Expansion idea set

[Badesumofu]

the finisher is good even if you dont care bout it

It really isn't. Example from my game right now: it's 1654 and I have 4223 development (3434 autonomy modified). My income is 903.9 ducats per month. I'm running full level 5 advisors and I'm 544/406 force limit with 56k in the bank. My state maintenance is costing me 29 ducats a month. That finisher would save me a whole 7.25 ducats per month. I'm currently making 139 ducats per month and that's while spending about 100 a month on buying down corruption and reinforcing my fully professional army.

I could save more by deleting the useless forts I conquered recently and never got around to dismantling.

 

[gia257]

eh, the finisher is that you can fab claims over the coast of asia an africa regardless of you having land nearby or not, thats why i suggested to buff threaten war along with it

 

[Horn and Ivory]

? That's exactly my point - I see that binary proposition as being a weird design choice that I'm not sure I understand just yet. You even described exactly how being at war is made to be the neutral state, because you get something ("bonus", as you said) when you're not at war, ie it's something you don't "normally" have.

That is a more convoluted example, but if that's how it works then I do indeed see that as being a case where no core = neutral state, even if that means the neutral state is almost never in effect.

The current system makes stacking wars more of a risk/reward balancing act. It's nice to be at peace because you get autonomy reduction, war exhaustion reduction, easier to do certain diplomatic things etc. But trying to maximise times of peace by running wars in parallel comes with its own risks and problems - what happens if one front unexpectedly goes wrong and you're still dealing with the other one, or someone else declares on you? Quite often you're forced to declare wars in serial to minimise such risks but you're often wondering if you could get away with doubling up on a small one. It's a nice system, I reckon. If you instead had each war increasing autonomy, you'd be removing an interesting decision which currently exists.

 

[Coffer]

The current system makes stacking wars more of a risk/reward balancing act. It's nice to be at peace because you get autonomy reduction, war exhaustion reduction, easier to do certain diplomatic things etc. But trying to maximise times of peace by running wars in parallel comes with its own risks and problems - what happens if one front unexpectedly goes wrong and you're still dealing with the other one, or someone else declares on you? Quite often you're forced to declare wars in serial to minimise such risks but you're often wondering if you could get away with doubling up on a small one. It's a nice system, I reckon. If you instead had each war increasing autonomy, you'd be removing an interesting decision which currently exists.

I don't know if it would necessarily make the decision any less interesting as, in my experience (and this is what it comes down to imo as I definitely have less experience than most veteran posters here, hence why I'm inquiring about it) and judging from the values used, the punishment doesn't seem big enough for trying to do so, meaning the risk-reward element is largely minimized. Someone declaring on you is an absolutely valid point and in that case the current system is definitely better, but that still leaves the case where you're the only one declaring where I feel the player should be hit a bit harder, especially if things don't go to plan (where I feel simply having to contend with a situation where both fronts are competitive isn't enough on its own). It's not like you wouldn't still gain something from running wars in parallel and successfully pulling it off, as time, for instance, is a finite resource.

Thinking on it, differentiating between the cases in such a way that you'd have a separate case for defensive wars would make for a pointlessly convoluted system and somehow make it seem as though war isn't war if it's not a certain kind of war, further strengthening your point and making the current system more valid.

 

[iquabakaner]

eh, the finisher is that you can fab claims over the coast of asia an africa regardless of you having land nearby or not, thats why i suggested to buff threaten war along with it

Why do you even need fabricating when you can take religious ideas to get free CB?

 

[Badesumofu]

eh, the finisher is that you can fab claims over the coast of asia an africa regardless of you having land nearby or not, thats why i suggested to buff threaten war along with it

That part is pretty bad too. It's not hard to get claims into TC regions without Expansion. Exploration gives missions for it, and you don't even have to actually buy an idea for that. Just pick the group, take the mission, and the ditch the group again. That aspect of the finisher is a minor convenience only. The state maintenance part is a barely noticeable saving of ducats.

 

[Amadeu of Savoy]

The worst part about the Expansion idea group no doubt are the −10% Recruitment time and the −10% Shipbuilding time ideas. They are way too expensive for their marginal benefit. Even if they were combined in a single idea it would still be a very weak idea. Also, it has little relation to the concept of Expansion.

In the long run, even the +1 colonistis is barely worth it for colonizing since other groups will let you earn more money faster, and thus run an extra colony above your limit.

I completely agree that having enough money is what limits colonization, those quadruple expenses pile up really quick.

Why do you even need fabricating when you can take religious ideas to get free CB?

For the case when you don't take religious ideas and take expansion instead.

