• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Talks #30 - 25th September 2024

Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the time of the week when we give you new information about our entirely super secret upcoming game with the codename Project Caesar.

Today we will talk about how conquest works and how integrating the new locations you have conquered will work. With conquest, we are talking about how you take territory through warfare. For how the actual military campaigns work, I recommend reading Tinto Talks 22, 23 and 24.

Casus Belli
To start a war many feel that you need a casus belli for it, which we will refer to a CB for the rest of this talk. If you lack a CB and start a war you will gain some aggressive expansion and lose some stability. Now while this may not be something you may always want, it is a more lenient way to recover instead of spending precious paper mana like in EU4. However, there are multiple ways to get a CB in this game.

Now, Project Caesar does not have a ‘Fabricate Claim’ button that magically creates a CB on any nation, nor do we have a system of claims, but you have several different options to get a CB.

First of all, there is the super old school way of getting one from an event. This may not cater to everyone's playing style, as it is way too random, but if it was good enough for your parents back in 2001, it is good enough for.. Eh, n/m.

Secondly, we have the option of calling a Parliament and asking them to come up with a valid reason for war against a nearby country. This is powerful, but unless you have a high Crown Power, you may need to negotiate with your Estates for their backing. And Parliaments can not be called every month either, democracy is not even invented yet.

Finally we have the way of creating a CB, when there is a more or less legitimate way to one. First of all, creating a CB on a country requires you to have a spy network in the target country, similar to how claim fabrication works in EU4, but you also need to have some sort of reason to create the type of CB you want. If you let's say play Denmark and want to take back Skåne from Sweden, as you have cores on it, then you can create a ‘Conquer Core’ CB on them, or if they have used Privateers in sea zones where you have a Maritime Presence, you can create another CB on them. There are 50+ different CB you can create depending on circumstances, including everything from ‘Flower Wars’ for countries of Nahuatl religion, ‘Dissolving the Tatar Yoke’ for the tributaries under that International Organization, or ‘Humiliating Rivals’.

war_overview.png

31 allies and subjects for Bohemia, hmmm…

Just remember.. No CB is best CB!


War Goals
Whether you decide that a small border adjustment is needed, or you wish to wage a total war, you need to pick which War Goal you wish to pursue. Different casus belli will allow you to pick different War Goals and the War Goal you pick impacts the cost of conquest as well. A conquer CB will make taking land cheaper, while a ‘humiliation CB will make them more expensive.

A War Goal for a province requires you to occupy that entire province, while a Naval Superiority War Goal will give you a bonus score for blockading the enemy, and defeating their navy if possible.

If your War Goal is fulfilled then the warscore from it ticks up to a maximum of 25, and the total impact from battles in this game can be worth up to 50, while occupations and blockades have no cap and can reach over 100 warscore if possible.

In Project Caesar, therefore, not every war is necessarily a total war like some previous games we have made.

If the War Goal is not fulfilled, it is only possible to get 100% War Score if the winning side controls all of the losing side's locations, and the losing side controls no towns or cities.

This means that if you have your wargoal taken care of, winning some important battles and occupying some land, you will be able to force a reasonable peace on someone.

war_goal.png

Give me liberty or ehh.. annexation?


Integration
So what do you do then, when you have signed a peace and got some new land to your country?

First of all, it is not as simple as a location being a core or not, as Project Caesar introduces a new system of integration for locations. There are four states of integration in this game, first of all the conquered locations, which have a high separatism, lower control, and make pops unlikely to convert or assimilate. This is the state of any location you conquer that is not a core of yours. When a location becomes integrated, separatism drops to one fifth of the previous levels, and control has a higher maximum. When a location becomes a core, the minimum control is higher, and your primary and accepted cultures grow more, while minorities become stagnant. We also have the colonized status, which is after you have colonized a location, and it is not yet a core. A colonized location has lower maximum control.

What is separatism then? Well, it is the reduction of satisfaction for pops that are not of the primary culture. This is very likely to make the locations very unproductive for quite some time.

A location becomes a core automatically if it's integrated OR colonial, and at least 50% of the pops are of the primary or accepted cultures of that country.

core.png

It is beneficial to get your locations to become your cores…

How do you integrate a location then? Well, this is the challenge in Project Caesar, as you do not have any magic paper mana to spend on it, but instead you need to use one of the members of your cabinet to integrate it. At the start of the game, a cabinet member can integrate an entire province at once, but in the Age of Absolutism you have an advance that will let you integrate an entire area at once.

