Please no extra tag switching limitation

[Piotrzeci]

I believe my method achieve the same thing, but isn't based on artificial as hell conception of "final, important title".
Why do forming countries gives claims, after all? To give country an ability to conquer its "logical" (I don't want to say "historical", because some countries you can create never existed before) territory. So giving the country special CB to conquer provinces within its logical territory would achieve the same, and tag switching would be prevented because nobody would need it.
Such CBs, which have some specific clause with region, culture or some special options exist in EU4. Unify China limit conquest by China superregion. Imperial Ban limit it with Empire territory. Nationalism limit it by attacker culture group.

1. It does give claims before you claim the title. It's the de jure claim of CK2. You control enough important lands in some de jure kingdom/empire and can proclaim yourself the ruler of it.
2. It's by no means artificial. By claiming certain titles you bound your realm to the lands of this title. A king of Italy wouldn't randomly say "Now I am an emperor of the Mughals", just because he happens too meet the criteria. If a country has any of the final tags it means it already manifested it's destiny and reasonably won't go for any other title to replace it.

 

[aono]

1. It does give claims before you claim the title. It's the de jure claim of CK2.

Sorry? No. It does not give claims BEFORE you claim the title. CK2 de jure claims are not given before you gain the title.
And yeah. I can understand how it works with Roman Empire or Byzantium. But why Mughals, for example?

A king of Italy wouldn't randomly say "Now I am an emperor of the Mughals", just because he happens too meet the criteria.

Sorry, are we saying IRL or in-game? Because IRL he would. In 19th century queen of England named herself "Empress of India" (and still stayed Queen of United Kingdom). IRL having one title never stopped you from claiming another (and Russian imperial title of Peter included, if I recall right, about 25 such titles). Also, imagine situation when said king of Italy by some events lost his Indian territory. Also he, if he happens to meet the criteria, have nothing for being italian or, well, european; why the hell Italy?
And why Italy is more important then Mughals? Maybe Italy's destiny was to unite India, why the hell no?
Also I don't understand conception of "claiming certain titles you bound your realm to the lands of this title". Why you do if we speaking about Italy, and don't - when speaking Austria, France or Scotland? How lands of Italy are so magical?

 

[Bayes]

Sometimes less is more. Instead of forming the same tags every game because thats the optimal tag. Now atleast you have to choose between a slightly less optimal but easier to form tag vs the one you always end up forming(mughals). You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Hessian Mercenary]

Sometimes less is more. Instead of forming the same tags every game because thats the optimal tag. Now atleast you have to choose between a slightly less optimal but easier to form tag vs the one you always end up forming(mughals). You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

Between new Mughal government reform granting a bonus for every culture you completely control, their good idea set and their new mission tree I find it hard to find a reason NOT to form Mughals every game now as my end game tag



I would be absolutely fine with making tag switching a lot harder by reworking culture shifts, but now we are left with some arbitrary list of tags Paradox considers strong (a quick glance at their balance history should tell everyone that Paradox isn't always right on track with what they consider strong options, I mean Prussia isn't even on the list even though it's the most complained about formable in MP).

Also funny how all those guys bringing up historical plausibility as an argument completely ignore how this list still does not change things like England -> France -> Shan -> whatever -> Mughals

Not to mention that Paradox just created future workload for themselves because now with each DLC they'll have to discuss which of the new formable nations and which of the existing nations getting new unique mission trees need to be added to the list.

All of this could've been avoided by reworking culture shifts instead

 

[Bayes]

Between new Mughal government reform granting a bonus for every culture you completely control, their good idea set and their new mission tree I find it hard to find a reason NOT to form Mughals every game now as my end game tag



I would be absolutely fine with making tag switching a lot harder by reworking culture shifts, but now we are left with some arbitrary list of tags Paradox considers strong (a quick glance at their balance history should tell everyone that Paradox isn't always right on track with what they consider strong options, I mean Prussia isn't even on the list even though it's the most complained about formable in MP).

Also funny how all those guys bringing up historical plausibility as an argument completely ignore how this list still does not change things like England -> France -> Shan -> whatever -> Mughals

Not to mention that Paradox just created future workload for themselves because now with each DLC they'll have to discuss which of the new formable nations and which of the existing nations getting new unique mission trees need to be added to the list.

All of this could've been avoided by reworking culture shifts instead

I would like it to be impossible to tag swap like it is currently viable atm.
Reworking culture shift to be alot more limited would achieve that.
Doest seem like any of your points are in conflict with my post. I agree that the new mughals seem completly busted.

