Vassals are too docile

[User29]

The Golden Horde if it sets up the Novgordians and Muscovites as vassals again will somehow never face revolt again. This is... wrong... Vassals need events to rebel. Too many of us rely on Vassals.

 

[6Lines]

+1 There should be at least some events that can endanger the annexation process.

 

[apg]

to be expected really considering the devs have no interest for internal issues and things to do during peactime other then pressing the core button and being patient.

 

[MiniaAr]

Vassals do rebel actually, you should talk with Novacat about this.

More seriously, look at TheBloke thread which explains in which conditions vassals rebels:

3. Subject Independence & Subjects allying against their overlord

• Subject nations can have Hostile attitude towards their Overlord
  1. (This may have come in via 1.4 rather than 1.5, but had much less/zero effect in that release.)
  2. AI subject nations have two valid Attitudes towards their overlord:
     • Vassal - the standard, default attitude
     • Hostile - new in 1.4/1.5
  3. They cannot have any other attitude at this time.
  4. This applies regardless of whether the overlord is AI or Human.
• Subject nations which have Hostile attitude will now Declare Independence more commonly
  1. This applies at least to Vassals, PU-minors and Colonial Nations.
  2. It probably applies to Protectorates as well, I have not verified that.
  3. Colonial Nations will never be Hostile until they reach 50% Liberty Desire.
  4. A vassal or PU-minor who is Hostile is able to declare Independence at any time.
  5. They are also willing to accept Support Independence, and will ask other nations for it.
• Factors affecting whether a Subject has Hostile attitude towards their Overlord
  1. The standard factor for when an independent nation is Hostile is when they Want to Conquer something that you have. This also appears to apply, at least to some degree, to subject nations.
  2. The chance of them being Hostile is further increased by:
     • the AI Leader Personality being a Militarist
     • their military strength being 50% greater than yours
       • and further again when it is 100% greater than yours.
     • you having poor relations with them:
       • the chance of going Hostile increases by 100% at 0, -50, -100, -150 and -199 relations
       • the chance of going Hostile decreases by 50% for each of +50, +75, +100, +125, +150, +175 relations
  3. When you have +200 relations with them, they will never be Hostile.
• It is my experience so far that it is not too difficult to keep your Subject from being Hostile.
  1. Unlike before, you do now need to work a bit on their relations; and not ignore them for hundreds of years.
  2. If you think they Want to Conquer provinces you won, consider Selling those provinces to them - remember that you can sell them one of your cores and it will become their core.
  3. Once they reach Vassal attitude, they do tend to stay there; they do not flip-flop back and forth between Vassal and Hostile, at least in my experience so far.
• Factors that a Hostile subject takes into account when deciding whether to Declare Independence:
  1. Their relative military strength - which you can look at easily on your Subjects screen.
  2. What nations they have Supporting their Independence, and what other subjects are Allied with them.
  3. I believe, the usual AI assessment of whether it can win a war - e.g. are you in a good state? Did you just fight a major war and are weakened? etc.
  4. Of course they cannot declare on you if you are at war, because then they will be at war (except in the case of Protectorates.)
• Subjects can now ally with each other, against their Overlord
  1. Subjects that want to rebel - i.e. they are hostile - can now ally with other subjects in the same position.
  2. This is similar to accepting Support Independence, except it applies between subjects of the same overlord.
• How to tell when a Subject might rebel / is Hostile?
  1. I do not believe there is a message popup for when their Attitude changes.
  2. But you will know for sure they are hostile if:
     • you get popups indicating "NationX has entered into Support Independence with our disloyal subject SubjectY"
     • or you get a popup indicating a new alliance between SubjectY and SubjectZ
  3. If you have a lot of subjects, it's recommended to review the Subjects Interface screen regularly, as this will show their opinion and attitude.

 

[rayyuri]

So you really enjoy the game that you can only fight and core?
1.5 already killed vassal feeding and made the vassals rebel occasionaly. And you think it's not enough. You want to kill vassals, or make vassals rebel as frequent as possible. And a player can only fight-peacedeal-core, nothing else. RIGHT?
Do you realize that these changes are killing the key features of EU4?

