Korean War of Independence. What's wrong?

[Esxil]

I would like to draw attention to one, as it seems to me, a significant problem in the field of diplomacy and economics. This applies not only to Korea, but also to any country of the tributary. (At the same time, I would like to know if other people have encountered a similar problem.)

Korea starts as a tributary of the Qing. You are required to pay tribute (I think 5-10% of your income) and are in the Qing market. But if you want to get out of this state (for example, paying 160k pounds, it seems crazy to me) you will be faced with a number of questions:
1) Why do I have to have bad relations with China in order to be able to get out of the state of tributary. The mechanics of voluntary release, it seems to me, does not work? Whatever the relationship, no matter how much stronger (as it turned out later) my army, China would not let me go (I think the willingness to let me go has never been better than -99). At the same time, "Demand Independence" does not create a diplomatic game in case of refusal and does not provide an opportunity to declare war. It doesn't even worsen the relationship. At the same time, China is constantly improving relations with you (This leads to the fact that you are forced to wait for years until the relationship subsides (unless of course you spoiled them from the start), and in the game there are only 2 ways to worsen them - a) Send diplomats (only 1 time) and b) Lower relations (which is partially compensated by China).
It seems to me that the liberation mechanism should not require near-neutral relations between countries. And the refusal to release should at least worsen relations, and ideally give the country a choice - to start a war or remain silent.
2)Second problem. And it's more significant. I still don't know if this is a bug. But it looks like it doesn't.
When you start a war of independence, you remain in the market of the country you are at war with. This is very strange because in the end my Korean industry also supplied the Chinese army fighting with my army. Thereby increasing the cost of my mobilization and increasing my losses.
It seems to me that it shouldn't be. At least until the end of the war (regardless of the result), the country must have its own market. Otherwise it looks stupid.
3) The last problem that I noticed and which really looks like a bug. After starting the war for independence, I continued to transfer gigantic sums (160-170k pounds) to China weekly. That is, not only did I supply most of the Chinese army with weapons, cannons and ammunition, as well as engines for steam locomotives. So I also kept their army and all this during the war with me. This looks like a very serious flaw.
In addition, during the war, I noticed some extremely strange battles when China, having about 500 battalions at the front, put up completely empty (in terms of morality) armies against me. For example in the screenshot, I captured 20 provinces, in a battle of 78 against 67 battalions, without firing a shot.

 

[ZivDero]

Having played Korea as well...
for 1) You can expel diplomats. That will immediately decrease the relations by 30 and block them from improving their relations with you.
2) I think it's WAD. You also keep paying the tribute which I found odd but I supposse it's just that you haven't quite won your independence yet.
3) See 2.

 

[Esxil]

Having played Korea as well...
for 1) You can expel diplomats. That will immediately decrease the relations by 30 and block them from improving their relations with you.
2) I think it's WAD. You also keep paying the tribute which I found odd but I supposse it's just that you haven't quite won your independence yet.
3) See 2.

Of course, I may not be objective. But it seems to me that the mechanism of the war for independence should make the country of the initiator independent until the end of the war. And then decide on the outcome of the war. The US did not pay the UK during the Revolutionary War, and I don't think they directly traded and supplied weapons. It's very hard for me to even imagine it.

 

[Skales]

I agree that it is strange that you keep paying tribute to your overlord even while fighting a war of independence against them. Noticed that in my own Korea game.

 

[Sgt. Sodium]

Having played Korea as well...
for 1) You can expel diplomats. That will immediately decrease the relations by 30 and block them from improving their relations with you.
2) I think it's WAD. You also keep paying the tribute which I found odd but I supposse it's just that you haven't quite won your independence yet.
3) See 2.

If that’s WAD, I want a refund. Lol
There is no way any country would pay taxes to a nation they have currently engaged in a shooting war - no less paying them taxes so the overlord can buy arms and industrial equipment from the rebelling subject. Hahah

 

[Fawr]

For me paying tribute feels like a bug.

I wonder if #2 is a gameplay decision to give rebels more of a chance?

 

[Richard Dolder]

1) If you have positive relations then that means your country quite likes it's tributary status, likewise china does as well (and won't absorb you.)
3) Haiti is paying overlord tax after independence, becoming independent via war should just rename it "debt".

