Why do Ottomans start with Anatolian cores?

[RadRussian]

What concerns me more is mega-France. Looking from screen shots,Burgundy was reduced to 4 provinces minor dutchy.
I know king of Burgundy dies in 70% of my games and is split between Austria and France in 25% but in remaining 5 they were an excellent balance to BBB.

I know this all can be attributed to gameplay vs simulation discussion but still.

 

[Grand Historian]

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

Just give them a mission that gives them claims on Anatolia.

 

[Frungy78]

Oh lord, what have I done... I didn't expect the discussion to go this far.

Regarding Castile, I recall that earlier in EU4, there was no event that automatically changed conquered Granada to Catholic- you had to convert it yourself, so your mission took forever. It was a nice change, adding de Torquemada and the conversion.

 

[Itchel]

Oh lord, what have I done... I didn't expect the discussion to go this far.

Regarding Castile, I recall that earlier in EU4, there was no event that automatically changed conquered Granada to Catholic- you had to convert it yourself, so your mission took forever. It was a nice change, adding de Torquemada and the conversion.

I would never choose the option that forcefully changes the religion but also reduces the base tax

 

[GrounchoVilla]

Castile usually does fairly well, and I've never seen Granada survive, so I don't think the lack of cores underpowers them any.

 

[Zander]

Honestly, I've been playing without Castillian cores on Granada for a long time in my own version, and it doesn't noticeably affect their performance. Cores or no cores, nothing short of player intervention or an immediate Castillian collapse is going to prevent Granada from dying swiftly under current rules.

 

[iamthevendetta]

Ok since we're talking Granada, should there be, perhaps, the decision to reestablish al-Andalus?

 

[Republic of Mercury]

I would never choose the option that forcefully changes the religion but also reduces the base tax

Neither would I, but in the latest version the event just gives the three provinces the temporary "forced-conversion" modifier instead of reducing their base-tax, which makes it a lot more appealing.

 

[Golladan]

Oh lord, what have I done... I didn't expect the discussion to go this far.

Regarding Castile, I recall that earlier in EU4, there was no event that automatically changed conquered Granada to Catholic- you had to convert it yourself, so your mission took forever. It was a nice change, adding de Torquemada and the conversion.

That event is old. Very old. It just had a very large MTTH so it rarely occurred.

 

[Legend92]

i hope i will never seen spain siberia again

 

[Legend92]

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''

what about roman army?

 

[Moridin997]

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.

The "king's perception of what is rightfully theirs" is a claim. The "locals' perception of who should rightfully rule them" is a core.

Hence why you can fabricate claims but not cores.


(Though I think we should have both strong and weak claims, to better distinguish several historical disputes. A fabricated claim would automatically be a weak claim...)

 

[Owl Raider]

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.

You forgot coring costs which were negated since the provinces were already cores.

The "king's perception of what is rightfully theirs" is a claim. The "locals' perception of who should rightfully rule them" is a core.

Hence why you can fabricate claims but not cores.


(Though I think we should have both strong and weak claims, to better distinguish several historical disputes. A fabricated claim would automatically be a weak claim...)

That makes no sense whatsoever. A lot of provinces have cores from multiple nations on them, so what does that say about the locals? Remember, there were no democracies in medieval Europe so the locals didn't get to vote on anything nor had a say. The only people who had a say were the monarchs and the local nobilities. The nobility aspect is underrepresented in EUIV, only having various negative events like nobles aligned with foreign power, but that's pretty much it. Also consider that in EUIV's, especially in the early years, nations aren't what we know today. It was only after the Peace of Westphalia that the concept of the modern nation was born. Before that nations were defined by their rulers and ruling dynasty.

 

[yerm]

Since cores take admin to set up, I like my abstraction that they represent administrative control. Reconquering a core means you just go in and put your rule back in place where it once existed, relatively seamlessly. Dip points from annexing are just bring the foreign administration into line with your own. Core cost reduction comes from the ability to more efficiently set up new administrations, and claims allow you to get officials lined up and therefore save time and effort in the setup once you take control.

Obviously there is no perfect analogy because the whole coring system is completely at odds with reality and clearly more for gameplay and balance, but that's the closest I have gotten.

Honestly, I've been playing without Castillian cores on Granada for a long time in my own version, and it doesn't noticeably affect their performance. Cores or no cores, nothing short of player intervention or an immediate Castillian collapse is going to prevent Granada from dying swiftly under current rules.

