Liberty desire, trust and removal of historical friends/rivals

[0yvind]

Historical friends/rivals is too static as a modifier to symbolize two countries view of each other, when it should be dynamic.

It's too powerful in unions. A historical friend/rival gets the following effects:

± 50% liberty desire​

± 25 Relation bonus (which also effects liberty desire)​

This can make a subject very loyal or disloyal despite how bad or well you treat them, depending on their modifier. I've had an overlord drain my economy and stopping me from building things by siphoning my income three times in a short period, yet my liberty desire couldn't get over 50% because I was a historical friend. I've had them take provinces I had claims on for themselves, despite having no claims themselves. I've also had a few moments where they actually create buildings in my provinces, so they're not always bad. The point is, none of these things affected my liberty desire outside what little relations affect it.

I think the modifiers should be replaced with high or low levels of trust. Trust already affects liberty desire somewhat (±0.4% per trust above/below 50, which equals to 20% LB at most), but I think it should affect it even more strongly, especially when trust is low. Making trust more important could also make room for more interesting subject interactions. It should be important to influence trust in a subject through good or bad deeds. Here are some examples I can think of with some on-the-fly values:

Increase trust:

1. Go to war for their claims/cores (+5).
2. Actually grant them their claims/cores after the war (+5 per province).
3. Build buildings in their provinces (+2).
4. Increase development in their provinces (+1).
5. Defeat rebel army (+2).
6. Liberate province (+1)
7. Great relations (+1 per year).
8. Give subsidies (+1 to +3 per year depending on how much).
9. Events, new and remade country flavor ones (everything from +5 to +25)

Decrease trust:

1. Overlord takes provinces after a war that subject had claims/cores on (-3 per claim, -6 per core).
2. Owning a province your subject has a core on (-1 per year, down to 40).
3. Owning a province your subject has a permanent claim on (-1 per year, down to 70).
4. Destroy a building you built in their provinces (-2)
5. Bad relations (-1 per year, down to 20)
6. Transfer too much trade away from their home node (-1 per year, down to 80)
7. High mercantilism (-1 per year, down to 70)
8. Siphon income (-10)
9. Being annexed (-1 per year)
10. Events, new and remade country flavor ones (everything from -5 to -25)

These are just some examples from the top of my head that I could think of right now, and the values are probably not balanced especially if they stack. Also, the trust system doesn't use decimals like the favour system, so 1 is the lowest number currently, but that should probably change to help balance them. It should be mentioned that some of these actions already directly affect liberty desire (which is a good thing), but they should also do so with trust. More ideas are welcome!

The point is I think it could create an interesting dynamic where you have to develop your subject and actually do things for them outside events and good relations to keep them loyal. There's also a risk/reward in it: is it a good idea to increase their trust by giving them more provinces and expand their infrastructure, or are you setting yourself up for a more threatening subject in the future by doing so - not to mention it will increase annexing time and cost. Should you spend money on yourself or your disloyal subject?

What do people think?

 

[RMS Oceanic]

I like it, a little more dynamic than a hardcoded "you like this guy" thing, though you can obviously set up Poland and Lithuania with bonus trust at game start, etc.

If it was implemented, I might make the trust effect on LD a bit stronger, maybe +/-30%, since at the minute it's built with historical relationships as a compounding/contrasting factor.

 

[0yvind]

I like it, a little more dynamic than a hardcoded "you like this guy" thing, though you can obviously set up Poland and Lithuania with bonus trust at game start, etc.

If it was implemented, I might make the trust effect on LD a bit stronger, maybe +/-30%, since at the minute it's built with historical relationships as a compounding/contrasting factor.

Yeah, I think all nations that previously had the historical friend/rival modifier should have that replaced with high or low levels of trust.

 

[ValhallArchitect]

Historical friends/rivals is too static as a modifier to symbolize two countries view of each other, when it should be dynamic.

It's too powerful in unions. A historical friend/rival gets the following effects:

± 50% liberty desire​

± 25 Relation bonus (which also effects liberty desire)​

This can make a subject very loyal or disloyal despite how bad or well you treat them, depending on their modifier. I've had an overlord drain my economy and stopping me from building things by siphoning my income three times in a short period, yet my liberty desire couldn't get over 50% because I was a historical friend. I've had them take provinces I had claims on for themselves, despite having no claims themselves. I've also had a few moments where they actually create buildings in my provinces, so they're not always bad. The point is, none of these things affected my liberty desire outside what little relations affect it.

