Why do Ottomans start with Anatolian cores?

[Wizzington]

Oh man, that's rich. Ignore Ottomans and France, nerf Castile!

Well we just did, but if you insist I guess we can remove their cores on Madrid and Andalucia as well.

 

[RobRoy3]

Their cores have absolutely, positively nothing to do with that reality in any way whatsoever.

Pretty sure his point is that it does represent a nerf to CAS/SPA, no matter how minor. And anything that slows them down, no matter how little is going to magnify their underperformance (when controlled by the AI) relative to nations like France, which isn't really desirable, and relative to their historical selves (desirablilty of such open to debate).

Let's stop playing pretend. Spain has hand holding in spades with or without those fake cores.

Sure, they get plenty of hand-holding. Again, whether or not that's justified or desirable is debatable. But not sure why this particular hand-holding is suddenly being targetted. If it's a mis-perception that these cores are "fake" or not historical, I simply disagree. The entirety of Spanish history is inextricably intertwined with the Reconquista through the early modern era. To assert that Castile has no business having the game mechanic called "cores" in the remaining moorish provinces is absurd, and relies on a pretty narrow definition of what cores are supposed to represent. The historical justification of the Ottomans (or the Swedes) having their cores is far more tenuous.

 

[yerm]

Well we just did, but if you insist I guess we can remove their cores on Madrid and Andalucia as well.

Dude that's absolutely excessive and unfair. Andalucian cultured land should start the game Sunni, absolutely, but not removed cores!

If you look at their AI-controlled 1821 position and compare it to reality, they are often ahead...a lot more than you can say about major players in this period, including Mughals, Qing, Ottomans, Russia, Great Britain, and even France (France only occasionally manages to go "Napoleon" on anything).

Well, Spain kind of implodes starting around 1700. Their 1821 position in a typical game being ahistorically strong is not much different than someone like PLC.

My point was not that Spain needs handholding. My point was to counter the whole Spain does ahistorically well bullshit. No they never do. My point was also that the game is HEAVILY balanced around a stable Spain. Them refusing the wedding and struggling against Aragon, getting into it with Portugal, or otherwise sucking, is an absolute green light for France to come claim them 2 centuries early with no coalition to stop it. The cores are ahistorical; I am asking that they replace them with something to prevent Iberia from turning into south France.

When I modded game files and simply removed the cores (no replacement mission etc) it almost always resulted in Granada being split, and then awkward warfare. Unless it was split with Aragon and then fixed by the wedding, it ruined Iberia, and I ended up putting those cores back. I'm not suggesting that the cores need to be there. I'm suggesting that Granada needs to not be partitioned, or otherwise the area playtested, to make sure there aren't awful unintended consequences. Removing Scanian cores didn't hurt my games. Buffing Hungary barely altered my games at all. Deleting Granada cores ruined them. Please don't ruin the real game; test it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Pretty sure his point is that it does represent a nerf to CAS/SPA, no matter how minor. And anything that slows them down, no matter how little is going to magnify their underperformance (when controlled by the AI) relative to nations like France, which isn't really desirable, and relative to their historical selves (desirablilty of such open to debate).

Sure, they get plenty of hand-holding. Again, whether or not that's justified or desirable is debatable. But not sure why this particular hand-holding is suddenly being targetted. If it's a mis-perception that these cores are "fake" or not historical, I simply disagree. The entirety of Spanish history is inextricably intertwined with the Reconquista through the early modern era. To assert that Castile has no business having the game mechanic called "cores" in the remaining moorish provinces is absurd, and relies on a pretty narrow definition of what cores are supposed to represent. The historical justification of the Ottomans (or the Swedes) having their cores is far more tenuous.

But France underperforms also in some cases, to the extent that Castile conquers lots of land from them outright. This represents significant *over*performance when you are comparing the two relative to each other. Also, making nations reach their "historical borders" by x date is a questionable goal in the first place and one that PI consistently shows it doesn't care about in the slightest.

