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

[Straigthtsilver]

I can't believe I signed up for the forum to get involved in this bit of silly thread but, at the risk of the more obnoxious players accusing me of nonsense rather than address the points raised, here goes. Happymix1 clearly isn't making any friends, but he is making the most sense.

A core represents the administrative investment that you've made to incorporate a province into your nation, however that may be done by your individual type of government. If you're a feudal monarchy, it is granting those lands and titles to your friend and providing what support he needs to get his earldom up and running, if you're an administrative republic, it's the cost of training or shipping in the bureaucrats you need and bringing the locals up to speed on national laws and ordinance. It's an abstraction to represent the effort and cost your society has paid to grow enough to include Tangiers as a part of Catholic Spain and so it's why, once a core is produced, your lands are more stable, you're able to extract taxes more efficiently, and you suffer a prestige loss for not holding that land, because you have a government there.

When you release a vassal, you do so based on the foreign cores that those provinces have, or the governmental structure of the foreign power. If Catholic Spain steals all of north eastern Africa from a surprisingly effective Tunisia, and then releases Morocco as a vassal state to feed their conquest too, rather than coring those provinces directly, they have in essence decided to forgo direct assimilation of those provinces into their government in favor of selling a large amount of autonomy to Morocco's ruling class for the low price of Morocco having no control over their foreign relations, a monthly tribute, and a pledge to give aid in time of war. This is why Morocco is going to select their own idea groups, appoint their own generals, raise their own armies, be ruled by a Moroccan noble dynasty, decide whether they're willing to pay you for all those Tunisian sand traps you keep trying to pawn off on them, and yes, pick their own religion. They get to make these decisions, because you decided you weren't going to expend the administrative, or military effort, necessary to be able to make these decisions for them.

So, the ruling class of Morocco always wants to be Muslim now, even if the majority of their citizens are Catholic. Is it a perfectly accurate solution? No, but it's no less reasonable than thinking you can dictate to a nation you don't actually rule what their faith should be. Plus, it gets rid of some cheese and that's always a good thing. So take a deep breath, learn how to incite rebellions and lets all be happy for the unintended buff to the espionage idea group?

This would only make sense if you war vassalized Morocco, or conquered them and then immediately released them without any conversion.

If Castille put in the effort to convert the entire population of Morocco to Catholicism, by what logic should they put in a now tiny Muslim minority in power and service to a Catholic state?

 

[Mirehn]

There's a difference between immediately taking a vassal and releasing a vassal after you've already converted it.

Also, it makes no sense that the ruling country would release a vassal and not have its new ruling class as relatable to the mother country as possible. Once again, I point you to the myriad countries across the globe that were onetime vassals/colonies, converted, and then were released.

If the country is already converted, its ruling class will be drawn from those same converts. No one in Mexico decided to start sacrificing virgins after it split from Spain. No Incan gods are worshipped in South America. The Finns do not worship their old gods after they broke free from Sweden/Russia. The Kazahk people did not return to Tengri after they were freed following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some of the most extremist Christians are coming from the African continent, who were only converted within the last 200 years. I don't see any of their Presidents, Generals, etc, worshipping the tribal gods they had. All those leaders are drawn from the previously converted populace.

Knowing all of this, the provinces released to vassalage should take the religion they had at time of release. If half are Shinto and the other half are Protestant, they'll stay that way at time of release. The overlord should have the same religion as its former masters in order to help maintain the linkage and homage to its "mother country".

I mean really, in game terms I can force religion as a wargoal but if I instantly vassalize them I can't force a religion later, especially if they're heathens?

 

[Mirehn]

But, as a mechanic, vassals should take the overlord's religion, but conversion by the vassal should be harder. Vassals should get a negative modifier to conversion for fifty-some years after release.

 

[Nyrael]

This would only make sense if you war vassalized Morocco, or conquered them and then immediately released them without any conversion.

If Castille put in the effort to convert the entire population of Morocco to Catholicism, by what logic should they put in a now tiny Muslim minority in power and service to a Catholic state?

