I quite like the new control mechanic in CK3, and I think Imperator actually has the potential to make a lot more use of it. The goal is to get full output out of provinces with high control, likely those close to your capital, with high loyalty, or good infrastructure. Control would effect pop output and province warscore cost, so disloyal borderlands would be easy to occupy and take in war, while central home provinces would not. It would integrate both into economy and warfare, and to some extent would be an anti-blobbing mechanic.
How it would work:
Every Province has a control value, from 0 to 100. No modifiers at 100, at 0: -100% pop output, -100% Province Warscore cost
Control is a trending value based on the following:
To make control become even more interesting at war, make settlements instantly defect if they reach 0 control while occupied, and border land you own. Occupation would add a ticking control modifier, but something rather small say -0.2/month. This means that a territory with 12 control before a war would instantly flip if occupied for 5 years. Even if it does not flip instantly, the longer you occupy it the cheaper the land will be to take, and even if it is not conquered a long occupation will have a lasting impact on land, as it will reduce pop output until it trends back to whatever equilibrium it was at before occupation (a double edged sword, as if you reduce control in land and then take it over, it will take a long time to be worth anything to you as well). With the modifier for difference from current value and equilibrium, land with good to decent control will never reach 0 from occupation (easy example numbers here, say for each point away from equilibrium control is, gain +0.01 a month, then, with the example of -0.2 a month from occupation, a province with a control equilibrium above 20 could never reach 0 while occupied).
This would dramatically change warfare, as it gives an incentive to the attacker to accept peace quickly so they do not completely destroy the control in the land they occupy, and to the defender since the amount of land an attacker can take at once goes up the longer they stay in a losing fight. The balance here would be tricky, as you do not want to encourage attackers to just full occupy and sit on land for cheaper warscore cost, but perhaps with a full surrender/call for peace option, along with harsher war exhaustion (things I think the game needs anyway), you could find a balance point. It would allow for border wars between big empires to allow for vast swaths of land to transfer, but make gamey things like snaking in to take the capital and most valuable land more difficult. (likely since control would reduce warscore cost in most land, base warscore cost should increase to balance this). Distance from capital would have a big effect on both wars and your economy.
How it would work:
Every Province has a control value, from 0 to 100. No modifiers at 100, at 0: -100% pop output, -100% Province Warscore cost
Control is a trending value based on the following:
- Distance from Capital, modified by roads, ports, and terrain
- Loyalty of the Province
- Loyalty and Charisma of the Governor
- Province investments such as Courthouses or Military Procurators
- Whether or not a Province is Occupied
- Difference between current value and Equilibrium (Like EU4 Estate Loyalty)
To make control become even more interesting at war, make settlements instantly defect if they reach 0 control while occupied, and border land you own. Occupation would add a ticking control modifier, but something rather small say -0.2/month. This means that a territory with 12 control before a war would instantly flip if occupied for 5 years. Even if it does not flip instantly, the longer you occupy it the cheaper the land will be to take, and even if it is not conquered a long occupation will have a lasting impact on land, as it will reduce pop output until it trends back to whatever equilibrium it was at before occupation (a double edged sword, as if you reduce control in land and then take it over, it will take a long time to be worth anything to you as well). With the modifier for difference from current value and equilibrium, land with good to decent control will never reach 0 from occupation (easy example numbers here, say for each point away from equilibrium control is, gain +0.01 a month, then, with the example of -0.2 a month from occupation, a province with a control equilibrium above 20 could never reach 0 while occupied).
This would dramatically change warfare, as it gives an incentive to the attacker to accept peace quickly so they do not completely destroy the control in the land they occupy, and to the defender since the amount of land an attacker can take at once goes up the longer they stay in a losing fight. The balance here would be tricky, as you do not want to encourage attackers to just full occupy and sit on land for cheaper warscore cost, but perhaps with a full surrender/call for peace option, along with harsher war exhaustion (things I think the game needs anyway), you could find a balance point. It would allow for border wars between big empires to allow for vast swaths of land to transfer, but make gamey things like snaking in to take the capital and most valuable land more difficult. (likely since control would reduce warscore cost in most land, base warscore cost should increase to balance this). Distance from capital would have a big effect on both wars and your economy.
Last edited:
- 20
- 1
- 1