Some alternate suggestions for vassalization and coring

[House_Elioz]

Cross posted to the mega-thread, but I don't think many folks are reading that massive blob anymore. Apologies if this is bad forum etiquette, but I'm interested in responses, so I thought I'd post a separate thread.

After playing the game some with the latest patch/expansion, and in observing this thread, I had a few thoughts and suggestions that might improve both the historicity and gameplay value of the vassal mechanics in EU4. For me, vassalization, annexation and coring are all of a piece, so I'm going to lay out some intertwined thoughts on both. Apologies in advance for the wall of text, but I can't figure out how to hide sections behind "spoiler" panes for easier readability.

First, on vassalization, annexation and "coring" as concepts:

Vassals capture an important element of empire building in the Europa Universalis time frame, which was the great difficulty states encountered in effectively administering empires composed of disparate cultures, religions and histories. This is an era largely before nationalism (as understood today) and one in which even so-called contiguous states continued to be composed of patchworks of duchies and hierarchies of nobles. The loyalties of these nobles and territories was often very limited with respect to central authorities. However, we are moving out of the middle ages by this point, and states as entities are becoming vastly more important to the overall structure of international affairs than they would have been previously. The ability of even powerful nobles to completely escape the control of their monarchs is becoming increasingly constrained, and national identities are slowly gaining definition. This is part of the reason why the player takes the role of a country rather than a royal family in EU4 (whereas the opposite is the case in CK2).

As states develop over the course of the EU4 timeframe, huge battles are being fought over the cultural, religious and geographic identities which will define them. Wallonians share many things with their french neighbors, but are not part of France. Do they belong to France, or do they have more in common with their cousins in the HRE? The player helps answer these questions in the course of creating their unique spin on history. But that doesn't mean the people and places the player affects won't react to the changes the player attempts to impose. In fact, the reactions of those people and places (the non-player elements of the game) are what make this era of history so interesting and dynamic. The challenge is to make these challenges "feel right" in terms of history while still being fun game mechanics.

Annexation and incorporation of new territories though vassals or through direct coring represent different ways of fusing disparate regions, cultures and peoples into a larger political entity. Obviously, where possible, states seek to own territory directly. But most of the time, this is exceedingly difficult. Distance, resistance of the population and resource limitations all conspire to limit the degree to which nations can truly directly control their lands. Additionally, it is incredibly difficult to get people to forget their old loyalties - it might take a generation or two (or more!) for the local population to forget what it was like to be independent and get used to identifying as your subjects. States often devolve some central power to sub-entities under their control to ease these difficulties. In the new world, these took the form of colonial states (viceroyalties, etc. - how often do you really think Spanish holdings in mexico really took direct orders from Madrid?), and in the old world, they took the form of vassals. Italian lands restive under your rule? Just won a war against the Teutonic order, but don't want to have to put up with massive rebellions in 10 years? Better give some power to the locals to lighten the burden of your rule - make them vassals instead of attempting to conquer them directly. Later, when those peoples are more used to the French (or Polish, in the latter case) yoke, you can think about slowly drawing them more tightly into your circle.

With all this in mind, I am prepared to argue that it is clearly the case that the vassal feeding and annexation system as of 1.3 was in need of rework. I say this as someone who used and abused vassal feeding in my own games. Simply put, it was too easy to incorporate vast new territories into an empire in unrealistically short times with unrealistically low resistance to the player. If it was possible to just up and absorb a substantial fraction of Europe in 10 or 20 years and have it count as a permanent part of your country (with the people mostly accepting your rule), you better believe more conquerors would have done it.

I actually think the coring system is a bit broken in this regard as well. Coring represents both your country's sense of entitlement to certain lands as well as the population of that territory's willingness to accept you as their rightful ruler. This is why adding a core both makes it easier for you to retake the land if lost, but also eliminates/severely reduces nationalist resistance to your rule. The fact that apparently the Turks are willing to accept Byzantine domination after five years of occupation (to cite one example) strikes me as exceedingly unrealistic. But, if changes are going to be made to either coring or vassalization, they need to take one another into account so that the tradeoff in strategies and monarch point utilization represents an interesting challenge for the player.

On Vassalization:

I would propose that vassalization be changed to allow for greater resistance to the player by their vassals, particularly in the case where the player has encountered some difficulties (Peasant's war, anyone?). First, when vassalizing a territory (either militarily or through the create vassals function), the player should get the option to choose whether the vassal will be run by master-state nobility or local nobility.