You are not putting anyone in power when you release a nation. You just give back the right of governance to those who follow the old regime. Nations do NOT disappear when you annex them: they just lose all their land and authority, but the people still remain. That is, you give power to those who claim it or those who are just power-less nobility without any autonomy. Releasing a state DOES NOT represent you choosing anyone, it represents returning the power to lift yourself of administrative and other burdens as well as for trying to pacify rebellious parts of your state by giving them some of what they demand.
Giving the nation to those who you want to is represented through the Client States. Here, you choose who you want to give the power to, their laws, their religion and many other things.

If you converted the entire people to another religion and a certain amount of time had passed, the nation should lose all their cores. And when you release a Client State on culture who no longer have a core anywhere, all the provinces of that Client State state's culture should get cores of the new-found state. Should Separatist rebels earn independence, a new nation should be dynamically generated. The names should depend on culture and even be allowed to be the same as a dead nation's.
This would also allow stuff like Christian Morroco not using a Muslim flag.

 

[Beagá]

Agree with last paragraph and disagree with first.

Province catholic, it´s supposed to have catholic leaders, catholic leaders will be chosen. Period.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

But in reality, if an overlord released a nation as a vassal ( with a puppet king and puppet nobles), the overlord himself would send missionaries to convert anyone and everything by force, installing some sort of fierce 'convert or die' inquisition.

Ingame EU4, this move meant that rebels popped faster, since wrong religion provinces ticked to 100% rebel chance faster IF a missinoary tried to convert them. A player had to defeat more rebels, and in return the subject religion stayed catholic.

Maybe, but too much work picking your puppet King and puppet nobles and you're effectively coring instead of vassalizing, at least if you're a feudal monarchy. Since this game doesn't support many varied states of integration and vassalage we're left with just the most fitting way to view this one situation. Before the patch you appointed a leader who shared your faith and that you trusted to govern your vassal by the laws and customs of his people, now you appoint a leader you trust to govern by the laws and customs of his people, and whether he shares your faith is a non-issue.

Now of the two, I actually think they're both equally imperfect representations. Ideally some some governments should care if he shares your faith and others shouldn't, and while the obvious course is to make it so some nations just can't be released as vassals by nations who have idea groups directly opposed, that's not fun. Still, the old way was problematic because there was no satisfying or fitting cost to making your newly liberated vassal convert to your heathen faith, it lead to exploitative behavior that bypassed what was meant to be a serious strategic obstacle. The current system isn't satisfying because I just don't see certain types of governments, types of idea groups, types of cultures, allowing for heathens to rule and it's rigid dedication to historical religious preferences feels artificial. I don't think Catholic Spain would have ever allowed a Muslim to rule lands under their sphere of control.

Now this post makes sense, but I'll still disagree with the idea of the mechanic.

While you are correct in that releasing a vassal may be seen as granting power to the local ruling class (That's my view too), it's far from impossible to have the elite adopt the religion of their subjects, especially if that is the majority religion. And even if that were not to happen, then the new vassal should at least not go around oppressing their subjects, although ideally the actual relationship would be more complicated than that.

Ultimately, the problem here is that the mechanic is too static: A vassal will always have X religion, rather than have to decide between X and Y, and there's literally no way for the overlord to influence its vassal to adopt their desired religion unless it is already in their religious group, which is completely ahistorical, because even without a liege-vassal relationship, neighbours could send missionaries and attempt to convert the people/elite of a region. Historically, converting the King of a state could have absolutely massive consequences for that state, but this is impossible ingame.

IMO, this just shows that there is urgent need for some kind of new mechanic to represent the different classes (i.e. nobles, merchants, peasants, clergy) and assorted interactions with those classes.

We definitely both agree that the static nature of the vassal religious selection will lead to many imperfect explanations and odd situations. I think it's just a case of gameplay being put first.

But to elaborate on something I said earlier. In the scenario being presented by this game, absolutely no investment has been made to bring about changes to the government in question. Their people may have been converted out from under them if you send your missionaries before freeing them, but converting their citizens has its own reward in either making them too busy fighting violent uprisings to consider rising up against you, so grateful that you keep protecting their land that they never get any independence desire, or if you're a real bastard, breaking their nation and force converting them to the religion you want them to have. But still, no administration points have been spent to change the laws of your vassal so they align with your religion and not theirs. Your kingdom has spent nothing to obtain the conversion of a foreign nations government, so why should you get a free missionary to convert provinces that you've fed them?

