WARS, not ways, to decrease the Badboy ?

[arbiter6]

Couldn't we have wars that reduce the bad boy ? Crusades and holy wars maybe ? I mean I know of a few french kings who were pigs and became saints after going on a crusade and coming back.

What about wars to force an empire to release provinces ? It would be an added risk for empires. If YOU release a nation you gat a vassal and BB reduction. If you're FORCED through a peace treaty then the ENEMY gets an ally and the BB reduction ! Great incentive if you ask me.

Copy paste of a post I just wrote, wanted to have a clear feedback.:rofl:

 

[unmerged(138406)]

I was thinking the same thing (about the other thread title). Wars that reduce bb would be a nice feature. We have it already to a limited extent with crusades that give increased papal influence etc. But it would be nice if you could actually lose infamy for annexing a province as the result of a crusade, such as Judea when fighting the Mamluks. Obviously, to avoid gamey-ness, the scenarios where this would be an opinion have to be limited.

 

[unmerged(128853)]

If you force enemy to release nations your infamy should be lowered...you are freeing nations so you should be less infamous than before also you have almost no gain from it(only prestige and an enemy with less provinces)

 

[DanubianCossak]

Well i dont know about nations in 1399. Some other way to decrease infamy would be good, sure, but nations probably not, because in 1399 there simply isnt enough of those, and even trough centuries all the way to 1700s u wont have many nations at all. And u basically only get 1 "nation" per culture group, so releasing cultures would imho be better.

When i think about it, some other concepts would be way better that this. For example, in times of Roman Republic (im reading some book about Cesar) they gained alot of territories by making kings of various kingdoms make testaments that in case of their death Rome should inherit their lands. Something similar would be great in EU3. Or for example conquering certain land and placing your relative as a monarch, or governor etc.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Let's not implement too many features from entirely different eras than the one covered in the game (like crusades or roman inheritances). It kind of breaks the theme of the game (and thus immersion).

 

[nestorius]

You can fight wars where your infamy doesn't increase. I consider that the equivalent of what your saying.

Infamy is more a limit to you becoming too powerful. I also think that forcing someone to release a nation could potentially increase your own infamy as it does make your country more powerful and even a crusade may be deemed threatening by your neighbours if it significantly increases the power of your own state.

 

[AlknicTeos]

There are already enough ways to reduce the badboy properly. As Catholic just get sure to hold all cardinals ^^, or getting 3 5 or 6 star diplomats, with gov lvl 30, the ida with -1 infamy and as ming/manchu u can repeat the mission relation with the oirats endless^^.

But maybe we get with victoria II or EU IV a new "Badboy" System, which is giving "Badboy" more meaning.

Edit: Sry, havent read the title properly.

The only war which may should reduce your badboy is too crush the greatest threat to your countries culture/religion group and too release countries from them. (Like Ottomans about 1600 for the christian countries, especially for habsburg,italy,poland) . But crushing a small ottoman country as huge unified HRE , well i think HRE would scare the rest of the world....

 

[knul]

I don't think infamy reducing wars would be a good idea. In my opinion, infamy acts as a restriction against overaggressive behaviour and fast expansion. So to reward an aggressive move (a war) to reduce this penalty doesn't really work. Besides, there are enough options to deal with infamy (and it's supposed to be not that easy to deal with).

The idea that forcing other countries to release nations/vassals would reduce infamy does not seem that logical to me. You forcefully change the political landscape of other nations radically and you expect that other nations see you as less agressive/dangerous?

 

[DanubianCossak]

Let's not implement too many features from entirely different eras than the one covered in the game (like crusades or roman inheritances). It kind of breaks the theme of the game (and thus immersion).

Well the "theme of the game" and "immersion" are your opinion, i dont see why we should not talk about different stuff. I simply gave example about Roman inheritances, because every simple republic (or "democratic") type of government that exists in 1399 all the way to 19th century is a direct copy of the Roman republic. If Romans could do it, i dont see why Venetians or Novgorodians shouldnt be able to. I didnt mention crusades, but again i dont see your point there. Crusades are part of EU3 as it is, and they did certainly happen in that era, if anything they could improve that whole system as well. At least it would be better than "defender of faith" system currently in use, which is imho responsible for 99% of huge of ahistoric conquests like Castille owning Turkey or Brits owning Mameluks.

