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.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

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.

Now I'm just guessing, but I got a feeling that the whole "fabricate claim" concept is pretty much based on Louis' XIV Chambers of Reunion.

Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_of_Reunion

This corresponds to your first example and these types of claims where considered pretty weak.

However, the "I declare myself king of all France/Iberia/England/etc" is another story, because that is a claim of overlordship based on currently holding a title with overlordship over a country, not some ancient document. This is a stronger claim, even if most often respected only in theory by those concerned by it - if the claimant didn't have the muscle to enforce it.

A good example of this would be the Burgundian Inheritance. How come Austria only took the Lowlands and the Imperial part of Burgundy and not the actual Duchy of Burgundy itself?
Because the Ducal lands were offically within the borders of the kingdom of France and it was an appanage, meaning that the rules said it must revert to the crown should the male line become extinct. The French king thus had a strong case legally to deny the Habsburgs this Duchy and he had the military strength to enforce the claim in practice, a claim which must be considered stronger than any fabricated one.

A interesting twist could be to introduce a new diplomatic action, where you can demand fealty from independent tags that are nominally your subjects, if they refuse you receive this permanent claim. Though I would like to see diplo-annexations becoming much harder (ie, vassals regularly resisting such an action by seeking support from the overlord's rivals), but that's a totally different topic.

 

[BrokenSky]

Now I'm just guessing, but I got a feeling that the whole "fabricate claim" concept is pretty much based on Louis' XIV Chambers of Reunion.

Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_of_Reunion

This corresponds to your first example and these types of claims where considered pretty weak.

However, the "I declare myself king of all France/Iberia/England/etc" is another story, because that is a claim of overlordship based on currently holding a title with overlordship over a country, not some ancient document. This is a stronger claim, even if most often respected only in theory by those concerned by it - if the claimant didn't have the muscle to enforce it.

The point that I'm making is that not all fabricated claims are weak and not all declarations of ownership over a whole region are strong. Some regions are relatively strong, like France, in the lasts considered part of it in theory, and so maybe France should have Strong, Permanent Claims on that region, but this is not necessarily true of all unions.

I think the Post I made before this one states my feeling on the matter in the way which most accurately represents what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that fabricated claims are stronger, I'm saying that it depends on the circumstances, so fabrication should sometimes give strong claims, and some Unions should only have weak claims over the region, such as those which have never been considered as unified Political Entities before.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

The point that I'm making is that not all fabricated claims are weak and not all declarations of ownership over a whole region are strong. Some regions are relatively strong, like France, in the lasts considered part of it in theory, and so maybe France should have Strong, Permanent Claims on that region, but this is not necessarily true of all unions.

I think the Post I made before this one states my feeling on the matter in the way which most accurately represents what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that fabricated claims are stronger, I'm saying that it depends on the circumstances, so fabrication should sometimes give strong claims, and some Unions should only have weak claims over the region, such as those which have never been considered as unified Political Entities before.

Sorry for the delayed response (missed the alert), and for the misunderstanding, point taken. It's of course different in different circumstances, what I want to arrive at is basically that I don't agree with the concept that Qing, for example, should've to make up excuses before attempting to conquer China just because they've been idle for 25 years after their formation. And that's how the game works now.

I've thought about this and the easiest way to implement this without too much effort is probably by simply making a decision which some countries can use, where they renew their claims for a cost in dip power.