EU5: CBs should be much harder to get

[onlysane1]

This suggestion is probably a bit much for the current game, but for the sequel Cassus belli should be far more rare than they are now.

There can be more of a variety of cb types, but simply fabricating a claim on one province and using it to annex half of a neighboring country is just a bit much for me.

CBs should be a lot more limiting. A conquest CB for particular provinces should be limited to those provinces, though you should be able to go to war over multiple provinces at once.

Annexations of provinces with foreign cultures and religions should result in far more unrest, and should always require some level of troops garrisoned to maintain the peace.

 

[KalypsoKirin]

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. Too many nations in 1444 can be annexed entirely for less than 100 war score, and the only extra cost is diplo points.
In addition, I'd like to see CBs for trade and honor become useful. Right now, the only reason to use them is because you are role-playing or intentionally allowing other nations to remain strong so that they can challenge you in the endgame.

 

[nyetflix]

Perhaps the free claim making could only exist in the first age or two. I think it serves the purposes of historical accuracy pretty well early game as many places get consolidated, but then late game borders get more and more ridiculous and it just becomes a constant cycle of huge blobs facing off every ten yearsuntil one of them makes a mistake, when the game should really be much more subtle at that point.

 

[Metz]

Realistically, there should be more vassalization. The game should be about centralizing and consolidation as this was only achieved in Europe around the 1650s. Fabricating claims on neighboring provinces is a bit unrealistic and exaggerated. It might be better if you could fabricate claims to create border tensions which then can be solved by pushing to obtaining concessions (tax rights, production output, trade priority). Land expansion should be a long-term strategical crawl.

 

[sjobenrit]

I dont think there should be less cb's I think its better to make the provincies you can conquer with 100% ws in 1445 a lot less

 

[Metz]

War of conquest should only happen if you have a core. Fabricating cores via spies is a bit unrealistic. Cores should occur via event, mission tree, through nationalism, or former land you once held in the historical or recent past.

If not then you should be able to declare war for tax rights, trade rights, or production rights. Or all three at one time (higher AE though). Achieving this should give you 25% in one of the categories (or all three). These could be demanded to avoid war. Once you have them, you can raise the % in the vassal screen and by the time you have 100% in each you can diploannex.

In the meantime these countries in your sphere of influence could find help abroad which would then make the diplomacy game more important for you.

 

[ImAdrian]

In my opinion the current system with Aggressive Expansion works well.
You can be a tyrannical dictator looking to conquer the world, but if you attack everyone all the time, you're gonna get dog piled.

In some parts of europe (im looking at you Italy), if you take more than 2-3 provinces in a war, you get like a 30 countries coalition.

Perhaps a suggestion to make it even harder, is to have more AE for low development provinces. That way every province you take, even if it's low dev, is gonna be costly. I don't think the CBs themselves are the problem, but the lack of reaction from the countries around in some cases.

 

[almoravid]

I dont think there should be less cb's I think its better to make the provincies you can conquer with 100% ws in 1445 a lot less

I disagree. Large swaths of territory were conquered really fast in that era. The Ottomans took over the Mamelukes in a year. Timurid empire collapsed and was, in the west, conquered first by Qara Koyunlu, then by Ak Koyunlu, then by the Safawids, while Transoxiana was taken over by the Uzbeks. The remnants of the Timurids then went on to conquer India within some 50 years. Muscovy swiftly took Novgorod, then fought Lithuania for some time, and then just conquered all the steppes.
And if England decided to conquer Scotland, it wouldn't need three wars with long truces in between. It would just take over.

Now we don't want to see things like Castile eating Portugal or Poland conquering Hungary, but hamstringing the peace deals even more is not a step in the right direction.

 

[sjobenrit]

I disagree. Large swaths of territory were conquered really fast in that era. The Ottomans took over the Mamelukes in a year. Timurid empire collapsed and was, in the west, conquered first by Qara Koyunlu, then by Ak Koyunlu, then by the Safawids, while Transoxiana was taken over by the Uzbeks. The remnants of the Timurids then went on to conquer India within some 50 years. Muscovy swiftly took Novgorod, then fought Lithuania for some time, and then just conquered all the steppes.
And if England decided to conquer Scotland, it wouldn't need three wars with long truces in between. It would just take over.

Now we don't want to see things like Castile eating Portugal or Poland conquering Hungary, but hamstringing the peace deals even more is not a step in the right direction.

really tho while you have a good point I think that there should be a disaster for the mamluks which gives their land less OE and much lesser warscore because you cant 'historicly conquer the mamluks as the ottomans

 

[Atacama]

I agree with having a slightly less aggressive expansionism with more realistic/limited CBs if it means we also get more internal conflict at home. (Please add pops and minorities already, thanks).
Expansionism and blobbing should still be a main focus (it's EU after all, expansionism is a core element we love), but it's true that it feels cheap that all my wars follow the same mechanic of fabricated claim after fabricated claim. Sometimes it breaks my immersion because it feels so arcadey. As others have suggested in this forum, war should more often be the final result of a continuous progress of escalation of tension.
I'm not saying we eliminate the option to fabricate claims entirely. It works, it just needs some balancing.

