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

[Siffi]

true but you cannot return cores to them (well I mean they dont have a lot of cores to return, unless they go conquest crazy. I guess the change will just make small states that take religious the best vassals with the change.

I am not really caring about the lesser AE for one province only or about the admin point cost for my vassal.If Vassal cb's weren't broken things would be different of course.

 

[alqemist]

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.

That's illogical. How can the religion of provinces that aren't part of my empire prevent me from doing something internal to my empire? You need to think about this some more if you want to retain plausibility.

 

[ahhheygao]

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.

This is a fair compromise. I'm glad you guys are going this route.

 

[sumo0]

Even Wiz said that they will make conversion of vassal possible, many people want more. Perhaps no one wants historical and realistic aspects of the game. You guys simply want to do whatever you want, even that thing is imba and unreal. Or you guys want for the game to reflect literally everything possible at history, but it isn't possible. Finding some other games or making your own game is better choice for you, I think.

This history argument is honestly the worst of them all...
The game starting dates are historic. From then on i make my own history.

If i were to play Denmark historically i would have to lose to England 3 times or so, bitchslap the swedish navy over the course of some 400 years (no conquest ofc since we did that in ck2), and lose it all slowly at speed 5.
Playing nations historically is booring.
Playing from a historic standpoint and "change" history is alot more fun.

 

[happymix91]

This history argument is honestly the worst of them all...
The game starting dates are historic. From then on i make my own history.

If i were to play Denmark historically i would have to lose to England 3 times or so, bitchslap the swedish navy over the course of some 400 years (no conquest ofc since we did that in ck2), and lose it all slowly at speed 5.
Playing nations historically is booring.
Playing from a historic standpoint and "change" history is alot more fun.

"I will make Germany at 17c!" is different with "I will go into space at 17c!". Changing history doesn't mean "Do whatever I want". You can change history in EU, but you shouldn't be able to fxxk off history.

 

[Wizzington]

That's illogical. How can the religion of provinces that aren't part of my empire prevent me from doing something internal to my empire? You need to think about this some more if you want to retain plausibility.

You're right. I'll just have vassals lose all cores that they don't own when released then, since that's outside your empire. Sound good?

(Not actually doing that because I still don't care about realism arguments)

 

[happymix91]

That's illogical. How can the religion of provinces that aren't part of my empire prevent me from doing something internal to my empire? You need to think about this some more if you want to retain plausibility.

Because releasing country isn't just a matter of your own nation. If you want to do it as your own problem, the country released from your doing is called 'Client State'.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

The realism/historical argument only works if the gameplay feature itself is realistic and historical. which it isnt.

As an engineer I completely disagree with this statement, well, because Physics.

 

[Sabotage13]

You're right. I'll just have vassals lose all cores that they don't own when released then, since that's outside your empire. Sound good?

That actually sounds like a sensible balancing solution.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Because releasing country isn't just a matter of your own nation. If you want to do it as your own problem, the country released from your doing is called 'Client State'.

Sure. So when I conquer Scotland in the late 1400s and release it (due to massive OE, and wanting a decent vassal to help me elsewhere), it's a client state? Rubbish.

Releasing vassal states that have previously existed, but are now subordinate to their former conqueror is at least as valid as the Napoleonic concept of the client state, creating never existing states from nowhere.

The argument about whether non-held cores should count is a tricky one. If I've got 49% of Persia held and converted to Catholic, and release it, I'm not sure it's sensible for it to look at the 51% that is divided amongst several other states and then turn around and go "actually I want to be Shia". It isn't a case of realism - merely that it's mindblowing to consider that you'd be giving that much land to a "false" religion, especially when all the land you're handing over is the "true" one. Could it be made so that it goes to the majority faith of the country you're releasing, counting only the land you're giving it? On the other hand, I can see the issue with creating a small "right faith" rump state and slowly feeding it provinces as you get it, but how is that significantly different from how other vassals are handled?

 

[Siffi]

You're right. I'll just have vassals lose all cores that they don't own when released then, since that's outside your empire. Sound good?

Whats the big difference to now? The vassal would have to core it but who cares?

 

[happymix91]

Sure. So when I conquer Scotland in the late 1400s and release it (due to massive OE, and wanting a decent vassal to help me elsewhere), it's a client state? Rubbish.

Releasing vassal states that have previously existed, but are now subordinate to their former conqueror is at least as valid as the Napoleonic concept of the client state, creating never existing states from nowhere.

