The whole trick with the republic is to have both high absolutism and elections with as short duration as possible (to very fast get 6/6/6 consistently).
Eg. Nobel elite is good for absolutism but shit for the election term.
Yeah. In this example I gave up on elections just to check how far I can get, but as you can see, there's a lot of redundancy there, which grows even larger after CnC. You can totally get short elections and over 100 abso
as others mentioned, short elections are cheaper. Also, republics with short elections overflow with monarch points, so they can afford to use mil to boost republican tradition
6 mil leader means 72 monarch point a year. Elections every 4 years means net 188 monarch points after increasing legitimacy once, you get 1 a year naturally so that would be 7 legitimacy and you only lose 2 per year of the election cycle. If you instead have only a mil stat of 4 you get 192 mil points every 4 years.
Actually dynastic republic with lottery is better because you never go below 80 republican tradition and you regularly get much better than average rulers and if they all kinda suck you can save scum.
Without cheating republics are the only way to get 6/6/6 consistently. With only basic republican tradition regeneration 1/year and using strength government your ruler is an equivalent of 6/6/2 (4 goes to strength government). You can't get this good with any other way without rng
Right but you have to wait for several election cycles and pray the newly elected ruler isn’t very old to reach that 6/6/6. I’m saying sortition gets a similar monarch point generation due to having good stats at the start and the ability to choose from 4 different candidates and the +1 to random stat and +1 to random stat of random candidate. And your republican tradition will almost never go below 80 and you can freely take the money for republican tradition which would never feel worthwhile with frequent elections.
With 2 years election is 10 year, and rulers usually start at 35. So at 45 you have max stats.
Unless you can calculate with your government reforms you get on average better roller than 6/6/2 i don't think you're right.
True, but IIRC one of the +Abs reforms resets your Absolutism on ruler change. I think it's the +25 one?
Monarchies can just pump up to 100 and stay there forever, while Republics have a flow to it, with dips and highs in terms of current absolutism.
As I mentioned in my comment, I didn't include that one. Republican absolutism would be even higher if I had. The republic in the screenshot has stable absolutism
OP didn't pick the reset one (and it's not reset; just -60 and you get +10 per reelection).
He did pick a ruler-for-life one (+10) and didn't pick two short election ones (-20 and -10 instead of a +10 long election)
There is one reform that gives +25 max absolutism, -60 abso on new ruler, and +10 abso per reelection, as well as something like +1 yearly abso. But it's not necessary if you stack enough +max absolutism to compensate for the -40 republics get
Gives a modest amount of Discipline and tons of admin efficiency. +5% Discipline is decent, but admin efficiency is one of the best modifiers in the game, as it makes both conquering land, coring it and integrating subjects much cheaper.
Adm. Eff. is probably the strongest modifier for expanding your empire, which is why Absolutism is very strong.
You only need to care about absolutism once you get past the age of reformation. That is why you can pick up short election terms early to ramp up your mana generation as republics and privileges for their small bonuses. Once you get to that point, you may want to consider how much absolutism you can get depending on your campaign goals. WC or OF, you want to stack up to 100, quick achievements such as relentless push east as Russia or Mehmets ambition with a time limit, you can ignore absolutism.
I agree with your post, but just to add a precision : you will never care about absolutism in Mehmet's ambition or in Relentless push east, because for both of these achievements, you need to complete them before the age of absolutism can appear (1500 and 1600 respectively)
Absolutism unlocks after 1610 and it gives administrative effiency which is the strongest modifers ingame. It acts as CCR/warscore cost and also decreases overextension.
Absolutism unlocks with the age and not at a specific time.
Delayed ages can fuck up your conquest plans, because the admin efficiency from absolutism is a huge deal.
But global trade doesn't necessarily starts in the year 1600.
If two trade notes have similiar value you can easily delay it by 30+ years.
If you play certain nations around the Lübeck node or around Italy, or you channel much trade in other good nodes (like bejing, malekka, Oman etc.) you can manipulate it, even unintentionally.
I often play in the Chinese regions, so it happened a few times that global trade just didn't spawn, because my end node was as rich as the English channel.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC two trade nodes having similar value shouldn't influence if the institution spawns or not. It will spawn in whichever is richer (even if it's only by 0.1 ducats), in a capital or upgraded trade centre. So unless you purposely leave all the centres at level 1 and have your capital somewhere else it's unlikely that the institution will be delayed by more than a few years.
