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

[atwix]

oookk, lets assume then that Japan gets the catholicism event a lot, flips to catholicism, and that Korea and Ming invade Japan and eat it.

Japen westernizes, and I full annex them;,as catholic nation.

Then they get released as my vassal, to reconquer all their cores. As SHINTO, because thats how the files are, because its historical.



This is a historical simulation game , not a hardcoded static map that answers only to 1444 historical reality files.

Eu4 is about creating alternative history, and this just feels like arbitrary nerf to 'release religious idea group Najd as catholic vassal to convert stuff for you.'

I know that move is dirty and considered maybe gamey, but it is a GAME.

If a strategical map game has rules that refer to historical origins, while shaping history from the start of the campaign, it feels awkard to see 1444 history files blocking you to do this or that in 1644, so to speak. History is made by the victors. period. If you win, you do whatever, if willing to suffer rebels.

On the other hand, a sense of realism might endulge me to say that its highly unrealistic that recently force converted Najd people in the desert will sunddenly see the rise of tons of christian missionaries, who will then convert entire Levant, africa, and Persia.

Its a bit like all the other changes in common sense..

We got to adapt to Paradox new idea of how to play the game.

And believe it or not, the new patch (yes i even bought the dlc!) incites me to try some achievements, as the new mechanics make the game a LOT more interesting and harder, inciting even me to try to play past 1650 (because usually in 1.9 if you didn't control map before 1650, WC was out so to speak).

All in all,

common sense patch (after like 40 hours of gameplay) incites a weird feeling in me. A mix of attraction/repulse to the new mechanics.

Overall? I never thought I would say this, but all of a sudden some of the 'semi-hard' achievements of 1.9 and the new ones incite me to think 'hhrrrrrmmm, is it possible with new mechanics?"


I know long post. But I asked for feedback on common sense patch, and here I give it too.


The change the thread is about still irks me though. I think a player should be able to release a vassal in his own religion if the nationalism/religion rebel timers ran out. Or something.

Many of the common sense changes are, well, a radical forced conversion on the older type of 'wide' players, including me.

But you won't see me nag.

Eu4 challenges me again now.

 

[zdlugasz]

oookk, lets assume then that Japan gets the catholicism event a lot, flips to catholicism, and that Korea and Ming invade Japan and eat it.

Japen westernizes, and I full annex them.

Then they get released as shinto, because thats how the files are, because its historical.

...

In that case I think that they will be released as catholic (I did not test), since religion variable in save file will say so. Which would be frustrating if you converted it to confucian first.

 

[IndianSummer]

I think a player should be able to release a vassal in his own religion if the nationalism/religion rebel timers ran out. Or something.

This is something which crossed my mind for heathens too, kind of religious seperatism. Keep heretics the way it is now (Would be too inconvenient with the reformation).

 

[amah]

I just decided to take a mini break from my campaign mostly due to this change . The change makes no sense whatsoever .it is highly irrational and unhistorical

especially in heavily contested religiously areas of the map , such as the levant , the horn of africa , the indian peninsula and indonesia ,this change breaks the game

placing a monarch of your religion as head of the state of a region you have strategic interests over ,is the whole essence of politics circa 1500

 

[atwix]

true, but i think the real reason they introduced this is to stop players from releasing vassals with religious idea group, that will then convert everything you feed them.

Why wouldn't you do it before common sense? Rebels you get anyways, and before 1.12, you jsut got MORE nationalism/patriot rebel chance if you/your vassal converts stuff to your religion.

This lead to nations spending military points on harsh treatment, which then lead to vassals being way behind in military tech.

If you kept feeding them, the rebels that popped were low in military tech, since rebels take the technology level of the nation they pop in. That led to being able to vassal feed really easy, as rebels were roflstomped by armies being 1.x ahead in tech over time.

Want my advice? Still release them. Declare some war near them, let them be occupied. Wait till zealots of your religion pop, make peace. Let your vassal collapse into your religion.

Problem solved.

Although I irk at theorycrafting workarounds for weird changes.

If mine works, I dunno. Just theorycrafting.

 

[Frederick_Will]

honestly I prefered the way religions were assigned pre CS. They made more sense to me. I just do not really see a reason say a soon to be released country with catholic provinces(especially the capital) would be released as something else with a few exceptions. Even more so that now you need the DLC to change them, and that is if they are in the sane group.(from what i read here) On top of that, the AI is bound to have rebel problems due to wrong religion more often than not. Perhaps someone can point out all the gains of the new system and why they are better than the older system. So much better that it deserved to be overhauled.

As of right now, I don't really see many positives, and the cynical side of me believes it was intentionally done to make the feature/DLC more important. Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise.