The argument about whether non-held cores should count is a tricky one. If I've got 49% of Persia held and converted to Catholic, and release it, I'm not sure it's sensible for it to look at the 51% that is divided amongst several other states and then turn around and go "actually I want to be Shia". It isn't a case of realism - merely that it's mindblowing to consider that you'd be giving that much land to a "false" religion, especially when all the land you're handing over is the "true" one. Could it be made so that it goes to the majority faith of the country you're releasing, counting only the land you're giving it? On the other hand, I can see the issue with creating a small "right faith" rump state and slowly feeding it provinces as you get it, but how is that significantly different from how other vassals are handled?

You released it(which existed before) because you can't manage it, but you want to make a country which perfectly follows you? Umm.. I feel like seeing baby's whining. I doubt even whether you understand what I said or not. Do you think that people who has their own culture and nation are perfectly your own people? Scotland isn't a nation? You said that the thing about recently conquered nation is only your own problem?

If you release nation which existed before, it is different with 'client state'. You depend on name and core of that country and don't want to respect them? If you want to do whatever you want to them, you should core their, convert, change culture, and wait for removing of other country's core. But you don't have to do all of them, because you will only have to convert half of them or simply make client state.

A game simply cannot reflect all aspects of history. If you want to play a game which reflects all adpects in history, you should make your own. But it is impossible. Do you think that Paradox can't think the thing which you thought?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

You released it(which existed before) because you can't manage it, but you want to make a country which perfectly follows you? Umm.. I feel like seeing baby's whining. I doubt even whether you understand what I said or not. Do you think that people who has their own culture and nation are perfectly your own people? Scotland isn't a nation? You said that the thing about recently conquered nation is only your own problem?

If you release nation which existed before, it is different with 'client state'. You depend on name and core of that country and don't want to respect them? If you want to do whatever you want to them, you should core their, convert, change culture, and wait for removing of other country's core. But you don't have to do all of them, because you will only have to convert half of them or simply make client state.

A game simply cannot reflect all aspects of history. If you want to play a game which reflects all adpects in history, you should make your own. But it is impossible. Do you think that Paradox can't think the thing which you thought?

A baby's whining? Perhaps you should read what I put instead of seeing I disagree with you and starting with the name calling. I'm not in anyway suggesting that a people with their own culture and nation are my people - if they were I'd be coring and culture converting them rather than setting them up as a vassal. In the example, (released) Scotland is now again a nation, but it is a vassal, paying taxes to me in return for my protection, in a fairly traditional agreement between liege and vassal; they're not my people, they're foreign, but tolerated as a subservient and hopefully reliable ally who pays me for the privilege.

The concept of a released vassal state and a client state are different. With a vassal (especially a released one), you are indicating that you still consider the previously existing entity to be valid, but now they work for you as well as their selves. With a client state you've drawn a new country on the map, given it a flag and a name and gone "this is now a country" and relying on being powerful to have people accept it.

And, in a shocking piece of news to you : client states are only possible later in the game, whereas vassals are how you deal with defeated but unabsorbed land earlier on in the game. Releasing an otherwise ungovernable land mass as a vassal is a valid and sensible tactic, since you can install a puppet of some sort (governor, duke, despot, viceroy, call it what you will) to run the country and send you some of the profits. Client states are also only available with the Art of War DLC.

Now, a vassal can turn on you - and so it should be able to - if it decides it doesn't like you anymore, or it becomes sufficiently powerful, either alone, or in concert with your other vassals, and they have a penalty that keeping them annexed doesn't - they eat up a diplomacy slot.


As for Paradox not having thought of my idea, I thought the idea was to debate and discuss ideas, so that Paradox can see how the userbase is interested, especially with a feature they're obviously looking at changing slightly. As such, I find your name calling and attitude towards people who hold a different point of view a little disrespectful, and wish that you'd discuss it properly, actually reading what I have written rather than what you think I'm writing.

 

[Gurluas]

I'd actually be fine with the vassal state losing it's cores when released but retaining claims.

 

[happymix91]

A baby's whining? Perhaps you should read what I put instead of seeing I disagree with you and starting with the name calling. I'm not in anyway suggesting that a people with their own culture and nation are my people - if they were I'd be coring and culture converting them rather than setting them up as a vassal. In the example, (released) Scotland is now again a nation, but it is a vassal, paying taxes to me in return for my protection, in a fairly traditional agreement between liege and vassal; they're not my people, they're foreign, but tolerated as a subservient and hopefully reliable ally who pays me for the privilege.

