Getting CRUSHED by new Unlawful Imperial Territory Modifier for just following mission tree!

[Secuter]

What you are experiencing is probably a bug. There should be an expiration date for sure. Strange.

But, the modfiier, if it had an expiration date is very fair. After all, even if they are permanent, they are still claims. Though, I think you can either ally the Emperor or improve relations with the Emperor. While not a certainty, they will not demand unlawful territory as often.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

What you are experiencing is probably a bug. There should be an expiration date for sure. Strange.

Nah. It's effectively a stackable triggered modifier; it goes away when you don't own any uncored HRE provinces.

 

[Secuter]

Nah. It's effectively a stackable triggered modifier; it goes away when you don't own any uncored HRE provinces.

Makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Sidolowka]

Oh, just look at those hideous, GLORIOUSLY oversized provinces and borders!

square memel

bottom text

 

[akrau]

Ah okay... the game is just bugged then. Because those have been there for so long. I think that's why it is way more noticible than before when it would go away after a few years or just be at war and not get it at all.

 

[grotaclas]

Ah okay... the game is just bugged then. Because those have been there for so long. I think that's why it is way more noticible than before when it would go away after a few years or just be at war and not get it at all.

Do you have a save which shows that bug?

 

[Restless Native]

The oldest executable version which I have installed is 1.5 and it already has that modifier with the same size as the current version(1 prestige, 0.5 legitimacy per province):
View attachment 774838View attachment 774839

Wow. I didn’t realise how many new provinces were added. It looks very different

So just to summarise this thread as I haven’t played with the new patch yet, is there a change to expansion in HRE? Has it been made more difficult?

 

[grotaclas]

So just to summarise this thread as I haven’t played with the new patch yet, is there a change to expansion in HRE? Has it been made more difficult?

To summarize this thread, the modifier has not changed and it is just more visible now. The OP says that the modifier does not go away, but nobody else has seen this and the OP has not yet provided a save which shows that.

It is not really the point of this thread and I have not really played this patch either, but I think there are three changes which impact the expansion in the HRE:

• AE for taking provinces in general was reduced, but AE for vassalizing is unchanged
• AE for forcing a PU is twice as high as in 1.31
• an AI emperor now demands unlawful territory while the player is at war. Another relatively recent change is that an AI emperor demands unlawful territory from allies, but that seems to only happen sometimes and I don't know if anybody figured out when exactly

 

[Republic of Mercury]

• an AI emperor now demands unlawful territory while the player is at war. Another relatively recent change is that an AI emperor demands unlawful territory from allies, but that seems to only happen sometimes and I don't know if anybody figured out when exactly

I strongly suspect it's based on relations, and I've heard that sentiment echoed elsewhere; In my (admittedly fairly short) 1.32 Brandenburg run I never got a single demand, and I kept Austria's opinion of my high at all times. I think some people just slap the alliance down and assume that as long as they're allied, they don't need to worry about it further. Which used to be true, but probably isn't anymore.

 

[Restless Native]

To summarize this thread, the modifier has not changed and it is just more visible now. The OP says that the modifier does not go away, but nobody else has seen this and the OP has not yet provided a save which shows that.

It is not really the point of this thread and I have not really played this patch either, but I think there are three changes which impact the expansion in the HRE:

• AE for taking provinces in general was reduced, but AE for vassalizing is unchanged
• AE for forcing a PU is twice as high as in 1.31
• an AI emperor now demands unlawful territory while the player is at war. Another relatively recent change is that an AI emperor demands unlawful territory from allies, but that seems to only happen sometimes and I don't know if anybody figured out when exactly

Ok thank you. All that seems fair. Big takeaway is if you’re allied to the emperor it’s not a guarantee they won’t demand unlawful territory?

