Constructive criticism and alternatives to the max 1 province annexation rule

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by pithorr
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.

Trouble with increased maintenance costs is that this is a symmetric solution - the aggressee suffers from it as much as the aggressor, and the aggressee is the one most likely to run out of money first as his provinces start getting occupied.

So this won't do much at all except make sure that the battles are fought with smaller armies.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by sean9898
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.

Currently I'm most concerned with making it difficult to do. Suggestions of the types in (a) and (c) concentrate on trying to make it not worth it to annex nations (whether because of badboy or limited value), but I don't know if that will really discourage people.

The reward of conquering certain nations just to remove the thorn from your side is probably great enough, and badboy is unreliable as a deterent.

 

[unmerged(485)]

What if every year your BB rating got subtracted from your score?

Don't really think that would deter too many world conquerers. And certainly would not prevent annexations of one province minors. Oh well, sometimes these thing just pop into my head and I type them up before thinking about them.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Alatriste
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.

Actually, even Lorraine follows the pattern. The Habsburgs gave it to the ex-king of Poland, who also happened to be Louis XV's father-in-law. When the duke died, Lorraine was simply inherited by France.

 

[Duuk]

Rather than force Paradox to completely recode garrison cost and such, I think a very simple solution is to make fortesses not defend any province which is "occupied by" and to make any "occupied" province revert to the original owner if there are no enemy troops in the province. This means if you want to conquer Poland, you need 30 small to medium sized armies moving around, otherwise your supply lines will be cut by the locals so fast your head will spin. Obviously this doesn't do anything when you're at war with Lorraine, but it solves the "annexing majors" rule fairly quickly. I don't know about you, but whaT I've read about the new army size limits tells me I'm not going to have an army big enough to occupy and HOLD all of France at one shot. As a matter of fact, I probably won't be able to hold Spain, which is my favorite tactic as France. "Resistance on Iberia has ended" will become a MUCH more costly phrase for me to say.

Duuk

 

[Secret Master]

I am very intruiged by the ideas I have read in this thread regarding garrisons. They mirror a discussion that was had many moons ago on the same subject. In short, the last time this was discussed, it was generally agreed with that the reason we could wage war so good when we played EU was the free garrison you get when you sack a fortress. This encourges offensive warfare, since you can in the long run, if I occupy your provinces faster than you do mine, I cut off your tax base and ability to raise armies. Since I have free garrisons, if your country has been almost completely occupied, the loser in this regard has less chance of ever making a comeback. It also means I can have my army march all over Europe, sakcing provinces left and right, and only worry about attrition losses. Even worse, when fortresses get to levels 5 and 6, that is almost 30,000 free troops plus 60 free cannon you get when you sack the fortress! This leads to assaults being more common than was historical, because even if you destroy your 50,000 man and 200 cannon army sacking Paris, you get the full garrison there once you win, along with the negotiatiing leverage.

Considering the way the engine has been created in EU and EU2, we were unable to come up with any good solutions that did not involve completely redoing the entire military part of the game engine. the best we came up with was forcing players to pay army maintenance of all fortresses owned, including having a cost based on the size of the fortress. This would do two things at once: first, it makes it that much more difficult to turn your country into Fortress Europa without putting the brakes on research. Second, if you add a clause that forces you to pay army maintenance on sacked fortresses during a war, it makes it progressivly more expensive to occupy a country during a long war. If this was combined with the sustainable army limit in the game, it might at least penalize players in a limited sense for the war years during which they occupy entire countries.

Since I have not played the game, Id have to ask a beta-tester how garrisons and fortresses are related to army maintenance, if at all. Id also like to reiterate that since most of us have not played the game, most of what we are doing is speculation.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Secret Master
I am very intruiged by the ideas I have read in this thread regarding garrisons. They mirror a discussion that was had many moons ago on the same subject. In short, the last time this was discussed, it was generally agreed with that the reason we could wage war so good when we played EU was the free garrison you get when you sack a fortress. This encourges offensive warfare, since you can in the long run, if I occupy your provinces faster than you do mine, I cut off your tax base and ability to raise armies. Since I have free garrisons, if your country has been almost completely occupied, the loser in this regard has less chance of ever making a comeback. It also means I can have my army march all over Europe, sakcing provinces left and right, and only worry about attrition losses. Even worse, when fortresses get to levels 5 and 6, that is almost 30,000 free troops plus 60 free cannon you get when you sack the fortress! This leads to assaults being more common than was historical, because even if you destroy your 50,000 man and 200 cannon army sacking Paris, you get the full garrison there once you win, along with the negotiatiing leverage.