 

[Buladelu]

There is a problem.
It's highly, unspeakably simpler to check one simple variable (tag), then four of them (culture, religion, government, region; even if you don't include things like dynasty) in some decision or event. Also we have a problem with national ideas, but, truth to be said, I'd think something to reform them as well. I'd say "that would be another game", but, you know, seeing what devs do with EU4, Stellaris and CK2 with updates, I'm dismissing this claim.

UPD: I _do_ agree with basic idea though, but it's very complex technically.

I don't see how it's that complex. You can probably even do it with a script. Look for every event that checks for BYZ tag, switch it to check for Greek Empire that owns Constantinople. Find all checks for England and change it to English Kingdom (most of those already check for England/British) tag.

 

[aono]

I don't see how it's that complex. You can probably even do it with a script. Look for every event that checks for BYZ tag, switch it to check for Greek Empire that owns Constantinople.

Simple.
Byzantium version:
trigger = {
tag = BYZ
}

Generic version:
trigger = {
AND = {
culture = greek
tier = EMPIRE
government_rank = 3
owns = 151
}
}

You need four checks with generic one, where you need only one with BYZ.

 

[Buladelu]

You mean it will make for harder calculations for computer?

Weeeeell I don't see at as that big of a problem. I doubt checks themselves take a big toll on performance.

 

[Lor360]

Fun > realism

@DDRJake Please dont limit tag switching

So then play with cheats and leave the rest of us with a balanced game.

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

Ehh...

Tag switching has in most cases been used to abuse or circumvent game mechanics, so I'm alright with it being more heavily limited. If you want to run a bunch of exploits just open the game in non-iron man and do whatever you like, the option is still there for you.

 

[Piotrzeci]

Sorry? No. It does not give claims BEFORE you claim the title. CK2 de jure claims are not given before you gain the title.
And yeah. I can understand how it works with Roman Empire or Byzantium. But why Mughals, for example?

Oh, I think the auto-correct changed the word and I didn't notice. I meant "because".

 

[aono]

Oh, I think the auto-correct changed the word and I didn't notice. I meant "because".

So? I called myself "Mughal". Why I have recognized by everybody claim on whole India?
That's the thing - I do believe special CB on Indian territory that stays until I stays Mughal is better. Again, it's how it works in CK2 - having title doesn't gives you claims on de-jure provincies, but gives you special CB ("de-jure", which is different from "press claim").

 

[Piotrzeci]

So? I called myself "Mughal". Why I have recognized by everybody claim on whole India?
That's the thing - I do believe special CB on Indian territory that stays until I stays Mughal is better. Again, it's how it works in CK2 - having title doesn't gives you claims on de-jure provincies, but gives you special CB ("de-jure", which is different from "press claim").

But it is not CK. It is a different game where your right to fight for land is represented by giving you claims on it. You still just go and grab land, that you have legitimacy to.
And actually I will say, that Mughals get too much claims and it isn't the best example. It's not like realistically someone who conquers a North-Western part of an entire subcontinent should be seen as reasonable ruler of entirety of it.

And your idea to make claims be taken away after you tag-switch isn't bad. It is a good alternative to the blockade on tag switching for claims...
but it is an alternative to something, that is better. Why seek another way, if the it already solves the issue and makes more historical sense?

 

[aono]

It is a different game where your right to fight for land is represented by giving you claims on it.

Not always. Nationalism, Imperialism, Imperial Ban, Imperial Liberation, Unite China, Take Mandate of Heaven, War for the Emperor, Colonialism, Holy War, Cleansing of Heresy, Tribal Conquest, Maya Confederation - all of them don't require you to have claims.
EDIT: Just in case; "claim" here is a technical term for game, not "some reason to have this province".

Why seek another way, if the it already solves the issue and makes more historical sense?

Because new mechanic is adding "end-tags", which aren't historical in any sense but "in real history this tag ended expansion". So yeah. Special CBs works nicely against tag-switching for claims, and you don't need to create new variables for it. What's the benefits of end-tags?
Take your example "A king of Italy wouldn't randomly say "Now I am an emperor of the Mughals", just because he happens too meet the criteria."
Let's see. Criteria are:
1. iranian culture group or is Turkmeni, Uzbek or Kyrgyz;
2. has at least 200 total development;
3. owns its core provinces Roh, Lahore, Central Doab, Sirhind and Delhi.

