If we had to remember how many times has been the crown of France "renounced to" (100 year war).
-
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.
If we had to remember how many times has been the crown of France "renounced to" (100 year war).
CB Shields and the AI
Paradox will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but CB shields are not just about political claims to lands.
First and foremost, CB shields seem to represent a historical direction of expansion for most countries in the game. Russia gets CB shields on all kinds of territories that correspond to certain territories she took historically. That way, you get that ever useful Casus belli automatically, and can wipe out the Hoard and Astrakhan quickly.
Secondly, they represent your core provinces. Since the game covers such a long period of time, it is reasonable that if Russia grabs Tula from the Poles, it will be a core province by 1792. Since CB shields rea not dynamic in the game, you have to plan for 300 years worth of CB shields. (more on this later) If someone took that away from Russia, the Czars would have casus belli forever to get it back. That makes some sense, but not 100% sense.
Third, it is a tool to get the AI to be smart. It is much easier to fight a war when you have casus belli. So, the AI will attack where it has CB shields. This keeps France from trying to conquer Ireland, while leaving Franch-Comte in Spanish hands. This keeps the AI acting semi-historical.
Fourth, CB shields are used to provide sources of continuing conflict. For example, many provinces have several countries who have a CB shield on them. That keeps things interesting and lively, no matter who owns the province. With human players, this isnt necessary, but the AI needs to have a catalyst for fighting wars, aside from BB ratings.
With all this in mind, Cb shields are not just about "the people in XYZ speak ABC language, so EFG country gets the CB shield there". It is all about related factors, some of which are strictly for gameplay and have little bearing on historical basis.
If we really wanted to revamp the CB shield system, you have to have dynamic CB shields, that changed with the length of time a province is owned by its current owner. I DO NOT suggest letting players and teh AI renounce Cb shields, as you will quickly see no conflicting CB shields in Europe after 100 years. Perhaps, if you hold a terriroty for 100 consequetive years, then you get a CB shield for it and remove any others there. For example, if I own Wessex as France for 100 years, then maybe I get a French CB shield there, and remove the English one. Of course, that has it's on set of problems that go with it. But the idea of dynamic shields is sound to a certain extent.
Paradox will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but CB shields are not just about political claims to lands.
First and foremost, CB shields seem to represent a historical direction of expansion for most countries in the game. Russia gets CB shields on all kinds of territories that correspond to certain territories she took historically. That way, you get that ever useful Casus belli automatically, and can wipe out the Hoard and Astrakhan quickly.
Secondly, they represent your core provinces. Since the game covers such a long period of time, it is reasonable that if Russia grabs Tula from the Poles, it will be a core province by 1792. Since CB shields rea not dynamic in the game, you have to plan for 300 years worth of CB shields. (more on this later) If someone took that away from Russia, the Czars would have casus belli forever to get it back. That makes some sense, but not 100% sense.
Third, it is a tool to get the AI to be smart. It is much easier to fight a war when you have casus belli. So, the AI will attack where it has CB shields. This keeps France from trying to conquer Ireland, while leaving Franch-Comte in Spanish hands. This keeps the AI acting semi-historical.
Fourth, CB shields are used to provide sources of continuing conflict. For example, many provinces have several countries who have a CB shield on them. That keeps things interesting and lively, no matter who owns the province. With human players, this isnt necessary, but the AI needs to have a catalyst for fighting wars, aside from BB ratings.
With all this in mind, Cb shields are not just about "the people in XYZ speak ABC language, so EFG country gets the CB shield there". It is all about related factors, some of which are strictly for gameplay and have little bearing on historical basis.
If we really wanted to revamp the CB shield system, you have to have dynamic CB shields, that changed with the length of time a province is owned by its current owner. I DO NOT suggest letting players and teh AI renounce Cb shields, as you will quickly see no conflicting CB shields in Europe after 100 years. Perhaps, if you hold a terriroty for 100 consequetive years, then you get a CB shield for it and remove any others there. For example, if I own Wessex as France for 100 years, then maybe I get a French CB shield there, and remove the English one. Of course, that has it's on set of problems that go with it. But the idea of dynamic shields is sound to a certain extent.
Why not a "Random Event" giving you a cb shield? This could accompany monarchs (i.e. when a French monarch comes to power, he decides that the Franche comte should be a part of france), or just be triggered as a random event. So for example you could get a random event giving you a CB shield on Franche comte, but not Tver. This would give CB shield a "random" feel.
