Say goodbye to vassal feeding (finally) - [Vassal feeding megathread]

[grisamentum]

The reason to plug exploits like vassal-feeding is not to punish people for liking to vassal-feed, it's to prevent people who don't vassal-feed from feeling as though they're playing the game wrong.

For an example, let's say that when you make cores, there's two buttons. One button lets you make a core for ADM cost, and is for regular players. The other is for players who want to WC, and makes a core for no cost. So if you don't want to use the cheesy no-cost button, just don't click it, right? Except that each time you click the button with a cost, you will feel as though you're doing something wrong, and it takes away from the game.

Vassal feeding is superior to paying ADM cost for cores in basically every way. It's the button without a cost to those who know about it.

Did you know that a lot of people don't know about the "seize colony" button? Did you know a lot of people don't understand how "claim throne" works? Should we remove both of those buttons too, since they "work" for people who understand the game but don't work for people who don't understand the game?

Did you know people use Enforce Peace to farm trust so they can diplo-vassalize more people? How is that not a WC button that only matters for people who do WC?

Did you know people use Diplomatic and Expansion groups to get more Diplo Rep? Do you think people who don't understand what Diplo Rep does use those Idea groups much? Are you deleting or changing those Idea groups because people who don't take them are playing the game wrong?

Your game is full of a thousand things that mean you are "doing something wrong" if you don't do them. Your game will always be like that. All you have done is taken out the most visible and whined-about one.

If you wanted to fix your game, you needed to do a thousand other things besides this. You can't just remove AE and vassal feeding and expect everything to be fine. Stop hacking away at this one like Dr Frankenstein.

 

[MiniaAr]

I'm aware of this now, but how often does an AI change its personality?

Everytime they change their ruler, I suppose. This does seem to allow for some strategic planning, I think there is an option to know when your vassals change their rulers.

 

[grisamentum]

Ew. We need less utter luck-based gameplay, not more.

Good luck. This is EU4: Monarch Point Lottery. Westernization is even worse in that regard now.

 

[Pandadan]

Everytime they change their ruler, I suppose. This does seem to allow for some strategic planning, I think there is an option to know when your vassals change their rulers.

Does this mean republics are ideal for vassal feeding now, since they'll switch to militant more often?

 

[TheBloke]

I'm aware of this now, but how often does an AI change its personality?

The personality is attached to the leader. So the personality type changes only when the leader changes, i.e. on death for monarchy, on election for Republic (if they change leader.)

So Miltaristic, Diplomat, Administrative etc is for the life of the leader.

The wild card is Balanced. A Balanced leader can, at any time, be acting as Militaristic, Diplomat, Administrative, and any other. In Ironman / without aiview, you can't tell what it currently is, besides reviewing his actions; a nation with a Balanced leader who has done an offensive war recently is probably acting as Militaristic. The trouble is that we mostly care about Subjects, and none of that applies for Subjects. I expect it will be very hard to judge the actual trait of a Balanced leader who is a subject, without checking aiview.

If you play non-Ironman and use aiview, then you can tell pretty well which it is according to his Want to Conquer and other values.

So the question is, what decides whether a Balanced leader will switch between Militaristic, Diplomat, etc? And how often will it switch?

We don't know. This remains to be tested and deciphered. It's possible there's some code in the files, such as in ai_personalities, that indicates the probability or frequency of it switching between.

I am hoping that the active personality of a Balanced leader is decided by logical factors - such as, a Balanced leader feeling very Threatened is more likely to become Militaristic and try and beat back the threat. But we don't know. Worst case, it's just a random dice roll that decides what personality he uses at any one time.

I will be investigating this in more detail and posting about it in due course. I'll make a separate thread for that, though

 

[Antioch18]

Page 11 - 13 should give some clarification on this.

Thanks, I'll give it a read after work. Based on your reply I'm hopeful, but am not holding my breath.

 

[anomalacaris]

Good luck. This is EU4: Monarch Point Lottery. Westernization is even worse in that regard now.

New westernization is definitely less random than old one.
Old one: Adm lottery+comet avoidance+pray to god for stability increase events
New one: All stats matter, the distribution of monthly progress way more even this way

 

[Mann42]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would venture that no major or minor changes to gameplay are implemented without the firm blessing of the *lead designer* of the game. Namely, Johan.

