Liberty Desire - few suggestions

[moscal]

1) Different religion give LD
1A) Greater Catholicism/Orthodox/Coptic vs Protestant/Reformed
1B) Smaller all religions of East (eastern and dharmic) vs all religions of East
2) Disaster at the sovereign give LD
3) Overextansion give LD
4) LD unlocks good economic or military decisions
5) LD 90+ give monarch-points bonus

 

[Danfish77]

Having high liberty desire gives bonus monarch points? To the overlord or the vassal? Why?

 

[Maq]

While I don't necessarily support @moscal's suggestions, I think vassals are generally too docile.

 

[moscal]

Having high liberty desire gives bonus monarch points? To the overlord or the vassal? Why?

For subject state. Because a nation that wants freedom, is have the better impulse to upgrade than the slaves nation.

 

[ShadowCammy]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's vague. You should elaborate on them more.
I agree that if there's a religious difference there should be more liberty desire, as well as the disaster and overextension, but the rest I don't agree with or understand what you mean.

 

[Jomini]

1. Why? If anything, vassals of different religion were more likely to be loyal. The whole point of something like Transylvania was that they managed their own religious affairs and received protection from other religious rivals. The tension over religion came from there being restrictions on what religion people could practice ... which doesn't exist for vassals.
2. What does this even mean?
3. Good lord no. This is abuseable as all heck. Hello Castille, here take these 5 juicy provinces. Now don't mind me. I'm just going to break our alliance, and support independence for Naples and Aragon. Even hard coding the AI to avoid enough OExt to avoid trouble here, it moves the game in the wrong direction - AIs are even worse at expanding at providing a longer lasting challenge to the human.
4. Ehh, depends. You do realize that people will then farm LD (say to increase vassal development), and bring it back down for a quick spot of annexation? Right.
5. So, I want to keep a OPM vassal at high LD to tech up faster and give me neighbor bonuses? I want intentionally be a junior for the first few decades in order to tech faster and fill out key idea groups? Sounds fishy.

 

[moscal]

@Jomini
1. Zaporizhzhia Sich was a orthodox. Duchy of Prussia was a lutheran. PLC was a catholic. Cossacks often were disloyal, collaborated with the Tatars, Russians, Swedes and others to gain independence. During the Swedish Deluge Prussians they collaborated with the Swedes. Later look for any excuse to be independent.
2. Eg. In Austria breaks out the peasant war. Bohemian vassal sees his feudal lord is moron. Why vassal has to listen to idiot, who cannot good supervise the peasants?
3. Over 100% OE state receives various negative events. If vassal sees that the administration of the country-parent has problems in management of the state, why should be obedient to someone who has no competence?
5. Look at 13-colonies. They grow faster than the more obedient colonies. Why? Liberty desire, freedom spirit etc.

 

[Maq]

They grow faster than the more obedient colonies. Why? Liberty desire, freedom spirit etc.

You've switched the chain of causalities.
However, I generally agree with the point that a subject should be able to distinguish overlord's difficulties and take advantage of them, meaning strive for independence.
Historically, vassalisation usually was not just a preliminary phase of full annexation. It was rather a mutually beneficial arrangement of permanent alliance reflecting unequality in power and influence of the partisans involved. That means:
a] Annexation should be possible only if ciscumstances change substantially. It should take many decades and some conditions should be met.
b] Protection was the main benefit on the vassal's side. If the overlord happens to be significantly weakened, for whatever reason, maintaining vassal relationship loses its main appeal, and so the vassal should seek either protection from someone else, or full independence.
Overlord - vassal relationship should be generally more dynamic, but definitely not in the direction 'enable and accomplish diploannexation at overlord's will'.

 

[Jomini]

@Jomini
1. Zaporizhzhia Sich was a orthodox. Duchy of Prussia was a lutheran. PLC was a catholic. Cossacks often were disloyal, collaborated with the Tatars, Russians, Swedes and others to gain independence. During the Swedish Deluge Prussians they collaborated with the Swedes. Later look for any excuse to be independent.
2. Eg. In Austria breaks out the peasant war. Bohemian vassal sees his feudal lord is moron. Why vassal has to listen to idiot, who cannot good supervise the peasants?
3. Over 100% OE state receives various negative events. If vassal sees that the administration of the country-parent has problems in management of the state, why should be obedient to someone who has no competence?
5. Look at 13-colonies. They grow faster than the more obedient colonies. Why? Liberty desire, freedom spirit etc.

