Why can't I disband ironclads in Hannover because New Guinea is militant?

[kingsword]

So we can't upgrade ironclads to dreadnoughts, it's weird since sailing ships can apparently get iron plating but whatever I guess. Losing naval experience is annoying but I'll live. However because rubber laborers in New Guinea are apparently following the instagram accounts of rich kids in Berlin financial districts partying, they have a +50% SoL comparison to the average in the country that pushes them to militant. I had the same problem in Africa but as soon as I released those as colonial administrations, New Guinea secession movement took over.

Moreover, there's no releasable country for that region so I'm stuck with these obsolete ships in Germany because it was thought a good idea to block troop disbanding across the entire empire no matter how remote and irrelevant? Why isn't that limited to only the provinces which might secede? Do I gift the whole island to Netherlands or what to be rid of this ridiculous rule?

 

[masteriw]

That's because the war system in this game is merely a mock-up. It has to be removed completely in favor of an actual system.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Not sure why paradox choose to do this, you can neither close bureaucracy's, university's or constructions centers for example or disband armies across your empire regardless how tiny and insignificant those rebels are, yes thats kinda just annoying really.

 

[GreyOgre]

Not sure why paradox choose to do this [...]

I'm not saying it's a good solution, but the "why" is so that you can't sabotage the would-be revolutionary country by deleting their military or government infrastructure, which was a popular cheese in earlier versions.
I guess it does make sense that soldiers on the brink of mutiny or outright revolution would refuse to disarm, but it obviously shouldn't be country-wide.

 

[Impognagrift]

That's because the war system in this game is merely a mock-up. It has to be removed completely in favor of an actual system.

What does OP's issue have to do with the war system at all? Did you even read the goddamn post, or do you just have a pavlovian reaction to the mention of units?

 

[Zander]

I'm not saying it's a good solution, but the "why" is so that you can't sabotage the would-be revolutionary country by deleting their military or government infrastructure, which was a popular cheese in earlier versions.
I guess it does make sense that soldiers on the brink of mutiny or outright revolution would refuse to disarm, but it obviously shouldn't be country-wide.

Yeah, before the revolutions were clear about what provinces were going to rebel, it made at least a little sense. Now that rebellions are specific, they should really only restrict deleting buildings in the rebellious provinces.

 

[kingsword]

I ended up trading away New Guinea to Netherlands which paid me back the next year by demanding to annex my ally Japan. I have enough military power projection to fight off everyone simultaneously and Netherlands is in my power bloc but it thinks I'll just ignore a call from my ally. Oh and the even funnier thing is that for New Guinea I got some piece of Niger to give my vassal German Niger who's allied to Netherlands to fight me now. Just another classic Vic 3 AI moment I guess, the craziness ride never stops.

 

[masteriw]

What does OP's issue have to do with the war system at all? Did you even read the goddamn post, or do you just have a pavlovian reaction to the mention of units?

Don't you think upgrading warships is part of the war system? It's funny you decided to be this rude over something you're so wrong about.

 

[Impognagrift]

No, I really don't think it is.

 

[Bisonmask]

the idea is that a blanket ban on disbanding troops while a revolution approaches prevents you from weakening revolutions preemptively. it's true that secession shouldn't be as restrictive but then the game has to start checking which states are revolting for every revolution and recalculating every time something changes

 

[kingsword]

the idea is that a blanket ban on disbanding troops while a revolution approaches prevents you from weakening revolutions preemptively. it's true that secession shouldn't be as restrictive but then the game has to start checking which states are revolting for every revolution and recalculating every time something changes

Then do that. The game cannot cop out of fixing every broken rule by saying "it takes process power". Then you don't introduce the rule. They have ruined the game just to cater to people wanting to 5 speed 1900s in an hour.

It's not even going to fire, waited 5 years while it ping-ponged between 75-100 until I was finally fed up and donated the land. Then they had the island for 10 years and still not rebelling but it's hovering over militant. It's ridiculous really.

 

[Desseabar]

the idea is that a blanket ban on disbanding troops while a revolution approaches prevents you from weakening revolutions preemptively. it's true that secession shouldn't be as restrictive but then the game has to start checking which states are revolting for every revolution and recalculating every time something changes

Even beyond that, it's to make sure you don't weaken before switching sides. E.g., if you wanted to play as the Confederates, you shouldn't be allowed to disband the entire Union army to make that easy for yourself before switching sides.

Maybe the answer is to just allow the cheese so that these edge cases aren't caused and trust players there.

 

[A Pink Duck]

Even beyond that, it's to make sure you don't weaken before switching sides. E.g., if you wanted to play as the Confederates, you shouldn't be allowed to disband the entire Union army to make that easy for yourself before switching sides.

Maybe the answer is to just allow the cheese so that these edge cases aren't caused and trust players there.

Or, let them do it but have it cause extra radicals. Also, make decreasing building sizes not be instant. If dismantling buildings wasn't instant (so you can't actually completely neuter your opponent) and actively caused the war they were trying to make easier then players wouldn't try.

I imagine the union would have loved to take all the Confederate weapons before the war started, but even attempting to do it would have kicked off the war immediately.

 

[Kantheras]

Even beyond that, it's to make sure you don't weaken before switching sides. E.g., if you wanted to play as the Confederates, you shouldn't be allowed to disband the entire Union army to make that easy for yourself before switching sides.

Maybe the answer is to just allow the cheese so that these edge cases aren't caused and trust players there.

You can still do that, once you get into the diplomatic play, unless you have another revolution/succession you can delete barracks and switch sides.

 

[Anna_Gein]

It is ridiculous the devs did not applied a check so building disbanding would be prevented only in the provinces revolting.

Then again, the game miss a lot of fairly obvious QoL features. One I find annoying is that there is no way to tell the AI to auto build until a building reach your maximum economy of scale bonus.