I've always tried to vassalize lots of countries of the wrong religion/culture. Easier than garrisoning & converting them, & they do fight for you. But of course, I always play as naval-oriented a game as I can manage.
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.
Hehe, yeah it works out that you need to be quite large for these to actually _hurt_ your tech rate. I can't give you an exact number of provinces you'd need to be, because I don't know the populations and trade goods of those provinces. But think in the 100+ provinces range. I used to vassalize (or release as vassals) provinces too before that was made clear to me.
(The reason for this is probably because of colonies, which are all quite poor for a while, and the drag on tech would be pretty nasty.)
I usually do this as well. In contrast to my warmongering stance on the ol' Offense v. Defense thread, I actually rarely play countries that grow larger than 15 provinces. It's just sooo much more fun that way.
But anyway, what you're describing is a _choice_: ease/fun of gameplay. The problem is that the decision calculus needs to be pretty rigid to really make vassals a prominent part of the game; the factors that affect the decision shouldn't be very long-term either, it should come down to _right now_: do I vassalize or do I annex? Since you can do both at the same time now, there's hardly a time when most people will opt to vassalize.
(The reason for this is probably because of colonies, which are all quite poor for a while, and the drag on tech would be pretty nasty.)
George LeS said:
I usually do this as well. In contrast to my warmongering stance on the ol' Offense v. Defense thread, I actually rarely play countries that grow larger than 15 provinces. It's just sooo much more fun that way.
But anyway, what you're describing is a _choice_: ease/fun of gameplay. The problem is that the decision calculus needs to be pretty rigid to really make vassals a prominent part of the game; the factors that affect the decision shouldn't be very long-term either, it should come down to _right now_: do I vassalize or do I annex? Since you can do both at the same time now, there's hardly a time when most people will opt to vassalize.
I've been reading through this thread and the patch thread, but here is my seemingly unanswered question. What was the purpose of this change? It makes very little sense to me and changes the overall game more than anything in the beta patches so far (at least imho). Castille taking Granada, Scotland not standing any real chance, France moving into Italy before it even unifies, Burgundy in the Low Countries...I got a dishonorable scum CB on Timurids in 1402. 1402. I don't get it.
tuesday4am, you are spot on; I can't explain it either. There doesn't seem to be much of an uproar on the boards about this (mostly because new players are thrilled with the idea of being able to conquer faster); however, just to put it in lights:
THIS IS (probably) THE BIGGEST GAME CHANGE POST-HTTT!
And yes, it takes a sledgehammer to very many game balance issues we've all grown to appreciate.
Also -- as currently implemented -- the notion that "stay under the BB limit" keeps players and AI in line is not correct. Firstly, it's cheaper to annex a country whole than it used to be to just take territory from that country!--let alone the costs of an extra war +8BB to force an annexation. I find for most country annexations now I'm cruising along, picking up about half the BB that I used to. Secondly, the AI as always cannot deal with the rule change appropriately, and the usual implosions switch into overdrive.
I really really hope that the rules are amended from where it stands now. I don't think this is just an issue of old-player-likes-old-way; minors don't stand a chance, vassalization is now practically irrelevant, and BB costs are way cheaper than before. And from a personal standpoint, the game's a lot easier, and I'm never a fan of that.
We need many more people to be aware of how much this has changed the game.
THIS IS (probably) THE BIGGEST GAME CHANGE POST-HTTT!
And yes, it takes a sledgehammer to very many game balance issues we've all grown to appreciate.
Also -- as currently implemented -- the notion that "stay under the BB limit" keeps players and AI in line is not correct. Firstly, it's cheaper to annex a country whole than it used to be to just take territory from that country!--let alone the costs of an extra war +8BB to force an annexation. I find for most country annexations now I'm cruising along, picking up about half the BB that I used to. Secondly, the AI as always cannot deal with the rule change appropriately, and the usual implosions switch into overdrive.
I really really hope that the rules are amended from where it stands now. I don't think this is just an issue of old-player-likes-old-way; minors don't stand a chance, vassalization is now practically irrelevant, and BB costs are way cheaper than before. And from a personal standpoint, the game's a lot easier, and I'm never a fan of that.
We need many more people to be aware of how much this has changed the game.
