-
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.
Bib, I don't know of you are joking, but prohibiting complete annexion of states of your same religion whithout some kind of 'no heirs' event would be historically correct. It wasn't done, not even between catholic and protestant states, before Napoleon. At least I know of no example...
Ireland- four provinces in EU- was mil annexed by England.
Though in truth, they were really dozens of less-than-one-province countires, and some were diplo-annexed
Also, Spain mil annexing Axtecs and Incas, USA mil annexing Iroquois, etc, etc
Though in truth, they were really dozens of less-than-one-province countires, and some were diplo-annexed
Also, Spain mil annexing Axtecs and Incas, USA mil annexing Iroquois, etc, etc
Deaghaidh, I said 'of your same religion'. It was no problem annexing pagans, muslims, etc, states, and it was a lesser problem annexing a country whithout king-duke-marquiss-etc, like Ireland or Poland when it was annexed in 1790 (not sure about the exact year) but note that both Poland and Ireland annexions did origin conflicts that were never really solved.
I have been scratching my head for an example before Napoleon, and I finally found one: Albrecht Von Wallenstein was made duke of Mecklemburg during the 30 Years War, ejecting the previous ruling family, but the results were far from encouraging: in EU terms the BB value gained by Austria was such as to turn a 'german' war that was almost gained into a very ugly general european conflict, and a few years later the old dukes returned to Mecklemburg when the swedish armies occupied it, while Wallenstein was from then until his murder a living problem.
I have been scratching my head for an example before Napoleon, and I finally found one: Albrecht Von Wallenstein was made duke of Mecklemburg during the 30 Years War, ejecting the previous ruling family, but the results were far from encouraging: in EU terms the BB value gained by Austria was such as to turn a 'german' war that was almost gained into a very ugly general european conflict, and a few years later the old dukes returned to Mecklemburg when the swedish armies occupied it, while Wallenstein was from then until his murder a living problem.
(Later) Why, then, would I make war to the smaller countries, if I'm not going to annex them? To impose your will, and make them follow your orders. In other words, to vassalize them, to make them allow free pass to your armies, to avoid them helping your enemies, even to exact money from them (although even in the XVI century wars were starting to be too expensive for them to be really profitable in pure economic terms). And always, to gain Victory Points!
I understand that this concept would 'wreck' the game for many people, but couldn´t it be implemented as an optional rule?
I understand that this concept would 'wreck' the game for many people, but couldn´t it be implemented as an optional rule?
Originally posted by State Machine
It may or may not be easy to implement. But software development is a process that has "phases" where the approach to what is or is not done is very predictable. Sorry, I am looking for words that are not jargon, as I've been immersed in software development from being a programmer through being a manager (and in general overall guru) for 23 years.
When EU II was announced, Paradox had already established the features that would be in it, and how those features would work. However, it was possible that some really good ideas might get adopted. Similarly, if things were not working right (even though they were programmed to the design specification), then certainly ideas would be acceptable. This marked the phase of development that occurred until shortly before going gold. Throughout the whole process, but definitely shortly before going gold, the reasoning of the developers (Paradox) changed to only make changes that can be delivered to have an acceptable gold version. Now that it is gold, there might be more acceptance of ideas since the new deadline is the major release for early next year. This paragraph is solely my interpretation of what policies Paradox probably followed, based on the way all software development projects work. No one from Paradox has said this any of this.
In this context, a few very good ideas have been incorporated into EU II from this forum. Similarly, some good ideas have been put into EU II from the beta testers. In fact, several beta testers have done incredible work in developing some great events that have been put into the game. But, even though Paradox may be more open to ideas right now, "new" features are very unlikely to be adopted. So to the problem being discussed, solutions that are very close to how the game already works are much more likely to be adopted than solutions that are "new", regardless of the apparent effort required to code the solution.
Blah, blah, blah. I know that I am droning on. Something new also requires more effort in evaluating it compared to its affect on the whole game, and much more testing to make sure it really is compatible to the whole game. It comes down to risk. Change is evaluated by how much risk is involved in making the change. Right now, only low risk alternatives will be considered.
End, of endless software development mantra rant.
All understood (and you could have used jargon if you wanted, I'm a software engineer - or I was, I guess I'm a project manager now).
I was thinking that if people are unhappy enough (as they seem to be) something radical might make it in, e.g. badboy.