Why the hell ruler, who have cores for Roh, Lahore, Central Doab, Sirhind, Delhi, with at least 50% of his states being iranian, turkmeni, uzbek or kyrgyz (another way he wouldn't be able to culture-swap) - why he would prefer to identify him as the Emperor of Italiy, not Mughal? Is Italian title somehow magical?

 

[Piotrzeci]

Because new mechanic is adding "end-tags", which aren't historical in any sense but "in real history this tag ended expansion". So yeah. Special CBs works nicely against tag-switching for claims, and you don't need to create new variables for it. What's the benefits of end-tags?

Yeah... totally ahistorical. I can't believe Paradox is so ignorant of the history, that they ignore the possibility of Ottomans forming the Kingdom of Georgia.

Take your example "A king of Italy wouldn't randomly say "Now I am an emperor of the Mughals", just because he happens too meet the criteria."
Let's see. Criteria are:
1. iranian culture group or is Turkmeni, Uzbek or Kyrgyz;
2. has at least 200 total development;
3. owns its core provinces Roh, Lahore, Central Doab, Sirhind and Delhi.
Why the hell ruler, who have cores for Roh, Lahore, Central Doab, Sirhind, Delhi, with at least 50% of his states being iranian, turkmeni, uzbek or kyrgyz (another way he wouldn't be able to culture-swap) - why he would prefer to identify him as the Emperor of Italiy, not Mughal? Is Italian title somehow magical?

And why would the King of Italy meet these criteria? Because he was exiled from his mainland into holdings in Iran where he abandoned his own origins (or ones of his dynasty) to better rule locals with Iranian culture and happened to create an empire there? OR it is just a player that culture switched to Iranian culture to form a better tag? The first very unlikely scenerio is one where it is totally reasonable for them to be Mughals, but it won't happen in the game. The only reason why king of Italy would meet this criteria is if a player wanted to do ahistorical b******t for better ideas and claims. Why not block the option?

 

[aono]

I can't believe Paradox is so ignorant of the history, that they ignore the possibility of Ottomans forming the Kingdom of Georgia.

Ottomans are a dynasty.
But, well, if Ottomans were evicted from Greece and Anatolia (by Byzantium, for example), was cornered in Georgia, are mostly Georgian, and haven't Ottoman on throne - yes, they should be possible to create Georgia. What is the problem you see here?

And why would the King of Italy meet these criteria?

That's the question. But why is should be possible for, let's say, Hannover or Sweden, and not possible for Italy? Again, is Italy more magical that Hannover?

 

[Lor360]

Lets keep it real: nobody here is loosing their mind because if you let England beat you in 5 wars and loose Scotland you wont be able to form Iceland as the exiled Scotts with your remaining 2 provinces.

People are angry that they will no longer have easy access to cheesy tactics such as Shia Prussian Tsardoms.
Or the free claims when they are doing a world conquest and changing there nation from Russia to China to England to Hindustan.

 

[DDRJake]

For anyone who wants to quickly and easily remove the End Game Tags limitation, we have not hardcoded it, you need only locate the file 00_scripted_triggers.txt in Europa Universalis IV\common\scripted_triggers and remove all the countries from the was_never_end_game_tag_trigger list once the Mughals Update hits.

Remove the highlighted part and your good to go, albeit not Iromman friendly.

 

[aono]

People are angry that they will no longer have easy access to cheesy tactics such as Shia Prussian Tsardoms.

I'm not sure it's locked by end tags.
You'll need to create Prussia; it's not end tag (and it shouldn't be, because creating Germany).
Then you'll need to change into Russian to create Russia. Nothing with end tags would do anything with it.
To change into Shia you'll need to lose to Shia rebellion - again, nothing in end-tags prevent it.
So end-tags should not improve anything for this problem.

Or the free claims when they are doing a world conquest and changing there nation from Russia to China to England to Hindustan.

Yes, that's why I believe tags like Mughal should have CBs limited to tag and regions, not claims.

 

[Piotrzeci]

That's the question. But why is should be possible for, let's say, Hannover or Sweden, and not possible for Italy? Again, is Italy more magical that Hannover?

To form Italy you need to be of Italian culture and to form Mughals you need to be of Iranian (or Uzbek...). If you try to form Mughals as Italy, then there obviously were shifts of culture for your own benefit. If you however think Hanover and Sweden both are in the same situation as Italy, then add their tags to the End-game tags.