Omnium Contra Omnes — a Multiplayer Modification

**silktrader** · 29-12-2011 09:15

Originally Posted by Dotto1979

I'm wondering if it's possible to combine trade, production and number of provinces. In a scenario where you have a large access (almost sufficient) on either production, trade and number of raw material provinces you'd still have a shortage.

Right now, shortages will be prevented when players have x producing provinces or y trade share. When you mention "combining" trade and production you seem to suggest that x/3 and y*3 may be an alternative, like x*2 and y/2. If I understand your proposition then I can say: it would be possible to "combine" production and trade, it wouldn't even be hard to code ... but I fear it may prove too intricate for people to retain and plan around. That being said, if you come up with a conceptual formula that is functional and easily remembered I will put it down to code.

I will remark that trade share, for most human players, tends to include production as well — their provinces will likely trade through their centres, where their merchants will contend the market share.

Originally Posted by Dotto1979

Have you already considered the starting position of trade goods? Some countries might have a big advantage over others.

Few changes have been introduced as far as starting trade goods. Visible changes were made in Sweden, Norway, Albania, Bosnia, Bohemia, Austria, Thailand, Ming China, etc. — they will be documented later. "Naval supplies" have substituted "wool" in Albania and "fish" in Norway, for instance. England's provinces have been tweaked to increase British share of wool production and decrease their reliance on metal.

In light of shortages, Albania's wood may prove to be an additional reason for Venice to keep an otherwise extremely poor province — likewise, the Ottoman Empire may have a renewed interest in contending the region.

The same goes for Norway's "naval supplies", which provide an incentive for Scandinavian and British players to clash or work together: the region hosts the largest portion of naval supplies in the world and the English need it.

Some countries do have advantages over others — the basic idea remains to increase interaction between players, as in collaboration or competition.

Originally Posted by Dotto1979

Cloth and naval supplies would be the only goods affected by shortage? This could lead to a general lack of interest on these goods on some cases.

"Cloth" remains the highest priced good on the old continent, by far. "Grain", "naval supplies" and "wool" would be the only trade goods whose absence could cause shortages: they are the lowest priced goods and I felt their importance needed to be reinforced on a strategical level. In the unmodded game there are few reasons to acquire "grain" or "wool" provinces, unless their tax base is surprisingly high — so large areas become mostly void of interest.

**silktrader** · 29-12-2011 09:28

Originally Posted by sharpcat

I've been reading through this, its all excellent. Let's get a test campaign happening.

Look, I will be frank ... and Frank would rather play than go through every change in the mod. So, yes I would very much want to test — but I realise that, for a test campaign to be enjoyable and telling, players need to be aware of what is different from vanilla, so that new strategies can be surmised. I will continue describing mod changes in the next days, with a view to participating to a test campaign soon.

**silktrader** · 02-01-2012 14:17

Population in Overseas Provinces

The changes discussed here address two aspects: a) natives and population effects on colonial income and b) a general increase in overseas provinces income. I will introduce this piece with a few considerations on vanilla mechanics:

Population normally determines production units, therefore production and trade income. Although an important exception is represented by overseas provinces — whose production units will be always capped to one. We can infer that colonial population is completely irrelevant: tolls are absent, manpower is severely reduced and production units remain the same. It is useless to maximise population in overseas holdings, unless the prospect to link them to the mainland is a tangible possibility. In fact, population increases are even harmful, overseas — when conversions are necessary.

Natives aggressiveness significantly lowers both colonisation chances and colonial growth. Exterminating natives (reducing their size to zero) voids these negative effects and represents thus the optimal choice under every circumstance. As is concluded above — the population increase due to natives assimilation would bear no advantage whatsoever.

The mod allows colonies to feature more than the minimal one production unit. Depending on population levels, up to 1.3 units can be produced — the economic benefits of demographic growth and natives assimilation thus become discernible. In every overseas province counting more than 10,000 inhabitants a "Thriving Colony" modifier will be assigned, according to this plain table:

Additional production units are simulated via "trade worth" increments — 10% representing 0.1 unit. Since the actual production base is always one overseas, "trade worth" effects are equivalent to increased production units. There are nonetheless exceptions to this similitude:

While supply would normally be affected by additional production units, raising trade worth percentages won't bear the same effect. It's useful to remember that trade goods supply determines their price. A "Thriving Colony" flag will accrue supply by 15% where population surpasses 10k: it is a median value, considering the rarity of 30k colonies. Provinces producing grain, wool, fur, or other trade good whose price is average or low, are not affected by supply increases — the effects would be negligible, yet still computed and displayed.

Gold does not have a trade value. To simulate the effects of additional production units "local tariff efficiency" is used, in lieu of "trade worth". For every 10k population 12% local tariff efficiency is added, up to 36%. This number was chosen as it solves this equation for x:

Notes:

Tax base and tax income increases also determine production units in continental holdings. Since a) most colonies feature a low tax base and b) most Eastern provinces feature large populations, where tax base is high ... it's a fair approximation to exclusively consider population with regard to additional production units.

Population growth is relative to current population levels, it's a percentage. It goes without saying but, the higher the base, the higher the increase over a decade. A colony featuring 2500 settlers will grow faster than one with but 1000 people — at more than double the rate with 10% decennial growth rates.