Hello. I have been convinced by the arguments on this thread that annexation (inside Europe or your own religion) should be much more difficult than in EU1. Here's one way of doing it, following suggestions of sean9898 and Alatriste. I would like to hear what those with more knowledge of history than me think the details should be.
Why not add a relation "claim to throne" (CT) that can hold between countries in the same way as a CB.
Any annexation without a CT leads to unthinkable diplomatic, badboy and stability penalties. Any annexation gives a CB to every country with a CT on the country annexed.
CTs are gained by
-Events. In particular a dynasty dying out gives CTs to all of a country's neighbours. This might mean physical neighbours, those of the same religion, or those with close diplomatic links (RMs).
-As a diplomatic option, in return for a large amount of money. This will not give a CT immediately, but only after thirty years/after the current king dies. This will only work for small countries with no other hope of survival.
-Neighbours can claim CTs when a country has been at -3 stability for more than eight years.
-You get automatic CTs on your revolters.
-Give CTs mutually as a super RM. Maybe such a situation should amplify future changes in relations, whether good or bad, since the stakes are higher.
And for extra complexity:
-You can gain a CT on a country if you can persuade sufficiently many of its neighbours to accept your claim, either through diplomacy or as an option in a peace. Alternatively, good relations with and a large donation to the papacy will do the trick. Again, this comes into force after thirty years. Maybe it could be modelled as a success in a dice roll against relations.
You can give up a CT to improve relations, or for money, or in a peace deal. This will be the main goal of a revolter in a war of independence. And so on.
I think that something like this would add to the gameplay, by requiring clever diplomacy for successful annexations, as well as brute force. For a rampaging game, convert to paganism or declare yourself head of your own church to opt out of the system and run riot.
Now for my on-topic suggestion for a possible EUII patch: unthinkable penalties for any annexation within your own community, unless you have a CB shield on the relevant capital. Combine this with manipulation of CB shields by events, and automatic revolt risks in conquered capitals. Possibly the penalties should decrease over the course of the game.
Why not add a relation "claim to throne" (CT) that can hold between countries in the same way as a CB.
Any annexation without a CT leads to unthinkable diplomatic, badboy and stability penalties. Any annexation gives a CB to every country with a CT on the country annexed.
CTs are gained by
-Events. In particular a dynasty dying out gives CTs to all of a country's neighbours. This might mean physical neighbours, those of the same religion, or those with close diplomatic links (RMs).
-As a diplomatic option, in return for a large amount of money. This will not give a CT immediately, but only after thirty years/after the current king dies. This will only work for small countries with no other hope of survival.
-Neighbours can claim CTs when a country has been at -3 stability for more than eight years.
-You get automatic CTs on your revolters.
-Give CTs mutually as a super RM. Maybe such a situation should amplify future changes in relations, whether good or bad, since the stakes are higher.
And for extra complexity:
-You can gain a CT on a country if you can persuade sufficiently many of its neighbours to accept your claim, either through diplomacy or as an option in a peace. Alternatively, good relations with and a large donation to the papacy will do the trick. Again, this comes into force after thirty years. Maybe it could be modelled as a success in a dice roll against relations.
You can give up a CT to improve relations, or for money, or in a peace deal. This will be the main goal of a revolter in a war of independence. And so on.
I think that something like this would add to the gameplay, by requiring clever diplomacy for successful annexations, as well as brute force. For a rampaging game, convert to paganism or declare yourself head of your own church to opt out of the system and run riot.
Now for my on-topic suggestion for a possible EUII patch: unthinkable penalties for any annexation within your own community, unless you have a CB shield on the relevant capital. Combine this with manipulation of CB shields by events, and automatic revolt risks in conquered capitals. Possibly the penalties should decrease over the course of the game.
Something like that would work, Pishtaco. I specially like the idea of adding a huge stability hit. After all, if you are so power-hungry that ruthlessly destroy whole countries, what woudn't you do to your own nobles...?
[edited to correct my grammar]
[edited to correct my grammar]
Last edited:
Heartily seconded (thirded?), Pishtaco! Sounds like this would curb annexations in an acceptable/historical manner, and would be relatively easy to implement (as opposed to an actual dynastical system). Hopefully the Paradox folks are still taking suggestions for future patches/sequels from this thread.
-pjm
-pjm
Historical annexations
The number of EU provinces in West-central Europa that changed hands through other means than a legal hereditary claim in European history between 1419 and the first partition of Poland was:
The territroial rationalisaiton of Northern Italy until 1454, with Venice taking Verona.