I think the modifiers should be replaced with high or low levels of trust. Trust already affects liberty desire somewhat (±0.4% per trust above/below 50, which equals to 20% LB at most), but I think it should affect it even more strongly, especially when trust is low. Making trust more important could also make room for more interesting subject interactions. It should be important to influence trust in a subject through good or bad deeds. Here are some examples I can think of with some on-the-fly values:

Increase trust:

1. Go to war for their claims/cores (+5).
2. Actually grant them their claims/cores after the war (+5 per province).
3. Build buildings in their provinces (+2).
4. Increase development in their provinces (+1).
5. Defeat rebel army (+2).
6. Liberate province (+1)
7. Great relations (+1 per year).
8. Give subsidies (+1 to +3 per year depending on how much).
9. Events, new and remade country flavor ones (everything from +5 to +25)

Decrease trust:

1. Overlord takes provinces after a war that subject had claims/cores on (-3 per claim, -6 per core).
2. Owning a province your subject has a core on (-1 per year, down to 40).
3. Owning a province your subject has a permanent claim on (-1 per year, down to 70).
4. Destroy a building you built in their provinces (-2)
5. Bad relations (-1 per year, down to 20)
6. Transfer too much trade away from their home node (-1 per year, down to 80)
7. High mercantilism (-1 per year, down to 70)
8. Siphon income (-10)
9. Being annexed (-1 per year)
10. Events, new and remade country flavor ones (everything from -5 to -25)

These are just some examples from the top of my head that I could think of right now, and the values are probably not balanced especially if they stack. Also, the trust system doesn't use decimals like the favour system, so 1 is the lowest number currently, but that should probably change to help balance them. It should be mentioned that some of these actions already directly affect liberty desire (which is a good thing), but they should also do so with trust. More ideas are welcome!

The point is I think it could create an interesting dynamic where you have to develop your subject and actually do things for them outside events and good relations to keep them loyal. There's also a risk/reward in it: is it a good idea to increase their trust by giving them more provinces and expand their infrastructure, or are you setting yourself up for a more threatening subject in the future by doing so - not to mention it will increase annexing time and cost. Should you spend money on yourself or your disloyal subject?

What do people think?

I had made a mod (for personal use) for this, in which I removed all historical_friendship or rival flags, and replaced them with a decaying opinion bonus/penalty (-100, decaying 2% every year so fully disappearing after roughly 2 generations)

Thus, 1444 relationship remained “historical” (ie France and England), while on the contrary future relationship were not blocked (same example, France and England at a time allied against the Low Countries)

This goes the same for the Habsburg à France relationship, which should not be historical rival in 1444, but once Habsburg inherit vital Burgundian land… and switch to allied after the Seven Years war, due to a changing geopolitical context

 

[Blk82]

The historical friends and rivals exist mainly to railroad the early diplomatic game. Most liberty desire is due to the relative size of the nations more than anything else. I.e. unless you go out of your way to raise liberty desire, a tiny vassal will generally be loyal, or easy to make loyal. The liberty desire isn't really a measure of the overlord treatment of the vassal (this isn't Crusader Kings), but the "unrest" within vassal territory. Basically, it exists so you can't get a ton of free land by RNG, such as PUing France as Navarre or Great Britain as some HRE minor.

In that sense, it is a gamey-mechanic. But, it does do its purpose in railroading in preventing certain alliances from forming, destabilizing some vassal relationships (Denmark-Sweden, Oirat-Mongolia), while stabilizing others (Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary). The liberty desire modifier has to be large to matter.

 

[ValhallArchitect]

The historical friends and rivals exist mainly to railroad the early diplomatic game. Most liberty desire is due to the relative size of the nations more than anything else. I.e. unless you go out of your way to raise liberty desire, a tiny vassal will generally be loyal, or easy to make loyal. The liberty desire isn't really a measure of the overlord treatment of the vassal (this isn't Crusader Kings), but the "unrest" within vassal territory. Basically, it exists so you can't get a ton of free land by RNG, such as PUing France as Navarre or Great Britain as some HRE minor.

