General Discussion

[ywhtptgtfo]

Forming Greece was fairly easy, actually. All you need is well placed revolts and just follow the missions to acquire cores and set yourself up for success.

Turkey does cause a lot of trouble for Constantinople, but that's what you get for messing with an Empire that can field 50k stacks, -.-

There are missions to get cores in Greece?

As for Constantinople and Turkey, I don't believe your response on that topic is at all relevant.

[Dafool]

I'm sorely disappointed with the current China setup. Right now, Chinese states can field ~20,000 men each and lag behind Europeans from the start.

This is the complete opposite of what actually happened. During the Red Turban Rebellion and subsequent conflicts, we see China field anywhere from a few thousand to several hundred thousand men at a single time. For example, the Battle of Lake Poyang saw the deployment of several hundred thousand men.

Simply weakening Chinese states and making Chinese provinces less valuable isn't the answer here. The big reason China never expanded was mostly because of its isolationist/traditionalist policies and partly because of its inability/disinterest in expanding into the Himalayas, Vietnam, Siberia, etc.

Perhaps some revisions to how China works are necessary. It's weird playing a Chinese state and feeling like a European minor.

China is a hard place to model. First off, none of the Red Turban states are real. They were all simply rebel factions. In order to make the area playable we have to make that stretch. And even if the factions aren't overly powerful in order to match their historical counterparts, they still get the aid of thousands and thousands of actual rebels. In addition to the issues of large battles, the manpower and base tax of China pretty much has to be lower than what might feel historical. Even with the current setup, China is very strong, fields a huge army, and is far from poor. I originally designed it to be much richer and have more manpower as per history, but this allowed China to field ridiculously large armies and to keep up with Western tech nations despite their tech penalties. That's simply not functional. There is no mechanic we can use to simply force China to do nothing. And if we did, it would have to apply to the player too, and no one wants to be limited by an arbitrary mechanic.

[andriy.gerasika]

any chance to get AI strategy to restore negative stability? Large AI empire very often fail because once AI runs into negative stability, it never invests to restore stability, but relies on ruler investments

[geminisama]

any chance to get AI strategy to restore negative stability? Large AI empire very often fail because once AI runs into negative stability, it never invests to restore stability, but relies on ruler investments

I've never played with this message alert before, so I'm not sure if it's normal, but I'm getting a popup just about every month of, "So and so has completely collapsed."

[Joghurt]

Galleons have NINE cannons? WTF? The values of all ships are totally messed up...

[lukew]

Galleons have NINE cannons? WTF? The values of all ships are totally messed up...

No they aren't, big ships get massively beter shock/fire damage modifiers. The change is so that the positioning values are less important to the fight.

[lukew]

I'm sorely disappointed with the current China setup. Right now, Chinese states can field ~20,000 men each and lag behind Europeans from the start.

This is the complete opposite of what actually happened. During the Red Turban Rebellion and subsequent conflicts, we see China field anywhere from a few thousand to several hundred thousand men at a single time. For example, the Battle of Lake Poyang saw the deployment of several hundred thousand men.

Simply weakening Chinese states and making Chinese provinces less valuable isn't the answer here. The big reason China never expanded was mostly because of its isolationist/traditionalist policies and partly because of its inability/disinterest in expanding into the Himalayas, Vietnam, Siberia, etc.

Perhaps some revisions to how China works are necessary. It's weird playing a Chinese state and feeling like a European minor.

That's exactly what we're trying to represent. When china becomes less isolationist and westernises its government, it loses all the negative modifiers. Also, there is no way in hell a united china can only field 20k. It's something more along the lines of ~120k - which is definitely one of the highest in the world.

PS China becomes the richest nation in the world by ~1500 since it has amazing trade goods. NO ONE is rich early on since prices are low, and trade efficiency is also low.

[lukew]

yes the change from a Monarchy to Revolutionary Republic and then to Revolutionary Empire - though I wonder what (besides the fact that it wasn't particularly popular) would it be like to try and have the state religion as Cult of the Supreme being rather than Catholicism.

