Taking down the big boys and making Vassals

[Konig15]

I haven't been checking out this section periodically, so I have some suggestions I 'd like to see that may have been mentioned before:

1. The ability to sell non core provinces to anyone like Victoria, if I recall that properly.
2. The ability to demand the enemies capital for 2X-3X what it's worth in warscore. That way Catherine the great can really liberate Constantinople from the Turks and make Byzantium a Vassal state.
3. I understand Byzantium has already fallen. But if BYZ isn't like JER in EUII as a silent tag, someone will put it in. Maybe me.
4. When I create a Vassal state I'd like the option to set up an old school crusader state. If I'm Vijaynar I'd like to make a Hindu Afganistan. If I'm England, a protestant North African Kingdom, or if I'm Austria, then a Catholic Byzantium (see suggestion #2)
5. Taking down the Mamluks or Russia or Ottoman Turkey takes at least a century and a half if you play later scenarios when they're HUGE. I know I'm not going to get the annexation option for full occupation, but could you teek it so so full occupation allows a LOT of terriotry to be taken?

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Agreed, on all points aforementioned

I'd love to be able to remake the Byzantines as an anti-Turkish buffer state. That's what the West regarded it as during the early EUII period, and if the Turkish siege of 1453 had failed (like all those before it...), then I cant' see how that notion would have changed.

Being able to create a Byzantine vassal as Russia would certainly be an interesting idea

 

[unmerged(10945)]

4. When I create a Vassal state I'd like the option to set up an old school crusader state. If I'm Vijaynar I'd like to make a Hindu Afganistan. If I'm England, a protestant North African Kingdom, or if I'm Austria, then a Catholic Byzantium (see suggestion #2)

While I like all of your ideas, I love this one in particular. It would be nice to play as a nation whose goal isn't to be some sort of world spanning empire, but simply to spread the true faith to all the heathens. Though if you go this route and put into power outsiders, the state culture should be that of your nation, not that of the locals. That would be a good way to represent(along with the religion penalties from differing state/local faiths) that the people aren't that impressed with this vastly different state of affairs. A crusader state could eventually gain the local culture(and drop the outside one, probably) but only after a long time.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I1. The ability to sell non core provinces to anyone like Victoria, if I recall that properly.

I'd limit selling to colonies. For Asia i mentioned a different way of handling TP.

2. The ability to demand the enemies capital for 2X-3X what it's worth in warscore. That way Catherine the great can really liberate Constantinople from the Turks and make Byzantium a Vassal state.

Hmm...I can definatly see where you are coming from, but I think 4x might be better. It would make in some cases it impossible (which it really was...i mean asking Papal states to give up Rome or OE to give up Instanbul...) or it would make it pretty much the sole purpose of the war almost.

3. I understand Byzantium has already fallen. But if BYZ isn't like JER in EUII as a silent tag, someone will put it in. Maybe me.

That won't be a problem. Read my unofficial FAQ.

4. When I create a Vassal state I'd like the option to set up an old school crusader state. If I'm Vijaynar I'd like to make a Hindu Afganistan. If I'm England, a protestant North African Kingdom, or if I'm Austria, then a Catholic Byzantium (see suggestion #2)

Yea I see where you're coming from, but the religious model would have to redone as, FE, a Hindu Afghanistan would not covert anyone in the region to Hinduism and quickly fall if they did anything more than have Hindu as an offical religion in lip-service only.

5. Taking down the Mamluks or Russia or Ottoman Turkey takes at least a century and a half if you play later scenarios when they're HUGE. I know I'm not going to get the annexation option for full occupation, but could you teek it so so full occupation allows a LOT of terriotry to be taken?

And feed the ability of unhistorical world conquest? I don't think so.... Right now often you have to go if you want a particular province into an all-or-nothing war at times...this would only benifit that situation. We need to make those kind of situations less lucrative, not moreso.

 

[curtis]

I think you should only be able to take a capital if you have a land connection to it as well. That would prevent potential novelties like Denmark controlling London but nothing else in the British Isles.

 

[Andrelvis]

I haven't been checking out this section periodically, so I have some suggestions I 'd like to see that may have been mentioned before:

1. The ability to sell non core provinces to anyone like Victoria, if I recall that properly.
2. The ability to demand the enemies capital for 2X-3X what it's worth in warscore. That way Catherine the great can really liberate Constantinople from the Turks and make Byzantium a Vassal state.
3. I understand Byzantium has already fallen. But if BYZ isn't like JER in EUII as a silent tag, someone will put it in. Maybe me.
4. When I create a Vassal state I'd like the option to set up an old school crusader state. If I'm Vijaynar I'd like to make a Hindu Afganistan. If I'm England, a protestant North African Kingdom, or if I'm Austria, then a Catholic Byzantium (see suggestion #2)
5. Taking down the Mamluks or Russia or Ottoman Turkey takes at least a century and a half if you play later scenarios when they're HUGE. I know I'm not going to get the annexation option for full occupation, but could you teek it so so full occupation allows a LOT of terriotry to be taken?

