I will support the "no" if you allow claiming Prussia from Pommerania again. As of now I pay more monarch points for less - I don't care about Pommerania in any economic context, I care for it as the springboard into Prussia.
- 6
- 2
For the love of god, lower the coring costs.
- Thread starter Bagfisch
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I will support the "no" if you allow claiming Prussia from Pommerania again. As of now I pay more monarch points for less - I don't care about Pommerania in any economic context, I care for it as the springboard into Prussia.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Seems you've taken your own advice Wiz.
Seems you've taken your own advice Wiz.
- 40
- 7
I have no issue with the increase of coring costs (I approve of things that slow down ridiculous expansion), but it would be interesting to see the concept of coring evolve from what it is now. Coring a province you own is pretty much a no brainer since the cost of not coring every province is too high. This is different than cultural conversion which is far more of a 'nice to have' (probably too far on the other side of the scale).
- 8
- 1
They should tone down the salt a bit, yes. My food is savory enough already.
- 2
- 1
The thing is that conquest is pretty much the best way to spend your monarch points on if you wan't to increase your power. Just play with less ideas, techs and try to put all of your monarch points on conquest and you will have no problems at all.
- 1
While I get the intention of increasing cost, it seems like this is yet another thing tested that works ok for the first 50 years that Paradox tests the patches then gets stupid out of control. The -50% cost later in the game isn't going to do much if countries double their development by 1650. Anyone who wants to attack Europe late is screwed. Also, dip integration cost is too high for the drawbacks now.
- 8
Maybe we should have an "imperialism" idea group alongside Humanism and Religious, to enable a different playstyle: don't bother to core
- 1
- 1
That is only viable if you are a master strategist at world conquest...
If somebody makes their starting provinces twice as good you will gain twice the value so thats why you pay more.
- 8
- 1
Irrelevant. There is a point where gaining new tax and manpower for yourself has no meaning other than denying it to you enemy.
- 5
- 2
That is not how it works... For 50 admin, a typical Europe Farmland first development and cost to increase development grow afterward, you get "0.1" more tax income in a province. So to do "double" income you would have to spend a LOT to come anywhere close to double ignoring tax modifiers.
Edit: for clarifications
- 1
With about maybe 1000 points spent on conquest I turned Norway into the most powerful country in the world because I only payed for the provinces I needed to dominate trade.
Just waiting for TMIT to post a rage post about cores being more expensive .
.- 2
The problem here is the same as it always was, just more pronounced because of the new balance Paradox is trying to strike between Wide and Tall.
Coring shouldn't be immediately necessary. It seems expensive because it's something we currently need to do within a few years or risk hitting the imaginary roadblock of 100% OE, but really the process of fully integrating a province or realm should be (initially) expensive and time-consuming.
The 1.12 coring costs seem appropriate for trying to integrate a province one day after the peace is signed (arguably, in a historical way). And the new 1 Development / 1% OE equivalence looks spiffy on paper. But that arbitrary 100% OE wall still hits like a bus, and I'm sure it will get worse as development costs scale upward in the lategame, because coring is still necessary. Really, I want to have the option of conquering a province, leaving it uncored and getting almost nothing of value from it, and slowly reaping the detriments of leaving it uncored over an extended period of time (rebels, religious unity hit, etc.) -- instead of hitting 100% OE after a few wars and having everything snowball out of control at once. If coring cost drops over ~a century, great, but I don't think 1.12 coring costs are obscene for trying to core on Day 1.
Coring shouldn't be immediately necessary. It seems expensive because it's something we currently need to do within a few years or risk hitting the imaginary roadblock of 100% OE, but really the process of fully integrating a province or realm should be (initially) expensive and time-consuming.
The 1.12 coring costs seem appropriate for trying to integrate a province one day after the peace is signed (arguably, in a historical way). And the new 1 Development / 1% OE equivalence looks spiffy on paper. But that arbitrary 100% OE wall still hits like a bus, and I'm sure it will get worse as development costs scale upward in the lategame, because coring is still necessary. Really, I want to have the option of conquering a province, leaving it uncored and getting almost nothing of value from it, and slowly reaping the detriments of leaving it uncored over an extended period of time (rebels, religious unity hit, etc.) -- instead of hitting 100% OE after a few wars and having everything snowball out of control at once. If coring cost drops over ~a century, great, but I don't think 1.12 coring costs are obscene for trying to core on Day 1.
- 27
And that is probably exactly what the developers want to avoid, no? Most campaigns end so soon because by that point many players are so powerful that continuing makes no sense. Bigger coring costs slow expansion and, thus, extend the game. Just play on a higher speed every once in a while. You don't need to feel like you are not accomplishing anything if you are not expanding every 5 years.
- 11
- 1
dis sounds a job for the american military budget
let me write dis down on my $50 memobook, ill get back to u in about two weeks also
- 6
- 1
Dominating trades and all is well and great. But exactly how is it relevant to a world conquest strategy? You can already do that by kicking everybody out of a trade node's region through straight up conquest.
- 1
- 1
OT: why do people rate a post only saying 'no' as helpful. I do not care for the normative judgement whether you agree with it or not. But no does not seem helpful to me at all in any circumstance. Stop doing it just because he is a mod.
- 39
- 4
- 4
so are you saying the expansion it makes conquest far too cost prohibitive? without the expansion, no one can raise development on provinces
- 1