The concept of a released vassal state and a client state are different. With a vassal (especially a released one), you are indicating that you still consider the previously existing entity to be valid, but now they work for you as well as their selves. With a client state you've drawn a new country on the map, given it a flag and a name and gone "this is now a country" and relying on being powerful to have people accept it.

And, in a shocking piece of news to you : client states are only possible later in the game, whereas vassals are how you deal with defeated but unabsorbed land earlier on in the game. Releasing an otherwise ungovernable land mass as a vassal is a valid and sensible tactic, since you can install a puppet of some sort (governor, duke, despot, viceroy, call it what you will) to run the country and send you some of the profits. Client states are also only available with the Art of War DLC.

Now, a vassal can turn on you - and so it should be able to - if it decides it doesn't like you anymore, or it becomes sufficiently powerful, either alone, or in concert with your other vassals, and they have a penalty that keeping them annexed doesn't - they eat up a diplomacy slot.


As for Paradox not having thought of my idea, I thought the idea was to debate and discuss ideas, so that Paradox can see how the userbase is interested, especially with a feature they're obviously looking at changing slightly. As such, I find your name calling and attitude towards people who hold a different point of view a little disrespectful, and wish that you'd discuss it properly, actually reading what I have written rather than what you think I'm writing.

So you said that released vassal must follow your religion? Why should the nation which is based on provinces which believe their own religion follow yours? You shouldn't be able to do that as long as you rely on that country's flag, core, and people. If you make something which rules over that provinces but follow your faith, that country is totally different from previous country which you destroyed, so it is called 'client state'.

Being able to create client state represents administrative and diplomatic improvement. So being unable to create it means that simply you can't do everything you want that era. Making whatever you want isn't that frequently happened in before Napoleonic era and concept of client state is originated from what Napoleon did, so restriction of client state isn't shocking for me. I'm with their idea about client state and restriction.

There can be some puppet countries made by conquerers before technology improved enough to make them especially in ROTW, but reflecting all of them now is simply too much burden for Dev.

And, what's the problem with making client state dlc-exclusive? Should Paradox make all of their features for everyone? You can't even play this game unless you pay for it and you can't make client state unless you pat for it, so what's the problem? Paradox has their own policy about dlc and it is reasonable.

Also, why should vassals follow what you want as they can uprise and eat diplomatic slot? If you want to whatever you want at that provinces, you must rule their directly. Or make client state, if technology of your country allows it.

Finally, as the way you guys who just whine and don't consider practical problems think is easily predicted, so I don't feel necessary to read seriously what you guys write. But I don't think that I misread what you wrote lol. And I don't think that Paradox couldn't think what you who doesn't consider practical problems thought. But the game shouldn't be too sophisticated and Dev has another important things to do, also Dev should think about balancing. What you said is just a whining. You can whine, I can tell whining as whining.

 

[grommile]

Unless that Catholic puppet ruler happened to be the last surviving member of the beloved Persian royal family?

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

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Where am I saying that I am trying to make what I want with a vassal?
I'm releasing the land that "belongs" to a cultural grouping or previous state under my control to a vassal who is now semi-independent, with the exceptions being that he has to pay me taxes and join my wars, and can't marry or ally with other people. Otherwise they're mostly free to do what they want within reason - colonisation, trade, and so on.

My comment about client states being DLC exclusive is that your apparent "Oh, just make a client state instead" only works for people who have the DLC, and have reached the relevant technology level. Before that, what are you supposed to do if you've got more land than you can handle, or if you're over your OE and can't fight it back down quickly? Oh, that's right! That's one of the reasons for vassals... For the record, I've got the DLC, so it's not an issue for me, but it's something to consider in a forum discussion - "Oh, just use <DLC-locked feature> to solve it" isn't always the most helpful of answers, especially when it's actually an answer to a different question than is being asked. In this case, the question is "should released nations have their historical religion; the majority religion of the provinces they're released with; the majority religion of their cores, including the ones they don't own; or the religion of the releasing nation". The answer to that isn't "Just make a client state".

The reason vassals should "follow what I want" (by which I mean pay tax and join wars) is because I'm protecting them from being swallowed up by the enemy. For the moment at least, they're semi-autonomous, and I don't get "whatever I want" from their provinces, just a tributary tax.