1. Zaporizhzhia was a codominion of Russia and Poland within two decades of formal organization, it was destroyed by the Orthodox Russians, not the Catholic PLC, and the diehards defected to the Sunni OE. Prussia was Lutheran, sure, but the those lovely Lutheran Junkers petitioned Catholic Sigismund III for direct rule after the PU with Brandenburg. Further, while Prussia made common cause with Sweden, it also was granted full rights by John II; for allegedly being religiously motivated, this is an awful lot of cross-religious cooperation. My point is that religious minorities subjects - like Catholic Canada, Reformed Transylvania, Orthodox Trebizond, etc. - were often more loyal than coreligionists (e.g. Naples, the American colonies).
2. Ehh, only insofar as it actually effects real stats. The nobles who control the military in the subject are unlikely to give credence to peasants and quite likely would help the boss put down the rabble for fear that their peasants might revolt.
3. Well for a start high OExt only happens after you win a war and presumably have sufficient forces to win again. Historically, winning overlords had much more loyal vassals than overlords who lost wars. Again, let the actual numbers - tax, manpower, etc. work. We do not need to double dip on effects.
5. Wrong way around, faster growing colonies are more disloyal as they are better able withstand the overlord.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What is the morbid fascination with making subject nations non-viable?

 

[moscal]

@Jomini - que?! Zaporizhzhia Sich was not a polish-russian condominium! When Turkish Sultan written protests on the Zaporozhian Cossacks attacks on merchant ships on the Black Sea, he wrote them to the Polish-Lithuanian king. Not to the Tsar of Russia. Khmelnitsky said that the Commonwealth is as mother, and the king (king of PLC) is as father. Zaporozhian Cossacks used its influence in Moscow, because they were losing the uprising. NOT because Russia was a co-colonizer. Sich has acted in the period 1556-1775, not "two decades".

List of major Zaporizhzhian Cossack uprisings:
Kosiński Uprising (1591-1593) - antifeudal
Nalyvaiko Uprising (1594-1596) - private conflict and religious
Zhmaylo Uprising (1625) - conflict of interest of the king and Sich (the king wanted peace with the Crimean Khanate; the Cossacks war) and religious
Fedorovych Uprising (1630) - antifeudal, religious, conflict of interest of the king and Sich (Cossack piracy and raids on muslims lands)
Sulyma Uprising (1635) - antifeudal
Pavlyuk Uprising (1637) - nationalist and antifeudal
Ostryanyn Uprising (1638) - antifeudal
Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648-1655) - private conflict, antifeudal, nationalist, conflict of interest of the Senat, Sejm and Sich (Sejm and the Senate wanted peace with Turkey, Sich wanted war) and religious
Paliy Uprising (1702-1704) - against the liquidation of their class

All... vs PLC.
Russia eliminated the Sich because it was the center of anarchism.

 

[Jomini]

@Jomini - que?! Zaporizhzhia Sich was not a polish-russian condominium!

As per the treaty of Andrusovo it was. Which is about 15 years after formal organization (splitting of the Host into the Hetmanate and Sich). The game database begins with the Hetmanate in 1555 which, in western history, denotes a different polity from which the Sich was derived in 1654. In all cases, these polities were not synonomous withe Zaporizhian Host which crossed borders and did not follow subject-overlord modeling.

When Turkish Sultan written protests on the Zaporozhian Cossacks attacks on merchant ships on the Black Sea, he wrote them to the Polish-Lithuanian king. Not to the Tsar of Russia. Khmelnitsky said that the Commonwealth is as mother, and the king (king of PLC) is as father. Zaporozhian Cossacks used its influence in Moscow, because they were losing the uprising. NOT because Russia was a co-colonizer. Sich has acted in the period 1556-1775, not "two decades".

List of major Zaporizhzhian Cossack uprisings:
Kosiński Uprising (1591-1593) - antifeudal
Nalyvaiko Uprising (1594-1596) - private conflict and religious
Zhmaylo Uprising (1625) - conflict of interest of the king and Sich (the king wanted peace with the Crimean Khanate; the Cossacks war) and religious
Fedorovych Uprising (1630) - antifeudal, religious, conflict of interest of the king and Sich (Cossack piracy and raids on muslims lands)
Sulyma Uprising (1635) - antifeudal
Pavlyuk Uprising (1637) - nationalist and antifeudal
Ostryanyn Uprising (1638) - antifeudal
Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648-1655) - private conflict, antifeudal, nationalist, conflict of interest of the Senat, Sejm and Sich (Sejm and the Senate wanted peace with Turkey, Sich wanted war) and religious
Paliy Uprising (1702-1704) - against the liquidation of their class

All... vs PLC.
Russia eliminated the Sich because it was the center of anarchism.

