Realistically is this justifiable

[WeissRaben]

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.

"You removed my choice to not choose anything and doing the same thing every game! Now I have to actually choose, you monster!"

 

[Lee Saxon]

More developed/affluent provinces costs more to integrate/core ... perfectly logical.

I don't think anyone's disputing that. It's how much more that's problematic. When I vassalized 12 development Modena, they had about +30 chance to accept. At the same time, 15 development Pisa had about -30. That's a huge difference.

 

[iShurik]

Administrative Ideas + Influence Ideas -> -25% diplo annexation cost from Influence Ideas , -20% diplo annexation cost from policy (Vassal Integration Act). So -45% in total from just two ideas. Problem solved.

Another Policy for reducing coring costs would be nice though.

 

[FrigidSoul]

Meanwhile, instant-integration decisions are still a thing. So feel free to feed half of Europe to Aragon or Lithuania or Scotland and then absorb it all with the press of a button.

Cause history. Or something.

Actually, its take influence and administrative.

One should always be Adaptable to patch changes

Yes, two of the most unattractive idea groups finally got a buff in usefulness. Thank god.

 

[Grand Pope Papa]

9 provinces of rich french land. You fed your vassal to the point of it being an actual nation.

You do realize that 9 province Guyenne is larger than most modern European countries, right? If anything, coring and annexing were just too cheap in the past.

I couldn't be happier with the increased coring costs. No more unrealistic superblobbing! Smaller countries actually have a fighting chance now.

You are annexing a very strong nation, with a large population and economy. Lets face it people blobbing is just more challenging now as it should be. The less blobbing the happier I am.

 

[Jomini]

- 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.

Oh I must have missed how the Danish navy was massively backward and out of date for three centuries or where Austria was unable to force terms (like release nations, return cores, etc.) for a century. And of course as we all know during the late 1800s Russia was decidely backward with a relative drop in trade power and naval prowess.


I don't mind nations taking a long time to integrate - I mind not being able to do other stuff while that is happening. These periods of integration you mention are generally among the eras of greatest technological progress and economic development.

The basic game mechanisms should strive to allow for historical level accomplishments - i.e. anyone roughly Castille like (e.g. Novgorod) should be able to gain a subject nation of someone roughly Aragon like (e.g. Sweden) and then have them fully integrated within 20 years (you know what the game database shows is the historical progression). Similarly the Batavian Republic tells us that the entire process from vassalizing to integration should be really quick. And let's not even think about the Manchu Conquest.

We have a waiting period for PUs and vassals that is already ahistorical. We have costs that are historical. We have an actual integration period that is ahistorical. So what is the benefit?

That we sit around for longer before we can go on to something else? That those 24 years of spending the vast majority of my bird mana on integrating one subject (nowhere near as large as historically integrated subjects) are basically dead time? That I can just sit on speed 5?

Good strategy is having to make lots of strategic decisions on a regular basis, not one that then requires a 20 minute wait before the next one.

 

[Korashy]

It's not just 1400 points. It's also 50% of your diplomats tied up for decades. All this does is push players even further into taking influence, admin, diplomatic trinity

 

[Mattzey]

It's not just 1400 points. It's also 50% of your diplomats tied up for decades. All this does expansion did is push players even further into taking influence, admin, diplomatic trinity

Finally someone understands the main point people have been ignoring throughout the whole thread!! cookies for you

 

[Grand Pope Papa]

Diplomatic annexation should be long and expensive because that is how it was IRL. And EU4 is trying to simulate RL.

 

[Twoflower]

(you know what the game database shows is the historical progression).

Aragon being integrated by Spain in the early 16th century is a gameplay decision to allow for a strong Spain (and in game, Castile does not have to accomplish this by integrating Aragon, it gets it as a one-click decision thing). This does not change anything about the fact that historically the relation between Aragon and Castile can only be described as a personal union up to the Decretos de Nueva Planta and that there was no integrated Kingdom of Spain before that.

 

[Korashy]

Diplomatic annexation should be long and expensive because that is how it was IRL. And EU4 is trying to simulate RL.

In RL you didn't have only 2 diplomats that sat around throwing diplomatic love at a vassal. The point increase would be okay, if in return my diplomat isn't stuck in guyenne till the turn of the century.

 

[Mattzey]

Diplomatic annexation should be long and expensive because that is how it was IRL. And EU4 is trying to simulate RL.

So in real life country's had 1 diplomat annexing a country and then, They had only one other diplomat trying to manage war declarations,/ multiple alliances/ claiming provinces/ royal marriages/ keeping vassals happy/ keeping allies happy/ keep aggressors off your back/ stopping other nations joining the coalition against you?

 

[Twoflower]

In RL you didn't have only 2 diplomats that sat around throwing diplomatic love at a vassal. The point increase would be okay, if in return my diplomat isn't stuck in guyenne till the turn of the century.

Wiz already stated that they are looking at ways to compensate for the loss of an diplomat from the embassy....

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Wait! Is it now cheaper to take the land for yourself instead of feed vassals?

Wow I am so excited now. I have always thought vassal-feeding being cheaper than just taking the land for yourself to be kind of wrong. The cheese always felt like it should have gone the other way in my opinion.

 

[iShurik]

It's not just 1400 points. It's also 50% of your diplomats tied up for decades. All this does is push players even further into taking influence, admin, diplomatic trinity

Well if you are going for world conquest, you will need the right ideas. this seems pretty logical to me. Also you don't have to integrate vassals, you can also keep them. I don't know but I'm fine with not beeing able to paint the map under any circumstances. I like the new system.

 

[Korashy]

Wiz already stated that they are looking at ways to compensate for the loss of an diplomat from the embassy....

The embassy loss just compounds the issue, but embassy was much more difficult to achieve for some nations anyways (start small with low moeney) It wasn't a reliable tech 6 dip instant diplomat.

 

[Franconian]

In RL you didn't have only 2 diplomats that sat around throwing diplomatic love at a vassal. The point increase would be okay, if in return my diplomat isn't stuck in guyenne till the turn of the century.

They could change the diplo anex to make it similiar to colonization:
- let the option only start the anex to the current price/time
- the diplomat can go home and do other things
- OR the diplomat stays and shortens the time/cost

 

[Denkt]

You will probably have more success asking for faster annexation then cheaper annexation (which Wiz have said no to).

A large vassal should probably be seen as a rather permament thing now, instead make use of the new interactions with large vassals, maybe you are lucky placing a relative on its throne then getting it under a personal union and maybe inherit it later on.

 

[Korashy]

You will probably have more success asking for faster annexation then cheaper annexation (which Wiz have said no to).

A large vassal should probably be seen as a rather permament thing now, instead make use of the new interactions with large vassals, maybe you are lucky placing a relative on its throne then getting it under a personal union and maybe inherit it later on.

can't PU a tag that's already a vassal. Also direct inheritance is incredibly rare even for lucky AI.

 

[s1234567890m]

Finally someone understands the main point people have been ignoring throughout the whole thread!! cookies for you

Then they have been poorly presenting there arguments, first it was too expensive, then it took too long, now its tying up diplomats. If that had been the thrust of your OP then you probably would have received a more positive response (I know I support more diplomats or a change in how diplomats interact with integration i.e. subsidies/embargo.)