Pretty please Paradox, let us keep Horde protectorate.

[StatikShocker]

yeah ^ make them annexable but also make lower tech armies more realistically competent.

 

[Novacat]

Being the Al-Qaeda of their times, I fail to see how the hordes would merit being protectorates.

What the hell is up with the "Anyone not european is an uncivilized barbarian" attitude?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What the hell is up with the "Anyone not european is an uncivilized barbarian" attitude?

Well, some of them did human traffick and whatnot, but let's be honest here...even "civilized" Europeans engaged in that heavily.

I think they'd be a lot more interesting if you lessened their penalty IE maybe no MP penalty, allowed them to choose any unit they wanted in hostile cores, and then made reforming impossible.

Or maybe a trade-off, like advanced horde traditions going no MP penalty and -40%, or reform and lose horde government.

I love the horde government, but the MP penalty and tech costs are huge drags.

 

[Novacat]

I think they'd be a lot more interesting if you lessened their penalty IE maybe no MP penalty, allowed them to choose any unit they wanted in hostile cores, and then made reforming impossible.

Or maybe a trade-off, like advanced horde traditions going no MP penalty and -40%, or reform and lose horde government.

I would also give them some actual unit upgrades. Buying other tech's units off of other country's cores seems awkward, especially since, due to the hoops you have to go through, it makes you wonder if its even intended behavior and not some kind of bug.

Would also be nice if there was actually some added viable gameplay methods other than becoming an identical clone of a western european country with inferior ideas.

 

[Bibor]

What the hell is up with the "Anyone not european is an uncivilized barbarian" attitude?

See, this type of perception is the problem. Al-Quadea is not an exclusively US or Euro problem. It became a synonym for backwards, militant political groups that try to rule by some supposedly ancient and accepted ways. In reality, its made of individuals that could never hope to play for the A team in a normal world. And in a way, by the 1550s, that's what the khanates become: an obsolete, "never worked that well" government type that stifled the prosperity of middle Asia. It has nothing to do with culture, language, faith or how the good Khan provided education to his subjects. Land grabs and vassalages in this game are about government over provinces. And as history proves, the khanates had to go. They either transformed out from this "your grand grand grand uncle was not Genghis Khan - we kill you nau!" retardedness like the Mughal Empire or they simply disappeared.

 

[Saintrl]

Back on topic

Seeing a thread like this, which goes completely against what many people have been asking for, I think this may just be a side-effect of how absolute the current vassal system is. The fact that vassals are all dealt the same restriction doesn't seem to make sense from a gameplay perspective. Some vassals could and should behave more like glorified protectorates while at the same time having some aspects of being vassals. I always wondered why there isn't a tributary state mechanic for Ming you know...

I'm sure if the devs don't flesh out vassal mechanics more a mod will be made addressing the issue. Different types of vassals would make hordes and all vassal really that much more interesting.

 

[Bibor]

I'm sure if the devs don't flesh out vassal mechanics more a mod will be made addressing the issue. Different types of vassals would make hordes and all vassal really that much more interesting.

There are now. Three types of vassals:
- vassalage
- protectorate
- guarantee independence + enforce peace

For the given period, I think these three round it up rather nicely. One could wish for a tributary state but oh well.

Vassals in this period were used just as they are in game: as a pretext to annexation or a way of telling "your neighbors are too hostile for us to invest into these lands directly".

 

[mgoetze]

See, this type of perception is the problem. Al-Quadea is not an exclusively US or Euro problem. It became a synonym for backwards, militant political groups that try to rule by some supposedly ancient and accepted ways.

OK, in your personal language it might mean that. But I'm sure that a lot of people speak a variety of English wherein "Al-Qaeda" means something entirely different (I know I do), and you should be more sensitive to that sort of issue in an international forum.

 

[MiniaAr]

Back on topic

Seeing a thread like this, which goes completely against what many people have been asking for, I think this may just be a side-effect of how absolute the current vassal system is. The fact that vassals are all dealt the same restriction doesn't seem to make sense from a gameplay perspective. Some vassals could and should behave more like glorified protectorates while at the same time having some aspects of being vassals. I always wondered why there isn't a tributary state mechanic for Ming you know...

I'm sure if the devs don't flesh out vassal mechanics more a mod will be made addressing the issue. Different types of vassals would make hordes and all vassal really that much more interesting.

As the OP, I don't feel that this thread goes completely against what many people are saying. I'm just proposing necessary tweaks to the protectorate system and the ability to chose between forming a protectorate or gaining a vassal. I really only see benefits in introducing more choices, but some people want to kill off protectorate completely, which I find exagerated.

