Renounce CB shields as peace option & a "1,000 year alliance"

[unmerged(3408)]

I fear it may be too late for this suggestion however I think it would add considerably to the game play and historical fun of an EU sequel: Renouncing a claim to a neighboring (CB shield) province as an option in peace negotiations or as a diplomatic goal.

This was often a frequent feature in peace treaties. If I won a war against Russia, for example, I could demand they renounce their claim (CB shields) to my territory (say one CB shield for each star?).

In a white peace both nations could renounce some, or all of their claims to the other's lands.

It could also be a diplomatic goal. You could work hard to secure very good relations with another country and enter into a "1,000 year alliance" or somesuch diplomatic nonesence wherein both sides renounce their CB shields and become greater than great allies. This could bring a large VP's bonus and come with a hefty BB hit if you broke the alliance.

As Spain I always felt uneasy entering into an alliance with France because I knew that we both had a CB against each other. That seemed wrong.

It would mean a monarch could gain fame and glory for his country by being a great peace maker. It would allow for greater playability. By removing CB shields in the course of the game, countries would expand in different ways-making each game considerably different than previous games.

For historical examples see below

I fear it may be too late for this suggestion but I hope it will find due consideration.

 

[Sir James]

You can renounce your claim all you like - the reason for the claim is still going to remain.

I hope CB shields become a lot more dynamic in EU2, but you should only be able to renounce them for at best a short period.

 

[Aetius]

Having a time limited (100-200 years) CB shield for territory lost would also be good.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

You can renounce your claim all you like - the reason for the claim is still going to remain.

Not at all. A nation cannot have a legal cause of war to regain lost territory, just because the other guy speaks a different language.

I am specifically referring to a CB wherein the other guy controls territory which I think is mine. By renouncing my claim to that territory, I would effectivly remove the CB shield from province X Y & Z.

That is something which is missing from the current game. It is most definitely something I cannot do in the current EU.

 

[celedhring]

You can effectively remove the claim just not Dowing the other country or occupying the province. I think the CB markers (as they are located in EU1) refer more to linguistic and national causes to just "my half stepbrother in law once ruled Berri so I am the rightful Duke of Borbonnais". These kind of dinastic claims (VERY common, and that are not present in EU1) you could renounce to. The other ones I doubt, although the national component could dissolve with time and/or certain actions (Spain expelling the moors and then recolonizing the southern provinces of Spain).

 

[unmerged(860)]

It would be UN-historical.

In history, one king would renounce a claim to a plot of land, only for his successor to use that claim to wage a war!

That's just the way it is.

Look at it this way, the German claim to alsace and lorraine lasted until WW1! thats hundreds of years, one king might denounce france's intentions, the next would start them again. So from the perspective of the game, it wouldn't work out nicely to remove cb's in peace negotiations.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

What are you talking about, non-historical? It's one of the most historical things completley ignored by EU...

San Francisco Treaty 1951: Japan "renounces all right, title and claim" in connection with the territorial right to the Chishima Islands
St. Germain Treaty 1920: Austria renounced all rights and title of the former Duchy in Ruthenia.
Treaty of Paris, 1898: Spain renounces claim to Cuba and Philippines.
Peace ending the Crimean War 1856: Russia abandoned its claim as "protector" of Orthodox Christians living under Turkish rule.
Adams-Onis Treaty 1819:. Spain renounced claim to Oregon Country, Florida.
Peace of Oliva 1660: Poland renounced claim to the Swedish crown. (CB shields on all of Sweden.)
Peace of Cateau - Cambre'sis 1559:. Henri II, renounced all claim to Genoa, Naples. Milan, and Corsica.
Treaty of Crépy, 1544: HRE Charles V renounced his claim to the duchy of Burgundy. King Francis I of France renounced his pretensions to Naples.
Treaty of Paris 1259: Henry III renounced claims to Normandy.

 

[celedhring]

If you look closer, no one of this "claims" correspond to CB shields in the game. CB shields reflect a more strong tie than those. Those claims are just "roleplayed" when you wage war and are included on the other, non-marker motivated, CB's.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

If you look closer, no one of this "claims" correspond to CB shields in the game.

Here we must disagree. Each one of those claims exactly corresponds to a CB shield.

If you are correct and Russia's territorial CB against P-L represents a deep cultural animosity, why doesn't Russia have CB shields on ALL of P-L's core provinces. And vice versa.

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Petrus
What are you talking about, non-historical? It's one of the most historical things completley ignored by EU...

San Francisco Treaty 1951:. Japan "renounces all right, title and claim" in connection with the territorial right to the Chishima Islands -
St Germain Treaty 1920:. Austria renounced all rights and title of the former Duchy in Ruthenia.
Treaty of Paris, 1898:. Spain renounces claim to Cuba and Philippines.

Those are too far away from the EU2 timespan, I will comment the others.

Peace ending the Crimean War 1856: Russia abandoned its claim as "protector" of Orthodox Christians living under Turkish rule.

There are no Russian CB's in any Turkish territory. And Crimea was conquered later on, so this is one of those "fake" renounces

Adams-Onis Treaty 1819:. Spain renounced claim to Oregon Country, Florida.

There is not a Spanish CB marker on Florida

Peace of Oliva 1660: Poland renounced claim to the Swedish crown. (CB shields on all of Sweden.)

Those shields don't exist. It's one of these "dinastic" CB's already represented with temporary CB's

Peace of Cateau - Cambre'sis 1559:. Henri II, renounced all claim to Genoa, Naples. Milan, and Corsica.

No Savoye, neither France CB markers on those regions.