(excepting bugs and errors obviously)

I've been in this industry too long to blindly believe that. Given a complex enough game and strong enough personalities (EU4 is incredibly complex and none of its developers are wilted flowers), there's quite a bit that can fly under the radar of the lead designer, or that he might delegate to another assuming it will be done one way, only to see it done another. I've seen lead designers 'give in' just because they have other bigger issues to deal with and they're tired of the argument.

As for excepting 'bugs and errors'... I could get into a near existential discussion on how many 'bug fixes' I've seen that are actually fundamental gameplay changes, and how many have riled up a community because the lead didn't realize the person tasked to fix it was going to fix it like that.

I'm not saying Paradox works that way. I'm not saying that's the dynamic between Johan and Wiz. I honestly have no idea - I've never worked with Johan or Wiz. However, I am saying it is possible for the community to draw that inference when patches are contradictory and the message conveyed by different developers is also contradictory from patch to patch.

Edit: Oh, and I feel need to clarify. I actually do like most of the changes in 1.4. I feel the game is, mostly, moving in a better direction. All my comments stem entirely from the perceived disconnect between the patch notes and what's missing from them based on patch realities, pre-patch developer statements of intent, and post-patch developer statements of intent.

 

[Pornek]

I'll make a separate thread for that, though

Do it already.

 

[GamingHUD]

Did you know that a lot of people don't know about the "seize colony" button? Did you know a lot of people don't understand how "claim throne" works? Should we remove both of those buttons too, since they "work" for people who understand the game but don't work for people who don't understand the game?

Did you know people use Enforce Peace to farm trust so they can diplo-vassalize more people? How is that not a WC button that only matters for people who do WC?

Did you know people use Diplomatic and Expansion groups to get more Diplo Rep? Do you think people who don't understand what Diplo Rep does use those Idea groups much? Are you deleting or changing those Idea groups because people who don't take them are playing the game wrong?

Your game is full of a thousand things that mean you are "doing something wrong" if you don't do them. Your game will always be like that. All you have done is taken out the most visible and whined-about one.

If you wanted to fix your game, you needed to do a thousand other things besides this. You can't just remove AE and vassal feeding and expect everything to be fine. Stop hacking away at this one like Dr Frankenstein.

There was a better, if not more involved approach, to handling this 'issue', IMO. Vassals are these entities who are 1) easily pleased and 2) Content to sit there peacefully whilst they wait for you to inevitably annex them. If vassals weren't brain dead, and could seek a path to independence (like say colonial nations who can - go figure) from the overlord, then vassal feeding wouldn't be as big of an 'issue' as it was previously.

 

[S0ny B1ack]

Ew. We need less utter luck-based gameplay, not more.

Haven't they said that the personalities existed before, you just didn't see them in the UI So nothing changed here...

 

[TheBloke]

There was a better, if not more involved approach, to handling this 'issue', IMO. Vassals are these entities who are 1) easily pleased and 2) Content to sit there peacefully whilst they wait for you to inevitably annex them. If vassals weren't brain dead, and could seek a path to independence (like say colonial nations who can - go figure) from the overlord, then vassal feeding wouldn't be as big of an 'issue' as it was previously.

There may be some element of this in 1.4.

The new Support Independence mechanic - announced for Colonial Nations - applies to any Subject. When I was experimenting, I annexed France as England (through Console). I got all their subject nations, and a little while later I got a bunch of popups that "SuchandSuch nation is supporting the independence of Orleans!" - several, one for each of those vassals.

This rather implies that those subjects can now try and break away, and be supported in that by other nations.

I've yet to follow that through and see if they actually do. They don't have Liberty Desire or anything, so I'm not sure how it would be decided. I suppose similar to PU-minors that used to declare independence, but with the support of other nations now.

 

[anomalacaris]

I've been in this industry too long to blindly believe that. Given a complex enough game and strong enough personalities (EU4 is incredibly complex and none of its developers are wilted flowers), there's quite a bit that can fly under the radar of the lead designer, or that he might delegate to another assuming it will be done one way, only to see it done another. I've seen lead designers 'give in' just because they have other bigger issues to deal with and they're tired of the argument.

