Yes, that's been said earlier in the thread already. I don't see how this corner case benefit is enough to make annexation 10 PP more expensive and increase its difficulty by 50 compared to unification.
Failing the annexation attempt and getting war means that all the resources you invested into this were wasted. It requires a foreign affairs council and requires the minor to at least be a protectorate. If you don't mind taking the minor by force, then why not just declare war in the first place, instead of going half way through the diplomacy route only to then pick the more expensive, harder to succeed card that risks you losing out on all the benefits of a diplomatic annexation?
If annexation was the easier card to play, it would at least make sense to me as a risk vs reward route.
Benefits of diplomatic annexation compared to warfare:
- Only costs PP, no other resource/ manpower
- A lot faster
- The city population is happy, no unrest
- You get all the militia units
- You get the city governor
It feels like unification is missing some additional cost. Maybe a successful unification should also have a credit cost attached, which would be paid into the private economy of the city, making it feel a little more like you're actually giving the minor regime something, instead of this being a very one sided deal.
As said above Annexation is really a bit of a Stratagem in disguise.
Before it got created there was no way to go to war with a client/protectorate state without taking a big hit. This stratagem allows you to do exactly this at a cost in PP instead of in happiness,loyalty etc for breaking your Word.
It is basically a zero-penalty declare war on Minor Stratagem.
The difficulty is higher because nobody likes to receive a threat like this.
< Message edited by Vic -- 6/29/2020 6:29:11 AM >
for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics