For the love of god, lower the coring costs.

[Runite]

Look at that ahistorical Austria. Lol, Qing, what a minmaxer. Russia stop being a tryhard. Mughals wtf, thats not ironman. Ottomans pls, exploit more.

Basically if by 'very few nations' you mean the princes in the HRE, then yes, very few grew more than a 'couple of provinces'. Other than that? Yeah.. history speaks for itself.

1444

Spoiler

you forgot france smashing anything nearby and iberian siberia.

 

[toroltao]

Players complain blobbing too easy, boring, not fun. PI fixes it.

Players complain that blobbing too hard, stupid, and what's the point?

 

[Brids17]

Perhaps this will limit ahistorical blobbing, I approve so much of that. Very few nations grew more than a couple of provinces in europe during this time. Even did so fewer in western europe.

The whole point of this game is to have an alternative history, not to enforce what actually happened on the player. We know what happened, we all learned it in history class, we, or at least most people, want to change history. We want to take a nation that was historically weak and wiped out early on and make them a super power of the world. It's fun. If that's not your play style, that's fine but I don't know why you would want it to change for others.

 

[JOD]

If you can't see the difference between 1444 France and 1718 France then I'm afraid I can't help you. Talk to your ophthalmologist, he might be able to give you a hand.

And if you can't tell that the time between 1444 and 1718 is MORE than enough to cover that territory and more reasonably without dipping behind in ADM or DIP, I'm not even sure who to tell you seek.

Since that is easily accomplished in game, with the current coring costs, it still doesn't support your argument.

 

[Osman Pasha]

Even Dalmatia costs 100+ for some reason...

 

[Kalderus]

no

Don't worry folks, just revert back to 1.11 and pretend this horrendous train-wreck of a patch never happened, and if you haven't already, don't buy the dlc. Speak with your wallet and they'll eventually understand.

Meanwhile, our friend above might have to go back into electronics advertising...

 

[boilpoil]

A 5 province Guyenne (Poitou, Gascone, Bearn, Armagnac, Labourd) Costs 730 dip points to annex. I don't think it was even close to that before the patch.

Why are so many people calling for curbstomping expansion so much?

Ulster with a claim cost me about 96 admin to core...

Assuming even a subpar monarch (2 ADM/month), it would just take 4 years' worth of administrative effort to convince all the local population that you are a rightful suzerain to the area, and should it ever get retaken/conquered by someone else, those residents will think YOU are one of those rightful to own a fifth of Ireland for a 50 years because you have worked on integrating it for four years prior.

Gosh, some historical accuracy right here. You should look up the history of, for example, Ottoman-held Albania. There are countless other examples of many places unable to be fully brought into the fold of their conquerors. You should be glad that conquest is actually not as hard as it was historically and requires just some years' effort. Yes, France, Spain, Austria are so stronk. Have they ever managed to cheesily annex half of Europe by 1600 historically? No. Not even close. This is a fantastic change because it made conquest actually worth a hassle without making it too tedious to deal with in the long run.

 

[wingzero890]

Don't worry folks, just revert back to 1.11 and pretend this horrendous train-wreck of a patch never happened, and if you haven't already, don't buy the dlc.

That's a bit extreme. Just mod core cost in the defines.. (nevermind, you can only change the cost for diplo annexing) this DLC is actually pretty excellent overall. I really like the forts and the revamped missions. The core cost is my only real gripe with Common Sense.

Spoiler

ANNEX_DIP_COST_PER_DEVELOPMENT = 10, -- per development

 

[gajop]

The fact that conquest is magically limited by some abstract "administrative point" mechanic along with the completely silly and unhistorical/unrealistic overextension modifier is literally the most annoying part of the game.
Props for making the dull part worse.

 

[MatthieuG7]

The whole point of this game is to have an alternative history, not to enforce what actually happened on the player. .

Yes it's to have a alternate history but in reality. If suddenly there would be an event that made alien invade the earth it wouldn't be realistic. WC is on the same level as alien in term of ahistorical event.

 

[Kalderus]

The fact that conquest is magically limited by some abstract "administrative point" mechanic along with the completely silly and unhistorical/unrealistic overextension modifier is literally the most annoying part of the game.
Props for making the dull part worse.

Not only is it limited by that abstract mechanic, the mechanic itself is almost entirely RNG dependent, the same with the legitimacy system. You wanted to get some tech or ideas, "LOL NOPE! We just gave you a 0/1/0 monarch. And he has a weak claim. And he's 1, since your previous heir, who happened to be the same age as your 80 year-old monarch, randomly died, and due to the lack of a character system, no one but the infant is around to inherit. Oh, and the regency council has stats of 1/0/0. Enjoy your 15 year regency with an impending civil war and tech lag for the next 65-75 years!

Yes it's to have a alternate history but in reality. If suddenly there would be an event that made alien invade the earth it wouldn't be realistic. WC is on the same level as alien in term of ahistorical event.

Then perhaps there shouldn't be steam achievements for this then, if the goal is to make it impossible. Steam does not allow achievements that are actually impossible. Then perhaps a game shouldn't feature an advertising trailer showing Sweden conquering the world

 

[Moryg]

Assuming even a subpar monarch (2 ADM/month), it would just take 4 years' worth of administrative effort to convince all the local population that you are a rightful suzerain to the area, and should it ever get retaken/conquered by someone else, those residents will think YOU are one of those rightful to own a fifth of Ireland for a 50 years because you have worked on integrating it for four years prior.

Gosh, some historical accuracy right here. You should look up the history of, for example, Ottoman-held Albania. There are countless other examples of many places unable to be fully brought into the fold of their conquerors. You should be glad that conquest is actually not as hard as it was historically and requires just some years' effort. Yes, France, Spain, Austria are so stronk. Have they ever managed to cheesily annex half of Europe by 1600 historically? No. Not even close. This is a fantastic change because it made conquest actually worth a hassle without making it too tedious to deal with in the long run.

