I'm really interested to hear people's experiences with them. I've got some very very mixed feelings about 'em, but I want to hear the range of opinions so far...
New annexation rules -- have you tried them?
- Thread starter unmerged(193306)
- 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.
Just did. Ming, annexed Dai Viet, per my mission.
I'd have to say it's a bit of an improvement, given the way missions like to point you to the capital. But it'll take time to see if there's a problem with the limit.
At least it can be modded.
I'd have to say it's a bit of an improvement, given the way missions like to point you to the capital. But it'll take time to see if there's a problem with the limit.
At least it can be modded.
Just admit that you're annoyed that the patch came after your Republican France game
So far I think it's working fine but some CBs modify the values too much and therefore allow for too large annexations
Had it not been for that I think the limit is about right.
Had it not been for that I think the limit is about right.
Just admit that you're annoyed that the patch came after your Republican France game
It definitely makes that game pretty much meaningless
hehe. Actually, a lot of records are liable to fall because of this I suspect.On the other hand, now you can DEFINITELY conquer the world from 1789, and probably much before 1821. Like... way before.
From a personal standpoint, I don't like things that make the game easier, with no give-and-take. Do we really need things to be easier? Hardly. And the idea that all these HRE minors can just vanish in the blink of an eye seems weird and undesirable.
But, I've hardly had any time to play around with it, so that's why I wanted to hear what's happening in peoples' games. I guess if this somehow made the AI stronger, I'd begrudgingly support it.
It definitely makes that game pretty much meaningless
On the other hand, now you can DEFINITELY conquer the world from 1789, and probably much before 1821. Like... way before.
From a personal standpoint, I don't like things that make the game easier, with no give-and-take. Do we really need things to be easier? Hardly. And the idea that all these HRE minors can just vanish in the blink of an eye seems weird and undesirable.
But, I've hardly had any time to play around with it, so that's why I wanted to hear what's happening in peoples' games. I guess if this somehow made the AI stronger, I'd begrudgingly support it.
Have you seen the new infamy events? Or the penalties for taking non-core HRE provinces? They would be the 'take'. In fact the game has become a lot harder in many respects because of those changes.
I very much dislike it. Makes things too easy. Espeically considering that the AI dosnt know how to properly extend itself and not collapse fast. Much to easy for the player. Will wait for the full 4.1 patch, but i REALLY hope Paradox will return to previous way of annexation, and add more missions to make expansion easier, (and more logical and balanced) and not this annexation system. Definetly will play without it, if it can be modded. At least they could but in in the options so that we can chose on the game start do we want old or new system.
Nah, like I said, I haven't been able to play for more than a few minutes. I've seen some grumbling on the forums though & read the tech support thread; what are they?
I wasn't even aware there were new annexation rules.
Maybe I should read the patch notes better...
Maybe I should read the patch notes better...
I had experienced with raising the limit to 2 provinces and I really liked the results. Ive yet to try with the new rules but overall its a step in the right direction until proven otherwise.
There's two events, with MTTH 50 months if you're at 125% of the BB limit and MTTH 12.5 months if you're at 200% BB.
One reduces your stability if you're not already at -3, the other gives you +1 WE if you're at war.
Well if you go over the infamy limit you start getting events lowering stability and giving you more war exhaustion. These are province events I believe, hence the bigger your empire, the more likely they are to occur.
Also, if you own non-core HRE provinces, you get an extra 0.25 (I think) infamy every year. Per province.
HOLY @#$@#$%!!!
Re-curring, 12.5 MTTH, -1 stability?! Permanent -3 stability??
Wow. Nevermind, I don't think my Revolutionary France game is possible at all now.
Essentially they allow badboy-intensive multi-provinces annexations now, but only because its essentially impossible to not give a shit about your badboy anymore. Nobody can really afford to play above 125%.
Since its never worth it to cross the threshold under these circumstances, I predict that everyone will now play like I do; as a careful planner who expands like crazy but always at the lowest infamy cost possible.
Since its never worth it to cross the threshold under these circumstances, I predict that everyone will now play like I do; as a careful planner who expands like crazy but always at the lowest infamy cost possible.
Pretty much what historically happened.
I haven't seen the text for the events yet. Please tell me it uses the word 'framed' somewhere.
I've not yet decided fully on the multi-province annexation. I always found the rule a bit arbitrary but I realized why it was needed.
Whatever route is taken though I really _don't_ hope they increase the amount of conquest missions as you propose. Imho missions giving CBs for expansion is both boring and unrealistic (I get a free pass at taking certain territories simply because I want them?).
It's really easy to turn the multi-province annexations off if that is what you want to do though, just look for the right line in the defines (the old setting was 1 the new one is 10 000).
Only if you are yourself a member of the HRE though. So if you want to expand simply leave the HRE (that means foregoing working inside the HRE to gain influence over it but I have a feeling that's exactly as designed
).
That's pretty close to what I thought. (Well, actually my first thought was that I must have misread, the holiness only entered after a second readingHOLY @#$@#$%!!!
Re-curring, 12.5 MTTH, -1 stability?! Permanent -3 stability??
Wow. Nevermind, I don't think my Revolutionary France game is possible at all now.
)I also pity anyone trying a pagan WC now, since with the century or so lost to westernization, you're forced to do a steamroll WC which means you'll spend decades at -3 stab and high WE.
I suddenly feel like singing...
In the midnight hour she cried- "more, more, more"
I tried annexing with excommunicated ruler and it said 25% infamy but still cost me 4 infamy per province.
Bug? or am I missing something.
Bug? or am I missing something.