No i didnt do anything, it just happens in most of my campaigns. but i play with VFM and kuromi ai, so maybe they are changing something

I'm not really sure the first one makes a lot of immersive sense... maybe tho

Re the second one: Did you spend time beating up Great Britain in a war? Cause if GBR is losing wars, India will eventually break free. This is a natural outcome.

hey man, love this mod but can i ask for two things ?

first can you maybe code it so we could change the culture or religion of our subject to something want rather than our own ? ( like want to change egypt to oriental orthodox)

secondly, in most of my games india get independence in 1880 due to the new liberty desire system. is there a way to fix it ?

tthanks.

"This is a problem that will always exist if one factor can, on its own, overpower all others, regardless of which one it is."

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.

If you have ideas on how to give politics and economics more significance in the calculation, I'm more than happy to hear it.

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.

This is a problem that will always exist if one factor can, on its own, overpower all others, regardless of which one it is.

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.

I am currently at a game where some subjects are at "important" (1.5/5) and they would still go into default in a few months if independent and out of the market (I did a practical test and that particular subject went into a death spiral in just a few months and then into default in a little over a year), similarly, there are some subjects that are are "controlled" (5/5) that would survive just fine - which is why it's an unreliable factor.

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).

"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."

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

1 - Those values ignore resistance to status quo...
-> 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.

Again - I do not believe this value makes too much sense in a vacuum that ignores the subjects relations to the other subjects, especially as consistently the largest factor for liberty desire.

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.

For reference - on this game where it's at 67% of subjects relative power projection my navy represents 32913 power projection and the army 15556 - both are #1 (albeit Britain is probably still stronger in reality) my strongest subject (Japan) has 2877 and 4828 respectively (no other has a relevant navy and the next best army is around 2/3 of that) - and here lies the issue, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to get Morocco to below 25% liberty desire because it believes a combination of 25 other vassals has an army as strong as the overlord (in reality they do not).

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.

Consider the following:

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.

Made a small mistake so re-posting:

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.

Steam created problems with the previous messages so I didn't see your most recent question but:


It happened on a few games, the solution is usually to game that modifier by creating barracks on unincorporated regions I do not care about and don't plan on using, which, if anything, should create the same problem as having a subject on those unincorporated regions.

I don't remember all of the games but on my most recent game as Greece/Byzantium I had 25 or so subjects spread all around and despite micromanaging all other modifiers it was still not possible to overpower this one unless via deliberately using gamey solutions.

As to what I was trying to do, for the most part: releasing subjects instead of integrating places I don't care about.

Notably - if Britain vassalized Darfur at gamestart it shouldn't get more mad because the EIC has a large army - they could consider it but it'd certainly be less relevant than all other problems.

Currently at a bit over 100% of the overlord's power projection (despite it being spread amongst 30 or so subjects that can't really economically sustain their own army or own market) the "All subject's power projection compared to overlord" is already enough to overpower a combination of all other modifiers - meaning similar culture, religion, laws, opinion, government, prestige, economical reliance, or even treaties like reducing pay (which gives a meager 0.03) feel irrelevant.


In short - I'm fine with that modifier being considerable, and even the most important one, but it should still be better balanced with the others instead of being more relevant than a combination of all others.

In any event, tell me more about who were you playing as and what were you trying to do?

Those are two separate issues - a player has ways of increasing liberty desire that an AI shouldn't do as intensively, like treaties with foreign powers, expelling diplomats, damaging relations, asking for nonsensical treaties from the overlord etc (all things the AI will only ever do in specific circumstances).

I played Greece and Persia recently but I'd imagine most countries will have similar problems if attempting to actually play with subjects (except maybe those that already start the game too strong, like Britain).

I believe trying to look with historical lenses to "liberty desire" doesn't work, it's a gameplay mechanic that doesn't translate well.

Hi Anubis, interestingly, in my current game I was noticing that this modifier wasn’t actually bothering an overlord enough that I got stuck as a British subject because I couldn’t keep liberty desire up.

May I ask what country you were playing tall as?

And, may I ask whether you see any historical examples that would support the balance of what you’re looking at?

I've been doing more subject intensive games lately and I've come to the conclusion that this mod's calculation for liberty desire based on "All subject's power projection compared to overlord" modifier is a bit too heavy.