Artois, Gelres (Geldern, for crying out loud), Lorraine and Alsace, taken as pawn for loans by Charles the Rash of Burgundy in the 1470s, returned to their proprietors in 1477.
Milan, conquered by the Swiss in 1515 (or thereabouts) sold by them to France but restored after the French defeat by the Emperor.
Württemberg, conquered by the Emperor in 1522, restored in 1555.
Norway (five provinces) to Demark in 1536.
The Bohemian Crown (5 provines) to Austria 1620.
Livonia to Sweden in 1629.
Jämtland and Gotland to Sweden in 1645
Skåne (Scania) to Sweden in 1658
Bremen and Hither Pomerania to Sweden, Magdeburg to Brandenburg and Alsace to France in 1648, at the peace of Westphalia.
Rousillon and Artois to France, 1659
Franch-Comte to France 1679
Silesia to Prussia in 1744.
There were of course transfers of territory at a scale to small for the map, in particular in the 15th Century. Very few of the provinces of the HRE on the map have any but a remote and indirect relationship to 15th Centry reality. They make sens ein a 17th, but not 15th Centry context. In the 15th Century they were in the making just like France.
The one province annexation rule of EUII makes perfect sense for Europe at least. The political geography of Europe changed only marginally in terms of EU provinces between the 15th and the late 18th Century and remarkably few territories changed hands as a result of conquest.
The major dynamic force was the dynastic network with its claims to and occasional transfers of territory. The Hohenzollern of Brandenburg inherited the EU provinces of Eastern Prussia and Memel, Pomerania and Cleves.
Wars occured because of conflicting herditary claims and possession was nine points of the law and the individual territory of course ran itself regardless of who was its lord.
As war did feed war, the occupying power should be able to maintain at least as large an army in any particular province as its rightful owner and the province should pay the maintenace cost of the army as well.
The number of EU provinces in West-central Europa that changed hands through other means than a legal hereditary claim in European history between 1419 and the first partition of Poland was:
The territroial rationalisaiton of Northern Italy until 1454, with Venice taking Verona.
Artois, Gelres (Geldern, for crying out loud), Lorraine and Alsace, taken as pawn for loans by Charles the Rash of Burgundy in the 1470s, returned to their proprietors in 1477.
Milan, conquered by the Swiss in 1515 (or thereabouts) sold by them to France but restored after the French defeat by the Emperor.
Württemberg, conquered by the Emperor in 1522, restored in 1555.
Norway (five provinces) to Demark in 1536.
The Bohemian Crown (5 provines) to Austria 1620.
Livonia to Sweden in 1629.
Jämtland and Gotland to Sweden in 1645
Skåne (Scania) to Sweden in 1658
Bremen and Hither Pomerania to Sweden, Magdeburg to Brandenburg and Alsace to France in 1648, at the peace of Westphalia.
Rousillon and Artois to France, 1659
Franch-Comte to France 1679
Silesia to Prussia in 1744.
There were of course transfers of territory at a scale to small for the map, in particular in the 15th Century. Very few of the provinces of the HRE on the map have any but a remote and indirect relationship to 15th Centry reality. They make sens ein a 17th, but not 15th Centry context. In the 15th Century they were in the making just like France.
The one province annexation rule of EUII makes perfect sense for Europe at least. The political geography of Europe changed only marginally in terms of EU provinces between the 15th and the late 18th Century and remarkably few territories changed hands as a result of conquest.
The major dynamic force was the dynastic network with its claims to and occasional transfers of territory. The Hohenzollern of Brandenburg inherited the EU provinces of Eastern Prussia and Memel, Pomerania and Cleves.
Wars occured because of conflicting herditary claims and possession was nine points of the law and the individual territory of course ran itself regardless of who was its lord.
As war did feed war, the occupying power should be able to maintain at least as large an army in any particular province as its rightful owner and the province should pay the maintenace cost of the army as well.
Since the start of this discussion and a succesful campaign in CIV3 i've been more and more persuaded that what was wrong in EU was in fact the easy annexation of neutral and enemy nations.
It has been widely demonstrated that it's not historical, and BTW an "annex the world" campaign usually got boring half the way to 1792.
Vassalization instead means more diplomatic maneuvering, more problems and maybe less rebels, expecially when u defeat a minor that you could easily control.
