Hey Wiz, how about a 'vassal vomit' disaster

[richelieu1628]

Very good feedback, this.

I think there would be some options for a combination between necessary and sufficient conditions. My sense is that a good combination would be between legitimacy, regency, occupation, harsh treatment, different culture/religion and crucially "autonomy reduced". That should really be the moment when the local nobility says "wait a second, when you integrated us peacefully, you didn't tell us you'd take away our ancient rights and privileges - to arms!".

Basically I'd love this concept as a player to make it more interesting, and varied, to play some of the bigger countries. It would be cool to have to factor all of that in when you decide whether to eat a vassal, convert provinces, reduce autonomy etc.

 

[1alexey]

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

Since when did hordes became the standard of stability and legitimacy?

Hordes should have serious trouble, to encourage getting out of that system.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Since when did hordes became the standard of stability and legitimacy?

Hordes should have serious trouble, to encourage getting out of that system.

Since when was legitimacy decided at birth with 20x more weight or more than what the ruler does over his lifetime?

Most people posting about hordes here don't even know what a horde is or isn't, because somehow people think Crimea/GH = Oirat or that several of these nations weren't already comprised of large settled populations in 1444.

 

[zodium]

Since when was legitimacy decided at birth with 20x more weight or more than what the ruler does over his lifetime?

To be fair, pretty much always. :v

I agree with the general point about not tying it to legitimacy, but the basic idea is good.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To be fair, pretty much always. :v

I agree with the general point about not tying it to legitimacy, but the basic idea is good.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure why it should be a distinctive system from rebellions in general. You already get more unrest from low legitimacy and already have rebels that will kick your vassal right back out in its entirety if they win.

Anyway I phrased my legitimacy thing badly. The supposed legitimacy of a monarch matter a heck of a lot more at the start of a reign than at the middle or end, when it came to revolts/wars, as far as I'm aware anyway. Either your powerful constituents like your rule or they don't, and nobles tended to be a bit more pragmatic than "was this guy the legit heir 10 years ago" once a ruler was in place already. In other words, if they wanted to revolt and seize power they would certainly use that as an excuse, but if they wanted to anyway but the heir had a strong claim, they'd probably find another excuse pretty easily ^_^.

 

[zodium]

Revolts have to win sieges and defect. It's something that mostly happens during catastrophic failure or when a player country is already at their limit, then hit with the extra stress. The outcome is ultimately the same, but the dynamics are different. I'm assuming that the idea behind using legitimacy is to make it something that can happen even if you are not already at your breaking point, which I think is fundamentally a good idea, but tying it to legitimacy is problematic because there are no converters.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Revolts have to win sieges and defect. It's something that mostly happens during catastrophic failure or when a player country is already at their limit, then hit with the extra stress. The outcome is ultimately the same, but the dynamics are different. I'm assuming that the idea behind using legitimacy is to make it something that can happen even if you are not already at your breaking point, which I think is fundamentally a good idea, but tying it to legitimacy is problematic because there are no converters.

I don't know, winning independence without winning a fight sounds odd from a few different angles all at once. The whole point of juicing rebels to the point of potentially spawning > your force limits/manpower is so that putting down rebels is actually something you have to consider or work around. Rebels don't have a long history of easily beating nations that aren't at their breaking point absent foreign support.

I guess you could do something CK 2 style where the land temporarily becomes a new nation again but gets re-annexed/cored if you win, but it's hard to picture that actually being harder than current rebel spawns without dishing out some crazy bonuses that, unless constrained to being against the player, could just as easily be turned on the game to create giant super stacks out of nothing to fight an AI.

I don't see how annexed vassals are in a bad place anyway. Wiz confirmed they're going to nerf down the -LA rate from governments, meaning that such territory is easily taken by other nations for longer and holds less value for longer while still carrying potential unrest. Is that really insufficient within the scope of this abstraction?

