Resurrect Protectorates

[MiniaAr]

Hello there. In 1.20, protectorates as a subject type have been scrapped, with the stated line "protectorates and vassals are now merged". I'll argue why I disagree with that statement and give a couple of suggestion of why and how protectorates could be reintroduced in the game.

The Precedent:
First, let's get this out of the way. There is a precedent for a removed mechanism to make a come-back: looting. Indeed, few remembers how looting worked at release, how it was abusable (the "Bank of Ming" meme) and in the end tiresome. Now, looting was put back in the game in a manner that makes much more sense. Most players don't really use this mechanic, but when you play a Horde, that's something you'll need to use in order to keep your early momentum. Exactly how it should be, in my opinion.

Why vassals and protectorates were NOT merged:
I argue here that there was only a merger of the subject interactions, and not of the subject types. Indeed, it's true that now vassals (and marches, I think) get the previous protectorates abilities: Seize land, Send Officers, Divert Trade. But subject interactions are not the only thing that make a subject type different then another. It's not just semantics and here are the things that were lost in the "merger":

• Diplomatic relation free subject: vassals and marches all cost a very valuable dip rep slot, Protectorates didn't. This allowed you to "expand your family" (as @DDRJake puts it) without going over your relationship limits. This had of course a cost, namely that you couldn't annex your protectorate. Thus, you had a choice, and more choice = more strategy, which is supposed to be a good thing!
  
  
• Colonial wars: This was a feature added in The Cossacks DLC (December 2015). Now, the box is still there but has no use anymore (due to no protectorate to call in such wars). Meaning, a DLC features was removed and as far as I know, it wasn't replaced by anything else. This is very unusual, and a return of protectorates will make this a feature again. This isn't a good business practice to sell a feature and then remove it one year later, without replacement.
  
  
• Easier Diplomatic Subjugation: AI willingness to accept protectorate status was much lower that to accept vassal status. Now, if you want to establish a vassal/march in Asia or Africa, you basically have to go to war. I argue here that the distinction between vassals and protectorates again gave a choice to the player: military expansion with a "hard power" objective (meaning direct ownership as the goal after annexing the vassal) or diplomatic expansion with a "soft power" objective (meaning indirect ownership as the goal with a protectorate).
  
  
• Expansion CB: This is not a major point in my demonstration, but I'll argue here that the Expansion CB allowing you to establish protectorates free of DIP points was one of the more selling points of this idea group. After the CB removal (prior to Protectorates disappearing, I acknowledge that), there were no way to establish big protectorates via wars in a cost efficient fashion, which in my view removed some of the incentive to establish protectorates. A return of a similar CB (something has to be done for the Expansion idea group, really), would again make Protectorates desirable and thus encourage another type of wars for indirect expansion. More reasons to go to war is a good thing in my opinion.

Why were protectorates removed?
Before 1.18, it is my opinion that Protectorates were working really well and had an useful role, albeit a bit niche:

• Diplo relation free subject, thus a remedy to Hyperblob mode (also known as "map painting")
• Usable as auxiliaries in colonial wars, with usually better tech than their neighbours (due to -20% bonus) and better army (due to subject interaction).
• Easier to establish diplomatically, thus without the need to go to war half the world away. And you could seize their most useful provinces (CoTs and Estuaries) with the subject ability.
• You kept them as long as you wanted or LD was too high, because they didn't westernise.

Now in 1.18, Institutions came (a good thing) and changed everything for Protectorates (a bad thing, in my view). The design decision was to allow protectorates to be established if they had a 50% or more tech penalty difference with the overlord. As soon as this was revealed, I got worried (Institutions came for Rights of Man, in last October). Indeed, I asked and hoped that protectorates status would come with a "grand-father" clause. Meaning that once a protectorate is established, they would remain under this status even if the 50% difference wouldn't be active anymore. There was again a precedent for this: Hordes couldn't be made protectorates, but only vassals (then also marches). But if they reformed their government, they'd keep their vassal status even if they would be eligible for protectorates status.

Alas, this grandfather clause wasn't put in, which resulted in this major issue: protectorates would just go "poof" (loss of protectorate) after adopting an institution, with no reaction possible for the overlord whatsoever. This 50% rule also created the very wonky situation which saw protectorates reach exactly 50% tech penalty, lose their status, then a few months later be eligible for protectorate again, only to be lost a few months later. This is of course most frustrating and why protectorates were finally removed in 1.20.

