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

[Chamoisking]

I guess Israel should have been Sunni or Christian when they were released.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I guess Israel should have been Sunni or Christian when they were released.

Ah, but they released Israel, not Palestine.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Happymix, any chance that you can take the condescension and hostility down a peg? Because, as much as I agree with you, and you can go back and check I do agree, you're not going to convince anyone by calling them whiners for disagreeing. People on this thread who disagree with you are not unreasonable, they simply believe something else is being simulated or should be simulated by the act of releasing a vassal.

In this case, the people opposing you think that converting provinces with your own missionary that you've paid for with missionary maintenance, time and possible opportunity cost, is enough to justify the existence of a majority in the ruling class that follows your religion. So of course they think it's reasonable, after you've invested this time to generate a ruling class that shares your religion, that the vassal you release and give complete domestic autonomy to would choose to convert their state to your shared religion of their own volition. Wiz's posts on this topic, and I'm going to avoid trying to speak for him, offer an abstract interpretation of what the game mechanics mean very much as an after thought, making it clear that this change is about game play and balance concerns. The suggested fix he's implementing, in fact, even establishes circumstances that would allow for a catholic Persia, a muslim Byzantium, or a Protestant Morroco, so clearly nations having the religion they followed when independent is not an absolute principle of game design.

As I said earlier, I don't agree with the idea that a nation should be able to be released to a completely different religion than the one that was there when their culture and laws were established at no cost, and I do not agree that the time put in by a missionary to convert the populace is a good way to simulate the effects of updating a nations legal and governmental traditions to account for an entirely different religion, but you do yourself, and those of us who agree with you, a disservice when you dismiss opposing points of view as whining. It's only due to the good humor and maturity of those on the other side of this discussion that I wasn't immediately disregarded when I opened my post by expressing agreement with you.

 

[Moridin997]

I guess Israel should have been Sunni or Christian when they were released.

Israel should be a TAG with fixed religion, as the Papal States or the various monastic orders should ideally be.

 

[grommile]

I guess Israel should have been Sunni or Christian when they were released.

There are so many things about the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel that do not fit comfortably into EU4's mechanics that picking on the "state religion" aspect seems either misguided or deliberately provocative.

 

[happymix91]

Israel should be a TAG with fixed religion, as the Papal States or the various monastic orders should ideally be.

Byzantium Empire too, I hope.

 

[Me_]

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)

I'd say that sounds fine indeed. Releasing vassals does not make much sense to me at all, unless they are of the client-state type. I'd say (sincerely, no joke): remove the release vassal option and instead, allow us to create client states from the start, but limit their number by tech level.

 

[happymix91]

Happymix, any chance that you can take the condescension and hostility down a peg? Because, as much as I agree with you, and you can go back and check I do agree, you're not going to convince anyone by calling them whiners for disagreeing. People on this thread who disagree with you are not unreasonable, they simply believe something else is being simulated or should be simulated by the act of releasing a vassal.

In this case, the people opposing you think that converting provinces with your own missionary that you've paid for with missionary maintenance, time and possible opportunity cost, is enough to justify the existence of a majority in the ruling class that follows your religion. So of course they think it's reasonable, after you've invested this time to generate a ruling class that shares your religion, that the vassal you release and give complete domestic autonomy to would choose to convert their state to your shared religion of their own volition. Wiz's posts on this topic, and I'm going to avoid trying to speak for him, offer an abstract interpretation of what the game mechanics mean very much as an after thought, making it clear that this change is about game play and balance concerns. The suggested fix he's implementing, in fact, even establishes circumstances that would allow for a catholic Persia, a muslim Byzantium, or a Protestant Morroco, so clearly nations having the religion they followed when independent is not an absolute principle of game design.

As I said earlier, I don't agree with the idea that a nation should be able to be released to a completely different religion than the one that was there when their culture and laws were established at no cost, and I do not agree that the time put in by a missionary to convert the populace is a good way to simulate the effects of updating a nations legal and governmental traditions to account for an entirely different religion, but you do yourself, and those of us who agree with you, a disservice when you dismiss opposing points of view as whining. It's only due to the good humor and maturity of those on the other side of this discussion that I wasn't immediately disregarded when I opened my post by expressing agreement with you.

Every systems in EU(and any other simulation games) are from balancing between aspects of realism
and need of making a game wanted to be played more. So every changes in patches are. People should think twice before they say something, like 'where did they base on for this change?', 'why did they changed like this?'. People who don't even understand this and just say what they want are not different with babies crying for what they want. Just as their whining, I express what I feel.