As for cores, the most sensible process whereby you include cores is based on what would allow them to exist in game terms. This allows the historical position to reflect the game's mechanics. PI's choice of removing Castile's cores only, but not the Ottoman ones (that the Ottomans never owned) is one I disagree with. However, the concept that Castile *should* have cores on Granada is the absurd one, not that they shouldn't. In game terms, unless a core is in your primary culture and you're the "primary nation" (whatever that means), cores will disappear after 50 years outside your culture group and after 150 years within your culture group. Castile is so far from the latter threshold that it's silly. Leaving them cores there is not so far from leaving BYZ cores on the entirety of the former Roman empire lol. There's no way to put cores there and then not leave gobs for Mongolia, Golden Horde, Ottomans, and more if you want to be *consistent*.

The 1444 bookmark's goal is being stretched between the concepts of "historically accurate positions", "positions reflective of the gameplay rules", and "positions configured solely to reduce variance in how the game progresses", but clearly leaning towards the 3rd despite that I believe the first two are the more important.

The cores are ahistorical; I am asking that they replace them with something to prevent Iberia from turning into south France.

No, this was a real possibility had things gone differently in history (and certainly no Charles V is an example of things going...differently). They should not railroad against it as a possibility in the game.

Edit: creating a mission that gives Castile claims on Granada (for 0 DIP full annexation) should be enough to get them annexed to Castile most games.

 

[RobRoy3]

As for cores, the most sensible process whereby you include cores is based on what would allow them to exist in game terms. This allows the historical position to reflect the game's mechanics. PI's choice of removing Castile's cores only, but not the Ottoman ones (that the Ottomans never owned) is one I disagree with. However, the concept that Castile *should* have cores on Granada is the absurd one, not that they shouldn't. In game terms, unless a core is in your primary culture and you're the "primary nation" (whatever that means), cores will disappear after 50 years outside your culture group and after 150 years within your culture group. Castile is so far from the latter threshold that it's silly. Leaving them cores there is not so far from leaving BYZ cores on the entirety of the former Roman empire lol. There's no way to put cores there and then not leave gobs for Mongolia, Golden Horde, Ottomans, and more if you want to be *consistent*.

I agree, it's a bit of a stretch, but not so much as you suggest. Unlike some of those other regions, Spain was marked by almost continuous warfare (granted not always Christian vs Muslim). At no time during the Moorish occupation of Spain was there a peace of 50 or 150 years. If you're using the sensible game definition of cores, you have to keep in mind that they don't disappear if there are continuing struggles between the province owner and the core holder; each war resets that 50/150 year clock.

<EDIT>
But my biggest concern with this is that there really isn't any problem that this change fixes. So why do it? Consistency? To see Granada last a few more years? I see potential downside risk. I see no real upside.

 

[Wizzington]

Dude that's absolutely excessive and unfair. Andalucian cultured land should start the game Sunni, absolutely, but not removed cores!

OK, we'll only remove the Castilian cores on Madrid, Burgos and Leon then. The Andalucia ones stay.

 

[yerm]

OK, we'll only remove the Castilian cores on Madrid, Burgos and Leon then. The Andalucia ones stay.

Whoa whoa whoa. Leave the Leon core. Otherwise perfect.

 

[Grand Historian]

Side note: remember that historically, the attachment of the Netherlands to the Spanish crown was a simple matter of dynastic good fortune (all Trastamaras further up the succession than Joanna predeceased her, and her husband Philip's parents were the Emperor and the Burgundian heiress), so should not be included in considerations of their performance.

True, but knocking France senseless in the last decade of the fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth, in addition to creating a military that was considered to be invincible and the first professional army in history, should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerignola
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garigliano_(1503)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bicocca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sesia_(1524)
(and last but certainly not least) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pavia

Frankly the entire Italian Wars are probably the most underdeveloped part of EU4, and Castille/Spain gets nothing to represent how they beat up France for nearly a century {merging Devout Catholicism with (nobody ex-) the Spanish Inquisition and nerfing it to just +1 PI, and replacing it with a 'Birthplace of the Tercio' or the like idea that gives (say) +15% ICA would show that quite nicely}.

 

[Moridin997]

OK, we'll only remove the Castilian cores on Madrid, Burgos and Leon then. The Andalucia ones stay.