I totaly agree with Secret Master's assessment of what BB is for.
I think we all agree that the current cb system is a bit crude. In my opinion the current functions of it should be divided.
Here's my suggestion:
Historical direction of expansion/historical areas of conflict: Improve the computers prefered direction of expansion. Now I think it something like 'eastern europe' or 'norh amerca'. Just specify which provinices should be included and let the AI value them almost as much as the current cb-shields.
Core provinces: The way to go here I think is to use the cultural groups that are supposed to be in EU2. If a country conquers a province that belongs to the same group as itself there will be no nationalist revolt-risk.
Claims to terriotory: An important aspect of the cb-shields is to give a nation Casus Belli(as the name suggest
). The Casus Belli affects how other nations look upon the war(relations and BB). This is where I think the cb-shields should remain. They should only affect relations only though, not revoltrisk(i.e. the province of Skåne where Sweden currently has a cb-shield was historicaly an area where there where a lot of revolts by danish peasents against swedish rule). These could be areas that geographicaly seems a natural part of a country or that are a part of a legitimate dynastic claim.
It is these dynastic claims that that should be dynamic. Countries should both be able to renounce them as part of a peace treaty and claim new territoreis based on royal marriages(the royal marriages need to be changed for this to work though)
I think we all agree that the current cb system is a bit crude. In my opinion the current functions of it should be divided.
Here's my suggestion:
Historical direction of expansion/historical areas of conflict: Improve the computers prefered direction of expansion. Now I think it something like 'eastern europe' or 'norh amerca'. Just specify which provinices should be included and let the AI value them almost as much as the current cb-shields.
Core provinces: The way to go here I think is to use the cultural groups that are supposed to be in EU2. If a country conquers a province that belongs to the same group as itself there will be no nationalist revolt-risk.
Claims to terriotory: An important aspect of the cb-shields is to give a nation Casus Belli(as the name suggest
). The Casus Belli affects how other nations look upon the war(relations and BB). This is where I think the cb-shields should remain. They should only affect relations only though, not revoltrisk(i.e. the province of Skåne where Sweden currently has a cb-shield was historicaly an area where there where a lot of revolts by danish peasents against swedish rule). These could be areas that geographicaly seems a natural part of a country or that are a part of a legitimate dynastic claim.It is these dynastic claims that that should be dynamic. Countries should both be able to renounce them as part of a peace treaty and claim new territoreis based on royal marriages(the royal marriages need to be changed for this to work though)
how would the game determine where to place the CB shield. I fear this would cause problems such as some of the missions. RM to Papal State comes to mind.
I also agree with the points about the current game system not being "sophisticated" enough.
I can suggest some cool ideas, but it is moot right now, so, to restate Petrus's original point. Are there diplomatic ventures that could be added to the game (relatively easily) to enhance peace resolutions?
I can suggest some cool ideas, but it is moot right now, so, to restate Petrus's original point. Are there diplomatic ventures that could be added to the game (relatively easily) to enhance peace resolutions?
If the game would include the possibility to renounce CB shields, it would also nedd the option for the players to _gain_ CB shields in some way.
The historically prefered action for gaining CB against a country was to enter a RM and, sideways, gain a claim to portions of a country or the kingship for the fruits of the RM.
In game terms, to exemplify. Denmark gained a CB on sweden when sweden entered the Calmare union.
Denmark lost the same CB on sweden after the peace at Brömsebro(?) when she was forced to renounce her claim on the swedish crown.
Denmark renonunced all claims to Norway after 1814. And there was never any question of retaking Norway.
The historically prefered action for gaining CB against a country was to enter a RM and, sideways, gain a claim to portions of a country or the kingship for the fruits of the RM.
In game terms, to exemplify. Denmark gained a CB on sweden when sweden entered the Calmare union.
Denmark lost the same CB on sweden after the peace at Brömsebro(?) when she was forced to renounce her claim on the swedish crown.
Denmark renonunced all claims to Norway after 1814. And there was never any question of retaking Norway.
Good point. How to make it work though it can't just be through a RM that would be way easy. I would also like to be able to gain CB shields in provinces you own for certain length of time.
I understand that everyone wants more CB to make war easier. But State Machine said it best, I'm trying to find a way to make the diplomatic element of the game more dynamic--specificaly peace negotiations. In EU1, peace negotiations are rather dull and they encourage territorial expantion.
