Cores
- Thread starter RedRalphWiggum
- Start date
-
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.
Maybe it should be more tied to having POPs of your nationality living outside your borders?
i think what provinces you can claim from a peace treaty without bb should be more stable and only added from start or via event, decision etc. It would be wierd if irland suddenly would get a core on new york
Well, in Vicky 1, cores were not that important since what matterd was the populations culture...though cores usualy had lots of national pops in them
If the cultural conversion system is any good, the rate of Irish immigrants arriving in New York will not outstrip the rate at which they become "Americanised" and as such, Ireland will never have a claim on New York. This will be because the USA would (Presumably) have a liberal immigration policy et al that leads to high rates of cultural assimilation.
By contrast, Germany would have poor policies in terms of converting the French in Alsace to German, thus the French would continue to have a casus belli on them.
I wonder if they will bring across this new concept from HttT of specific casus belli.
I would certainly hope to see an end to some of the frankly ridiculous borders you could get in Vic 1.
I would certainly hope to see an end to some of the frankly ridiculous borders you could get in Vic 1.
Not so much that but, say, Austria developing a ludicrous-looking literal Russian arm a province wide stretching to Moscow - not to mention the awful parcelly borders you got when anyone emerged by revolt.
I'd like the expand on this, it is a major, major issue. In 99% of games that I played where Hungary "successfully" revolted, it consisted of four non-contiguous provinces and was easily gobbled back up. Why did it even bother revolting? It should have just stayed as rebels.
So maybe instead something like this happens:
When a country rebels it owns all of its national provs, but only controls the provs that the rebels controlled when it revolted. Then the war goes on as normal. And on top of that, if you combine this with the war types from EUIII, since it is a "revolution" it is possible for (in this example) Austria to reannex Hungary if it wins.
This is the other issue, Hungary revolts with four provs, now it cannot be annexed so inevitably either the Austrian AI puppets Hungary (which gives it three of the provs back) and then a one-prov independent Budapest graces Europe for the rest of the game. The AI has to really fight states that try to declare their independence, if total victory is not achieved, it should lead to the collapse of the Empire (if already weak or multi-cultural) or at least a huge prestige hit.
About the cores I really liked the fact that in Vicky1 we had steady cores and only changing from specific historical events (manifest destiny for USA, megali idea for Greece, unifications), I guess they will be decisions in Vicky2.
The only random cores were the ones you got from the nationalism event and for some reason 99.9% of the time they ended up being part of a superpower or a god-forsaken province.
I hope that we don't get the EU3 system of random cores from events every now and then. Even the "get a core after XX years" seems strange for this game. Or even losing cores from peace treaties.
I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of "soft cores" or "colonial cores" to represent colonial provinces that a country might start to consider rightfully theirs, but please no changes in the mainland.
The only random cores were the ones you got from the nationalism event and for some reason 99.9% of the time they ended up being part of a superpower or a god-forsaken province.
I hope that we don't get the EU3 system of random cores from events every now and then. Even the "get a core after XX years" seems strange for this game. Or even losing cores from peace treaties.
I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of "soft cores" or "colonial cores" to represent colonial provinces that a country might start to consider rightfully theirs, but please no changes in the mainland.
'Core' in the Vic period means something less mutable than it did in EU, I agree, and should not be forfeited if you lose a war.
By all means. To differentiate between a mere claim and an area part of the home nation. HttT is going to introduce the concept of 'spheres of influence' which just may be a foretaste of a new system for V2.
In any case I'm quite sure the Nationalism event won't work that way this time
Nonsensical cores at the arse end of Africa or in the South Sea Islands made no sense at all.Perhaps we could have cores that fluctuated depending on your form of government. You would have a certain 'ne plus ultra' baseline, but a nationalist or revanchist government could acquire cores based on strategic imperatives (Thessaloniki for Serbia, say) or over areas inhabited by a large population of your national culture.
That event in particular simply gave you three cores on provinces that bordered your country.
The UK currently has "cores" on Northern Ireland due to the "national population"
Hitler had cores on the Sudetenland and Austria due to this
To me cores represent a percieved "national right" that wouldn't necessarily be reflected by population numbers. For instance, at the start of the game, the US feels that it has the right and destiny to expand west to the pacific and will have cores all the way west, even though most of the population in those provinces will be native american or mexican. Some, in fact, won't have any american POPs. This is contrasted to, say, the Phillippines, which the US may get control of in a war with spain, but obtaining control over the Phillippines is never going to be a major part of the American psyche like spreading west was.
Also, if cores are limited to the majority culture they cease to have any point: cores make the game interesting when two countries have competing claims on the same province i.e. Germany and France over Alsace-Lorraine, UK and Ireland over N. Ireland, etc.
Sure... this is why we need to differentiate between fundamental, national cores and 'would like to have' cores.
The difference would be that the irish moved to america by their own free will whilst the french people of Alsace were forced to be part of the German state.
If possible there should be a difference when trying to assimilate the population. Those foreign POPs forced under a new rule would require much more work to assimilate then those who moved.
Surely the Locarno treaty removed Germany's cores on Alsace-Lorraine.
Debatable. They were back for them a few years later. I guess A-L is a candidate for a core that may appear if you have an expansionist government.