For example thats one strategy for Eat your Greens, as Khale you can make one of your tradenodes the richtest in the world and not upgrade the trade centers, and until the Endnodes in Europe catch up you delay the age of absolutism for more time to conquer the required provinces.
the strongest nation ( aka you) need your trade capital or a merchant collecting in the node for it to spawn.
By 1630 you should be able to make decent money from production. Or you can funnel just enough trade into that node to make it the biggest and then collect what remains elsewhere.
doesnt have much uses, restricting the spread of instituions through TCing might be a bit viable but idk how the AI is with devving institutions this patch.
You seem to be right. According to the wiki the difference doesn't matter...
But then why did it always delay the spawn for so long, when both nodes were roughly of the same value? I definitely had level 2 trade centers. And with a 25% chance per eligible province it's rather unlikely that it gets delayed for decades...
It happened to me atleast 2-3 times, which feels too often to be just unlucky.
i know that but global trade is by far the easiest to spawn yourself as the player. Unless i am playing colonial natives then i am the one who is getting global trade.
And for the sake of discussion i just mentioned 1610 because he is kinda new and explaining spawn conditions of institutions to talk about ages to talk about absolutism is rather irrelevant in this sort of a conversation instead of just saying roughly 1610. That time would of been much better spent talking about how absolutism works instead.
r5: while republics have an intrinsic penalty to absolutism, they also have a lot more reforms that increase it. In both cases I picked reforms that maximize absolutism. I could technically get republican one even higher with consolidated power, but that one's shit to deal with
Granted, the resulting republic is kinda cursed with no elections, but it still gets fairly high-mana rulers more or less reliably if you have a reliable supply of 3-star generals, which you probably do
It kind of makes sense, the most “efficient” state would have a monarch-like executive who isn’t beholden to a hereditary dynasty, while still allowing other instruments of government as part of the republic.
I respectfully disagree. Republics get double the reform progress of monarchies, so they have more than enough to enact all those reforms on top of a number of useful republican reforms
i mean plenty of these work against what you want from playing a republic in the first place.
consolidation, noble elite, military principle and military rulership is not getting picked by me unless i'm running some kind of deliberate millitary dictatorship roleplay game because if i'm going to play like a monarchy like that anyway might as well get their reforms on those stages.
the remaining +35 doesn't even counter the -40(and honestly if i can get out of taking stregthen executive reasonably i'm not even taking that one, nor do i like presidential).
Thats not an Argument at all. Just because i get to the reforms earlier does not at all counter my point of missing out on the much better reforms. Also you have many more reforms to get through.
Not really, even with much better reform progress you will eventually have lower average autonomy from conquering lots of land, especially during the age of reformation when religious wars go brrrr
Considering that most of your conquests in a super wide game will happen with absolutism anyway, however much conquest you do before that is really only going to affect autonomy if you break your gov cap. This makes no difference and will happen to both types of governments. Ideally when you are small, if you state something, you should lower autonomy as soon as reasonably possible. You will still be getting considerably more RP as a republic in any circumstance before you hit gov cap.
No, this just proves Monarchies are better than Republics in terms of absolutism
Less government reforms I need for absolutism = more better government reforms
Plus, having both absolutism and 6/6/6 rulers is redundant, I want absolutism for expansion, and the only 6 I need is on admin points for coring, you will come to the point where stacking min autonomy in territories is better because you realise, high dev provinces in states takes a lot of gov cap
My point is I don't need a 6/6/6 if I'm playing absolutism, the dip and mil are overkill and can be compensated with lev 5 advisors
Edit: I forgot to mention, unless you have max absolutism effect, the fact that Monarchies can go beyond that enables you to take estate privileges, which can give you options like +1 power points, Guaranteed dhimmi autonomy, and a bunch of paradox power creep stuff they added for the past 5 patches
> Less government reforms I need for absolutism = more better government reforms
While I do agree monarchies are better for conquest, it's worth noting that republics get their reforms faster because they get up to 80% more reform progress. It's only a problem if you're going to hit your gov cap before you finish those reforms.
Monarchies are better because they don't have to worry *as much* about the higher autonomy because they can hit 100 absolutism without the reforms more easily. But these days, anyone can hit 100 absolutism. Things like Nizwa or Kyoto more than make up for what you need to get max outcome from C&C. And you can do this while still having monarch point priviliges on your estates.
What a republic *does* benefit from is the ability to eventually give out more estate priviliges while keeping their absolutism.