Like many others, I see EU as much more than a war game. Alternative options in peace negotiations (beyone land and $$$) could shifth the emphasis and help improve the game.
Like many others, I see EU as much more than a war game. Alternative options in peace negotiations (beyone land and $$$) could shifth the emphasis and help improve the game.
<i>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.</i>
Germany owned Alsace and Lorraine at the start of WWI. You are thinking of the WWII claim which does not qualify as hundreds of years.
Germany owned Alsace and Lorraine at the start of WWI. You are thinking of the WWII claim which does not qualify as hundreds of years.
Originally posted by St. Leo
<i>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.</i>
Germany owned Alsace and Lorraine at the start of WWI. You are thinking of the WWII claim which does not qualify as hundreds of years.
The claim he is speaking about relates to events PRIOR to WWI. Germany gained control of Alsace and Lorraine at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Before that time, the land was French -- no German . . . wait, French! No . . . --
yup.
it changed hands for hundreds of years, farily ridiculous really.
or look at israel, the jews had a CB on it for thousands of years even though they weren't there =P
real CB's do not dissolve. they exist for eternity really. The Serbs thought they had sorted out the problems with those pesky albanians in the 1500's, and look at kosovo today!
At most, one should be able to renounce a TEMPORARY CB (like say france has on milan at the beginning of the game) but by no means permanent. You're populace doesnt just disappear from that area. There are still germans in sudetenland, there are still swedes in finland (althopugh its been 200 or so years since finland was swedish) there are still greeks in cyprus..
heck, there are still christians in lebanon. permanent cb's are permanent, changing them to make them removable would be sacrilidge.
it changed hands for hundreds of years, farily ridiculous really.
or look at israel, the jews had a CB on it for thousands of years even though they weren't there =P
real CB's do not dissolve. they exist for eternity really. The Serbs thought they had sorted out the problems with those pesky albanians in the 1500's, and look at kosovo today!
At most, one should be able to renounce a TEMPORARY CB (like say france has on milan at the beginning of the game) but by no means permanent. You're populace doesnt just disappear from that area. There are still germans in sudetenland, there are still swedes in finland (althopugh its been 200 or so years since finland was swedish) there are still greeks in cyprus..
heck, there are still christians in lebanon. permanent cb's are permanent, changing them to make them removable would be sacrilidge.
How about the idea of gaining CB shields? I Would say the UK has one on Gibraltar where the voted to stay in the UK rather then rejoin Spain. Spain though still mantians it has a CB there too. There are more examples out there but this was the first one I thought of.
There are more examples out there but this was the first one I thought of.
I don't think there is a proper understanding of what a CB means
I don't know Pete. CB do not exist for eternity. They are a legal term with a specific meaning. A CB is a "legal cause of war." This implies two things.
1) There are such things as "illegal wars." (i.e. no CB.)
2) Two nations may negotiate to resolve the CB. It is not eternal.
Some recognized CB in International Law (a concept developed in the EU period) are things such as trade embargos, or President Kennedy's "quarantine" of Cuba in 1961, or India & Pakistan's competing claims to the region of Kashmir...
Trade embargos can be lifted. The USA and USSR negotiated a way to lift the "quarantine," and India & Pakistan will probably do the same over Kashmir.
You cannot go to war, such as the Serbs in the early 1990's, because you just hate the other guy. Hence the NATO BB war of 1999 over Kosovo.
I don't know Pete. CB do not exist for eternity. They are a legal term with a specific meaning. A CB is a "legal cause of war." This implies two things.
1) There are such things as "illegal wars." (i.e. no CB.)
2) Two nations may negotiate to resolve the CB. It is not eternal.
Some recognized CB in International Law (a concept developed in the EU period) are things such as trade embargos, or President Kennedy's "quarantine" of Cuba in 1961, or India & Pakistan's competing claims to the region of Kashmir...
Trade embargos can be lifted. The USA and USSR negotiated a way to lift the "quarantine," and India & Pakistan will probably do the same over Kashmir.
You cannot go to war, such as the Serbs in the early 1990's, because you just hate the other guy. Hence the NATO BB war of 1999 over Kosovo.
Last edited:
CB's today versus yesterday...
This is an addendum to my earlier post as to what CB shields on provinces are for.