Was conquest too "cheap" before? Most likely.
Is this system better? Absolutely not, it just makes it impossible to spread at the rate it was possible before.

After a while, I realised my issue is with the whole bloody magic points system than anything else. It's no more realistic for a province to cost X or Y magic points I randomly determine from my ruler. If you want more historical accuracy, I'd rather merge some EU3 mechanics into the game.

Say you conquer a province, you start coring it automatically. For each development of that province, it takes you some months to automatically make it a core (say... 6-12 months per development?). The religious tolerance / accepted culture could add bonuses to the coring speed. Spend admin points (each month, ongoing drain like annexation of vassals) to speed the process up, while increasing revolt risk. Defeat the separatist rebels that rose up from that province? Perhaps a small boost to the coring process.
Create a new envoy type - magistrate, to help with that (can only speed up the coring of a limited number of provinces at a time).

It would be (in my opinion) more accurate from the history perspective and it would still hamper rapid expansion. Sitting on overextension (which I would also modify from static to exponential growth along with a small impact from the country size) for a while would make you deal with rebels.

 

[JOD]

Not only is it limited by that abstract mechanic, the mechanic itself is almost entirely RNG dependent, the same with the legitimacy system. You wanted to get some tech or ideas, "LOL NOPE! We just gave you a 0/1/0 monarch. And he has a weak claim. And he's 1, since your previous heir, who happened to be the same age as your 80 year-old monarch, randomly died, and due to the lack of a character system, no one but the infant is around to inherit. Oh, and the regency council has stats of 1/0/0. Enjoy your 15 year regency with an impending civil war and tech lag for the next 65-75 years!

I actually kinda agree witht eh sentiment, though there's no need to be so confrontational about it.

I do wish monarch point generation was more based on player action and skill. Though it has gotten more manageable with national focus + PP, I would still love to see a more active system for generation. Perhaps half of the points could be automatic from Ruler + adviser and have the other half based on performance somehow.

It would be (in my opinion) more accurate from the history perspective and it would still hamper rapid expansion. Sitting on overextension (which I would also modify from static to exponential growth along with a small impact from the country size) for a while would make you deal with rebels.

I personally would love to tie it to Autonomy. A province at 100% autonomy provides no bonuses and should provide barely any, if at all over extension. The higher the autonomy, the harder to core. Low autonomy, lower AMD cost. In this case, ADM would signify forced integration rather than natural integration over time. There for the goal could be to moderate expansion with slow decreases of autonomy to integrate a realm cheaply once autonomy was low.

 

[Tweakee]

Yes it's to have a alternate history but in reality. If suddenly there would be an event that made alien invade the earth it wouldn't be realistic. WC is on the same level as alien in term of ahistorical event.

That's a design decision I would agree with... if it were made before launch.

Instead they made a game where conquering huge amounts of territory is the primary gameplay. The achievements are a good indicator of PI's mindset towards EU4, and the list is stuffed with goals to conquer giant swaths of land ahistorically.

Trying to go back to the drawing board now is doubly foolish. First, it reverses their own concept for the game. Second it pushes the player towards gameplay that is just plain boring.

 

[SeeWolfMDK]

It's just an opinion, but I assume Paradox wanted to prevent players to be able to feed to big chunks of land to their vassals. I mean you could control giant parts and would never have problems with rebels, autonomy or anything, just had to improve relations with your vassal from time to time. And at some point of time you could easily integrate it within a couple of years.

It obviously got harder to build big vassals, but I think that's the point.

 

[Wizzington]

To expound on my reply from yesterday, coring costs have gone up somewhere around 40% compared to 1.11 (more for dipannexation) because we wanted to create some more interesting dynamics where conquering everything around you was not necessarily always the best option.

It is still both possible and rewarding to expand, particularly if you take the right ideas, put money into advisors and use a mix of conquest and diploannexing. As Milan, I was able to unify most of Italy (more than twice starting development of France) in under a century without any core cost reduction, and could easily have done so faster. Growth is slower but it's certainly not 'blobbing now pointless'.

With that said, you are of course free to disagree, but this was an intended change and we knew it would upset some people, so we're not reverting it just because of one angry thread on the forums.

 

[gajop]

This is how your answer should've looked in the first place.

I disagree of course, because this is a game of conquest mostly, and definitely a game of war. This "diplomacy" expansion can be branded as your best war expansion so far (especially the fortress stuff).

Give us some more non-conquest CBs that we can use to do stuff while time ticks. Some way to initiate wars that would reduce our non-neighboring enemies into smaller pieces, or put leaders who would be more willing to cooperate with us (like it was often done during that period of time). You can think of other things too I'm sure.

 

[panionios]

To expound on my reply from yesterday, coring costs have gone up somewhere around 40% compared to 1.11 (more for dipannexation) because we wanted to create some more interesting dynamics where conquering everything around you was not necessarily always the best option.

It is still both possible and rewarding to expand, particularly if you take the right ideas, put money into advisors and use a mix of conquest and diploannexing. As Milan, I was able to unify most of Italy (more than twice starting development of France) in under a century without any core cost reduction, and could easily have done so faster. Growth is slower but it's certainly not 'blobbing now pointless'.

With that said, you are of course free to disagree, but this was an intended change and we knew it would upset some people, so we're not reverting it just because of one angry thread on the forums.

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wizzington]

Yeah, sorry about yesterday's reply. It was borne from post release beer and irritation with some of the ridiculous exhaggerations in this thread.

 

[merserm]

This is a straight up bargain.
It would cost the same MP to raise the development level of an existing province by 3-4 pts?
I bet Liguria is at least 20.