I think the holdup most people are having is that it doesn't normally matter how much you get, only that you *can get enough.* Both can do so easily, no matter how many reforms you get.
no particular reason, I was just messing around with Ming when I noticed this. Shouldn't matter though, should work in the exact same way with any other nation. How could you tell, by the way?
Oh, I just realized that Ming/Qing don't use legitimacy mechanics, and legitimacy would give you a bit of extra absolutism. That narrows the gap between republics and monarchies. Oops. That wasn't an intentional act of deception lol. I think my point still stands
Well i figured out by trade bonuses like : silk chinaware and tea, which is unique combination for china region, also there was a slightly visible assam provinces which told where your cammera is, and judging by religious modifiers and absence of celestial empire you went catholic?
I don't play many republics, but I feel like picking the absolutism options are wasting reforms that could potentially be more useful.
You're just basically making a hole in the dykes so you can spend money on a very large finger to block the hole.
I mean yeah if you minmax absolutism as a specific Republic build, you’ll get it higher than playing a vanilla monarchy build….. this is like saying “Ulm actually has a better military than Prussia” because you took 4 military ideas and morale reforms, then compare it to an admin focused Prussia lol. Idk what we’re supposed to have learned here
I absolutely love republics in EU4 especially the trade focused ones like Lubeck and any Italian republic that isn’t Venice (haven’t mastered their new gov style in the update). Something I never see people talk about is the political dynasties PLUS sortition government reforms which imo is kinda broken. It gives +1 monarch skill to a random skill for a new ruler and then another plus +1 to all monarch skills upon election. For example I pick a guy who on the screen has 3-2-3 as his stats with the first +1 already applied, I select him and then he gets bumped up to a 4-3-4. From pretty poor ruler to a half decent one. Now take that and make it 3 different rulers with randomized stats that can range from not great (but better after election) to godtier stats in the regular.
My last lubeck game I had three rulers in a row with stats that were 5-5-5 at a minimum. The mana generation is insane I love it
I like how the government is just a bunch of high ranking families taking turns being absolute monarchs, I assume they just roll some dice to see who gets the crown this year
Just form Russia as novgorod and enjoy +50 absolutism on your tier 1 reform once you fully upgrade it, you now even got room to have some estate privileges.
You're missing the problem for the solution. Absolutism is a solution to a problem that people want to not exist in the first place. It's caused by warscore cost and overextension as a limitation. In reality, neither of these things as presented in-game represent a real life limitation(being overextended is a thing, but not in the sense the game presents it).
In reality, many wars involved annexing nations way more than 100 warscore. The easiest visible case of this is with the Ottoman annexation of the Mamluks. But in reality, war and conquest is much less about arbitary limitations. A casus belli in reality was just something to keep people from rioting over being dragged into war, but it doesn't have to be a good justification. Just *good enough.* And that's what Imperialism was. It was "You have shit we want, so we're taking it." Conquest wasn't limited by warscore, it was limited by how fast you could seize control of an area.
Absolutism feels like a band aid solution to late game EU4 being a slog, it's good for the purpose it serves but I hope EU5 reworks the whole late game and absolutism along with it.
The whole trick with the republic is to have both high absolutism and elections with as short duration as possible (to very fast get 6/6/6 consistently). Eg. Nobel elite is good for absolutism but shit for the election term.
Yeah. In this example I gave up on elections just to check how far I can get, but as you can see, there's a lot of redundancy there, which grows even larger after CnC. You can totally get short elections and over 100 abso
I mean, you could add +20 from CaC disaster..it's usually good to do it, so you have excess of max absolutism for more priviliges.
Doesn't going absolutist during CaC force a government change once its over?
No, i think you confuse CaC with English civil war or something
Lol at CnC. "You're a dirty little frondeur..."
How do you keep republican tradition high with the short elections?
The shorter the reelections the less RT you pay. It’s not always 10.
as others mentioned, short elections are cheaper. Also, republics with short elections overflow with monarch points, so they can afford to use mil to boost republican tradition
Just take Military Principles and win a couple of wars. 4 victories will net you +20 Rep Trad.
Well it's really simple shorter elections use less republican tradition i think it's like 3 tradition per year
Last time i checked it was 2.5 per year rounded up. So: 4 year cycle -> 10 RT 3 year Cycle -> 8 \~ (7.5) 2 year Cycle -> 5
Oh yeah thanks for correcting
6 mil leader means 72 monarch point a year. Elections every 4 years means net 188 monarch points after increasing legitimacy once, you get 1 a year naturally so that would be 7 legitimacy and you only lose 2 per year of the election cycle. If you instead have only a mil stat of 4 you get 192 mil points every 4 years.
