Shouldn't the Emperor be able to dismantle the HRE
- Thread starter Suzaku
- 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.
To get achievement, which would be extremly cheesy. And no, he shouldn't. He is a lawful sovereign of HRE, he could have abdication possible, ut not dissolving of HRE. The electors wouldn't allow it, and any HRE prince wouldn't accept such document.
Well if your rival looks like is going to inherent the HRE you can say no.
Because occupying all the electors and the Emperor's capital should allow one to /usurp/ the Empire. The Emperor then should be able to go "no, to hell with this" and nuke the HRE.
Yeah, that does bug me occasionally.
Maybe restrict it to when there is a low number of princes and/or low number of reforms - an emperor who's successful at reforming the empire would have no real reason to dismantle it - only a one who struggles with maintaining his rule would consider it.
Historically, the HRE was dismantled by it's last Habsburg emperor - who elevated Austria to an empire in the same breath, essentially keeping his status, while dumping the inefficient empire for his already well-centralized and ordered state.
Maybe restrict it to when there is a low number of princes and/or low number of reforms - an emperor who's successful at reforming the empire would have no real reason to dismantle it - only a one who struggles with maintaining his rule would consider it.
Historically, the HRE was dismantled by it's last Habsburg emperor - who elevated Austria to an empire in the same breath, essentially keeping his status, while dumping the inefficient empire for his already well-centralized and ordered state.
Emperor who struggles with maintaining his rule would not be strong enough to enforce dismanlting of Empire.
The Empire was pretty much just a name after Westphalia anyways, to be honest. I don't really see why the emperor isn't allowed to dismantle it, honestly.
I'm sure the french armies that were occupying and threatening the HREs land had nothing to do with it
I was taught (haha) that the emperor finally dismantled the HRE because there were only like 3 states left in it at the time. I think that if you ever get to the point that there are less than, idk 20 provinces in the HRE that you do not control and les than 5 princes the HRE should just poof.
It's designed to be a wall in several senses in terms of gameplay with unique mechanics. I guess the devs don't want it gone so easily.
I think a reasonable compromise would be that if enough princes are gone/enough imperial integrity has been compromised that you can dissolve it. I'd still like to see nations have a "dismantle" CB that automatically declares co-belligerent war on all non-allied HRE electors + emperor. Right now it's still possible if enough electors don't ally each other to get situations where there's no way you can dismantle the HRE as an outside nation because the game won't let you declare. It should be enormously difficult, potentially fighting most of the HRE, but it should never be completely impossible if your nation can outmatch the entire HRE combined simply because "no you can't declare war because reasons".
I also don't understand the lack of such a mechanic to try your hand at fighting all the electors & the Emperor in an attempt to put an end to the Empire. Of course with all electors & Emperor being considered co-belligerents so they can call in their allies, that would be fair and square, and should allow the empire to be properly dismantled, it's such a bloody annoying mess that you have to declare a crapton of wars just to simultaneously meet all the objectives.
You can't declare on hre member if fighting the emperor. If emp doesn't ally electors at all and you can't, it's impossible to dismantle the hre, unless you put them all in a coalition which some never want to join or just conquer it outright, which defeats the point of a separate dismantle option.
Correct, which is why a "dismantle the empire" war that declares on the emperor and all electors as co-belligerents would be great.
This is of course the dumbest thing ever, even outside 'dismantle the HRE' problems. If I'm a nation at war with the emperor, I don't care at all about the emperor's problems defending yet another one of HRE princes. What is it, exactly, that prevents you from declaring that war?
I mean, yeah, there are some minor game mechanics issues.
-The game could let the emperor choose to defend the secondary war target, putting the emperor against you in both wars. While this makes warscore a little weirder, the sensical approach is to count the emperor's warscore contributions to *both wars* when it makes sense to do so. (ie, battle performance against any nation involved in both wars, holding provinces of any nation involved in both wars, and its provinces being held by any nation involved in both wars). Of course, there's no reason to limit this to just the HRE emperor either - why not let nations fight on opposite sides of another nation in multiple simultaneous wars? What it really does is raises the stakes, because to the doubly-involved nations, all the wars are the same war.
-The game could let you expand the scope of a war by declaring a new cobelligerent while the war is in progress. This would add the newly declared on HRE state to the current war. Probably simpler to code, but it becomes a question of who gets to choose scope, and it models historical processes worse than the first option.
(Obviously the belligerent aggressor gets access to increasing scope, but what about allied aggressor nations? Historically they have dragged other nations into wars on their own. What about the belligerent defenders? Can they increase the scope of a war? There's some historical precedent. Regardless, it's a worse model because sometimes an allied nation has dragged in additional nations to a war who were never at war with all belligerent nations - separate wars featuring some of the same nations on both sides models this a lot better).
Magic. The HRE is full of it, and it's a large part of why it's the worst area of the game to play in currently, in my opinion.
Indeed it could. But all we really need is a better CB/mechanics to attempt to dismantle the HRE. Getting to one hundred precent part of the empire before you even have to worry about the rest of it seems too powerful.
I am assuming you are not suggesting that every war should get this.
The emperor could not dismantle the HRE as per HRE law (Golden Bull 1356). The dismantling of the HRE in 1806 was actually unlawful and only was effective because none of the electors protested against it.
So the game mechanics actually resemble real HRE-law to some extend.
edit: Also Napoleon actually wanted to take over the title as Emperor of the HRE, not dismantle it.
So the game mechanics actually resemble real HRE-law to some extend.
edit: Also Napoleon actually wanted to take over the title as Emperor of the HRE, not dismantle it.
Why make things even more special for the HRE? Let every war have this.
I'd much prefer nations being able to oppose each other in multiple wars, though. It's much more versatile, and has fewer issues on 'where do you draw the line'.
As a note, apparently allying the Electors counts as controlling them in dismantling the HRE option. Since one time I allied all of them, declared war on Austria. None of them joined in. I occupied Austria's capital, and dismantled it.