NOT A BUG: WaD: Turbo Annex of Pagan Provinces

[JohnMK]

Turbo Annex of Pagan Provinces

Gets you 3 BB point per province, when it should really give you none. As should core provinces.

This happened to me two days ago as the Spanish in the 1492 scenario. I invaded the Incas in what must have been their civil war, because all provinces had elevated revolt risk. I had captured roughly half their provinces, but not their capital. When their capital succumbed to a rebel siege, their government fell and I received 27 BB points. I actually was NOT trying to do that . . . . in any case I don't deserve them and I had the game host edit them out.

 

[AndrewT]

This is working as designed, it's been that way since 1.04. See

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39204

 

[JohnMK]

Any reasonable implementation that doesn't give you any badboy points at all for anything else you do with pagans, similarly shouldn't shower you with BB points when their government falls and leaves you with half their provinces. You reevaluated turbo annexation in 1.04, now reevaluate it again. Make a special case (it's damnable easy) that if their governement is pagan, assign no BB points.

 

[Damocles]

It seems silly to me, that if you militarily annex a pagan nation, there is no BB, yet if its goverment falls, and you accidentally annex only a little, then it skyrockets like crazy. Oh gee, like AI France will care that some land its never even heard of, capitulates during the middle of some crazy native civil war or something.

Didn't Cortez conquer the Aztecs during something of a civil war?

 

[sirbruce]

I see the logic, but it's also to prevent people from exploiting TurboAnnexing.

Bruce

 

[JohnMK]

Which makes no sense when applied to pagan nations from European nations. Conquering the natives is already rediculously easy. I think turbo-annexation would actually be HARDER than the typical way.

 

[unmerged(8451)]

Originally posted by AndrewT
This is working as designed, it's been that way since 1.04. See

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39204

Well, that was fine by 1.04 rules, but in the 1.05 patch it has been changed so that taking pagan provinces does not cause an increase in badboy points. Why would it be any different if these provinces are turboannexed?

 

[JohnMK]

Originally posted by Captain Krunch

Why would it be any different if these provinces are turboannexed?

Beats me. And so far, it's beaten everyone who responded to the General Discussion post on this same issue. This whole "working as designed" thing just rubs me the wrong way. It's so PR and PC for "screw you guys, we're taking off early today." Nothing against AndrewT, of course, whom I've got some respect for since he's essentially volunteering all his time and effort here. I'm sure the term was first coined by somebody at Paradox. Notice my lack of emoticons here? I'm going to vulcan extremes to put a stopper on my emotions now.

 

[JohnMK]

This is a repeat from another thread. I think it makes all the points I can think of at this time, so here it is nicely regurgitated.

I know what an exploit reeks of, and this, in this circumstance or any circumstance involving pagans, isn't it. I wanted to capture all their provinces and annex them outright, and I could have in about another year of attacking/assaulting every one of their provinces. That there was a government failure actually set me back several years because it gives you a mandatory 5 year truce. I can imagine one wishing for a turbo annexation if you're losing a war, have a negative victory score because, say, you lost so many battles, but you've captured two or three provinces of a far-flung Empire that can't do much about you pulling up there. I can imagine that being exploitive if for instance you want THEIR government to fail, to unfairly capture those provinces when they would have never otherwise bothered to offer them to you. I can also imagine something being exploitive if, say, you've captured EVERY province in China and their cumulative value is say, 250 percent, but you can't ask for that much in a peace treaty, so you try to get Beijing to revolt, causing a government failure and immediate ceding of all their provinces. Now that would NEVER arise out of a peace treaty, but it CAN through turbo annexing. That can definitely be seen to deserve 3 BB per province.

You have to distinguish and make a special case. There is NEVER an instance in the pagan nations in this game where turbo annexation becomes an evil exploit. In other areas of the world, yes. Here are the two tests:

1) Is it exploitive in the case of Pagans?

Unequivocally, NO. (i.e. Does it provide you something more than a peace treaty/annex would? No, not ever. ). I don't possibly see how you could disagree with this one. All pagan provinces are practically worthless, in percent. Most are between 4-8%.


2) Will other nations shed tears at the downfall of these (in their ethno/Euro-centric eyes) pitiful, barbaric tribes and quasi-civilizations?

Unequivocally, NO. Again. Paradox believes this certainly, since they've removed most malus from annexation of pagan areas already . . . so you can't disagree with this one.

 

[unmerged(7184)]

I agree with John here. This is pathetic. Will Paradox please amend this atrocity?

 

[Damocles]

I agree wholeheartedly with John's assessment on this...Though, I'm wondering if it might be some uber complicated bit of programming to differentiate between Pagans and non pagans and thus, not worth the effort to fix.

 

[AndrewT]

We brought this up in the beta forums as the result of the thread I quoted earlier, and were assured it was WaD.

Frankly I've lost track of the special cases for BB points and pagans etc, so I'm not the one to argue the case with them. Unless someone wants to summarise the whole situation here and point it out as an obvious anomaly.

Another difficult is that Johan will be off duty for most of July so our main source of info is out of action. Nevertheless I'll reopen the dicussion with the other betas anyway and see what they think.

 

[JohnMK]

AndrewT, thanks for the response again. I summarized, I think, the pertinent two points in my last post. The context is also very useful -- that is, the text above 1) and 2). At least, I think so. The China example is a rather good frame of reference for what turbo annexation BB point assignment was designed to discourage. That is, make your peace before you get more than you deserve.

 

[unmerged(8451)]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "WaD" mean?

 

[JohnMK]

Working As Designed.

I think they should invent a new acroynm though, one for "Working as designed but we were wrong but we prefer the simplicity of the current solution even though it's contrary to logic in certain cases."

What would be a good acronym for that?

 

[kurtbrian]

Originally posted by JohnMK
Working As Designed.

I think they should invent a new acroynm though, one for "Working as designed but we were wrong but we prefer the simplicity of the current solution even though it's contrary to logic in certain cases."

What would be a good acronym for that?

Whoops?

 

[AndrewT]

In the software support industry, WaD carries with it the full realisation that the design may be the problem. But that is usually out of our hands. Here we can argue directly with the designer, so sometimes we can get the design fixed.

 

[unmerged(8303)]

does this really occur enough for it to be a problem? I know we like to nitpick but there are so many more important things

besides whenever things like this are changed..that is a major change occurs, it opens the possibility of more bugs

I really think this is a once in a lifetime thing John and though ( understandably) it bothers you, I doubt you will ever see it again. I don't even know if Paradox has the resources to fix these kinds of things. They have a full plate and EU2 is pretty functional as is. Me..i'd rather they focused on that chat bug

 

[JohnMK]

Me too. After all, I can simply ask the host to edit down my BB value upon next reload . . .

Yes, if they'd fix that chat bug, there are a great many bugletts I'd be willing to ignore.