coring time

[unmerged(177849)]

It kind of amazes me that there isn't more discussion of this issue - so many more compalints about coalitions. But for large empires. even with coring reduction ideas, and even taking full advantage of vassals, coring time is much more of a limit to expansion. I can't imagine playing a large empire with a nation with no core reduction ideas (unless you're using RTP to remain "small"). Even playing Timurids-->Moghuls, my coring time is already up to 7 years as early as 1532 (granted, I have not yet taken admin ideas).

This is why, when and if peace deals for coalitions are finally fixed (higher risk/reward), I'd actually like to see the return of AE scaling. Make coalitions more of a limit (though a less annoying one) to large empires, in exchange for relaxing the AE/coring limits.

How to relax coring time/OE? Obviously don't eliminate it entirely. Making the scaling factor smaller would help, but most important IMO is making 100% less of a hard cap. It functions as such mainly because of the very debilitating events. Remove them, mitigate them, or maybe introduce them at a higher level of over extension - say 200%.

Edit - note that this is where I part company with SOME of the people dissatisfied with coalitions. The current mechanic has it's problems - mainly risk/reward on peace deals, and overly harsh for smaller nations, especially in the HRE. BUT a better designed coalition system would IMO be a much better/more fun limit on expansion than the OE/coring limits.

 

[Casadoom]

My suggestion would be relaxing the size penalty on coring time.

Then, I would remove the time reduction from the "Core Cost" reduction talent. Ottoman Empire will still be best due to the massive reduction in coring cost but they will not have such an unfair advantage.

 

[hwoosh]

I'd like to see overextension tick down slowly as the province is cored. Would make overextension far less crippling but still severely limit rapid expansion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Multiple good suggestions already. As it stands coring is a side-show to vassal/annex, which doesn't scale up on empire size at all and can be "cooked". If you really gouge diprep (diplo/expansion/statesman/maybe ideas) annexing can actually be significantly faster than coring one province X_X.

This is part of the reason I do wonder if aristocratic & espionage might actually be helpful in such a strategy. You could get a base of 6 diplomats, being capable of annexing 5 nations simultaneously, though it's hard to fit espionage in there aristocratic much less so; if already a runaway in WC you don't mind taking an otherwise sub-optimal group if it'll speed you up at all. It's not like your FL 500 troops really, really need that boost from quality at that point.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

Multiple good suggestions already. As it stands coring is a side-show to vassal/annex, which doesn't scale up on empire size at all and can be "cooked". If you really gouge diprep (diplo/expansion/statesman/maybe ideas) annexing can actually be significantly faster than coring one province X_X.

This is part of the reason I do wonder if aristocratic & espionage might actually be helpful in such a strategy. You could get a base of 6 diplomats, being capable of annexing 5 nations simultaneously, though it's hard to fit espionage in there aristocratic much less so; if already a runaway in WC you don't mind taking an otherwise sub-optimal group if it'll speed you up at all. It's not like your FL 500 troops really, really need that boost from quality at that point.

A good suggestion, though obviously more one for dealing with the current limitations than for a design change. I state the obvious, though, for the following reason:

A well designed game supports multiple strategies. EU does this to a great extent, but, I would argue, for large empires diplomatic expansion probably currently has a little bit too much of an edge over military expansion. So ideally any changes would make military expansion relatively a little easier.

Mind you, I have no sympathy for the people who want to go to the other extreme - I love the diplomatic game, and would find a game that was simply conquer & core quite boring.

As an aside, I'm finding the Moghuls fun but frustrating because I can't fully play my normal diplomatic game (I took expansion and exploration first). I find playing with just 2 diplomats very constraining. I'll probably take diplomacy as my 4th idea group, but that's decades in the future (very tough choice between religion and admin third, will probably take admin). But in 1532, I have 7 vassals - one over my DR limit - can only annex one at a time, and have a 10 year annex time. With the need soon for 3 Chinese vassals, and I plan to vassalize Tibet also, I'm basically not going to be able to take any vassals beyond those 4 for decades to come.

(Edit - though at least I should at least get my embassy and third diplomat before I get diplomacy - though I am still at diplo 3, having poured every diplo point into peace deals and ideas.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

At diplo tech 6, you can build an embassy for an additional diplomat, so you'll want to save up for that when you finally hit 6. Nations with extra diplomat in their NI are pretty limited surprisingly...BROT even more so.

At least ease the pain by hiring a statesman whenever you can do so.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

At diplo tech 6, you can build an embassy for an additional diplomat, so you'll want to save up for that when you finally hit 6. Nations with extra diplomat in their NI are pretty limited surprisingly...BROT even more so.