There is already a decision which gives a country modifier to represent the cult. Changing from catholicism to that would have some really weird consequences in terms of conversions and revolts, and I think the current decision is fine.

[ZomgK3tchup]

China is a hard place to model. First off, none of the Red Turban states are real. They were all simply rebel factions. In order to make the area playable we have to make that stretch. And even if the factions aren't overly powerful in order to match their historical counterparts, they still get the aid of thousands and thousands of actual rebels. In addition to the issues of large battles, the manpower and base tax of China pretty much has to be lower than what might feel historical. Even with the current setup, China is very strong, fields a huge army, and is far from poor. I originally designed it to be much richer and have more manpower as per history, but this allowed China to field ridiculously large armies and to keep up with Western tech nations despite their tech penalties. That's simply not functional. There is no mechanic we can use to simply force China to do nothing. And if we did, it would have to apply to the player too, and no one wants to be limited by an arbitrary mechanic.

The Red Turban Rebellion, looking into it, was actually a lot more powerful than what's currently represented. For example, the battle I linked to had three remaining factions fielding over a hundred thousand men each.

What I'm suggesting as an alternative is some kind of chain where the unified China is forced to choose between isolationist policies or progress similar to resist westernization. At this point, China was ahead of western technology so much so that it was their own disinterest that stopped them from being the world's first global power.

That's exactly what we're trying to represent. When china becomes less isolationist and westernises its government, it loses all the negative modifiers. Also, there is no way in hell a united china can only field 20k. It's something more along the lines of ~120k - which is definitely one of the highest in the world.

That's the kicker. It's one Emperor away from doing so. Under Yongle, the Ming Dynasty ventured out to East Africa and were ready to do things that Europeans couldn't do for another hundred years. In 1402, China fielded a fleet of over 300 ships that made anything Europe could field look like a bad joke for at least another hundred years.

Likewise, fielding 120,000 soldiers is a lot for European standards, but there are records of that many men being in single battles. A force limit of 120,000 is arbitrary at best.

What I'm suggesting is a somewhat different approach to China where it gets to choose between traditional and expansionist policy through "Resist Westernization"-esque events or essentially have the option of modernizing right off the bat. If China chooses expansionist policies then it gets hefty STAB penalties and revolt risk from angry nobles and reactionaries. Alternatively, traditional policies will reinstate things like foot-binding, female infanticide, the neglect of the navy, and the preservation of the Middle Kingdom.

One might also argue that although China can field so many men, it's unrealistic for it to have a 200,000 standing army during peacetime. This is true for the entire world as well. During the the High Middle Ages and up until the advent of professional standing armies, Europeans didn't have 20,000-50,000 soldiers ready for combat at any given time. They maintained these armies only during wartime.

Looking at the Red Turban Rebellion as is, I'm impressed with the dissolution of the Yuan Dynasty, but the subsequent conflict between the factions leaves much to be desired. Each state fields about 20,000-30,000 men, and there's no incentive for them to do much of anything. The issue here is cores; since these aren't formal states but rather rebel states, they should, in theory, have cores on the entirety of China because nobody is going to argue that they didn't have legitimate claims on China. Likewise, nobody is going to resist a faction's rule if its armies march into Beijing; it shouldn't have to wait fifty years to legitimize a claim on Beijing like France would have to on, say, Cornwall.

[lukew]

The Red Turban Rebellion, looking into it, was actually a lot more powerful than what's currently represented. For example, the battle I linked to had three remaining factions fielding over a hundred thousand men each.

What I'm suggesting as an alternative is some kind of chain where the unified China is forced to choose between isolationist policies or progress similar to resist westernization. At this point, China was ahead of western technology so much so that it was their own disinterest that stopped them from being the world's first global power.

