Empire: To confederate or not?

[algame]

Started playing as Franz, dont think I have really played Empire since first game so have not used the new Elector system. With the option to confederate Stirland I am wondering if there is any reason not to and leave them autonomous? Is there any advantages to not confederating or should one always do it when its available?

[Sleepy]

When you confederate you do lose points in the elector count system and that might lead to war with everybody eventually. It should be fine as long as you manage to get your points back up before another confed. The elector count system is barebones in my opinion. It's nowhere deep enough to be considered a decent "empire management" mechanic. In my last Franz run I ended up getting sick of it and conquering the whole empire lands by force and just tanked the red bar at the top. Eventually, through random events, I got to green again which is funny.
If you don't confed they might end up getting killed by vlad and you lose points that way anyway. So there's also that to consider.

[ChaosKhan]

Only confederate as much, as you can protect. There is nothing wrong with postponing conderations for 2 reasons:
1. AI factions tend to be reasonable "meat shields" so you can focus on one threat at a time.
2. AI upgrades and grows settlements for free for you. The later you confederate, the higher tier settlements you will get.

Generally, I suggest to start confederations with the closest factions and then "grow outwards". So your first priority for it would be Middenland and Wissenland, then you can proceed with the Golden Order and Talabecland, etc. Especially heavily contested territories like Stirland and Nordland are very "toxic" to confederate early: You will invest tons into upgrading and protecting them, without much return.

[algame]

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

Only confederate as much, as you can protect. There is nothing wrong with postponing conderations for 2 reasons:
1. AI factions tend to be reasonable "meat shields" so you can focus on one threat at a time.
2. AI upgrades and grows settlements for free for you. The later you confederate, the higher tier settlements you will get.

Generally, I suggest to start confederations with the closest factions and then "grow outwards". So your first priority for it would be Middenland and Wissenland, then you can proceed with the Golden Order and Talabecland, etc. Especially heavily contested territories like Stirland and Nordland are very "toxic" to confederate early: You will invest tons into upgrading and protecting them, without much return.

Good points, thats what I was thinking with Stirland, it opens up my borders to a whole bunch more enemies if I confed them.

[ChaosKhan]

Originally posted by algame:

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

Only confederate as much, as you can protect. There is nothing wrong with postponing conderations for 2 reasons:
1. AI factions tend to be reasonable "meat shields" so you can focus on one threat at a time.
2. AI upgrades and grows settlements for free for you. The later you confederate, the higher tier settlements you will get.

Generally, I suggest to start confederations with the closest factions and then "grow outwards". So your first priority for it would be Middenland and Wissenland, then you can proceed with the Golden Order and Talabecland, etc. Especially heavily contested territories like Stirland and Nordland are very "toxic" to confederate early: You will invest tons into upgrading and protecting them, without much return.

Good points, thats what I was thinking with Stirland, it opens up my borders to a whole bunch more enemies if I confed them.

Another issue is, that bringing up Fealty is way easier with positive imperial authority. If you stack the positive value up and start confederating later, you can "snowball" confederations one after the other and tank the -3 IA penalty with ease, without dropping into neutral or negative values.

[Mky]

You also build authority by delaying confed which is a useful ressource early on