Vassalizing countries has not been worth it since autonomy was added unless you want them to be a march or let them convert provinces for you.
Realistically is this justifiable
- Thread starter Mattzey
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You vassal fed Guyenne France, want to annex them. Yes that is pretty justifiable, perhaps a tad to high but I see no reason why it should be anywhere below 900.
Vassalizing is also a good alternative if you think you don't have the means to handle the separatist rebels you will face if you annex land directly. I mean in some ways I really do like that vassal feeding is no longer a complete no-brainer the way it was once.
- 1
Would love to see someone try to integrate a Caucasian blob. 100000000 Dip Points gone 
- 2
My point that most people have overlooked is that the old cost for coring such land was probably 600 ish, now its 1400, basically 3x It's original cost. And then the fact that I will be stuck with one diplomat for 25 years. i can always leave the vassal and not annex him but then a new problem arises. He will keep improving his provinces and that means = more dip spent on integration so the time my diplomat is trying to integrate the vassal will be even longer so basically either way I'm going to be wedged on 1 diplomat for god knows how long.
- 7
- 2
This is a good analysis. If what Novgov says is true, I'd like it to be that way. All playthroughs call for new playing styles, it creates a unique experience.
In 1.11 it was 49 tax IIRC, so 490 vs 1390, which is actually 2.8.
It is rude and brutal increase (I am not saying that some increase would not be reasonable). Maybe western nations do not care. Asian nations got nerfed.
- 2
I was referring to the earlier specific example, but fair enough. I stand corrected in terms of your post.
Update: I've now integrated Ferrarra, vassalized Urbino and Modena, and fed Albenga & Genoa to Corsica. Still can't vassalize Lucca or Pisa (though I am just a couple points away). This is RIDICULOUS.
- 1
How does it create unique playing experiences, if for alot of people the idea to reduce diplo-annexing costs becomes mandatory. Alot of people don't use different playstyles each time, they pick different nations to alter their playstyle for them, all this does is mean ... Playing England? Take Influence. Playing France, Take Influence. Playing Austria? Take Influence. Castille? Influence. Bohemia? Influence. Muscovy? Infuence. Golden Horde? Influence. etc etc etc.
Okay so you might take Influence first as Austria or Bohemia and later as Castille ... wow ... what a mindblowing, game altering experience ...
Not to be rude to you personally, but I'm not buying your argument sorry.
- 8
Do you not get the Margaret of Anjou event? I did and it was awesome. I was like "Hey Henry I don't have to try to get you killed anymore."
That's assuming that every game someone plays relies on vassalage of other states. If you don't like the diplomacy aspect of foreign policy, annex the provinces via military. If you don't like the military, grow tall and focus on developing your own provinces.How does it create unique playing experiences, if for alot of people the idea to reduce diplo-annexing costs becomes mandatory. Alot of people don't use different playstyles each time, they pick different nations to alter their playstyle for them, all this does is mean ... Playing England? Take Influence. Playing France, Take Influence. Playing Austria? Take Influence. Castille? Influence. Bohemia? Influence. Muscovy? Infuence. Golden Horde? Influence. etc etc etc.
Okay so you might take Influence first as Austria or Bohemia and later as Castille ... wow ... what a mindblowing, game altering experience ...
Not to be rude to you personally, but I'm not buying your argument sorry.
- 1
It's Italy. Those are cities with tens of thousands of inhabitants and relative countryside, plus satellite cities. It's not like they are steppe 3-dev OPM.
How does it create unique playing experiences, if for alot of people the idea to reduce diplo-annexing costs becomes mandatory. Alot of people don't use different playstyles each time, they pick different nations to alter their playstyle for them, all this does is mean ... Playing England? Take Influence. Playing France, Take Influence. Playing Austria? Take Influence. Castille? Influence. Bohemia? Influence. Muscovy? Infuence. Golden Horde? Influence. etc etc etc.
Okay so you might take Influence first as Austria or Bohemia and later as Castille ... wow ... what a mindblowing, game altering experience ...
Not to be rude to you personally, but I'm not buying your argument sorry.