 

[Question]

It is practically impossible to ask for independence peacefully. Even if your army projection is 2x or more of your overlord AND you call in an obligation, its not enough. I tried this as Brazil previously, in the end I just gave up and did an independence war.

 

[Sgt. Sodium]

1) If you have positive relations then that means your country quite likes it's tributary status, likewise china does as well (and won't absorb you.)
3) Haiti is paying overlord tax after independence, becoming independent via war should just rename it "debt".

I feel that - the 'relations' value seems a little too vague - if it's inter-population or inter-governmental approval (or both) isn't always consistent.
But I find it a little aggravating that I, playing as a autocractic monarch, can't just "do what I want" and suffer the domestic consequences in post. (Pro-overlord interest groups fighting from within, for example.)

As to 3) - I wish we could negotiate the terms of release to that degree. As mentioned above, its just too bad that you only have violent options, and some of them just plain don't work correctly.

 

[Ir0nSlug]

I feel that - the 'relations' value seems a little too vague - if it's inter-population or inter-governmental approval (or both) isn't always consistent.
But I find it a little aggravating that I, playing as a autocractic monarch, can't just "do what I want" and suffer the domestic consequences in post. (Pro-overlord interest groups fighting from within, for example.)

This relationship mechanic is indeed a bit weird, but you must realize that it also protect subjects from annexation. Nothing would stop the AI big players to just annex all their subjects (which is generally the best choice to make).

 

[Richard Dolder]

I feel that - the 'relations' value seems a little too vague - if it's inter-population or inter-governmental approval (or both) isn't always consistent.
But I find it a little aggravating that I, playing as a autocractic monarch, can't just "do what I want" and suffer the domestic consequences in post. (Pro-overlord interest groups fighting from within, for example.)

Relations is formal relations, like in my most recent Qing game me and Britain had like +50 relations but they were antagonistic to me and both of us were doing massive naval build up until we both started lowering relations.
Plotting the others demise over the most polite cups of tea.

Also Being an Autocrat doesn't mean you rule alone, the change to Autocratic monarchies massively empowered the bureaucracy to disenfranchise the smaller nobles.
Just look at Russias many failed reform attempts, or Chinas many puppet emperors.
Insert long rambling thing that autocracy should give power to bureaucrats not aristocrats.

Also you aren't the autocrat (else switching from monarchy would be game over, and you'd lose the ability to play the game if the land owners leave power) your attempts to lower relations might have to include that bureaucracy convincing the autocrat that "yes you like france, but war would be better for the nation".

 

[Sgt. Sodium]

Relations is formal relations, like in my most recent Qing game me and Britain had like +50 relations but they were antagonistic to me and both of us were doing massive naval build up until we both started lowering relations.
Plotting the others demise over the most polite cups of tea.

Also Being an Autocrat doesn't mean you rule alone, the change to Autocratic monarchies massively empowered the bureaucracy to disenfranchise the smaller nobles.
Just look at Russias many failed reform attempts, or Chinas many puppet emperors.
Insert long rambling thing that autocracy should give power to bureaucrats not aristocrats.

Also you aren't the autocrat (else switching from monarchy would be game over, and you'd lose the ability to play the game if the land owners leave power) your attempts to lower relations might have to include that bureaucracy convincing the autocrat that "yes you like france, but war would be better for the nation".

All very good points.
TBH, some form of your third point would be nice though. A world where IG's can sabotage your national relations might be kinda cool.

This relationship mechanic is indeed a bit weird, but you must realize that it also protect subjects from annexation. Nothing would stop the AI big players to just annex all their subjects (which is generally the best choice to make).

And yes, that is correct as well. I'd like it better if overlords occasionally approached you to re-neg, affecting relations based on outcome or which side gets screwed more.
And, of course, saying "NO" to everything the overlord requests could lead to that overlord attacking and annexing you (or just beating the soup out of you and enforcing the terms of the re-negotiation.)
EUIV has a tribute system loosely similar to this, but without any ability for the subject to negotiate. They just say "YES/NO" to whatever change Ming/Qing demands.