If releasing a vassals with a religion is WAD, it is wrong

[KomodoWaran]

We're likely changing it to be based on majority religion of cores. Will count non owned cores too, meaning no releasing 3 development Catholic Persia and feeding it all its cores.

You know what would be great?

If EU4 tags got the ability to use different ruler name pools, flags, etc. based on their religion, culture and other variables.

Just the ability would be enough, the community can help with creating the actual data.

 

[tjayharvey]

I disagree. Nations, even large nations, can change religion, as was the case with the Roman Empire. Just because the religion is different doesn't mean their claims to their land disappear. Besides, the opinions of the peasants are irrelevant. The only thing that REALLY matters is that you, the stronger nation, has decided that that land is rightfully yours. Because really, who is to decide that land is rightfully yours but yourself? Let them revolt. They can challenge your claims and cores all day, but if YOU decide that your little Catholic Persia is rightful owner of that land, and YOU can manage to conquer it, what's illogical about that?

Actually, if I as a nation decide today that all of Europe is my rightful land, it does not actually create claims on them. I have to go through the process of faking documentary evidence that I should own it, and there's rules about what would even be reasonable (if 1444 England tried to claim that Wein belonged to them they'd simply be laughed at). And that's only a claim. There's no way to gain cores on the land except to actually take it, then spend some time integrating it. Even if I did that, it now has historical ties to my country. That doesn't mean I can create an arbitrary state out of it, because that arbitrary state doesn't have those historical ties. Historical cores determine how efficiently you can make use of the land (base Local Autonomy), as well as the legitimacy of taking them back (less AE). So no, it's not just about what you, the player decide. It's about what the rest of the world will accept, legitimize or recognize. There are a lot of ways in which the game models the limited extent of a country's government reach. Some of them are hard restrictions on things you just can't order. You can't order your ships to keep sailing west from Spain until they reach the New World without Exploration - your captains would refuse such an order without the belief that they could survive and return. What you are suggesting is the equivalent to suggesting that you should be able to do it, you should just get a Naval Tradition penalty as all the captains retire and maybe a Morale penalty representing you making an example of some of them. Not all "you can't legitimately do this in the context of a Rennaisance/Early Modern state" situations are currently or best represented by letting the player get their way and having rebellions.

 

[knoddy]

at the end of the day the simplest solution is any released vassal is released as their base religion (in the files) but let the overlord force convert them through subject interactions regardless of their religious group.

LD is currently used to represent the vassals unhappiness at being asked to convert. hell make it 75% LD to convert to a diff religious group. At the end of the day if you remove the option entirely you will just get even more cheesy stuff. 1 Sec while I vassalize some european minor with religious, and sell them a cored/converted piece of land in India, now I can feed them all of india, and have them convert it for me.

of course another option would just be to give more base missionary strength to some of the ROTW religions and more missionaries

 

[carlleach99]

Actually, if I as a nation decide today that all of Europe is my rightful land, it does not actually create claims on them. I have to go through the process of faking documentary evidence that I should own it, and there's rules about what would even be reasonable (if 1444 England tried to claim that Wein belonged to them they'd simply be laughed at). And that's only a claim. There's no way to gain cores on the land except to actually take it, then spend some time integrating it. Even if I did that, it now has historical ties to my country. That doesn't mean I can create an arbitrary state out of it, because that arbitrary state doesn't have those historical ties. Historical cores determine how efficiently you can make use of the land (base Local Autonomy), as well as the legitimacy of taking them back (less AE). So no, it's not just about what you, the player decide. It's about what the rest of the world will accept, legitimize or recognize. There are a lot of ways in which the game models the limited extent of a country's government reach. Some of them are hard restrictions on things you just can't order. You can't order your ships to keep sailing west from Spain until they reach the New World without Exploration - your captains would refuse such an order without the belief that they could survive and return. What you are suggesting is the equivalent to suggesting that you should be able to do it, you should just get a Naval Tradition penalty as all the captains retire and maybe a Morale penalty representing you making an example of some of them. Not all "you can't legitimately do this in the context of a Rennaisance/Early Modern state" situations are currently or best represented by letting the player get their way and having rebellions.