I don't want to see free conversions of Muslim/Catholic/Orthodox governments or even provinces, anything else being said, gaming the system to bypass the religious strife that is meant to be a major point of conflict, that's a full stop for me. If we wanted to talk about putting a price on it though, something to simulate the cost of the missionaries that Atwix suggested would be dispatched, something to represent making it a big deal to convert the puppet king of Morocco to Catholicism, something to make force converting the vassal you just released a strategic choice of its own with its own drawback to balance the fact that he won't be converting his provinces to Islam, well that changes things completely for me.

 

[Florryworry]

hmmm, i fear my jewish germany run might've something to do with this

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

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.

Or in limited cases just vassalize through war an OPM that take religious (like Albania) or if they are withing say christianity (if you yourself are) then vassalize and force convert.

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

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.

And who is making you play a "hyperexpansionist empire"?

 

[NightKev]

You are not putting anyone in power when you release a nation. You just give back the right of governance to those who follow the old regime. Nations do NOT disappear when you annex them: they just lose all their land and authority, but the people still remain. That is, you give power to those who claim it or those who are just power-less nobility without any autonomy. Releasing a state DOES NOT represent you choosing anyone, it represents returning the power to lift yourself of administrative and other burdens as well as for trying to pacify rebellious parts of your state by giving them some of what they demand.

So CK2 doesn't exist? As soon as Nov 11, 1444 hits all of the CK2 mechanics are instantly incorrect due to the magical world-wide change that happened then?

Previously EU4 was closer to CK2 in the way this worked, and now it's not. The reason for this change seems to be to restrict expansion or something, but leads to absolutely retarded scenarios happening, and is plainly ridiculous.

 

[alqemist]

You are not putting anyone in power when you release a nation. You just give back the right of governance to those who follow the old regime.

That's ridiculous. You are the government there and you decide what happens. You appoint the officials and decide how much power they have. When you create a new (non-democratic) government for a subordinate region you decide who will man it. You are under no obligation to re-install a former regime. I cannot think of a case in the real world where that happened. Did the British re-install the kings of Burma or the maharajas of India when they freed those countries? Do Maori chiefs rule NZ? You seem hung up on the word "release".

 

[alqemist]

To me it implies a restoration of (some) independence, not a going back to what it was before. You can release a nation after more than 100 years. Quite likely no-one alive would have even spoken to anyone who experienced the former regime. It doesn't exist any more. A distinct national identity can still persist and you can cater to that by giving them their own government. As overlord you can impose a government of the "wrong" religion if you want. Quite likely it will not be stable. The "right" religion is the one the majority hold now, not the one that was a majority in ages past.

I thought the old behavior was reasonably realistic, but if it was necessary to nerf conversion by vassal then the way to do it was by upping the stability issues they suffer for having the wrong religion.

 

[grommile]

And who is making you play a "hyperexpansionist empire"?

Nobody. I just don't think it should be made easier, and that there are in some cases coherent arguments for making it harder.

And I'm kind of confused as to what element of my statement made you think asking me that question was worthwhile

 

[knoddy]

Wow this thread exploded over the weekend, will teach me to not check the forums when I am not at work!

As far as the arguments for historical simulation goes, you may as well throw them out the window because the whole religious system in EU4 is not Historical. the ease with which provinces are converted is not historical, the way in which provinces are converted is not historical. so there is no point arguing a historical viewpoint when the system is already not historical.

in regards to comments about the idea of "releasing Vassals" and what that means - when you release a vassal, the idea (at least in my mind) is that you are installing a substate, ruled indirectly by you, and the people who were directly in charge would be placed in charge by you, therefore they follow your ideas and beliefs.

In regards to it making it easier to blob. it only makes it slightly less annoying, not necessarily easier. As catholic spain I can convert of all Africa, but it takes forever, why not share the load with some vassal. and even then you still have to be on rebel suppression because chances are your vassal wont handle any religious rebels that popup.

All this change will do is lead to even more ludicrous ahistorical situations, pick a catholic vassal, take 1 province in SE Asia, convert and core it sell it to them, now feed all surrounding land to them to core and convert. Might have to do Aragon can into China for my castile WC run.

