Permanent claims

[CharlesTheBald]

You know when you form Qing for example, you get a lot of claims to conquer China but the game removes every uncontested claim after 25 years.

I think we need som kind of "permanent claim", that comes with a specific tag. Qing should have permanent claims on all provinces in China proper. Same goes when forming Russia etc...

They should be more powerful than ordinary claims for coring and also less hit by AE, since it's a stronger case for rightful overlordship than a fabricated equivalent.

I don't like the fact that it would take literally a dozen wars to complete the conquest of China as Qing.

 

[ShadowCammy]

Cores. You're thinking of cores. When forming a cultural union, I think you should get a core on all of that land, since it's YOUR region, right? So you have more than claims on it.
Like, it would be weird to have a Russia while still having a Novgorod, or a Germany without most of the German region, like historically.

 

[moscal]

Claim - "I have a right to this land" (temporary or constans)
Core - "I have a right to this land and installed my administration" (no negatives for production, taxes etc.)

Permanent claim not always = core. I can have a infinite right to some land (eg. Russia to Kiev), but i can haven't installed administration.

 

[Maq]

Claim - "I have a right to this land" (temporary or constans)
Core - "I have a right to this land and installed my administration" (no negatives for production, taxes etc.)

Permanent claim not always = core. I can have a infinite right to some land (eg. Russia to Kiev), but i can haven't installed administration.

I agree. Something inbetween claim and core might be quite useful.

 

[ShadowCammy]

Claim - "I have a right to this land" (temporary or constans)
Core - "I have a right to this land and installed my administration" (no negatives for production, taxes etc.)

Permanent claim not always = core. I can have a infinite right to some land (eg. Russia to Kiev), but i can haven't installed administration.

Then why do some nonexistent nations have cores? They have no administration over the land.
When you form Manchu, you gain claims on Inner Manchuria, even if you don't own them.

 

[alertiu5]

Then why do some nonexistent nations have cores? They have no administration over the land.
When you form Manchu, you gain claims on Inner Manchuria, even if you don't own them.

You mean cores. I definitely got cores on yet unowned provinces in Manchuria when I formed Manchu in my last game.

Back to the OP post though, Qing is not chinese cultural union as of 1.12, Ming is. If they will become one, cores will make sense.

 

[moscal]

Then why do some nonexistent nations have cores? They have no administration over the land.

Philosophy of the game - another new country would be too weak (punishment to tax, production etc.) and quickly conquered by neighbors.

Generally - we need more status of province.

 

[Danfish77]

Perhaps we can change the cores for countries that don't exist into these "permanent claims", and then if the country comes into being, it can have some subset of these "permanent claim" provinces- and the provinces it gets instantly become cores. Permanent claims could have even greater reductions on core creation cost, maybe -75 or something.

Byzantium could have permanent claims on parts of the old Empire, maybe even Rome. Permanent claims would work better for "conquer all of X" missions, so if you didn't complete the mission in 25 years (some of the Ottoman ones are difficult to do in two wars) you can keep the mission without losing the claims.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

Cores. You're thinking of cores. When forming a cultural union, I think you should get a core on all of that land, since it's YOUR region, right? So you have more than claims on it.
Like, it would be weird to have a Russia while still having a Novgorod, or a Germany without most of the German region, like historically.

Cores, just like claims, vanishes after some time if not contested - unless if you are the primary tag of that culture. That wouldn't really work with Qing for example.

So the cores would have to be reworked. Also, there's another problem with handing out tons of cores at the same time: the prestige drain the core claim holder will get for not controlling them. I tried this with Qing to stimulate faster conquest but it just ends up with them conquering half of China and then running on a permanent prestige deficit.

All things considered, I think it would be easier to just make two types of claims.

Perhaps we can change the cores for countries that don't exist into these "permanent claims", and then if the country comes into being, it can have some subset of these "permanent claim" provinces- and the provinces it gets instantly become cores. Permanent claims could have even greater reductions on core creation cost, maybe -75 or something.

Byzantium could have permanent claims on parts of the old Empire, maybe even Rome. Permanent claims would work better for "conquer all of X" missions, so if you didn't complete the mission in 25 years (some of the Ottoman ones are difficult to do in two wars) you can keep the mission without losing the claims.

Totally agree. If I want to take back Anatolia as Byzantium, I really shouldn't have to fabricate a claim for it.

Missions is one area where this would work great, we could even attach the claims to the missions. That is, if you cancel the mission you'll lose the claims. But as long as you have the mission, you don't have postpone the conquest by boring fabrications.

Fabrication of claims as a concept should really be more limited in use. I mean, now you use them all the time. It wasn't like that nations back then normally had to fabricate a piece of paper in order to declare war.

 

[BaZERGer]

I think rather than claims, it could just work through a permanent casus belli, there's already something like that for china too, it just doesn't work against Ming unless it loses it's mandate of heaven.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

I think rather than claims, it could just work through a permanent casus belli, there's already something like that for china too, it just doesn't work against Ming unless it loses it's mandate of heaven.

My problem with using the Reunification of China concept is that it would require literally dozens of new unique CBs added to the game. And to achieve the cheaper coring costs etc you would still have to make some kind of province modifier to make these boni region specific.

Other users with greater insight might correct me on this one, but I'm pretty sure this is the case if we're going by the established game mechanics.

