New annexation rules -- have you tried them?

[BritNavFan]

I never really saw this to be strictly a game balancing issue (though it certainly was that too); I always thought this was meant to model the pattern of a succession of wars which went in one direction, ending in eventual annexation. This seemed appropriate because it simulated the decline and defeat of the rival country, rather than its abrupt non-existence.

I disagree about global game balancing because it seems to me that the changes in HTTT broke much of the game balancing of the years before that anyway. Just look at what Castille regularly does in North Africa. I think that the new system will give a more realistic end result, because I thought the "the capital is magically unannexable" rule was a bit silly and immersion-breaking.

(I completely agree that it shouldn't be usual to annex countries the size of northern Italy in single conflicts, but then it shouldn't be usual to force-vassalize them in single conflicts either. I also agree with your point about multiple wars being required to destroy most powers, but if you're able to strip all the provinces but one from the country on the first war, as you often were in HTTT but not IN before April 15, a second war against the OPM that's left isn't very impressive.)

Some detail on some ways HTTT broke the old balance:

• "Legitimacy." 4 less revolt risk in every province for the player, and for AI's which happens to have lucked in to 100% legitimacy, stacking on top of stability... and then we wonder why Castille overruns North Africa every game. 4 more revolt risk in every province for an AI that loses legitimacy (a player can manage legitimacy but the AI doesn't know how), again stacking on top of instability... and then we wonder why AI's "balloon" now.
  
  IMO, to keep balance, 100% legitimacy and +3 stab should have had the same effect in HTTT as +3 stab had in IN. If Paradox wants to change that, fair enough, but do plan that you'll have to rebalance because of it.
  
  
• The CB system. It's nice in many ways. But it seems to me that the bonus to your "peace cost factor" on the "good" CB's makes the typical war more decisive than it was in In Nomine. This would speed blobbing up even without being able to annex in one fell swoop.
  
  
• "Military tactics". The effectiveness of your troops is now roughly proportionate to the third power of your land tech (better unit types x better offensive casualty multipliers x better defensive casualty dividers), where previously it was only the second power. Since the player will be leading in land tech...
  
  
• And then there's the obvious: we can now reliably get 5-star advisors of whichever type we want, whenever we want them, as many as we want. It's nice that we don't have to wait for a random event to throw up a 1-star irrelevant advisor every ten years, but, perhaps, this is a bit much? Balancing of the advisor types? Diminishing returns for multiple advisors of the same type? Borrow some of the mechanisms for land/naval tradition?

I do agree that the five-year timeout had an important game balance effect. But I think I'd rather nerf casi belli, legitimacy, land tech, and generated advisors than go back to the old unannexable capital rule.

 

[BonSequitur]

Pretty interesting pic, thanks for posting it! I haven't really gotten this result at all. Where did most of the minors come from? Blobs that collapsed? (If not, how did they survive for so long?) And what's the effect in your game on vassals?

Most minors are the result of blob collapses, that is true, but others are long-term survivors. Brittany has been around from the start, and is colonising. There aren't really any vassals other than my own, though.

I should probably note that Byzantium had a lot of help from me. As in, I personally beat back a huge Ottoman empire and gave Morea enough land to reform.

 

[Malurous]

• The CB system. It's nice in many ways. But it seems to me that the bonus to your "peace cost factor" on the "good" CB's makes the typical war more decisive than it was in In Nomine. This would speed blobbing up even without being able to annex in one fell swoop.

I've always felt that base costs should have gone up somewhat to compensate for this. And maybe even more for wars without CB. This would have an effect on the new annexation too.

 

[Foogsie]

You mean, it "maybe" changes it in the case (2-4 province nations) where you can possibly annex the other country; i.e. it changes it exactly where it applies. (Outside of Europe, this can grow to include 6-8 province nations.)

Go go omnislash, but let's start with this. I said maybe for a reason, and that's because in my personal case, it has never mattered. If I wanted that land, I would take that land and vassal never even enters my mind before or after the change. If I was on a defensive war/call to arms and didn't really care to have that land, or do not wish to take the infamy, I would vassal. This has not changed.

If those things were all so inhibitory as to preclude annexation, then people wouldn't ever take non-core, non-state-culture/religion territory, right?

If the province is rich, it's almost always worth taking, poor provinces not so often. Infamy is the bigger factor in deciding anything, it was before, it still is. I was simply stating ways that vassals at low infamy were at times (not always) a better deal. Vassalizing a dozen provinces or more (two nations) for 8 infamy is better than annexing one for the same in the great majority of cases.

Why should it be easier and faster though?

It's just less arbitrary restriction, and more importantly the AI plays better this way. They create less bizarre looking and difficult to defend empires, they get more land a bit faster (human players have not been sped up much - only that one province per nation coming a bit sooner, at most), and it leads to at least lasting a little longer before I can drown their nation in bodies because humans expanding so much better than AI can.

Incidentally, even if in the intermediate stage your enemy is in your Sphere of Influence, you'd still have to fend off the diplomatic advances of other states to keep them in the ultimate vulnerable situation you describe -- a whole other level of gameplay which is potentially rich & interesting and, now, gone.

