Does anyone actually choose HRE decentralization reforms?

[Mindel]

Let's compare the two branches:

Revoke privileges + unify HRE

vs

+1 electors, +3 free cities, and occasional free war taxes

Is it just me, or does one option seem overwhelmingly better than the other?

What was the point of introducing another HRE reform path if it is so terrible there is no reason to ever choose it?

I think the devs need to seriously rethink and rework the HRE reform branches over the next several months. The goal should be to have two branches that are different, but balanced in terms of power and benefits.

For a fast fix requiring no new mechanics, I would suggest moving revoke privilegia over to decentralization as the final reform and making the HRE vassal swarm there permanently unannexable. At least this presents some compelling choice between having an HRE one-tag vs getting the overpowered vassal swarm.

 

[Victoria 3 finally]

Yes the people doing the awful achievenment.

 

[Arizal]

Maybe if "decentralization" wasn't an alternative path, but a longer, optional path, towards unification? But that still looks silly.

 

[MK1980]

i think it would have made more sense to make the vassal swarm the end goal of the decentralization branch and the unification into the single HRE tag the end of the centralization branch.

 

[Reni Malaj]

Its nice for role-playing MP within the HRE.

 

[yyrkroon]

Its nice for role-playing MP within the HRE.

This. My guess is that it only exists for MP.

 

[Siddy00]

There's been some discussion last year in this thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/who-decentralize-the-hre.1449297/
To repeat my own answer:

I suppose it depends on your goal. With the old reforms or the centralisation path, you eventually end up absorbing the rest of the HRE, either directly (if you enact the final reform) or indirectly (if you keep the vassal swarm). As I see it, the decentralisation reforms give you the option to grow a healthy and thriving HRE, while retaining the ability to rally against real outside threats. To put it a different way, from my perspective the centralisation path views the HRE as a tool (for the emperor), and the decentralisation path views the HRE as a purpose. From what I can tell, the latter is not something that suits many players here (and it definitely won't net you a world conquest), but it does suit my own play style and I'm glad for it

tl;dr: as Reni Malaj said, it's nice for role-play. I don't need to conquer the world, I just want to have fun. This seems like fun

Edit: I'm actually not sure whether to call it role-play per se, the word seems to be used for pretty much anything that is not either world (or at least mass) conquest or achievement hunting. In any case, decentralising the HRE can be a goal by itself (or part of a larger goal), regardless of the reasons.

 

[Twoflower]

A decentralized HRE is much more fun than becoming the boring big grey blob.
Revoke the privilegia should not be the end of that branch, that would ruin it. Playing with an invincible vassal swarm is almost as dull as playing as a HRE blob. Just my two cents

 

[Jespoke]

I like the idea of having the branch around for roleplay and multiplayer, I just wish it gave a bit more bonuses to look like less of a joke.

 

[holyvigil]

Yes. When playing multiplayer.

 

[Mindel]

There are a lot of posts here arguing that the decentralization branch is supposedly "good for multiplayer". But reading into their arguments, I don't think that's what any of these posts are really saying.

What they are actually trying to say is that the vassal swarm and unifying the HRE is bad for multiplayer. Which I can see and agree with (although I doubt that any serious MP game would let the HRE come anywhere close to those reforms).

So having any alternate path, no matter how weak it is, is a good thing in their eyes. Better than the centralization path, anyway. It's more about avoiding the vassal swarm/unifying than anything else.

But that is all irrelevant to my point. I don't see how this justifies having such a terrible decentralization path. The devs could give every nation in the HRE +5% discipline and it would be "good for MP". Or -10% idea cost. Or +2 innovativeness per year. Or whatever. The current decentralization branch gives very little for all of the work that has to be done to get there. Making it better would make it better for MP anyway.

 

[Siddy00]

I'll start by admitting that I originally didn't read your entire opening post and basically just replied to the question in the title. You seem to have made two points or asked two questions before moving on to your suggestions:

1. The centralisation path is overwhelmingly stronger than the decentralisation path.
2. Given 1., why would anyone ever pick the much weaker decentralisation path? (Implying that you never would.)