 

[Metz]

I disagree. Large swaths of territory were conquered really fast in that era. The Ottomans took over the Mamelukes in a year. Timurid empire collapsed and was, in the west, conquered first by Qara Koyunlu, then by Ak Koyunlu, then by the Safawids, while Transoxiana was taken over by the Uzbeks. The remnants of the Timurids then went on to conquer India within some 50 years. Muscovy swiftly took Novgorod, then fought Lithuania for some time, and then just conquered all the steppes.
And if England decided to conquer Scotland, it wouldn't need three wars with long truces in between. It would just take over.

Now we don't want to see things like Castile eating Portugal or Poland conquering Hungary, but hamstringing the peace deals even more is not a step in the right direction.

Maybe have this represented by an option you click before declaring war called "raise the stakes" which means you can take over much more for less WS cost. It would go both ways if you end up losing and it would allow other regional powers to declare war on to stabilize the situation. If you can manage to win and protect yourself from being invaded then it would merit you taking much more. This could only be allowed for specific types of CB (that can come either through religion or specific mission trees).

 

[Mingmung]

Annexing provinces is the bread and butter of the game, though. One of the major factors actually contributing to a fun experience is seeing your territory grow.

This isn't a history-simulator. History wouldn't allow Magdeburg to conquer the whole HRE, heck, conquering inside of the HRE was already quite complicated and not done that often (relatively). Much of the splitting and consolidating was done because of dynastic or political reasons, not outright war.

It's a game and should stay a game. There are enough negatives/maluses to offset massive landgrabs already. The system could be made more fun, but shouldn't get slower.

 

[Eruth]

War of conquest should only happen if you have a core. Fabricating cores via spies is a bit unrealistic. Cores should occur via event, mission tree, through nationalism, or former land you once held in the historical or recent past.

If not then you should be able to declare war for tax rights, trade rights, or production rights. Or all three at one time (higher AE though). Achieving this should give you 25% in one of the categories (or all three). These could be demanded to avoid war. Once you have them, you can raise the % in the vassal screen and by the time you have 100% in each you can diploannex.

In the meantime these countries in your sphere of influence could find help abroad which would then make the diplomacy game more important for you.

Do you mean claim? Cause you can't get cores through spies.

 

[Arizal]

I’m really torned on that one. On one hand I don’t want EU CB system to become like CK is. I think it’s important to remember that a CB is a casus belli, the cause of a war, not its end. I think it’s perfectly okay to declare a war asking for something and end it taking something else.

On the other hand, creating a CB is truly far too easy and becomes later on almost useless, as “advanced CBs like imperialism kick in.

So I see how the OP can dislike CBs, but I want to defend them to a certain extent.

How did countries expand historically? A large part of it was to pretend having some legitimacy on a land (either by past fealty or pretending to unify a place), or to conquer religiously different land. You can also see some instances of princes declaring they ought to possess a place because they want more ressources (Silesia, Poland’s sharing... Sweden conquests?)

How to reconcile all of that is the task any future EU game will have to tackle.

 

[PraiseMeLikeIAmYours]

Hmm and they probably should add population in province? The bigger/foreign(culturally and religiously) the provinces were, the more costly the province to own. I think this was the reason why Islamic caliphs had a hard time to rule in Iberian land but were much faster to get defeated.

 

[Arizal]

Hmm and they probably should add population in province? The bigger/foreign(culturally and religiously) the provinces were, the more costly the province to own. I think this was the reason why Islamic caliphs had a hard time to rule in Iberian land but were much faster to get defeated.

Outside of the general mechanic you are proposing, I'm pretty sure the Wisigothic lands in Iberia fell very quickly and it's internal strife which destroyed muslim rules in Spain rather than local resistance. And, well, the Spanish took their sweet time before beating the muslims.

 

[blobdomp]

Maybe have this represented by an option you click before declaring war called "raise the stakes" which means you can take over much more for less WS cost. It would go both ways if you end up losing and it would allow other regional powers to declare war on to stabilize the situation. If you can manage to win and protect yourself from being invaded then it would merit you taking much more. This could only be allowed for specific types of CB (that can come either through religion or specific mission trees).

I definitely think this is good idea. your rivals will often join and so do others.
problem i foresee, is core creatio. in game if ottoman can take over all mamluk one war, they still wont be able to core it all.
this assumes eu5 still has core creation. i think in eu5 they should move away from cores and mana.

 

[Metz]

I definitely think this is good idea. your rivals will often join and so do others.
problem i foresee, is core creatio. in game if ottoman can take over all mamluk one war, they still wont be able to core it all.
this assumes eu5 still has core creation. i think in eu5 they should move away from cores and mana.

The AI should calculate if taking a lot of territory is worth the aftermath of rebellions and overstretched administration.

 

[blobdomp]

The AI should calculate if taking a lot of territory is worth the aftermath of rebellions and overstretched administration.

i think the system should be designed around it, not it around the system.

 

[Arizal]

i think the system should be designed around it, not it around the system.

What is “it”in your sentence?