I'm also not sure where you're getting "whining" from. Then again, you've admitted that you've picked up that opinion so you're not reading my posts properly...

 

[happymix91]

Where am I saying that I am trying to make what I want with a vassal?
I'm releasing the land that "belongs" to a cultural grouping or previous state under my control to a vassal who is now semi-independent, with the exceptions being that he has to pay me taxes and join my wars, and can't marry or ally with other people. Otherwise they're mostly free to do what they want within reason - colonisation, trade, and so on.

My comment about client states being DLC exclusive is that your apparent "Oh, just make a client state instead" only works for people who have the DLC, and have reached the relevant technology level. Before that, what are you supposed to do if you've got more land than you can handle, or if you're over your OE and can't fight it back down quickly? Oh, that's right! That's one of the reasons for vassals... For the record, I've got the DLC, so it's not an issue for me, but it's something to consider in a forum discussion - "Oh, just use <DLC-locked feature> to solve it" isn't always the most helpful of answers, especially when it's actually an answer to a different question than is being asked. In this case, the question is "should released nations have their historical religion; the majority religion of the provinces they're released with; the majority religion of their cores, including the ones they don't own; or the religion of the releasing nation". The answer to that isn't "Just make a client state".

The reason vassals should "follow what I want" (by which I mean pay tax and join wars) is because I'm protecting them from being swallowed up by the enemy. For the moment at least, they're semi-autonomous, and I don't get "whatever I want" from their provinces, just a tributary tax.

I'm also not sure where you're getting "whining" from. Then again, you've admitted that you've picked up that opinion so you're not reading my posts properly...

If you don't buy WON, you can't send pirate. AOW is needed to transfer contol right of provinces. Without CS, Duke of Burgundy us called to 'King' and can't improve development. DLCs should lock some features whether they are needed to play conveniently, or for historical accuracy. Because Paradox should make earnings for them. Can't use some solution for unreal or inconvenient things without dlcs isn't problematic.

I also wrote that you can make what you want if you convert half of target nation's province. Perhaps you should read rightly before you blame other.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If you don't buy WON, you can't send pirate. AOW is needed to transfer contol right of provinces. Without CS, Duke of Burgundy us called to 'King' and can't improve development. DLCs should lock some features whether they are needed to play conveniently, or for historical accuracy. Because Paradox should make earnings for them. Can't use some solution for unreal or inconvenient things without dlcs isn't problematic.

That is an entirely different argument, and one to be had in a different thread, at a different time. What should be DLC content, and what should be patch content isn't really relevant to the whole discussion on what religion a vassal is released with.

I also wrote that you can make what you want if you convert half of target nation's province. Perhaps you should read rightly before you blame other.

Not at the moment. At the moment they're released with their "historic" religion regardless of the situation, even if they're 100% Catholic - if the history file says "Shamanist", that's what they'll come out as.
Also, even with the change I have to hold and convert half of their cores, not half of their provinces. There's a subtle difference, as they might not ever have held all of their cores, since there are a few events that grant cores rather than claims.


That then begs the question of what happens to a 40% Catholic, 40% Shia, 20% Jewish vassal state which historically would have been Hindu if that gets released under the new rules. No one religion has a majority, none even has a plurality, and the "historic" religion is dead within the boundaries of the new vassal.

 

[happymix91]

That is an entirely different argument, and one to be had in a different thread, at a different time. What should be DLC content, and what should be patch content isn't really relevant to the whole discussion on what religion a vassal is released with.



Not at the moment. At the moment they're released with their "historic" religion regardless of the situation, even if they're 100% Catholic - if the history file says "Shamanist", that's what they'll come out as.
Also, even with the change I have to hold and convert half of their cores, not half of their provinces. There's a subtle difference, as they might not ever have held all of their cores, since there are a few events that grant cores rather than claims.


That then begs the question of what happens to a 40% Catholic, 40% Shia, 20% Jewish vassal state which historically would have been Hindu if that gets released under the new rules. No one religion has a majority, none even has a plurality, and the "historic" religion is dead within the boundaries of the new vassal.

I wrote about DLC because you had said about that.

Can't understand second phrase.

Again, the game can't reflect all aspects of real world. The system of EU cannot be perfect, so you must deal with it. The game just consists of 'model' of real world, not real world itself.