All great ideas, I'm specially fond of ideas 2 and 4. As for idea 5, I think it has to take such a long time for huge countries, or at least a considerable time.

 

[unmerged(53986)]

Annexation for a 100% WS would be one of those minimum things.. or atleast the ability to insert a same religion friendly goverment..
ie take the whole of ottomans as russia and install BYZ.. who will then own all provinces you just conquered. If complete enough, TUR ceases to exist altogether.



I really hate having to negotiate once i have 100% and all armies defeated (aside from a few 3k that keep on retreating..), almost as much as having to return anything atall to my ancestral enemy!

 

[EvilSanta]

All are awesome ideas,except maybe fifth.That would result in couple huge empiresin notime.4 is the best idea there.If I release a vassal,why in Gods name I cant decide which God they believe?They are my vassal,afterall.

 

[yourworstnightm]

I think forces annexation for a more than one province nation should be possible, but only if you have claims on every single one of their provinces (ie. claiming the throne).

 

[Ludek]

I haven't been checking out this section periodically, so I have some suggestions I 'd like to see that may have been mentioned before:

1. The ability to sell non core provinces to anyone like Victoria, if I recall that properly.
2. The ability to demand the enemies capital for 2X-3X what it's worth in warscore. That way Catherine the great can really liberate Constantinople from the Turks and make Byzantium a Vassal state.
3. I understand Byzantium has already fallen. But if BYZ isn't like JER in EUII as a silent tag, someone will put it in. Maybe me.
4. When I create a Vassal state I'd like the option to set up an old school crusader state. If I'm Vijaynar I'd like to make a Hindu Afganistan. If I'm England, a protestant North African Kingdom, or if I'm Austria, then a Catholic Byzantium (see suggestion #2)
5. Taking down the Mamluks or Russia or Ottoman Turkey takes at least a century and a half if you play later scenarios when they're HUGE. I know I'm not going to get the annexation option for full occupation, but could you teek it so so full occupation allows a LOT of terriotry to be taken?

Ad 1. yes it would be good .. but I fear that people would be able to exploit
AI using this function with will be almost sure if Ai won't be able to ases
economical resutt of given land sell/purchase. Beside I'm not sure if it should be allowed in europe but for colonies .. sure.

Ad 2. yesss I alway hated when I go enemy capital province surrounded by my holdings.

Ad. 3 yup

Ad 4 Yes.. as long s such state would suffer serious internal problems since it's most likely foregin elite imposed on locals only by your military might

Ad. 5 Hm.. Turbo anexation comes to mind with wasn't good thing for
gameplay IMO . I could seee it as long as it would impose real penalities on player.
Speaking in EU2 terms perchaps like 0.5 BB per province taken but this cust
would be cumulative ie one province would cost 0.5 BB two 1.5 (0.5 for first
and 1 for second) three would cost 3 BB (0.5 + 1.0 +1.5). This coul be broke down to X*N*(N+1)/2 wehre X is base BB 'cost' and N nuber of provinces
taken in peace agrement. With elsastic BB limit with woul only increase likehood of AI entering defesive and ofensive aliances against BB nation .. Maybe this coudl work and make AI to bad togeter against strong/agresive
nation. Otehrwise it woul be just anther thing that would make WC in hands
of Player muuch esier and fatser.

A would add one thing to this: Dynamic peace negtiation.
As is now in EU2 Player just make pece demand and accept it or not .. there
is no negotiation proces just ultimatum taht is acepeted or not I'm qute sure
that most wars haven't eneded that way. So in Dymamic peace negtiation
results woul be randomized say within limist set in peace offer .. that
randomness would depend upon letive DIP ranting of involved monarchs.. you
would get more(or loose less) if you have advantage in that area. You will
have not only win war but also peace .. ie win desively war but get rather
bad peace deal. This could be also way to save those small nations against
big agresive neighbour ie .. even if tehy got occupied thaye are verly liekly
to appease winner with contibution and say military access or even
vasalization as alternative to full anexation.