Whilst I understand why it exists, causes problems when you're playing tall and using a lot of subjects, in a way that doesn't make too much sense.

The main issue is that this particular modifier, in those conditions, will often become larger than the combination of all other possible modifiers on it's own.

I would suggest adding stronger modifier regarding the subject's own power projection in comparison to the overlord and diminishing how strong the sum of all subjects's power projection is considered - a better way would be for the subject to consider only the military of other subjects that would realistically help them but I think that's not really doable without a significant hassle - or simply making other modifiers more relevant.

Morgenrote, some of your other mods, UI mods, nothing huge. Certainly nothing that would affect convoy math.

With recent vanilla updates, I've been under the pump dealing with stuff that's been broken. I haven't revisited it for a bit.

I am interested in what other mods you're using though

Grey, I think you might want to consider just.... giving up on the 'increase convoy contribution' vassal action. That math just ain't mathin' - it breaks as soon as they use it, spamming the notification tray repeatedly. It's been like this in every version since added - I even tried building a bunch of ports, it still doesn't work.

Hi! Is this mod compatible with the latest patch?
If not, could you please let us know if/when you plan to update it?
Thanks in advance and great work!

Aye, the Recognise action is mostly a tool to be used responsibly, but if you have a suggestion for a good balance for it I would love to hear it!
I want it to be something that you can easily grant to 1-2 loyal vassals without it being a problem, but ideally something sufficient to prevent cheese.

The recognize subject action looks way too overpowered to me since it gives you a flat decrease of 5 infamy. It opens up some cheesy world conquest strats where you can subjugate all small countries in Arabia, Ethiopia, Persia, etc. and essentially use them as infamy banks. All countries in the aforementioned regions would let you reduce your infamy by 100 or greater in total. The -5% prestige hit isn't punishing enough as you could do 5 year bursts of recognizing 2-4 countries and suffer a prestige penalty equivalent to having low government wages.

Overall, I really like the mod! It gives you a reason to impose laws on subjects and makes it easier to slowly push their laws into matching yours.

V1.13
- Updated for vanilla 1.10

Something that might be relevant.

I noticed recently on a game where I had Hawaii as a subject that the "Surplus convoys after increase is not greater than 0" as -106.58%.

I made two ports and tried again, this time the treaty didn't break - funnily enough it didn't break after deleting the ports either, even if I manually broke the treaty and sent it again.


The fact that this time I got such a "high" negative value suggests to me that it is not being calculated in relation to the subject's convoys at all (the 2 ports I built were certainly not close to 106.58%).

So I think that either the game is calculating with some arbitrary number of convoys or it is using some value from the overlord to calculate it.

What I can't figure out is why it doesn't start happening again after I delete the ports.

That's incredibly baffling.

It sounds like at some points in time the game simply isn't recognising that the country has the offer convoy pact active, therefore double counting the requirement and failing.

But it doesn't make sense that it would only be doing that some of the time...

And you've already shown it happening with an example where there was plenty more than minimum convoys... so it really just doesn't make any sense at all that this is happening.

After a day goes by, the interaction is broken because surplus convoys are not greater than some negative value.

I let some days pass whilst controlling the subject and didn't notice any fluctuation on the number of convoys - the problem still happens if I try to do the interaction after a few months.

If the subject builds some more ports the problem no longer happens, but the reasoning is unclear since the same % of convoys is leftover (after deleting the ports the problem didn't happen anymore, but there's a chance something unrelated "fixed" it.

It doesn't seem related to bonuses.

At least the ones I noticed seemed to have no bonus at all, and the issue still happened.

The -12% is not a fixed value, however.

On my testing I would expect the country to be left with 20% of its convoys (since 50% are given to the market because it is a puppet and 30% from increased contribution) and that is what the vanilla tooltip says before a day passes - the country is contributing 80% of it's convoys and neither port connections, supply routes or goods transfer are consuming a significant portion of the remaining convoys.

I've not been noticing it as often since i set the notification to not give me a toast, but I'll start a new game, pay attention to it and relay whatever I can gather regarding those points.