I understand that just saying it doesn't make it rightfully yours. I'm saying it does if you can also enforce those claims with your military. If someone questions you, says you have no right to own that land, you behead them. YOU can decide what is rightfully yours.

 

[johnleeyx]

I'm given to believe that conversion away from Islam is one of the things for which Islamic jurisprudence recommends the death penalty.

Which in many cases around the world, Kings often manipulated religion to their advantage, only agreeing when it suits their interests and when not, like Henry VIII simply made their own version of it. And further more with the enormous power of a foreign army, who would be foolish enough to reject his authority outright?

 

[Frederick_Will]

I understand that just saying it doesn't make it rightfully yours. I'm saying it does if you can also enforce those claims with your military. If someone questions you, says you have no right to own that land, you behead them. YOU can decide what is rightfully yours.

I have always though that cores were more of the world recognizing that said land is rightfully yours.(in regards to the rest of the world, not internally) It is somewhat represented by the lower AE for taking your cores back. I mean, I can say the whole world is mine because I have the strongest military, but that does not mean others will agree. Especially all of the people in said territory.

and a claim that the land is just that, a claim. The rest of the world does not recognize your claim, which is why you take more AE.

As for how it deals with releasing vassals and the religion they adopt. I can see why Wiz would want it to take into consideration of all cores(including those not yet reclaimed). and that a nation that has a religion different from most of its cores would have low legitimacy. But at the same time, I would say that a catholic Persia could form, and retake a lot of it's shia/sunni land and eventually convert it. The rebellions would somewhat reflect the lower legitimacy, and perhaps you could add events to make up for having most of your land being the "wrong" religion. (maybe have some effects on legitimacy from wrong religion? It would have to be balanced of course)


It would be even better if you were able to choose who you would put in charge. Would you make a sunni/shia leader because most of the land belongs to that religion, giving it legitimacy? or would you choose to make it catholic, with lower legitimacy, and all the problems that go with being the wrong religion? So in the long run, it will be of your faith, and more stable than at release. I would find this a lot more enjoyable gameplay wise, and I feel it would work better than what we currently have.

 

[taltamir]

The ruling body that you have given full domestic autonomy too. The Shah in exile that you've asked to come back to rule his nation because you can't be bothered to establish your own government. You could tell him he's not allowed to run a muslim government and insist he convert to Catholicism, but I'm afraid that's a deal breaker for him because he's pretty convinced it'll damn his immortal soul. Shame too, because without him you don't have a stable self governing vassal, you have a collection of unruly provinces that will only give lip service, half taxes, and constant rebellions, to the puppet government.

I didn't reappoint the congress, I didn't bring back the shah from exile. I am appointing some local noble of my own religion as a puppet dictator of this nation I conquered
Even even if such a shah existed, he should be grateful enough that I am allowing him to live, much less rule a nation as a my vassal. If he isn't willing to at least convert then I can behead him and find someone else

For the same reason that you can't pick 5 arbitrary contiguous provinces and release a vassal out of them. Without the historical justification for the legitimacy of the state, the rest of the world won't recognize it (so you are in fact still ruling it even if you are pretending otherwise). Setting up completely arbitrary ahistorical states requires advanced diplomatic techniques (and more so the general change in political thought / world attitude toward nations that being placed so late in the tech tree represents).