But my whole point here is that removing the feature instead of fixing it was a wrong design decision (sorry for this strong language ). Below, I'll suggest some options to solve the institutions issue while still having protectorates in the game.

Some Suggestions to make protectorates workable again:

• Link the tech penalty disparity to liberty desire. Thematically, this would make a lot of sense as the protectorate which will reach the level of technical advancement of his overlord would go restless and try to get out of the "inferior" relationship. But instead of losing instantly the protectorate, using LD will restore agency to the player, who could use "Placate rulers" or other types of subject interactions. There is already a similar mechanism to this: LD penalty due to too low DIP tech. The LD effect of tech penalty disparity could replace the DIP tech penalty for protectorates, and ideally be scalable.
  An example with totally made up numbers: at 50% tech disparity, 0 effect on LD. At 0% tech disparity, 20% LD penalty. At 100% tech disparity, 20% LD bonus! Meaning if you're really far ahead of your subject, this is easier to keep them in line, which again makes a lot of sense thematically and would reward good institution management from the player.
  
  
• "Demerge" subject interactions: Already, there are calls to nerf vassals/marches due to the use of the "Send Officers" interaction in the dev MP game. But instead of nerfing those subject types, a return of protectorates will be the perfect occasion to demerge the problematic subject interactions and give them back to protectorates. "Send officers" is the main culprit here, and should be protectorates only. "Divert Trade" and "Seize Lands" could be kept by other subjects, as they can be really useful.
  I would suggest here a new interaction: "Restrict arms trade" (working name), which would reduce the spread of institutions from the protectorate to neighbouring countries. For a LD cost, you would then be able to reduce how fast institutions will be spread in Asia and Africa from your protectorates, which is something a player will use.
  
  
• Refine Colonial wars: The main issue of protectorates before institutions came along, was aggressive expansion. Indeed, protectorates could declare their own wars but the aggressive expansion would go to the overlord, who could then face a worldwide coalition due to his own expansion in Europe for example, and that of his protectorates in Asia. Reintroducing protectorates should be a good occasion to fix this, and my suggestion is that when a protectorate declares a war on his own, he gets his own AE. But when an overlord declares a colonial war and feeds his protectorate, then the AE is for the overlord. For those who don't have The Cossacks DLC, they cannot declare colonial wars thus only the Protectorate will get AE, which is thus not an issue. Protectorates could then be coalitionned by their neighbours, and the overlord would then have to choice to defend or not his over-aggressive subject. This is again more agency for the player, and thus a good thing in my opinion.
  Also, colonial wars should be a two way street, meaning if you declare such a war on a colonial power or one of his protectorates, then it will be a colonial war for your opponent as well (who would call his protectorates and not his allies). And such a war should prevent taking provinces from the same continent as the capital of the overlord. I suggested this before and I don't know why it wasn't implemented this way.

Here is it, that's the end of my post, sorry for all this text. But I really feel protectorates deserve to be brought back and a detailed explanation of my reasoning was needed. Also, I think the few suggestions I gave could make protectorates workable in the current state of the game, and thus restore this subject type to their original role while fixing the two main issues responsible for the removal (institutions and AE).

I think the direction of the game goes towards more subject types, as evidenced by the introduction of tributaries in MoH, and not fewer. Thus, removing protectorates was a surprising and for me saddening decision. I play the game since 1.0, protectorates came in 1.14 (Conquest of Paradise patch), which was in January 2014! Thus, they were for me an integral part of the game and I'm still not willing to see let go instead of fixing their issues.

I thank all that would go until the end of this post, and hope that it could at least start a reflexion on bringing protectorates back.

 

[iShurik]

I fully agree. Thank you for your post. Since Protectorates were removed I didn't play EU IV anymore because "intercontinental and trade" gameplay feels incomplete to me. I'm hoping for a "fix" in the next patch. Until then I'm playing Stellaris.

 

[MiniaAr]

I fully agree. Thank you for your post. Since Protectorates were removed I didn't play EU IV anymore because "intercontinental and trade" gameplay feels incomplete to me. I'm hoping for a "fix" in the next patch. Until then I'm playing Stellaris.

Thank you for your support, I really hope this gets some traction. And thakns as well to people who liked the post.

I'm still playing EUIV, but not the colonial/intercontinental type of games I used to (Netherlands, Portugal, Genoa) in which I was using protectorates. Instead, I play the blobby type of games, namely with hordes. At least, I get a non-dip relation subject in the form of tributaries. Which is sad really, that only Hordes, Eastern religions and Emperor of China now have that option.