Considering the way the engine has been created in EU and EU2, we were unable to come up with any good solutions that did not involve completely redoing the entire military part of the game engine. the best we came up with was forcing players to pay army maintenance of all fortresses owned, including having a cost based on the size of the fortress. This would do two things at once: first, it makes it that much more difficult to turn your country into Fortress Europa without putting the brakes on research. Second, if you add a clause that forces you to pay army maintenance on sacked fortresses during a war, it makes it progressivly more expensive to occupy a country during a long war. If this was combined with the sustainable army limit in the game, it might at least penalize players in a limited sense for the war years during which they occupy entire countries.

Since I have not played the game, Id have to ask a beta-tester how garrisons and fortresses are related to army maintenance, if at all. Id also like to reiterate that since most of us have not played the game, most of what we are doing is speculation.

Bingo! That is exactly what I was trying to suggest, though you did it somewhat more lucidly

IMO it will go a long way towards curtailing aggressive wars. It won't help one or two province minors much unless they are part of a much larger alliance.

I really hope something like this will make it into a patch.

 

[Achiles]

You people have come up with some great ideas on how to fix this problem foe EU3! No way the changes alot of you are proposing are EVER gonna fit on a patch for EUII. Because EUII has gone gold so any fixes from now on will have to come out in a patch. How about this very reasonable, simple solution that will definately be able to be put in a patch.

Allow the player to turn the rule on or off in the in the options screen. I would also like to see them bump the limit up to two.

That would fix the whole problem. But considering this solution is the simplest, most workable solution that is garaunteed to fix the problem for EUII it will probablt get ignored by you guys. Then again there is always EU3. So for EU3's sake don't end the discussion.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Achiles
You people have come up with some great ideas on how to fix this problem foe EU3! No way the changes alot of you are proposing are EVER gonna fit on a patch for EUII. Because EUII has gone gold so any fixes from now on will have to come out in a patch. How about this very reasonable, simple solution that will definately be able to be put in a patch.

Allow the player to turn the rule on or off in the in the options screen. I would also like to see them bump the limit up to two.

That would fix the whole problem. But considering this solution is the simplest, most workable solution that is garaunteed to fix the problem for EUII it will probablt get ignored by you guys. Then again there is always EU3. So for EU3's sake don't end the discussion.

Unfortunately that won't fix the problem at all. All that will do is create a branch - two games that paradox will have to maintain/balance instead of one.

Possibly they could say turning the 1 province annex rule off is unsupported and then it is your problem if they do it, but that is still less than ideal.

Also you miss the point that a lot of us who support the 1-province annexation do so with reservations, only because it is probably a lesser evil than not having anything. We would still like to see some other solution that models the issues better.

You may be right that this won't come out in a patch, but you may also be wrong. The badboy implementation came out in a patch, and I would think that would be a pretty huge change, probably bigger than required for some of these suggestions.

 

[Achiles]

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. Maybe I just like to try and find the simpler, quicker solution if possible. Maybe there isn't one. We will just have to wait and see.

 

[State Machine]

Just an aside.

It does not matter what the rule is, an "on/off" switch is not a small change. Satan alludes to one problem with it. Problems with on/off:
1) Depending on how the program code is organized, this might not be simple. A number of changes may be necessary. These changes cost a lot of time. Further, usually making something an option is more work than doing it one way or another.
2) Any programming change requires many hours of testing, and many more hours of beta testing (since the beta is active), not counting the actual programming time. At this point in a software project. Programmer/tester time is only given to critical problems (not this one - CTD and fundimental problems are the emphasis), and "high value" changes (this one, maybe).
3) As Satan said, an on/off type rule, effectively creates two different games. Now, when problems are reported with the game, it becomes relevant to know whether an option was "on" or "off". This, significantly, increases the amount of time spent figuring out problems.

So, to put this in the context of the discussion. Changing the limit to 2 or 3 provinces is much more likely to be chosen as a solution than making it optional. In fact, changing the limit is pretty easy (though, again, there is all that time to test). And, let's not forget about balancing the game. A solution may "work", but making sure that it works for this scenario, that scenario, withstands 400 years of gameplay, etc. is another matter all together.

The best solution is something that is easy to do, easy to test, and easy to balance.