I think it will be a really good game having to rule over a pack of minor vassals and maybe one or two major ones. Pity there'll be no way to direct how these vassals will use troops in wars: I'm sure there still will be some French AI armies trying to siege Danzig while AI Spain rampages towards Lyon in a war you declared against AI Prussia...
It has been widely demonstrated that it's not historical, and BTW an "annex the world" campaign usually got boring half the way to 1792.
Vassalization instead means more diplomatic maneuvering, more problems and maybe less rebels, expecially when u defeat a minor that you could easily control.
I think it will be a really good game having to rule over a pack of minor vassals and maybe one or two major ones. Pity there'll be no way to direct how these vassals will use troops in wars: I'm sure there still will be some French AI armies trying to siege Danzig while AI Spain rampages towards Lyon in a war you declared against AI Prussia...
About pishtacos and alatristes suggestions
Good solution(s) on annexation!
A stability hit might be ahistorical?? I think the nobles more than often was the real winners when the newly conquered territories where distributed after a war - they usually participated quite enthusiasticly in the wars as well.
Mattias
Good solution(s) on annexation!
A stability hit might be ahistorical?? I think the nobles more than often was the real winners when the newly conquered territories where distributed after a war - they usually participated quite enthusiasticly in the wars as well.
Mattias
I see many rules proposals, some really complex.
Isn't it too late for this kind of suggestions?
Isn't it too late for this kind of suggestions?
To Van Varel
It depends on how much variation you want, i.e., do you want simply to simulate the history 'real style'? Then, it is enough to forbid complete military annexation of other christian countries: only vassalizations, diplo-annexions and inheritances. If you want to allow some latitude for people that enjoy playing as Charles the Rash, but with more luck, or Napoleon 'avant la lettre', then you need further complication.
And I'm with you: games directed to conquer the world become boring real fast.
It depends on how much variation you want, i.e., do you want simply to simulate the history 'real style'? Then, it is enough to forbid complete military annexation of other christian countries: only vassalizations, diplo-annexions and inheritances. If you want to allow some latitude for people that enjoy playing as Charles the Rash, but with more luck, or Napoleon 'avant la lettre', then you need further complication.
And I'm with you: games directed to conquer the world become boring real fast.
To Mattias
That would be true in earlier times, but even in 1420 things had changed: the great nobles didn't fought with their retinue in the wars, that had become competence of the royal army, and the spoils of war went to the king, too; there was no more distribution of newly conquered territories between the nobles, and a conquest usually meant an increase in the king's power versus the nobility's.
There were exceptions, as the case of Bohemia in 1618-48 (against rebels, not in newly conquered territories) but even in these cases you can say that the change of hands of so many lands, the existence of so many dispossesed exiles and the creation of troublesome new great landowners as Wallenstein can be best represented as an stability hit.
That would be true in earlier times, but even in 1420 things had changed: the great nobles didn't fought with their retinue in the wars, that had become competence of the royal army, and the spoils of war went to the king, too; there was no more distribution of newly conquered territories between the nobles, and a conquest usually meant an increase in the king's power versus the nobility's.
There were exceptions, as the case of Bohemia in 1618-48 (against rebels, not in newly conquered territories) but even in these cases you can say that the change of hands of so many lands, the existence of so many dispossesed exiles and the creation of troublesome new great landowners as Wallenstein can be best represented as an stability hit.
To Hardu
A good list, that includes cases that I didn´t know or had forgotten; it lacks some examples in southern Europe, Granada, Navarre, Naples, Portugal and the final annexion of Milan by Spain, but the pattern is clear, there was no military annexion that implied the extinction of a fellow christian state in the period covered, at least not if there was a ruling family. Even the euphemisms employed by people like Charles the Rash, 'pawn for loans', reveal how much opposition would raise an annexion!
A good list, that includes cases that I didn´t know or had forgotten; it lacks some examples in southern Europe, Granada, Navarre, Naples, Portugal and the final annexion of Milan by Spain, but the pattern is clear, there was no military annexion that implied the extinction of a fellow christian state in the period covered, at least not if there was a ruling family. Even the euphemisms employed by people like Charles the Rash, 'pawn for loans', reveal how much opposition would raise an annexion!
I don't think anyone is arguing that annexation of should be easy or common...
The problem is that thwe one province rule does not simulate the actual factors that prevented wholesale annexation in the EU period: difficulties in ruling conquered territoy, "bad-boy hits", and the extreme difficulty (almost impossibility) of succesfully totally defeating a major country.
