Eternal cores

[Jia Xu]

So if you remember Victoria 2, cores were a little bit on the immortal side of things. They didn't expire and you couldn't get rid of them at the peace table. The natural consequence of this was that if you did something like reclaim your lost territory as Mexico, you spent the entire game fighting the USA because they also had cores there. Every few years, as soon as your truce expired, it was time for total war with the U.S. This went on until the end of the game and the only way to stop it was to essentially completely destroy the USA in such a way that it could not threaten you again.

I hope that cores are a bit less permanent in many cases for Victoria 3. Some cores should stay around like culture union cores in relevant culture majority provinces. Greek cores in Greece and such. Expansionist cores in colonized areas? These cores should be very negotiable.

 

[Esben_DRK]

I don't think all cores should be negotiable at a peace conference. A divide like EU4 with integral cores (Say, Alsace-Lorraine for France) and more loose territorial claims (Like German colonies or Austrian claims in Northern Italy) could be sensible, but a world wherein e.g. France gives up entirely on A-L just because Germany beat them in another war is deeply flawed. As you point out, minority cores should be a thing as well.
However, removing player spellcasting and letting mechanics decide is a much-needed fix to EU4. In V3, a system could integrate nationality, such that you cannot gain integral cores in areas without some ethnic presence. Cores are also lost if you fall below some share of the population. Mexico could have claims to most of the little-settled lands north of Rio Grande, and lose them in a negotiated settlement with USA. Alternatively, a player-lead Mexico could defend the areas and force USA to give up their territorial claims (As they would surely be at first). If both have a large share of the population in an area and view it as integral to the nation, should we not expect to see warring over it as we saw with France and Germany over Alsace-Lorraine?
This would allow for e.g. Balkan nations to continuously war over territory that both considers integral, but e.g. Denmark post-1864 almost immediately accepted the loss of Holstein, but not Schleswig (And by 1919, contemplated a war to get Schleswig back, but not Holstein). There were very few Danes left in Holstein, but Schleswig had a sizable Danish minority (And in the Northern parts, majority) which the government sought to reintegrate.

 

[Battlex]

I don't think all cores should be negotiable at a peace conference. A divide like EU4 with integral cores (Say, Alsace-Lorraine for France) and more loose territorial claims (Like German colonies or Austrian claims in Northern Italy) could be sensible, but a world wherein e.g. France gives up entirely on A-L just because Germany beat them in another war is deeply flawed. As you point out, minority cores should be a thing as well.
However, removing player spellcasting and letting mechanics decide is a much-needed fix to EU4. In V3, a system could integrate nationality, such that you cannot gain integral cores in areas without some ethnic presence. Cores are also lost if you fall below some share of the population. Mexico could have claims to most of the little-settled lands north of Rio Grande, and lose them in a negotiated settlement with USA. Alternatively, a player-lead Mexico could defend the areas and force USA to give up their territorial claims (As they would surely be at first). If both have a large share of the population in an area and view it as integral to the nation, should we not expect to see warring over it as we saw with France and Germany over Alsace-Lorraine?
This would allow for e.g. Balkan nations to continuously war over territory that both considers integral, but e.g. Denmark post-1864 almost immediately accepted the loss of Holstein, but not Schleswig (And by 1919, contemplated a war to get Schleswig back, but not Holstein). There were very few Danes left in Holstein, but Schleswig had a sizable Danish minority (And in the Northern parts, majority) which the government sought to reintegrate.

If you want to base cores on ethnicity, then you need decisions for ethnic cleansing too

 

[Jia Xu]

then you need decisions for ethnic cleansing too

Hey, let's not get my nice topic yelled at by people who post in yellow text.

 

[Science-Recon]

I don't think all cores should be negotiable at a peace conference. A divide like EU4 with integral cores (Say, Alsace-Lorraine for France) and more loose territorial claims (Like German colonies or Austrian claims in Northern Italy) could be sensible, but a world wherein e.g. France gives up entirely on A-L just because Germany beat them in another war is deeply flawed. As you point out, minority cores should be a thing as well.
However, removing player spellcasting and letting mechanics decide is a much-needed fix to EU4. In V3, a system could integrate nationality, such that you cannot gain integral cores in areas without some ethnic presence. Cores are also lost if you fall below some share of the population. Mexico could have claims to most of the little-settled lands north of Rio Grande, and lose them in a negotiated settlement with USA. Alternatively, a player-lead Mexico could defend the areas and force USA to give up their territorial claims (As they would surely be at first). If both have a large share of the population in an area and view it as integral to the nation, should we not expect to see warring over it as we saw with France and Germany over Alsace-Lorraine?
This would allow for e.g. Balkan nations to continuously war over territory that both considers integral, but e.g. Denmark post-1864 almost immediately accepted the loss of Holstein, but not Schleswig (And by 1919, contemplated a war to get Schleswig back, but not Holstein). There were very few Danes left in Holstein, but Schleswig had a sizable Danish minority (And in the Northern parts, majority) which the government sought to reintegrate.

Yes, this pretty much exactly. You consider it a core because your people are there, if it's split it's going to be a point of contention, but if there are no longer any of your people there it kinda becomes a bit of a moot point. I'd say at that point maybe your core gets demoted to a claim and after a while the claim expires.

However;

If you want to base cores on ethnicity, then you need decisions for ethnic cleansing too

This is also true. The most effective way to secure territory would be to expel/kill all others (for example, Germany is uninterested in reclaiming Danzig/East Prussia because they were all forcibly expelled by the Soviets and Polish Communists after the war, even though the Soviets did offer Kohl Kaliningrad (I believe, might've been Danzig not 100% sure) but the German govt. declined because there are no Germans left there. However, in Victoria III I would say that this is also kinda the solution: if you Genocide someone, they'll have a lot less qualms genociding your people back (c.f. Germans in Danzig/East Prussia/Eastern Europe after WWII or the Nakam movement).

