Increased coring cost must be removed/replaced

[Maq]

I'm not absolutely sure, but increased coring cost used to be in place mainly for the AI, because AI takes the coring cost into consideration which province to desire and which not. That is why Hungary so often remained intact, and also North African (Barbary) states were more resilient against Spanish or Portuguese conquest.

 

[Soulburger]

I'm not absolutely sure, but increased coring cost used to be in place mainly for the AI, because AI takes the coring cost into consideration which province to desire and which not.

I may be completely off but I thought one of the devs mentioned that the ICC is mainly used as a deterrent for the AI to start a war with that country. Basically the extra coring cost is a factored into the AI's eagerness to start a war for territory. Which could make sense as a way to keep some of this historically small but resilient groups from being gobbled up by the AI and also a way to direct the AI's blobbiness.

Or I could I have just completely imagined it.

In any event I agree that the ICC trait is not much fun for the player. Tying it to additional years of separatism makes more sense as long as there was some way for the AI to prioritize expansion based on that knowledge as well.

 

[bbqftw]

It really doesn't even do it's job well. Due to the possibility of these countries developing their provinces (Wallachia is a particularly egregious example of this), ICC countries actually leap to the top of the list for a human player to kill off early.

 

[ahyangyi]

Traditions like "adaptability" and "millets" should instead increase the amount of negative adm points you can accumulate through coring. The standard limit would be -500, while with these ideas you could take it down to like -2000. You would cripple yourself administratively for a while after you've expanded a lot and having negative monarch powers in any category should increase corruption because your court is too busy handling the back log of issues rather than chasing badly behaving officials.

This would make them nearly useless :|

 

[gendalv]

It should be like a passive multiplicative -50% of penalty in the ideas, also add it to the policies (with influence/humanist for example) that would add another -50% removing it completely.
Another option could be: if a province is not part of a state (not full core = 75% autonomy threshhold) and is not of the primary culture it should just lose its core on conquer and therefore the increased coring cost.

victimizer, basically political (MP) loan for the money (root out corruption), makes sense. Will reduce the tech value a bit though, since you can just rush military this way and beat GB playing aztec... gift every statesman a goldmine!

 

[ahyangyi]

I still think a terrain based coring cost increase would work better.

Maybe just use the development cost modifiers, so mountains (hey Armenia) and deserts (hey Berber states) cost more than farmlands.

The aristocracy +50% coring cost thing could stay though. Or maybe also for the Central Indian states since that's not explained by bad terrain types. I don't know.

 

[Canute VII]

I still think a terrain based coring cost increase would work better.

Maybe just use the development cost modifiers, so mountains (hey Armenia) and deserts (hey Berber states) cost more than farmlands.

The aristocracy +50% coring cost thing could stay though. Or maybe also for the Central Indian states since that's not explained by bad terrain types. I don't know.

I like the idea of terrain based modifiers, inhabitants of mountains are known to be stubborn, inhabitants of deserts footloose, i. of jungles wild... In either case it may be harder to administer these folks.

 

[Woifee]

I like the idea of terrain based modifiers, inhabitants of mountains are known to be stubborn, inhabitants of deserts footloose, i. of jungles wild... In either case it may be harder to administer these folks.

Are they?

 

[ahyangyi]

I like the idea of terrain based modifiers, inhabitants of mountains are known to be stubborn, inhabitants of deserts footloose, i. of jungles wild... In either case it may be harder to administer these folks.

I personally prefer the politically more correct explanations: wherever it's harder to develop, it's also harder to establish administration. These concepts can be tied.

 

[Citizen_Of_Yiff]

I remember when France used to always pick Aristocratic... Fun days those were, and I would have thought by now the ICC would have been reworked favorably, instead of just some arbitrary percentage that works to drain you paper mana.

 

[Canute VII]

Are they?

Well, referring to prejudice they are , havent made any thorough field studies, though