As far as I can tell, nobody has argued with you on the first one, because it's simply true. However, I've given you a reason why I would (at times) pick the decentralisation path in spite of the difference in strength: I think it's fun. Twoflower has stated the same and several people agree with those posts. We haven't said anything about it being good or bad. As you said yourself: that is irrelevant to our point.

As for the posts mentioning multiplayer, I don't see any arguments there. They don't say it's "good" for multiplayer, they just state multiplayer as a reason for picking the decentralisation path. I can imagine the underlying reason for that is, as you say, that the centralisation path with its vassal swarm would be "bad" for multiplayer, but (a) they haven't stated so and (b) they're not arguing your point that the bonuses in the decentralisation path are terribly weak. In fact, Jespoke even wished for more decentralisation bonuses, which would agree with your point.

To reply to your suggestions and elaborate on my earlier post: yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the decentralisation path could use more bonuses (and so do others). I couldn't tell you what bonuses would be a good fit; I don't think the vassal swarm is one of them. However, I'm also not convinced that the two paths should necessarily be competitive, and I think that there are still reasons even now to pick the decentralisation path sometimes

 

[Borgio]

Only ever done it once for the achievement

 

[Gyrvendal]

Would be nice if the decentralization path made it easier to grow the HRE. Like give a "force join HRE CB" that doesn't increase AE, or an event for smaller threatened nations around the borders to apply to join the HRE for protection. It would make sense if a decentralized HRE was more attractive to new tags.
Also it would give you a different way to paint the map, which is always fun

 

[holyvigil]

There are a lot of posts here arguing that the decentralization branch is supposedly "good for multiplayer". But reading into their arguments, I don't think that's what any of these posts are really saying.

What they are actually trying to say is that the vassal swarm and unifying the HRE is bad for multiplayer. Which I can see and agree with (although I doubt that any serious MP game would let the HRE come anywhere close to those reforms).

So having any alternate path, no matter how weak it is, is a good thing in their eyes. Better than the centralization path, anyway. It's more about avoiding the vassal swarm/unifying than anything else.

But that is all irrelevant to my point. I don't see how this justifies having such a terrible decentralization path. The devs could give every nation in the HRE +5% discipline and it would be "good for MP". Or -10% idea cost. Or +2 innovativeness per year. Or whatever. The current decentralization branch gives very little for all of the work that has to be done to get there. Making it better would make it better for MP anyway.

Exactly. The decentralization path is the best path when the centralization mechanic isn't available.

 

[st360]

Let's compare the two branches:

Revoke privileges + unify HRE

vs

+1 electors, +3 free cities, and occasional free war taxes

Is it just me, or does one option seem overwhelmingly better than the other?

I love how "+1 electors" is apparently a reward people should work for. Yes please, give me another brat for whom ill have to bend over.

 

[Larva]

I love how "+1 electors" is apparently a reward people should work for. Yes please, give me another brat for whom ill have to bend over.

You don't have to bend over. You can just, you know, lose the election occasionally - and take the loss with dignity.
I know, I know - I played too much MR in CKII without actually sterilizing rival families...

 

[Ttrgw]

I honestly hope devs don't add any more bonuses to HRE. The more bonuses you add, the harder it will be for people to choose not to join the HRE. Even in its current state, numerous bonuses are very attractive to players who are not looking for a fast expansion.

I don't want to see a Europe where everyone wants to be King of Germany for the sake of their own prosperity.

 

[Nyrael]

I'd say it's worse by design: it's not a path meant for countries that seek to take over the world, but for those who want a decentralized HRE.
Rather than buff it, I think it would be more in spirit of the design if foreign countries could help Electors force those reforms, thus weakening the HREmperor.

 

[J_Master]

Maybe if "decentralization" wasn't an alternative path, but a longer, optional path, towards unification? But that still looks silly.

I've hypothezised a mod for a while, the idea would be that the difference between centralization and decentralization is the choice to focus on a German empire (limiting adding provinces to to the HRE to the historic regions of Italy, the Kingdom of Burgundy, the Low Countries, Germany, Prussia and the Baltic) or going for a truely universal monarchy (you can add whatever province (in Europe) you want and you can force small enough countries into the HRE along with some other bonuses for being the emperor). Different but still interesting bonuses