 

[BaZERGer]

I can live without the 10% coring discount.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

I can live without the 10% coring discount.

But my idea is that these "permanent claims" would have an even bigger discount, let's say 25%.

The point is that they would represent "real" claims, as opposed to fabricated claims.

 

[Maq]

I'd rather say that a historical example for such a 'permanent', non-fabricated claim is medieval France. Everything between Holy Roman Empire and the Atlantic has been - in theory - considered 'France'. No duke ever attempted to claim full independence, not even the Plantagenets, kings of England. But in reality, a significant part of this territory was not in the least under the control of the king of France. For centuries.
To make it a French core is rather strong for the mechanics of the game, compared with reality.
A 'claim' is rather weak and only temporary. This was a long lasting idea.
What the French kings actually held was a 'permanent claim' to the whole country.

 

[BrokenSky]

But my idea is that these "permanent claims" would have an even bigger discount, let's say 25%.

The point is that they would represent "real" claims, as opposed to fabricated claims.

Isn't the point of Fabricated claims that you just go and dig up the local families histories and say that "this land used to belong to such and such a title; it should be part of their, and hence my, realm" or something? Whereas this kind of claim is just some bloke saying "I declare myself king of all France/Iberia/England/etc". I'm not sure that the fabricated claims are any less legitimate.

I like the idea of permanent claims, but they shouldn't be stronger than any other [pretense for taking] / [legitimate right to rule] someone else's land.

 

[Maq]

Isn't the point of Fabricated claims that you just go and dig up the local families histories and say that "this land used to belong to such and such a title; it should be part of their, and hence my, realm" or something? Whereas this kind of claim is just some bloke saying "I declare myself king of all France/Iberia/England/etc". I'm not sure that the fabricated claims are any less legitimate.

I like the idea of permanent claims, but they shouldn't be stronger than any other [pretense for taking] / [legitimate right to rule] someone else's land.

Your arguments are valid.
The question is - here as well as with many items of game 'terminology' - what exactly the terms 'core', 'claim' etc. mean. Apart from that, I still would like to have three degrees instead of current two, i.e. claim and core.
And as for 'a bloke saying I'm a king of all'... It simply does not fit the situation I have described earlier on the example of French king. It was much much more than a mere word.

 

[BrokenSky]

And as for 'a bloke saying I'm a king of all'... It simply does not fit the situation I have described earlier on the example of French king. It was much much more than a mere word.

Well yes obviously. I meant that it was as fabricated as the "fabricate claim" type, and that while you might dismiss a claim gained using fabricate claim as fabricated, the claim due to declaring yourself the king of all <relevant area> is exactly as fabricated; they are the same in this regard, and hence neither more nor less legitimate. That is; they are both words, backed in theory by ancestral or cultural rights, and in practice by gunpowder and iron.

 

[Maq]

Well yes obviously. I meant that it was as fabricated as the "fabricate claim" type, and that while you might dismiss a claim gained using fabricate claim as fabricated, the claim due to declaring yourself the king of all <relevant area> is exactly as fabricated; they are the same in this regard, and hence neither more nor less legitimate. That is; they are both words, backed in theory by ancestral or cultural rights, and in practice by gunpowder and iron.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that has made the world hate Germany in WWI. When looking under surface, we can see that they were no more eager to go to the war than Russia and France. But they were stupid in what we call diplomacy. They believed that gunpowder and iron will eventually tell the truth.
On the other hand, when French king strenghtened his influence in France (western two thirds of today's France, I mean), he was perfectly backed by diplomacy, meaning that everyone in Europe believed that he was doing a rightful thing, requiring only what his barons owed to him.
To keep this game complex, diplomacy must remain substantial part of it, and able to distinguish subtle details. That's why I quite like an ides of a three-degree 'claim-xxx-core' rightfulness of a conquest. (In fact four-degree, if we count 'no claim' conquest as well.)
Historically, it all mattered, a lot.

 

[BrokenSky]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that has made the world hate Germany in WWI. When looking under surface, we can see that they were no more eager to go to the war than Russia and France. But they were stupid in what we call diplomacy. They believed that gunpowder and iron will eventually tell the truth.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. That Germany thought that military might alone would be enough that they would be deemed justified if they had won? Germany lost and they are disliked for it and held responsible, even though they lost out most from it. Surely this vindicates the opinion that the conquer has the effective right to impose whatever terms upon the vanquished he wishes?

I do think that EUIV needs complex diplomacy. Adding more detail to both diplomacy in general and to interactions like espionage, and other non-warfare based diplomacy, would be good I think? And I think that countries which claim union over a region, religion (caliphate, fylkirate etc) or culture ought to have claims to every province in that region, religion or culture respectively, which do not expire. I also feel that claims being split into those which are perceived as more or less legitimate would be good, but the effects ought to be diplomatic, mostly related to aggressive expansion, with conquest of cores giving the least and conquest of land which the nation has no claim to giving the most.

I just don't think that having a claim based on the "fabricate claim" option should always be weaker than one based on declaring yourself a cultural union, for example. If these more legitimate claims did come in, then claim fabrication ought to turn them up occasionally (like ~10% of the time?). Likewise, declaring yourself Britain ought to give you permanent claims on the British isles, but the ought not necessarily be more legitimate than regular claims, though they should be permanent.

 

[Nuklearius]

#