That's the kicker. It's one Emperor away from doing so. Under Yongle, the Ming Dynasty ventured out to East Africa and were ready to do things that Europeans couldn't do for another hundred years. In 1402, China fielded a fleet of over 300 ships that made anything Europe could field look like a bad joke for at least another hundred years.

Likewise, fielding 120,000 soldiers is a lot for European standards, but there are records of that many men being in single battles. A force limit of 120,000 is arbitrary at best.

What I'm suggesting is a somewhat different approach to China where it gets to choose between traditional and expansionist policy through "Resist Westernization"-esque events or essentially have the option of modernizing right off the bat. If China chooses expansionist policies then it gets hefty STAB penalties and revolt risk from angry nobles and reactionaries. Alternatively, traditional policies will reinstate things like foot-binding, female infanticide, the neglect of the navy, and the preservation of the Middle Kingdom.

One might also argue that although China can field so many men, it's unrealistic for it to have a 200,000 standing army during peacetime. This is true for the entire world as well. During the the High Middle Ages and up until the advent of professional standing armies, Europeans didn't have 20,000-50,000 soldiers ready for combat at any given time. They maintained these armies only during wartime.

Looking at the Red Turban Rebellion as is, I'm impressed with the dissolution of the Yuan Dynasty, but the subsequent conflict between the factions leaves much to be desired. Each state fields about 20,000-30,000 men, and there's no incentive for them to do much of anything. The issue here is cores; since these aren't formal states but rather rebel states, they should, in theory, have cores on the entirety of China because nobody is going to argue that they didn't have legitimate claims on China. Likewise, nobody is going to resist a faction's rule if its armies march into Beijing; it shouldn't have to wait fifty years to legitimize a claim on Beijing like France would have to on, say, Cornwall.

As much as what most of you say is historically accurate, we are not going to change China to make it more powerful. China would be far too strong for game balance, and as such we have to limit the size of their armies somewhat - even if they were historically huge.

[pirro]

I was taking a look on your map files and wow, what a mess. You have many provinces twice in the files...

[CMTSChesscom]

Sorry guys, I had to use Modestus' trick to change the borders from red to black. I couldn't stand the change and naturally I have everything backed up. It was better on my eyes than that red. Now that I got the water glitch solved and the borders back to black, I'm 100% back to loving and playing this mod.

[ZomgK3tchup]

As much as what most of you say is historically accurate, we are not going to change China to make it more powerful. China would be far too strong for game balance, and as such we have to limit the size of their armies somewhat - even if they were historically huge.

At the very least, make China's tech a lot less crappy and make westernization slightly easier. Right now, it feels like you're playing a pseudo-European state that exists in China.

[andriy.gerasika]

As much as what most of you say is historically accurate, we are not going to change China to make it more powerful. China would be far too strong for game balance, and as such we have to limit the size of their armies somewhat - even if they were historically huge.

sorry, but there is no balance -- I have never seen west europe collapse under weight of ottomans

[Stromgarde]

Meanie :P
History is an bad example, since what we do isn´t historically correct either.
Please at least double the missionary modifiers.

I think they've done a pretty good job with the missionary changes in the mod. There were some options like funding fanatics that I almost never used in vanilla that now become a real part of a long-term religion strategy, as opposed to just conquering and plopping down a bunch of missionaries.

I do wish there were more ways to get some additional small modifiers, however. Has any consideration been given to giving a small bonus for prestige, perhaps maxing at somewhere between +.1 and +.2 for 100 prestige?

Given how hard it is to get missionaries I do think the maintenance of -.1 for each active missionary is a bit extreme. When my missionary growth is less than 0.5 I feel compelled to save up 5 missionaries then use them all at once to optimize things. Whether that's really saving me much is debatable due to opportunity lost (however many years of conversion chances I've given up by waiting not to mention lost income and higher stability costs), but I feel like I have to min/max missionary usage given the slow growth rate.