• If the master-state nobility option is chosen, the vassal's leadership shares the religion and culture of the creating state (like the governments of Rhodes and Cyprus which were created by crusaders from the west). This results in a vassal with much greater loyalty to their master, but at the cost of less money and troops (due to revolt risk reducing tax income and the constant need for the vassal to beat down rebellions in their own territory). It might make sense to also include a penalty for that vassal which limits available manpower and maybe even reduces vassal force limits. Successful revolts (particularly patriot/nationalist/religious rebels) have a chance of tearing down the vassal government and installing one of the home culture and religion. They would continue to be vassals, but would fall under the mechanics of the local nobility vassals (see below). Potentially, such forced government conversions may also increase the chance that the vassal seeks independence outright in the future. All of this means that the master-state will likely need to intervene in their vassals periodically to ensure the continued dominance of the new master-state ruling class (no more ignoring rebellions in your vassals). On the other hand, the presence of your nobility in the government of your vassal means the populace is already partially assimilated into your country's ways by the time you get around to annexing them (basically, your vassal duke has been preparing the ground). After the 10 year waiting period that currently exists, you can diploannex these vassals in much the same way as you can now. The only other change I might make is to include a annexation speed malus if the provinces being annexed have different religions or cultures (greater penalties for heathens relative to heretics, and greater penalties for different as opposed to accepted cultures). In general, this should make it possible to annex a vassal in about 18-30 years (inclusive of the 10 year waiting period), which basically represents a generational turnover in the society in question.

• If the local nobility option is chosen, the vassal's leadership will share the religion and culture of the majority of territories being governed (or possibly, those of the vassal's capitol). This option will mean the vassal is better able to run their own territories, which will result in them being able to provide more income and armies to support their master (lower revolt risk = higher taxes = higher vassal payments to master). However, such vassals will be substantially harder to incorporate into your country. The annexation process will take dramatically longer, and these vassals will be dramatically more likely to take advantage of the "support independence" mechanics that were added in the latest patch/expansion. Like the colonial nations, these vassals should also have some danger of outright revolting (regardless of an outside power intervening). The factors which would affect this could include relative army strength, overall stability and situation of the master state, religious/cultural differences (if any) and whether or not the master is actively trying to annex them. Additionally, annnexing a vassal should add AE over time or in periodic events, with more AE going to states with the same religion or culture as the vassal being annexed. This would result in Muslim states rising to the defense of Candar being annexed by the Byzantines, or Italian states rising to the defense of urbino being incorporated by Spain. Meanwhile, a French catholic state incorporating another French catholic state would result in substantially less diplomatic impact. The waiting period for annexation should be 20 years, and annexation itself should take longer. I would guess that such vassals could be annexed in 30-50 years (inclusive of the waiting period), depending on reputation, etc, and with the annexation speed malus referenced above. This represents basically a 1.5 to 2 generation turnover in the vassal nation's leadership.

Outside of this mechanic, I generally support Wiz' notes about the way vassals will work in future patches:

- AI: Will now accept buying provinces as long as the total OE after purchase would not be above 95%
- AI: Subjects will now only accept buying non-core provinces if their OE is 0
- AI: Will no longer accept buying a non-accepted culture province or wrong religion group province unless it is a core, claim, they have owned it at any point during the game, or they desire to conquer it
- AI: Subjects will now only buy provinces if they are a core, claim, they have owned it at any point during the game, or they desire to conquer it

