Your provincial autonomy automatically lowers over time. Does this supposed 'lowering of autonomy' factor that in or is it just things the player actively has input in?
Hey Wiz, how about a 'vassal vomit' disaster
- Thread starter richelieu1628
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Your provincial autonomy automatically lowers over time. Does this supposed 'lowering of autonomy' factor that in or is it just things the player actively has input in?
No, I meant the "lower autonomy" action that you can take every 30 years, which presumably creates a flag in that province which could be used for disaster purposes (unless the AI never uses it, I've never checked). Absolute autonomy values and universal modifiers would fairly obviously be pointless here.
Because the AI wasn't coded to use most of the new features and mechanics, mainly. Not saying that's a good reason, but it doesn't have the ability to in 1.8.1.
If it was only the mechanics of 1.8.1.....
There are a ton of things its unable to do unfortunately.
Yeah, I figured and I guess that's fine, though hopefully that'll be fixed at some point. Once rr hits -10, it's essentially a free 25% of everything, nothing to sneeze at esp for the poor AI. Though then I remember that the AI never quite figured out how to build buildings in EU3, so perhaps it'll be some time yet.
It's not that simple. Even as a human player I was bit by using that button too eagerly. The unrest hits -10, sure, when you click that button. However maybe 15 years later your ruler dies right after you annexed provinces worth 80% OE, and the new ruler has only medium legitimacy. To make things worse 5 years later you are warred by a few neighbors which you managed to defeat but brings you 6 WE. Now your provinces will be all filled with like +15 unrest.
And what's worse, you lost one of the most useful tool in controlling unrest: the magical "increase autonomy" button...
So you'd like to use that button only if 1) you have a few points of negative unrest after using that button 2) you have a plan for the next 30 years. The AI will fail miserably for both.
Hehe - I don't think that *I* am following those two rules - but then unlike a computer, I do get bored and forgetful. It's a fair point of course, but what with general rules, there will be a point at which it's self-harm not to lower autonomy, even allowing for the discounted risk of something bad driving up unrest later on. It may not be -10, I grant you that, but it'll be something.
The larger you get, the less you care about the marginal value of an additional province in the short term though, and yet large nations are exactly those that can beat uprisings.
Indeed - someone should propose a vassal-related disaster mechanic that could give those large countries that got large by absorbing vassals something to think about!
I'm not quite sure if vassal feeding needs another nerf. It's quite slow and quite costly right now, if the main advantege (low risk) would be take out of it, then direct conquest would be simply better.
Indirect buff to nations with passive core creation cost reducers, and I really don't think nations like the Ottomans or Muscovy need a buff like that.
This is actually a great idea, both gameplay wise and from a historical perspective. A special event, especially for Ireland Scotland Portugal and annexed countries that revolted historically could be added. Would make it both more challenging to build a large empire, and help keep things interesting in the late game.
Annexation though is radically different than Integration in game terms. Annexation is a forcible thing, and initially you have very limited control of the provinces you own (administratively) and that is represented by a lack of cores, which should be added manually taxing your empires/nation own administrative section.
During integration, you send your diplomats to influence the nation been integrated to overhaul its administration to the standards of the the nation performing the integration. Namely its administration is been brought to speed and been prepared to be 'ported' and interfaced with the larger nation as a provincial entity, rather than a sovereign state (hence the presence of cores). It also turns into an 'accepted threshold' so to speak, the fact that the former government is been abolished, through assuming propaganda.
As it is, there should be a world of difference between the two types of absorption. Namely integration (as is) should be more docile as opposed to outright hostility of annexation.
During integration, you send your diplomats to influence the nation been integrated to overhaul its administration to the standards of the the nation performing the integration. Namely its administration is been brought to speed and been prepared to be 'ported' and interfaced with the larger nation as a provincial entity, rather than a sovereign state (hence the presence of cores). It also turns into an 'accepted threshold' so to speak, the fact that the former government is been abolished, through assuming propaganda.
As it is, there should be a world of difference between the two types of absorption. Namely integration (as is) should be more docile as opposed to outright hostility of annexation.
Last edited:
Are you sure the AI doesn't mess with autonomy? or do they just harsh treatment repeatedly? They don't seem to get enough rebelions.
Precisely. I wonder how easy it might be to mod in flavour events for say Ireland once the basic structure is there. But otherwise yes, I'd dearly wish there was more to give absorbed vassals a way back out.
There are DHEs for England that simulate positively massive Irish revolts which could be genericized and moved to the disaster system. The Irish being a perennial problem for an overseas monarch strikes me as fitting, and similar things could cause the Dutch revolt and other regional identity uprisings.