 

[zodium]

I don't know, winning independence without winning a fight sounds odd from a few different angles all at once. The whole point of juicing rebels to the point of potentially spawning > your force limits/manpower is so that putting down rebels is actually something you have to consider or work around. Rebels don't have a long history of easily beating nations that aren't at their breaking point absent foreign support.

I guess you could do something CK 2 style where the land temporarily becomes a new nation again but gets re-annexed/cored if you win, but it's hard to picture that actually being harder than current rebel spawns without dishing out some crazy bonuses that, unless constrained to being against the player, could just as easily be turned on the game to create giant super stacks out of nothing to fight an AI.

I don't see how annexed vassals are in a bad place anyway. Wiz confirmed they're going to nerf down the -LA rate from governments, meaning that such territory is easily taken by other nations for longer and holds less value for longer while still carrying potential unrest. Is that really insufficient within the scope of this abstraction?

I was envisioning something like CK2 where the new tag is re-absorbed when you win, and that would be fun. This would be a fun negative side to expansion, which means we could slack a bit more on any less fun negative sides. It's a good thing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I was envisioning something like CK2 where the new tag is re-absorbed when you win, and that would be fun. This would be a fun negative side to expansion, which means we could slack a bit more on any less fun negative sides. It's a good thing.

How do you make that new tag more costly to deal with than just getting rebels? Maybe we could just get a rebel AI for nationalists/patriots that functions more like an actual nation declaring independence, which would be similar. I guess it comes down to what's feasible to implement too.

 

[richelieu1628]

I agree that having this as a proper *disaster* and not just a regular old rebellion (which in any case is more likely with all the bad things already), it would be cool if the vassal was just spat right out as its own country, immediately at war with the host country, a war that third countries could then join. I don't think it's all too unrealistic to assume that local garrisons might be loyal to the local country. Not sure if that's easy to implement and a big fat massive rebellion would be fun, too, plus increased revoltrisk and such (and a chance for outsiders to use the rebellion as a casus belli??).

The more I think about it the more it seems that having a regency plus lowered autonomy in the concerned provinces might be a good trigger, with other factors (including legitimacy) increasing the risk/timer speed. Especially when the autonomy of annex vassal provinces is very high to start with, you'd have an interesting dynamic about whether you'd want to properly centralize your realm or be more of a deconcentrated mixed bag kind of place.

In the scheme of things, smaller vassals would still often be swiftly absorbed, but with outside support there might be some interesting wars - like France or Spain supporting Scottish independence for shits and giggles.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not sure if that's easy to implement and a big fat massive rebellion would be fun, too, plus increased revoltrisk and such (and a chance for outsiders to use the rebellion as a casus belli??).

There is a support rebellion CB in 1.8 with AoW ^_^.

The more I think about it the more it seems that having a regency plus lowered autonomy in the concerned provinces might be a good trigger

I don't think so. These things are both chance based and regency in particular sucks fun out of the game already without costing you additional resources. Fighting to keep your territory isn't a fun substitute for fighting to gain territory when you've otherwise played identically well in both cases.

 

[Pilot00]

Sorry If I didnt understood right but....Isnt that already happening on two accounts?

1) If you get defeated and have the cores you are forced to spit it out in a peace treaty.
2) If they successfully manage to siege you out or you concede to their demands in essence you spit it out.

And legitimacy is already playing a role in the rebellion chances.

 

[josh127]

Sorry If I didnt understood right but....Isnt that already happening on two accounts?

1) If you get defeated and have the cores you are forced to spit it out in a peace treaty.
2) If they successfully manage to siege you out or you concede to their demands in essence you spit it out.

And legitimacy is already playing a role in the rebellion chances.

