Why do Ottomans start with Anatolian cores?

[Grand Historian]

Castile's cores on Granada are now kaput.

Will the Finish the Reconquista Mission give them claims to compensate?

 

[Wizzington]

Yes.

 

[PhroX]

Please don't make spain any weaker. France never has any real opponents as is. If you remove Spain's castile cores at least look in to making Spain form in more than 1/4 of games.

Are we playing the same game? I can't remember the last time, barring games in which I've been directly interfering in Iberia, that Spain didn't form.

Castile's cores on Granada are now kaput.

Thanks

 

[yerm]

I am assuming the unspoken rule about Byzantine cores remains the same in light of this?

That one has been discussed. The Byzantine cores did not seem to provide a noticeable advantage to a human Byzantine player, merely a convenience. On the other hand it caused resurgent Byzantine empires to spring out following rebelling in all kinds of odd places, particularly Aegean islands, and also contributed to a fed Byzantine subject being one of the most overpowered vassals because of its ideas combined with how much cored land could be shoveled into it.

I agree on Castile's cores TBH, I'll see what Johan thinks of removing them.

Castile's cores on Granada are now kaput.

Actually Wiz, I used to argue that these were only there because Castile is the tutorial colonizer country and various reasons why these should go. Certainly, historically, they should go. Then I started modding my history files for many games (I would buff Hungary's BT and etc) and I found that without cores on Granada, Aragon and/or Portugal (usually Portugal) would grab at least one of them! They were consistently sharing Granada; quite often because they would war it, take only 2 of the 3, and then the cap would go to someone like Aragon next. So, if you are killing those cores, please make sure you add some rather serious mission incentive if you still want it to end up in Castile; my own modding resulted in any lack of cores preventing that!

Just please make sure you test it

In the meantime, how bout them Swedish cores?

 

[Wizzington]

The Swedish cores on Scania are there by Decree of Johan. Take it up with him.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree on Castile's cores TBH, I'll see what Johan thinks of removing them.

Ming has revolter cores, not foreign cores. Completely different.

Ming is not 100% revolter cores. I know for certain they begin the game with Mongolian cores (though Oirat gets horde CB on them anyway) and then there's the weird Manchu situation but I think that's outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[PhroX]

Actually Wiz, I used to argue that these were only there because Castile is the tutorial colonizer country and various reasons why these should go. Certainly, historically, they should go. Then I started modding my history files for many games (I would buff Hungary's BT and etc) and I found that without cores on Granada, Aragon and/or Portugal (usually Portugal) would grab at least one of them! They were consistently sharing Granada; quite often because they would war it, take only 2 of the 3, and then the cap would go to someone like Aragon next. So, if you are killing those cores, please make sure you add some rather serious mission incentive if you still want it to end up in Castile; my own modding resulted in any lack of cores preventing that!

Why is the ending up in the hands of other nations a bad thing? Particularly if Castille gets a mission to take them all, regardless of owner, with claims included, another Iberian nation taking part of Granda would increase the chance of much needed conflict in the peninsular.

 

[Grand Historian]

I just realized something: Memel is no longer square, Cosmopolitian has been renamed, and now Castille has just lost their cores on Granada. Are we sure this is still EU4?

 

[KrupPato]

Castile's cores on Granada are now kaput.

Castile start with a very weak king and heir; if you remove the cores from Granada and IA Castile took the mission for the reconquista this slow when they pick the first idea group and start colonize. For balance you can give Castile the admin point necessary for coring granada provinces in the reward of the mission.

 

[Wizzington]

Castile start with a very weak king and heir; if you remove the cores from Granada and IA Castile took the mission for the reconquista this slow when they pick the first idea group and start colonize. For balance you can give Castile the admin point necessary for coring granada provinces in the reward of the mission.

I am fine with that, they will do it well ahead of history anyway.

 

[Sunspawn]

I just realized something: Memel is no longer square, Cosmopolitian has been renamed, and now Castille has just lost their cores on Granada. Are we sure this is still EU4?

What is this game and what did they do with the real EU4?

 

[Clonefusion]

@Wiz:
There is justification for most ottoman cores cause ottomans were a lot bigger before timur beat them, this does not hold true for erzincan, erzurum and adana though as those provinces were not held by ottomans before timur. Ramazan can even be seen as vassal of mamluks at that time, same for hedjaz.

I think u should change that

 

[yerm]

Why is the ending up in the hands of other nations a bad thing? Particularly if Castille gets a mission to take them all, regardless of owner, with claims included, another Iberian nation taking part of Granda would increase the chance of much needed conflict in the peninsular.

Define much needed? If by much needed you mean Napoleon's annexation of Barcelona happening in the early 1500s, then yes, it is much needed.

Anyway I hope that good mission placement compensates and makes this all good. Granada surviving half a century is fine by me; my problem was that it usually fell because of things like Portuguese conquest of Tangiers carving it up awkwardly. Maybe it's all good now.