I'm glad someone agrees. Seriously, I am very, very curious what the rationale was behind this change. There must have been one. Did Johan or anyone else on the development team comment as to why they felt this was necessary? I haven't come across any such rationale, and as I said, it has left me utterly baffled.
I am responding direct to first OP post before I wade through the rest...
My first impression is that it is easier. If you annex a whole country, you get a discount of 4 BB (or more if you count a non CB war to annex the last province) compared to before, plus a huge time bonus (can annex in a war started from day 1). The beta BB seems to have a HUGE ceiling too (unless I am totally confused by playing my favorite mod too much which is not compatible with betas yet)... I could have sworn vanilla BB used to be 18-20 or so at the game's beginning? Yet now it is like 33ish? They raised the ceiling and at the same time it is easier to get BB lowering modifiers. Too easy in a small vanilla map... pfft at the "yeah but they have new max BB penalties" type comments. It is a LOT easier now to do anything you want. That's my take so far.
Maybe because the stipulation that you have to declare war on a two-province country, wait five years, then do it again just to annex them was one of the most asinine mechanics in a game loaded to the brim with asinine mechanics? Just a thought.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing it toned down a bit. In my Byzantine game, I was able to annex Syria in a single war. That's a bit much.
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).
In my opinion there is at least another reason for vassalizing: By vassalizing countries and later allying your vassals you multiply your ability (or the ability of your side in a war) to cope with war exhaustion. Especially in wars on multiple frontiers it is very comfortable to have a vassal in your back, engaging at least one enemy for some time and getting the WE for lost combats and occupied provinces.
I think the reason I am so puzzled by this change is that it comes so late in the development of the game. I am aware that only being able to annex a one-province country is arbitrary, but I think this alters the balance of the game much more than the developers thought it would, both from the perspective of the player and the AI. I agree with above that there needs to be more balance, that there should be more BB for annexing larger countries, more RR in annexed provinces, much larger hits to relations with other countries when annexing, etc. Also, the AI must become more wary of going over the BB limit. Everyone has seen countries destroyed by this, and as I mentioned above, I've gotten dishonorable scum CBs three years into the game.
I do not agree that this change promotes historical outcomes (although admittedly I am less concerned with that). I'm only on my second game with this patch, but in the first one with Britanny, I noticed that the AI will often annex countries that only joined a war with an alliance. The AI seems to annex countries just because it can, and this is where it accumlates BB so quickly. I saw France annex Switzerland, Provence, Savoy and Milan in the first ten years of the game. In my current game with Morocco, it's barely 1420 or so and the Malmuks have annexed Ethiopia, Adal, Swahili, that other country down there (Mutapa?), and Yemen. Which is kind of pissing me off because for some reason, they hate me, probably because I annexed Algiers without a CB, heh.
Agreed. Also, if you give vassals (and even allies) military access, they'll often put down rebellions for you, even if you aren't at war.
I do not agree that this change promotes historical outcomes (although admittedly I am less concerned with that). I'm only on my second game with this patch, but in the first one with Britanny, I noticed that the AI will often annex countries that only joined a war with an alliance. The AI seems to annex countries just because it can, and this is where it accumlates BB so quickly. I saw France annex Switzerland, Provence, Savoy and Milan in the first ten years of the game. In my current game with Morocco, it's barely 1420 or so and the Malmuks have annexed Ethiopia, Adal, Swahili, that other country down there (Mutapa?), and Yemen. Which is kind of pissing me off because for some reason, they hate me, probably because I annexed Algiers without a CB, heh.
Agreed. Also, if you give vassals (and even allies) military access, they'll often put down rebellions for you, even if you aren't at war.
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.
I agree. I just checked the cb_types file, and there are 9 casi belli that give discounts for annexation costs. That could easily be reduced.
That's not a good example. It was the Timurids. As a large so-called "tribal" country, they get a -20 modifier to their infamy limit if their ruler doesn't have a MIL? rating of 7 or higher. So as long as Timur lives, they're fine, but odds are that as soon as he croaks their base infamy limit drops to 5. Then let's say, for the sake of argument, their legitimacy drops to 0. (Not too hard as they're a huge country and having a succession crisis so their stab is going to be pretty low). That gives them an additional -10 to their infamy limit, which is now -5. Say the new leader only has a DIP of 4, guess what, their infamy limit is -1 and they'll be "dishonorable scum" with 0 infamy (which I've seen happen to the Mamluks).
