You don't have to wait though. When you're out of admin you feed to a vassal to integrate later or make your perma-March fatter.
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.
Feed a march, or take less in wars. Is actually clicking the core button the fun for you? Expanding wasn't slowed down. It's just you expand into more value from less physically territory. So you grow just as big but on something like 8 provinces instead of 11.
If they halved the core/annex cost, AE, and OE values across the board... would the game become twice as fun??
- 6
- 2
Sometime I just like to play for sake of playing. For example I got my darcula's revenge at about 1680 or so and used the last 41 years to just fool around (ignoring the play a full game from 1444 to 1821 achievement).
Managing my expansion and fighting wars is the fun for me and if i have to pay more adm points for a province I can fight less wars and expand slower that means I just have to sit there and wait for my mana to recover. This will be even worse outside of europe
- 4
- 1
- 1
you do NOT have to sit there and wait for mana to recover. You can put those provinces into vassals to use dip points instead of admin to acquire them. You can put those provinces into a march, rather than taking them directly. You can simply break your opponent apart without taking provinces, to leave them weakened and not a threat, since the premise was you grow so big that gains from conquered territory don't matter anyway. You could grab non-land rewards, such as money, or pp, or enforcing your religion.
The number of wars doesn't have to go down, and I don't see why it should. It's what you take from these wars that may need to be adjusted.
- 8
- 4
I know that I can vassal feed that is a basic game mechanic but then i have to wait for my dip points to recover. The amount of wars will go down because you won't have enough MP to take the land for yourself or to give it to a vassal. Conquering land is my main rwason to go to war. Money is not worth it bcause in early game the war will probably cost more than you get from your enemy.
Edit: It might be okay in europe where you have enough monarch points and have to wait for your AE to go away but in asia and africa this will be terrible
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
You don't need to wait for dip points to recover to vassal feed if you have a good cb like Holy War, and if you don't have the dip points to vassal feed with a Conquest CB, you don't have the dip points to take the land yourself either.
Last edited:
- 3
Interestingly, it turns out that this is not the case. It's just that there's a bug which randomises the Development of Irish provinces at the 1444 game start (haven't tested other provinces or other start dates).
- 1
Which leads to wonky things like low development enclaves, you only keep and core so you can holy war.
What's your point? You have to pay dip points to annex vassals and you pay dip points to take land on wich you don't have a claim so you have to wait for your dip points to recover.
- 3
It will be better outside of Europe as development is lower. Try playing QQ I almost got over 1000 provinces with them last patch, I would have if I had reformed and westernised. However, as a unreformed horde you get to keep your awesome CB.
- 1
Taking land for yourself and taking land for a vassal are the same cost. Not having the dip to eat a vassal doesn't stop your wars and feeding, it stops your annexation, so that's not a slowdown.
None of that changes feeding a march. This is the one I don't see being acknowledged. Stop taking land, either directly or indirectly, and give it to a march(es) instead, and then tell me you can't chain war expand to your heart's content just as fast as before.
None of that changes feeding a march. This is the one I don't see being acknowledged. Stop taking land, either directly or indirectly, and give it to a march(es) instead, and then tell me you can't chain war expand to your heart's content just as fast as before.
- 1
Ok I calmed down a bit 
and maybe it won't be so bad because I might consider to release nations instead of taking the land but I still have the concern that It will make playing outside of europe horrible. And Admin ideas become almost necessary now.
and maybe it won't be so bad because I might consider to release nations instead of taking the land but I still have the concern that It will make playing outside of europe horrible. And Admin ideas become almost necessary now.- 2
The core game mechanic is war, not expansion. Expansion is either a means to an end (a method by which to grow powerful in order to accomplish your objective) or your actual player-determined objective (conquer X, where X is anything from 1 province to the entire rest of the world).
Expansion, itself, is not "fun" apart from the reward system of seeing your color spread. The actual fun is in fighting the wars (which, hey, should be more entertaining with the new fort system). Expanding is just clicking to take 1-N provinces and then clicking again to core them. That's precisely as fun as internal development.