I believe this is a question of terminology, I recognize many of these uprisings, but most are the effect of the Zaporizhian Host under the history terms I learned at MCWAR. As noted above, as a polity the "Sich" doesn't refer to anything until Pereyaslav. I realize that my local language skills are non-existent so my apologies if this schema is not what is used locally.

When it comes to game terms, a lot of these should show up in the rebel mechanisms, not the vassal ones. For instance the Sulyma Uprising involved Cossacks in Cherkasy, which the game currently awards to the PLC proper in the game database. The Nalyvaiko Uprising was in Bratislav, which again is PLC proper territory.


Regardless, the Cossack polities proved to be disloyal to everyone, not just Catholic Poles. It wasn't like once the Orthodox Russians took over, everyone got along well. If anything, there was greater antagonism between the co-religionists.

But let's look at some other polities. Like say the subjects of the OE. Who was more loyal the Transylvanians or Berbers? How about the British - the Protestant Thirteen Colonies of the Catholic Canadian ones? Or how about, say every Catholic vassal in Italy that ever rebelled. Or perhaps, every single Protestant or Reformed puppet state under Napoleon's Catholic France that failed to rebel even when they had greater combined military power than France proper.

In the grand sweep of EUIV history, at best vassal religion has minimal impact on how often the vassal betrayed the overlord or how often it rebelled towards independence. Now sure, if the overlord tries to impose religious changes on the subject (e.g. Reformed Scotland being commanded by Protestant England to adopt episcopacy and the prayer book - i.e. Protestantism proper), then sure let the Liberty Desire ring. But the whole point of granting a vassal autonomy and letting them control their own religious matters was to remove religion from the grievance list and better allow the central state to maintain some control of the territory without suffering unwarranted costs.

 

[lolada]

Acceptable:

1) Different religion give LD - can be based on tolerance levels of overlord and a subject
2) Disaster at the sovereign give LD - logical
3) Overextansion give LD - not too much tho, it will nerf blobing a lot
4) LD unlocks good economic or military decisions - should be militarly only - something like fight for freedom extra morale, discipline, force limits, +1 dip rep to get allies etc.

- These are logical suggestion but need to be balanced carefully. This will make game much harder for smaller nations and a bit harder for others. These are 3 extra sources of LD thats a lot to add at once.

Nop:

5) LD 90+ give monarch-points bonus - don't see the logic here, not that we don't need MP but why would subject gain extra mp ?

 

[Jomini]

Acceptable:

1) Different religion give LD - can be based on tolerance levels of overlord and a subject
2) Disaster at the sovereign give LD - logical
3) Overextansion give LD - not too much tho, it will nerf blobing a lot
4) LD unlocks good economic or military decisions - should be militarly only - something like fight for freedom extra morale, discipline, force limits, +1 dip rep to get allies etc.

- These are logical suggestion but need to be balanced carefully. This will make game much harder for smaller nations and a bit harder for others. These are 3 extra sources of LD thats a lot to add at once.

Nop:

5) LD 90+ give monarch-points bonus - don't see the logic here, not that we don't need MP but why would subject gain extra mp ?

1. Why? I could see tolerance being a penalty to integration, but it was abysmally uncommon for vassals with independent religious policies to ever revolt for reasons of religion - the overlord being willing to create an exception to religious policy was often the reason why they were so independent enough to warrant vassal status.
2. Why? I mean sure if the military potential of the sovreign goes down ... but not as a general thing. Vassals routinely helped their overlords against peasants, religious rebels (sometimes even helping a heathen overlord against their own co-religionists), and other separatists.
3. Why? Again if it actually diminishes the military capability of the overlord, sure. But not as a matter of course.


Remember that for most of this era, vassals only rebelled if they either wanted to swap overlords (e.g. Transylvania going from Ottoman to Austrian loyalty) or if they thought they were strong enough to stand on their own against the other threats nearby. This isn't the modern era where the UN and the global powers look poorly on most states seizing land. Historically, Estonia voluntarily asked for Swedish rule in order to protect Estonia. Likewise, the Prussian nobility at times actively sought Polish overlordship. Vassals routinely understand that a weak overlord meant that their land would become ripe for the taking from some other empire. This threatened the nobility (conquest often meant they would be reduced in power if they didn't betray the current ruler quick enough) and the peasantry (wars on your territory were terribly bad).

Vassals shouldn't tank themselves just to harm their overlord. They should actively look for sponsors (possibly even expand support independence so that vassals can swap overlords) who will make sure they don't die once independent, but they should not just flog a war in order to get mercilessly crushed.