Coring the regions captured from centralized nations should be easier

[Nekoluve]

The Prince: "Great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it."

Machiavelli pointed out that it is difficult to maintain states where the people live in freedom or are governed by a prince and barons, but it is easy to rule states where the people live in slavery or are governed by a prince and his servants. So, once Alexander defeated Darius militarily, he and his Diadochi could stabilize control over these lands. Once the Manchus defeated the Ming army (and its rebels), they could stabilize rule over China. Even though the Manchu population was less than 1% of the Han Chinese, the Qing dynasty lasted about the same amount of time as the Han-ruled Ming dynasty.

 

[Wildrake]

The Prince: "Great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it."

Machiavelli pointed out that it is difficult to maintain states where the people live in freedom or are governed by a prince and barons, but it is easy to rule states where the people live in slavery or are governed by a prince and his servants. So, once Alexander defeated Darius militarily, he and his Diadochi could stabilize control over these lands. Once the Manchus defeated the Ming army (and its rebels), they could stabilize rule over China. Even though the Manchu population was less than 1% of the Han Chinese, the Qing dynasty lasted about the same amount of time as the Han-ruled Ming dynasty.

What is the difference between "governed by prince and barons" and "governed by prince and his servants"?
Also, what you described is more inline with Paradox's Serfdom vs Free subject axis (even if it is a non-sensical scale)

 

[Nekoluve]

What is the difference between "governed by prince and barons" and "governed by prince and his servants"?
Also, what you described is more inline with Paradox's Serfdom vs Free subject axis (even if it is a non-sensical scale)

Servants are only responsible to the prince, are not hereditary, and can only be appointed by the prince, while barons have their own hereditary fiefs.

 

[Nekoluve]

The word you're looking for is bureaucrat

"servant"Machiavelli said

 

[pheonix_cruz]

Home Rule Expectation
Maybe this could be implemented by introducing a new stat we can call something like "autonomy expectation", "home rule expectation" or "independence expectation".
Could apply to location/province itself, to pops within location, or to pops belonging to a given culture.
Would decrease overtime for pops/locations/cultures ruled by distant courts or foreign cultures, while inversely would increase when ruled by nearby court or similar culture. Would need to move very slowly over time, and have a noticeable increase when newly annexed.
Could affect rebel joining stats, independence movements, satisfaction, and/or control stats.
Thoughts?

 

[Nekoluve]

have a noticeable increase when newly annexed

That would overlap with the concept of control. It should be set to change only in the long term, because here, whether the local residents accept the rule depends on the tradition and the strength of the local forces, which cannot be changed instantly when conquering.

 

[pheonix_cruz]

That would overlap with the concept of control. It should be set to change only in the long term, because here, whether the local residents accept the rule depends on the tradition and the strength of the local forces, which cannot be changed instantly when conquering.

Fair point. Going back to your title, if it's only about coring cost, then maybe the jump when annexed doesn't make sense. Trying to expand the idea and generalize it to affect other areas, e.g. rebel joining stats, it would make sense for it to have some jump. Definitely the predominant effect should be long term change though.

 

[Nekoluve]

Fair point. Going back to your title, if it's only about coring cost, then maybe the jump when annexed doesn't make sense. Trying to expand the idea and generalize it to affect other areas, e.g. rebel joining stats, it would make sense for it to have some jump. Definitely the predominant effect should be long term change though.

In fact, if the territory is conquered, that is, controlled by the enemy's army, then the local autonomous organization is likely to be weakened rather than strengthened.

 

[Briloner]

I disagree - even if we believe Old Mac:
He means subjugated people not distantly ruled. Example: Persia in antiquity - the rule was comparably light and frequently indirect, i.e. lots of power locally. Once defeated - most satrapies folded and followed the next big man.
Even the conter-case can be found here: The Ionian cities and the Punic cities (around current Lebanon) rebelled time and time again against everybody.
Or think of the Netherland in their struggle of independence - The Spanish were rather centralized and had a rather efficient bureaucracy.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

The Prince: "Great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it."

Machiavelli pointed out that it is difficult to maintain states where the people live in freedom or are governed by a prince and barons, but it is easy to rule states where the people live in slavery or are governed by a prince and his servants. So, once Alexander defeated Darius militarily, he and his Diadochi could stabilize control over these lands. Once the Manchus defeated the Ming army (and its rebels), they could stabilize rule over China. Even though the Manchu population was less than 1% of the Han Chinese, the Qing dynasty lasted about the same amount of time as the Han-ruled Ming dynasty.

Its already easier to conquer land off 1 tag than it is 101 tags, as they have less capital forts to siege, and once you beat the main army, you can carpet siege what remains. If you're conquering an established empire, they likely already have bureaucracy set up for you to use and make deals with, in EU5 terms this means control buildings already established.
The Manchu being tiny compared to the Han population is just how miliatry elites work. The Mongols were tiny compared to pre conquest Han (even divided between Jin and Southern Song). The Normans were small in number compared to the Anglo Saxons, yet dominated England for the next millenia. Muslims were tiny compared to India's buddhist, hindu, and jain population, but had the backing of successive invading states, so stayed the ruling class

 

[Nekoluve]

I disagree - even if we believe Old Mac:
He means subjugated people not distantly ruled. Example: Persia in antiquity - the rule was comparably light and frequently indirect, i.e. lots of power locally. Once defeated - most satrapies folded and followed the next big man.
Even the conter-case can be found here: The Ionian cities and the Punic cities (around current Lebanon) rebelled time and time again against everybody.
Or think of the Netherland in their struggle of independence - The Spanish were rather centralized and had a rather efficient bureaucracy.

However, although there were many tyrants in the Ionian and Phoenician city-states, they maintained autonomy and were in a state of division, which was equivalent to what Machiavelli called "barons". In the Netherlands, although they were ruled by an absolute monarchy, there was no centralization. The two situations were not equivalent. The Netherlands were divided from each other, there were many earldoms, the laws were relatively independent, and they were not governed by a unified bureaucracy. Even Spain itself didn't have real centralization, because it was divided by mountains and there were many kingdoms in its history. The absolute monarch had to respect the customs and laws of each kingdom, and it was difficult for him to manage the local governors.
And these countries revolted when their autonomy was going to be taken away.

 

[BellumIustum]

Giving Pure Ideology vives here. Too airy and insubstantial.