 

[happymix91]

So

You conquer some territory, you convert every single person in it to christianity (or whatever)) and then you release it as a vasal and put your good friend in charge, here you go my friend your now a duke, whereas he immidiatly decide to convert.....

Yea i can see how you consider that common sense .....

Present system of EU4 doesn't represent that situation. You can't do whatever you want at EU4.

EU4 doesn't provide religious minority, but it doesn't mean that there are no minority in EU4. You should keep in mind that your action at EU4 is just an abstract painting of model which was in real history.

If you really completely convert and make people of that country like your lifestyle, then why you release them as a vassal? There is no meaning of it and it is impossible, because there are no people who think they are people of that country and can consist that country. If you really want to, make client state. You can't make whatever you want at pre-modern age, it is realistic and reasonable.

What you said was simply from the player who cannot even understand game system.

 

[Duke of Britain]

If the nation is gone forever, how can you release it? You can release it because there are some people who still think they are people of that nation, and they should believe their own religion.

If you want to make what you want, wait for technology allows you to do. Don't you know difference between vassal from once existed nation and client state which is created from none?

The nation can be released as there are some people who can consist it, so the released nation should follow their own lifestyle. Yeah it is certainly common sense.

That's complete nonsense.

The people are there, but while religion is tied to early manifestations of nationalism, the state that the tag represents is unlikely to cease to exist unless it is a state exclusively tied to a certain religion, such as the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Semien, the Teutonic Order.

If a Muslim ruler decides to grant the Kingdom of France to one of his men, why the hell is it going to be Christian rather than Muslim? The Kingdom is there, it exists de jure and de facto under your state, so what leads you to claim that garbage is reasonable?

I can agree that the limitations should exist to some, specific, tags, but almost every other tag should be released as per the majority religion of its cores. If you think that stuff is realistic, think about what happened in Albania and Bosnia from 1444 to the present day.

 

[happymix91]

That's complete nonsense.

The people are there, but while religion is tied to early manifestations of nationalism, the state that the tag represents is unlikely to cease to exist unless it is a state exclusively tied to a certain religion, such as the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Semien, the Teutonic Order.

If a Muslim ruler decides to grant the Kingdom of France to one of his men, why the hell is it going to be Christian rather than Muslim? The Kingdom is there, it exists de jure and de facto under your state, so what leads you to claim that garbage is reasonable?

I can agree that the limitations should exist to some, specific, tags, but almost every other tag should be released as per the majority religion of its cores. If you think that stuff is realistic, think about what happened in Albania and Bosnia from 1444 to the present day.

You can simply make client state which has name 'France'.

If you want to release nation exact France which exist at histroy, then you should release it as christian nation. Because France in history was chiristian since midieval age and also granted kingdom by the name of christian God. You should keep in mind that EU4 is a game which is based on pre-modern age. You cannot do everything you want.

 

[Duke of Britain]

You can simply make client state which has name 'France'.

If you want to release nation exact France which exist at histroy, then you should release it as christian nation. Because France in history was chiristian since midieval age and also granted kingdom by the name of christian God. You should keep in mind that EU4 is a game which is based on pre-modern age. You cannot do everything you want.

You keep citing the fact that it is based on the pre-modern age as an argument, yet fail to realize that you do not even know what you are talking about. I understand and agree with some of your ideas (The previous system was also a bit weird, it was not unheard of for a state to appoint someone from the majority to rule in their stead), but your claims here are just nonsensical.

First, divine right was a thing, yes. But do I need to mention how a certain historically Zoroastrian Empire and culture had its territory converted to islam over time and, by EUIV's timeframe, was to grow into one of the most powerful muslim (Shiite) states around, rivalling with the Ottoman Empire? States were and still are ideas, ideas are created and molded by humans. They are not static constructs that never change, and to think that a subjulgated state is bound to keep its ancient religion if it regains independence in the future just cause is ridiculous. Greece anyone?

Claiming that people should be forced to create client states is also ridiculous. That is, firstly, a DLC feature and thus not available to all players, and then you need to take into consideration that there is are limits (Such as technology) on client states. Since you love to cite realism, how about I ask you: How did Muslim Andalusia happen? How did Muslim Persia happen? What about the mess of Muslim states in India? Are you going to say those were "client states", which in EUIV represent artifical states such as those created by Napoleon, and not the traditional states of the old world which the proper tags represent? There is no system in the game to reflect the creation of a new state or identity, otherwise we would need to have tags everywhere to represent these alternative history states. Lastly, even if I did use clients in that situation, a fully muslim client France would still not be the primary tag of its French lands, which would have a... catholic France as primary tag? Really, that is the "realism" which you defend?


