I wish you would get rid of the increased coring cost feature.
Its the one feature who irritate me the most with this game.
Its the one feature who irritate me the most with this game.
get rid of increased coring cost
- Thread starter PeterHe
- 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.
If they replace it with a system representing the berber's ability to fight off the iberians, I'm all for it (and any other small nation to occasionally fight of larger powers). Otherwise no thanks.
Replace it with longer nationalism or smth.
I agree that it's one of the most annoying game mechanics.
I agree that it's one of the most annoying game mechanics.
1. What's smth?
2. If they weren't conquered in the first place why represent it with nationalism after they have been?
I don't know guys, Iberians can keep up with Tech regardless of all the berber lands they conquer...
If I recall correctly increased coring cost now also affects diplomatic annexation as of 1.8/AoW
1. explained above
2. increased coring cost only comes into play AFTER the provinces have been conquered. So I fail to see your point there.
I don't mind about the coring cost, what I care about is the unjustified demands cost!
It deter's the ai (well, a little, used to a lot more when it was 200% (still is in my personal mod for this reason, I hate seeing iberian morocco)). I agree to some extent though, neither of them are very good solutions, and I certainly don't have a better one so I should probably just be quiet
.
It deter's the ai (well, a little, used to a lot more when it was 200% (still is in my personal mod for this reason, I hate seeing iberian morocco)). I agree to some extent though, neither of them are very good solutions, and I certainly don't have a better one so I should probably just be quiet
In my games Castile and Portugal still eat these nations. So the deterrence isn't working.
As for the player ... the disincentives to conquer those lands are already very high, many bad provinces, pesky religion,
off-culture with little to no hope of ever becoming accepted, no strait crossing.
It's of course not just berber, there's others and it's just as annoying in those cases.
I vassalise georgia and now it taking forever to annex it. That such a game breaker.
?
Some few nations loose coring cost increase so all nations should loose coring cost reductions?
Not to mention that neither Castile nor Portugal have coring cost reductions.
Just no.
I wasn't talking about Castile or Portugal.
If it ruins the game for certain nations to be more expensive to core, then why is it not equally bad for certain nations to find it far cheaper to core? Logically, giving certain nations a coring cost reduction is like giving everyone else a coring cost increase.
Oh, and in my view the reason core cost increases exist is to represent nations that hung around for a long time into the game without growing, something that is very difficult to represent in the current game. If you make a nation like Georgia able to defend itself against its neighbours, it will be strong enough to invade them, coring cost insures it hangs around.
Yeah. It's not a great mechanic, but it does serve a purpose that other game mechanics fail to model well (in this case the ability of certain areas to preserve their independence and the unrealistic ability to project power into remote and inhospitable areas)
It doesn't ruin the game.
It's supposed to protect some nations from aggression. The mechanic doesn't achieve this end and only serves to aggravate the player.
I can see a multiplayer purpose for it, but that's what aristocratic ideas are for.
As for the coring cost reduction, I can see the argument now (since you said "all" I assumed you meant including claims & idea administrative).
Of course that'd be pretty problematic for senor ottoman, not that I would shed a tear.
Does it? If I want to conquer Georgia as a player, I will, no matter the coring cost. Or I'll vassal and deal with the longer integration.
The AI seems to not mind a lot either in the case of morocco. And as for projection of power into remote and inhospitable areas, when looking at some of the other areas this description could be applied to, I don't think national ideas is the best tool.
Last edited:
The assertion was that it deters the AI. So, player behavior is beside the point; obviously, a player is going to do it if he/she want to. But, actually, the fact that it annoys you (and me and probably others) DOES probably deter us a bit, too.
As to how effective it is at deterring the AI, it was incredibly effective in previous patches. I can't swear how effective it is in the current version, since they reportedly tweaked it (1.7, IIRC). I would doubt that they removed the deterrent logic, completely. I suspect they just toned it down.
National ideas may not be the best tool, but it seems to serve. Since it's not a mechanic that is particularly egregious or broken, IMHO, I'd hope they focus on other improvements first.
It definitely works against the AI, they are seriously deterred by the mechanic (though less so than previously).
Against the player, the fact that there are so many complaints by people trying to take the territory suggests that it does work. Personally, in my QQ game I have vassalised Georgia and given them all the nearby Circassian territories, I don't intend to annex them for a while (if ever) because of the cost. In this case the mechanic is working almost perfectly to ensure their historical survival.
In multiplayer....the only times I saw people take Aristocratic ideas (before they were buffed) was when they were losing and trying to draw out their survival by making it as costly as possible to take. Nations that were doing well didn't take it.