All other countries, with a governement type neither tribal nor native should get access to protectorates in my opinion.

 

[RedSpectre]

I fully agree with the proposals although personally I think non-european nations should have some sort of modernization to do or tech limit before they gain access to protectorates

 

[Rip Off Productions]

I think reworking a form of the Tributary subject type used by China and other far-eastern nations would work just as well for protectorates, just replace the tribute with trade power and add the colonial war assistance and land stealing mechanics.

maybe have it unlocked as part of an Idea Group like Exploration or Trade?

 

[Kergan]

+1 on reintroducing Protectorates. I miss having African protectorates that obliterate their neighbors without me needing to do anything besides sending them officers. The main reason they were removed was institutions, but that is largely fixed now that TCs don't propagate them anymore. Plus, being able to send officers to a large Brandenburg march is just... so wrong.

I'd also love it if the finisher for Expansion would be to re-enable some kind of "Establish Protectorate" CB.

 

[cristofolmc]

Totally agree. Paradox destroyed one of the best features the game had for colonia/trading nations. The game's going down the sink of late cause they always take the easy way around stuff instead of working it out. Anywa, I hope they bring 'em back eventually

 

[MiniaAr]

I think reworking a form of the Tributary subject type used by China and other far-eastern nations would work just as well for protectorates, just replace the tribute with trade power and add the colonial war assistance and land stealing mechanics.

maybe have it unlocked as part of an Idea Group like Exploration or Trade?

Indeed, it's really strange that they added one type of subject with tributaries but only for Hordes and Emperor of China, but that at the same time, they removed one other type of subject for every one else, protectorates, which had similarities (free diplo relation slot, non-annexable subject, soft power logic).

The reasoning between this decision still escapes me.

I wouldn't put an entire subject type behind an idea group wall. But a CB making it easier and cheaper to put countries under protectorate status would of course be welcomed.

 

[dtr5r]

Seconded.

 

[MiniaAr]

I'm playing a Yuan game and I have the Golden Horde as a tributary. They just declared a war on their own against a 400k FL Ottomans (under severe duress, but still). It made my so proud of my little subject.

Sadly, I can only feel this as Emperor of China or as a Horde. With protectorates, I could feel that as any nation. Please, bring back protectorates.

 

[Yxklyx]

Since Protectorates went out at the same time as Tributaries came in and they work very similarly - I bet they just re-used and tweaked the existing source code, so bringing them back seems like it would be a lot of work. I think the decision to remove them was based on that.

 

[Markusmiless]

Since Protectorates went out at the same time as Tributaries came in and they work very similarly - I bet they just re-used and tweaked the existing source code, so bringing them back seems like it would be a lot of work. I think the decision to remove them was based on that.

Well because they recently made modding and adding new subjects types possible it isn't that much work.
That isn't to say it wouldn't be a bit of work but at most maybe 1-3 days or so if they put 1-4 hours each day into it with a focused idea how it should work (and they actually have the old model as a base on how it should look sort of but with a few minor tweaks)
This makes me think this suggestion to reintegrate the Protectorate into the game could be improved further by checking the code, making a 'new' subject called protectorate as close as possible to how the protectorate should work in theory and let Paradox do tweaks to things (which may not turn out perfect but I think they could appreciate the people leaving suggestions helping them with minor coding as that saves them time?).

Honestly I'm surprised no one has made that many mods introducing new subjects (though this could meanwhile take some time all things considered so maybe not too surprising).

 

[withche.07]

I agree. Protectorate statuses were great and historical.
Even my suggestion about Aceh-Ottomans diplomatic relations were all about protectorate:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...amic-presence-in-pasai-aceh-ottomans.1020979/
But this helped such small land to stay alive for long years! It was really enjoyable to support small countries.

 

[MiniaAr]

Well because they recently made modding and adding new subjects types possible it isn't that much work.
That isn't to say it wouldn't be a bit of work but at most maybe 1-3 days or so if they put 1-4 hours each day into it with a focused idea how it should work (and they actually have the old model as a base on how it should look sort of but with a few minor tweaks)
This makes me think this suggestion to reintegrate the Protectorate into the game could be improved further by checking the code, making a 'new' subject called protectorate as close as possible to how the protectorate should work in theory and let Paradox do tweaks to things (which may not turn out perfect but I think they could appreciate the people leaving suggestions helping them with minor coding as that saves them time?).