Treaty of Crépy, 1544:. HRE Charles V renounced his claim to the duchy of Burgundy. King Francis I of France renounced his pretensions to Naples.

There aren't CB markers for France on that territory.

Treaty of Paris 1259:. Louis IX of France and Henry III wherein England renounced claims to Normandy.

Too far from EU timespan, again.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Those are too far away from the EU2 timespan.

Yes they are, but they show that such a thing is historical.

There are no Russian CB's in any Turkish territory.

Agreed. I think this represents the problem with Static CB shields. That is another issue.

There is not a Spanish CB marker on Florida.

You might be missing the point. I am demonstrating how a nation may renounce it's territorial claim to a particular province.

Again, we are discussing how this occurred in Real Life. I don't care if the EU game gives a CB shield for a particular province. I am demonstrating how this was a very crucial function in peace treaties throughout the last 800 years. It would improve gameplay and add a very dynamic element to peace negotiations. It would make EU a better game and be historical.

 

[celedhring]

Well it's you who started saying that you should able to remove CB's from other lands.
What I tried to demonstrate you is that those markers don't correspond to what you call "claims". Those claims are a diplomatic issue, which is not very well implemented in the way of temporary CB's, that's true, but I don't think the solution is to equal both two. The markers represent strong cultural and language ties which you can't renounce to.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

CB shields don't easily correspond to any one definition. For instance, the CB shields that Turkey has in eastern Europe & Balkans represent the historical extent of Turkish territories -- not any sort of "legitimate" or otherwise "legal" claim, dynastic or otherwise, but simple conquest.

 

[celedhring]

I can't speach about Greece, but moslem colonization in the Balkans was pretty strong (remember Kosovo and Bosnia). And I don't remember well those markers (I usually play IGC with overuses the markers a little bit), but I am not sure they cover all the Balkans and Greece.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by celedhring
I can't speach about Greece, but moslem colonization in the Balkans was pretty strong (remember Kosovo and Bosnia). And I don't remember well those markers (I usually play IGC with overuses the markers a little bit), but I am not sure they cover all the Balkans and Greece.

I understand that Islam had a strong presence in Kosovo and Bosnia, but I believe that this only happened AFTER the Turks had conquered the region...

I usually play IGC too, so I can't recall exactly the extent of Turkey's CB shields, but I do know that they definitely extend into areas that can't be simply explained by either of the two models that yourself and Petrus have proposed, IMHO. (Really, the Turks don't have a lot of reason to have a CB shield against anyone in Europe on the basis of linguistic/cultural ties, and neither does it have any reason to have CB shields based upon historical territorial gains. If we were to tie CB shields to territorial claims, than everytime Turkey conquers a new province, it should have a CB shield in the province next door. That's how the Ottoman's operated in real life.)

 

[unmerged(3408)]

This is of course very true. EU nations have CB shields on other provinces for as many reasons as real life nations have claims to other territories. Giving a nation the ability to force another nation to renounce it's CB claim to a given province, or allowing a monarch to renouncing his own CB shields to pursue his own diplomatic goals is all I have been proposing.

Turkey has CB shields in the Balkans. This effectively encourages the AI to expand in the direction of it's CB shields (same for the human player). I can win a five star peace against Turkey and force the sultan to renounce his CB shields without any property changing hands. For this I would get no BB penalty and gain diplomatic VP's instead of military VP's.

This would increase the re-play value by making the game more dynamic. Turkey would be encouraged to expand in a new and possibly unexpected direction. Every game could be different.

 

[celedhring]

But... that would work in favour of the player. The player can DoW and conquest whatever he likes, while the AI would then be forced. And also, historically those renounces had very little binding strength.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Petrus
This is of course very true. EU nations have CB shields on other provinces for as many reasons as real life nations have claims to other territories. Giving a nation the ability to force a nation to renounce it's CB claim to a given province, or allowing a monarch to renouncing his own CB shields to pursue his own diplomatic goals is all I have been proposing.

Turkey has CB shields in the Balkans. This effectively encourages the AI to expand in the direction of it's CB shields (same for the human player). I can win a five star peace against Turkey and force the sultan to renounce his CB shields without any property changing hands. For this I would get no BB penalty and gain diplomatic VP's instead of military VP's.

This would increase make the game more dynamic because Turkey would be encouraged to expand elsewhere. Every game could be different.

This whole discussion is really bringing home how inadequate the current implementation of CB can be... too simple for some of
what we are describing.

I guess I don't quite see CB shields as exactly equivalent to territorial claims... while this is a very close equivalent to what CB is, I think that the situation of Turkey makes it somewhat more difficult in the sense of: "What constitutes a legitimate CB claim?" (and I think this question probably arises more in the case of an old-school "conquer everything that moves" empire like the Ottomans than necessarily the other European nations...)

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by celedhring
But... that would work in favour of the player. The player can DoW and conquest whatever he likes, while the AI would then be forced. And also, historically those renounces had very little binding strength.

This I agree with heartily! I think that in history, if X monarch would renounce province Z, when X's son Y would turn around and invade Z, there was rarely any sort of stability hit in the sense that we would see in the game if a nation renounces it's CB shields against a country and than later declares war (-2 for lack of CB and other possible hits)...

 

[unmerged(3408)]

I believe it would be balanced. The AI computer could put a high priority on eliminating a recurring cause of war by wining a victory (or proposing a white peace) wherein the human player (or other AI player) would loose CB shields on it's provinces.

This would make say, France's soft underbelly with Spain more secure thus freeing up troops and $$$ for fortifications to be used in other parts of the empire.

Yes, countries did break such agreements but the punishment for a DoW without a CB was substantial. It usually resulted in a BB war. The same could be done for EU2.