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.
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
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
).
This is pretty much how Prussia did it historically so I don't see the problem with that.
Think about it: As the game starts your a minor principality inside a bigger but very loosely held together nation named the Holy Roman Empire. What you wish to do is create another state altogether but with the same geographical and cultural makeup. Do you think it makes sense that you should be able to operate entirely inside the existing Holy Roman Empire while doing this without anyone minding?
Last edited:
I often vassalize nations that have provinces that are too poor to add to my nation. I haven't done the maths myself on that though (and I suspect Lac has ) so I might be doing so due to false assumptions on what 1 and 2 tax provinces would do to my country's research.
) so I might be doing so due to false assumptions on what 1 and 2 tax provinces would do to my country's research.
I'm still of the belief that what's messing with this the most is the many CBs that reduce the cost of annexation. Without them you have to be pretty big to annex anything (the Holy War CB is more likely than not why Byzantium could annex Syria for instance as it reduces the cost by 50%!).
And as other's have said the reason to remove the one province cap is because it's an arbitrary rule that doesn't make much sense when compared to reality. It does promote historical outcomes and increases game balance though so if it is to be removed it does need to be properly balanced (for one thing I think annexing an entire country in one go should give you _a lot_ more BB than it does, as you're making a huge attack on the concept of sovereignty as such and thus you're being very threatening to your other neighbors).
And as other's have said the reason to remove the one province cap is because it's an arbitrary rule that doesn't make much sense when compared to reality. It does promote historical outcomes and increases game balance though so if it is to be removed it does need to be properly balanced (for one thing I think annexing an entire country in one go should give you _a lot_ more BB than it does, as you're making a huge attack on the concept of sovereignty as such and thus you're being very threatening to your other neighbors).
If you're replying to me. I was actually arguing that the old rules, while ahistorical in themselves, did promote historical outcomes. Sorry if the wording was a bit unclear.
Well, I don't agree that the game is loaded with asinine mechanics, but this was the reason. Though, as has been pointed out, the CBs need to be adjusted accordingly, which they will be in the next beta patch.
A sample of what I'm seeing, this is Europe midgame. I'm playing a rather passive Sweden/Scandinavia to see how things develop with the new rules.
Imho the shapes of countries in general are much more to my liking than normal (especially Austria and Hungary, add them together and you almost have 19th century Austria-Hungary right there!). There are less minors but on the other hand there are more medium powers than I'm used to.
I should add that Scotland lasted 150 years against England too and that for the first time in HTTT I've seen Spain form.
There is one change to the basic game rules here: the holy war casus belli doesn't give as much a peace cost reduction as in vanilla. This might well be why Marroco prospered.
For the sake of discussion only. But I don't think anything looks unreasonable (well the Ottomans took a rather strange route of expansion but the amount of expansion is about right if they'd only focus on the balkans instead of eastern europe. That's more of an AI issue though as in the end their new route of expansion will probably just cost them as they're very territorially vulnerable now). An example will neither improve an argument or convince anyone but as we can all only play a finite amount of games it might be nice to get a bit perspective on what other players are seeing. It obviously won't influence those who feel that the rule ought to be exactly as it was
As a side note unrelated to the above:
I agree with others that CBs often reduce peace cost by way too much in general. I can't think of many CBs that would make the attacked country want to give up what I'm asking for more easily. The reconquest casus belli fits that. The conquest or holy war CBs certainly do not though. On the contrary, while I think a big prestige bonus and slightly less infamy might be in order for them I can't see peace cost being lowered. If anything holy war ought to increase it...
Due to the very large peace cost reductions in general, as britnavfan has already stated, expansion has been too easy in HTTT.
Imho the shapes of countries in general are much more to my liking than normal (especially Austria and Hungary, add them together and you almost have 19th century Austria-Hungary right there!). There are less minors but on the other hand there are more medium powers than I'm used to.
I should add that Scotland lasted 150 years against England too and that for the first time in HTTT I've seen Spain form.
There is one change to the basic game rules here: the holy war casus belli doesn't give as much a peace cost reduction as in vanilla. This might well be why Marroco prospered.
For the sake of discussion only. But I don't think anything looks unreasonable (well the Ottomans took a rather strange route of expansion but the amount of expansion is about right if they'd only focus on the balkans instead of eastern europe. That's more of an AI issue though as in the end their new route of expansion will probably just cost them as they're very territorially vulnerable now). An example will neither improve an argument or convince anyone but as we can all only play a finite amount of games it might be nice to get a bit perspective on what other players are seeing. It obviously won't influence those who feel that the rule ought to be exactly as it was
As a side note unrelated to the above:
I agree with others that CBs often reduce peace cost by way too much in general. I can't think of many CBs that would make the attacked country want to give up what I'm asking for more easily. The reconquest casus belli fits that. The conquest or holy war CBs certainly do not though. On the contrary, while I think a big prestige bonus and slightly less infamy might be in order for them I can't see peace cost being lowered. If anything holy war ought to increase it...
Due to the very large peace cost reductions in general, as britnavfan has already stated, expansion has been too easy in HTTT.