'Unresonable Demand'? Why Can't I Annex Bosnia After Totally Defeating Them?

[jmrathbun]

I'm the Ottoman Empire. Bosnia took over Serbia and then sent me an insult. I marched in and annihilated their troops, invested their castles and reduced them to rubble. Now the AI is telling me I can't have the province of Bosnia because it's an 'Unreasonable Demand'. I don't get it!

 

[Red John]

Is the WS required over 100%? You can't get a peace offer over 100%.

There have been debates about whether or not you should be able to enforce every single demand you want, as in, no WS limit, but as it is now, 100% WS is your cap. You cannot demand more than that. Anything more results in a 'No'.

 

[Nunn45]

It feels sometimes that the warscore required to annex or even vassalise is a bit higher then it should be, when it takes 2 wars to annex or vassalise some crappy 5 province nation as ive found a fair few times then somethings amiss.

 

[Dakilla TM]

It feels sometimes that the warscore required to annex or even vassalise is a bit higher then it should be, when it takes 2 wars to annex or vassalise some crappy 5 province nation as ive found a fair few times then somethings amiss.

Some nations are just very hard to vassalize or take apart in large chunks... AKA: The Hansa.

 

[Red John]

I find it a general rule of thumb that if base tax < 15 then I can't force vassalize them.

 

[jmrathbun]

Perhaps I'm trying to be intuitive when I shouldn't; it's just that I'm in total control of every acre of their country, I sank their fleet, and they have no ally, so who's telling me I can't keep what I conquered? Is there a deity in this game I haven't heard of?

 

[LightsShadows]

Perhaps I'm trying to be intuitive when I shouldn't; it's just that I'm in total control of every acre of their country, I sank their fleet, and they have no ally, so who's telling me I can't keep what I conquered? Is there a deity in this game I haven't heard of?

Well pretty much every country in the game worships a god... But I don't think that has anything to do with this situation.

Someone explained this pretty well once. The idea is that you don't really have the power to continually enforce your influence over such a large area for a permanent length of time. Eventually, the resistance movements and foreign aid will wear you down. Because realistically, even if Spain completely occupied France, the odds of it being able to keep that area under permanent occupation to maintain any sort of stability are next to none.

A lot of people say "Well, I'll just hold a gun to the King's head and make him sign away his kingdom." Odds are, the ruling council fled the country while you marched on the capital. You don't really have anyone to enforce your unreasonable demand upon. Obviously most king's will never willingly surrender all their land, so they can just sit in their friend's castle until you send them a peace treaty they can stomach (under 100% war score).

 

[Ame]

It feels sometimes that the warscore required to annex or even vassalise is a bit higher then it should be, when it takes 2 wars to annex or vassalise some crappy 5 province nation as ive found a fair few times then somethings amiss.

EU III is still available, in EU IV rapid expansion is deliberately harder to simulate what was actually realistic from winning a war instead of the instant blobs of EU III.

 

[Novacat]

Someone explained this pretty well once. The idea is that you don't really have the power to continually enforce your influence over such a large area for a permanent length of time. Eventually, the resistance movements and foreign aid will wear you down. Because realistically, even if Spain completely occupied France, the odds of it being able to keep that area under permanent occupation to maintain any sort of stability are next to none.

This is not really a reasonable assumption, though, because theres multiple scenerios in real life history where countries have conquered entire regions in one go... the Ottomans conquering the Mamluks, the Timurids conquering India, the Manchus conquering China... Then you have the various Napoleonic conquests.

...and even then, EU4's maximum warscore limit of ~15 basetax is really, really, really low, and makes it hard to even hit 100% OE if your fighting smaller countries or coalitions.

 

[LightsShadows]

This is not really a reasonable assumption, though, because theres multiple scenerios in real life history where countries have conquered entire regions in one go... the Ottomans conquering the Mamluks, the Timurids conquering India, the Manchus conquering China... Then you have the various Napoleonic conquests.

...and even then, EU4's maximum warscore limit of ~15 basetax is really, really, really low, and makes it hard to even hit 100% OE if your fighting smaller countries or coalitions.

Most of those situations were under rather special circumstances. I do agree though that the amount you can take with 100% war score is too low. It should be higher.

Oh, and there is a DHE that gives the Ottomans an annexation CB on the Mamluks. Although trying to hold all that land will cripple your empire with OE. :rofl:

 

[SheaferDaDawg]

EU III is still available, in EU IV rapid expansion is deliberately harder to simulate what was actually realistic from winning a war instead of the instant blobs of EU III.

Actually, there are many times that rapid and bloblike conquest would be more realistic. Take the Ottomans, for instance, who are very hard pressed to vassalize Crimea, conquer the Levant and Northern Egypt, consolidate Anatolia and smash Hungary by 1520. In game, this is next to impossible, as fighting a war with the Mamluks or the Crimea will never end with you obtaining more than 5 provinces, even with 100% warscore. The idea that the Mamluks, or any ohter nation wouldn't surrender about half their land after they have been crushed is ludicrous, and currently opportunities for any large, imperialistic nation to expand appropriately are slim.

If total victory has been achieved, then the warscore cost of provinces should reflect the increased willingness of the losers to settle. I think that if there was a threshold, such as 80% occupation, where the warscore cost of provinces should decrease considerably. Otherwise, you can completely occupy China, and get....two provinces and a pittance of gold.

 

[MyNameBeatsUrs]

Well, nothing should really be stopping you other than the risk of overextending, but unfortunately there is a peculiar and very gamey hard lock on how much you can take in a single war, warscore.

It's one of those things. Why does it take 50 diplo points per province, but 50 diplo points total for full annexation of a 4 province nation?

 

[LightsShadows]

Well, nothing should really be stopping you other than the risk of overextending, but unfortunately there is a peculiar and very gamey hard lock on how much you can take in a single war, warscore.

A big problem with complete annexation is the way vassal-releasing works and vassals in general.

"Let me just annex France. Now release them... Boom! Completely stable vassal I can annex in 20 or so years and get free cores on."

I agree that we should be able to take much more in peace deals, I'm just pointing out problems (from features I don't fully agree with) with the idea.

 

[Novacat]

"Let me just annex France. Now release them... Boom! Completely stable vassal I can annex in 20 or so years and get free cores on."

...and you have the entirety of europe in coalition against you due to the thousands of AE that must generate.

I agree that we should be able to take much more in peace deals, I'm just pointing out problems (from features I don't fully agree with) with the idea.

Given, I doubt anyone is asking for warscore limitations to be completely eliminated, but rather instead of being only able to take, say, 15 Basetax, you could take 30 or 45 basetax. It still wont be enough to vassalize France, but it still allows some pretty brisk conquest.

 

[LightsShadows]

...and you have the entirety of europe in coalition against you due to the thousands of AE that must generate.

Gah! I'm just going to play devil's advocate for now! Don't be mad at me!

But, what if you're at the point where you can beat the coalition? Then you can just snag another complete kingdom in that peace deal, and you start snowballing.

 

[Novacat]

But, what if you're at the point where you can beat the coalition? Then you can just snag another complete kingdom in that peace deal, and you start snowballing.

Historically, this is what happened. Large empires were rarely brought down by external enemies, they were usually killed by internal issues. However, EU4 completely ignores the internal issues that large empires will have, you could own the entire world and so long as you have everything cored and converted to your religion, you will have no worries of revolts.

This is why people are asking for some internal mechanics.

Given, I doubt anyone is asking for warscore limitations to be completely eliminated, but rather instead of being only able to take, say, 15 Basetax, you could take 30 or 45 basetax. It still wont be enough to vassalize France, but it still allows some pretty brisk conquest.

 

[LightsShadows]

Historically, this is what happened. Large empires were rarely brought down by external enemies, they were usually killed by internal issues. However, EU4 completely ignores the internal issues that large empires will have, you could own the entire world and so long as you have everything cored and converted to your religion, you will have no worries of revolts.

Given, I doubt anyone is asking for warscore limitations to be completely eliminated, but rather instead of being only able to take, say, 15 Basetax, you could take 30 or 45 basetax. It still wont be enough to vassalize France, but it still allows some pretty brisk conquest.

I agree that what we can take should be expanded. Right now we have quadruple punishments for conquests (WS limitations, admin to core, OE from conquest, and AE). Admittedly, two of those can be gotten around via vassal feeding (which I don't particularly enjoy), but such a strict warscore limitation isn't necessary with everything else.

 

[Novacat]

I agree that what we can take should be expanded. Right now we have quadruple punishments for conquests (WS limitations, admin to core, OE from conquest, and AE). Admittedly, two of those can be gotten around via vassal feeding (which I don't particularly enjoy), but such a strict warscore limitation isn't necessary with everything else.

Vassal feeding cannot be used in every situation, though, it does not work in provinces with only one core, and in other places its not viable (its not really worth creating and feeding a vassal with only 2-3 cores).

If anything, id like to see the following changes:

- Warscore cost of provinces decreased to 33%
- Admin costs of coring substantially decreased, to encourage direct conquest.
- OE Penalties with better scaling... at the moment its not significant until you hit 101% and then your hit with a succession of really, really bad events.
- Real internal management of countries. Large empires should not be so easy to hold together. Infact large empires usually fell apart because of internal issues.
- Vassals should remain as they are, UNLESS you start the annexation process, in which then you have to deal with the risk of the Vassal declaring independance.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Perhaps I'm trying to be intuitive when I shouldn't; it's just that I'm in total control of every acre of their country, I sank their fleet, and they have no ally, so who's telling me I can't keep what I conquered? Is there a deity in this game I haven't heard of?

Basically yes. The deity is called "Arbitrary" and you will come to suffer his wrath on a regular basis while playing EU4, particularly when attempting to broker peace deals with your enemies.

Someone explained this pretty well once. The idea is that you don't really have the power to continually enforce your influence over such a large area for a permanent length of time. Eventually, the resistance movements and foreign aid will wear you down. Because realistically, even if Spain completely occupied France, the odds of it being able to keep that area under permanent occupation to maintain any sort of stability are next to none.

A lot of people say "Well, I'll just hold a gun to the King's head and make him sign away his kingdom." Odds are, the ruling council fled the country while you marched on the capital. You don't really have anyone to enforce your unreasonable demand upon. Obviously most king's will never willingly surrender all their land, so they can just sit in their friend's castle until you send them a peace treaty they can stomach (under 100% war score).

I like it. In the absence of any reasonable explanation that's relevant to the game in any way, we'll just make stuff up... That does the job!

 

[StatikShocker]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...light=100%+warscore+should+mean+unconditional