We have to remember that having casus belli today is NOT the same thing as having casus belli during the time period of EU or EU2. Some of the principles are the same, but others have changed. The socio-political fallout from the two world wars (or just one world war, depending on how you want to call it) has resulted in some radical shifts in what is considered a good reason to go to war.
For example, in EU, a trade embargo gives you a casus belli. That makes very much sense for the period. On the other hand, in the modern world, a full trade embargo would NOT give you a casus belli. The U.S. could not declare war on Japan, just because they wont let US cars be sold in Japan. The idea would be absurd to both the American people and US allies abroad.
The point is that we have to be careful how we frame the discussion about what is and is not a casus belli for EU2. When we bring up modern examples of casus belli, they are not very good for the discussion at hand. This is very pertinent to cold war examples, as the idea of casus belli was either not an issue at all, or in force the entire time, depending on your outlook.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, regardless of socio-political reasons for CB shields on provinces, they are also there to keep the game spicy. By giving both Venice and the Turks a CB on Ragusa, for example, insures that there will be war between them for the time period of the game (at least, until I annex the poor Venetans!).
The ability to renounce CB shields would disturb game balance too greatly, especially if I could somehow force another country to renounce theirs. By removing CB shields, you may end up with a Europe with no CBs on anyone. That, my fellow arm-chair emperors, would be a true horror to behold.
This is an addendum to my earlier post as to what CB shields on provinces are for.
We have to remember that having casus belli today is NOT the same thing as having casus belli during the time period of EU or EU2. Some of the principles are the same, but others have changed. The socio-political fallout from the two world wars (or just one world war, depending on how you want to call it) has resulted in some radical shifts in what is considered a good reason to go to war.
For example, in EU, a trade embargo gives you a casus belli. That makes very much sense for the period. On the other hand, in the modern world, a full trade embargo would NOT give you a casus belli. The U.S. could not declare war on Japan, just because they wont let US cars be sold in Japan. The idea would be absurd to both the American people and US allies abroad.
The point is that we have to be careful how we frame the discussion about what is and is not a casus belli for EU2. When we bring up modern examples of casus belli, they are not very good for the discussion at hand. This is very pertinent to cold war examples, as the idea of casus belli was either not an issue at all, or in force the entire time, depending on your outlook.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, regardless of socio-political reasons for CB shields on provinces, they are also there to keep the game spicy. By giving both Venice and the Turks a CB on Ragusa, for example, insures that there will be war between them for the time period of the game (at least, until I annex the poor Venetans!).
The ability to renounce CB shields would disturb game balance too greatly, especially if I could somehow force another country to renounce theirs. By removing CB shields, you may end up with a Europe with no CBs on anyone. That, my fellow arm-chair emperors, would be a true horror to behold.
Re: I don't think there is a proper understanding of what a CB means
The nato BB war had nothing to do with disputing Serbia's CB on Kosovo. The only people who dispute that CB are the Albanians who moved into this land. The war only took place because of serbia's unorthodox tactics of ethnic tolerance. But kosovo will never be independent, nato doesnt dispute that.
hence, Serbia's CB on kosovo is valid.
Now after looking at the situation in Macedonia, I'm sure Nato feels that they went into Kosovo too soon. In bosnia, the serbs are unarmed (troops out), the bosnians are unarmed (because they got thrashed) and the un keeps an uneasy peace with little effort.
in kosovo, the serbs are unarmed, and the albanians are armed. And practising their own dreams of an albanian super-state. They want a greater albania like Milosevich wanted a greater serbia. Nato should have waited for the KLA to get its butt kicked before entering.
The nato BB war had nothing to do with disputing Serbia's CB on Kosovo. The only people who dispute that CB are the Albanians who moved into this land. The war only took place because of serbia's unorthodox tactics of ethnic tolerance. But kosovo will never be independent, nato doesnt dispute that.
hence, Serbia's CB on kosovo is valid.
Now after looking at the situation in Macedonia, I'm sure Nato feels that they went into Kosovo too soon. In bosnia, the serbs are unarmed (troops out), the bosnians are unarmed (because they got thrashed) and the un keeps an uneasy peace with little effort.
in kosovo, the serbs are unarmed, and the albanians are armed. And practising their own dreams of an albanian super-state. They want a greater albania like Milosevich wanted a greater serbia. Nato should have waited for the KLA to get its butt kicked before entering.