The only other thing I would add is that nations should always be able to create a vassal out of territories which are controlled by them but not cores and not of an accepted culture. This would use the same dynamic nation creation/scripting/naming that is in place for colonial nations, resulting in vassals like "French Catalonia" or "Prussian Poland" as appropriate. These vassals would start with no cores, but would be able to create them subject to the rules noted by Wiz above. Such a system represents the creation of marches and "puppet governments" on the borders of states (something which occurred throughout history). If I were France and trying to conquer Catalonia from Aragon, I might have an easier time if I set up a rival administration as the "real" government of the region. This would allow for historical outcomes such as Ottoman Hungary (Transylvania) to be created in opposition to royal Hungary, and better model complex relationships such as the way the English ruled Ireland (since it's hard to argue that England directly ruled Ireland most of the time up until the formation of Great Britain). It also helps get around the game mechanic problem of large states with no substate cores. If I'm invading England but can only conquer half of it, I should have the option to exercise control of the conquered territories through a semi-autonomous vassal (with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with it). I understand why few non-english cores exist in England - no English people are going to revolt to form Meath - but in the event of occupation by a foreign power (ahistorical but plausible), you better believe that power would try to ressurect the names and traditions of long-dead entities for their own convenience. Similarly, if I invade Castile, I could set up something I choose to call "Leon" as a vassal, even though it bears no actual historical connection to the old Leon of history. If that entity later breaks free from me, well, maybe they'd adopt that identity more fully and later go on to take over more territory in the region. Arguably, this is how countries like Greece rose from the ashes of the ottoman conquest - a bunch of folks invaded the Ottomans and forced them to spit up some territories, which were then created as a great power's vassal and named "Greece." After Greece gained a greater measure of independence, they "grew into" their role as the government of the greeks, despite having not existed for thousands of years as an actual entity.

On Coring:

Right now, nobody likes coring because it takes a long time and is extremely expensive. Most of this complaint is a gameplay complaint, not a historical complaint. If something like the above is adopted for vassalization (making it less attractive than the 1.3 model), more people will want to core at least some occupied provinces. In my opinion, the most frustrating aspect of coring is the fact that a single rebel occupation results in the loss of all admin points and all coring progress in the province in question. This seems stupid, because if I'm the expansionist country, I'm not going to regard territory as less belonging to me because some rebels object. Now, if the rebels are powerful enough to make me sit up and listen, maybe my opinion changes.

I would argue that coring progress should only be lost if actual ownership of the province changes and/or the rebels enforce their demands (either results in total loss of admin points and progess). If the province is besieged, progress stops (as is the case currently). If the province is occupied, however, by either rebels or another nation, progress should not be erased, but should instead wind back for every month the province is occupied. The progress loss rate would be double that of the normal progress gain rate. If progress returns to zero (due to a long occupation, or an occupation immediately after coring starts), then admin points are lost permanently. Otherwise, rebellions are only a hiccup (a potentially major hiccup) in the overall progess of incorporating a province).

Coring a province SHOULD be expensive (you are, after all, basically permanently adding land to your empire), but you shouldn't have to repay those costs due to an unlucky siege roll while your armies are en route. You are already punished for rebel occupation due to the increased nationalism that comes from the occupation. No need to pile onto that unless the rebels or enemies are truly threatening your continued hold on the territory.

I would also make one of two possible changes to make it somewhat more attractive as an option:

• Option 1: Increase the time it takes to core dramatically, but substantially reduce overextension (1 or 2% per basetax) associated with it. This would more closely resemble the EU3 model, where coring takes a long time, but you still have some ability to take a reasonable number of provinces. I would couple it to a restoration of the AE penalties to something closer to those in 1.3. I think your neighbors always care if you expand, even if it is only "a few provinces." If you want to grow, you better be prepared to pay the price.

• Option 2: Maintain or shorten the time it takes to core, and maintain current overextension, but increase the revoltrisk in provinces and extend it beyond the end of coring. The virtue of fast coring is it captures the fact that nations will identify territory as being "theirs" whether or not the local population agrees. But, the population shouldn't just acquiesce because 5 years have passed and now their new overlords feel like they own the place. I would increase nationalism to 15% base (instead of 10% which I think is the current case), and make coring only reduce this by half to a third. This means that even with "harsh treatment", revolt risk is very likely to be non-zero during the coring process, and even after coring, military intervention in the province is likely to be necessary for quite some time. The decay rate for nationalism should result in it hitting zero sometime around 30-40 years after initial seizure of the province (assuming no successful rebellions). With the "no admin points loss to rebels" change above, this means that paying admin for a province is very likely to get you the province, but you'll still be dealing with the aftermath for some time. This is my preferred option.

With vassals occupying a huge amount more of your diplomatic relations (due to extended time to annex them), as well as the risk of losing your vassals entirely to coalition wars/independence, the diplomatic cost of vassal annexation/feeding becomes more comparable to the admin cost of direct annexation. I think both routes become more interesting and more challenging and more fun for players.

Thoughts?

 

[Gunburned]

Honestly I could understand vassal feeding up to a certain extent, and that is
- Vassal should take only land that they have cores in. I see no other reasons besides power gaming. Your basicly liberating their land back. Why would or should they take land thats handed to them for no good reasons?