EUIV is not a realistic game at all, yet we can have a solution that both benefits gameplay and is far more realistic than the current situation. By forcing the conversion of at least the majority of the desired vassal's cores which are owned by the country to release the desired vassal, then it will require some investment in establishing an acceptable elite/plurality to rule the new vassal, or if such an investment does not happen, then at least the vassal will be stable.

 

[happymix91]

You keep citing the fact that it is based on the pre-modern age as an argument, yet fail to realize that you do not even know what you are talking about. I understand and agree with some of your ideas (The previous system was also a bit weird, it was not unheard of for a state to appoint someone from the majority to rule in their stead), but your claims here are just nonsensical.

First, divine right was a thing, yes. But do I need to mention how a certain historically Zoroastrian Empire and culture had its territory converted to islam over time and, by EUIV's timeframe, was to grow into one of the most powerful muslim (Shiite) states around, rivalling with the Ottoman Empire? States were and still are ideas, ideas are created and molded by humans. They are not static constructs that never change, and to think that a subjulgated state is bound to keep its ancient religion if it regains independence in the future just cause is ridiculous. Greece anyone?

Claiming that people should be forced to create client states is also ridiculous. That is, firstly, a DLC feature and thus not available to all players, and then you need to take into consideration that there is are limits (Such as technology) on client states. Since you love to cite realism, how about I ask you: How did Muslim Andalusia happen? How did Muslim Persia happen? What about the mess of Muslim states in India? Are you going to say those were "client states", which in EUIV represent artifical states such as those created by Napoleon, and not the traditional states of the old world which the proper tags represent? There is no system in the game to reflect the creation of a new state or identity, otherwise we would need to have tags everywhere to represent these alternative history states. Lastly, even if I did use clients in that situation, a fully muslim client France would still not be the primary tag of its French lands, which would have a... catholic France as primary tag? Really, that is the "realism" which you defend?


EUIV is not a realistic game at all, yet we can have a solution that both benefits gameplay and is far more realistic than the current situation. By forcing the conversion of at least the majority of the desired vassal's cores which are owned by the country to release the desired vassal, then it will require some investment in establishing an acceptable elite/plurality to rule the new vassal, or if such an investment does not happen, then at least the vassal will be stable.

Eu4 is not a perfect game. There are always some missings in the game. Considering that Paradox can't make exact history simulator, present system is enough.

All of you guys whines about just 'Why I can't make my vassal a convert machine?'. Whatever you guys cover your opinion with very, very few things in history which don't match with current system, it is all the thing you whines about. If you truly understand that a game cannot be perfectly realistic, you guys can't say that way.

Tell me, how often the things went that way which is like what you said? How often? Enough to force small devopment team like PDS to make very sophisticated system which can simulate all the things happened in history? I don't think so.

Eu4 just simulates majority in history, which is just 1444-1820. Dynamic religion changes in history is just some exception in that era, like Protestant and Reformed. Also Sikh, but all of them are 'in religious group conversion' and contained in EU4. So your beloved Muslim Andalusia and Persia(their conversion, exactly) were in that era? And enough often to put in the game?

Client state is DLC feature, so what? You even can't play this game unless pay some money. You can't make client state unless pay some more, what's the problem? And it represents not only Naploeonic client states, but also improvement of government diplomatic system which allow you to make whatever you want at any place.

 

[Duke of Britain]

All of you guys whines about just 'Why I can't make my vassal a convert machine?'. Whatever you guys cover your opinion with very, very few things in history which don't match with current system, it is all the thing you whines about. If you truly understand that a game cannot be perfectly realistic, you guys can't say that way.

?

Where have I said that? To me that seems like you ran out of arguments and are now trying to use ad hominem.

Tell me, how often the things went that way which is like what you said? How often? Enough to force small devopment team like PDS to make very sophisticated system which can simulate all the things happened in history? I don't think so.

Very sophisticated system? ROFL.

You did not read my previous post, did you? First, you understimate the size of Paradox's development team; second, my suggestion is extremely simple, arguably simpler than having each tag possess a primary religion.

And yes, it did happen pretty often that upon conversion of the locals, if the state went independent it would keep its new religion rather than asspull some fanatic nationalism based on an effectively dead (In the region) religion. Does not happen every single year to some random state =/= impossible or even unlikely. I have already given the examples of Bosnia and Albania, which became states with muslim plurality/majority in spite of in 1444 being Christian. There are lots of other examples as well, especially if you want to consider places such as Germany.

Eu4 just simulates majority in history, which is just 1444-1820. Dynamic religion changes in history is just some exception in that era, like Protestant and Reformed. Also Sikh, but all of them are 'in religious group conversion' and contained in EU4. So your beloved Muslim Andalusia and Persia(their conversion, exactly) were in that era? And enough often to put in the game?