This integration is not instant, but depends on many factors, like the status and the population living in the locations affected, but on average integrating a province may take between 25 and 50 years.

integration.png

And what are all of these factors then?


Stay tuned, as in next week's Tinto Talks, we will talk about how peace treaties themselves work, and which ones we have.
 
  • 208Like
  • 74Love
  • 17
  • 16
  • 9
Reactions:
I don't think that actually makes sense, and I'd like you to provide examples of it actually working like this.

An easy example that comes to mind is the English integration of Wales, where you have stuff like the Statute of Rhuddlan, and the Laws of Wales Acts, which incorporated Wales into England (though you could argue it should be considered integrated, but not a core). The English did not list every single town in Wales individually and specify that their laws had to be changed. That would be ridiculous. These documents effected legal changes in the whole of Wales, at once.

The spread of English culture in Wales did proceed on a more local basis, but that's not the same thing as the way we are describing coring.

But your reasoning implies that the only reason it didn't happen IOTL is because they didn't click a button. What do you think the actual cause of this was?
One, Wales is much smaller in terms of locations/provinces (as per the TM it was only two), so "stick two ministers on it to integrate the whole thing" is entirely reasonable, mechanically. As for an example of it being done regionally (or rather, provincially), look at the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. It wasn't "Ottos annexed the Balkans in 30 years", it was "Ottomans subjugated various nobles and left them in charge of their lands" for 30 years. The only major exception to this is Bulgaria, which they directly annexed and administered immediately after conquest. For the rest, it was left in charge of the local nobility which steadily had their rights encroached, noble by noble (if one were to rebel, they would be forced from their lands, but those lands would then be given to a different noble at the cost of more military garrisons placed on those lands). They would still be raided, taxes would be raid, and the Ottomans would advertise just how much better their lives would be under direct Ottoman rule. Only then did territories actually start getting annexed. With annexation came giving administrative roles to Christians, or retaining officeholders.

Slow and steady conquest through subjugation, not direct annexation, playing vassals against each other and only eventually actually annexing anything directly into the state. This was done on an individual basis of each vassal territory, not the entire Balkan region. Not "town by town", but nonetheless done gradually and in a segmented fashion. If you were to want to represent this through Ottomans conquering the Balkans outright rather than vassalage, you could represent the "annexation" stage as integration, in which case it would not be wrong to do so provincially.

As for your other point, it's not just that they "didn't click a button", but that they didn't want to put in the resources (i.e. usage of one of their few cabinet ministers) to integrate (and ultimately establish higher max control) on a region that wasn't relevant to their empire. It's mountainous. It's not an area in which they drew much in the way of resources or manpower (the notable mines of Serbia such as Novo Brdo were only established after the end of Byzantine rule). It would have been, for the pre-4th Crusade Byzantine Empire, a waste of time and resources better spent elsewhere.

Like... integrating a province only matters if your control would be high there to begin with. It's a cap, not a debuff, meaning that if no location in that province would be above the cap set by being unintegrated, it's not worth integrating. If the locations don't provide much in the way of resources (insomuch that the unaccepted people there aren't actually especially useful for producing anything), it's not worth integrating.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
How else will you incebtivise players to not go for total war each time? Wouldn't it make more sense to achieve 100% war score easier and make everything else just more costly to take, for example the CB border clash could allow you to annex neighboring provinces for the normal cost and you get war score for occupying all of them and more from holding them. But conquering anything outside the border is prohibitively expensive
 
You will be able to force peace at 100 WS even though you occupy maybe 25% of the country, and have won most of the battles and have the War goal under control for some time.
Wouldn't it be better if the war score from the war goal was unlimited? If I just want to conquer one province for example I just need to hold it for X years if they cannot dislodge me I win.

Also wouldn't it help more to make things not part of the original CB just more expensive in that case, so you have smaller browser lashes where 100 wars core gets gained in a year or two, but not much changes, but bigger CB and war goals lead to bigger wars.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Why am I letting them enforce their own laws? They aren't vassals who owe allegiance but are otherwise allowed to govern themselves, they are a conquered people. It's my way or no way. And that's what control is. I want them to follow my laws instead of theirs, but I don't quite have the ability to force them yet. Thus I need to improve control or grant them autonomy (make them a vassal).