As for excepting 'bugs and errors'... I could get into a near existential discussion on how many 'bug fixes' I've seen that are actually fundamental gameplay changes, and how many have riled up a community because the lead didn't realize the person tasked to fix it was going to fix it like that.

I'm not saying Paradox works that way. I'm not saying that's the dynamic between Johan and Wiz. I honestly have no idea - I've never worked with Johan or Wiz. However, I am saying it is possible for the community to draw that inference when patches are contradictory and the message conveyed by different developers is also contradictory from patch to patch.

Edit: Oh, and I feel need to clarify. I actually do like most of the changes in 1.4. I feel the game is, mostly, moving in a better direction. All my comments stem entirely from the perceived disconnect between the patch notes and what's missing from them based on patch realities, pre-patch developer statements of intent, and post-patch developer statements of intent.

I think sometimes we need more channels to communicate, more 'privatedly', to devs (this applies to many of my own posts).

 

[TheBloke]

Haven't they said that the personalities existed before, you just didn't see them in the UI So nothing changed here...

Yeah they did, but before the personality didn't affect whether they'd buy provinces. So it's more significant now, for a lot of people and their strategies.

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

Can you remind me whether an Administrator vassal will buy provinces? I forgot where you talked about the personalities, and I don't want to search through the entire thread again.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Haven't they said that the personalities existed before, you just didn't see them in the UI So nothing changed here...

Something did change though. In the previous patch, personality was irrelevant to vassal feeding because it didn't influence their willingness to purchase provinces. Now it does, so personality now matters much more.

 

[FrigidSoul]

There could be mulitple reasons that people don't use stock rules.

A number of players havn't got hooked to not being able to savescum. A number of players havn't understood what Ironman mode is and never tried it. A (big) number of players plays mods, mods that in many cases do minor things, like mapmods.

I don't think that there's a large number of players that doesn't use IM cus they don't like the game rules in general.

Sure, there are any number of reasons that people don't play Ironman, and sitting here today we can't know for sure which are predominant. Still, the fact that only ~1/6th of the playerbase has spent any significant time in the developer-endorsed stock-rules version of the game surely isn't an endorsement of the stock rules, is it? Within the context of conversation at hand, Wiz's response seems self-defeating.

 

[GamingHUD]

There may be some element of this in 1.4.

The new Support Independence mechanic - announced for Colonial Nations - applies to any Subject. When I was experimenting, I annexed France as England (through Console). I got all their subject nations, and a little while later I got a bunch of popups that "SuchandSuch nation is supporting the independence of Orleans!" - several, one for each of those vassals.

This rather implies that those subjects can now try and break away, and be supported in that by other nations.

I've yet to follow that through and see if they actually do. They don't have Liberty Desire or anything, so I'm not sure how it would be decided. I suppose similar to PU-minors that used to declare independence, but with the support of other nations now.

Yes, I had that happen in my Cherokee game when I vassalised Shawnee (in fact, the only time during that save where AI supported a vassal's independence). They didn't once attempt to do so, even though their own strength + support from other tribes was greater than the combined military strength I could muster, and throw in a period of several decades spent consistently with less than 10% of my manpower... :wacko:

It seems to be only there for players to utilise, to be honest.

 

[TheBloke]

Can you remind me whether an Administrator vassal will buy provinces? I forgot where you talked about the personalities, and I don't want to search through the entire thread again.

Don't know. My guess is that it's like Diplomatic, but maybe not quite as passive as that. Maybe if Militaristic is "100% wants to conquer" and Diplomatic is "10%", the Administrative is 30-40%. Completely conjecture, though, I have no test results for it.

I'm watching the snooker at the moment but I'll go back to some more testing soon. Do post if you find out

 

[WeissRaben]

There was a better, if not more involved approach, to handling this 'issue', IMO. Vassals are these entities who are 1) easily pleased and 2) Content to sit there peacefully whilst they wait for you to inevitably annex them. If vassals weren't brain dead, and could seek a path to independence (like say colonial nations who can - go figure) from the overlord, then vassal feeding wouldn't be as big of an 'issue' as it was previously.

Oh, but I am SURE there would be moaning (and that would be moaning, not complaining) if they did that. "Why did my whole-China vassal declare war on me? He was my vassaaaaal!" And I would love it, because I have long supported forced vassals doing some actual backstabbing if they feel the chance is there.