2 small ideas to upcoming game - elector vassalization and capital annexation

[Unready]

1. There are requires a mechanism in HRE for protecting electors from vassalization.
Now it is enough to vassalize 3-4 electors and all HRE elections is in a pocket ever.
Even if all hates you. Penalties of some type like "unlawful imperial territory" probably will be enough
to discourage the desire to turn the voters in the first priority targets for vassalization.

2. The annexation of the capital. Now this is impossible unless you can annex all
even if the capital of the enemy at your border or even far within your territory,
and the enemy does not want change the capital by itself (like Istambul by example).
Probably it should make this possible but very expensive.
Both in terms of War Store and of Infamy (or that there will be at this place in upcoming game).
For example: to annex the capital it must cost 2 - 3 or 4 times more expensive than any other province but be possible.

 

[unmerged(431840)]

A vassalized elector should probably lose its elector status to its new liege. This would mean that vassalizing an elector turns you into an elector. Vassalizing additional electors would not give you additional votes. Instead the number of electors would fall, and then the emperor would make more electors.

 

[Chamboozer]

I'd go so far as to say that it should be impossible to vassalize a country which is a member of the HRE. After all, the members were theoretically vassals to the Emperor.

 

[Magnive]

I agree there. PUs across the HRE borders should be possible, but alliances between HRE members and non-HRE members should have a limitation or something. I find it slightly annoying being at war with a HRE member because I DoW France or someone like that (Often Bavaria then )

 

[Grubnessul]

More importantly, vassals should not be too content with their position, they should rebel if they're in a position to, just like junior partners in a PU.

 

[Unready]

A vassalized elector should probably lose its elector status to its new liege. This would mean that vassalizing an elector turns you into an elector. Vassalizing additional electors would not give you additional votes. Instead the number of electors would fall, and then the emperor would make more electors.

Yea, something like that.

I'd go so far as to say that it should be impossible to vassalize a country which is a member of the HRE. After all, the members were theoretically vassals to the Emperor.

Feodalism is not a plain structure its a hierarchy. You must can vassalize other members of HRE, but if they are now your vassals and not a direct vassals of Emperor they may (or must) loose status of elector. Or you must feel the wrath of the Emperor and other his vassals.

More importantly, vassals should not be too content with their position, they should rebel if they're in a position to, just like junior partners in a PU.

I think all vassal must have option to rebel from hatred and/or weakened masters.

 

[Chamboozer]

I'm no expert on the history of the HRE, could anyone who is clarify whether there were any pre-Thirty Years' War instances of an outside power doing anything akin to EUIII's vassalization to a member state?

 

[Nis Baggesen]

Well, Schleswig and Holstein (or Slesvig and Holsten if you prefer) were Danish crown possessions as well as parts of the HRE. They were not elector-states though.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

These would be great changes. Too easy to control the Empire forever, or to become the Golden Horde HRE. >.<

Having to conquer a colonial Empire just for that nation's capital enclave in the middle of your territory? No thanks.

 

[ThePirateMan]

More importantly, vassals should not be too content with their position, they should rebel if they're in a position to, just like junior partners in a PU.

Although for example Brandenburg-Prussia was sort of a vassal (1618-1657 according to wikipedia) to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, even though they were still electors.

 

[1alexey]

The problem with electors is not the fact that they can be vassalised, but the fact that pretty much nobody cares about the fact, especially the Emperor about foreign powers, and the member states do not care about Emperor vassalising electors.

Granted, the Vasalisation of electors by emperor, kind of represents the centralisation-decetralisation dynamics within the empire.

As for vassals, it should be more complex than that. In many cases the Vassal should NOT be villing to revolt, for various rreasons, such as marriages, relativs, geographical position, fear of retaliation from the former master country or greedy neighbours.

For example, India did not revolt against UK in neither of WW1 or WW2, while it had more that realistic chances of winning the revolt, and probably even changing the course of war.

 

[Jia Xu]

Before talking about annexation rules, we would have to consider the CB system. With Vicky2 and CK2, PI seems to be moving toward a more goal focused CB system, so you set war goals and the only thing you can ask for in a peace deal is the terms of one of your CB's goals. If this is the case in EU4, whether you can annex a capital or not may depend solely on whether your CB is targeting the enemy's capital for whatever reason.

 

[Arcvalons]

It's annoying when you want Genoa's italian posessions to unify italy, but doing so requires you to go adventuring into Crimea and Russia.

 

[Unready]

Before talking about annexation rules, we would have to consider the CB system. With Vicky2 and CK2, PI seems to be moving toward a more goal focused CB system, so you set war goals and the only thing you can ask for in a peace deal is the terms of one of your CB's goals. If this is the case in EU4, whether you can annex a capital or not may depend solely on whether your CB is targeting the enemy's capital for whatever reason.

Hmm... In my previous game for Novgorod then Russia I recieve a core to capital of Ottomans in ~1670s only to use it as only CB I had aganist them. I never was allowed to take a cored province named a war, because it was a capital. So I had to war 4 or 5 times just trolling Ottomans before they was weakened enough for being swallowed by neighbors. When I was allowed annex what lasts. At about 1800. Really it very long period for just a war of Bosfor Strait.
I believe if I have 100% WS I must be allowed to get a capital and a country what lost a Capital must choose new one. Like Vishy in France at WWII.

 

[Fawr]

I'd agree about point #2, and Arcvalons. I also just read the same thing in another thread too.

Would it work if you said capitals were only annexable if you were adjacent to that province, and not to any of their other provinces?

So if you were a landlocked Milan who was adjacent to Genoa then you could take it without taking their islands. However if you were the English you couldn't take paris until you got the rest of the main bits of France.