 

[Moridin997]

Byzantium Empire too, I hope.

Why? They're hardly as defined by religion as the examples above. Byzantium is, first and foremost, the successor of Rome. A strong ruler should be able to enforce a different religion if such was needed for the survival of the empire and the continuation of Roman legacy. (And a weak emperor should fail horribly attempting that )

 

[happymix91]

Why? They're hardly as defined by religion as the examples above. Byzantium is, first and foremost, the successor of Rome. A strong ruler should be able to enforce a different religion if such was needed for the survival of the empire and the continuation of Roman legacy. (And a weak emperor should fail horribly attempting that )

But they failed to change their state religion eventually. And I think that religion changing of Roman empire when they are released as a subject is nonsense, but I agree that this isn't that much critical as monastic orders.(Not in-religious group converting, but like converting to Sunni)

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Every systems in EU(and any other simulation games) are from balancing between aspects of realism
and need of making a game wanted to be played more. So every changes in patches are. People should think twice before they say something, like 'where did they base on for this change?', 'why did they changed like this?'. People who don't even understand this and just say what they want are not different with babies crying for what they want. Just as their whining, I express what I feel.

So, people posting their reasoning for why they think a change is bad, and should be reverted, or even that a compromise should be reached between the two positions are "whining" and "babies"?

You're not helping the discussion by attacking the people rather than their ideas. Especially as we've been told why Wiz and the other devs changed it, and we're - politely - saying what of it we agree with, and what we don't, and offering alternate solutions to be considered.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For anyone that's still involved in the main discussion, can anyone think of a good way to deal with a released vassal that has 40% one religion, 40% a second, 20% a third, and is historically a fourth religion? What religion should it come out as if we're using the "majority of its cores" solution? Is there a better answer than that one that we could suggest to the devs?

 

[happymix91]

So, people posting their reasoning for why they think a change is bad, and should be reverted, or even that a compromise should be reached between the two positions are "whining" and "babies"?

You're not helping the discussion by attacking the people rather than their ideas. Especially as we've been told why Wiz and the other devs changed it, and we're - politely - saying what of it we agree with, and what we don't, and offering alternate solutions to be considered.

Almost every posts by players(not only in this forum and the game) are just full of whining. There can be some meaningful, but frequency of that things is like frequency of converting religion of released vassals at history. Especially in this thread.

If players consider practical problem of developing, think twice before saying, and know their place, that frequency can be increased, buy no hope for that.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Almost every posts by players(not only in this forum and the game) are just full of whining. There can be some meaningful, but frequency of that things is like frequency of converting religion of released vassals at history. Especially in this thread.

If players consider practical problem of developing, think twice before saying, and know their place, that frequency can be increased, buy no hope for that.

And now ladies and gentlemen, I think I'm done with this guy.

 

[CNY10000]

So, people posting their reasoning for why they think a change is bad, and should be reverted, or even that a compromise should be reached between the two positions are "whining" and "babies"?

You're not helping the discussion by attacking the people rather than their ideas. Especially as we've been told why Wiz and the other devs changed it, and we're - politely - saying what of it we agree with, and what we don't, and offering alternate solutions to be considered.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For anyone that's still involved in the main discussion, can anyone think of a good way to deal with a released vassal that has 40% one religion, 40% a second, 20% a third, and is historically a fourth religion? What religion should it come out as if we're using the "majority of its cores" solution? Is there a better answer than that one that we could suggest to the devs?

Maybe we can give priority to the vassal's historical religion. If it is really a mess, then give priority to overlord's religion. But, this would be gamey.

Majority of cores solution is actually even worse than the current state. Players can still take most of a vassal's cores, convert those easy-to-convert provinces, and let the vassal convert the hard-to-convert provinces. It doesn't solve the problem at all, and it gets new problem like that.

Edit: An alternate solution I can think of is banning vassals from converting religion, overlords have to send missionary to convert for their vassals.

Even though I would be fine so long as I am allowed to enforce my religion to heathen vassals, whatever the religion my vassals start with.

Edit #2: Learn to ignore.

 

[happymix91]

And now ladies and gentlemen, I think I'm done with this guy.

If you don't want to talk with other, just simply don't talk. There is no reason to express that you are a baby to finish the quarrel.

