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.

 

[Markusmiless]

@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.

Well you could use bestow gifts pretty easily by adding under the subject interactions, the placate rulers are similar (but in that case just remove the line that says "placate_rulers = no"

    bestow_gifts = yes

The second that they can only be made on countries with capitals on a different continent was something I couldn't (a few hours ago anyway) do as my files on my laptop is one patch behind.
But it is fully possible by adding:

Spoiler: Code

    # Triggers:
    # Take note, I don't know how this is how this trigger works as they only give an example on is is_potential_overlord which works differently
    can_be_established = {
        ROOT = {
           NOT = { same_continent = FROM }
        }
    }

The third question is that the following line is for diplomatic protection which was in the above 'draft' I did:

   overlord_protects_external = yes

Which means if a nation attacks it, the overlord gets a call to arms 'overlord protects from external forces]

The last one while I mean it could be possible it would look something like this I think:

Spoiler: Code

    # Triggers:
    # Take note, I don't know how this is how this trigger works as they only give an example on is is_potential_overlord which works differently
    can_be_established = {
        ROOT = {
           NOT = { same_continent = FROM }
           institution_difference = { who = FROM value = 1 }
        }
    }

Because I think the coding for being able to be established isn't the same as the one which makes sure you stay a subject (but due to lack of testing so far I can't say for certain).

Now I suppose I could make a mod or something and test things out and see if I can restore it a functional level, but meanwhile that would take time I don't have atm (writing this is use of my time but testing a mod like that is entirely different amount of time)

 

[MiniaAr]

I could do the testing.

About the diplomatic question, it was more about how to peacefully establish a protectorate (offer protectorate): influence of relations, diplo reputation, strength of armies, that sort of things that exists for a vassal/tributary.

I understood the protection from overlord line to protect against external attacks. Also, I'm not sure if protectorates from the same overlord should be allowed to fight eachother (like tributaries), or not (like protectorates before).

 

[Markusmiless]

Okay uhm...
Well I choose to go by the old model in the above and didn't include "same_overlord = protectorate" under can_fight.
But there is sort of a way to do so rn through modding, though only to a limited degree.
You can do it through the new_diplomatic_actions in common.
The main problem with this is that the AI never uses these diplomatic actions according to paradox.

Spoiler: Example Code by paradox

# Create new diplomatic actions like this. AI will currently never send them.
demand_dummy = {
    category = influence
    
    alert_index = 40
    alert_tooltip = demand_dummy_alert_tooltip
    
    require_acceptance = yes # Whether the recipient gets an option to decline
    
    is_visible = {
        always = no ############################ Remove this line to unleash the magic ########################################
        religion_group = christian
        is_subject = no
        FROM = {
            is_subject = no
        }
    }
    is_allowed = {
        variable_arithmetic_trigger = {
            custom_tooltip = HAS_MORE_MANPOWER
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = my_manpower
                value = manpower
            }
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = their_manpower
                value = manpower
                who = FROM
            }
            subtract_variable = {
                which = my_manpower
                which = their_manpower
            }
            check_variable = {
                which = my_manpower
                value = 0
            }
        }
        religion = catholic
    }
    on_accept = {
        add_trust = {
            who = FROM
            value = 20
            mutual = yes
        }
        create_subject = {
            subject_type = dummy
            subject = FROM
        }
    }
    on_decline =
    {
        add_trust = {
            who = FROM
            value = -100
            mutual = no
        }
    }
    
    ai_acceptance = {
        add_entry = {
            name = ALWAYS_TEN
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value # Mandatory to use this name
                value = 10
            }
        }
        add_entry = {
            name = OPINION
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                #value = opinion who = FROM with = THIS # This is supposed to work in the future
                value = 10 # Temporary value until then
            }
            divide_variable = {
                which = ai_value
                value = 4
            }
        }
    }
}

If you want to test and see how it could be I could give an example.