Why would you move your capital to a place you have no control over? That seems like a bad idea. Also, I see no reason why the capital should be forced to be 100% control.
Control represents practical state overseeing of a land. It does not represent administrative laws. This is why roads increase control, and laws don't.

As for moving the capital, you move your capital closer to the place that you're asserting authority over. Same reason why the Ottomans moved their capital into Europe proper, and eventually Constantinople (and if Serbia ever managed to, would have done the same).
 
how does aggressive expansion work? like eu4 (relative to each tag) or imperator/vic2/vic3... and do you get aggressive expansion by starting a conflict or by demanding bunch of land? (i hope both)
 
Control represents practical state overseeing of a land. It does not represent administrative laws. This is why roads increase control, and laws don't.

As for moving the capital, you move your capital closer to the place that you're asserting authority over. Same reason why the Ottomans moved their capital into Europe proper, and eventually Constantinople (and if Serbia ever managed to, would have done the same).
Roads increase control because they make it easier to send out bureaucrats to do things like collect taxes and run courts. As well as easier to send in the troops and communicate with your lower level government officials. A law wouldn't increase control because control is what allows you to enforce the law in the first place.

If the capital is closer it's certainly easier to maintain and increase control. But control should be something that ticks towards an equilibrium so that you don't gain/lose it immediately just because you moved your capital or a key port got blown up in a war.
 
Yeah, I can't say I'm a fan of that one. It also means that ticking over from 49% accepted to 50% accepted means that the resulting birth rate in an integrated location will be cut by half, as the other 50% will... well, suddenly stop growing. Coring actually becomes detrimental to pop growth in that regard, because it cuts it in half once you hit the cutoff point.
Does it actually change the rate of population growth by setting non-accepted cultures to not reproduce? Or does it mean that any kids they have beyond enough to replace mom and dad end up growing up with the primary culture instead of mom and dad’s?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
This all seems... pretty bad to be honest. It seems like Paradox is trying to cater to a small subset of forumposters who have a very skewed version of history. This is a view that looks like Anno 1404, where conquest barely ever happens and nations become powerful mostly through internal development. It's a fantasy.

Restricting wargoals is silly. This was a time when "Might Makes Right" was in full swing. Giving a generic way for any nation to fabricate a CB on a neighbor was an improvement from EU3 --> EU4. Why are we regressing?

The implicit early game speed limit of 2 provinces every 25-50 years is *absurdly* slow. EU4 already had gigantic problems modeling rapid conquest that was hardly an uncommon occurrence in this time period. The rise of the Ottomans, the Mughal conquests, the Ming-Qing transition, the Mongol conquests (which occurred just before the timeframe), etc. EU4 tried to do some bandaid fixes 8-10 years after it was released, but most of them suffered from being far too ad-hoc, or even tag-locked altogether. I would have hoped EU5 would try to improve on this by adding in something like Imperial Challenge from I:R. Instead, it seems like EU5 isn't even trying to improve in this regard, and we'll need to suffer through years of Partitioned Egypt being the norm.

Obviously things can change, future dev diaries can have more info, etc. but this start doesn't look promising.
Why would you be limited in your conquering? Johan confirmed in this thread that overextension doesn't exist. This directly means that you can conquer as many provinces as you want. As long as you can handle the rebels. Just conquered provinces are like EU4 territories and don't contribute much due to 'lack of control' (read: high autonomy) and costing resources to supress the rebels. So you'll be limited in your conquering speed, but not due to provinces that don't have a core.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Welcome to another Tinto Talks, the time of the week when we give you new information about our entirely super secret upcoming game with the codename Project Caesar.

Today we will talk about how conquest works and how integrating the new locations you have conquered will work. With conquest, we are talking about how you take territory through warfare. For how the actual military campaigns work, I recommend reading Tinto Talks 22, 23 and 24.

Casus Belli
To start a war many feel that you need a casus belli for it, which we will refer to a CB for the rest of this talk. If you lack a CB and start a war you will gain some aggressive expansion and lose some stability. Now while this may not be something you may always want, it is a more lenient way to recover instead of spending precious paper mana like in EU4. However, there are multiple ways to get a CB in this game.