 

[Achiles]

Personally I care not wether they make the rule optional. I have no problem with the rule except for the number of provinces. I would be perfectly pleased if they just bumped the limit up to 2 although 3 would be fine as well. I get the feeling alot of people are upset about the number of provinces a country can have to military annex. So i think they are probably just going to bump the limit up a bit as that seems to be the simplest, quikest solution that is likely to please the most people. Anyway goodnight!

 

[unmerged(5934)]

It's good to know that Lorraine follows the general pattern. I would like to know about Navarre, I think that the king of Navarre really had more territories in France than south of the Pyrenees, but as duke, not king.

A dynastic model would be nice, but the change in the game would be very great, and a random event should work well - 'the king of xxxxx has died in battle leaving no heir' (Hungary) or 'the king of aaaaaa is going to die whithout sons!' (Spain), or even 'the queen of bbbbbb can't have childs' (England). The effect of the event could consist in a generous distribution of casus belli and a reduction of BB value due to annexions. In some cases it should mean war, even if no one really wants it!

 

[pithorr]

Originally posted by satan
Trouble with increased maintenance costs is that this is a symmetric solution - the aggressee suffers from it as much as the aggressor, and the aggressee is the one most likely to run out of money first as his provinces start getting occupied.

So this won't do much at all except make sure that the battles are fought with smaller armies.

Defender needs smaller army. Fortifications were built to help him. It would be a fine idea to improve their importance in the game. I also think that the number of troops needed to enter the province should be increased in all levels of strongholds.

 

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Secret Master
... The best we came up with was forcing players to pay army maintenance of all fortresses owned, including having a cost based on the size of the fortress. This would do two things at once: first, it makes it that much more difficult to turn your country into Fortress Europa without putting the brakes on research. Second, if you add a clause that forces you to pay army maintenance on sacked fortresses during a war, it makes it progressivly more expensive to occupy a country during a long war. If this was combined with the sustainable army limit in the game, it might at least penalize players in a limited sense for the war years during which they occupy entire countries.

Good solution (hope maintenance is quite easy to change )

Mattias

 

[celedhring]

The paying for garrissons is a very good solution, excellent I think. Many armies didn't retain its conquests because they could not afford leaving garrisons in their newly conquested cities and preferred to take the enemy's capitol to force a favourable peace (which could include some small chunk of land). I vote a big YES for this solution: simple, historical and efficient.

 

[unmerged(598)]

State Machine, you make an excellent point, especially that if the AI is finished, and the game balanced with the annexation rule in place, even making it optional means a whole lot of testing.

Looking at the poll, aside from the 5% who want the rule to stay in place, and 14% who are prepared to wait and see, it looks like an overwhelming majority in favor of change.

Of course, no one agrees what the change might be

Is any action going to be taken on this issue?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Secret Master
......

Considering the way the engine has been created in EU and EU2, we were unable to come up with any good solutions that did not involve completely redoing the entire military part of the game engine.....

......

I don't have the privelege to know how the engine in EUII works but a reasonable solution would have been to treat a fortress as an immobile army. Once you capture a fortress you garrison it just as you would reorganize armies and assign however many inf/cav/art from your army to the garrison. This would mean that you would have to deplete your army by the amount of garrison you want in order to maintain possession of a province. The fortress level could act as a multiplier to the strength (and maybe morale) of the garrison. And of course the fortress would be limited to their capacity (as ships are). So most of the mechanics are already in EU.

This would not prevent the annexation of small countries, but would certainly make it more difficult to take a large country in one war.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Duuk
Rather than force Paradox to completely recode garrison cost and such, I think a very simple solution is to make fortesses not defend any province which is "occupied by" and to make any "occupied" province revert to the original owner if there are no enemy troops in the province.
Duuk

Makes sense and sounds simple enough. There might be some debate as to how large a force you would need (is it a set number, is it based on population of province (that is, it should be much easier to hold Iceland than Zeeland), etc.) but that could easily be worked out.

But how far along is the game? Are we at the point where it's just bug checks and working on cover art, or can some of these good ideas be implemented?

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Alatriste
It's good to know that Lorraine follows the general pattern. I would like to know about Navarre, I think that the king of Navarre really had more territories in France than south of the Pyrenees, but as duke, not king.

Yes, Spanish Navarre was annexed, militarily, by Ferdinand of Aragon (of Ferdinand and Isabella fame) but French Navarre (Bearn etc.) remained to the Navarrese Royal family but as French lands, eventually being joined to the Royal Demesne when Henry of Navarre became king.

EU2 probably won't be able to simulate that situation all that well............but then, neither do they appear to be simulating fifteenth century France all that well, but that's a pet peeve of mine, so-wrong thread.