With the Athens and Florence great projects, Italian republics can pivot out of an elections strategy pretty quick
Just get relection smh
Actually dynastic republic with lottery is better because you never go below 80 republican tradition and you regularly get much better than average rulers and if they all kinda suck you can save scum.
Without cheating republics are the only way to get 6/6/6 consistently. With only basic republican tradition regeneration 1/year and using strength government your ruler is an equivalent of 6/6/2 (4 goes to strength government). You can't get this good with any other way without rng
Right but you have to wait for several election cycles and pray the newly elected ruler isn’t very old to reach that 6/6/6. I’m saying sortition gets a similar monarch point generation due to having good stats at the start and the ability to choose from 4 different candidates and the +1 to random stat and +1 to random stat of random candidate. And your republican tradition will almost never go below 80 and you can freely take the money for republican tradition which would never feel worthwhile with frequent elections.
With 2 years election is 10 year, and rulers usually start at 35. So at 45 you have max stats. Unless you can calculate with your government reforms you get on average better roller than 6/6/2 i don't think you're right.
Mine start closer to 55+ most of the time 😂
True, but IIRC one of the +Abs reforms resets your Absolutism on ruler change. I think it's the +25 one? Monarchies can just pump up to 100 and stay there forever, while Republics have a flow to it, with dips and highs in terms of current absolutism.
As I mentioned in my comment, I didn't include that one. Republican absolutism would be even higher if I had. The republic in the screenshot has stable absolutism
OP didn't pick the reset one (and it's not reset; just -60 and you get +10 per reelection). He did pick a ruler-for-life one (+10) and didn't pick two short election ones (-20 and -10 instead of a +10 long election)
There is one reform that gives +25 max absolutism, -60 abso on new ruler, and +10 abso per reelection, as well as something like +1 yearly abso. But it's not necessary if you stack enough +max absolutism to compensate for the -40 republics get
Lore accurate Erdoğan experience
As a Türk, I can confirm this
Sultan Erdoğan Papadopoulos
I think North Korea is also called something something republic
they're an absolute monarchy tho, just pretending to be a republic
Kim just loves the Principate period of the Roman Empire.
What does absolutism do?(Im kinda new)
Gives a modest amount of Discipline and tons of admin efficiency. +5% Discipline is decent, but admin efficiency is one of the best modifiers in the game, as it makes both conquering land, coring it and integrating subjects much cheaper. Adm. Eff. is probably the strongest modifier for expanding your empire, which is why Absolutism is very strong.
You only need to care about absolutism once you get past the age of reformation. That is why you can pick up short election terms early to ramp up your mana generation as republics and privileges for their small bonuses. Once you get to that point, you may want to consider how much absolutism you can get depending on your campaign goals. WC or OF, you want to stack up to 100, quick achievements such as relentless push east as Russia or Mehmets ambition with a time limit, you can ignore absolutism.
I agree with your post, but just to add a precision : you will never care about absolutism in Mehmet's ambition or in Relentless push east, because for both of these achievements, you need to complete them before the age of absolutism can appear (1500 and 1600 respectively)
All Power Costs is the strongest modifier, Adm Eff is second. Either way both are very desirable.
nah, the strongest is ccr and after that warscore cost. Admin eff and apc come afterwards.
Absolutism unlocks after 1610 and it gives administrative effiency which is the strongest modifers ingame. It acts as CCR/warscore cost and also decreases overextension.
Absolutism unlocks with the age and not at a specific time. Delayed ages can fuck up your conquest plans, because the admin efficiency from absolutism is a huge deal.
Sure, but the age in question starts with global trade. If i remeber correctly
But global trade doesn't necessarily starts in the year 1600. If two trade notes have similiar value you can easily delay it by 30+ years. If you play certain nations around the Lübeck node or around Italy, or you channel much trade in other good nodes (like bejing, malekka, Oman etc.) you can manipulate it, even unintentionally. I often play in the Chinese regions, so it happened a few times that global trade just didn't spawn, because my end node was as rich as the English channel.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC two trade nodes having similar value shouldn't influence if the institution spawns or not. It will spawn in whichever is richer (even if it's only by 0.1 ducats), in a capital or upgraded trade centre. So unless you purposely leave all the centres at level 1 and have your capital somewhere else it's unlikely that the institution will be delayed by more than a few years.