Now, Project Caesar does not have a ‘Fabricate Claim’ button that magically creates a CB on any nation, nor do we have a system of claims, but you have several different options to get a CB.

First of all, there is the super old school way of getting one from an event. This may not cater to everyone's playing style, as it is way too random, but if it was good enough for your parents back in 2001, it is good enough for.. Eh, n/m.

Secondly, we have the option of calling a Parliament and asking them to come up with a valid reason for war against a nearby country. This is powerful, but unless you have a high Crown Power, you may need to negotiate with your Estates for their backing. And Parliaments can not be called every month either, democracy is not even invented yet.

Finally we have the way of creating a CB, when there is a more or less legitimate way to one. First of all, creating a CB on a country requires you to have a spy network in the target country, similar to how claim fabrication works in EU4, but you also need to have some sort of reason to create the type of CB you want. If you let's say play Denmark and want to take back Skåne from Sweden, as you have cores on it, then you can create a ‘Conquer Core’ CB on them, or if they have used Privateers in sea zones where you have a Maritime Presence, you can create another CB on them. There are 50+ different CB you can create depending on circumstances, including everything from ‘Flower Wars’ for countries of Nahuatl religion, ‘Dissolving the Tatar Yoke’ for the tributaries under that International Organization, or ‘Humiliating Rivals’.

View attachment 1192808
31 allies and subjects for Bohemia, hmmm…

Just remember.. No CB is best CB!


War Goals
Whether you decide that a small border adjustment is needed, or you wish to wage a total war, you need to pick which War Goal you wish to pursue. Different casus belli will allow you to pick different War Goals and the War Goal you pick impacts the cost of conquest as well. A conquer CB will make taking land cheaper, while a ‘humiliation CB will make them more expensive.

A War Goal for a province requires you to occupy that entire province, while a Naval Superiority War Goal will give you a bonus score for blockading the enemy, and defeating their navy if possible.

If your War Goal is fulfilled then the warscore from it ticks up to a maximum of 25, and the total impact from battles in this game can be worth up to 50, while occupations and blockades have no cap and can reach over 100 warscore if possible.

In Project Caesar, therefore, not every war is necessarily a total war like some previous games we have made.

If the War Goal is not fulfilled, it is only possible to get 100% War Score if the winning side controls all of the losing side's locations, and the losing side controls no towns or cities.

This means that if you have your wargoal taken care of, winning some important battles and occupying some land, you will be able to force a reasonable peace on someone.

View attachment 1192807
Give me liberty or ehh.. annexation?


Integration
So what do you do then, when you have signed a peace and got some new land to your country?

First of all, it is not as simple as a location being a core or not, as Project Caesar introduces a new system of integration for locations. There are four states of integration in this game, first of all the conquered locations, which have a high separatism, lower control, and make pops unlikely to convert or assimilate. This is the state of any location you conquer that is not a core of yours. When a location becomes integrated, separatism drops to one fifth of the previous levels, and control has a higher maximum. When a location becomes a core, the minimum control is higher, and your primary and accepted cultures grow more, while minorities become stagnant. We also have the colonized status, which is after you have colonized a location, and it is not yet a core. A colonized location has lower maximum control.

What is separatism then? Well, it is the reduction of satisfaction for pops that are not of the primary culture. This is very likely to make the locations very unproductive for quite some time.

A location becomes a core automatically if it's integrated OR colonial, and at least 50% of the pops are of the primary or accepted cultures of that country.

View attachment 1192806
It is beneficial to get your locations to become your cores…

How do you integrate a location then? Well, this is the challenge in Project Caesar, as you do not have any magic paper mana to spend on it, but instead you need to use one of the members of your cabinet to integrate it. At the start of the game, a cabinet member can integrate an entire province at once, but in the Age of Absolutism you have an advance that will let you integrate an entire area at once.

This integration is not instant, but depends on many factors, like the status and the population living in the locations affected, but on average integrating a province may take between 25 and 50 years.

View attachment 1192805
And what are all of these factors then?


Stay tuned, as in next week's Tinto Talks, we will talk about how peace treaties themselves work, and which ones we have.
How will conquest of China by Manchu work in this system? To much to core and to conquer in a single war. Or Timur conquests?
 
