Autonomy based on distance - Mod Idea

[Moo Zedong]

I have a problem with the new autonomy system, which I think is a step forward but is flawed. This is evident in the Inca because colonies cant go below 50% autonomy, yet provinces conquered in Mexico can lower to 50%. This problem also exists for Russia and African nations. Its seems to be for historical accuracy, but it doesn't accomplish that since conquered provinces can lower to 0%. There's mods which fix this, lowering the minimum to 0, but this problem inspired me to make a new system.

Autonomy based on distance; where autonomy is lower the closer a province is to the capital, and higher the further it gets away. Autonomy would lower automatically for provinces closer to the capital at a rate which diminishes after a certain distance. At a certain distance the equation flips, and autonomy raises the further it gets away. The minimum autonomy for a province would be zero (except maybe distant overseas would be 50% -thoughts?). This system would value colonized and conquered provinces equally, and would make the game more historically accurate. The system of raising and lowering autonomy still applies, and one could lower autonomy in a faraway province, however it would be likely to revolt and would raise its own autonomy over time. Furthermore, this system would add value to a capital's location, which is mostly flavor at this point. Also this system would help stop the snowballing, of large empires, and perhaps keep nations within historical jurisdiction.

I've looked through the defines.lua and I cant find a distance modifier for autonomy and it doesn't seem to be something that can be edited in the text documents, so I'm at a loss. Does anyone know what I'd have to do to create this? Ideally I'd like to see the devs implement this idea. BTW I don't care if anyone takes this idea and mods it, just make sure you publish it so I can use it too!

 

[Freudia]

Your entire system can be straight-up ignored with vassals. The idea isn't terrible, but I don't like the implication of forcing vassals onto people even more than the game already encourages. Might be down for playing a few games with such a mod, though, just for fun and curiosity.

 

[slv]

(except maybe distant overseas would be 50% -thoughts?)

Get rid of distant Overseas altogether. The floor should just depend on the distance.

Play as Tuscany. Tunis is distant overseas while Neva is not.

 

[Pilon23]

Your entire system can be straight-up ignored with vassals. The idea isn't terrible, but I don't like the implication of forcing vassals onto people even more than the game already encourages. Might be down for playing a few games with such a mod, though, just for fun and curiosity.

I don't understand the logic here. Let's say it is scaled so the other side of the globe will try to creep up until it hits 80 local autonomy. In what way would it be better for you if your vassal owned that than if you did? Your vassals pay 10% of their tax income, so that'd be the same as 90 local autonomy income-wise. I don't know the other benefits of vassals, so could you elaborate on your point?

 

[Freudia]

I don't understand the logic here. Let's say it is scaled so the other side of the globe will try to creep up until it hits 80 local autonomy. In what way would it be better for you if your vassal owned that than if you did? Your vassals pay 10% of their tax income, so that'd be the same as 90 local autonomy income-wise. I don't know the other benefits of vassals, so could you elaborate on your point?

You mean aside from the fact that they're basically allied nations who are forced to join every war you declare, can't peace out, and can utilize said land better than you can considering you get nearly nothing out of 80LA land? Which do you think is more useful: owning provinces halfway around the globe that you get nothing out of, or owning a vassal halfway around the globe who gets things out of the land you give them?

 

[Pilon23]

You mean aside from the fact that they're basically allied nations who are forced to join every war you declare, can't peace out, and can utilize said land better than you can considering you get nearly nothing out of 80LA land? Which do you think is more useful: owning provinces halfway around the globe that you get nothing out of, or owning a vassal halfway around the globe who gets things out of the land you give them?

Hmm... I'm tempted to pick the latter, but I feel that that's exactly what you'd want me to do..

Yes, with the 80LA example I'd probably also pick the latter! However, I don't value my allies' troops at nearly the same rate as I value my own. It's probably closer to a 1-2 rate.

For realism purposes I don't think this would be a bad idea at all. I can't think of a nation in history that has governed its distant provinces as well as its home provinces, and if I'm not mistaken many of such distant colonies/conquests were managed by colonial nations or client states. So I don't see why I would be a problem that the game gently hints at Spain setting up a vassal in India to manage their affairs, rather than having things under their own control with no problems - even if it had a land connection from it's capital to India. You'd still be free to keep the land yourself at a high local autonomy level.

 

[Rudolph]

You mean aside from the fact that they're basically allied nations who are forced to join every war you declare, can't peace out, and can utilize said land better than you can considering you get nearly nothing out of 80LA land? Which do you think is more useful: owning provinces halfway around the globe that you get nothing out of, or owning a vassal halfway around the globe who gets things out of the land you give them?

You are complaining to the wrong entity, make PI change how vassals work so they are more likely to revolt. I don't see the problem to begin with tho, makes perfect sense that you would appoint someone to govern the land locally as opposed to a monarch hundreds of miles away.
Also if you start a war in Europe, your asian vassal(s) are more likely than not, never showing up for the party. Hence they are mostly useless in that regard, but great at building up the area for you. And no you don't "get nothing out of" it, you get 20% as opposed to the vassal that is a longterm investment of 10% income for buildings and some troops you might get to use in certain wars.