They don't even need to siege it all out, just one province. In my Qing game I was fighting rebels that popped in 60 stacks. I had about 30K units, had wasted my manpower fighting my vassal's rebels while my vassals armies were frozen (it was MP so I was trying to avoid a rehost) and I was able to buff up to about 50K units before attacking. Mongolia Nationalists sieged one province and I killed those rebels, but took everyone with me to the next fight since I was outnumbered anyway. While I was running around cleaning up the mess a full sized Mongolia pops out because of one province that had been sieged.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Actually the only thing I can't understand of this game is why the vassals are so docile, and why a big vassal don't try to break you rule or revolt. In this game the rule "Never give too much power to a vassal" doesn't exist. Also some cool things about break during unions should be in the game in my opinion, and yes about civil wars, colonial nations and east companies.

 

[IIWW]

Actually the only thing I can't understand of this game is why the vassals are so docile, and why a big vassal don't try to break you rule or revolt. In this game the rule "Never give too much power to a vassal" doesn't exist. Also some cool things about break during unions should be in the game in my opinion, and yes about civil wars, colonial nations and east companies.

because it would punish players for buying a DLC (CoP). Without Support of independence they are very unlikely to succed, or even pose a real threat (in extreme situation, like long, hard war. But thats rare, especially since such war would weaken them as well)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually the only thing I can't understand of this game is why the vassals are so docile, and why a big vassal don't try to break you rule or revolt. In this game the rule "Never give too much power to a vassal" doesn't exist. Also some cool things about break during unions should be in the game in my opinion, and yes about civil wars, colonial nations and east companies.

You can have vassals declare. I have a few times when pushing my luck. Usually the player is way too strong though. I think they could add a system of money and FL contribution vs loyalty though.

 

[Freudia]

I was envisioning something like CK2 where the new tag is re-absorbed when you win, and that would be fun. This would be a fun negative side to expansion, which means we could slack a bit more on any less fun negative sides. It's a good thing.

The biggest problem with such a mechanic is that while you're at war with your rebel faction nation, they're open to being invaded by third parties/outsiders and there's a chance you might not even be able to get that land back before it gets annexed by a third party.

Actually the only thing I can't understand of this game is why the vassals are so docile, and why a big vassal don't try to break you rule or revolt. In this game the rule "Never give too much power to a vassal" doesn't exist. Also some cool things about break during unions should be in the game in my opinion, and yes about civil wars, colonial nations and east companies.

I've had vassals go hostile. Usually I'm still much, much bigger and stronger than they are, though, so it's a really irrelevant point. The vassals don't try to break free because they can't hope to win vs the player's strength, usually.

 

[CaptainChiatrol]

Actually the only thing I can't understand of this game is why the vassals are so docile, and why a big vassal don't try to break you rule or revolt. In this game the rule "Never give too much power to a vassal" doesn't exist. Also some cool things about break during unions should be in the game in my opinion, and yes about civil wars, colonial nations and east companies.

I got france in a PU once and the first thing they did is go hostile and go to war with me.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Very rare and with little point, a mechanic, with a mass vassal revolt could be cool in the game.

 

[richelieu1628]

There is a support rebellion CB in 1.8 with AoW ^_^.



I don't think so. These things are both chance based and regency in particular sucks fun out of the game already without costing you additional resources. Fighting to keep your territory isn't a fun substitute for fighting to gain territory when you've otherwise played identically well in both cases.

I'm not sure I agree... lowering autonomy is entirely in your control as a player, right? Yes, regencies are chance-based and so is low legitimacy, but surely you could set this up in a way that you'd only be properly screwed if player actions had a role. I.e., if you annex your vassal and then never lower their autonomy and treat them nicely and live in peace, then a chance event alone shouldn't mess you up. But the way I understand the beauty of this disaster system, you wouldn't have to - because it would be a combination of things that pushes you over the line, some of which chance-based, some of which not.

By the by - I think regencies should be something to be terrified of, as all disorderly transitions of power are. But in the scheme of things it'd be nicer if regencies sucked because of rebellions and unruly vassals and increased-autonomy events, and not because of that no-DoW thingy, which might have made sense in EU3 but surely not anymore.


PS: I know about the rebel CB - but don't you have to have supported rebels financially to get it?