Roads increase control because they make it easier to send out bureaucrats to do things like collect taxes and run courts. As well as easier to send in the troops and communicate with your lower level government officials. A law wouldn't increase control because control is what allows you to enforce the law in the first place.

If the capital is closer it's certainly easier to maintain and increase control. But control should be something that ticks towards an equilibrium so that you don't gain/lose it immediately just because you moved your capital or a key port got blown up in a war.
Yes, that is how it works. I just don't understand your earlier point about "not moving a capital to where there's low control", because that happened quite often and would consequently raise control (over time) where the capital was moved to.

Like... I honestly don't get the argument for control causing integration rather than integration being something you have to spend state resources to do. Control causing integration would make integration an entirely passive system, and it was certainly not a passive system (as my few examples already attest). It was something that a state chose to do. Not something that simply happened because "well we can administer this place rather well from here".

Integration of conquered regions wasn't something that just "happened". It was a deliberate process, even for places where you would expect (under a system driven by control) to integrate quickly, such as places adjacent to a capital.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Nice TT, very interesting, as always, all changes are for the better, and the game keeps getting more promising.

However, I feel one of the mechanics you posted about is kind of anti-historical, as is in eu4 too. I'm talking about the "50% accepted cult requirement" for coring a location. I get why you did this, it makes sense in one aspect, bc it is logical that it's easier to expand if you conquer pops of your own culture, it didn't make any sense that there was so much unrest when you as the ottomans conquered the beyliqs, or unified Japan. BUT, in another sense i don't like it, bc, as it happens in eu4, it makes accepting other cultures very "incentivized" and "gamey", while in real history, most States tend to disenfranchise other cultures, excluding them of their power structures, relegating them at most to the regional level, or directly prohibiting them to have any power. As an example (first that comes to mind), the English always tried to disenfranchise the Irish, and mostly succeeded, specially after the War of the Three Kingdoms (see, Act of Uniformity, which though was directly targeted to all Catholics, it had a major goal in banning the Irish from any power), and until the end of the XVIII, beginning of the XIX century (this did not completely integrate the Irish, but the disenfranchisement was relaxed). This is a deeply rooted social trend, based on dynamics of States and power, and many cultures have suffered this in the course of history. However, with how eu4 puts it, it's absolutely moronic not to accept any cultures! It only gives benefits, no drawbacks, and i bet most players who play England end up directly integrating the Irish. The only restriction is an arbitrary cap. I would wish Project Caesar does this differently. As a suggestion, I would say maybe accepting other cultures, depending on the proximity, should give important maluses, both bc the primary pops, already rooted in power, are afraid they'll lose their supremacy (+unhappiness to primary culture nobles and burghers), and bc the foreign culture, now accepted, has power they can use to work towards regaining their independence (+volatility of accepted culture).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, that is how it works. I just don't understand your earlier point about "not moving a capital to where there's low control", because that happened quite often and would consequently raise control (over time) where the capital was moved to.

Like... I honestly don't get the argument for control causing integration rather than integration being something you have to spend state resources to do. Control causing integration would make integration an entirely passive system, and it was certainly not a passive system (as my few examples already attest). It was something that a state chose to do. Not something that simply happened because "well we can administer this place rather well from here".

Integration of conquered regions wasn't something that just "happened". It was a deliberate process, even for places where you would expect (under a system driven by control) to integrate quickly, such as places adjacent to a capital.
That's probably it. We're talking past each other. I'm not convinced that "integration" and "core states" should be a thing at all.

To my mind, a core isn't really a thing. What it's trying to approximate is "long term province where we have a high degree of control/authority". Since control is a thing, we should have no need for cores in the game. If integration means to align the institutions of government to the central authority, then that's part of what control is. Can I really say that I have control over a region if it doesn't even have the laws and institutions that I want?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Will it be possible to finish wars before 100% WS, thus getting weaker rewards? E.g. I attack nation A for war goal province X, but ended up only getting province Y and winning some battles (netting me like 60% WS) before my luck starts to turn. Can I sue for peace and get land Y plus some aggressive expansion?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This all sounds pretty great for representing the development of territorial acquisitions in early modern Europe. Are you confident that these mechanics will also adequately portray conquests outside of Europe? Like the swap from Yuan to Ming in China, the Ottoman conquest of Egypt or the Mughal conquest of the Delhi Sultanate. All those large-scale conquests made use of pre-existing imperial structures, it sounds odd to me you'd have to manually integrate each province in China as Ming etc.