Honestly I'm surprised no one has made that many mods introducing new subjects (though this could meanwhile take some time all things considered so maybe not too surprising).

This is a good suggestion, unfortunately my modding skills are more than lacking.

If someone were to propose a canvass to restore Protectorates as a subject type, it would be awesome.

 

[Markusmiless]

Spoiler: Potential Protectorate Code

protectorate = {
    copy_from = default
    
    # Graphics:
    sprite = GFX_icon_protectorate
    diplomacy_overlord_sprite = GFX_diplomacy_leadprotectorates
    diplomacy_subject_sprite = GFX_diplomacy_inprotectorate
    
    # Properties:
    transfer_trade_power = yes
    joins_overlords_wars = no
    joins_colonial_wars = yes
    is_voluntary = no
    overlord_can_attack = no
    takes_diplo_slot = no
    base_liberty_desire = 0
    relative_power_class = 1
    diplomacy_view_class = 1
    uses_military_focus = no
    
    overlord_protects_external = yes
    counts_for_borders = no
    can_use_claims = no
    share_rebel_popup = yes
    
    liberty_desire_development_ratio = 0.175
    trust_on_start = 10
    
    
    overlord_opinion_modifier = is_protectorate
    subject_opinion_modifier = is_protectorate
    
    can_fight = {
        independent_nations = yes
        other_overlord = all
    }
    
    # Subject Interactions:
    # (immediate)
    enforce_religion = no
    grant_core_claim = no
    seize_territory = yes
    send_additional_troops = no
    placate_rulers = no
    # (continuous)
    send_officers = yes
    divert_trade = yes
    
    # Modifiers:
    modifier_subject = clear # No penalty for being subject
    modifier_subject = {
        modifier = protectorate_subject_tech_reduction    # -20% Tech Cost Reduction if overlord has an institution it doesn't have (could be changed to if behind in tech?)
        ROOT = {
            institution_difference = { who = FROM value = 1 }
        }
    }
}

One important aspect that could be changed is that instead of the tech cost reduction being removed upon no longer being behind in institutions could be to make it less likely for AIs and players to lose the bonus just because let's say it picked up Global Trade in 1657 and thus have to wait 43 years until next instution to get the bonus again (during which it is pretty useless to be a protectorate).
All in all, the protectorate would be forced to like usual give overlord 50% trade power, 100% if divert trade is on, join colonial wars and gets a tech cost reduction.
I could explain the script a bit, but there is instructions in the original file on how certain things work.

This is the closest to the old model, with a minor tweak and not nearly as fleshed out as it could be but right now it works as a mall to work out off (the tools to recreate the protectorate is pretty much in the files, which could help restore them).
Note this is just more or less a quick sketch so to speak, but I was in a hurry but wanted to show how it could look.

 

[iShurik]

I think there are more vassal types to come in future patches, since they made this subject rework. They didn't rework it for fun I guess.
I really hope for a returing of protectorates (or something similar) in 1.22 though.

 

[MiniaAr]

@Markusmiless You're my hero.

It indeed looks awesome. The idea to give the tech bonus if the overlord has an institution advantage is very good: justified and not abusable.

Some remarks:

• Regarding interactions, I'd give them either the tributary interaction "bestow gifts", or placate rulers.
• I think that protectorates should be made only on countries with a capital on a different continent than the capital of the overlord.
• I didn't see the logic for diplomatic protectorisation. Is it possible to have it here?
• I also think that protectorates could only be established on countries with at least one institution less than the overlord. Then, they get the tech bonus so long as they're behind in institutions, but remain a protectorate even when they catch up the delay (but lose the -20% tech bonus). Is this something that can be easily included?

Regarding your point about the uselessness of protectorates adopting institutions early, I agree with you and that's why I suggested in the OP to link LD to the tech penalty disparity with the overlord. But I'm affraid it's not possible at this point with the tools at hand, am I right?

Thank you a lot for your help on this.

 

[chegitz guevara]

I read else-forum that protectorate code was reworked and turned into tributaries.

If that's the case, it seems, for now, you can have one or the other, but not both.

 

[MiniaAr]

I read else-forum that protectorate code was reworked and turned into tributaries.

If that's the case, it seems, for now, you can have one or the other, but not both.

Markusmiless is proving the contrary. Even if protectorate code was reworked to create tributaries, it's possible to create new code to emulate protectorates again and have both subject types available.

 

[chegitz guevara]

Oh! Ohhhhh, interesting!