OP: Nice idea but stay away form distant-overseas, the biggest beef I have with EU4's current system. It would probably take some time to set up custom rule-set for the Mediterranean sea, but should have been done multiple patches ago. A 15km crossing, or inland sea for that matter isn't distant, and should not give the same penalty as land halfway across the globe not connected to your capital.

 

[Freudia]

Hmm... I'm tempted to pick the latter, but I feel that that's exactly what you'd want me to do..

Yes, with the 80LA example I'd probably also pick the latter! However, I don't value my allies' troops at nearly the same rate as I value my own. It's probably closer to a 1-2 rate.

For realism purposes I don't think this would be a bad idea at all. I can't think of a nation in history that has governed its distant provinces as well as its home provinces, and if I'm not mistaken many of such distant colonies/conquests were managed by colonial nations or client states. So I don't see why I would be a problem that the game gently hints at Spain setting up a vassal in India to manage their affairs, rather than having things under their own control with no problems - even if it had a land connection from it's capital to India. You'd still be free to keep the land yourself at a high local autonomy level.

Yes, that is my point. Currently though, you have the option; you can establish a vassal in India, or you can conquer land all the way to India and have it be joined to your capital and get bonuses out of that same land. It's a less "this is right and this is wrong" choice over what OP's suggestion is, as in both options available for the current state of the game, the player gets something useful. In OP's suggestion, the only true choice is to create a vassal, as you're otherwise locked into permanent 80% LA that you get nearly nothing out of, even if you have a connection from that land to your capital.

Yes it realistically makes sense, but I'm not sure if I like the effects it would have on gameplay. Hence why I think it's an alright idea on paper, but might be iffy in practice.

 

[Pilon23]

If I understood OP's idea correctly, the LA should NOT be permanent, but it should rather slowly increase (up to a cap or not, I don't know). Thus even if the province has a target of 80 LA, and slowly increases by let's say 0.05 LA per month, the province would gain 18 LA per 30 years, while you can reduce the autonomy by 25 every 30 years in exchange for unrest. Thus you could slowly battle away at the autonomy representing the real struggle of large empires in dealing with distant provinces under their direct control. Remember that all these numbers are just pulled out of thin air. I think with the right balancing this could have potential. Suddenly the choice becomes
a) do I want to benefit directly from my provinces and manage revolts halfway across the globe?
or
b) do I want to focus elsewhere and let a vassal take care of it?

This could also make colonial nations optional and make them serve a similar purpose to vassals.

 

[Moo Zedong]

@Pilon You got the idea about LA, except there is no cap, just a gradual increase or decrease. Colonial nations aren't exactly optional (though they theoretically could be with modding) since the game creates one for you the second you have 5 provinces.

As to Freudia, I'd rather the player not be able mega-blob and own everything from England to Siberia with no penalty. The mod would encourage a vassal/march/client state/trade company/protectorate. Its mostly for realism purposes, but it is also good for game-play as it prevents snowballing. Keep in mind vassals require diplo-relations and since client-states aren't available till later that can hurt technological progress to spam vassals. Still, the system can be overridden with vassals, but at least its better than allowing the player to annex stuff halfway across the map without much penalty. Also keep in mind that you could annex stuff across the map and keep it at 0 autonomy by constantly lowering it, but it would cause many revolts.

As for distant over seas I think you guys are right, it should be non-existant. So are there any modders who can point me in the right direction? I'm not sure what I need to do to create this mod at this point, since it isn't just editing in-game stuff, but creating a new mechanic.

 

[Pilon23]

@Moo Zedong have you tried in the mods forum? I can't help you at all, but would much prefer to play with your version of LA than the current one. Please let me know if you succeed
Just for fun I went to check out how absurd the current system could get:

EDIT: Fixed pictures thanks to Path

EDIT: To achieve 0 Local Autonomy in strange locations, 1) Arawak could vassalize+integrate Mapuche, 2) Ternate could vassalize+integrate Uzbek, 3) and Mamluks could vassalize+integrate Kongo

 

[Path]

How can you have 0% autonomy in St. Helena? It's a colony, and colonies are capped at 50%.

 

[Pilon23]

How can you have 0% autonomy in St. Helena? It's a colony, and colonies are capped at 50%.

Guess I have some editing to do... Should really have caught that before posting haha. They showed 0 LA because I just used the console to check how things worked, thus they didn't come to be as colonies but just instantly became cities.
Anyhow, you can replace Falklands with Huillimapu (or wherever Mapuche migrate to) and St. Helena with Kongo's coast. And for the Siberian colony you could take a Northern Uzbeki province. All of those could be brought to 0 Local Autonomy.