Sometimes it even turns to me that some people on this forum are from paradox's rival companies, and their task is to kill this game.

 

[mgoetze]

The chance of them being Hostile is further increased by:
... their military strength being 50% greater than yours

Yeah, like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

Even when I've vassalised nations that hated my guts, I've never seen them turn hostile, much less actually revolt. So I agree with the OP, we are not quite there yet.

 

[MiniaAr]

So you really enjoy the game that you can only fight and core?
1.5 already killed vassal feeding and made the vassals rebel occasionaly. And you think it's not enough. You want to kill vassals, or make vassals rebel as frequent as possible. And a player can only fight-peacedeal-core, nothing else. RIGHT?
Do you realize that these changes are killing the key features of EU4?

Sometimes it even turns to me that some people on this forum are from paradox's rival companies, and their task is to kill this game.

I personally like how it is right now: A small possibility that vassal would rebel, basically if they are big enough and stronger than you. But I don't favour more restricting changes on them.
I was actually disappointed when they removed the "strategic interest" factor for vassals when deciding if they want a province or not, it added some interesting depth and variety in your relationship with vassals and the solution was in my opinion not to scrap it completely but instead make it more transparent (through the diplomatic map, as it was suggested at the time ).
I am not sure that your comment was directed at me, but it couldn't hurt precising my thinking.

 

[sarudak]

The problem is the warscore limits on how big a country you can vassalize. IMO you should be able to vassalize any country by getting to 100% warscore. But then they should immediately start plotting for independence and even conspiring with other vassals.

 

[6Lines]

Incremental annexation

So you really enjoy the game that you can only fight and core?
1.5 already killed vassal feeding and made the vassals rebel occasionaly. And you think it's not enough. You want to kill vassals, or make vassals rebel as frequent as possible. And a player can only fight-peacedeal-core, nothing else. RIGHT?
Do you realize that these changes are killing the key features of EU4?

Sometimes it even turns to me that some people on this forum are from paradox's rival companies, and their task is to kill this game.

I agree with you that changes should not only be restrictive and that the current balance is quite good. Maybe something similar to incremental annexation is even better, like this:

In the first stage the independence desire is very low and maybe vassals could be allowed to wage their own wars (without allies) to encourage vassal feeding.
From here you can with each step reduce the freedom of the vassal. First step: forbid their own wars. Step two: force same religion. Step three: force same government. Step four: forbid all diplomatic actions. Step five: full annexation. Each step should result in higher revolt risk also the ratio between good and bad vassal events should shift more towards the bad.

I think this allows for a more interesting annexation and is not necessarily more restrictive..

 

[Sairoh]

I'll have to agree with the OP, But for different reasons.

I wish I could support independence of vassals to weaken my rivals, but I can't because they're practically ALWAYS happy with their overlord. Even Sweden, if they lose their first bid for independence then they never do it again. In my game I would love to weaken Demark as Russia, but NOooOOoo... Demark has drugs and their vassals are always happy.

 

[solidprice]

No more nerfs to vassle feeding! Jesus gosh darn Christ!
I dont want this game to end up like empire total war where its permanent paint canning 100 years wars,no postive diplomacy, and it like pissing razor blades to get ANY vassles at all, and those vassles cant be annexed other than GB/france/Spain's starting vassles.
When I read earlier versions,I couldn't play it anymore other than free battle (best part of the game)

So no,bad forum,bad fourm!*squirt s fourm with water bottle*

 

[Comradebot]

So you really enjoy the game that you can only fight and core?
1.5 already killed vassal feeding and made the vassals rebel occasionaly. And you think it's not enough. You want to kill vassals, or make vassals rebel as frequent as possible. And a player can only fight-peacedeal-core, nothing else. RIGHT?
Do you realize that these changes are killing the key features of EU4?

Sometimes it even turns to me that some people on this forum are from paradox's rival companies, and their task is to kill this game.

Paranoid much?


