Suggestion for a new rule in mp

[Hive]

I have been thinking of a new rule, which I think will make mp more balancing. We all know that WE rises much faster since 1.06, and that WE rises faster in non-core provinces - which can make wars really tough with certain nations. So, I suggest the following:
If a country has owned a non-core province, with the same culture as your state culture for more than 30 years (when nationalism ends), the province should be edited as a core - but only if

1. The province has land connection to the capital

or

2. The province is an island placed within 2 sea squares of a province with land connection to the capital

This would certainly make countries like Russia, Brandenburg and Venice more desireable to play long term (especially Russia, who could gain CB's on all of Siberia). I know, that some would claim it to be unhistorical, but in EU2 you get the chance to alter history anyway... An example: in RL Venice conquered Mantua. If, in a mp game, Venice was to conquer Lombardia as well (and keep it for a while), shouldn't Mantua and Lombardia be viewed upon as aqual pieces of Venice? Seriously, I don't think that the province Salzburg would suffer any more of WE in RL because it's a part of Bavaria (which it originally was) rather than Austria...

What do you all think?

 

[Mowers]

People hate editing and rules.
This rule could be exploited.
I dont think you are on to a winner here.

 

[metroncho]

Russia already gets cores all over Siberia.

The problem is i see a lot of abuse of WE now. Yes, people shouldn´t overexpand, but still crushing a country mainly by WE is something intrisecaly wrong. Let´s see how the new modelling works, with the WE reduction if there is no military action.

 

[Mowers]

With more players the WE tactic will entail greater risk.

 

[JohnMK]

The new WE system is great! It heavily discourages the use of war taxes and indeed war exhaustion will fall if there's not constant conflict!

 

[Hive]

Does anyone at all like my idea?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Hive
Does anyone at all like my idea?

No. But that doesn't mean we don't like you.

I think the killing a country by WE could be more exploited in MP (especially now that there can be many more players) because there is the potential of many more countries ganging up on one country to continually keep them at war. The AI only did this if you were a real bad boy - even then the AI countries would all DoW at the same time and not always string 'em out to keep the bad boy at war - but with more players there is no need fora high BB rating for players to attack one country.



EDIT: This makes me wonder - is there already something in place where everyone has a free CB on a country which is a scum of the earth? If not, it might be a good idea to have such a thing.

 

[Hive]

Hmm... apparantly, as Mowers put it, I'm not onto a winner here...

I think maybe it's because I have a somewhat different oppinion on how a game may develop than many others. Indeed, it wouldn't be historical if Brandenburg unites Northern Germany, or Venice unites Italy - but I play EU2 to alter history (to a certain degree, not to recreate it exactly as it was. Besides, I think a united Northern Germany and a united Italy would do wonders to game balance in Europe.

But hey, I just saw Red Phoenix and Mowers having a discussion on the 'historical accuracy' matter in another thread, so I'll just let it rest.