It's odd that even loyal puppet states don't obey the imposition of laws by a sovereign.

[forlost2025]

What bothers me is the fact that it's nearly impossible to enforce laws even on loyal puppet states. If a sovereign enforces laws, success should be based on influence over subjects (GDP holdings, lobbying, etc.), not simply on interest groups of the dominated.

"Belgium can't enforce any laws on the Congo Free State because black people won't agree!"

Don't you think this is really weird game design?

 

[strattonthebard]

Bit of an odd example to reach for because with the game mechanics it would be that Belgium can't enforce laws on the group of white belgians who were placed in charge of the actual running of the Congo Free State.

I think it's reasonable, if they didn't have enough local autonomy to potentially stymie attempts at imposing laws from the top then they'd just be annexed territory rather than a vassal state.

 

[ab12848]

Hopefully next year we will get a rework on the subject system, currently it’s still a mess

 

[Helmut von Dandy]

The whole notion of subjugation in this period and throughout history is that the overlord controls the foreign policy of the subject. Meddling in the domestic affairs of nominally sovereign states has always been much messier. It's the core compromise that distinguishes subjugation from conquest, and upholding that fiction of domestic independence is what makes the arrangement work at all. In the game, as in reality, the key to imposing your will on a subject's domestic politics is to chip away at their autonomy until you can annex them.

That being said, it should probably still be a bit easier to exert your will over a subject. Even though all the things I said are true, there are still soft-power methods overlords used to impose their will that the game doesn't really model, and the game lacks ways for overlords to impose consequences for failing to follow their will, even if those should come with infamy or liberty desire costs.

Just increasing the bonus to law passing success would be a pretty boring way to approach this I think. I'd like to see overlords given more tools to meddle, without giving direct control. They'd vary in effectiveness, and have their own costs, but they'd be more fun. Some ideas:

• Sending agitators to subjects.
• Protecting agitators in subjects so they can't be exiled at the cost of money, authority or bureaucracy.
• Arranging accidents for characters in subjects at the cost of infamy.
• Bolstering and suppressing movements in subjects at the cost of authority.
• Swaying elections in subjects to improves the momentum of the overlord's governing interest groups at the cost of increased liberty desire and authority.
• Imposing military occupation to reduce radicalism from movements and improve success of law impositions at the cost of infamy increasing liberty desire and the need to devote manpower to the task.
• Granting investment rights to subjects to decrease liberty desire.
• Granting political representation to subjects to decrease liberty desire. Interest groups in the subject's government get clout in the overlord's government and pops of the subject's primary culture get increased acceptance in the overlord's country.
• Revoking the right of subject pops to migrate to the overlord's country at the cost of increased liberty desire.
• Demanding increased acceptance of the overlord's primary culture in the subject at the cost of increased liberty desire.
• Demanding subjects contribute more convoys to the overlord at the cost of increased liberty desire.

The efficacy and cost of all of these would vary based on subject tier. Trying to do most of these things to a protectorate would be very expensive compared to a vassal or puppet.

One exception to all this is probably colony and chartered company subjects. Those should basically have no autonomy because they aren't 'subjects' in the same sense as dominions, puppets, protectorates etc. In fact, imposing laws on those subjects should probably be an enactment process that goes through the overlord and requires the approval of pop and interest groups in the overlord.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

The whole notion of subjugation in this period and throughout history is that the overlord controls the foreign policy of the subject. Meddling in the domestic affairs of nominally sovereign states has always been much messier. It's the core compromise that distinguishes subjugation from conquest, and upholding that fiction of domestic independence is what makes the arrangement work at all. In the game, as in reality, the key to imposing your will on a subject's domestic politics is to chip away at their autonomy until you can annex them.

I agree for a protectorate or dominion, but if you're my puppet then I'm installing or removing your government as I please. I'm fine with it angering the hell out of the puppet/creating independence movements, just let me abolish serfdom and improve their economic laws without having to annex and release. That's all I really want.

 

[forlost2025]

Bit of an odd example to reach for because with the game mechanics it would be that Belgium can't enforce laws on the group of white belgians who were placed in charge of the actual running of the Congo Free State.

I think it's reasonable, if they didn't have enough local autonomy to potentially stymie attempts at imposing laws from the top then they'd just be annexed territory rather than a vassal state.

Ok, I admit the Belgium example was a bit inappropriate, but I think you get the point.

Your opinion is valid in the case of protectorates. But I disagree with you in the case of puppet states. They are literally "puppets" and have already reduced their autonomy over time!

Of course, it is unnatural to be able to enforce any law you want, but on the other hand, I also think it's unnatural for the IG of a puppet state to have complete decision-making power as it is now.

 

[Desseabar]

Ok, I admit the Belgium example was a bit inappropriate, but I think you get the point.

Your opinion is valid in the case of protectorates. But I disagree with you in the case of puppet states. They are literally "puppets" and have already reduced their autonomy over time!

Of course, it is unnatural to be able to enforce any law you want, but on the other hand, I also think it's unnatural for the IG of a puppet state to have complete decision-making power as it is now.

They probably should break down colonial administrations into a separate subject type, because that's where this is most frustrating: a colonial admin should not have any liberty desire and should be very loyal to its overlord.

That said, it shouldn't be a guaranteed law passage. Eg, if France tells French Senegal "stop serfdom" I think it's reasonable that they might have some trouble actually doing so given the power structures, and other puppets like French Vietnam have their own power institutions as well.

 

[forlost2025]

They probably should break down colonial administrations into a separate subject type, because that's where this is most frustrating: a colonial admin should not have any liberty desire and should be very loyal to its overlord.

That said, it shouldn't be a guaranteed law passage. Eg, if France tells French Senegal "stop serfdom" I think it's reasonable that they might have some trouble actually doing so given the power structures, and other puppets like French Vietnam have their own power institutions as well.

As a Japanese, when I think of puppet states and their laws, I have a strong image of the example of the puppet state of Korea(Korean Empire). In the case of Korea, it was not a colonial government but a genuine "puppet state," so let's use that example, not Belgium's.

During the Victoria III era, the Empire of Japan took away Korea's diplomatic rights and made it a "puppet state," and then imposed a number of systems on Korea.

-Abolition of peasant conscription
-Public compulsory education
-Censorship law
-Introduction of a police system
-Abolition of Korea's traditional tax system and change to a Japanese standard tax system
-Abolition of serfdom and transition to tenant farming

In introducing these laws, Japan ignored the opposition of the Korean government's IG, which included Korean aristocrats, intellectuals, clergy (Confucian scholars), and peasants. The enforcement of these laws was completely unpopular and unconsented by the local puppet government, which led to the Hague Secret Emissary Incident. However, the Empire of Japan certainly imposed all of its laws without the "consent of the puppet government's IG."

Isn't that what a puppet state's "autonomy" is supposed to be? Sovereignty is under a foreign sovereign. That's because a puppet state is a puppet.

On the other hand, the puppet state in Victoria 3 clearly has sovereignty. It says "NO" to the implementation of all laws that it doesn't like that are "proposed" by other countries. That seems "unnatural."

To be honest, I don't know anything about French Senegal or French Vietnam. I don't know what country Europeans imagine as a "puppet state," and it's possible that it's very different from Korea.

However, for me, who has the image of Korea, a puppet state that can say NO to everything seems unnatural.