What happens in your games longer-term? In mine, Granada rarely went to one nation; someone would grab its outliers and then another would take the capital. I often saw them join a war on Morocco's side, with Portugal warleading, and Castile occupying most or all. They would then separate peace out of the war; with no core, Portugal rarely gave them to Castile, but would instead take anything they occupied for themselves. Meanwhile, afterwards, Aragon might come in and scoop it up. I also, funny enough, a couple times saw them lose land to Africans in internal wars - Algeria vs all ones for instance - where the AI would go park on their Iberian turf rather than fight at home, because reasons.

All of this isn't so bad, except that the result of it I often experienced was Portugal owning part of Granada led to hurt feelings and division on the peninsula, which led to France. Not always, and hell let's be fair even with cores sometimes France marches south, this just really seemed to escalate it to common occurrence.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Since cores take admin to set up, I like my abstraction that they represent administrative control. Reconquering a core means you just go in and put your rule back in place where it once existed, relatively seamlessly. Dip points from annexing are just bring the foreign administration into line with your own. Core cost reduction comes from the ability to more efficiently set up new administrations, and claims allow you to get officials lined up and therefore save time and effort in the setup once you take control.

Obviously there is no perfect analogy because the whole coring system is completely at odds with reality and clearly more for gameplay and balance, but that's the closest I have gotten.



What happens in your games longer-term? In mine, Granada rarely went to one nation; someone would grab its outliers and then another would take the capital. I often saw them join a war on Morocco's side, with Portugal warleading, and Castile occupying most or all. They would then separate peace out of the war; with no core, Portugal rarely gave them to Castile, but would instead take anything they occupied for themselves. Meanwhile, afterwards, Aragon might come in and scoop it up. I also, funny enough, a couple times saw them lose land to Africans in internal wars - Algeria vs all ones for instance - where the AI would go park on their Iberian turf rather than fight at home, because reasons.

All of this isn't so bad, except that the result of it I often experienced was Portugal owning part of Granada led to hurt feelings and division on the peninsula, which led to France. Not always, and hell let's be fair even with cores sometimes France marches south, this just really seemed to escalate it to common occurrence.

Personally, I believe the occasional Iberian tension would spice things up. It's not like the butt buddy historical friends thing is more realistic anyway.

 

[Grand Historian]

Personally, I believe the occasional Iberian tension would spice things up. It's not like the butt buddy historical friends thing is more realistic anyway.

Aren't Castille and Aragon already historical rivals? And If that was the case, then we need an early-game disaster for France to act as a balance. Maybe the League of Public Weal?

 

[Kalderus]

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

Shouldn't Yuan have cores all over China? 1368 is within the 150 year deadline, and to some degree it could be argued the Genghisids culture shifted (partially at least) to Han Chinese. Since Mongolia is the closest successor state, shouldn't they perhaps have cores all over China, if we were going for additional accuracy?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Aren't Castille and Aragon already historical rivals? And If that was the case, then we need an early-game disaster for France to act as a balance. Maybe the League of Public Weal?

France has (but rarely gets due to CoR bias) a major special disaster for religious turmoil. Lost in the discussion of how Spain will underperform with these changes is how France also typically underperforms. Their armies are ridiculous at times, but in most games where they don't get a lucky PU, they don't achieve historical success either when in AI hands. This game is biased a lot more towards equilibrium than reality was, in order to offset the heavy abstraction removing management difficulties. The nations that "outperform history" are most typically nations like Poland, Austria/HRE, or nations that died like Songhai because the AI just doesn't kill other AI effectively.

French success in the Iberian peninsula depends almost entirely on the surrounding alliance networks.

 

[Grand Historian]

France has (but rarely gets due to CoR bias) a major special disaster for religious turmoil. Lost in the discussion of how Spain will underperform with these changes is how France also typically underperforms. Their armies are ridiculous at times, but in most games where they don't get a lucky PU, they don't achieve historical success either when in AI hands. This game is biased a lot more towards equilibrium than reality was, in order to offset the heavy abstraction removing management difficulties. The nations that "outperform history" are most typically nations like Poland, Austria/HRE, or nations that died like Songhai because the AI just doesn't kill other AI effectively.

French success in the Iberian peninsula depends almost entirely on the surrounding alliance networks.

True on the Religious Turmoil, I had actually advocated turning it into a disaster. As for the most part, France didn't really 'blob' all over Europe until Napoleon, their main territorial gains on the continent being Alsace-Lorraine, parts of North Italy on and off, and multiple wars over Flanders/Wallonia, so them being contained is accurate in that respect. But since the Revolution gives powerful late-game bonus' the special French Revolution event chain should also become a disaster that can be harmful at first, but quite beneficial for them in the long run.