Good guy Wiz. Responding to player feedback and taking their best interests at heart

 

[Grand Historian]

No, this was a real possibility had things gone differently in history (and certainly no Charles V is an example of things going...differently). They should not railroad against it as a possibility in the game.

Edit: creating a mission that gives Castile claims on Granada (for 0 DIP full annexation) should be enough to get them annexed to Castile most games.

Yes, but that's the only direction it's now designed to railroad in. And I'm not certain you can make a mission that gives free-annexation without giving cores by it (though I could be wrong).

 

[AndreasPhokas]

only solution to this problem is buff Sweden, they need cores on all of Denmark and Norway. And a core on Moscow for good measure.

 

[block]

One thing that has bothered me in my last couple of games is that ether Spain or Portugal always get Siberia. I almost feel like russia's colonial ideas may need a small boost to colony growth in the siberian national idea.

 

[grommile]

One thing that has bothered me in my last couple of games is that ether Spain or Portugal always get Siberia. I almost feel like russia's colonial ideas may need a small boost to colony growth in the siberian national idea.

All it should take is making the AI more conscious of how insanely hard it is to actually get any worthwhile trade flow from Siberia to Iberia.

 

[TheChrisD]

One thing that has bothered me in my last couple of games is that ether Spain or Portugal always get Siberia. I almost feel like russia's colonial ideas may need a small boost to colony growth in the siberian national idea.

Maybe if Muscovy always took Expansion first regardless of whether or not they get a port? (Heck, even if they do get a port before ADM4, I rarely see them take Expansion first - if at all! - these days)

 

[IIWW]

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

Then how about balancing it with Portugal as well? I think it would be a great idea to delay the discoveries, but handing the americas to Portugal instead of Portugal and Castille seems a bit imbalanced. It looks like a small change can have a relatively big influence on the game.

 

[EU3NOOB]

OK, we'll only remove the Castilian cores on Madrid, Burgos and Leon then. The Andalucia ones stay.

Throw in cores on Belgium and you've got a deal!

All the world must have cores on Belgium!

 

[GrounchoVilla]

IMO the Ottoman cores are the only way to represent the OE's historical, explosive growth.

 

[Giffica]

Castile's cores on Granada are now kaput.

I assume you get adm points to compensate this.

Also, you remove cores that drive a historical event, the inquisition, but you keep Isabella in ARAGON? Isabella was Castilian. She was not Aragonese, so why is the Woman in History event for ARAGON instead of Castile? Castile should get her. Ask Johan why he put her ahistorically in Aragon. That's like making Queen Victoria in Ireland.

 

[Owl Raider]

As for cores, the most sensible process whereby you include cores is based on what would allow them to exist in game terms. This allows the historical position to reflect the game's mechanics. PI's choice of removing Castile's cores only, but not the Ottoman ones (that the Ottomans never owned) is one I disagree with. However, the concept that Castile *should* have cores on Granada is the absurd one, not that they shouldn't. In game terms, unless a core is in your primary culture and you're the "primary nation" (whatever that means), cores will disappear after 50 years outside your culture group and after 150 years within your culture group. Castile is so far from the latter threshold that it's silly. Leaving them cores there is not so far from leaving BYZ cores on the entirety of the former Roman empire lol. There's no way to put cores there and then not leave gobs for Mongolia, Golden Horde, Ottomans, and more if you want to be *consistent*.

I'd argue that Castile is a special case in regards to cores. After all, it's called the Reconquista, as in reconquest. Although technically Castile hasn't conquered Granada, which is basically your argument, they perceived themselves as the owners of the territory, thus the reconquista. So in that sense those cores are 100% justified. Considering that most of medieval history was about kings' perception of what is rightfully theirs I don't see why Castile having cores on Granada is such a problem nor how it is a-historical.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Yes, but that's the only direction it's now designed to railroad in. And I'm not certain you can make a mission that gives free-annexation without giving cores by it (though I could be wrong).

If you have a claim on all of an enemy's provinces, you can full-annex them for 0 diplomatic points. So the "Finish the Reconquista" mission" giving Castille a claim on Granada will mean that they won't pay any monarch points to annex them.