[Discussion] Should nations lose cores when forced to return cores?

[The-King]

So I made a bug thread recently about how if you force a nation to return cores to a third nation that the nation giving away the province loses the core. In the bug thread and also in the multiplayer thread discussing the bug some of the people talked about how it was an intended feature. So figuring it might be intended I've decided to start a discussion about it as I feel it is very wrong.
Bug thread: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?744217-Return-core-remove-core-bug

Reasons against:

• You cannot force a nation to revoke cores on a province that has their primary culture, but this method circumvents that as, for example, You can release Styria and force Austria to return cores thus being able to revoke Austrian cores on Austrian cultured provinces.
• The revoke core feature is already there to revoke cores as well as other methods for removing cores (50 years depending on the last war with core owner or more depending on culture), why should Return cores revoke cores?
• In terms of gameplay, this feature makes it too easy to revoke cores
• One of the primary reasons to use return cores is to make one's own vassal gain more land and is closely akin to conquests in the way this is done. But removing cores will give the other nation no way of retaliating.
• Return core doesn't advertise its removal of cores
• Its harsh to have to spend valuable admin points to core provinces only to lose them when they are forced to return cores

Reasons for:

• When a nation returns a province it is arguable that the nation relinquishes all claims to that land.
• Arguably its easy to take cores with vassal feeding and annexing

I never noticed this issue until last week when players in my multiplayer were experiencing randomly lost cores. I feel this is because most people don't lose at Europa. Most people in single-player and multiplayer-player experience great success whenever they play and will never have noticed this mechanic.

This discussion should probably also talk about what exactly is a 'core.' If a core if a rightful part of your nation or homeland then if someone takes it away from you should it not remain as a core for you to perhaps one day re-take and reunite your people.

I'm obviously biased when I feel that nations shouldn't lose cores when they are forced to return provinces. But I'd like to hear some discussion as others may bring up good points for why it should remain in the game.

 

[Novacat]

No. Its completely bizzare that they do now.

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

By this logic, countries should lose cores when they have to give up provinces directly to the conqueror.

 

[miotas]

It's very unforgiving to make a country lose both land, and cores on that land in the same peace deal.

There is also nothing in the peace deal or tool tips for return core to indicate that a core will be lost.

 

[Edlar89]

Cores should never disappear (with the possible exception of those from a nation from a different continent)

 

[apsycobear]

No.

 

[Mann42]

Should nations lose cores when forced to return cores?

No. That's what Revoke Core is for.

I swear, Paradox seems more confused than ever on what to do about cores, coring, and core disappearance. It's so bad that players aren't sure what's working as intended and what's a bug. I really hope they fix the mess sooner than later.

 

[Vishaing]

On a related note; am I the only person who thinks its kind of backwards that you can force someone to revoke a Core but not a Claim?

 

[unmerged(809069)]

no

 

[unmerged(809069)]

On a related note; am I the only person who thinks its kind of backwards that you can force someone to revoke a Core but not a Claim?

yea but if u think about it a little that doesnt make sense. i mean, France claims ur land bcs she wanna go to war with you, now if u declare war to revoke her claim, than u end up where France wanted u to end up

 

[TheBloke]

One Pro:
- Return Core has a much higher WS cost than Release Nation. This therefore creates a differentiation between Return Core and Release Nation, with differently costed options resulting in different amount of impact on the losing nation in war. With Release Nation they can easily attempt to Reconquest those cores; with Return, they cannot.

This differentiation was also my basis for thinking the core loss was intentional, not a bug.

I don't generally like disappearing cores at all, so I'd have no issues with Return Core being changed to not delete cores.

 

[BigHamster]

thats inconsistant, releasing nation do not erase cores, while returning do. Not a big difference in this actions in fact.

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

One Pro:
- Return Core has a much higher WS cost than Release Nation. This therefore creates a differentiation between Return Core and Release Nation, with differently costed options resulting in different amount of impact on the losing nation in war. With Release Nation they can easily attempt to Reconquest those cores; with Return, they cannot.

This differentiation was also my basis for thinking the core loss was intentional, not a bug.

I don't generally like disappearing cores at all, so I'd have no issues with Return Core being changed to not delete cores.

I'd like to pose the counter-argument that returning a province costs the exact same as taking it taking it outright, which does not remove cores either

 

[TheBloke]

I'd like to pose the counter-argument that returning a province costs the exact same as taking it taking it outright, which does not remove cores either

That's true. A counter-point to your counter-point would be that you can annex any province, but only Return Core specific ones, so the WS of being able to Annex any province is balancing the WS of being able to delete a core on only specific Returned Cores.

Then again, counter-pointing that counter-point to the counter-point, Annex gives AE and Dip cost, where Return Core does not.

So overall yes I'd say Return Core should cost a bit more WS - or involve a little AE - to be correctly balanced against both Annex and Release Nation.

Or simply change Return Core to not delete cores, that'd probably be best of all. I like cores. I dislike disappearing cores

 

[Nobak]

I may be mistaken, but I believe returning core does cost Dip points?
Either, way the counter-point to the counter-point to the counter-point still stands, strictly from not getting AE; and to further that, return core can be forced on a province without needing to occupy it, unlike direct conquest.
All in all, I think removing the core is excessive.

 

[TheBloke]

I may be mistaken, but I believe returning core does cost Dip points?
Either, way the counter-point to the counter-point to the counter-point still stands, strictly from not getting AE; and to further that, return core can be forced on a province without needing to occupy it, unlike direct conquest.
All in all, I think removing the core is excessive.

Yeah you're probably right re Dip Cost. And that's an even bigger point re not occupying, I'd forgotten that.

Return Core really should cost more than it does if it's going to delete cores. Or just not delete the cores.

 

[Mann42]

On a related note; am I the only person who thinks its kind of backwards that you can force someone to revoke a Core but not a Claim?

You're not alone. It certainly should be an option if you've just won a defensive war, but there's no reason for it to not be available all the time if you want to spend warscore on it.

yea but if u think about it a little that doesnt make sense. i mean, France claims ur land bcs she wanna go to war with you, now if u declare war to revoke her claim, than u end up where France wanted u to end up

• Claims last longer than a single war, so it's not only a justification for war, it's a long term justification for up to 3-4 wars.
• Claims provide a greater benefit than simply going to war, including slightly faster coring times, cheaper dip cost, and reduced AE gain.
• The strategic choice of when to go to war is significant. France may want to go to war with me and vice-versa, but I'd prefer if the war start when I declare it, not them.
• Due to events, many claims exist not because the player/AI actually want a war, but because the claim was more attractive than taking the stability loss. However, the existence of the claim will make an AI nation more consistently hostile, a situation that can be alleviated by simply removing their claim after they've up and declared war.

 

[TheBloke]

• Claims last longer than a single war, so it's not only a justification for war, it's a long term justification for up to 3-4 wars.
• Claims provide a greater benefit than simply going to war, including slightly faster coring times, cheaper dip cost, and reduced AE gain.
• The strategic choice of when to go to war is significant. France may want to go to war with me and vice-versa, but I'd prefer if the war start when I declare it, not them.
• Due to events, many claims exist not because the player/AI actually want a war, but because the claim was more attractive than taking the stability loss. However, the existence of the claim will make an AI nation more consistently hostile, a situation that can be alleviated by simply removing their claim after they've up and declared war.

Yeah all very good justifications. This would be a good feature to add.