of 1% should be imposed for every province annexed that is not of the same culture or religion as the mother country. This should come in the form of nationalism so that other effects can't neutralize it.
(9) During times of war, maintenance costs should be doubled or tripled. This should effectively make countries have short wars with limited objectives, like most wars of the time period, rather than vast periods of war with total conquest in mind.
(10) If a player is able to deal effectively with all these things and he still wants to annex, he should be able to, after all, everyone wants to conquer the world, and given these rules it would be fairly difficult to do so.
Finally, obviously these aren't perfect, and their are exceptions for every rule and point I've articulated, but anything beats a 1 province maximum annexation rate.
jbs
(1) Every province you annex that is not the same culture as you will have triple the revolt risk.
(2) Each provinces (irregardless of culture) will give only a certain percentage of their tax value depending on the level of destruction that occurred during the occupation (looting level?) Over a period of time, say 30 years, this value will recover fully, however the player should be allowed to invest money in this province to recover the value more quickly.
(3) When a siege is won, the fort level should be diminished depending on the length of the siege. 1-3 months, no change, 4-8 momths - 1 level, 9-15 months - 2 levels, 16-24 months - 3 levels, and so on in whatever degree of time people feel is appropriate.
(4) It should cost a lot of money to garrison forts...i.e. in maintenance costs, and the garrison should be a slider, much like the army and navy sliders for maintenance costs.
(5) Non-annexed, controlled provinces should have a major revolt rate during the war. Maybe 25-50% depending on culture and CB shields and other things. This forces people to garrison conquests and not being able to blitzkrieg.
(7) A nationwide revolt risk of 1% should be imposed for every province annexed that is not of the same culture or religion as the mother country. This should come in the form of nationalism so that other effects can't neutralize it.
(9) During times of war, maintenance costs should be doubled or tripled. This should effectively make countries have short wars with limited objectives, like most wars of the time period, rather than vast periods of war with total conquest in mind.
(10) If a player is able to deal effectively with all these things and he still wants to annex, he should be able to, after all, everyone wants to conquer the world, and given these rules it would be fairly difficult to do so.
Finally, obviously these aren't perfect, and their are exceptions for every rule and point I've articulated, but anything beats a 1 province maximum annexation rate.
jbs
To model army exhaustion/detoriation
As stated above, what usually sloved a conquerer until he had to stop was the (relatively) small amount of troops availible before the era of conscription. When a city fell it had to be garrisoned and some troops had to maintain supplylines, demand tribute from poor farmers(in order to supply the army) etc. The task of the garrisons wasn't only to stop the enemy from reconquering but also (and more important) to prevent/put down local uprisings.
If it hadn't been for this constant drain of troops from the field armies the swedish armies could have conquered Denmark as easilly as one can do in the game - beat their main army once and then march on from province to province.
Short term: Let the player at least have to PAY for the formerly free garrison that "pops up" when a city is taken.
Long term: -Garrison soldiers shall be taken from the field army (as in the BG)(maybe a certain percentage of the city's cannons could still be free - taken from enemy).
- Garrisons shall always (also in peace) have to be maintained the same way as field troops.
- In ordet to keep maintainence down (or for other reasons) one shall be able to destroy fortresses one control (your own or the enemys).
Mattias
As stated above, what usually sloved a conquerer until he had to stop was the (relatively) small amount of troops availible before the era of conscription. When a city fell it had to be garrisoned and some troops had to maintain supplylines, demand tribute from poor farmers(in order to supply the army) etc. The task of the garrisons wasn't only to stop the enemy from reconquering but also (and more important) to prevent/put down local uprisings.
If it hadn't been for this constant drain of troops from the field armies the swedish armies could have conquered Denmark as easilly as one can do in the game - beat their main army once and then march on from province to province.
Short term: Let the player at least have to PAY for the formerly free garrison that "pops up" when a city is taken.
Long term: -Garrison soldiers shall be taken from the field army (as in the BG)(maybe a certain percentage of the city's cannons could still be free - taken from enemy).
- Garrisons shall always (also in peace) have to be maintained the same way as field troops.
- In ordet to keep maintainence down (or for other reasons) one shall be able to destroy fortresses one control (your own or the enemys).
Mattias
Last edited:
blitzkriegs vs. minors obliteration
We are starting to treat two different themes, one being ahistorical blitzkriegs where armies conquer a great kingdom in one campaign, other ahistorical annexation of minors.
I favor the things that are being proposed as a mean to solve the first problem, but we still have to deal with the second. To annex countries in the way we do was unthinkable, that's why so many wars of the period are called "War of Succession of... you name it".
We are starting to treat two different themes, one being ahistorical blitzkriegs where armies conquer a great kingdom in one campaign, other ahistorical annexation of minors.
I favor the things that are being proposed as a mean to solve the first problem, but we still have to deal with the second. To annex countries in the way we do was unthinkable, that's why so many wars of the period are called "War of Succession of... you name it".
Re: blitzkriegs vs. minors obliteration
Unless EUII contains an as yet undisclosed dynastic model this type of war is not really possible - o.k. maybe some events could establish a CB if you have a RM with a country whose monarch dies - but that is real iffy as to whether that would even be triggered.
In general though, if we get too historic and stifle expansion it will cease to be a fun game simply because there is no other aspect of the game, with the possible exception of colonization, that is so absorbing as war. Maybe EUII has more to it as far as running your country and keeping your head above water but it would have to be quite a lot to make up for not being able to expand more than a few provinces in 400 years.
Unless EUII contains an as yet undisclosed dynastic model this type of war is not really possible - o.k. maybe some events could establish a CB if you have a RM with a country whose monarch dies - but that is real iffy as to whether that would even be triggered.
In general though, if we get too historic and stifle expansion it will cease to be a fun game simply because there is no other aspect of the game, with the possible exception of colonization, that is so absorbing as war. Maybe EUII has more to it as far as running your country and keeping your head above water but it would have to be quite a lot to make up for not being able to expand more than a few provinces in 400 years.
There are a lot of interesting ideas in the thread. If I might sumamrize, they fall into these categories
More Revolts
These are the only suggestions which I would strongly argue should not be in the game. There is simply such little precedent for nationalism, or partisans, that it it IMHO as artificial as the new annexation rule.
Curbing Blitzkrieg
Plenty of interesting ideas, from lowering the effectiveness of forts, deducting garrisons from the army, and general methods of making war realisticaly prohibitive to carry out.
Types of War
That dynastic claims to the throne should be the rare instances when annexation wars would not result in an annexation being repulsive to the other monarchies.
There are certainly a lot of good ideas here, my question is what's next? Is it worth narrowing and discussing items here, most of which have no shot of being incorporated into a patch, as they would require re-modelling much of the existing game.
More Revolts
These are the only suggestions which I would strongly argue should not be in the game. There is simply such little precedent for nationalism, or partisans, that it it IMHO as artificial as the new annexation rule.
Curbing Blitzkrieg
Plenty of interesting ideas, from lowering the effectiveness of forts, deducting garrisons from the army, and general methods of making war realisticaly prohibitive to carry out.
Types of War
That dynastic claims to the throne should be the rare instances when annexation wars would not result in an annexation being repulsive to the other monarchies.
There are certainly a lot of good ideas here, my question is what's next? Is it worth narrowing and discussing items here, most of which have no shot of being incorporated into a patch, as they would require re-modelling much of the existing game.