At least ease the pain by hiring a statesman whenever you can do so.

Can't afford him yet - for the entire game the only one available is level 3. But yes.

 

[parachute]

It kind of amazes me that there isn't more discussion of this issue - so many more compalints about coalitions. But for large empires. even with coring reduction ideas, and even taking full advantage of vassals, coring time is much more of a limit to expansion. I can't imagine playing a large empire with a nation with no core reduction ideas (unless you're using RTP to remain "small"). Even playing Timurids-->Moghuls, my coring time is already up to 7 years as early as 1532 (granted, I have not yet taken admin ideas).

This is why, when and if peace deals for coalitions are finally fixed (higher risk/reward), I'd actually like to see the return of AE scaling. Make coalitions more of a limit (though a less annoying one) to large empires, in exchange for relaxing the AE/coring limits.

How to relax coring time/OE? Obviously don't eliminate it entirely. Making the scaling factor smaller would help, but most important IMO is making 100% less of a hard cap. It functions as such mainly because of the very debilitating events. Remove them, mitigate them, or maybe introduce them at a higher level of over extension - say 200%.

Edit - note that this is where I part company with SOME of the people dissatisfied with coalitions. The current mechanic has it's problems - mainly risk/reward on peace deals, and overly harsh for smaller nations, especially in the HRE. BUT a better designed coalition system would IMO be a much better/more fun limit on expansion than the OE/coring limits.

You don't read anything about coring, because coring is not necessary (in fact manual coring is so bad you should immediately try to forget that it's even in the game). Actually the best way to play the game is to not core AT ALL. Instead you try to figure out the optimal way to segment larger nations into smaller nations. This sometimes involves 3-59 wars in order to shrink the target down to a chunk that can be vassalized with 100% warscore. Do NOT take land for yourself. "Return cores" to your arch enemy if necessary. As soon as you have vassal(s) you will only take land for your vassal in peace deals ("return core"). As soon as your vassal has acquired its cores you absorb it.

Why is this useful:
A) Coring costs ADM power. ADM power is used to unlock ideas. Taking land for vassals takes DIP power which is only useful for unlocking diplomatic ideas (useful) and generating cash via trade (which is useless)
B) Conquering land generates AE. AE is bad, because of coalitions.
C) Conquering land generates OE. OE is bad, because of events and rebels and trade and whatnot.

Try playing a game without ever pressing the "core province" button. You will notice that coring times are fine.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

You don't read anything about coring, because coring is not necessary (in fact manual coring is so bad you should immediately try to forget that it's even in the game). Actually the best way to play the game is to not core AT ALL. Instead you try to figure out the optimal way to segment larger nations into smaller nations. This sometimes involves 3-59 wars in order to shrink the target down to a chunk that can be vassalized with 100% warscore. As soon as you have a vassal you will only take land for your vassal in peace deals. As soon as your vassal has acquired its cores you absorb it.

Why is this useful:
A) Coring costs ADM power. ADM power is used to unlock ideas.
B) Conquering land generates AE. AE is bad, because of coalitions.
C) Conquering land generates OE. OE is bad, because of events and rebels.

Try playing a game without ever pressing the "core province" button. You will notice that coring times are fine.

Yeah, we've had this discussion before. A minor point and a major point - the minor point is that, depending upon where you are conquering, eliminating coring to the extent that you suggest often entails opportunity costs which aren't worth it. (And for a few areas, isn't possible.)

The bigger point is this - let's assume that I'm wrong about the above point, and that, under current constraints, your play method is optimal. That would be ALL THE MORE REASON TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT I SUGGEST. Because 99.9% of the player population would find the kind of game you suggest extremely un-fun. And that's coming from someone who LIKES the diplomatic part of the game, and takes great advantage of opportunities to do just what you suggest (most of India in my Moghul game was conquered via vassals, and all of China will be).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, we've had this discussion before. A minor point and a major point - the minor point is that, depending upon where you are conquering, eliminating coring to the extent that you suggest often entails opportunity costs which aren't worth it. (And for a few areas, isn't possible.)

The bigger point is this - let's assume that I'm wrong about the above point, and that, under current constraints, your play method is optimal. That would be ALL THE MORE REASON TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT I SUGGEST. Because 99.9% of the player population would find the kind of game you suggest extremely un-fun. And that's coming from someone who LIKES the diplomatic part of the game, and takes great advantage of opportunities to do just what you suggest (most of India in my Moghul game was conquered via vassals, and all of China will be).

