I think the whole SoI and magistrate bonus crap doesn't make sense anyway. Magistrate should scale with your empire's size and SoI should be a simple thing that gives you a free CB.
Offer vassalization - Remove Alliance requirement
- Thread starter Chronicler
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Diplomats are easy enough to get as it is.
It really doesn't make sense that considering a ton of nations to be in your sphere of influence, meaning you watch everything they do/other attempts to interact with them, would actually make it easier for you to build up your own empire.
I think the main purpose is the CB, not magistrates.
I think there are also some things that affect how other nations interact with nations in your SoI. Not sure, though.
And you get a huge diplomacy skill boost for it. Totally worth the prestige.
And you get a huge diplomacy skill boost for it. Totally worth the prestige.
No. But it greatly helps us understand your somewhat... odd.. behaviour here. This game is about history. You know, real life history, not "history, the computer game". And if you try to understand that, you would also understand that a sphere of interest is supposed to simulate, get this.. A sphere of interest. Not a "sphere of maximizing bonuses so I will much easier win this game".
And the reason why this is important in this thread is that you show the same ignorance to what the game is about with your suggestion to remove the alliance demand for diplomatic vassalization. It's not there to make your life harder, it's there because it's logical, historical, in short correct.
Which hopefully will not be there when 5.2 comes. The most overpowered feature in the game. If it gave 0.1-0.2 in diplobonus or if the bonus was capped at 10 or something it would be ok but how it is now... *shudders*
I don't know, I like it that way. Great way (and possibly the only truly viable way) to get soft power.
No. But it greatly helps us understand your somewhat... odd.. behaviour here. This game is about history. You know, real life history, not "history, the computer game". And if you try to understand that, you would also understand that a sphere of interest is supposed to simulate, get this.. A sphere of interest. Not a "sphere of maximizing bonuses so I will much easier win this game".
And the reason why this is important in this thread is that you show the same ignorance to what the game is about with your suggestion to remove the alliance demand for diplomatic vassalization. It's not there to make your life harder, it's there because it's logical, historical, in short correct.
Which hopefully will not be there when 5.2 comes. The most overpowered feature in the game. If it gave 0.1-0.2 in diplobonus or if the bonus was capped at 10 or something it would be ok but how it is now... *shudders*
The game is about strategy, it's just based on history. Obviously nothing that happens after a certain start date is history.
-.-
It is a strategy based on history! It is built on history, simply put that is how vassalage worked in that time.
Also it is a strategy game that IS based on history, simply put you can't simply remove the parts you don't like to make cheesy strategies more effective. Having 50 countries as vassals was most likely not what the creators aimed for when they made the game.
Fine that you find strategies that work, but when the game doesn't work out as you want I don't really see a reason to complain when it is historically acurate..
It is a strategy based on history! It is built on history, simply put that is how vassalage worked in that time.
Also it is a strategy game that IS based on history, simply put you can't simply remove the parts you don't like to make cheesy strategies more effective. Having 50 countries as vassals was most likely not what the creators aimed for when they made the game.
Fine that you find strategies that work, but when the game doesn't work out as you want I don't really see a reason to complain when it is historically acurate..
No, but every feature that exists in the game is there to simulate the history behind it. Do you understand that? Do you now understand what everyone is talking about and why your suggestions are so bizarre? You are suggesting things that go the opposite way of what the game is about. That means both vassals and SoI are there to simulate real world vassals and real world sphere of interests.
But overlords have to protect their vassals anyhow as already stated. So then why do I need the alliance? Please explain that.
And seriously? Nations in the past could add another smaller nation to their "SOI" in the past and get magistrates and CBs and shiet? Cool.
Seriously, with your reasoning you'll end up removing the SOI rather than the alliance thing you started with. Offcourse a SOI would require more magistrates in order to keep control over information flow between yourself and the areas of interest, and offcourse if someone start messing with what you're interested in you will get pissed at them.
Personally, remove the SOI bonuses and problem solved. Vassals will be worth less and you won't be wasting diplomats anymore.
Personally, remove the SOI bonuses and problem solved. Vassals will be worth less and you won't be wasting diplomats anymore.
As was said before, numerous times, a major part of vassalage was providing military aid to their liege. Not just when the vassal itself was attacked.
Yes, but I'm sure they didn't do it against the lieges will. If their overlord didn't want help they probably didn't help, and just stayed home. That's called logic.
Other than what Ruanek (again) said there is also the little detail with the would be vassals interest in becoming a vassal. Of course he wouldn't be interested in becoming a vassal to someone who he have no military connection with. Or maybe you would be happy if they removed that prerequisite and instead just made the vassal automatically refuse the request if they were not allied. Would that be better?
And you do understand that a computer game never can be an exact copy of reality? Maybe you have never understood the concept of reality at all? The SoI is there because it's trying to SIMULATE the real world sphere of interest. Sometimes it difficult to understand if you are sarcastic or if you truly are that stupid..
Erm, when exactly WOULDNT a king want help from his vassals? Warfare in RL worked differently, sure, but still its not logical to refuse the help of those who you made swear to help you. If you dont want their help why vassalize them in the first place, and dont start with SOI or that crap... The alliance requirement is important for gamebalance. What else would make sure that Austria would not go bananas on ALL THE GERMAN MINORS? Right now some of them allready have the hardcoded maximum of 3 non-vassal alliances and cant be easily diplovassalized. With your changes the HRE could be under your control by around, what? 1430?
Yes, and still there is a military connection without having an alliance, since the overlord has to protect the vassal even without an alliance.
And yes, but fact is, this is a strategy game, and since SOI give certain bonuses, I try to make my soi as effective as possible.
First of all: Be so kind to answer my point about the changes in gamebalance your proposed change would include. Second of all: Look at this stuff realistically: If the overlord refuses the military service the feudal contract benefits him to, what would stop him from also refusing the military protection the contract forces him to uphold?
And another thing: It is not at all important how much money your opm vassals have or how well built up they are. Reasoning for this lies in the gamemechanics, plain and simple: From all the buildings only one line (trade) makes any noticeable difference at all to your yearly income since it increases the vallue of your cot (though not by much). The naval and army line are mostly worthless for your ecconomy and even the production line offers very little bonus since you only gain half of their montly tax income and not more. All in all it doesnt matter if your vassals are crappy non-built up hellholes, since they offer so little income to begin with. So even your main reason for not wanting their help is flawed.
We are talking before the vassalization here. When you ask them to become a vassal there must be a military cooperation. Otherwise they would have no reason to trust you.
Yes. I said that some time ago. We would have no problems at all if you just said that the reason was because you wanted to play like that. It's ok. Play however you want, it's a single player game. Bu you are arguing that the rules should be changed against what the game is about just to suit your odd style of play. Isn't that a bit far fetched? If you want to change the rule in your game, mod it. That's the reason Paradox made it so simple.
Well i don't know why you even keep answering him, but i already told, and now i tell again, this thread is rubbish.
First thing is SOI was introduced recently, and vasalization was in the game from the beggining. Second is even with very big SOI it is not so easy to ally every small nation around you, and vassalize it then. Rest have been told already.
First thing is SOI was introduced recently, and vasalization was in the game from the beggining. Second is even with very big SOI it is not so easy to ally every small nation around you, and vassalize it then. Rest have been told already.