If you're expanding just to have fun, then that means you probably find wars the most fun part of the game. However, expansionist wars are only one kind of war! There are many other reasons to go to war: helping allies, curbing the power growth of a rival, acquiring PP through humiliation (for extra monarch power to spend on coring or developing), boosting trade / weakening rival trade, etc. Why are these less fun?
Use trade wars to dominate key nodes instead of map-painting the whole node, repeating until the local rivals are weak enough compared to you that they'll give it to you without fighting. Liberate states and release vassals from your enemies to weaken their strength and spread your own sphere of influence. Enforce Peace to prevent expansionist neighbors from growing too powerful. And of course, engage in tons of foreign wars to acquire enemy colonies and create protectorates.
You can become the dominant world power through using these methods, expanding at a much reduced rate from before. With richer provinces and internal development, it's never been more rewarding to do so.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with map painting! If that's what truly interests you -- the specific challenge of directly conquering everything -- then I'm certain it's still manageable. You may have to change your strategies to accomplish this. I have no doubt we'll see WC methods while starting as various minor states emerging within a week or two at most. In fact, starting outside of Europe might be even easier for this since the initial coring costs will be lower than trying to conquer Italy or having to deal with the HRE (probably the best Europe strategy is still becoming the emperor and uniting the HRE, though England got seriously buffed as well and could also be in a prime position for shenanigans).
Expansion, itself, is not "fun" apart from the reward system of seeing your color spread. The actual fun is in fighting the wars (which, hey, should be more entertaining with the new fort system). Expanding is just clicking to take 1-N provinces and then clicking again to core them. That's precisely as fun as internal development.
If you're expanding just to have fun, then that means you probably find wars the most fun part of the game. However, expansionist wars are only one kind of war! There are many other reasons to go to war: helping allies, curbing the power growth of a rival, acquiring PP through humiliation (for extra monarch power to spend on coring or developing), boosting trade / weakening rival trade, etc. Why are these less fun?
Use trade wars to dominate key nodes instead of map-painting the whole node, repeating until the local rivals are weak enough compared to you that they'll give it to you without fighting. Liberate states and release vassals from your enemies to weaken their strength and spread your own sphere of influence. Enforce Peace to prevent expansionist neighbors from growing too powerful. And of course, engage in tons of foreign wars to acquire enemy colonies and create protectorates.
You can become the dominant world power through using these methods, expanding at a much reduced rate from before. With richer provinces and internal development, it's never been more rewarding to do so.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with map painting! If that's what truly interests you -- the specific challenge of directly conquering everything -- then I'm certain it's still manageable. You may have to change your strategies to accomplish this. I have no doubt we'll see WC methods while starting as various minor states emerging within a week or two at most. In fact, starting outside of Europe might be even easier for this since the initial coring costs will be lower than trying to conquer Italy or having to deal with the HRE (probably the best Europe strategy is still becoming the emperor and uniting the HRE, though England got seriously buffed as well and could also be in a prime position for shenanigans).
- 19
- 2
I can't help but feel jsut a little unsympathetic to all the people complaining. A lot of it seems speculatory at this point. The best way yo measure game balance is to play the game. I keep hearing people complaining about things that might happen in 1650 without seeing too many people playing until 1650 to actually see if it's a problem.
Maybe coring costs with developed provinces will be too high. Maybe it won't. Maybe the first level of Admin efficiency will need to be moved up in tech, maybe it won't. Maybe instead of 2 lump-sums, it should be distributed evenly though out the admin tech branch, maybe not.
Until more games reach the mid game period and we can collect data from a wider number of players, this just seems mildly reactionary.
Maybe coring costs with developed provinces will be too high. Maybe it won't. Maybe the first level of Admin efficiency will need to be moved up in tech, maybe it won't. Maybe instead of 2 lump-sums, it should be distributed evenly though out the admin tech branch, maybe not.
Until more games reach the mid game period and we can collect data from a wider number of players, this just seems mildly reactionary.
- 6
- 1
In EUIII you only gain cores if had passed 50 years, or in desicions or missions. And that system was fine, perhaps you in EUIV would gain the core passed the 50 years, but if you want to have cored the province before the 50 years, spend monarch power in it, for me its fine.
- 5
Except that if you hold more than a certain amount of uncored provinces in EU4 (not scaling with your country's size), you explode.
- 3
- 1