Not to be rude to you personally, but it is kind of sad that your mindset and imagination seem that limited. How about (and these are just the obvious history-based strategies):
- play England, don't take influence, take trade, exploration and economic, develop your island, become filthy rich, rule the waves and only fight wars in Europe to restore balance of power (i.e. usually: curb France)
- play Castille, don't take influence (remember you integrate Aragon for free), take religious, expansion and exploration, fight the infidels in North Africa, dominate Italy through vassals rather than landgrabs, build a huge colonial empire and bring in the gold
- play Austria, take diplomatic rather than influence, rule the HRE by a swarm of vassals, marches and personal unions and eventually unify it
- play Muscovy, don't take influence, but religious and expansion, conquer the other Russian principalities and then the Tatars militarily (ok, influence is definitely useful for Russia, but not a must)
I could go on, but I hope you get the picture: there are other fun ways to play this game than map painting through vassal feeding.
- 7
- 1
Remind me again, what historical integration lasted 20 years and prevented the power doing so from upgrading their navy, signing major peaces, or anything else.
The problem with new increased costs is not that they are higher, but that your only viable response to doing things comparable to many, many historical events (the integration of Hungary, Norway, Aragon, Scotland, Lithuania, the Polish Partitions, the Batavian Republic) is either wait for RNG luck ... or wait forever while spending points.
Having nothing else to DO (because you know EVERYTHING must require monarch points) rips strategy out of the game. I should be forced with many interesting strategic choices that constantly require me to adapt and weigh a lot of potential applications of resources. Instead we get this ahistorical stuff every few patches where you make a handful of blindingly obvious decisions and then just wait forever for a clock timer to ding so you can do something else.
The problem with new increased costs is not that they are higher, but that your only viable response to doing things comparable to many, many historical events (the integration of Hungary, Norway, Aragon, Scotland, Lithuania, the Polish Partitions, the Batavian Republic) is either wait for RNG luck ... or wait forever while spending points.
Having nothing else to DO (because you know EVERYTHING must require monarch points) rips strategy out of the game. I should be forced with many interesting strategic choices that constantly require me to adapt and weigh a lot of potential applications of resources. Instead we get this ahistorical stuff every few patches where you make a handful of blindingly obvious decisions and then just wait forever for a clock timer to ding so you can do something else.
- 5
- 2
Well, similar complaints about (new) core-ing costs that were increased, ie the Genoa province of Liguria thread.
More developed/affluent provinces costs more to integrate/core ... perfectly logical.
A 9-province vassal with 1/1/1 development for each province will be a cinch to integrate in comparison.
More developed/affluent provinces costs more to integrate/core ... perfectly logical.
A 9-province vassal with 1/1/1 development for each province will be a cinch to integrate in comparison.
- Spain took almost two centuries to integrate Aragon, from Charles V taking the thrones in 1516 to the Decretos de Nueva Planta in 1707 and 1711
- Integrating Norway took Denmark from 1380 to sometime in the 16th century
- England needed almost a century to integrate Scotland
- Austria needed more than a century to integrate Bohemia
- Russia vassalized Kacheti (Georgia) in 1783 and annexed it in 1801 (ok that was rather quick, but even so, almost 20 years)
- Brandenburg (more or less) vassalized Magdeburg (an OPM in EU4) in the peace of Westphalia in 1648 and took until 1680 to integrate it.
It is kinda hard to come up with more examples, because in fact, "diplomatic annexations" didn't happen all that often in the EU4 timeframe, which might be an indicator of how hard they should be.
- 3
- 2
- 1
I like it. The idea of feeding a vassal just to annex it later has always been odd to me
Actually, its take influence and administrative.How does it create unique playing experiences, if for alot of people the idea to reduce diplo-annexing costs becomes mandatory. Alot of people don't use different playstyles each time, they pick different nations to alter their playstyle for them, all this does is mean ... Playing England? Take Influence. Playing France, Take Influence. Playing Austria? Take Influence. Castille? Influence. Bohemia? Influence. Muscovy? Infuence. Golden Horde? Influence. etc etc etc.
Okay so you might take Influence first as Austria or Bohemia and later as Castille ... wow ... what a mindblowing, game altering experience ...
Not to be rude to you personally, but I'm not buying your argument sorry.
One should always be Adaptable to patch changes