Turbo-annexations?

[unmerged(45766)]

I know. It is 2 BB for taking Flanders and 1 for the DoW. In my experience for many states Flanders is worth an oppurtunistic offensive war; if you are will to do that then turboannexation is quite useful, particularly if you can't reach the interior.

But then, why only have Flandern. Force-vassalize other countries, and "divide" the BB of the DoW between those.

And if I agree that Flandern is worth an opportunistic war, it's also worth an opportunistic alliance-hopping. Jump in an alliance at war with them, conclude a separate peace with another one, and focus on Flandern.

 

[Jomini]

But then, why only have Flandern. Force-vassalize other countries, and "divide" the BB of the DoW between those.

Normally because Burgundy rarely has anyone else in the alliance worth force vassalizing. They start in the English alliance but gets driven out by events. Normally they end up FAing a few minors which trashes their relations and makes them a BB target (not full fledged wars, but just the default guy for the AI to declare on when nothing is looking good). If it does have allies they tend to either be under seige by the AI or somewhere not worth fighting over (i.e. some of the Russian states doomed to be annexed by the Muscovites).

When a TAable Burgundy of anyone other than the damned; it tends to be the French one. Which tends to have Scotland and France as vassalizable states; neither of which are easy oppurtunistic FV targets.

I merely picked an example I've seen multiple times (and let's be honest viable TA oppurtunities are rare, perfect ones where you can spend the DoW better are rarer still). Burgundy with rebels in the interior happens frequently when rebels wander across the borders after the French or English gotten the interior troops out (and normally trapped in the north until the next war). Normally I actually engineer their loss of the Dutch marshes as well - by having allies take over those seiges.

As a rule of thumb, if it isn't worth paying 3 BB for a province, 5 for two, and so on then don't try to go for turboannexation. You always run the risk of the government falling before you can accomplish your goals or of the AI helping you out with their monarch leader and raining on your parade (or any of a number of fun things like the AI taking control of the rebel held provinces). It is a bit riskier to try for TA over a normal peace deal, so I place a premium on the expected cost. Given that BB tends to be my most limiting resource, I tend to inflate the expected BB value rather than the expected monetary value.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Normally because Burgundy rarely has anyone else in the alliance worth force vassalizing. They start in the English alliance but gets driven out by events. Normally they end up FAing a few minors which trashes their relations and makes them a BB target (not full fledged wars, but just the default guy for the AI to declare on when nothing is looking good). If it does have allies they tend to either be under seige by the AI or somewhere not worth fighting over (i.e. some of the Russian states doomed to be annexed by the Muscovites).

When a TAable Burgundy of anyone other than the damned; it tends to be the French one. Which tends to have Scotland and France as vassalizable states; neither of which are easy oppurtunistic FV targets.

I disagree. Scotland might be difficult if they don't leave Scotland proper, but England and France are both easily FVable. They're big and large, and can't defend all their provinces. You easily rack up WS against them, and both their capitals are easily besieged (in plains). Both also have enough enemies to be certain they'll probably be busy with other countries at the same time.

I merely picked an example I've seen multiple times (and let's be honest viable TA oppurtunities are rare, perfect ones where you can spend the DoW better are rarer still). Burgundy with rebels in the interior happens frequently when rebels wander across the borders after the French or English gotten the interior troops out (and normally trapped in the north until the next war). Normally I actually engineer their loss of the Dutch marshes as well - by having allies take over those seiges.

Exact. Expecially those that you can voluntarily seek. More often, it's a risk you're facing, not an asset.

As a rule of thumb, if it isn't worth paying 3 BB for a province, 5 for two, and so on then don't try to go for turboannexation. You always run the risk of the government falling before you can accomplish your goals or of the AI helping you out with their monarch leader and raining on your parade (or any of a number of fun things like the AI taking control of the rebel held provinces). It is a bit riskier to try for TA over a normal peace deal, so I place a premium on the expected cost. Given that BB tends to be my most limiting resource, I tend to inflate the expected BB value rather than the expected monetary value.

You don't have to continue sieging burgundian provinces, you only need one, so you shouldn't be risking anything more.

And paying 3 BB for Flandern, I find this not really worth it. It's good only if it represents as much a boost in income as three provinces you could take. With the CoT, it might be initially possible, but when you factor in the future increase in PE, the other benefits (MP, places for manus, etc), I'd say Flandern is worth no more than 2 BB ; heck, most often I prefer to take it for 1 BB, it's possible, since Burgundy often is the attacker in wars. But it's way better to FV than TA, either Burgundy or a country that ends up with the province, and taking Flandern for 1 (and a little dust) BB.

 

[Jomini]

I disagree. Scotland might be difficult if they don't leave Scotland proper, but England and France are both easily FVable. They're big and large, and can't defend all their provinces. You easily rack up WS against them, and both their capitals are easily besieged (in plains). Both also have enough enemies to be certain they'll probably be busy with other countries at the same time.

That depends entirely upon perspective. If one is landlocked, then England is not merely difficult, but impossible. If you have only one small army both will take many years to seige into submission, etc. By the time you can oppurtunisticly FV the French, you are getting out of the territory where offensive war gains (with out without TA) are useful.

You don't have to continue sieging burgundian provinces, you only need one, so you shouldn't be risking anything more.

You risk the seiges getting raised and being stuck unable to take your gains. Likewise you risk the government falling before you can make good on your gains. Normally when I'd seige the marshes I'd do so with somebody else controlling the seige. This topples the government (giving me what I want) without paying additional BB for less than optimal provinces.

And paying 3 BB for Flandern, I find this not really worth it. It's good only if it represents as much a boost in income as three provinces you could take.

That depends on what stage of the game and how large you are. For a small minor income/MP comes with a smaller increase in stab and tech costs. For a narrow window of time, the additional merchant is also disproportionately valuable.