Constructive criticism and alternatives to the max 1 province annexation rule

[Storey]

Re: Possession is nine point of the law and more diplomatic options

Originally posted by Hardu


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.

I like this idea! Terms of a peace agreement that would require the tearing down of a fort would be a positive addition to the game.

Joe

 

[unmerged(4955)]

Originally posted by Secret Master

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.

I think we're dealing with the issue at the wrong end.

Everyone are speaking about rules that should enforce something that didnt occur.
Fine, but I think it would be better if we did our best to mirror the cause of *WHY* it didnt occur.
I dont have an answer right now, but I can tell you right from the start it wasnt because there was a "rule" in the world, such as the Newton Laws.

McHrozni

 

[unmerged(3434)]

Fortification razing is a nice thing, it should be an option.
Not annexing the rival, but just making sure he'll need some time to recover and to be safe from another invaison.


Destruction of fortresses was common in those days... amd sometimes even total massacre of the inhabitants...

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Van Barel
Fortification razing is a nice thing, it should be an option.

It is a good idea indeed-and the dismantling of fortifications were occasionally part of formal peace treaties. Dunkirk, for example, was "defortified" by formal treaty in the Eighteenth Century.