But thanks, I go to sleep. This is already after midnight here. Hope for no more quote, I believe that you aren't baby really.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Every systems in EU(and any other simulation games) are from balancing between aspects of realism
and need of making a game wanted to be played more. So every changes in patches are. People should think twice before they say something, like 'where did they base on for this change?', 'why did they changed like this?'. People who don't even understand this and just say what they want are not different with babies crying for what they want. Just as their whining, I express what I feel.

Yes, but you understand there is no objective optimal balance between realism and good game play, that's very much a subjective standard that each person will assign. This isn't aided in a case like this when there is even disagreement about what makes for the most realistic approach, or what makes the most enjoyable gameplay.

And as for how many times people should think before speaking, well I think everybody can benefit from more forethought and thinking twice is always good advice. But how do you know they haven't given it thought and just reached a different conclusion, surely you've had intelligent and thoughtful people disagree with you before?

For that matter, how do you draw the line between constructive feedback and whining? And has anyone in the development team asked you to take this hard stance against whining on their behalf? I ask this while having already seen a developer on this very forum respond to at least two other posts with an acknowledgement that their criticisms, what you may have perceived as whining, were valid and that changes were being planned for the game that would address them. If you're curious someone was disappointed with having to spend 999 diplomatic points to break a personal union between Poland and Lithuania, another person believed the 5 point per click upcost to province development was unnecessarily punishing to tall play.

What it boils down to is the same thing it always seems to boil down to. The most persuasive and constructive people in any discussion are the ones who try to comprehend the other person's point of view and who are brave enough to admit they could be wrong. If you can't be that kind of person, you at least owe it to yourself to fake it long enough to get others to take you seriously.

For anyone that's still involved in the main discussion, can anyone think of a good way to deal with a released vassal that has 40% one religion, 40% a second, 20% a third, and is historically a fourth religion? What religion should it come out as if we're using the "majority of its cores" solution? Is there a better answer than that one that we could suggest to the devs?

Obviously a priority system for tie breaking. The only question is how to establish priority.

My thought would be to award ties to the longer established religion. The historical/game starting religion gets pride of place of course. But in this hypothetical it's not even in the running. So of the two religions that have 40% the one that has held that level or a higher level for longer should edge out the newcomer.

If the game doesn't have any way of tracking that, then I'd reward it to the religion that occupies the smaller number of higher developed provinces.

 

[taltamir]

I think you're misreading Wiz's statement. He's not saying the other Persian cores disappear. He's saying that as a country you would not be permitted to set up a Catholic Persia as a vassal state because the majority of Persians are not Catholic

I got that part, I am asking who is it that is not permitting me to do so. I literally conquered them with my literal armies and I am literally able to make them a core or release them as a vassal who is of the original religion.
So who is not making the permitting? the countries my own religion will certainly permit it. The countries of its original religion already have CB and relationship penalties with me and I welcome them to dare and declare war on me. The peasants already are revolting due to nationalism. That literally covers anyone in the game, the reason we are not permitted to do so is because paradox said so, because "millions of muslims" in the game would complain if I made persia catholic. But the thing is, they literally complain anyways as per holy wars and rebellions. So if they are complaining about it anyways I might as well get to put a puppet of my own religion.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Obviously a priority system for tie breaking. The only question is how to establish priority.

My thought would be to award ties to the longer established religion. The historical/game starting religion gets pride of place of course. But in this hypothetical it's not even in the running. So of the two religions that have 40% the one that has held that level or a higher level for longer should edge out the newcomer.

If the game doesn't have any way of tracking that, then I'd reward it to the religion that occupies the smaller number of higher developed provinces.

Would largest (most provinces) religion > tie break to Capital religion (if one of largest) > tie break to highest total development work for you?

 

[nossnahoj]

@Wiz, I am fine with it being based on majority, but then the majority of what? just number of provinces? weighed towards development points as well perhaps? In either case, just please make it transparent in the release vassal dialogue/summary, so you do not have to guess the outcome, like

"The state religion of XXXX will be YYYYY".

 

[Oddb@ll]

Why? They're hardly as defined by religion as the examples above. Byzantium is, first and foremost, the successor of Rome. A strong ruler should be able to enforce a different religion if such was needed for the survival of the empire and the continuation of Roman legacy. (And a weak emperor should fail horribly attempting that )

Wasn't Byzantium pretty much the center of orthodox Christianity for a thousand yesrs? It was a very religious state, with religion and politics tightly intertwined.