Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Pris
(and onwards)
3 
And to be clear, it's only a problem if this factor does, on its own, overpower all others *in unreasonable circumstances*.
So far, the issues are edge cases. It's worth working on improving the edge cases, but it doesn't make the mechanic fundamentally wrong.
I feel like there's a lack of understanding though that this is meant to make it viable to play as both a subject *and* an overlord. Being a small subject of an overextended overlord needs to provide you a buffer to maintain your autonomy, and equally, subjugating the entire world from a few handful of states should have the world questioning why they put up with it.
As for the "the reality is that they will be" that is simply incorrect - it would, in fact, still be incorrect if the values were all halved, only in different circumstances (unless the factor had a max value, which it doesn't look like it does).
Either way, we obviously disagree as to what is/should be more important to maintaining a low liberty desire on subjects, so it doesn't quite matter that I believe politics and economics should play a more relevant role and I'll just drop the matter.
Cheers.
Still, I believe you misunderstand the nature of the previous comments, otherwise portraying something as a skill issue doesn't quite make sense - this is not a complaint about liberty desire being difficult to manage, it's about what subjects "care" about more, I thought that was clear when I mentioned how effective random, and unrealistic, overseas militarization was (it'd also have the opposite effect if releasing a colony there).
The reality is that they will be.
They might not be below 25, but they will be under 50 and they will be loyal.
Under 25 is where you start being able to roll back their sovereignty - the more subjects you have, the more difficult that should be, as reducing the autonomy of ONE of them represents an implied threat to ALL of them.
<50 is loyal
<25 is a threat
-> resistance is related to distance from 50 and it can be both positive or negative, only relevant if you are trying to reduce autonomy as it acts as a stabiliser
2 - lobbies and economic dependence are both unreliable/uncontrollable...
-> lobbies are unreliable, economic dependence is a skill issue
3 - Some pacts are incompatible between themselves...
-> not the ones that matter here
3b - to reach the max value you'd need to reduce payments and bankroll...
-> Yes, if you need to resort to these to keep subjects happy, that is the design cost of having too many subjects.
4 - ...115% subjects relative power projection
It only looks at *army* power projection for the main part of the maths, then it's either full value or halved depending on a strict comparison of the naval projection. Navies don't come on land, the only reason the navy matters is because it reflects whether or not you can deploy your army effectively.
I do think it works for a smaller number of subjects, because it'd make more sense for them to have relations and because the subject's own military represents a higher percentage of the total, for a lot of subjects, however, that changes.
Still, this is mostly a balancing concern and despite me thinking the other values should be more relevant, especially economic dependence (otherwise you can own 60% of a nation's GDP and still have a meager -0.4) and lobbies, I understand your reasoning and design choices.
All that being said - I think that a subject that has a high opinion, significantly lower prestige, a significantly smaller navy and army, is afraid of the overlords alliances, has all beneficial pacts with the overlord, has pro overlord lobbies, controlled economic dependence and no liberty friction should be unquestionably loyal even if the overlord has other subjects that combined have a strong military.
1 - Those values ignore resistance to status quo, which is unavoidable.
2 - Pro overlord lobbies and economic dependence are both unreliable/uncontrollable and not always adequately calculated (this is unrelated to the mod, the game is just bad at those).
3 - Some pacts are incompatible between themselves and to reach the max value you'd need to reduce payments and bankroll, probably paying more than you get (a condition that on it's own should be way more significant).
4 - I am looking at the tooltip at this moment and at 115% subjects relative power projection that value is at +1.32 - at a different date/save when I built some random stuff to "game" the value I'm seeing +0.95 for 67% subjects relative power projection.
Total potential negatives to LD:
opinion: 0.2
prestige: 0.25
navy: 0.01
army: 0.2
overlord's alliances: 0.25
pacts: 0.35
pro-overlord lobbies: technically 0.5, practically, ~0.2-0.3
economic dependence: technically 0.5, practically, ~0.4
Total: -1.86
Positive effect at 100% of the overlord's power projection:
without strong combined navies: 0.5
with strong combined navies: 1.0
Subjects must have 186% of your total army projection *AND* have a bigger combined navy than you to completely "overpower a combination of all other modifiers".
That is the maths.