Opinion: Too many options are locked behind being not at war

[Aepdneds]

But this is also the case for developing, exploiting development and concentrate development which all can be done while at war. It could be that your point was the reasoning, but this would be very inconsistent of Pdox, so you are most likely correct xD

 

[Zander]

I would definitely be in favor of a complete overhaul of "can't be done while at war" - the default should be that everything can be done, and only the things that directly and immediately mess with a war (e.g. giving up provinces) should be disallowed. There's just not a good enough reason to prohibit things like changing rulers, expanding CoTs or the vast majority of other prohibited actions.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

I could have sworn that this didn't happen in the past, maybe something changed over the last year or two. (I took a long hiatus from EU4.)

Or maybe I'm just wrong lol.

It used to be this way for separatist rebels but was changed.

I think it's still possible if you support rebels as an espionage operation.

 

[Arizal]

I would definitely be in favor of a complete overhaul of "can't be done while at war" - the default should be that everything can be done, and only the things that directly and immediately mess with a war (e.g. giving up provinces) should be disallowed. There's just not a good enough reason to prohibit things like changing rulers, expanding CoTs or the vast majority of other prohibited actions.

I would say even selling (non-threatened) provinces should be possible. You could just before the war declaration, so what changed fundamentally? For sure, the threat is more actual, but what if you are fighting a small nation on the other side of the world? Even if you are fighting a big nation, if the province is out of their reach, why couldn't you do whatever you want with it?

I would say, if CBs were to be changed so that you accumulate them (like in VIcky 2) and have to justify all your conquests instead of just blankly taking whatever you want, even leaving out your original CB, I would imagine a mechanic where provinces which are claimed in a war are those you cannot sell or interact with, since they are contested territory. Everything else, except if it's occupied or threatened, should be fully interactable with.

For a "threatened" province, I go back to either my (simple) version of "next to an ennemy army or occupation" or to @jonjowett idea of multiple criterium for the same qualification.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

Can't downgrade so you can't spite someone by downgrading on a province you will loose. Can't upgrade because REASONS.

Cant uograde mid war cuz you could upgrade enemy but occupied centres of trade, putting them over merchant limit?

 

[jonjowett]

Cant uograde mid war cuz you could upgrade enemy but occupied centres of trade, putting them over merchant limit?

There are many other ways to have more world trade centres than merchants. For example, if a trade company goes from 52% to 50%, so you lose the associated merchant. It's not a problem.

 

[subzero12479]

Cant uograde mid war cuz you could upgrade enemy but occupied centres of trade, putting them over merchant limit?

Its more likely bc a provinces trade power affects its warscore cost and the ae gained from conquering it.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

Its more likely bc a provinces trade power affects its warscore cost and the ae gained from conquering it.

Yeah sounds more important

 

[Junuxx]

Never understood why I can't choose a new rival while at war.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

Never understood why I can't choose a new rival while at war.

So you cant change dip cost mid war?

 

[Junuxx]

So you cant change dip cost mid war?

That would be an argument for not allowing the player to set a country they are at war with as a rival, but not for disallowing the selection of any new rivals whatsoever during any war.

For example let's say I'm Muscovy, have Lithuania as a rival and I'm at war with Novgorod. Lithuania falls in a PU under Poland, opening up my rival slot. In this case setting Novgorod as a rival after the war started seems a bit sneaky like you're suggesting. But setting it to Denmark or Poland should be fine, right?

 

[FocusedHope]

I could have sworn that this didn't happen in the past, maybe something changed over the last year or two. (I took a long hiatus from EU4.)

Or maybe I'm just wrong lol.

So in 1.30.x, I would from time to time when playing Byzantium have Byzantine Separatists rise up in Lesbos and Chios (controlled by Genoa), and they were friendly to me. (And, when they inevitably caused Lesbos to defect since Genoa can blockade them but not actually beat them, became a 7k stack for me.) This happened not every game but reasonably often; Lesbos and Chios both start with Byzantine Separatists, and depending on what Genoa does, sometimes manage to trigger an uprising before Genoa manages to convert them. But it doesn't seem to happen (hasn't happened to me at all yet) in 1.31.x, possibly due to just random luck, possibly due to a change in how rebel types are calculated (e.g. switching to Orthodox Zealots when there's a missionary), possibly due to some other factor.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

That would be an argument for not allowing the player to set a country they are at war with as a rival, but not for disallowing the selection of any new rivals whatsoever during any war.

For example let's say I'm Muscovy, have Lithuania as a rival and I'm at war with Novgorod. Lithuania falls in a PU under Poland, opening up my rival slot. In this case setting Novgorod as a rival after the war started seems a bit sneaky like you're suggesting. But setting it to Denmark or Poland should be fine, right?

You'll grow in the war and then eclipse rivals again?

 

[Aepdneds]

You'll grow in the war and then eclipse rivals again?

This should be on a timer anyway. You eclipsed them, 1 month later they rivaled you, you eclipsed them...

Its more likely bc a provinces trade power affects its warscore cost and the ae gained from conquering it.

Like said before, then it should also not be possible to develop a province during wartime.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

This should be on a timer anyway. You eclipsed them, 1 month later they rivaled you, you eclipsed them...
.

That's an autonomy bug which needs to be fixed

 

[jonjowett]

That's an autonomy bug which needs to be fixed

I thought it was army size? If nation X gets fully occupied and their army is completely destroyed, you eclipse them. 1 year later, they've rebuilt an army and are a valid rival once more.