 

[The_Boominator]

It would be a wonderful idea to rework the memey, ahistorical mission tree for Brandenburg
What I mean by that:
1. One of the first missions giving permaclaims on the entire states of Saxony-Anhalt, Lower Saxony and Weser. Anhalt and Bremen were never part of Prussia, the former Kingdom of Hanover only became part of it in 1866, well outside the EU4 timeframe (representing that by a mission at the end of the tree would be fine, but not as one of the first things to do)
2. The Conquer Lower Saxony missions, the second one in that awful branch, giving permaclaims on Brunswick and all of Westphalia. Most of Westphalia became part of Prussia at the Congress of Vienna, Brunswick was never Prussian. Again, a mission that promotes and rewards ahistorical behaviour very early on.
3. The Duchy of Cleves mission requiring those two ahistorical, memey missions when this is something that Brandenburg did quite early on, in 1609, in fact before conquering anything it has to conquer in the two missions that it necessarily has to complete before doing this.
4. The Emden Company mission, which is again something that happened historically, requiring the meme mission "Westphalian Conquest"

I think the mission tree being somewhat ahistorical is to reflect game mechanics. Realpolitik and regional confederations are not really things in EU4. To greatly oversimplify things, the ultimate formation of Germany was largely achieved by a war with France and a union of German states. That simply is not a mechanic in EU4. The game alludes to the North German Confederation, but in practice this mission just gives you claims on North Germany as a region.

The diplomatic maneuvering that created Germany in reality simply cannot be replicated in EU4, so the conquest-based missions are a necessary compromise. Yes, it is ahistorical, but it's the most sensible way Prussia would go about creating Germany within the scope of EU4.

Edit: Not to mention, the existence of Germany in EU4's timeline is ahistorical to begin with, and any Germany that exists independent of Napoleon's actions would be surprising. Every EU4 game is an alternate history scenario.

 

[Twoflower]

I think the mission tree being somewhat ahistorical is to reflect game mechanics. Realpolitik and regional confederations are not really things in EU4. To greatly oversimplify things, the ultimate formation of Germany was largely achieved by a war with France and a union of German states. That simply is not a mechanic in EU4. The game alludes to the North German Confederation, but in practice this mission just gives you claims on North Germany as a region.

The diplomatic maneuvering that created Germany in reality simply cannot be replicated in EU4, so the conquest-based missions are a necessary compromise. Yes, it is ahistorical, but it's the most sensible way Prussia would go about creating Germany within the scope of EU4.

Edit: Not to mention, the existence of Germany in EU4's timeline is ahistorical to begin with, and any Germany that exists independent of Napoleon's actions would be surprising. Every EU4 game is an alternate history scenario.

My point is that the ahistorical missions pushing towards an early formation of Germany come before things that Brandenburg historically accomplished like the union with Kleve-Mark.
A good mission tree should start with stuff that the country accomplished historically or (if the tree is not for a high achiever like Brandenburg) that the country tried to/wanted to do historically and only after those more plausible things lead to very hypothetical, anachronistic or fantasy stuff.
Personally, I could very much do without missions that push Brandenburg-Prussia towards an early unification, but at least that memey stuff should not be a prerequisite for obtaining Kleve-Mark.

 

[JacobiteJames]

I think the mission tree being somewhat ahistorical is to reflect game mechanics. Realpolitik and regional confederations are not really things in EU4. To greatly oversimplify things, the ultimate formation of Germany was largely achieved by a war with France and a union of German states. That simply is not a mechanic in EU4. The game alludes to the North German Confederation, but in practice this mission just gives you claims on North Germany as a region.

The diplomatic maneuvering that created Germany in reality simply cannot be replicated in EU4, so the conquest-based missions are a necessary compromise. Yes, it is ahistorical, but it's the most sensible way Prussia would go about creating Germany within the scope of EU4.

Edit: Not to mention, the existence of Germany in EU4's timeline is ahistorical to begin with, and any Germany that exists independent of Napoleon's actions would be surprising. Every EU4 game is an alternate history scenario.

Prussia's dominance within the german federation to cause a ngf sgf split by being powerful to rival Austria for hegemony would only happen in the 19th. Similarly needing to use the threat of french invasion to illegaly annex bavaria and wurtemburg, as well as the rejection of Austria from the concept of Germany could only occur in the 19th.

Prior to the 19th century we could have seen Germany form a different way. Charles V being successful in his efforts to centralise the kingdom of Germany, the religious wars not turning the way they did, the holy roman empire not being dissolved by napoleon.

Nonetheless, Prussia's mission tree is currently back to front and could vastly be improved