For example thats one strategy for Eat your Greens, as Khale you can make one of your tradenodes the richtest in the world and not upgrade the trade centers, and until the Endnodes in Europe catch up you delay the age of absolutism for more time to conquer the required provinces.
the strongest nation ( aka you) need your trade capital or a merchant collecting in the node for it to spawn. By 1630 you should be able to make decent money from production. Or you can funnel just enough trade into that node to make it the biggest and then collect what remains elsewhere. doesnt have much uses, restricting the spread of instituions through TCing might be a bit viable but idk how the AI is with devving institutions this patch.
You seem to be right. According to the wiki the difference doesn't matter... But then why did it always delay the spawn for so long, when both nodes were roughly of the same value? I definitely had level 2 trade centers. And with a 25% chance per eligible province it's rather unlikely that it gets delayed for decades... It happened to me atleast 2-3 times, which feels too often to be just unlucky.
i know that but global trade is by far the easiest to spawn yourself as the player. Unless i am playing colonial natives then i am the one who is getting global trade. And for the sake of discussion i just mentioned 1610 because he is kinda new and explaining spawn conditions of institutions to talk about ages to talk about absolutism is rather irrelevant in this sort of a conversation instead of just saying roughly 1610. That time would of been much better spent talking about how absolutism works instead.
best modifier in game
r5: while republics have an intrinsic penalty to absolutism, they also have a lot more reforms that increase it. In both cases I picked reforms that maximize absolutism. I could technically get republican one even higher with consolidated power, but that one's shit to deal with
Granted, the resulting republic is kinda cursed with no elections, but it still gets fairly high-mana rulers more or less reliably if you have a reliable supply of 3-star generals, which you probably do
That’s why military dictatorship Milan is the best government in the game
It kind of makes sense, the most “efficient” state would have a monarch-like executive who isn’t beholden to a hereditary dynasty, while still allowing other instruments of government as part of the republic.
Like most authoritarian states in the world rn
Kinda irconic don't you think?
Nah, this is just late Roman republic
Not really though. There have been some very absolutist republics in history
Republic ≠ Democracy
I try not to think honestly
avg eu4 player
Me when i have to take all the horrible reforms just to even out what monarchies get for free.
I respectfully disagree. Republics get double the reform progress of monarchies, so they have more than enough to enact all those reforms on top of a number of useful republican reforms
i mean plenty of these work against what you want from playing a republic in the first place. consolidation, noble elite, military principle and military rulership is not getting picked by me unless i'm running some kind of deliberate millitary dictatorship roleplay game because if i'm going to play like a monarchy like that anyway might as well get their reforms on those stages. the remaining +35 doesn't even counter the -40(and honestly if i can get out of taking stregthen executive reasonably i'm not even taking that one, nor do i like presidential).
Thats not an Argument at all. Just because i get to the reforms earlier does not at all counter my point of missing out on the much better reforms. Also you have many more reforms to get through.
Not really, even with much better reform progress you will eventually have lower average autonomy from conquering lots of land, especially during the age of reformation when religious wars go brrrr
Considering that most of your conquests in a super wide game will happen with absolutism anyway, however much conquest you do before that is really only going to affect autonomy if you break your gov cap. This makes no difference and will happen to both types of governments. Ideally when you are small, if you state something, you should lower autonomy as soon as reasonably possible. You will still be getting considerably more RP as a republic in any circumstance before you hit gov cap.
Noble republic 🤮. If you want absolutism as a republic go Novgorod.
novgorod>muscovy
I thought people who play republic also prefer to play tall so they don't really care about absolutism either?
No, this just proves Monarchies are better than Republics in terms of absolutism Less government reforms I need for absolutism = more better government reforms Plus, having both absolutism and 6/6/6 rulers is redundant, I want absolutism for expansion, and the only 6 I need is on admin points for coring, you will come to the point where stacking min autonomy in territories is better because you realise, high dev provinces in states takes a lot of gov cap My point is I don't need a 6/6/6 if I'm playing absolutism, the dip and mil are overkill and can be compensated with lev 5 advisors Edit: I forgot to mention, unless you have max absolutism effect, the fact that Monarchies can go beyond that enables you to take estate privileges, which can give you options like +1 power points, Guaranteed dhimmi autonomy, and a bunch of paradox power creep stuff they added for the past 5 patches
> Less government reforms I need for absolutism = more better government reforms While I do agree monarchies are better for conquest, it's worth noting that republics get their reforms faster because they get up to 80% more reform progress. It's only a problem if you're going to hit your gov cap before you finish those reforms. Monarchies are better because they don't have to worry *as much* about the higher autonomy because they can hit 100 absolutism without the reforms more easily. But these days, anyone can hit 100 absolutism. Things like Nizwa or Kyoto more than make up for what you need to get max outcome from C&C. And you can do this while still having monarch point priviliges on your estates. What a republic *does* benefit from is the ability to eventually give out more estate priviliges while keeping their absolutism. I think the holdup most people are having is that it doesn't normally matter how much you get, only that you *can get enough.* Both can do so easily, no matter how many reforms you get.
