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

[Caban]

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.

The Ottomans were widely seen as liberators of the people against a foreign ruling class, and they were quite hands off with Egypt.
And the Timurids/Mughals were far from a clean conquest... they shored up each conquest with royal marriages(even to Hindu nobles) and ran something closer to the Holy Roman Empire than France or Poland.

 

[VeneziaIstanbul]

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?

That kind of warfare didn't exist until late game.
You are actually very much not in control, if you count renaissance warfare: you have a local population that hates you, a gazillion prisoners of war and a foreign land that is getting poorer and poorer due to your soldiers taking advantage of everything that moves and doesn't. You don't "have" anything theirs, their king owns it and the king can just decide not to give up and just wait for his population to send your trooops away, or wait for your troops to starve to death, with his population.

 

[Novacat]

That kind of warfare didn't exist until late game.
You are actually very much not in control, if you count renaissance warfare: you have a local population that hates you, a gazillion prisoners of war and a foreign land that is getting poorer and poorer due to your soldiers taking advantage of everything that moves and doesn't. You don't "have" anything theirs, their king owns it and the king can just decide not to give up and just wait for his population to send your trooops away, or wait for your troops to starve to death, with his population.

Actually, that kind of warfare has ALWAYS existed, it was renaissance warfare that was the strange abhorration of history. Usually hostile local populations were slaughtered until they stopped resisting, and hostile populations tend to stop being hostile very quickly when they start being slaughtered.

 

[infidel88]

Imagine if you can take anything you want from 100% warscore against big countries like France and AE from that. Whole Europe in eternal coalition against you. What would you do - come to forum and bitch about coalitions...

 

[Fire and Ash]

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.

In my latest game the Ottomans just annexed pretty much all of of the Mamluks territory in one war. The Ottomans are now really close to the same size they were at the height of their OTL empire. The AI and you can pull it off, but this all depends on the circumstance.

 

[Novacat]

Imagine if you can take anything you want from 100% warscore against big countries like France and AE from that. Whole Europe in eternal coalition against you. What would you do - come to forum and bitch about coalitions...

Nah, the reason why Coalitions are such a problem is not because they cant be beaten, but because going through all the trouble of beating them only to find that you can only take 1-2 provinces due to rediculous warscore system is infuriating.

In my latest game the Ottomans just annexed pretty much all of of the Mamluks territory in one war. The Ottomans are now really close to the same size they were at the height of their OTL empire. The AI and you can pull it off, but this all depends on the circumstance.

Impossible. They would require multiple wars, at minimum.

 

[tapewormlondon]

If you could annex whole countries like ming, France, Spain etc, in one go the game would be over very very quickly indeed. History has naff all to do with it. Its a gameplay decision.

Without the cap people would have done world conquests by 1550 tops. Although maybe that's what you want of course.

 

[infidel88]

Nah, the reason why Coalitions are such a problem is not because they cant be beaten, but because going through all the trouble of beating them only to find that you can only take 1-2 provinces due to rediculous warscore system is infuriating.

Ok, lets assume with 100% WS you can take anything you want from all coalition members and you play as Prussia, for sake of theorycrafting there is no OE and you win all wars.
1. Annex Burgundy -> Coalition of Spain, France, GB, Denmark, Commonwealth.
2. Next War, Annex all above -> Coalition of everyone else in Europe, Ottomans, Muscovy, Crimea;
3. Next War, Annex all above -> another coalition of more or less whole world;
4. Next War, map painted your colour;

Did I miss the part with fun?

 

[Novacat]

Ok, lets assume with 100% WS you can take anything you want from all coalition members and you play as Prussia, for sake of theorycrafting there is no OE and you win all wars.

Except I never suggested that.

- Warscore cost of provinces decreased to 33%

I have no problem with the warscore system, I have a problem with the obscenely high cost of provinces in it. A single province should never, ever require more than 50% Warscore. Countries like the Hansa resisting annexation/vassalization simply because they have more than 100% warscore is just silly.

I also have a problem with the fact that Coalitions ignore the 400% maximum warscore rule that normally applies.

 

[Red John]

I have no problem with the warscore system, I have a problem with the obscenely high cost of provinces in it. A single province should never, ever require more than 50% Warscore. Countries like the Hansa resisting annexation/vassalization simply because they have more than 100% warscore is just silly.

I agree with that. It's insanely stupid, and it gets so much stupider if you look at returning cores in China. (Though arguably vassal cheesing is a bit stupid in it's own right.)

Returning a province in the 1st war against Ming is super cheap, because they're large.

Then suddenly they're small, and it requires 20 WS for provinces that only took 6 WS in the 1st war. As if suddenly making them smaller means that there land is 3x as valuable as it was when they were big.

 

[balmung60]

It might also be nice if the hard cap of 100 WS worth of gains was removed. It should just be treated as a normal demand in excess of current warscore. So long as you can "convince" them through WE, war length, and so on, it should be possible to enforce such unreasonable demands, rather than "Oh, you want us to also terminate our alliance with the Ottomans? YOUR DEMANDS ARE NOW IMPOSSIBLE".