I still like this change a lot, the 50% cost reductions on annex are maybe a bit much though (however, in those cases you can often reduce someone to OPM through taking provinces anyways given the 100% warscore requirement, so I'm not really even sure if it's that bad). The extra infamy penalty from annex over just taking that number of provinces should come back though. I've never been fond of the "reduce to OPM in one war, annex 5 years later" anyways, and I really haven't seen many issues with the current system barring HRE nations gutting their own infamy, but that's not really related to the single war annex thing.
Why should there be some massive extra penalties for a pure annex over reducing to OPM -> Annex in 5 years anyways?
Why should there be some massive extra penalties for a pure annex over reducing to OPM -> Annex in 5 years anyways?
Last edited:
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.
I like the change, as I had said before in this thread. It leads to larger countries by the 16th century and ends the arbitrary wait period to finish off a country that you should have been able to annex in the last war. I also felt that it was extremely silly that you needed to have three wars just to annex a mid side power such as Aragon.
I knew this change would be big in terms of gameplay balance. I wanted it to be this way for awhile and I'm glad that it's changed. Still, the cost of infamy should be higher for full annexation and the AI should take this into account.
Vassalization is not useless, as some are suggesting. It's still prudent to force vassalize if you don't want to deal with revolts, or enjoy having a swam of vassals etc. The only difference is now you are not forced into vassalizing because you can't annex a small country. You have a choice.
What the AI does is probably of more concern. But I see this change leading to historical outcomes. Most of Europe was unified to into centralized nations by the 18th century, or at least much more centralized than in the late middle ages. Having a million OPMs in the 17th or 18th century is not realistic, unless it's Germany or Italy.
I knew this change would be big in terms of gameplay balance. I wanted it to be this way for awhile and I'm glad that it's changed. Still, the cost of infamy should be higher for full annexation and the AI should take this into account.
Vassalization is not useless, as some are suggesting. It's still prudent to force vassalize if you don't want to deal with revolts, or enjoy having a swam of vassals etc. The only difference is now you are not forced into vassalizing because you can't annex a small country. You have a choice.
What the AI does is probably of more concern. But I see this change leading to historical outcomes. Most of Europe was unified to into centralized nations by the 18th century, or at least much more centralized than in the late middle ages. Having a million OPMs in the 17th or 18th century is not realistic, unless it's Germany or Italy.
I don't like the rules as they work now, but I can see how this could end up for the better if they're fine-tuned properly.
The problems (too many countries disappearing too quickly, AI struggling with the infamy limit and the hordes of nationalist rebels, infamy levels lacking polish) are pretty clear, and can probably be balanced out.
What I don't agree with is that this would make the game easier. It should actually make AI majors more dangerous compared to human nations if it's done well. A before and after rule change comparison of AI and human behavior in dealing with a TPM:
Before
AI: Take random stuff like a couple of ducats, only give the nation another thought again if they somehow end up in another war.
Human: Take one province and cash, annul treaties and add them to your sphere of influence. Five years later, they're alone and can be quickly swallowed for the whole annex.
After
AI: Annex the country.
Human: Annex the country.
See? I'll readily admit that there's optimization to be done, but as a basis I'm not ruling this out and definitely don't think that it'll necessarily make the game easier.
The problems (too many countries disappearing too quickly, AI struggling with the infamy limit and the hordes of nationalist rebels, infamy levels lacking polish) are pretty clear, and can probably be balanced out.
What I don't agree with is that this would make the game easier. It should actually make AI majors more dangerous compared to human nations if it's done well. A before and after rule change comparison of AI and human behavior in dealing with a TPM:
Before
AI: Take random stuff like a couple of ducats, only give the nation another thought again if they somehow end up in another war.
Human: Take one province and cash, annul treaties and add them to your sphere of influence. Five years later, they're alone and can be quickly swallowed for the whole annex.
After
AI: Annex the country.
Human: Annex the country.
See? I'll readily admit that there's optimization to be done, but as a basis I'm not ruling this out and definitely don't think that it'll necessarily make the game easier.