I'm sorry, vassal feeding was a stupid mechanic in its old form. The idea that the most efficient way to expand is to create a group of satellite states that will happily buy your recently conquered lands and do all the work for you without a single complaint has to be the single most asinine, counter-intuitive, and unrealistic feature I've ever seen in any Paradox game. There was zero downside to it.

Personally, I'm very happy with where it is right now. You can still feed vassals their claims/cores/historical lands, but its no longer some silly tool that allows you to completely bypass ever need to core anything yourself. And that's how it should be, something to aid in your expansion and not completely be your expansion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Paranoid much?


I'm sorry, vassal feeding was a stupid mechanic in its old form. The idea that the most efficient way to expand is to create a group of satellite states that will happily buy your recently conquered lands and do all the work for you without a single complaint has to be the single most asinine, counter-intuitive, and unrealistic feature I've ever seen in any Paradox game. There was zero downside to it.

Personally, I'm very happy with where it is right now. You can still feed vassals their claims/cores/historical lands, but its no longer some silly tool that allows you to completely bypass ever need to core anything yourself. And that's how it should be, something to aid in your expansion and not completely be your expansion.

It's pretty amusing that you can praise a game with many serious, indisputable issues on top of other flaws that have no arguments in their favor, then call out another mechanic as asinine .

 

[Pilot00]

Paranoid much?


I'm sorry, vassal feeding was a stupid mechanic in its old form. The idea that the most efficient way to expand is to create a group of satellite states that will happily buy your recently conquered lands and do all the work for you without a single complaint has to be the single most asinine, counter-intuitive, and unrealistic feature I've ever seen in any Paradox game. There was zero downside to it.

Personally, I'm very happy with where it is right now. You can still feed vassals their claims/cores/historical lands, but its no longer some silly tool that allows you to completely bypass ever need to core anything yourself. And that's how it should be, something to aid in your expansion and not completely be your expansion.

I would agree with you but given the fact that you don't give your plans to your subjects in the game, they kinda are oblivious to their future annexation. Any adjacent provinces for free cored or otherwise, is completely stupid to be denied if the vassal is not overextended or facing any stability issues. In fact one can theorize that it would benefit the vassal to grow in size and eventually demand independence.
There are two faces in the same coin.

 

[Comradebot]

It's pretty amusing that you can praise a game with many serious, indisputable issues on top of other flaws that have no arguments in their favor, then call out another mechanic as asinine .

Oh? Am I supposed to voice every negative opinion I have about a game in every thread, regardless of the topic? Here I was thinking this was about vassals. Clearly I'm either mistaken, or we're only allowed to voice negative opinions and everyone failed to inform me of such.

Is EUIV perfect? No. But I legitimately think that parts of it are moving in the right direction, and anything that I don't like doesn't take away from that. I happen to think the nerfs to vassal feeding and the new colonial system are beneficial to the game in the longterm, just like I thought pre-CoP vassal feeding and colonizing really hurt the game back then (and was very vocal about it to boot). You can either accept that, or you can keep acting like a bit of a passive-aggressive bully. If the internet has taught me anything, it's that you'll choose the latter.

 

[Comradebot]

I would agree with you but given the fact that you don't give your plans to your subjects in the game, they kinda are oblivious to their future annexation. Any adjacent provinces for free cored or otherwise, is completely stupid to be denied if the vassal is not overextended or facing any stability issues. In fact one can theorize that it would benefit the vassal to grow in size and eventually demand independence.
There are two faces in the same coin.

Only problem with that is, when doesn't vassalization end with annexation (or at least have it as the ultimate plan of the mother country)? Its only when a nation is rather small that they'd ever risk a revolt by feeding their vassal. Once you reach a certain, moderate size anything you're capable of vassalizing (force or diplo) will never grow large enough to revolt before you can annex em'. Worst case scenario is you have to find someone else to make your vassal a tad more frequently, but otherwise we'd still be left with the original vassal feeding issue.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh? Am I supposed to voice every negative opinion I have about a game in every thread, regardless of the topic? Here I was thinking this was about vassals. Clearly I'm either mistaken, or we're only allowed to voice negative opinions and everyone failed to inform me of such.