EUIV simulates majority in history? Then please explain to me what the Burgundian Inheritance is supposed to represent. Or the Iberian wedding. Or the revolution mechanic, which is part of the same DLC as the client state mechanics. Or the protestant reformation. Or colonization of an entire continent. Or the eradication of entire cultures through an unrealistic mechanic. Or westernization. Majority in history, right? The rule rather than the exception, right? And to end it all: EUIV isn't even a simulator.

Back to the point: Were those exceptions? Of course, no one is disputing that when religion is the foundation of so many states up to the present days. Your claim, however, is that it was unrealistic for a country to adopt a new religion after having been subjulgated and having had its population converted, which is far from accurate and goes contrary to the fact. In the end of the day, this one fact just makes my suggestion more solid. The states' legitimacy is directly linked to the religion of its populace in this period, period.

And there was conversion of the "Persian state" in that era, yes. Not from Zoroastrian, though. Persia was sunni until the Safavids came around.

Client state is DLC feature, so what? You even can't play this game unless pay some money. You can't make client state unless pay some more, what's the problem? And it represents not only Naploeonic client states, but also improvement of government diplomatic system which allow you to make whatever you want at any place.

What is that nonsense supposed to mean? I reeeally can't take you seriously anymore, are you even trying? Historical facts =/= baseless stuff you make up to try to back up your claims in a discussion.

And it is not really a good decision to lock down something as relevant as vassal's religion with an arbitrary limitation which only gets removed if you use some late-game DLC mechanic. That's not adding new mechanics, it's removing an old mechanic and forcing you to use a DLC to "unlock" it again, which I doubt is Paradox' intent with the change.

 

[Oddb@ll]

Most common sense and also realistic choice would be to:

Select with which official religion to release a vassal.

Why not this? What is the real problem with me as a player wanting to play the game the way I want? More options is better than no options?

 

[grommile]

More options is better than no options?

Up to a point.

If infinite testing and development effort is available (thus rendering all concerns of schedule, budget, and programmer skill vs. program complexity irrelevant), more options is usually better than fewer options (but not always, because we haven't removed user competence or system performance from the discussion). In the real world, that "usually" becomes "sometimes", because you need to get the game written in time to get it out the door so that (a) people can play it (b) you can get paid.

Furthermore, in a game where the player's customary opponents are independent mostly-non-cooperating bots rather than humans, more options can lead to a worse gameplay experience because the proliferation of options undermines the ability of the bots to play the game well enough to provide an engaging contest for the human.

 

[Oddb@ll]

Up to a point.

If infinite testing and development effort is available (thus rendering all concerns of schedule, budget, and programmer skill vs. program complexity irrelevant), more options is usually better than fewer options (but not always, because we haven't removed user competence or system performance from the discussion). In the real world, that "usually" becomes "sometimes", because you need to get the game written in time to get it out the door so that (a) people can play it (b) you can get paid.

Furthermore, in a game where the player's customary opponents are independent mostly-non-cooperating bots rather than humans, more options can lead to a worse gameplay experience because the proliferation of options undermines the ability of the bots to play the game well enough to provide an engaging contest for the human.

You are speaking in very general terms here. I don't think this option leads to worse gameplay, why would it? I can convert a province but not release it as my own religion. Some people even talked about letting rebels do the job, an unnecessarily complicated solution to an unnecessary problem.

 

[grommile]

You are speaking in very general terms here. I don't think this option leads to worse gameplay, why would it?

I don't see why it leads to better gameplay; I don't regard "making mass religious conversion of a hyperexpansionist empire easier" as a positive move.

 

[Illianor123]

If you convert the land before releasing a heathen vassal, then you should have the option to force the vassal to accept the conversion, but at a higher LD increase, than forcing a heretic to convert.

 

[grommile]

If you convert the land before releasing a heathen vassal, then you should have the option to force the vassal to accept the conversion, but at a higher LD increase, than forcing a heretic to convert.

That sounds like a reasonable approach.

 

[WeissRaben]

I don't see why it leads to better gameplay; I don't regard "making mass religious conversion of a hyperexpansionist empire easier" as a positive move.

That's looking in the wrong direction. The problem is in the hyperfast religious conversion; if you accept the fact that Paris can become Sunni in five years, you also accept that releasing France will result in a Sunni France. If you object, the point of contention is in the abnormally fast religious conversion - change that.

 

[Oddb@ll]

I don't see why it leads to better gameplay; I don't regard "making mass religious conversion of a hyperexpansionist empire easier" as a positive move.

I never mentioned mass religious conversion though, where did you get that from? Releasing an already converted province means I already did the work right?