Hey Wiz, how about a 'vassal vomit' disaster

[richelieu1628]

So now that we have this cool disaster system coming up, I've been wondering. We have vassal-feeding, followed inevitably by vassal-eating, but they never come back out again, even if you're gobbling them down like Monty Python's Mr Creosote.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a disaster mechanic whereby a recently annexed vassal (say, within 100 years or as long as there are cores) would try to revolt back out if certain conditions are met? Say, low legitimacy plus regency council plus low autonomy in those provinces, as in "we want our own king back, we don't like this new heir and taxes were lower back in the day - to arms!".

I'm thinking of Spain's failed integration of Portugal, among others.

Obviously it would also be a nice way to nerf vassal-feeding a bit.

 

[CaptainChiatrol]

So now that we have this cool disaster system coming up, I've been wondering. We have vassal-feeding, followed inevitably by vassal-eating, but they never come back out again, even if you're gobbling them down like Monty Python's Mr Creosote.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a disaster mechanic whereby a recently annexed vassal (say, within 100 years or as long as there are cores) would try to revolt back out if certain conditions are met? Say, low legitimacy plus regency council plus low autonomy in those provinces, as in "we want our own king back, we don't like this new heir and taxes were lower back in the day - to arms!".

I'm thinking of Spain's failed integration of Portugal, among others.

Obviously it would also be a nice way to nerf vassal-feeding a bit.

That would be cool

Another note there actually is historical event thingy for a spain owning portugal's land.

 

[zodium]

That is a good idea. I love the idea behind the disaster system, it's so ... expandable!

 

[Freudia]

Say, low legitimacy plus regency council plus low autonomy in those provinces, as in "we want our own king back, we don't like this new heir and taxes were lower back in the day - to arms!".

Legitimacy requirements do not make for good gameplay, considering legitimacy is one of the very few things in this game the player has borderline zero control over. Players get average/weak claim heirs for seemingly no reason at all, for example.

 

[zdlugasz]

Wow,
This thread title made made me think some unpleasant ... say associations
but IMO the basic idea (to revert annexations) is great.

 

[CaptainChiatrol]

Wow,
This thread title made made me think some unpleasant ... say associations
but IMO the basic idea (to revert annexations) is great.

It would also be an interesting twist on how effective vassal feeding vs conquest and core is right now.

Republics have the legitimacy that you can control.

 

[MiniaAr]

Legitimacy requirements do not make for good gameplay, considering legitimacy is one of the very few things in this game the player has borderline zero control over. Players get average/weak claim heirs for seemingly no reason at all, for example.

I disagree, there should be some elements of disasters happening you cannot control so that you can put everything you have in those you control to balance it and try to avoid the disaster.

 

[Freudia]

I disagree, there should be some elements of disasters happening you cannot control so that you can put everything you have in those you control to balance it and try to avoid the disaster.

I take it you don't play hordes, do you?

 

[AurochsAway]

Perhaps the territories being occupied in war would be a good trigger to start the count. That means you have to unsiege them like a good ruler.

 

[PhroX]

Legitimacy requirements do not make for good gameplay, considering legitimacy is one of the very few things in this game the player has borderline zero control over. Players get average/weak claim heirs for seemingly no reason at all, for example.

While I usually really dislike the use of Legitimacy due to it's uncontrollable nature, including it as one of the factors that influence disasters (i.e. low legitimacy will increase the rate at which the disaster meter increases) is, IMO, fine. Some things should be out of the player's control. The problem comes when those things are fundamental to gameplay (e.g. Horde reformation).

 

[MiniaAr]

I take it you don't play hordes, do you?

Rarelly, but I have: Qara Qoyonlu I like a lot for example. I guess I didn't have much issue with Legitimacy to reform, but I suppose events good be worse than I had (or Khans).

While I usually really dislike the use of Legitimacy due to it's uncontrollable nature, including it as one of the factors that influence disasters (i.e. low legitimacy will increase the rate at which the disaster meter increases) is, IMO, fine. Some things should be out of the player's control. The problem comes when those things are fundamental to gameplay (e.g. Horde reformation).

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[grommile]

Perhaps the territories being occupied in war would be a good trigger to start the count. That means you have to unsiege them like a good ruler.

Generally speaking, I find that the provinces of mine which are most likely to be occupied in a war are not the ones belonging to a vassal I've just diploannexed, but the ones belonging to the people I beat in my previous war.

 

[AurochsAway]

Generally speaking, I find that the provinces of mine which are most likely to be occupied in a war are not the ones belonging to a vassal I've just diploannexed, but the ones belonging to the people I beat in my previous war.

Depends how you expand I suppose. I often have vassals at the edge of my territory, so they are likely to be sieged. Haven't done a statistical analysis though.

 

[987655mm]

This is actually a pretty neat idea.

 

[Thrake]

I take it you don't play hordes, do you?

Unless you game it for ubber rulers or keep annexing vassals every morning, sticking on high legitimacy isn't hard. In either case, you do it at your own risk.

 

[Sunspawn]

I'd like things like Netherlands forming to be a random result of such a system.

 

[josh127]

That is a good idea. I love the idea behind the disaster system, it's so ... expandable!

And it's flexible enough that the end result of a disaster wouldn't even need to require a military exercise if they chose to add disasters with other results.

 

[AurochsAway]

And it's flexible enough that the end result of a disaster wouldn't even need to require a military exercise if they chose to add disasters with other results.

A "get put under PU" disaster would be intriguing.

 

[josh127]

A "get put under PU" disaster would be intriguing.

That would have the potential to improve on the "claim throne" mechanic for the overlord in the PU too (as long as we're dreaming about possibilities that is).

 

[Chimerae]

Shouldn't winning wars and suppressing rebellions give legitimacy?