Indeed, as a look at the AARs currently in progress seems to show, apparently all this rule actually does is delay the final annexation by five years, rather than create a historical scarcity of annexations.
The problem is that thwe one province rule does not simulate the actual factors that prevented wholesale annexation in the EU period: difficulties in ruling conquered territoy, "bad-boy hits", and the extreme difficulty (almost impossibility) of succesfully totally defeating a major country.
Indeed, as a look at the AARs currently in progress seems to show, apparently all this rule actually does is delay the final annexation by five years, rather than create a historical scarcity of annexations.
While reading the thread, something very interesting occured to me. It seems to me that EU2 has a number of odd hurdles it has to overcome to solvethe problems of unhistorical annexations in the wrong historical eras.
1) The game covers about 400 years. What Napoleon could do in annexing and vassalizing major powers would have been unthinkable 200 years prior. Yet, the rules set has to be able to allow for both realities.
2) In the pre-1492 era, there were a number of annexations that did occur.... but not in Europe proper. The rise of the Ottomans involved annexations, particularly of Byzantium. Also, the rise of the Aztecs could be viewed as the annexing of a few one-province minors. The game has to account for these instances, while still enforcing the prohibition against outright annexations in Europe.
3) During the EU2 period, despite the prohibitions against annexation, this did not stop anyone from trying to annex other countries, even though they mostly failed. The 100 Years War can be viewed as a series of conflicts in which England tried to annex France (such as France was during the period, at least). Also, we all can be sure that Louis XIV would have tried to annex even more of the small powers of the HRE if he had been given the opportunity. Thus, in some ways, the "bad boys" of Europe during the period tried to act like we do when we play, they just faced tougher opposition and were not as competent as we are.
With these things in mind, it may be that the 1 province annex rule may be a good measure, until we can find a way to increase penalties in Europe for annexations without preventing them outright. Then again, we still have to play to see what effect it has on the game as a whole.
1) The game covers about 400 years. What Napoleon could do in annexing and vassalizing major powers would have been unthinkable 200 years prior. Yet, the rules set has to be able to allow for both realities.
2) In the pre-1492 era, there were a number of annexations that did occur.... but not in Europe proper. The rise of the Ottomans involved annexations, particularly of Byzantium. Also, the rise of the Aztecs could be viewed as the annexing of a few one-province minors. The game has to account for these instances, while still enforcing the prohibition against outright annexations in Europe.
3) During the EU2 period, despite the prohibitions against annexation, this did not stop anyone from trying to annex other countries, even though they mostly failed. The 100 Years War can be viewed as a series of conflicts in which England tried to annex France (such as France was during the period, at least). Also, we all can be sure that Louis XIV would have tried to annex even more of the small powers of the HRE if he had been given the opportunity. Thus, in some ways, the "bad boys" of Europe during the period tried to act like we do when we play, they just faced tougher opposition and were not as competent as we are.
With these things in mind, it may be that the 1 province annex rule may be a good measure, until we can find a way to increase penalties in Europe for annexations without preventing them outright. Then again, we still have to play to see what effect it has on the game as a whole.
Possession is nine point of the law and more diplomatic options
Even Louis XIV fought his wars on what he considered solid legal foundations, ie the Wars of Reunion, 1684-1697. The pretext for this war was that the Franch Crown was feudal overlord of the territories claimed and that according to French law this made him the direct lord of the territories in question. Thus because much the lands held by the different branches of the Palatine Wittelsbachs were fiefs under the bishop of Strasbourg Louis cklaimed these lands as possessions of the Crown of France. In English the War of Reunion is known euphemistically as the War of the League og Augsburg. In German it used, pre WWII, to be known as Louis XIV's Third war of predation.
In game terms Louis XIV tried to annex a vassal and got an international war because he was a badboy.
In the game vassal status is very simple. Only one country can vassalise a territory. In reality things were different. In the HRE all princes were technically vassals of the Emperor as members of the Empire. Their lands need not be. The status of the territories included in the game range from the Rhine Palatinate, which was composed of fiefs held from the Emperor, and the Bishops of Mainz, Cologne and Strasbourg (Alsace) to Hanover (Brunswick-Lunenburg) which was privately owned by its duke.