 

[Jolt]

Well, the one thing I'd like to see was actually an option where you could annex other kingdoms (regardless of religion) pretty much like the Pagans. Although, technically it'd be unbalanced, players would use it to conquer the world in a year, blah blah blah. I'd still like to see it "as an option" to make it more practical from this point of view "Our troops have occupied all the territory of a country. If we have the intention of completely annexing it, why the hell issue a treaty where that kingdom will stay only with the capital?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

If we have the intention of completely annexing it, why the hell issue a treaty where that kingdom will stay only with the capital?

Because customary law says you can't.

 

[unmerged(53986)]

Because customary law says you can't.

..riight.. especially where such annexations did take place just like that, all in one bite!


Well, one can hope that outright annexations are atleast activated for those taking up the "crusader" -idea..

 

[unmerged(20077)]

I think annexation needs to be completely revised. Except against pagans, you shouldn't be able to demand territory at all unless you have a core on it or it borders your territory. That would put a stop to some of the silly things that happen in EU2, like Spain or Portugal joining in a war and then being given Karelia or Bujak because they aren't worth much war score. On the other hand, if you have cores on a whole nation, you should be able to annex it in one big gulp. Victory in war wasn't always about grabbing big chunks of land and it shouldn't be in EU3 either.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

..riight.. especially where such annexations did take place just like that, all in one bite!

Those are inhertiance or political annexations, not military, except for those nations they considered "barbaric," ie mostly NA pagans...of course the English considered everyone outside europe Barbaric, including the Chinese.

Well, one can hope that outright annexations are atleast activated for those taking up the "crusader" -idea..

The Crusader era was long over. Sure occasional mentions of crusades continued, but largely let lie because people realized the idea of a crusade wouldn't work and was old-way thinking in a new more progressive europe.

I think annexation needs to be completely revised. Except against pagans, you shouldn't be able to demand territory at all unless you have a core on it or it borders your territory. That would put a stop to some of the silly things that happen in EU2, like Spain or Portugal joining in a war and then being given Karelia or Bujak because they aren't worth much war score. On the other hand, if you have cores on a whole nation, you should be able to annex it in one big gulp. Victory in war wasn't always about grabbing big chunks of land and it shouldn't be in EU3 either.

That would just promote "unhistorical" use of cores.

 

[Konig15]

How bout this:
Have an option in the startup menu in the difficulty box to activate pagan-like annexation? That way, those people who don't want to have annexations like that can play without them, and those that do can activate it, and then maybe turn it back off.

My point though stands: subjugating ALL of the Middle Kingdom and only being able to take five provinces is RE-FUCKING-DICULOUS. War score needs to be rebalanced at the very least.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

How bout this:
Have an option in the startup menu in the difficulty box to activate pagan-like annexation? That way, those people who don't want to have annexations like that can play without them, and those that do can activate it, and then maybe turn it back off.

My point though stands: subjugating ALL of the Middle Kingdom and only being able to take five provinces is RE-FUCKING-DICULOUS. War score needs to be rebalanced at the very least.

At the same time, subjigating the enitre Middle Kingdom and taking it all wouldn't have been allowed by other European nations, thus this is where customary law comes into play.

 

[unmerged(53986)]

Those are inhertiance or political annexations, not military, except for those nations they considered "barbaric," ie mostly NA pagans...of course the English considered everyone outside europe Barbaric, including the Chinese.

Or khanates, a bunch of this or that in india by moghuls, along with mamlukes and many other conquests by the ottomans..


Seems to apply for everyone outside europa aswell.. being annexed like that, that is.



Used "crusader" as a name to describe the list of (non christian) CBs held by spain and portugal, something someone else could have aswell?

 

[Tunch Khan]

3. I understand Byzantium has already fallen. But if BYZ isn't like JER in EUII as a silent tag, someone will put it in. Maybe me.

About that, you see BYZ tag is actually left out and hardcoded, so even if you try to mod it in, the game will crash. There's also this other thing, like when you create a new country from any tag combo (any non-used three letters), in the game text files, when you name that country as Byzantium, the game doesn't load and the screen goes purple. Yea, pretty bad...

 

[NeilJT]

About that, you see BYZ tag is actually left out and hardcoded, so even if you try to mod it in, the game will crash. There's also this other thing, like when you create a new country from any tag combo (any non-used three letters), in the game text files, when you name that country as Byzantium, the game doesn't load and the screen goes purple. Yea, pretty bad...

I'd love that - any anti-easter egg

You have to end up spelling your modded-in nation Byzantiium, Bysantium or Byzantion or something

And using Imperial Purple as a colour for any nation is right out!