The Swedish cores on Scania are there by Decree of Johan. Take it up with him.

By chance has he said why? They certainly don't help Sweden become independent, and once they do, it means they're more focused on barreling into Denmark than things like Pomerania and the rest of the Baltic coast, or Russia.

When I remove those cores, the result I experienced was often Sweden going harder into Novgorod and bring the fight to Muscovy. It didn't seem to actually cripple Sweden the way removing Castile's cores on Granada crippled them.

 

[PhroX]

Define much needed? If by much needed you mean Napoleon's annexation of Barcelona happening in the early 1500s, then yes, it is much needed..

I mean, nothing ever happens in Iberia except possibly a single war right at the beginning of the game. It's stagnant and boring, especially with the comically ahistorical friends modifier between Prtugal and Castille.

 

[MiniaAr]

Castile's cores on Granada are now kaput.

It was about time. The mission gives claims though, right?

edit: oops too late. I agree that the mission should give claims regardless of owner.

Scania being Swedish cores might reflect the fact that it was owned by Magnus of Sweden until 1360 which is somewhat close to EUIV start.

 

[grommile]

I mean, nothing ever happens in Iberia except possibly a single war right at the beginning of the game. It's stagnant and boring, especially with the comically ahistorical friends modifier between Prtugal and Castille.

Equally comically ahistorical was EU3 Castile's tendency to paint Portugal yellow. (Or, conversely, for Castile to develop a orangish-red stripe and a mint stripe.)

 

[PhroX]

Equally comically ahistorical was EU3 Castile's tendency to paint Portugal yellow. (Or, conversely, for Castile to develop a orangish-red stripe and a mint stripe.)

Then, assuming that "historical outcomes" is the desired goal, that's an indicator that the underlying mechanics are flawed and need adjusting instead of an ahistorical fudge slapped on top of them.

 

[perhje]

what about Swedish core on Jämtland?

 

[RobRoy3]

Why is the ending up in the hands of other nations a bad thing? Particularly if Castille gets a mission to take them all, regardless of owner, with claims included, another Iberian nation taking part of Granda would increase the chance of much needed conflict in the peninsular.

I'm not sure why we need a conflict in the Iberian Peninsula? 'Cause, yes, this will increase the likelihood of that and slow down Castile/Spain.

I don't mind slowing down the Spanish a bit, but I've also played some mods or versions that had no Castillian cores on Granada, and it's been problematic. Not just more conflict among your Iberians, but sometimes Granada just seemed to get forgotten. Also, if France is not also slowed down, there are likely to be balance issues, there, too.

Frankly, removing the Castillian cores on Granada falls into the category of "if it's not broke, don't fix it". What problem are we trying to solve by removing those? A consistency problem? When we just declared that's not relevant to where starting cores appear? And if you need historical justification, the Spanish certainly perceived themseleves as the heir to the Visigothic kingdom and certainly perceived these areas as "core", at the time (note the term "reconquista"); it's not like they ever had a long enough period of peace where the "cores" would have expired.

Just please make sure you test it

+1

I fear unnecessary changes to long-standing, non-problematic mechanics that are working fine. Particularly when they seem to be motivated by random forum chatter.

Then, assuming that "historical outcomes" is the desired goal, that's an indicator that the underlying mechanics are flawed and need adjusting instead of an ahistorical fudge slapped on top of them.

Unfortunately, I suspect this is an area where the underlying mechanics are unlikely to produce "historical outcomes" without some assistance. Though such fudges aren't really "ahistorical" in this case.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not sure why we need a conflict in the Iberian Peninsula? 'Cause, yes, this will increase the likelihood of that and slow down Castile/Spain.

I don't mind slowing down the Spanish a bit, but I've also played some mods or versions that had no Castillian cores on Granada, and it's been problematic. Not just more conflict among your Iberians, but sometimes Granada just seemed to get forgotten. Also, if France is not also slowed down, there are likely to be balance issues, there, too.

Frankly, removing the Castillian cores on Granada falls into the category of "if it's not broke, don't fix it". What problem are we trying to solve by removing those? A consistency problem? When we just declared that's not relevant to where starting cores appear? And if you need historical justification, the Spanish certainly perceived themseleves as the heir to the Visigothic kingdom and certainly perceived these areas as "core", at the time (note the term "reconquista"); it's not like they ever had a long enough period of peace where the "cores" would have expired.

+1

I fear unnecessary changes to long-standing, non-problematic mechanics that are working fine. Particularly when they seem to be motivated by random forum chatter.

Forum chatter has shaped development before. I doubt a mission-driven conquest of Granada is going to have shattering consequences on outcomes. Consistency of application *is* important, IMO, even though Wiz doesn't agree with me on that one...but then I'm far less inclined to care which nations become strong.