The most obvious solution is 1 of 2 things.

1- any vassal is released as their overlords religion (if the lands are not converted this of course could lead to mass revolts)
2- allow us to force convert ANY vassal using subject interactions, for the cost of LD - if you want to make it harder for people not of our religious group add a negative missionary strength modifier for the vassal for 25 years OR increased revolt risk, as well as the liberty desire to show the increased difficulty of converting the local provinces.

 

[FleetingRain]

So what's the exact logic behind it? I've seen Ethiopia converting Semien to Coptic, then I forced them to release Beta Israel; it was released as a Coptic nation, even though it's historically Jewish. I got slightly mad about it too, but meh.

 

[knoddy]

So what's the exact logic behind it? I've seen Ethiopia converting Semien to Coptic, then I forced them to release Beta Israel; it was released as a Coptic nation, even though it's historically Jewish. I got slightly mad about it too, but meh.

the exact logic behind the change ? or the exact logic (what actually happens) when you release a vassal?

 

[FleetingRain]

the exact logic behind the change ? or the exact logic (what actually happens) when you release a vassal?

About everything regarding releasing nations. I thought releasing a nation peacefully or in war would give them their historical religion, but it wasn't the case with Ethiopa/Beta Israel.

 

[WeissRaben]

You are not putting anyone in power when you release a nation. You just give back the right of governance to those who follow the old regime. Nations do NOT disappear when you annex them: they just lose all their land and authority, but the people still remain. That is, you give power to those who claim it or those who are just power-less nobility without any autonomy. Releasing a state DOES NOT represent you choosing anyone, it represents returning the power to lift yourself of administrative and other burdens as well as for trying to pacify rebellious parts of your state by giving them some of what they demand.
Giving the nation to those who you want to is represented through the Client States. Here, you choose who you want to give the power to, their laws, their religion and many other things.

If you converted the entire people to another religion and a certain amount of time had passed, the nation should lose all their cores. And when you release a Client State on culture who no longer have a core anywhere, all the provinces of that Client State state's culture should get cores of the new-found state. Should Separatist rebels earn independence, a new nation should be dynamically generated. The names should depend on culture and even be allowed to be the same as a dead nation's.
This would also allow stuff like Christian Morroco not using a Muslim flag.

Which means that you can't release anyone anymore if you don't buy Art of War?

 

[knoddy]

About everything regarding releasing nations. I thought releasing a nation peacefully or in war would give them their historical religion, but it wasn't the case with Ethiopa/Beta Israel.

my understanding is that vassals will be released as their religion in the game files. regardless of what conversions are done, and the religion of their overlord. However I have not tested this and possibly, they will be released as whatever religion they were in game before being destroyed. this would be relatively easy to test with the console, however I am at work.

Sorry I dont know the answer to the Ethiopia/Beta Israel thing because I dont know their religions in game (well I know Ethiopia is Coptic)

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

You are not putting anyone in power when you release a nation. You just give back the right of governance to those who follow the old regime. Nations do NOT disappear when you annex them: they just lose all their land and authority, but the people still remain. That is, you give power to those who claim it or those who are just power-less nobility without any autonomy. Releasing a state DOES NOT represent you choosing anyone, it represents returning the power to lift yourself of administrative and other burdens as well as for trying to pacify rebellious parts of your state by giving them some of what they demand.
Giving the nation to those who you want to is represented through the Client States. Here, you choose who you want to give the power to, their laws, their religion and many other things.

If you converted the entire people to another religion and a certain amount of time had passed, the nation should lose all their cores. And when you release a Client State on culture who no longer have a core anywhere, all the provinces of that Client State state's culture should get cores of the new-found state. Should Separatist rebels earn independence, a new nation should be dynamically generated. The names should depend on culture and even be allowed to be the same as a dead nation's.
This would also allow stuff like Christian Morroco not using a Muslim flag.

Take this a stage further though. The Reformation fails - hard, and essentially the Protestant and Reformed faiths disappear off the map, with none of the colonial powers ever converting; but assorted rebels in North America manage to create USA cores. Due to one thing and another the colonial power who holds that land is forced to release Protestant USA, despite it never having existed, or the colonial power having been Protestant. How does it make sense, especially if the provinces are all Catholic?