In general terms the eastern territories of the HRE were less likely to be territorial fiefs than the western. This because of the rather complicated territorial development of the HRE during the 10th through 12th Centuries, when it was as powerful in Western Europe as the Byzantines were in the Balkans and Asia Minor. (The HRE is the PROBLEM of European history and thus of any simulation, inclduing EU).
My suggestion is that vassalisation and royal marriage creates a permanent claim on a territory. This gives a permanent (just) cause of war against any country annexing a territory by whatever means. It should be possible to militarily annex vassals using the military access right at the cost of a permanently high probability of rebellion and increased BB status. Diploannexations should be unencumbered by any other factors than the permanent cause of war. To void the just cause of war a treaty of recognition is needed - an act of diplomacy akin to a trade treaty. It should even be possible to gain recognition of claims prior to annexations, and recognition at a price. It should also be possible to void recognitions at the cost of a permanent just cause of war.
It should of course be possible to annex and number of provinces in this manner.
Furthermore, to increase historicity, it should be possible to exchange provinces. France traded Tuscany for Lorraine with the Habsburgs in 1735 in the aftermath of the Polish War of Succession. Such exchanges would also produced just causes of war and need international recognition. The Emperor Joseph's scheme to exchange Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands with the Palatinate in 1777 lead to the last cabinet war of Old Europe. Exchanges of territory should only be possible among countries with the same rligion (ie Christian, Moslem etx), including their colonies and trading stations. It should in fact be possible to buy trading posts outright. Prussia sold its colonial enterprises to the Dutch in the 1720s for a handy profit that went to finance the army.
Last, but not least: It should be possible to demand the destruction (razing) of fortifications in a peace treaty. Building fortificaitons in a boder province should in fact
be a just cause of permanent war.
Even Louis XIV fought his wars on what he considered solid legal foundations, ie the Wars of Reunion, 1684-1697. The pretext for this war was that the Franch Crown was feudal overlord of the territories claimed and that according to French law this made him the direct lord of the territories in question. Thus because much the lands held by the different branches of the Palatine Wittelsbachs were fiefs under the bishop of Strasbourg Louis cklaimed these lands as possessions of the Crown of France. In English the War of Reunion is known euphemistically as the War of the League og Augsburg. In German it used, pre WWII, to be known as Louis XIV's Third war of predation.
In game terms Louis XIV tried to annex a vassal and got an international war because he was a badboy.
In the game vassal status is very simple. Only one country can vassalise a territory. In reality things were different. In the HRE all princes were technically vassals of the Emperor as members of the Empire. Their lands need not be. The status of the territories included in the game range from the Rhine Palatinate, which was composed of fiefs held from the Emperor, and the Bishops of Mainz, Cologne and Strasbourg (Alsace) to Hanover (Brunswick-Lunenburg) which was privately owned by its duke.
In general terms the eastern territories of the HRE were less likely to be territorial fiefs than the western. This because of the rather complicated territorial development of the HRE during the 10th through 12th Centuries, when it was as powerful in Western Europe as the Byzantines were in the Balkans and Asia Minor. (The HRE is the PROBLEM of European history and thus of any simulation, inclduing EU).
My suggestion is that vassalisation and royal marriage creates a permanent claim on a territory. This gives a permanent (just) cause of war against any country annexing a territory by whatever means. It should be possible to militarily annex vassals using the military access right at the cost of a permanently high probability of rebellion and increased BB status. Diploannexations should be unencumbered by any other factors than the permanent cause of war. To void the just cause of war a treaty of recognition is needed - an act of diplomacy akin to a trade treaty. It should even be possible to gain recognition of claims prior to annexations, and recognition at a price. It should also be possible to void recognitions at the cost of a permanent just cause of war.
It should of course be possible to annex and number of provinces in this manner.
Furthermore, to increase historicity, it should be possible to exchange provinces. France traded Tuscany for Lorraine with the Habsburgs in 1735 in the aftermath of the Polish War of Succession. Such exchanges would also produced just causes of war and need international recognition. The Emperor Joseph's scheme to exchange Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands with the Palatinate in 1777 lead to the last cabinet war of Old Europe. Exchanges of territory should only be possible among countries with the same rligion (ie Christian, Moslem etx), including their colonies and trading stations. It should in fact be possible to buy trading posts outright. Prussia sold its colonial enterprises to the Dutch in the 1720s for a handy profit that went to finance the army.
Last, but not least: It should be possible to demand the destruction (razing) of fortifications in a peace treaty. Building fortificaitons in a boder province should in fact
be a just cause of permanent war.