• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

sandwich8

Second Lieutenant
2 Badges
Apr 3, 2017
186
578
  • Stellaris
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
Short summary of your issue
Bug in 'powerful protectors' comparison

Game Version
1.0.3

What OS are you playing on?
Windows

Do you have mods enabled?
No

Have you tried verifying your game files?
Yes

How much "pain" is this causing you?
3

Please explain the issue you experienced in the most condensed way possible
The "DIPLOMATIC_ACCEPTANCE_POWERFUL_PROTECTORS_THEM" check appears to compare their army size to your country rank, instead of your army size. This means weak armies can be considered powerful protectors

Please explain how to reproduce the issue
Line 286 of 03_violate_sovereignty, line 358 of 19_subject_protectorate, line 363 of 24_subject_tributary reads: "army_size >= scope:actor.country_rank"

Is there anything else you think could help us identify/replicate the issue?
I think it might be a copy-paste issue? the previous line says "country_rank >= scope:actor.country_rank" which makes sense.

I have attached a save game
No

Upload Attachment
File(s) attached
 

Attachments

  • 03_violate_sovereignty.txt
    6,1 KB · Views: 0
  • 19_subject_protectorate.txt
    11,4 KB · Views: 0
  • 24_subject_tributary.txt
    11,4 KB · Views: 0
  • 1
Reactions:
Upvote 0
I agree that rank should not be one of the main factors. But this "powerful protector" is really bugging me, because I can't make one city state in Germany my protectorate just because they are in defensive pact with Hanover. It's not like Hannover can defend them against Prussia unlike me, Scandinavia. And I can't make Hanover a protectorate because they are in defensive pact with Netherlands, and they can't defend Hanover against Prussia too. AI doesn't understand what amount of army they need to be protected, they just care that their defensive pact member has at least one battalion more than them, it is stupid.
 
  • 1
Reactions: