Why is diplo-vassalizing capped at 100 development?

[Trensicourt]

What's the reason behind this limitation?

I know that it's already tough to diplo-vassalize near 100 dev nation so having the 100 dev cap doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Historically, that doesn't make sense either. Strategically, wouldn't you rather submit to a country so much stronger than you rather than risk your nation getting razed to the ground in an impossible war?

 

[YellowPress]

To stop spamming dip rel letting you conquer the world without clicking many buttons?

 

[grotaclas]

My guess is that it is done to prevent the player from diplomatically vassalizing all small countries in the last stages of a WC. In most cases you need more than 5k autonomy modified dev to be able to vassalize a 100 dev country even if the limit would not exist.

Historically, that doesn't make sense either.

Is there any historical example in which such a big country accepted to become a vassal without at least the threat of war? (in eu4 you have to be allied to the target, so it can't apply to situations in which the country is afraid to get killed).

Strategically, wouldn't you rather submit to a country so much stronger than you rather than risk your nation getting razed to the ground in an impossible war?

I don't think that you can argue in this way, because if this would apply, a country should immediately surrender unconditionally if they are attacked by a vastly stronger country.

 

[Trensicourt]

My guess is that it is done to prevent the player from diplomatically vassalizing all small countries in the last stages of a WC. In most cases you need more than 5k autonomy modified dev to be able to vassalize a 100 dev country even if the limit would not exist.

I think that is a niche reason. I doubt Paradox wants to gimp a WC playthrough if they already made it so far.

Is there any historical example in which such a big country accepted to become a vassal without at least the threat of war? (in eu4 you have to be allied to the target, so it can't apply to situations in which the country is afraid to get killed).

First, in EU4, the whole alliance requirement is gameplay only. It's just ahistorical. I think we all agree with this.

But if I were to give examples, one of the most famous is Ptolemaic Egypt. The Romans took Egypt without war. There's a lot of drama but essentially the last ruler willed it away to the Romans. In fact, the Romans threatened many nations into unfair alliances, which then turned many into client states. I argue that alliances does not necessarily mean it's strategically beneficial for both sides. Some nations were forced into an alliance. It's a join me or die attitude. If you go back even further, majority of the Persian satrapies had a similar choice.

One can also argue that "vassal" is a very loose term. There were many vassals that had a wide variety of control from their overlords. Some were essentially independent but branded nominally as a vassal. In that case, many examples fall under that category without needing an alliance, further proving that if you are big enough, you can strong-arm nations to be your underling. The type of underling just depends on historical context.

I don't think that you can argue in this way, because if this would apply, a country should immediately surrender unconditionally if they are attacked by a vastly stronger country.

I want to note that no one implied "immediately" here either. So you can't change my point like that. Sometimes, it takes one battle to realize the war is lost. That did happen a lot. Shu Han of the Three Kingdoms essentially gave up against Wei after a brief invasion. The Mongols were another example. A lot of minor European wars were essentially a few battles and capitulation.

 

[Trensicourt]

To stop spamming dip rel letting you conquer the world without clicking many buttons?

Someone could do the math on this but I'd say you need to own a whole continent before you can diplo a country as large as France. If it's the typical Ottomans, maybe you need to own three continents before you can do that. If it's just cleaning up minor nations, I think it's actually slower because it time and diplomats to make it work. By that point, you'd have really high AE making it hard for that to work.

 

[brifbates]

ut if I were to give examples, one of the most famous is Ptolemaic Egypt. The Romans took Egypt without war. There's a lot of drama but essentially the last ruler willed it away to the Romans. In fact, the Romans threatened many nations into unfair alliances, which then turned many into client states. I argue that alliances does not necessarily mean it's strategically beneficial for both sides. Some nations were forced into an alliance. It's a join me or die attitude. If you go back even further, majority of the Persian satrapies had a similar choice.

Two big problems with your example:

1) Vastly different era than that which the game covers
2) The situation described in your example (last ruler willed nation away) would be more properly handled by a PU/direct inheritance scenario in EU IV terms and so would proceed exactly as described as there is no size limit.

 

[Trensicourt]

Two big problems with your example:

1) Vastly different era than that which the game covers
2) The situation described in your example (last ruler willed nation away) would be more properly handled by a PU/direct inheritance scenario in EU IV terms and so would proceed exactly as described as there is no size limit.

First point, fair point. How about the Mughals? A lot of Indian Sultanates and Rajput submitted to strong mix of diplomacy and warfare, many of which had a larger populations than their European counterparts. Now I know the game doesn't represent development accurately but a nation with a 100 dev in Europe likely had a smaller population than most of their Indian counterparts. Yet a significant submitted to the Mughals without conflict. So why should development be capped at 100?

Second point, not quite. It wasn't a PU. The origins of Ptolemaic Kingdom-Roman relationship were as a client state first, then due to drama you can argue it changed into a PU during Cleopatra's time, but then it reverted back to a client state and annexed as one. The "willing" was forced not an actual union of states. There was such an imbalance of power at the beginning and end of the Roman-Egyptian relationship.

 

[grotaclas]

I think that is a niche reason. I doubt Paradox wants to gimp a WC playthrough if they already made it so far.

I don't know why I even replied to this thread. Your question is impossible to answer and arguing about it doesn't make sense. If you want to know the reasons you either need to find documentation from the developers from the time when they implemented this feature or you would have to use a time machine to go back in time to ask them. You could also ask them now, but I doubt that anybody remembers the real reason unless it was written down in a design document.

Historical examples don't matter, because this is a gameplay restriction. And if you call a WC "niche", arguing about gamplay reasons won't work either.

I want to note that no one implied "immediately" here either. So you can't change my point like that. Sometimes, it takes one battle to realize the war is lost. That did happen a lot. Shu Han of the Three Kingdoms essentially gave up against Wei after a brief invasion. The Mongols were another example. A lot of minor European wars were essentially a few battles and capitulation.

I think you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that in eu4 AI countries don't just surrender because their enemy is too strong. And the same underlying reason why they don't do that also applies to diplomatic vassalization.

 

[Trensicourt]

I don't know why I even replied to this thread. Your question is impossible to answer and arguing about it doesn't make sense. If you want to know the reasons you either need to find documentation from the developers from the time when they implemented this feature or you would have to use a time machine to go back in time to ask them. You could also ask them now, but I doubt that anybody remembers the real reason unless it was written down in a design document.

Listen, if you want to have a proper conversation, please at least don't ask for a historical example just to say historical examples don't matter. Then flip back and forth between your arguments and then not clarify what you mean. Of course it doesn't make sense for you to respond to this thread.

Historical examples don't matter, because this is a gameplay restriction. And if you call a WC "niche", arguing about gamplay reasons won't work either.

WC is niche because not everyone does WC. Steam achievements can agree with this? I will admit where I am wrong and search for examples if I think I can support my argument more.

I think you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that in eu4 AI countries don't just surrender because their enemy is too strong. And the same underlying reason why they don't do that also applies to diplomatic vassalization.

You never clarified AI, so how am I supposed to know? You asked historical examples right before that statement, then ofc now you said historical examples don't matter.

I sincerely doubt this is an impossible question and dev reasoning can change overtime. This is a general question to a general audience in today's time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My guess is that it is done to prevent the player from diplomatically vassalizing all small countries in the last stages of a WC. In most cases you need more than 5k autonomy modified dev to be able to vassalize a 100 dev country even if the limit would not exist.

In the very distant past, aka 1.5 or so, it was possible to diplovassal pretty much everyone using Austria. The formula was changed since then, but we are still stuck with the 100 dev hard limit.

I'm not sure I agree with the 5k, and definitely not next patch. For same religion duchies that you can royal marry, it should be possible to diplovassal them with closer to 1000 dev if you have enough sources of diprep (or espionage next patch).

 

[Franconian]

I guess it was done with the starting time in mind. If a nation diplo vassalizes a nation with 100 dev, that would be a massive thing in 1444. We have a few things, that speed up downright conquering though, like Admin Efficiency or Absolutism. Why not let that effect diplo vassalize too? It would only kick in later in the game then.

 

[Trensicourt]

I guess it was done with the starting time in mind. If a nation diplo vassalizes a nation with 100 dev, that would be a massive thing in 1444. We have a few things, that speed up downright conquering though, like Admin Efficiency or Absolutism. Why not let that effect diplo vassalize too? It would only kick in later in the game then.

That was one of the reasons why I asked this question. You can argue that there is cap between how much a country is willing to be subservient to another because it's subjective. On the other hand, development is not. If development keeps increasing throughout the game, then by the game design the countries you can vassalize get smaller over time relative to world. That just doesn't make sense. A common scenario is that by the 1800s, you might not even be able to vassalize a HRE minor (ignoring HRE related maluses). Which was completely ahistorical as in just 60 years later, Germany formed from the subservience of all HRE states to Prussia in the Brother's War.