Is EUIV perfect? No. But I legitimately think that parts of it are moving in the right direction, and anything that I don't like doesn't take away from that. I happen to think the nerfs to vassal feeding and the new colonial system are beneficial to the game in the longterm, just like I thought pre-CoP vassal feeding and colonizing really hurt the game back then (and was very vocal about it to boot). You can either accept that, or you can keep acting like a bit of a passive-aggressive bully. If the internet has taught me anything, it's that you'll choose the latter.

Vassals by design are heading towards the right place, but not by execution. MAYBE they finally work in 1.5.1. Maybe...except we ALREADY HAD CONFIRMATION THEY DON'T, before 1.5.1 was even released... However, here are some issues with the mechanic you are "happy with right now", as of 1.5.0. When I get home, perhaps I'll see if they actually fixed some of it, or if they lied to us like the CTA alliance thing:

- Subjects of subjects will not call their master to war, such that you can be forced to watch your vassal have land ceded off it or do no-CB war.
- It is possible through the vassal mechanics to get a nation to be on the same side as someone in a war, and against them in a different war, which by design is supposed to be completely impossible.
- As of 1.5.0, subjects can still mass break alliances through forced CTA.

And that's just the indisputable issues with them. Do I agree that having vassals possibly turn hostile and declare independence is a viable mechanic? Sure. Does the logic of them doing so based on many of the same criteria as an independent nation (IE mostly if they want your current land or not) make sense? No. Was a nerf to vassal feeding to make it not "the one strategy" defensible to the point where it's hard to argue against that change? Sure.

Does any of that excuse, to any degree, the introduction of game-breaking bugs regarding vassals and subject nations over 6 months in the game, to the point of saying "I'm happy with this"? No. Praise in this case is not warranted. Within HOURS of 1.5.1 release, players identified an issue in the "hotfix" that was present in the beta and given before the release of the hotfix: vassals now evaluate whether they'll buy land based on whether *you* can core it, and will refuse to buy their own freaking cores if they're too far from you.

This, in a new patch "hotfix", 6 months into the game, implemented despite knowing that doing so would cause a regression...a regression that fits squarely into the mechanic you are "happy with where it is right now". The only sell there that is even justifiable is if you meant "I'm happy with their current apparent intention", but that isn't what you said :/.

 

[Pilot00]

Only problem with that is, when doesn't vassalization end with annexation (or at least have it as the ultimate plan of the mother country)? Its only when a nation is rather small that they'd ever risk a revolt by feeding their vassal. Once you reach a certain, moderate size anything you're capable of vassalizing (force or diplo) will never grow large enough to revolt before you can annex em'. Worst case scenario is you have to find someone else to make your vassal a tad more frequently, but otherwise we'd still be left with the original vassal feeding issue.

Yes but my point is that the vassal's government doesn't know that. If we take your way of thinking for granted then vassals shouldn't be doing anything, just stay and wait the years pass. After all they are going to be annexed why bother?

 

[wanderlust33]

The problem is the warscore limits on how big a country you can vassalize. IMO you should be able to vassalize any country by getting to 100% warscore. But then they should immediately start plotting for independence and even conspiring with other vassals.

They won't do this what with protectorates, but this is a very good idea and would make conquest (and peacetime!) a lot more fun. Direct annexation is hard and expensive, vassalization isn't but keeping an empire of restive vassals would be difficult and expensive in itself. It presents the player with interesting choices and challenges and it's easy to imagine a larger empire legitimately "collapsing" in the way they historically did.

 

[PedroVargas]

I just had my vassal rebelling in a current game: Playing as Korea, I vassalized the Manchu and the Mongol Khanate. I thought I'm happy and safe, when the Manchu declared war on me. We had about equal army size plus 2-3K from the Mongols on my side. I got crushed. Had to revert to an earlier safe game and tried a couple of things (more army, mercs, war against someone else) and it was quite annoying to tell the truth. I don't quite remeber what I did in the end, probably temporary mercs so the AI thought I'm strong and mighty.

I like that vassals may rebel, but to tell the truth: When they do in ironman, you borderline rage quit.