1. I could if this was real and not a game.
2. Yes they will, especially the christian ones. The muslim ones already have nationalism CB, feel free to insist they get an additional CB for this..
3. If they don't, they are welcome to insist that it is a part of my nation rather than a vassal. makes no difference to how I am ruling it internally.
4. I am NOT creating a new ahistorical nation out of thin air. I, in this scenario france, conquered persia entirely. And instead of integrating it into my nation am setting it up as a puppet via the amazing process of beheading the shah and telling everyone "this christian french noble is the new shah, anyone who disagrees is welcome to take it up with our armies". Of course he now has to deal with 0% religious unity. Which means my armies will be needed there for a long time to suppress revolts.
5. This super ahistorical thing you describe? its literally what happens whenver a noble revolt enforces their claim in this game. and often what happens in CK2.

 

[SchwarzerKaiser]

I didn't reappoint the congress, I didn't bring back the shah from exile. I am appointing some local noble of my own religion as a puppet dictator of this nation I conquered
Even even if such a shah existed, he should be grateful enough that I am allowing him to live, much less rule a nation as a my vassal. If he isn't willing to at least convert then I can behead him and find someone else

So you're setting up... a client state?

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

I didn't reappoint the congress, I didn't bring back the shah from exile. I am appointing some local noble of my own religion as a puppet dictator of this nation I conquered
Even even if such a shah existed, he should be grateful enough that I am allowing him to live, much less rule a nation as a my vassal. If he isn't willing to at least convert then I can behead him and find someone else

I've already responded to this point at length earlier in this thread when it was raised by another poster, so I'll go ahead and type out an abbreviated version here.

You have selected option B: Appoint an illegitimate puppet from the local nobility. *roll for administrative bluff* Add your total diplomacy skill.

I'm sorry, you failed your administrative bluff check, turns out you need a higher diplomacy skill to pull this off. Anyway, the existing aristocracy, the peasantry, the priesthood, the community of nations, and your own people see through this as the obvious ploy that it is and he is given the same lip service loyalty that they would have given your cousin. Plus your cousin is still hanging around your court, begging for a title and holding. Your puppet's rule is ineffective, rife with corruption, passive resistance, inefficiency and outright rebellions. He isn't even able to hold onto his own throne without your military to aid him in putting down rebellions, let alone make any progress in converting the non-Catholic provinces he's been assigned to rule. Obviously, you can send your own missionaries to do the work for him, he's such a pliable puppet that he won't object to any sort of interference with his pretend autonomy. Or you can chop his head off and appoint someone else, but I'm afraid the only person with the uniquely perfect mix of legitimacy, capability and credibility necessary to rule as something other than an obvious puppet is the Shah who fled to neighboring Tunisia and is living in exile telling the world tales of your aggressive expansion.

From a game mechanic stand point releasing a vassal is releasing a domestically autonomous state with the legitimacy, laws and history necessary to represent those foreign cores as a player in game, they can plot against you to gain their independence, found colonies, select their own ideas, and choose their own religion. Because you want to give them less autonomy than what a released vassal has in this game, it is not appropriate to use that mechanic to simulate your actions, and instead your actions would be better simulated by having a feudal government type and simply occupying those provinces.

 

[taltamir]

You have selected option B: Appoint an illegitimate puppet from the local nobility. *roll for administrative bluff* Add your total diplomacy skill.

I'm sorry, you failed your administrative bluff check

False. there was no bluff check, the game automatically forbids you from making them attempt.

I'm sorry, you failed your administrative bluff check, turns out you need a higher diplomacy skill to pull this off. Anyway, the existing aristocracy, the peasantry, the priesthood, the community of nations, and your own people see through this as the obvious ploy that it is and he is given the same lip service loyalty that they would have given your cousin.

Good for them, oh look at that. a nationalism CB is granted to my neighbors, the pope is happy i am converting heathens, and the natives are rebelling. Exactly the same result as me trying to annex them! (well, actually the pope would now be happy with the vassal for converting them, instead of being happy with me)
Lets not forget the fact that there is literally a "legitimacy" stat in the game already

Also, my own people and same religion peers all applaud my paper thin attempt to usurp a heathen throne for the glory of christ

Also, the game already perfectly allow me to just annex those lands even though I did not have a claim on them, not even a fabricated one. because that is perfectly acceptable while installing a puppet shah isnt'?