I disagree with this idea that Crimea was a protectorate for the Ottomans in game terms. They are counted as a protectocrate according to history, but they were far closer to a vassal. And that's what they were in the game if you started later than a certain date. If the Crimean lands can never be incorporated, how are the Ottomans ever supposed to get around to go north? Do I have to cut through Poland to pull off a Sultan of Rome? Plus how many rights the Ottomans gave to Crimea were ridiculous, Crime would get a sort of reverse-doctrine-of-lapse, getting an automatic PU if the Ottoman dynasty dried out. It was more Poland-Lithuania then Mali-Songhai. It's a definite exception.

Why Crimea would not be a vassal of the Ottomans in game terms:

1. The Ottomans did not receive tributes from Crimea, instead they Subsidised them =/= Vassals in game provide money to their overlords.
2. Crimea had an independent foreign policy of the Ottomans, they sometimes joined their wars, sometimes not =/= Vassals in game do not have a choice and will always join.
3. Crimea had it's relation with the Ottomans for more than 200 years and were never under the possibility of annexation =/= In game, a vassal will be annexed after a much shorter period, even by the AI.

Why Crimea would be a protectorate of the Ottomans in game terms:

1. Ottomans merchants had a real influence on all Crimean trade, most of which was directed to Constantinople. In game, protectorates give 50% of their trade power to their overlord.
2. Crimea benefited from Ottomans technology and became the most advanced Horde. In game, protectorates get -20% tech costs.
3. Crimea survived as the only Horde to the XVIIIth century, due to Ottoman protection. But the Ottomans did not join Crimea on its raids in Russian territory.In game, if Russia attacked Crimea, it would draw in the Ottomans. However, if Crimea attacked Russia as a protectorate can, it would require work (enforce peace) from the Ottomans to join that war.

Regarding specific "rights" Crimea had over the Ottomans... Yeah, they had a royal marriage with the Ottomans which could result in a PU/the Giray dynasty getting on the Ottomans throne. Nothing a current RM in game would not handle.

As for going north, you can actually do it with Crimea as a protectorate. It usually claims Ryazan's lands so you can take that and give them as well as Murom (tatar/muslim), plus release Nyzny Novgorod. You are now one province away from isolating Muscow, just take that southern province and you should be setup. No real need to conquer all the land actually. And protectorating the Horde will allow you to get involved against Russia without trouble.

OP mentions how Russia did the same thing with Crimea, but that's for less than a decade for the almost-200-years it was directly under Russia (I think Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine around the 1950s..? It was reduced to just the peninsula by then). Pretty sure Russia systematically annexed every horde they came across, and their tactics of "keeping them around for a while" seems more like vassal-annex or protectorate-annex, maybe even the occasional protectorate feeding. Can a history buff tell me if what Spain did to the Aztecs counts as "protecting"?

Ok about Crimea being a protectorate of Russia, this was too far-fetched. However, a good example of a lasting protectorate on a Horde (in game terms) from a Christian power would be Zaporozhie. It is a Horde in game term, but it would be better represented as a protectorate than a vassal, first of Poland/PLC, then of Russia, as it did have an independent foreign policy (attacking Crimea/the Ottomans/Poland or Russia depending on overlord). It did not give tributes to its overlord but some kind of trade power surely and Russia managed to annex it only through direct conquest (cancel protectorate, declare war in game, easy).

Russia annexed most Horde it encountered (Kazan, Sibir, Nogai) but left some of them alone during the timeperiod (Khazakstan, Khiva, Bukhara) and it would not be a strech if they could establish protectorates on them during the game.

Short response I have to the whole system is: They just need to be annexable, make it 20 years if you want. Instead of this ridiculous limitation; we need either a nerfed overseas expansion (cannot attack anyone who is not coastal or on border), a fix to the ridiculous state of Asian armies, or both. You'd need to wait 20 years before you could go much farther inland from the coast. Naval attrition on units was definitely a right move as well, now only if those scale like the ships do until diplo22.

I would suggest an alternative to making protectorate annexable. Instead, allow the possibility to "upgrade" the subject relationship from protectorate to vassalship. This would be possible after 10-20 years as a protectorate and be easier than direct diplo-vassalisation (with relations improvable to +200 and a specific protectorate modifier). This way, protectorate won't still count as a diplomatic relation but if you want to annex them, you've got to turn them into proper vassals, for annexation later. This takes longer, but has advantages (more positive modifiers allows to vassalise bigger/richer nations).

 

[Saintrl]

From what I see, Hordes could use more fleshing out in general. Perhaps a special type of protectorate that can be enabled for hordes? At the moment restricting Hordes to vassals doesn't make much sense but restricting them to be protectorates didn't make much sense either.

 

[pgroves]

Horde as Protectorates was *absolutely horrible* and was arguably the biggest unintended negative consequence of the "oh hey, we added Protectorates" addition.

Agreed