You mean my occasional free casus against other nations to vassalise or take stuff from them is gone in the (very, very rare) occurrence that someone violated my sphere. Heck in many cases it was worth leaving them un-sphered so they can guarantee or ally with someone, and you can bypass the truce, or just saving prestige. Worst case scenario, say France+England+Castille all guarantee the nation, I took everything but their capital in the first war anyways, and would simply deal with the final province at some future date. It didn't actually slow me down in most cases, as I spent my infamy elsewhere anyways.

In the end, it removes an arbitrary restriction, and it speeds up the AI more than it speeds up me. Which means I get to have more meaningful wars for a bit longer.

 

[unmerged(193306)]

^^ A lot of war, kill, death in that post. "drown their nations in bodies" was particularly touching.

As to your case, I think you're right -- I think the 5-year time-out got in the way of your annexations, and the swift line of conquest can continue ever faster now that it's gone. Even better, as you pointed out, those pesky minors can now be swept up into larger countries to put up more of a fight before, of course, they're inevitably destroyed too. Seems like a sweet deal for you.

Incidentally, I don't play the game the way you do, so it shouldn't be a surprise to hear that the vassal calculus did change for some people who weren't going to destroy everything in sight anyway. Referencing your original post--"I don't really understand why it really changes anything"--I think the answer is that it didn't substantially change for your game style, but it can for others'.

 

[Foogsie]

^^ A lot of war, kill, death in that post. "drown their nations in bodies" was particularly touching.

Heh, that was from a pre-new patch Mughal game, where I spread from Anatolia to China by early 1600s and ran into a sizable Austria + Milan alliance who had a few land techs on me (prior to westernization as well). Turned out two to one odds weren't enough to overcome their superior guns. Four to one odds however, were a different matter. Absolutely massive casualties, but I won the war. In most of my games though, I do use a fair few vassals. Even in the Mughal game I had a few that lasted the entire game.

I'll concede, most people probably aren't trying to maximize their use of infamy (I can't stand being at zero infamy for any length of time). If you aren't worried about infamy so much and going to war every time the "We got a casus!" message pops up, then I can see annexing maybe taking over vassalage for more occasional wars. That said, if someone is holding back a bit, then they can do that anyways, and it's still a boon to the AI that at least makes their nations look more sensible while removing a rather arbitrary rule.

 

[Malurous]

Even better, as you pointed out, those pesky minors can now be swept up into larger countries to put up more of a fight before, of course, they're inevitably destroyed too. Seems like a sweet deal for you.

Why should positive aspects of this change be swept under the "of course, they're inevitably destroyed too" rug? I don't think it matters whether that destruction is inevitable or not, which of course depends on how you play. Because in my mind, stronger AI countries lead to a more entertaining game. It doesn't matter if you're going for WC or RPing or staying as a balanced regional power or whatever, strong AI countries bring excitement in the form of the danger element. If a change lessens the disadvantage the AI naturally has, while not really taking away from human strategy, I'm all for it.

 

[unmerged(193306)]

Why should positive aspects of this change be swept under the "of course, they're inevitably destroyed too" rug? I don't think it matters whether that destruction is inevitable or not, which of course depends on how you play. Because in my mind, stronger AI countries lead to a more entertaining game. It doesn't matter if you're going for WC or RPing or staying as a balanced regional power or whatever, strong AI countries bring excitement in the form of the danger element. If a change lessens the disadvantage the AI naturally has, while not really taking away from human strategy, I'm all for it.

Dude, the whole thing was just a parody of his awesome comment:

it leads to at least lasting a little longer before I can drown their nation in bodies

Whether this is ACTUALLY my opinion or not, who's to say (hehe)

 

[Trin Tragula]

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.

 

[Malurous]

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.

Agreed.

Dude, the whole thing was just a parody of his awesome comment:

Note to self:

If it's 8 am and you've watched hockey all night without sleeping, go to bed NOW. Don't check the forum first.

If you do, don't post anything.

If you do, double check what you're saying and what you're replying to.

No, triple check.

End note.

:wacko:

 

[6354201]

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.

Thanks for posting. This confirms my thoughts on the new patch, mainly, that it is a good thing.

I can't wait to sink my teeth into a new game myself=)

 

[unmerged(193306)]

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

It won't prove anything, but it can be convincing one way or the other. If I start to see games like this, I'd be 100% for the rule change (+modifications). I haven't yet, but I'm not unduly pessimistic. Obviously it needs a lot of tweaking from where it is though.

Looks like Portugal may need some help in upping the peace costs of their provinces. Did they disappear in that game in one war or two?

If you guys have more screenshots, I think we should collect them here. When I get a chance to start playing again this weekend, I'll do so. But please don't just post stuff that confirms your viewpoint of course, it's worthwhile to get as much stuff as possible. (Best if there are no mods to the rules of the patch too.)

 

[BonSequitur]

I'm fairly sure Portugal is not annexable in one go currently, although I do think they should have more valuable/more provinces.