 

[YellowPress]

That was one of the reasons why I asked this question. You can argue that there is cap between how much a country is willing to be subservient to another because it's subjective. On the other hand, development is not. If development keeps increasing throughout the game, then by the game design the countries you can vassalize get smaller over time relative to world. That just doesn't make sense. A common scenario is that by the 1800s, you might not even be able to vassalize a HRE minor (ignoring HRE related maluses). Which was completely ahistorical as in just 60 years later, Germany formed from the subservience of all HRE states to Prussia in the Brother's War.

Prussia unifies Germany into one state sans AH in the Victoria timeline, Victoria has spheres of influence which are different to puppets, so not only is your example out of period, but is already covered in relevant game

 

[Trensicourt]

Prussia unifies Germany into one state sans AH in the Victoria timeline, Victoria has spheres of influence which are different to puppets, so not only is your example out of period, but is already covered in relevant game

No. You cannot argue game mechanics as a historical basis. Diplo-vassalizing didn't turn into puppeteering just cause Queen Victoria was born. That's like saying vassalizing a county in another kingdom's territory from CK3 suddenly stopped cause Shak Rukh died.

 

[YellowPress]

No. You cannot argue game mechanics as a historical basis. Diplo-vassalizing didn't turn into puppeteering just cause Queen Victoria was born.

Game takes a few years before she becomes queen. Puppets is like the main vassal, sub state gets its own title, pu is just puppet im pretty sure

That's like saying vassalizing a county in another kingdom's territory from CK3 suddenly stopped cause Shak Rukh died.

I mean load up ck2 in 1444, convert save, and see how many who accepted vassalisation offer in ck2 accept in eu4

 

[Trensicourt]

I mean load up ck2 in 1444, convert save, and see how many who accepted vassalisation offer in ck2 accept in eu4

This is exactly what I am counter arguing against. You cannot just convert a save to argue that it's the basis for how vassals actually work. Also, my whole point about Queen Victoria or Shak Rukh is that the historical concept of them just doesn't change overnight because of an era change defined by Paradox games.

 

[YellowPress]

This is exactly what I am counter arguing against. You cannot just convert a save to argue that it's the basis for how vassals actually work. Also, my whole point about Queen Victoria or Shak Rukh is that the historical concept of them just doesn't change overnight because of an era change defined by Paradox games.

It doesnt change overnight, but general trends emerging within the game have brought these changes about

 

[jonjowett]

I had this issue when I, as one of the two independent Orthodox nations in the world, wanted to vassalise the other one. Everything was fine, except they had 103 dev. Very frustrating.

I agree that it seems like an outdated mechanism, especially as liberty desire will make it very hard to hold on to vassals that are "too large" in comparison to your nation.

Also, the existence of this blocker makes a mockery of the "+N vassalisation acceptance" modifiers (eg. Winter Palace stage 3): By the time you get the modifier, you're so large you can diplo vassalise everyone under 100 dev, so what's the point?

Overall, I think this blocker could be safely removed without any bad in-game repercussions.

 

[YellowPress]

I had this issue when I, as one of the two independent Orthodox nations in the world, wanted to vassalise the other one. Everything was fine, except they had 103 dev. Very frustrating.

I agree that it seems like an outdated mechanism, especially as liberty desire will make it very hard to hold on to vassals that are "too large" in comparison to your nation.

Also, the existence of this blocker makes a mockery of the "+N vassalisation acceptance" modifiers (eg. Winter Palace stage 3): By the time you get the modifier, you're so large you can diplo vassalise everyone under 100 dev, so what's the point?

Overall, I think this blocker could be safely removed without any bad in-game repercussions.

Liberty desire is far easier to deal with nowadays, we have strong duchies for -10% which is semi universally available, with dev reduction modifiers being more rampant you can dev someone into being happy, income boosts also mean gifts and subsidies easy to get
Winter palace is best used for institutions, thats it sadly

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Overall, I think this blocker could be safely removed without any bad in-game repercussions.

Currently, the economic base penalty is capped at -90. If you remove the blocker, you'd probably also want to tune that cap. Otherwise, you could get to ~1000 dev, pick espionage/diplo (or influence), get trading in ivory, and diplovassal nations like France or Portugal...pretty much any non-empire in your religion that you could marry and get +20 military on. You'd need a lot more diprep to overcome heathen religion penalty, though that's not impossible.

At some point it's more practical to just conquer the stuff. Right now, that point is "immediately", so there's room to tweak this. I'm all for making diplovassaling work better with investment, but this could easily get out of hand unless done carefully.