I'm pretty sure avoiding coring is optimal, outside some fringe cases. However, that is indeed questionable. Usually an "always try to do this" pick between alternatives denotes an imbalanced trade-off.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

I'm pretty sure avoiding coring is optimal, outside some fringe cases. However, that is indeed questionable. Usually an "always try to do this" pick between alternatives denotes an imbalanced trade-off.

We agree in the important point, so not to beat a dead horse on the minor point, but ...

The limiting resources here are DR slots, and, to a lesser extent, time. I could have totally avoided coring India, for example, but it would have either taken a little longer and put me way over the DR cap, or taken my a LOT longer and only a little over the DR cap.

Obviously in MOST cases you can avoid coring. In my current Moghul game, for example, only recently have I done much coring (essentially to finish up India, having already taken most of it through 8 vassals, 3 of which have already been annexed). But getting those last dozen or so provinces would have meant a long delay or going significantly over the DR cap.

Edit - We're splitting hairs, of course. I avoid coring 85-90% of my conquests. And, in retrospect, I can think of a couple things I would have done differently in my current game to reduce coring a little further. Though as I said, I've been constrained by not taking the diplomatic idea group yet.

 

[ikkiks]

Avoiding coring is optimal, no doubt. But coring is actually pretty fun. I had the most fun playing Italy or Ottomans on 1.4. My ideal game would have coring times reduced, higher OE penalties and better rewards after beating coalitions.

 

[TyrannisUmbra]

Every time one of these threads pops up, I can't help but silently shake my head.

7 years is nothing. Try 50 years of 4 provinces maximum for conquering Empire provinces -- even for countries outside of the Empire.

 

[loveslater]

I've raised this topic too. Many times.

People just get hooked on complaining about Coalitions and AE. They completely forget about the elephant in the room, which is Coring times.

Every time one of these threads pops up, I can't help but silently shake my head.

7 years is nothing. Try 50 years of 4 provinces maximum for conquering Empire provinces -- even for countries outside of the Empire.

 

[FrosT37]

Make coalitions more of a limit (though a less annoying one) to large empires, in exchange for relaxing the AE/coring limits.

IMHO, coring time should be increased not reduced.

It's not realistic for a country to be able to consider a newly acquired province to be a core in less than 10 years. If anything, the cap should be 20-25 years, but I guess for gameplay purposes the 10 years cap is acceptable.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

IMHO, coring time should be increased not reduced.

It's not realistic for a country to be able to consider a newly acquired province to be a core in less than 10 years. If anything, the cap should be 20-25 years, but I guess for gameplay purposes the 10 years cap is acceptable.

Oh, please. IF you did that, OE would have to be reworked completely. Otherwise the game would be unplayable (or you would be forced into the extreme methods of coring avoidance discussed above, which is as I said ALSO a mistake from a gameplay perspective).

This is about game play, not realism. If you're interested in realism at all, this isn't the game for you. (There may not be one,; if there was, it would likely be boring as sin.)

Edit - for EU 5, should there ever be one, I would be in favor of eliminating or reworking AE entirely, along with longer coring times, and finding other ways to limit expansion. But IMO that ship has sailed for EU 4.

 

[LightsShadows]

IMHO, coring time should be increased not reduced.

It's not realistic for a country to be able to consider a newly acquired province to be a core in less than 10 years. If anything, the cap should be 20-25 years, but I guess for gameplay purposes the 10 years cap is acceptable.

In EU3, coring provinces took 50 years. Then again, over-extension was far less crippling...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've raised this topic too. Many times.

People just get hooked on complaining about Coalitions and AE. They completely forget about the elephant in the room, which is Coring times.

Those things are tied together. If not walled by mystic magic moon shoes war score in coalitions, you could eat OE and site on uncored provinces until you release vassals for example.

Coring time as a rate limiter is in theory okay as a game mechanic, and you make some decisions involving 100% vs 200% or more OE there. If you make it too fast, it starts to become an overwhelmingly dominant option instead once one has a few crucial idea groups.

 

[Viperswhip]

Ya, if you lower coring times then there would be less vassal annex cheese.

 

[unmerged(177849)]

Not to hijack my own thread, but on the "should you core" question (a side issue since the point isn't current strategies but proposals for design changes) I think to it pretty much reduces to the following, keeping in mind that we're disagreeing only on the margin - most of the time you should avoid coring costs through vassals:

more AE and admin points on the one hand

more time and diplo points (directly and indirectly) on the other hand

I don't play nations without coring reduction ideas. For nations without such ideas, even the most extreme strategies to avoid self coring probably pay off, because admin points are more valuable than diplo points.

For the nations that I play, I think a certain (small) amount of self coring is optimal.

But the very fact that we can have a serious debate on this point is a sign that game balance is out of whack.