Spoiler: Example Code for requesting protectorate

# Ask for protectorate
request_protectorate = {
    category = influence
    
    alert_index = 41
    alert_tooltip = ask_to_be_protectorate_tooltip
    
    require_acceptance = yes # Whether the recipient gets an option to decline
    
    is_visible = {
        is_subject = no
        NOT = { same_continent = FROM }
        FROM = { is_free_or_tributary_trigger = yes }
    }
    is_allowed = {
        is_nomad = no
        institution_difference = { who = FROM value = 1 }
    }
    on_accept = {
        FROM = {
                create_subject = {
                        subject_type = protectorate
                        subject = ROOT
                }
        }
    }
    on_decline =
    {
        add_opinion = {
                who = FROM
                modifier = opinion_angry
        }
    }
    
    ai_acceptance = {
        add_entry = {
            name = MONTHLY_INCOME
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value # Mandatory to use this name
                value = monthly_income
            }
            multiply_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = 2
            }
            subtract_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = monthly_income
                who = FROM
            }
            divide_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = 3
            }
        }
        add_entry = { # This is mostly to represent the old military strength comparision, but it isn't as accurate as it could be.
           name = MILITARY_STRENGTH
           export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value # Mandatory to use this name
                value = army_size
           }
           subtract_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value # Mandatory to use this name
                value = army_size
                who = FROM
           }
            divide_variable = {
                 variable_name = ai_value
                 value = 2
            }
        }
        add_entry = {
            name = DIPLOMATIC_REPUTATION
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = modifier:diplomatic_reputation     # If the game crashes upon testing just remove the modifier: part, it is only there in case it is needed for the trigger.
            }
            multiply_variable = {
                which = ai_value
                value = 3
            }
        }
        add_entry = {
            name = BORDER_DISTANCE
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = border_distance
                who = FROM
            }
            divide_variable = {
                which = ai_value
                value = 2
            }
            subtract_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = border_distance
                who = FROM
            }
        }
    }
}

Spoiler: Example Code for establishing protectorate

# Establish Protectorate
establish_protectorate = {
    category = influence
    
    alert_index = 40
    alert_tooltip = establish_protectorate_tooltip
   
    require_acceptance = yes # Whether the recipient gets an option to decline
   
    is_visible = {
        is_subject = no
        NOT = { same_continent = FROM }
        FROM = { is_free_or_tributary_trigger = yes }
    }
    is_allowed = {
        FROM = {
                        is_nomad = no
                        institution_difference = { who = FROM value = 1 }
        }
    }
    on_accept = {
                create_subject = {
                        subject_type = protectorate
                        subject = FROM
                }
    }
    on_decline =
    {
        add_opinion = {
                who = FROM
                modifier = opinion_angry
        }
    }
   
    ai_acceptance = {
        add_entry = {
            name = MONTHLY_INCOME
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value # Mandatory to use this name
                value = monthly_income
            }
            multiply_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = 2
            }
            subtract_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = monthly_income
                who = FROM
            }
            divide_variable = {
                 variable_name = ai_value
                 value = 2
            }
        }
        add_entry = { # This is mostly to represent military strength, but it isn't as accurate as it could be.
           name = MILITARY_STRENGTH
           export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value # Mandatory to use this name
                value = army_size
           }
           subtract_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value # Mandatory to use this name
                value = army_size
                who = FROM
           }
            divide_variable = {
                 variable_name = ai_value
                 value = 3
            }
        }
        add_entry = {
            name = DIPLOMATIC_REPUTATION
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = modifier:diplomatic_reputation     # If the game crashes upon testing just remove the modifier: part, it is only there in case it is needed for the trigger.
            }
            multiply_variable = {
                which = ai_value
                value = 3
            }
        }
        add_entry = {
            name = BORDER_DISTANCE
            export_to_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = border_distance
                who = FROM
            }
            divide_variable = {
                which = ai_value
                value = 2
            }
            subtract_variable = {
                variable_name = ai_value
                value = border_distance
                who = FROM
            }
        }
    }
}

Now the current tools avalible aren't perfect for testing but can give us a pretty general idea on what would be the 'optimal' way to remake protectorates.

 

[iShurik]

By now I doubt that protectorates will come back with the upcoming dlc. There are some great ideas in this thread about how they could work though.

I wonder why so few people care about protectorates, for me they were one of the most important mechanics. Maybe because I don't like to megablob in every game. I prefer playing tall.

 

[iShurik]

After the release of the new patch there is no sign of protectorates coming back. I'm a little disappointed. I really thought, that the removing was a temporary solution...
But I guess I will give it a try as Muscovy with the new DLC. Do you guys still miss protectorates or did you get used to play without them?