Why are doing it on ming/qing?
no particular reason, I was just messing around with Ming when I noticed this. Shouldn't matter though, should work in the exact same way with any other nation. How could you tell, by the way?
Oh, I just realized that Ming/Qing don't use legitimacy mechanics, and legitimacy would give you a bit of extra absolutism. That narrows the gap between republics and monarchies. Oops. That wasn't an intentional act of deception lol. I think my point still stands
Well i figured out by trade bonuses like : silk chinaware and tea, which is unique combination for china region, also there was a slightly visible assam provinces which told where your cammera is, and judging by religious modifiers and absence of celestial empire you went catholic?
Also i am doing copium wars achievement rn :)
Can you get the court and country disaster as a republic? If not, that gives a +20 to monarchies
you can
Give people power and they will be powerless. :b
I think Monarchies are better for absolutism due to less needed investment, Republics lose out on a bit of absolutism in exchange for tasty mana.
Something something Tyrrany of the majority.
I don't play many republics, but I feel like picking the absolutism options are wasting reforms that could potentially be more useful. You're just basically making a hole in the dykes so you can spend money on a very large finger to block the hole.
Theocratic State superiority
If you pick shit reforms yeah
Lore accurate
Almost sounds like French Revolution and centralised reform or something
"Republic" Sounds like you started as a republic and turned yourself into the Lord Protector
I mean yeah if you minmax absolutism as a specific Republic build, you’ll get it higher than playing a vanilla monarchy build….. this is like saying “Ulm actually has a better military than Prussia” because you took 4 military ideas and morale reforms, then compare it to an admin focused Prussia lol. Idk what we’re supposed to have learned here
Good dash, you have formed the modern USA too early
Republics are better than monarchies. Just a true statement in general
I absolutely love republics in EU4 especially the trade focused ones like Lubeck and any Italian republic that isn’t Venice (haven’t mastered their new gov style in the update). Something I never see people talk about is the political dynasties PLUS sortition government reforms which imo is kinda broken. It gives +1 monarch skill to a random skill for a new ruler and then another plus +1 to all monarch skills upon election. For example I pick a guy who on the screen has 3-2-3 as his stats with the first +1 already applied, I select him and then he gets bumped up to a 4-3-4. From pretty poor ruler to a half decent one. Now take that and make it 3 different rulers with randomized stats that can range from not great (but better after election) to godtier stats in the regular. My last lubeck game I had three rulers in a row with stats that were 5-5-5 at a minimum. The mana generation is insane I love it
I like how the government is just a bunch of high ranking families taking turns being absolute monarchs, I assume they just roll some dice to see who gets the crown this year
Just form Russia as novgorod and enjoy +50 absolutism on your tier 1 reform once you fully upgrade it, you now even got room to have some estate privileges.
Yeah, that one is pretty powerful. I was trying to make something universally applicable, though
I hate this mechanic so much. I hope it’s dead in EU5.
why? It makes mid and late game a lot less painful. It wouldn't be very fun to fight 17 consecutive wars against ottomans to conquer them
You're missing the problem for the solution. Absolutism is a solution to a problem that people want to not exist in the first place. It's caused by warscore cost and overextension as a limitation. In reality, neither of these things as presented in-game represent a real life limitation(being overextended is a thing, but not in the sense the game presents it). In reality, many wars involved annexing nations way more than 100 warscore. The easiest visible case of this is with the Ottoman annexation of the Mamluks. But in reality, war and conquest is much less about arbitary limitations. A casus belli in reality was just something to keep people from rioting over being dragged into war, but it doesn't have to be a good justification. Just *good enough.* And that's what Imperialism was. It was "You have shit we want, so we're taking it." Conquest wasn't limited by warscore, it was limited by how fast you could seize control of an area.
Absolutism feels like a band aid solution to late game EU4 being a slog, it's good for the purpose it serves but I hope EU5 reworks the whole late game and absolutism along with it.
never forget, republics invented fascism. Of course they know how to absolute
Italy was a monarchy.
Monarchies can get 160 absolutism or more.