When justifying war, there are three options besides annexation: take state, take claimed state, and take core state. What's the difference/advantage of taking a claimed state compared to the other two options?
Difference between a claimed state and a core state?
- Thread starter Michael Gladius
- 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.
The only thing claiming a state does is making it faster to justify on, cheaper to take in the peace deal, and the AI will usually not annex states that their allies have claims on in peace deals.
Core states in justification/peace deals function basically the same as claimed states.
Core states in justification/peace deals function basically the same as claimed states.
- 4
- 2
- 1
There should be some special perks after conquest, too. A Claimed state could start with higher compliance, or a 45% reduction in available manpower instead of 98%.
- 3
States you occupy that you have a Claim on have a -5% resistance target modifier. Which is ok.
- 5
I disagree, claims were typically unjustified. Hitler claimed many places that wanted nothing to do with the Nazis. I don't see Russians magically deciding to submit to the invaders just because Germany claimed lebensraum.
- 3
But in HoI IV Hitler doesn't get Claims in the East. It is more Italy on Dalmatia which seems like a somewhat legitimate claim, since it was more or less promised to them in ww1.
- 2
- 1
The problem here:
Dalmatia was still mostly Croatian, not Italian, and those Croatians wouldn't be supportive of the Italians just due to their claims. Similar events are going to happen in places like the Soviet claim on eastern Poland (at least the Belarusian inhabitants might have higher support, but definitely not the Poles), while many claims are based on strategic interests and have no basis in popular support (like US claims on the Marshall and Caroline Islands, Romanian claims on Transnistria, or Soviet claims on Karjala.
If the game had more distinctions between how much support a nation had in a claimed (or potentially-claimable) territory, it would be easier to represent things like the small Italian population in Dalmatia or the numerous Hungarian minorities, but that's putting a lot of complexity for a problem that mainly affects the Balkans.
- 4
in dalmatia there was a large Italian population (it was an ancient Venetian possession). the Italians were then massacred by the Yugoslav communists, just because they were Italian (le sinkholes)
I think also they will go to the claimer during wartime occupation too, regardless of warscore.
- 1
- 1
Both the Fascists and Communists didn't really care about what the locals thought- they got conscripted if the state desired it. So the -98% is really about democracies and nonaligned states, which don't consider total war & total mobilization as square one.
- 1
I tried looking this up and had a hard time finding demographics, but the one from 1857 suggested that the Italians were still a very small minority compared to the Croatian inhabitants (something like 45,000 to 350,000). That isn't exactly comparable to the Hungarian minorities where 20-40% of the population of surrounding states are Hungarians, making them feasible to recruit from comparatively for loyal soldiers.
Both the Fascists and Communists didn't really care about what the locals thought- they got conscripted if the state desired it. So the -98% is really about democracies and nonaligned states, which don't consider total war & total mobilization as square one.
To be fair, there's a difference between recruiting a soldier and retaining them after recruiting them. The Balkans and former Austria-Hungary, in particular, are terrible examples for training ethnic minorities or hostile populations since they have a habit of raising revolts from your own armies
To be fair, there's a difference between recruiting a soldier and retaining them after recruiting them. The Balkans and former Austria-Hungary, in particular, are terrible examples for training ethnic minorities or hostile populations since they have a habit of raising revolts from your own armies
That'd be perfect for starting a civil war via espionage!
- 1