Oh... I have a possible hunch.
Can you look at the convoys tooltip for the subject when it's active, and see:
a) what the subject country's % bonus to convoys production is
b) what the convoys available would be without that %
c) whether that -12% would be correct if the country had 0 bonuses to convoy production

I'm theorising that num_convoys_available might not consider the bonuses from some stuff

There's no apparent "actual" reason as to why the convoy contribution is being broken, however, after swapping to a relevant country, I could notice that there's a fairly long log of "Increase convoy contribution broken", if I try to do the interaction as the subject, I get the same result on the following day.

The displayed reason is that it "can no longer be maintained because the following conditions are no longer true: Surplus convoys after increase is not greater than 0% (currently -12.34%)" (the listed reason has an unchecked box).

This particular subject has an excess of over 100% convoys and if the interaction is done whilst paused this subject is still left with an excess of over 100%.

In this case the subject produces 1856 convoys and went from a balance of +808 to a balance of +251 (before actually passing a day), meaning the number convoys that are "lost" seem to correctly represent the stated 30%.

The feature works as intended for most other subjects.

For clarity - when I mentioned disabling that specific notification I meant the users.

I'll re-enable the notification on my end and swap countries to try check if whatever is happening is noticeable this way.

What I really need is for someone who is getting the spam, to swap to the country doing the spamming, try and do the action, and then tell me what's in the convoy tooltips that's breaking it.

I can't disable the notification without disabling it for all diplomatic actions.
It's all bound up in the same thing, unless I make a custom one, which would conflict with anyone else who might have made custom notifications.
So it really is much better to pinpoint the cause.

So far in my tests it correctly accounts for:
- Required convoys (including contribution to market owner) vs available convoys
- Not allowing contribution to market owner to exceed 95%
- Not double counting its own contribution when its active

I don't know what else there is... unless vanilla ports are just spontaneously laying off most of their staff and then rehiring or some other fundamentally broken madness.

It's mostly a balancing concern.

Ports were overpowered and were nerfed too much on one of the recent patches - convoys were only affected indirectly (as far as I remember) but I can't really think of anything else that happened semi-recently and could be the cause of the convoy spam bug.



Unless someone can pinpoint the cause of the issue - I'd recommend disabling the toast notification for the interaction, for now.

Unfortunately that’s impossible.

What do you mean about vanilla’s ports? What’s happening?

I'd like to confirm that the mod causes a spam of "X subject has increased convoy contribution".

I do not think that the vassal's decision itself is what causes the issue, what does is that on vanilla's current version ports are awful and that is interacting badly with this treaty.

I think that, as of right now, the "easiest" solution would be to prevent the convoy contribution from being disabled when the subject doesn't have enough convoys and instead making them send 0% of their convoys (whilst the interaction remains active) when they do not have enough for their own market.

Alright, so I need to know what conditions are causing that to be the case, because I've already accounted for the things I know about - so there must be something else which can cause it, but idk what.

I am still getting convoy spam after this update. Two of my subjects keep cancelling and reoffering, and the cancellation message says "Surplus convoys after increase is not greater than 0% (-22.81%)"

You are the best modder ever. thanks for fixing the bug

Mod Updated
- Offer Convoy action should correctly account for relations, and hopefully not be able to spam anymore (thank you to Dimi for effort to assist)

Max relationship would be why they keep re-starting it - I need the reason that it's being auto-cancelled which isn't going to be the relationship. (They can't restart it if it's not cancelled in the first place.)

Looks like I'll be 6th person who report the convoy issue(bug), It's spamming me really hard. I think The reason why convoy contributions keep getting canceled is the relationship with the subject is maxed out. By the way I always appreciate you for making such a good mod :) .

The tooltip isn’t custom - it’s generated directly off the action by the game.

Forced slavery ban action appears to increase relationship by 20 / 30 instead of decreasing it for puppets / protectorates contrary to the tool tip?

i am wondering if something is broken or if certain interactions were also removed? for example as ottomans I don't see an option to lower or raise payments

You are the 5th person to report it, without enough information for me to actually work out why (when it's not happening for me)

I am getting subject spamming offer convoy contributions non-stop- not sure what happened but i think this have to do with AI being able to use the "offer convoy contributions" action you integrated from Taylor