[lukew]

Sorry guys, I had to use Modestus' trick to change the borders from red to black. I couldn't stand the change and naturally I have everything backed up. It was better on my eyes than that red. Now that I got the water glitch solved and the borders back to black, I'm 100% back to loving and playing this mod.

Can you describe the fix and I'll add it to the FAQ page please?

I think they've done a pretty good job with the missionary changes in the mod. There were some options like funding fanatics that I almost never used in vanilla that now become a real part of a long-term religion strategy, as opposed to just conquering and plopping down a bunch of missionaries.

I do wish there were more ways to get some additional small modifiers, however. Has any consideration been given to giving a small bonus for prestige, perhaps maxing at somewhere between +.1 and +.2 for 100 prestige?

Given how hard it is to get missionaries I do think the maintenance of -.1 for each active missionary is a bit extreme. When my missionary growth is less than 0.5 I feel compelled to save up 5 missionaries then use them all at once to optimize things. Whether that's really saving me much is debatable due to opportunity lost (however many years of conversion chances I've given up by waiting not to mention lost income and higher stability costs), but I feel like I have to min/max missionary usage given the slow growth rate.

That was probably overlooked when we changed missionaries. I'll change the malus from active missionaries in the next version. Thanks

[CMTSChesscom]

luke- I took the original border files from the base game map/terrain folder and just copied them into the mod/Death and Taxes/map/terrain folder. Naturally I backed up the ones that were originally there and the red country borders are now back to black.

I copied all four files over:

borders.dds
borders2.dds
borders3.dds
borders4.dds

I found this suggestion while searching through the master mod list for EUIII. So whoever doesn't like the red country borders can go back to black. I just find it more appealing to me and more "atlas-like."

Just in case, I'm using DW 5.1 with D&T 7.1

[CMTSChesscom]

OK I have a question that I just remembered to ask about 7.1:

As Austria, I used the "Reconquest" CB to retake Tirol. Even though I occupied the capital, I couldn't take it in the peace deal but was allowed to take Trent. I remember in the older versions of the mod you couldn't take the capital unless it was cut off from the rest of the country right?

Am I missing something in the changelog about this?

Now that Tirol has allies and Switzerland is guaranteeing their independence, I guess I'll have to diplo-annex them to finish them off.

[lukew]

OK I have a question that I just remembered to ask about 7.1:

As Austria, I used the "Reconquest" CB to retake Tirol. Even though I occupied the capital, I couldn't take it in the peace deal but was allowed to take Trent. I remember in the older versions of the mod you couldn't take the capital unless it was cut off from the rest of the country right?

Am I missing something in the changelog about this?

Now that Tirol has allies and Switzerland is guaranteeing their independence, I guess I'll have to diplo-annex them to finish them off.

This is vanilla and is hard coded. You can't take their capital unless it is isolated. What is the issue though, you have cores on both their provinces, just annex them?

[ywhtptgtfo]

Aww... seems like nobody wants to talk about the variable_claim and core issue anymore. So I guess we should all accept that since countries like Greece and Italy were historically hard to form (due to the inherent weakness of the minors), there just has to be a big restriction for country formation in general just so even the most ridiculously powerful of countries are not allowed to form anything easily

Well, I guess, game-wise, the likes of Sardinia-Piedmont in our history has it easy... since all it had to do was to conquer other countries with a nationalism CB whereas a D&T player can own 1/2 the world and humbled every other power in Europe but still have to PU every other count in Italy or wait 50 years after a massive conquest (where everyone in the world including their cats would hate on you for years to come).

"My King of Modena, Sultan of Persia-Arabia-Egypt, and Celestial Emperor of China, we've conquered 2/3 of the Italian Peninsular. Let us proclaim an Italian nation!"

"Sorry my faithful chancellor, the rest of the world will not recognize our cultural union because we must wait another 45 years for Lombardy and Ferarra to be considered our core regions. In mean time, the Holy Roman Emperor is demanding the return of all our Lombard conquests and everyone in the world is not going to start forgiving us until 45 years later".