In that sense, it is a gamey-mechanic. But, it does do its purpose in railroading in preventing certain alliances from forming, destabilizing some vassal relationships (Denmark-Sweden, Oirat-Mongolia), while stabilizing others (Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary). The liberty desire modifier has to be large to matter.

Well, it’s what it aims to do… but saying that it is only railroading early game would be wrong, since as the modifier is currently implemented it results in a permanent which (apart from historical friend if you DoW them) never disappears.

Hence, it fails to capture the changing state of the world, especially in a game which is about creating alternate history.
And as aforementioned, even history displays some pretty good examples of such changes :

• Sweden and Denmark were in union, before becoming strong rivals for centuries
• Britain and France were strong rivals, but allied during game frame against the Low Countries. (I will not insist here on what happened after game timeframe, but there are examples too)
• France and Austria did not care about each other, until Austria inherited burgundy. Then they became rivals for 3 centuries, until they had to form an alliance against the growing Anglo-Prussian alliance
• Britain and Russia did not care about each other for most of the early timeframe (Britain even had a Muscovite fur trade company), but they were the two challengers as part of the Great Game in the late game period

then speaking of alternate history :

• What if Spain inherits burgundy, but never unify with Austria ? Should austria remain historical rival with France (which it doesn’t even border in this case ?) or would it make more sense for both of them to ally to get burgundy back, half for France and half for the HRE ?

 

[Blk82]

I understand the argument. However, the map and diplomatic situation should be plausible, except for the player-blob. (Granted, we can argue what exactly "plausible" means.) In Europe, the only starting historical rivalries in Europe are:

Austria vs Ottomans
Byzantium vs Ottomans
Castile vs Granada
France vs Austria
Great Horde vs Kazan
Great Horde vs Ottomans
Mamluks vs Ottomans
Muscovy vs Novgorod
Poland vs Teutonic Order

Of these, the only ones that lead to permanent rivalries are the French vs Austrian and Ottoman vs Austrian rivalries. Most of the others exist so that the larger tag doesn't ally the smaller one and block its own expansion, and so that the smaller tag doesn't survive ahistorically late into the game. The Ottoman vs Great Horde rivalry exists so that the Ottomans won't block Muscovite/Russian expansion eastward by allying the Great Horde. Likewise, the Kazan/Great Horde rivalry prevents a steppe horde alliance overcoming Muscovy in the early game.

 

[Oporto]

The historical friends and rivals exist mainly to railroad the early diplomatic game. Most liberty desire is due to the relative size of the nations more than anything else. I.e. unless you go out of your way to raise liberty desire, a tiny vassal will generally be loyal, or easy to make loyal. The liberty desire isn't really a measure of the overlord treatment of the vassal (this isn't Crusader Kings), but the "unrest" within vassal territory. Basically, it exists so you can't get a ton of free land by RNG, such as PUing France as Navarre or Great Britain as some HRE minor.

In that sense, it is a gamey-mechanic. But, it does do its purpose in railroading in preventing certain alliances from forming, destabilizing some vassal relationships (Denmark-Sweden, Oirat-Mongolia), while stabilizing others (Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary). The liberty desire modifier has to be large to matter.

Historical friendship between Portugal and Castille/Spain has no historical background whatsoever and it's only purpose is to prevent Castille from gobbling Portugal from the word "go".

 

[0yvind]

The historical friends and rivals exist mainly to railroad the early diplomatic game. Most liberty desire is due to the relative size of the nations more than anything else. I.e. unless you go out of your way to raise liberty desire, a tiny vassal will generally be loyal, or easy to make loyal. The liberty desire isn't really a measure of the overlord treatment of the vassal (this isn't Crusader Kings), but the "unrest" within vassal territory. Basically, it exists so you can't get a ton of free land by RNG, such as PUing France as Navarre or Great Britain as some HRE minor.

In that sense, it is a gamey-mechanic. But, it does do its purpose in railroading in preventing certain alliances from forming, destabilizing some vassal relationships (Denmark-Sweden, Oirat-Mongolia), while stabilizing others (Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary). The liberty desire modifier has to be large to matter.

I feel like the same effect can be achieved through the idea I propose though: making trust more important and replacing the pre-existing historical friends/rivals with high or low trust between specific nations. It would make the arena more dynamic in the long run as trust can vary between 0-100. The current system is very binary and difficult to change.