Seriously, no cores on inheritance any more?
- Thread starter unmerged(150720)
- 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.
There was always a great deal of unrest in Hungary - I wouldn't say the nationalism ever really died down.
From a balance perspective, this is probably for the best.
Though, i'd like to see a shortened time for Cores on inheritence rather than 50 years like the rest. Say 25 years? Surely by that time the nation and everyone in the world would have accepted that monarch and his family as the new rightful rulers?
Though, i'd like to see a shortened time for Cores on inheritence rather than 50 years like the rest. Say 25 years? Surely by that time the nation and everyone in the world would have accepted that monarch and his family as the new rightful rulers?
Because historically, the dutch LOVED Spanish rule as Phillipe II inherited 'cores' on all dutch provinces.
That's why they rebelled. They were full of unquestionable love for their king and his catholicism down to the cores of the personal union inheritance.
Tbh, I'd say this makes a lot more sense. There's no way the brits would accept an Italian Monarch. Or a French one for that matter. That the game allows inheritance is great, but that doesn't mean it should make it easy on the new owner, some of the biggest wars were fought over inheritances. Legitimit for the rest of Europe according to "rules" maybe, but that doesn't mean the local populace (w/sh)ould agree.
Last edited:
Do you keep cores on cultures that are accepted but outside your culture group?
If not this requires all the culture groups to be rearranged for historical plausibility and fact.
Perhaps a culture can become accepted by event or decision (meeting certain conditions) which would allow a cored inheritance.
If not this requires all the culture groups to be rearranged for historical plausibility and fact.
Perhaps a culture can become accepted by event or decision (meeting certain conditions) which would allow a cored inheritance.
.png){kind=avatar}
Well, so much for my Habsburg dominance game It was clearly overpowered, but I'm not sure that removing the cores altogether is the right way of doing it. I haven't looked at the new patch yet, so I don't know everything that has changed, but I hope it's possible to tweak in our own mods.
It was clearly overpowered, but I'm not sure that removing the cores altogether is the right way of doing it. I haven't looked at the new patch yet, so I don't know everything that has changed, but I hope it's possible to tweak in our own mods.
Because historically, the dutch LOVED Spanish rule as Phillipe II inherited 'cores' on all dutch provinces.
That's why they rebelled. They were full of unquestionable love for their king and his catholicism down to the cores of the personal union inheritance.
Tbh, I'd say this makes a lot more sense. There's no way the brits would accept an Italian Monarch. Or a French one for that matter. That the game allows inheritance is great, but that doesn't mean it should make it easy on the new owner, some of the biggest wars were fought over inheritances. Legitimit for the rest of Europe according to "rules" maybe, but that doesn't mean the local populace (w/sh)ould agree.
Cores in the EU sense do not have anything to do with what the locals think. You are thinking of Victoria.
In EU, cores represent that other world leaders accept the king's claim to own that land, not that the locals agree.
This is the same reason you don't get the cores during or before the PU is formed, but after inheritance you should get the cores. The real issue with inheritance is that you get no badboy points, or revolt risk, and can have cores on provinces that the original owner did not.
Getting cores on all of the nation's provinces is not why inheritance was overpowered, getting cores on land that nation did not have cores on was. Rather than take away all of the cores we should only get cores on the provinces the lesser partner had cores on.
In the end, it just looks like I'll have to avoid this patch unless someone can mod out this change.
Actually they represent both these things or at least so we've always been told. That's why cores modify revolt risk and taxation for instance.
To be fair there are counter examples too. Swedish nobility revolted and threw their legitimate king out of the country due to him being king of catholic Poland as well in the 16th century. Despite the polish king being the son of their previous king they chose to crown his uncle instead.
Last edited:
Since non-cored provinces cause the citizens to revolt, I'd say that it ties in pretty well to public opinion. Hence the 50 years, or about 2 generations, to make people accept the new identity and forget the old.
Guess I disagree, since if you conquer a province with a core, even through a recent boundary dispute, it will not revolt. Otherwise, there's a high nationalist or patriot RR if you take a non-core province. Those revolts aren't there in province X just because some foreign kings/nations on the other end of the continent approve or not: the populace wouldn't care and wouldn't revolt on foreign command (unless I'm in ur provinces, funding yer nationalists
).Basically, cores state that the populace agrees that the terrain belongs to this nation and ruler and thus will not revolt against it. Or at the very least, is less likely to.
However, I do agree that cores model the foreign acceptance in one aspect: are you fighting a legitimate war or not, do you have any rightfull claims consider that populace or territory yours. But on the other hand, from my perspective that has more to do with casus belli than with cores. Other nations accept non-core taken territory through treaties after all. The amount of flak you get for doing so under that CB is represented by BB points.
Don't count on it, here's an example:
Although Norway was in a personal union with Denmark for 400 years (1397-1814) and after that were forced into a union with Sweden, they still had a strong feeling for independence.
Core provinces are meant to reflect that the people within these provinces consider themselves as a part of the nation that has a core on them, sharing the culture, language and traditions. Eventhough Denmark and the Danish language had a strong influence on Norway throughout this union and even to this day, I wouldn't say that Denmark ever considered Norway to be core land of the Kingdom of Denmark.
The "Lands of Denmark", which in the real world could be considered as what we know as cores in the game, consists/consisted of Jutland, Sjælland and the other isles and finally Skåne Halland and Blekinge. These lands were the very core of Denmark and this is where the tribe of Danes once settled.
To put it shortly, cores doesn't have anything to do with wether a ruling monarch is accepted in a newly gained province or not, but rather if the province shares the values of the nation they are a part of.
Personally I think cores are being gained way too easy in this game, but then again this is why I play MMU, which gives alot more realism on this part
well this can lead to some strange outcomes , like france inheriting england , not only you would not gain cores , but on non-french cultures non-british cultured provinces all cores would be lost
If England held cores on Brittany, for example, they wouldn't lose those cores. France just wouldn't gain them.
I never got cores before anyway.
Well sometimes I did but it seemed to random. Don't get what all the complaining about. Personal Unions are a sissy's way of conquering anyway.
Real men conquer through blood and iron.
Well sometimes I did but it seemed to random. Don't get what all the complaining about. Personal Unions are a sissy's way of conquering anyway.
Real men conquer through blood and iron.
I don't really think this will effect the player (when's the last time you had serious problems with revolts as a decent-sized nation?) but it's going to break every AI nation that inherits in a PU. The AI has enough trouble holding cored land as it is; remove those and they have no chance of holding on.
I'd have more respect for a person who peacefully unite two nations rather than a person who would do it through force.
As Sun Tzu wrote: "Therefore one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful."
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=468401
Shameless idea plugging to make inheritances a bit more spicy.
Shameless idea plugging to make inheritances a bit more spicy.
A battle of force leaves the strong alive and the weak dead.I'd have more respect for a person who peacefully unite two nations rather than a person who would do it through force.
As Sun Tzu wrote: "Therefore one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful."
A non-violent solution leaves everyone alive, leaving all nations weaker on average, and makes their defeat all the more inevitable when someone with real balls comes along.