Also, is there such a thing as passive integration?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think that there should be a (very slow) passive integration; it seems a little unrealistic that a territory that's been a part of an empire for 100 years wouldn't be integrated, let alone cored, simply by having everyone who lives there being born in that empire. Like I said such a thing should be pretty slow (50-100 years without any player interference), as it would represent the generational acceptance of the status quo as opposed to the active efforts of the government to get people on board with the regime.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I didnt like integration is done by province,

It kinda forces us to take all locations in a province otherwise you litteraly waste min 25 years for 1-2 location you took in seperate provinces

I want to draw borders according to myself conquering entire provinces may have some economic benefits, but additional integration stuff is unneccessary tbh

I suggest making integration time depending on number of locations in province, so you wont be forced to conquer all provinces, admin eff might still make conquering entire provinces a bit faster than seperate provinces still, but thats not much
 
  • 13
Reactions:
One, Wales is much smaller in terms of locations/provinces (as per the TM it was only two), so "stick two ministers on it to integrate the whole thing" is entirely reasonable, mechanically.
It is also not what happened in real life. North Wales and South Wales were not treated separately, but as a single unit.
As for an example of it being done regionally (or rather, provincially), look at the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. It wasn't "Ottos annexed the Balkans in 30 years", it was "Ottomans subjugated various nobles and left them in charge of their lands" for 30 years. The only major exception to this is Bulgaria, which they directly annexed and administered immediately after conquest. For the rest, it was left in charge of the local nobility which steadily had their rights encroached, noble by noble (if one were to rebel, they would be forced from their lands, but those lands would then be given to a different noble at the cost of more military garrisons placed on those lands). They would still be raided, taxes would be raid, and the Ottomans would advertise just how much better their lives would be under direct Ottoman rule. Only then did territories actually start getting annexed. With annexation came giving administrative roles to Christians, or retaining officeholders.

Slow and steady conquest through subjugation, not direct annexation, playing vassals against each other and only eventually actually annexing anything directly into the state. This was done on an individual basis of each vassal territory, not the entire Balkan region. Not "town by town", but nonetheless done gradually and in a segmented fashion. If you were to want to represent this through Ottomans conquering the Balkans outright rather than vassalage, you could represent the "annexation" stage as integration, in which case it would not be wrong to do so provincially.
What you're describing here is the Ottomans dealing with actual vassal states, which would be represented by the vassal state mechanics, not coring. They're not going province by province, but subject state by subject state (and these subject states weren't equivalent to provinces in the game anyway).

Also worth noting that Bulgaria is eleven provinces, not one. So in the system as it is described to work in this TT, it would be physically impossible for them to integrate it all at once immediately after conquering it, therefore I'm not sure how this explains how Serbia and Bulgaria were treated differently by the Ottoman system.
As for your other point, it's not just that they "didn't click a button", but that they didn't want to put in the resources (i.e. usage of one of their few cabinet ministers) to integrate (and ultimately establish higher max control) on a region that wasn't relevant to their empire. It's mountainous. It's not an area in which they drew much in the way of resources or manpower (the notable mines of Serbia such as Novo Brdo were only established after the end of Byzantine rule). It would have been, for the pre-4th Crusade Byzantine Empire, a waste of time and resources better spent elsewhere.

Like... integrating a province only matters if your control would be high there to begin with. It's a cap, not a debuff, meaning that if no location in that province would be above the cap set by being unintegrated, it's not worth integrating. If the locations don't provide much in the way of resources (insomuch that the unaccepted people there aren't actually especially useful for producing anything), it's not worth integrating.
I don't think this particularly supports either your argument or mine. I would say that they couldn't core Serbia and Bulgaria within 200 years because they had low control there, you would say that they didn't want to because they would have low control there.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Since the timer for integration is so long, I'm afraid it will just become the meta to have your entire council integrating provinces (at least early game) instead of using any of the many other unique actions. And when playing, does it feel like an annoying roadblock to your expansion or more of a (needed) speedbump to slow down snowballing?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: