Hello there,
With the changes to protectorates (see TheBloke awsome summary of 1.5 changes) coming for 1.5, I would like to expose three reasons why I think protectorates for Hordes should remain possible:
1. It's fun:
Eugene171 in it's great WC AAR as England used them to the full extent of their capability and it did not feel like abuse. He gave them their claims and protected them in wars. I personnally enjoy letting them live their own lives, meddling with their wars by funding them/rebels in their ennemies lands or directly if needed. They give trade power in regions where you don't necessary want to conquer everything (Astraskhan/Kazan/Crimea/Samarkand) and with some tech/decisions/ideas, it's enough to get most of the trade out the Steppes without direct involvement.
See below for what Eugene did, and read his AAR it's most entertaining.
To better describe how one can enjoy a horde protectorate relationship, let's try this: Sure, EUIV is a game in which global domination is the goal, but even if you're always the hero, sometimes it's nice to have a sidekick in doing so.
2. It's historical:
The best historical example of a Horde protectorate would be the relationship between the Ottomans and Crimea. The Khanate of Crimea did not have to pay tribute to the Porte, did not necessarily join wars with the Ottomans and had a foreign policy of it's own, hence it is really not a vassal as depicted in the game. On the contrary, Crimeans let the Ottomans mostly run their trade, intervened in Ottomans wars when they wanted/got enough incentive to do so (protectorate should be able to ally their overlords, don't know if it's in 1.5 yet). They also benefited from Ottomans technology (the -20% to tech cost of protectorates makes here a lot of sense) and the fact that it's such a special relationship allows to improve relations up to +200 to enforce peace more easily is also very meaningful. See the wiki page for more on the relationship.
The relationship between the Ottomans and Crimea is thus in my opinion really well depiected as a protectorate in game. But what about other Hordes? It's true that Muscowy/Russia annexed most of the Hordes it encountered (Kazan/Astraskhan/Sibir) but it could be argued that Russia also established protectorates on Crimea with the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774 but was later annexed in 1783 so too soon to be a diplo-annexation but works if a protectorate>cancel protectorate>military annex sequence is performed.
It could also be argued that Russia established a protectorate on Kazan as early as 1487: Merchants were allowed to freely trade in the territory (more protectorate than vassal) while the Khanate still had an aoutonomous policy (conflicts and alliances with other Hordes). (see history of Kazan Khanate)
3. It gives us a choice:
The relationship between a Horde and a more advanced nation should not be automatic, neither a vassalship, nor a protectorate, but given to the player to decide. If he in term wants the lands for himself, then a vassalisation is in order, if he instead prefers to let his subject grow autonomously and doesn't want to use a diplomatic relation for this, than protectorates seem better. A protectorate should be easier to establish, with less stringent conditions on base tax than diplo-vassalisation, or always possible if 100% of the country is under control (much like it is now) but a protectorate should be more inclined to rebel than a vassal.
Having the ability to either protectorate or vassalise a Horde would not annoy anybody (I think) and instead give different solutions for different situations, which in my opinion can only add depth to subject management.
What do you think?
With the changes to protectorates (see TheBloke awsome summary of 1.5 changes) coming for 1.5, I would like to expose three reasons why I think protectorates for Hordes should remain possible:
1. It's fun:
Eugene171 in it's great WC AAR as England used them to the full extent of their capability and it did not feel like abuse. He gave them their claims and protected them in wars. I personnally enjoy letting them live their own lives, meddling with their wars by funding them/rebels in their ennemies lands or directly if needed. They give trade power in regions where you don't necessary want to conquer everything (Astraskhan/Kazan/Crimea/Samarkand) and with some tech/decisions/ideas, it's enough to get most of the trade out the Steppes without direct involvement.
See below for what Eugene did, and read his AAR it's most entertaining.
To better describe how one can enjoy a horde protectorate relationship, let's try this: Sure, EUIV is a game in which global domination is the goal, but even if you're always the hero, sometimes it's nice to have a sidekick in doing so.
2. It's historical:
The best historical example of a Horde protectorate would be the relationship between the Ottomans and Crimea. The Khanate of Crimea did not have to pay tribute to the Porte, did not necessarily join wars with the Ottomans and had a foreign policy of it's own, hence it is really not a vassal as depicted in the game. On the contrary, Crimeans let the Ottomans mostly run their trade, intervened in Ottomans wars when they wanted/got enough incentive to do so (protectorate should be able to ally their overlords, don't know if it's in 1.5 yet). They also benefited from Ottomans technology (the -20% to tech cost of protectorates makes here a lot of sense) and the fact that it's such a special relationship allows to improve relations up to +200 to enforce peace more easily is also very meaningful. See the wiki page for more on the relationship.
The relationship between the Ottomans and Crimea is thus in my opinion really well depiected as a protectorate in game. But what about other Hordes? It's true that Muscowy/Russia annexed most of the Hordes it encountered (Kazan/Astraskhan/Sibir) but it could be argued that Russia also established protectorates on Crimea with the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774 but was later annexed in 1783 so too soon to be a diplo-annexation but works if a protectorate>cancel protectorate>military annex sequence is performed.
It could also be argued that Russia established a protectorate on Kazan as early as 1487: Merchants were allowed to freely trade in the territory (more protectorate than vassal) while the Khanate still had an aoutonomous policy (conflicts and alliances with other Hordes). (see history of Kazan Khanate)
3. It gives us a choice:
The relationship between a Horde and a more advanced nation should not be automatic, neither a vassalship, nor a protectorate, but given to the player to decide. If he in term wants the lands for himself, then a vassalisation is in order, if he instead prefers to let his subject grow autonomously and doesn't want to use a diplomatic relation for this, than protectorates seem better. A protectorate should be easier to establish, with less stringent conditions on base tax than diplo-vassalisation, or always possible if 100% of the country is under control (much like it is now) but a protectorate should be more inclined to rebel than a vassal.
Having the ability to either protectorate or vassalise a Horde would not annoy anybody (I think) and instead give different solutions for different situations, which in my opinion can only add depth to subject management.
What do you think?
Last edited:
