Change to vassal inheritance and integration

[Me_]

I never liked the core mechanism of vassal integration - it's way too quick to get some nation to become a vassal and then strip it of all independence. In the real world, many subject nations continued as subjects for multiple generations and integration was more likely to happen due to inheritance law than some administrative agreement.

Therefore, I propose a change to the way subjects work. This would affect all vassals, marches and client states.

Firs, the time needed for integration would change. Now it would only be available after 50 years for vassals and marches. It would still be 10 years for client states as they are mostly inspired by Napoleonic client states which were vary fluid and ephemeral.

Before you get upset that this would make expansion via vassals extremely uninteresting, let me get a little bit further and introduce Vassal inheritance laws. Currently vassals can occassionally get inherited by their overlord. I wold suggest changing that randomness into strict ruler, reflecting the real-life arrangements. vassal inheritance rules would be as follows:
0. Never - the default value for all republican vassals, except those with rulers reigning for life.
1. On lack of heir - for feudal vassals with heirs only - if the subject has no heir, they WILL (not can - will) be inherited by their overlord, a common way for monarchies to integrate their subjects was through a "default" clause of most feudal land grants
2. On weak heir - for feudal vassals with heirs only - same as above, but it is enough for the heir to have weak claim - this represents the ruler overruling the weak heir's claim having this rule enabled would lower the loyalty of the subject, also, if the subject is disloyal on their monarch's death, the heir can choose to declare independence war. The war would allow the overlord to annex the subject at no cost, but if lost this war would result in the overlord losing all claims on the subject
3. Each ruler accepted - available for feudal and theocratic vassals as well as republics with rulers for life - this represents lands that would effectively be granted only for life of the rant's recipient. On ruler death the overlord gets an event where they can choose to integrate the vassal or appoint a new ruler there. This inheritance law would lower loyalty more than "on weak heir", and for feudal vassals could also result in an independence war. For theocratic subjects, choosing integration would temporarily lower religious unity.

 

[Sidolowka]

Small note that this would make vassals very ahistoric for basically all non-Christians.

 

[Arizal]

While I like the idea of deepening the vassal mechanic, I don't really like this proposal. It only delays the inevitable.

If I may make my own proposal, I would prefer if there were two stage of vassalization : one in which the country is on the map, has liberty desire, is able to make diplomacy and can be diplomatically annexed by using diplo points and another one, let's call it "subunit", in which the country wouldn't be on the main map, wouldn't have liberty desire and would only be able to make diplomacy with its overlord. It would function like the estates do currently.

A subunit would prolong the existence of a polity. I think of it as decentralized units, like Wallachia, Moldavia or Ottoman Hungary were at the time. It could act as a lightning rod for a series of events relating to the management of the old country it replaced. If the overlord is trying to convert religion or culture, the penalty could, if the subunit isn't loyal enough, end up on all of the sub-unit provinces. Conversely, an happy sub-unit would give some benefits.

We could introduce, like for diplo and military, and admin limit, which would be a limit in the number of subunits you can have, and when you go over limit, either the effect would be losing admin powers per month or the loyalty of those sub-units would suffer.

A subunit would be created by the annexation of a vassal, and would cease to exist when all of its territories would reach 0% autonomy. Additionnally, the subunit would become a full fledge vassal if, after a grace period, the autonomy in all of its provinces reached 75%.

An advantage would be to prolong the territorial cohesion of an ex-vassal and to give somehow a bit of internal management feel to EUIV.

 

[MadDoctorScientist]

A subunit would prolong the existence of a polity. I think of it as decentralized units, like Wallachia, Moldavia or Ottoman Hungary were at the time. It could act as a lightning rod for a series of events relating to the management of the old country it replaced. If the overlord is trying to convert religion or culture, the penalty could, if the subunit isn't loyal enough, end up on all of the sub-unit provinces. Conversely, an happy sub-unit would give some benefits.

There is the issue of the Scottish Clans too, then.

Edit: To be honest, I hate having to annex the Isles too. But I am basically forced to to clean more diplomatic slots.