login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
http://www.eu4wiki.com/Cassus_belli
There are too many CBs to just list all the advantages/disadvantages but I can answer the difference between Imperialism and Conquest.
Conquest has an easier wargoal that only requires taking that wargoal and holding it. Outside of being the fabrication CB available to anyone, this is useful for fighting large empires nearby without having to fight all the way to the capital. Its a basic CB so there isn't anything special outside of 0 dip cost for the claims and reduction to AE for the claims you take.
Imperialism is great (if you can fight all the way to their capital) for taking big swathes of land since it has a reduction to warscore cost, AE and 0 dip cost for provinces taken. The only issue is that you must get to the capital for the wargoal...so it isn't as useful for fighting empires that are a bit out of reach or more powerful.
Why use Conquest instead of Imperialism? An example can be if you are Brunei and Portugal is in Malaysia. If you were to use Imperialism, you won't get a ticking warscore unless you take Lisbon. That war will last a long time and the land you take won't matter in the score. Now, if you had a Conquest CB on the land near you, then you could just take it and hold out until the AI accepts the loss since the ticker will keep rising.