So in order to set the game back 100 years, you would have to mod every province file in the game to set it's ownership at the beginning of that time? And then go through and record changes to it's history? SO it's better to go back a relatively long way since you have to access every file regardless. Next problem: how do you deal with research levels etc? An extreme example, if I start the game in 300AD, by the time the game gets to 1300AD you can practically guarantee that as is, I've already got high level gunpowder infantry and cav.
I started the new game after installing 11.88 but it might be a dodgy install.
Interestingly after "ming" china was "qing" china, but they were each "empires". So Ming Empire, Qing Empire, but at the end of the day they were both China. I believe Manchu to the north of Ming at the start of the game is also suspect.
I don't think the refuse decision features are really REQUIRED, I find they clutter up the interface, but I can see their use.
I think if the government is centralised, reforms are going to be a lot easier to change (only one government body). Low decentralisation, as we discussed, is the kind sharing more power with his nobility. High centralisation means he literally rules the nobility, rather than them just owing their loyalty to him. It does, in my mind, make it a lot easier to make governmental reforms.
If you follow the logic that low stability means people desire a change of government, then you must consider that changing government types should result in a stability boost. However I don't really think stability needs to have any effect on government tech, except perhaps a generic tech penalty for low stab.
My question regarding investment and cost was simply that, the government tech PENALTY is an investment penalty, the BONUS is a cost bonus. It's assymetrical.
No thoughts regarding decision based missions?
Oh and how about for conscription, representing armies being quickly called up in times of war, you drastically reduce recruitment time and cost, at the expense of the quality of the army and war exhaustion. The big land army one could possible represent a permanent army, which would be smaller but higher quality, and more expensive to maintain (professional army with wages), but cost less in terms of warscore. You could even make the two ideas mutually exclusive, which would be good because often you take both. A historical example of this would be the early roman republican army, which was called up by the senate when required, vs the professional army after the marian reforms.