 

[Red John]

It might also be nice if the hard cap of 100 WS worth of gains was removed. It should just be treated as a normal demand in excess of current warscore. So long as you can "convince" them through WE, war length, and so on, it should be possible to enforce such unreasonable demands, rather than "Oh, you want us to also terminate our alliance with the Ottomans? YOUR DEMANDS ARE NOW IMPOSSIBLE".

'You want 25 Ducats along with half our land? TOUGH LUCK BUSTER!'

 

[GamingHUD]

Nah, the reason why Coalitions are such a problem is not because they cant be beaten, but because going through all the trouble of beating them only to find that you can only take 1-2 provinces due to rediculous warscore system is infuriating.



Impossible. They would require multiple wars, at minimum.

Can the AI not get that awesome CB that lets you annex Mamluks in one war? I can imagine it making sense that they don't, as the AI wouldn't handle all that over-extension very well at all.

 

[grisamentum]

I have no problem with the warscore system, I have a problem with the obscenely high cost of provinces in it. A single province should never, ever require more than 50% Warscore. Countries like the Hansa resisting annexation/vassalization simply because they have more than 100% warscore is just silly.

Same goes for force religion. I couldn't force Mainz to convert religion even though they only had 2 provinces. 104% WS required for Frankfurt and Mainz. Completely ridiculous.

 

[airpirate]

The only annoying thing I find with the warscore system is that occasionally you'll have situations where annexation or vassalization costs ,say, 102% warscore. The power I just invaded clearly doesn't have the means to effectively resist, and I'd be able to annex them had the AI not gotten an event that raised the province's base tax. That's when the system becomes annoying. As a solution, why not just remove the hard cap on the warscore of demands? Keep the warscore system (as a percentage out of 100%), but allow the amount demanded to increase based on modifiers already in the game (war exhaustion, comparative size of alliances, etc.). This would create more of a soft cap on demands that would eventually be capped off by the "demands above warscore" modifier. In this situation, demands of 110% warscore might be possible, while demands of 200% warscore would still be prevented by the game.

 

[Novacat]

Can the AI not get that awesome CB that lets you annex Mamluks in one war? I can imagine it making sense that they don't, as the AI wouldn't handle all that over-extension very well at all.

The problem is that in order to get that CB to begin with requires a rediculously complex set of triggers, that even a player is unlikely to ever get... infact, let me grab them now.

	trigger = {
		tag = PER
		is_year = 1500
		NOT = { is_year = 1520 }
		exists = MAM
		exists = VEN
		exists = TUR
		MAM = { is_in_coalition = no }
		PER = { is_in_coalition = no }
		VEN = { is_in_coalition = no }
		PER = { is_neighbor_of = TUR }
		MAM = { is_neighbor_of = TUR }
		NOT = {
			PER = { alliance_with = TUR }
			VEN = { alliance_with = TUR }
			MAM = { alliance_with = TUR }
		}
		TUR = {
			owns = 141 # Serbia
			owns = 151 # Constantinople
			owns = 146 # Athens
		}
		TUR = {
			NOT = { has_opinion = { who = PER value = 0 } }
		}
		num_of_ports = 1
	}

 

[GamingHUD]

The problem is that in order to get that CB to begin with requires a rediculously complex set of triggers, that even a player is unlikely to ever get... infact, let me grab them now.

	trigger = {
		tag = PER
		is_year = 1500
		NOT = { is_year = 1520 }
		exists = MAM
		exists = VEN
		exists = TUR
		MAM = { is_in_coalition = no }
		PER = { is_in_coalition = no }
		VEN = { is_in_coalition = no }
		PER = { is_neighbor_of = TUR }
		MAM = { is_neighbor_of = TUR }
		NOT = {
			PER = { alliance_with = TUR }
			VEN = { alliance_with = TUR }
			MAM = { alliance_with = TUR }
		}
		TUR = {
			owns = 141 # Serbia
			owns = 151 # Constantinople
			owns = 146 # Athens
		}
		TUR = {
			NOT = { has_opinion = { who = PER value = 0 } }
		}
		num_of_ports = 1
	}

Yeah, I've done it before but couldn't remember if the AI Ottomans could ever trigger it also.

 

[Novacat]

Yeah, I've done it before but couldn't remember if the AI Ottomans could ever trigger it also.

They can, but they are unlikely to use the CB since it would generate too much OE/AE.

 

[grisamentum]

The problem is that in order to get that CB to begin with requires a rediculously complex set of triggers, that even a player is unlikely to ever get... infact, let me grab them now.

	trigger = {
		tag = PER
		is_year = 1500
		NOT = { is_year = 1520 }
		exists = MAM
		exists = VEN
		exists = TUR
		MAM = { is_in_coalition = no }
		PER = { is_in_coalition = no }
		VEN = { is_in_coalition = no }
		PER = { is_neighbor_of = TUR }
		MAM = { is_neighbor_of = TUR }
		NOT = {
			PER = { alliance_with = TUR }
			VEN = { alliance_with = TUR }
			MAM = { alliance_with = TUR }
		}
		TUR = {
			owns = 141 # Serbia
			owns = 151 # Constantinople
			owns = 146 # Athens
		}
		TUR = {
			NOT = { has_opinion = { who = PER value = 0 } }
		}
		num_of_ports = 1
	}

Did Captain Gars write this?

 

[Novacat]

No, they were written by Johan.