So this would create a sort-of mutually assured destruction in which the harsher you are the worse it'll be for you.

Though, having said that, that only matters if you lose wars, which players in Paradox games don't tend to do so idk.

 

[Battlex]

Yes, this pretty much exactly. You consider it a core because your people are there, if it's split it's going to be a point of contention, but if there are no longer any of your people there it kinda becomes a bit of a moot point. I'd say at that point maybe your core gets demoted to a claim and after a while the claim expires.

However;


This is also true. The most effective way to secure territory would be to expel/kill all others (for example, Germany is uninterested in reclaiming Danzig/East Prussia because they were all forcibly expelled by the Soviets and Polish Communists after the war, even though the Soviets did offer Kohl Kaliningrad (I believe, might've been Danzig not 100% sure) but the German govt. declined because there are no Germans left there. However, in Victoria III I would say that this is also kinda the solution: if you Genocide someone, they'll have a lot less qualms genociding your people back (c.f. Germans in Danzig/East Prussia/Eastern Europe after WWII or the Nakam movement).

So this would create a sort-of mutually assured destruction in which the harsher you are the worse it'll be for you.

Though, having said that, that only matters if you lose wars, which players in Paradox games don't tend to do so idk.

If the people are long since gone it's no longer an integral part of your nation, but it might still be part of the national identity, like nationalist Greeks still desiring Anatolia, or Bulgarians wanting Macedonia. But how do you make the AI not wage constant wars for these things they no longer have an ethnic population In.
Additionally at what percentage minority do they lose the core at? 1%?
Many parts to consider

 

[Cymsdale]

I thing the concept of ”cores” should be left to the older generation of Paradox games. Something more interesting and less arbitrary please.

 

[Prince Ire]

I thing the concept of ”cores” should be left to the older generation of Paradox games. Something more interesting and less arbitrary please.

But Victoria covers the time period where cores make the most sense. It is the age of nationalism after all.

 

[Zhetone]

cores make sense but they have to be more dynamic. I liked how they are in HPM and other mods where over time if enough accepted POPs move in a core can be created, and you can remove cores as well. this is a time where, yes, there was lots of revanchism - some territories like Alsace-Lorraine really did go back and forth and stoked nationalist flames. but some territories changed hands once and then were left alone, and that doesn't happen so much in Victoria 2. there has to be a good balance struck

 

[Esben_DRK]

If you want to base cores on ethnicity, then you need decisions for ethnic cleansing too

I don't think this is true. Linking cores and people means conquest becomes a thorny issue, as happened historically. German treatment of French speakers in Alsace-Lorraine was, to my knowledge, pretty harsh, but they never managed to fundamentally change the population. In Schleswig-Holstein, the population majority was already changed by slow migration in the preceding 500 years.
I also think Paradox has made the sound decision of not directly allowing you to do anything like ethnic cleansing or warcrimes (Hiding it by "change culture" or the like), and I don't see them changing their minds.
However, V3 gives you, apparently, the option of discrimination based on ethnicity and language, which would make those people poorer and more inclined to move.

 

[ShamanMcLamie]

If you want to base cores on ethnicity, then you need decisions for ethnic cleansing too

Before everyone get too angry at this, ethnic cleansing is something that has happened usually for political reasons. A very common form of ethnic cleansing was simply the forced removal of populations. Like the Indian Removal Act, the exchange of Balkan Turks and Anatolian Greeks, or the Finns evicted after the Winter war from Karelia, or the Germans evicted from East Prussia. As a mechanic it can make core ethnic pops really happy, but obviously the downside is the provinces you do it in will take an economic hit and can lead to revolts from the pops affected. It will also affect international relations, especially if people from countries that have the same culture and religious groups of the cleansed pops. I also think certain technologies should increase the diplomatic penalties for such actions.

For example the Indian Removal Act would be a hit to the US economy, but would not have much effect on the international stage do to no shared identity abroad and happening earlier in the game. Where as the Armenian genocide is more likely to upset Western nations because the Armenians are christian and it happening later in the game.

There should also be restrictions on this mechanic. Ethnically cleansing colonies shouldn't be feasible and could only really be allowed on cores for balance. I also think you can only get access to it with certain policies unlocked by interest groups, technologies, or certain events. There should also be a timer which is also affected by technology and policies. You don't want say Poland getting West Prussia and immediately expelling all the Germans. I shouldn't be a process that can be triggered right away and should take time to do. Maybe a foreign core can be a tool to protect certain ethnicity and either the core needs to be removed, or a certain policy, technology and/or to do so.

For non event driven ethnic cleansing the speed at which it happens can be technology driven. The number of pops lost could also be affected by technology and policy. The Indian Removal Act was a decades long project of basically trying to bully various Nations to sell land and move out west. It didn't all happen at once. For example with forced migration the higher technology means they can be moved faster and less pops are lost. Where as if you take the genocide route higher technology means pops are killed faster and fewer escape.

 

[Prince Ire]

I will say that having something along the lines of the claim vs. core split in EU4 would be useful for things like the American Southwest/Northern Mexico. That way, you could have the US's claims to the area fade if they fail to take it and Manifest Destiny loses its luster, while allowing Italy to continue claiming Venetia as rightful Italian clay even if they fail to take it from Austria.

 

[KaiserJohan]

Cores/Claims works abit differently from before but that will be expanded on in a future dev diary

 

[safferli]

Hey, let's not get my nice topic yelled at by people who post in yellow text.

Exactly. Thank you