 

[unmerged(84079)]

I simply gave example about Roman inheritances, because every simple republic (or "democratic") type of government that exists in 1399 all the way to 19th century is a direct copy of the Roman republic. If Romans could do it, i dont see why Venetians or Novgorodians shouldnt be able to.

I really don't think you could call Venice or Novgorod 'direct copies' of Rome.

 

[arbiter6]

You can fight wars where your infamy doesn't increase. I consider that the equivalent of what your saying.

Infamy is more a limit to you becoming too powerful. I also think that forcing someone to release a nation could potentially increase your own infamy as it does make your country more powerful and even a crusade may be deemed threatening by your neighbours if it significantly increases the power of your own state.

Releasing nations from an enemy empire wouldn't make you more powerful. It would make the enemy weaker... I'm tired of waiting out for my infamy to go down when i'm actually doing a LOT of good actions like freeing nations and converting heathens... WHERE is my due ??

 

[unmerged(37096)]

I think the problem with infamy being reduced via war, is that we are looking at it first person.

The theroy is that if I as Spain force France to release Brittany, then other nations should consider me as a liberator, not as a conqueror, and thus I should acrue less infamy.

The opposite however would be true. Now the king of Great Britain would consider me a threat, lest I do the same to them in a war. If anything, I should acrue a little bit of infamy for forcing forcing France to release a nation.

 

[Profane]

Technically there are already bb reducing wars, if you have the vassalize xx nation mission you can vassalize them for free and the reward is -2 bb.

If anything that mission is way to common i ended up with 10+ vassals when trying to do as many missions as possible in order to get landgrab missions for reduced bb.

 

[Adam Smith]

What if infamy was reduced as a result of mild victory conditions despite completely dominating?

For example, if I have a 100% war score against someone, yet only ask that the other side concede defeat, perhaps this could reduce BB? Actually, it would probably be safest if this option was ONLY available if you demand the other side concedes defeat, while having some huge amount of war score. That limits your expansionism while helping reduce your BB.

 

[arbiter6]

What if infamy was reduced as a result of mild victory conditions despite completely dominating?

For example, if I have a 100% war score against someone, yet only ask that the other side concede defeat, perhaps this could reduce BB? Actually, it would probably be safest if this option was ONLY available if you demand the other side concedes defeat, while having some huge amount of war score. That limits your expansionism while helping reduce your BB.

YEH ! I enjoy that concept too. Like when you get the (the conditions are too good so they can't refuse otherwise stabhit) tag in a peace offer, it should give you a BB reduction if/when they accept. Prussia did it with austria when bismarck was in charge and It paid off by making prussia look like an angel.

ALSO, can we stop with the "technically, annexing a nation with no BB is a BB reduction" That's a GROSS accounting mistake. Spending LESS money on a camera is not the same as EARNING money.

Ok you get a discount on BB, but that's already justified and paid for by core or lucky mission. I'm talking BB REDUCTION when you do a good action. see the difference ? :rofl:

 

[naggy]

Then nations abuse CBs to turbo-lower BB.

Besides, there already is a way to lower your BB through wars - give up provinces.

 

[unmerged(199227)]

I was thinking split infamy into groups. Infamy among Muslim countries, Catholic, Reformists, Aristocrats, peasants, etc...

Fighting in a crusade? I'd say the MORE provinces you take, the less infamy on the Christian side of things.

Annexing the papacy? Hrmmm. Perhaps the wrath of god should rain down on your blaspheming? Thought I can't see the Ottomans giving 2 craps about this.

I was also thinking that some provinces should be given religious relevance. For instance, if you have a holy shrine in a particular land, it would bring more offense to your co-religionists if heathens were to take said province.

 

[unmerged(199227)]

Technically there are already bb reducing wars, if you have the vassalize xx nation mission you can vassalize them for free and the reward is -2 bb.

If anything that mission is way to common i ended up with 10+ vassals when trying to do as many missions as possible in order to get landgrab missions for reduced bb.

Um, those nations give you 2 BB and then the mission wipes it clean.

 

[Profane]

Um, those nations give you 2 BB and then the mission wipes it clean.

was 0 for vassalizing and -2 for mission in the last beta patch, i guess it got changed in the latest one ?

 

[unmerged(199227)]

was 0 for vassalizing and -2 for mission in the last beta patch, i guess it got changed in the latest one ?

Yeah, as far back as I can remember, all the vassalize/annex missions just had incentives that erased the effects. Like the +1 centralization for annexing, or +1 stability now.