That aspect of the finisher is a minor convenience only. The state maintenance part is a barely noticeable saving of ducats.

I'st helpful when you are colonizing and also running states with edicts, but maybe to be truly helpful both state maintenance and the reduction would have to be higher indeed. But that's why the finisher is actually two bonuses: the state maintenance reduction and the possibility of fabricating claims in trade company regions. The later is helpful when you don't have a mission giving you claim to a region you want to get involved.

 

[SuperCrumpets]

How about this, its what im doing in my mod now that this patch forced me to actually get around to updating it.
It fits the theme and seems reasonable to me.
20% dev cost reduction for deving colonies for tariff money and liberty desire
max states so you can expand more while still having the land be useful and to make the state maintenance modifier stronger.
CCR because it just makes too much sense to me not to
and the useless ideas just being abit less useless.

expansion_ideas = {
category = ADM
important = yes

bonus = {
cb_on_overseas = yes
state_maintenance_modifier = -0.25
development_cost = -0.2
max_states = 10
core_creation = -0.10
}

additional_colonists = {
colonists = 1
}
additional_merchants = {
merchants = 1
}
faster_colonists = {
global_colonial_growth = 20
}
organised_recruiting = {
global_regiment_recruit_speed = -0.3
}
additional_diplomats = {
diplomatic_upkeep = 1
}
improved_shipyards = {
global_ship_recruit_speed = -0.3
}
competetive_merchants = {
global_trade_power = 0.2
}

 

[Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!]

I think it's meant to be for a specific play style, but you're right it is underwhelming. I did find the +1 relations useful in one game, but only because I already had diplo an influ. 7 vassals was nice.

 

[Datlof]

Yeah like in the 1st post on this. once upon a time back around common sense(1.18 when I first started) It had the CB for basically anyone East or South of The Ottomans. I would use that a lot to munch through North Africa and colonize to the weak/rich nations in the bypassing the weak but still annoying Mamaluks and impending Ottoman threat. Now it's just good for the colonist and policy for having it and exploration. My old favs were Explo, Relig, Expan, and Quality. I mainly switched Expansion for Influence or Economic now. I would love my old set back to full glory. I may not be the best against people, but that set made me the Big African Blob

 

[Less2]

It really isn't. Example from my game right now: it's 1654 and I have 4223 development (3434 autonomy modified). My income is 903.9 ducats per month. I'm running full level 5 advisors and I'm 544/406 force limit with 56k in the bank. My state maintenance is costing me 29 ducats a month. That finisher would save me a whole 7.25 ducats per month. I'm currently making 139 ducats per month and that's while spending about 100 a month on buying down corruption and reinforcing my fully professional army.

I could save more by deleting the useless forts I conquered recently and never got around to dismantling.

Ironically, if Expansion is intended to help you expand into trade company provinces, it defeats itself since Trade Companies are like the anti-state mechanics: Absurd amounts of ducats with no state maintenance costs attached. My Japan game has similar numbers, net +270 income a month, Expansion's finisher would improve that by... 4.2 ducats a month. Even running edicts in every state would leave it a drop in the bucket.

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

Why do you even need fabricating when you can take religious ideas to get free CB?

I'm not taking up for expansion ideas, but Deus Vult requires a border. The Expansion finisher can let you expand into several different regions very quickly with targeted claims.

 

[bbqftw]

You always have a cb.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I admit, I would upgrade my opinion of expansion considerably if we had the old CB while having the new trade company mechanics. It would still cut off something important, but it would offer something pretty valuable too.

 

[Badesumofu]

I'm not taking up for expansion ideas, but Deus Vult requires a border. The Expansion finisher can let you expand into several different regions very quickly with targeted claims.

Exploration gives you completely free claims into TC regions via missions. If they aren't enough, you can just send a colonist to a nearby uninhabited island to give fabricating range. Getting CBs into these areas is not hard, and there's not much stopping you from just no-CBing your way in anyhow. A no-CB here or there is a lot cheaper than an entire ADM idea group.

If the group gave a Dues Vult level CB (no unjustified demands, AE and province cost discount included) into all TC provinces, and they buffed up the rest of the group then it would be worth another look. Throw in some trade steering, a second colonist, more settler growth, along with that CB and you start to have an idea group that looks appealing.

 

[deathbypie]

I don't see why administrative ideas have RCC, while expansion doesn't. RCC helps you expand, not administrate what you already have.

Of course, RCC as an idea will make any group it is in a must-pick, so I would rather it just not exist as an idea anywhere, and make up for it with global changes to core cost..

 

[gia257]

What about trade companies have a 50% autonomy floor, but 25% if you have expansion (about 4th or 5th idea)