 

[Path]

Guess I have some editing to do... Should really have caught that before posting haha. They showed 0 LA because I just used the console to check how things worked, thus they didn't come to be as a colony but just instantly became cities.
Anyhow, you can replace Falklands with Huillimapu (or wherever Mapuche migrate to) and St. Helena with Kongo's coast.

You can create new cities using the console? Learned something new today

Still, I agree that the current system for autonomy is a little too simplified (hell, even the TW series with their rather simplistic strategic layer have had mechanics for penalizing large empires since at least MTW2)--I'd like to see a simple corruption/bureaucratic inefficiency penalty too that would grow with the empire (and possibly be modified by technology, meaning an empire with high administrative and diplomatic technology can handle sprawling empires better than some technological backwater), seeing as a large empire is bound to be less efficient and corruption is an inevitable problem when you're forced to release authority to viceroys and similar dignitaries (no one person could personally govern an empire spanning the entire world in an age where it could take a year to get reliable tidings from one part of the world to another).

In my current campaign I'd moved my capital to London for a variety of reasons, and was stumped as to why my colonies and territories in Asia were capped at 75% autonomy despite a land connection to my European holdings. It took a few min for me to remember that the British Isles don't count as being connected to Europe. At least that's one mistake I'm not going to make again, but it did feel a bit daft.

 

[AurochsAway]

Guess I have some editing to do... Should really have caught that before posting haha. They showed 0 LA because I just used the console to check how things worked, thus they didn't come to be as colonies but just instantly became cities.
Anyhow, you can replace Falklands with Huillimapu (or wherever Mapuche migrate to) and St. Helena with Kongo's coast. And for the Siberian colony you could take a Northern Uzbeki province. All of those could be brought to 0 Local Autonomy.

Furthermore no self-respecting Mamluke would have a 75% floor on Arabia, as it disappears with a direct connection I believe. Much like CNs in the Americas.

 

[Pilon23]

You can create new cities using the console? Learned something new today

Still, I agree that the current system for autonomy is a little too simplified (hell, even the TW series with their rather simplistic strategic layer have had mechanics for penalizing large empires since at least MTW2)--I'd like to see a simple corruption/bureaucratic inefficiency penalty too that would grow with the empire (and possibly be modified by technology, meaning an empire with high administrative and diplomatic technology can handle sprawling empires better than some technological backwater), seeing as a large empire is bound to be less efficient and corruption is an inevitable problem when you're forced to release authority to viceroys and similar dignitaries (no one person could personally govern an empire spanning the entire world in an age where it could take a year to get reliable tidings from one part of the world to another).

In my current campaign I'd moved my capital to London for a variety of reasons, and was stumped as to why my colonies and territories in Asia were capped at 75% autonomy despite a land connection to my European holdings. It took a few min for me to remember that the British Isles don't count as being connected to Europe. At least that's one mistake I'm not going to make again, but it did feel a bit daft.

To play around with the console just type in: "own province_id" e.g. you can type own 495 to give yourself Antigua. You can then type add_core 495 to core it. Here's a list of all province IDs http://www.eu4wiki.com/List_of_provinces and here are other fun commands for the console http://www.eu4wiki.com/Console_commands
Enjoy responsibly!

Distant overseas have been simplified right from the beginning. But I'd still rather have this, at times, strange system than 0 Local Autonomy anywhere. Imagine Spain's power 200 years into the game. The lesser of two evils. Although a revamp would be great - from Paradox or from a mod doesn't matter to me

 

[Pilon23]

Furthermore no self-respecting Mamluke would have a 75% floor on Arabia, as it disappears with a direct connection I believe. Much like CNs in the Americas.

No, I imagine most players would sort that stuff out! But imagine a person who's new to the game. He might conquer parts of Arabia, but then lose provinces to the Ottomans in a war. Thus he'd be left with 75% LA provinces, which his people can actually see from across the Red Sea!
Also, this was mostly just to show how bad it could potentially get

 

[monduin]

I really like OP's idea, and i think that there really shouldnt be a cap on how high LA could get, instead you would have a system of monthly LA change that depends on a number of factors like, tech, tech group, government type, ideas, and policies and it all ties in to distance from capital.

So Russia at say DIP tech 12 would have a x monthly LA change for provinces at y distance, this way at low tech levels it would be harder to control a vast empire but it gets easier with better technology, up to certain point.

 

[AurochsAway]

No, I imagine most players would sort that stuff out! But imagine a person who's new to the game. He might conquer parts of Arabia, but then lose provinces to the Ottomans in a war. Thus he'd be left with 75% LA provinces, which his people can actually see from across the Red Sea!
Also, this was mostly just to show how bad it could potentially get

If that happens do they all instantly jump to 75%?

 

[Pilon23]

If that happens do they all instantly jump to 75%?

You'd probably have to wait a month for it to register, but yes. You can test this in the console by giving yourself provinces from Hejaz until you have a land connection to Jeddah. Then switch tag to Hejaz and take back one of the provinces. Then on the following month Jeddah should be 75% LA again.