I am sorry but your claim that it is historical realism is pure falsehood, especially in light of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

False. there was no bluff check, the game automatically forbids you from making them attempt.


Good for them, oh look at that. a nationalism CB on my neighbors, the pope is happy i am converting heathens, and the natives are rebelling. Exactly the same result as me trying to annex them

Also, my own people and same religion peers all applaud my paper thin attempt to usurp a heathen throne for the glory of christ

Also, the game already perfectly allow me to just annex those lands even though I did not have a claim on them, not even a fabricated one. because that is perfectly acceptable while installing a puppet shah isnt'

No, there's definitely a bluff check, and it succeeds sometimes. But this game uses a diceless engine so it's a pretty hard and fast rule that you don't succeed unless you reach a diplomacy skill of 22. During which we call it a "client state" for the sake of clarity.

As far as the differences go, there's quite a few and they're all pretty historical. If you appointed their rightful monarch and gave them the domestic autonomy he insists on, his own nobles would levy armies to fight on his, and your, behalf. He would maintain order in the region without the direct assistance or drain on your administration, so no over-extension. You proving your benevolence by granting them domestic autonomy could even allow you to foster love and affection between them in a way that would have never been possible had they remained your neighbors or your occupied territory, thus giving you a maximum relationship improvement of 200. Eventually, after about 10 years or so, you would have even convinced them to do the work of integrating into your government, thus letting you get cores without spending your own admin points. Vassals and the diplomatic annexation system represent the way a nice guy would assimilate his enemies.

What you're describing is not that, and so again, should not use the vassal system. In your situation you are 'usurping a heathen throne for the glory of christ.' In your situation you will never work their relationship up to 190 because you flat out don't care. In your situation the lord you appoint would be subservient and loyal in the way that someone who depends on you for both legitimacy and his life against a hostile populace would be. Your situation is historically best represented by simply occupying the lands and coring them. Or maybe not even coring them, plenty of violent conquerors have choked on their own conquests and had to spit them back out with no lingering legitimacy.

Outside of roleplaying and attempting to frame this as realism... actually no, even within the bounds of trying to frame this as realism, appointing an autonomous vassal with the legitimacy to act as Morocco, Persia, or whatever our example is, is a strategic choice with pros and cons. It's not always the best idea and you can't have all the pros while arguing away the cons with a completely separate situation.

 

[Siffi]

I have always though that cores were more of the world recognizing that said land is rightfully yours.(in regards to the rest of the world, not internally) It is somewhat represented by the lower AE for taking your cores back. I mean, I can say the whole world is mine because I have the strongest military, but that does not mean others will agree. Especially all of the people in said territory.

Did they fix that? ATM you only get less AE for one core per war.

 

[PeterHe]

at the end of the day the simplest solution is any released vassal is released as their base religion (in the files) but let the overlord force convert them through subject interactions regardless of their religious group.

Are you sugesting that you take a feature that game always have had (releasing a vasal with your religion) and move it behind a paywall (overlord force converting only availeble to those who have CS to my understanding)?

 

[NightKev]

Well that's certainly an option. And there is alot to be said for Duke Abraham. He's catholic, like you and the majority of the citizenry now *wink,* he's absoulely loyal to you as he's your cousin, so no marrying your sister for him. In fact he agrees with your governmental course completely, so much so that he can almost be considered an extension of your own will.

He's great, but not exactly perfect. He lacks any sort of legitimacy with his new nations existing aristocracy. In fact, they see right through him immediately and treat him as if he were nothing more than a puppet lord, and that living under his rule is treated exactly the same as living under yours. Even the Catholic lords are resentful of this impetuous outsider or upjumped quisling being put in charge of their great nation, a mockery of their generations of history and tradition. Sure they give him lip service because they fear reprisal from your army, except when they don't and then seperatists rise up in rebellion. Taxes are collected inefficiently, and while he has access to the manpower pool represented by the willing and able peasantry, he has to depend on your government to train them and outfit them with gear and an officer core. What's worse, since he lacks the wide spread support of the government he pretends to represent, he is unable to make any headway in swaying the minds of his people towards the ultimate goal of accepting assimilation into your empire. If you want this nation to assimilate, any progress will have be done on your end.

It's a shame, had you appointed the Shah in Exile your history of conflict and his refusal to bend the knee to your catholic god would have worked for you, it would have reassured the people you had no immediate intentions to rob them of their independence. And with that reassurance they would have opened their minds to what your diplomats had to say. It may have taken 10 years, but in that time you could have kindled a great deal of love between your people and his, you may even have convinced them to do the majority of the administrative work necessary to finally bring your people together permanently. I'm not saying that wouldn't have taken a great deal of convincing, your diplomatic core would have been working day and night guiding the process. But your precious administrators would have been free for other tasks.

In short, there is already a way to represent an illegitimate pretender placed on the throne of a nation by a foreign power. It's done by simply owning the provinces without coring them and having a feudal monarchy.

There's also already a way to represent intelligently constructing the government of a subject nation to your own specifications, but it requires a great deal of diplomatic acumen. You'll probably learn the ins and outs about the same time you figure out how to use limes to combat scurvy.

Have you played CK2? You always want to appoint people who are loyal to you as vassals, replacing disloyal ones if necessary, ESPECIALLY if they're wrong-religion. In 1444 this is pretty much still how it would work I'm fairly sure.

 

[Staxxy]

Just give us a way to strongman our religion on heathens - massacres, forced migration, whatver. Make this tank the diplomatic reputation, unrest, and liberty desire.

 

[Frederick_Will]

Did they fix that? ATM you only get less AE for one core per war.

Not sure. It was the way it use to be. and in my recent Byz game i started, i took a lot of my territory back and no one really cared. (except the ottos)

 

[Vaar]

I used to have a forum account, but haven't posted in quite a while, but I had to sign up again just to post/ask, what the holy hell is wrong with this mechanic? Why the hell am I, a catholic nation, releasing both Bulgaria and Byzantine as a Muslim nation? In which world were either of those nations historically Muslim? I was thinking, maybe, as the Ottomans destroyed Byzantine, they forced them to convert; which, considering they annexed them is 100% ridicules. However, Bulgaria is also released as Muslim and they didn't even exist at the start of the game. Am I living in an alternate Muslim universe?

 

[MiniaAr]

I must say I like both Wiz's solutions, the serious and the trolling one, when combined together:
When you release a vassal, it should get your religion:

• If more than 50% of their cores (including un-owned ones) are of your religion
• If not then you get a choice:
  1. The vassal takes its "historical" religion and keeps its un-owned cores
  2. Or the vassal get your religion instead and its un-owned cores become only claims.

 

[Reverend Belial]

I know a billion people have already said it, but really this whole thing could be fixed by letting us convert vassals regardless of religious group. The way it is now is really nothing but the kind of arbitrary decision that nobody likes. If a mechanic doesn't make sense historically or logically, then it should serve towards bettering the game (i.e. make it more enjoyable). This fits in none of these categories, and serves no purpose but to make the game slower and more obnoxious.

 

[Vaar]

I know a billion people have already said it, but really this whole thing could be fixed by letting us convert vassals regardless of religious group. The way it is now is really nothing but the kind of arbitrary decision that nobody likes. If a mechanic doesn't make sense historically or logically, then it should serve towards bettering the game (i.e. make it more enjoyable). This fits in none of these categories, and serves no purpose but to make the game slower and more obnoxious.

I agree. For whatever reason they decided to make this change, it's simply annoying at best, and pulls me out of the game at worst. Hell, I even tried giving the Byzantines a single Catholic province and they still turned Muslim. I feel like the game is trolling me at this point...