Practical cases:

A coffee producing colony, featuring 30k inhabitants, will provide about one additional monthly ducat in the mod, compared to vanilla — assuming a 25% tariff efficiency and 100% production efficiency (about seven ducats a year with a middle game production efficiency of 60%).

The same coffee producing colony will provide 1.3 monthly ducats more in the mod, compared to vanilla — assuming a 75% tariff efficiency and 100% production efficiency. As with the above case we are negliging additional income stemming from centre of trade's activity — the "thriving colony" will increase the coffee province's contribution to its trade centre by 18 ducats.

A gold producing colony, with but 10k inhabitants, will earn five more yearly ducats in the mod, compared to vanilla — assuming a 25% global tariff efficiency. The same province with 30k settlers will earn eight more yearly ducats in the mod. With higher global tariff efficiency these numbers can even double.

In vanilla, Taiwan will produce as much as overseas Guangzhou: the difference in tariffs will stem from Guangzhou's higher tax base. In the mod though, Guangzhou's increased population will provide a distinctively higher income than newly settled Taiwan.

Conclusions:

There now is an alternative to wiping out natives in provinces to be colonised: assimilation provides long term economic benefits, to be weighed against the risk of failing colonisation attempts and suffering from revolts or espionage actions ("Incite Natives").

Income from both colonies and other overseas provinces is now generally higher, the latter significantly so.

**silktrader** · 05-01-2012 13:19

Global Tariffs

This post tackles a) tariff efficiency and b) the desire to reward exploration in economic terms.

The most stringent requirement concerning "tariff efficiency" modifiers pertains to their combination with the "tariffs base". The two, multiplied, mustn't surpass one. If that were the case some provinces would be worth more when overseas, rather attached to the motherland.

In vanilla, the various modifiers granting positive tariff efficiency were:

As you can see the sum is well below 100% — as it should be (98%). Those who can't turn into Great Britain or Spain won't be able to count on the "Gold Fleet" or "British Merchant Navy" — meaning they can expect to rack up to 93%, at best. The mod features few changes:

The maximum tariff efficiency that can be reached by any nation amounts to, exactly, 100% — it is nonetheless seven points higher than in vanilla (but two for the Spanish and British). The most visible alterations concern "Trading in Slaves", the "Convoy System" and "Colonial Governors".

Trading in Slaves

This bonus, providing a hefty +25% tariff efficiency, is surprisingly easy to acquire. Slaves are present in few provinces, within a circumscribed geographical region (West and East African coasts). It suffices to place two merchants in one or sometimes two centres of trade (depending on which provinces are colonised) to gain the "trading in" bonus (35% trade share). While slave trade control should cause tangible consequences, I feel these should be split between positive and negative effects. This aspect will be the focus of more detail in later sections.

Colonial Governor

To properly balance this advisor one must consider its two references: the "Vice Roys" national idea and alternative advisors.

The "alderman" is a substitute of the "colonial governor" — its effects are almost equivalent. While "tariff efficiency" also multiplies provinces tax base, the latter is generally so low as to consider the two modifiers identical for overseas provinces. All in all, production efficiency increases income by x in every owned province, while "tariff efficiency" increases income by a factor very close to x in overseas province. Since overseas provinces are generally far fewer than continental holdings, we infer that, for "colonial governors" to be a viable alternative to "aldermen", they must provide additional income. That is why "Divine Wind" brought changes upon "colonial governors", doubling their value compared to "aldermen".

The general principle determining advisors effects, in the mod, is that they are tied to equivalent national ideas; the reasons are many and explained elsewhere. Level five colonial advisors will therefore provide +25% tariff efficiency, about 80% of what "Vice Roys" grant.

Exploration enables colonisation, although it generally isn't a necessity in the western group. Whether you are the one discovering a province or whether somebody else does makes little importance, unless you are able to claim the province within fifty years (technology group spread). All in all, colonisation is the only repercussion exploration has on one's economy (it might be paired with trade, when one "opens markets"). As is well known discovering a province bestows the explorer with naval tradition. As with "traders", the star rating of "colonial governors" is now based for 50% on naval tradition. Exploring increases naval tradition, which now allows better "governors" (tariffs) and "traders" (compete chances). The connection between exploration and naval tradition is further reinforced with a decision suggesting the "circumnavigation" of the world, to be discussed in other sections.

Moreover, an excellent "colonial governor" is now required to trigger the "House of Trade" decision, which has distinctive economic advantages.

Convoy System

"Gold Fleet" and "British Merchant Navy" both increase tariff efficiency, in vanilla. They can be enacted in association with the "Convoy System", whose effects, premises and description are very similar to the former two. In the unmodded game, the "Convoy System" used to provide a plethora of global modifiers, insignificant but for the first two:

The decision's requirements are more rigorous in the mod, but its effects are also more determinant. Both the "Gold Fleet" and "British Merchant Navy" are now better alternatives of the "Convoy System". The three are described below:

Conclusion

The changes described here add to the ones previously mentioned — overseas income has slightly increased, as maximum tariffs efficiency has increased by 7%. Exploration can now directly contribute to income, by way of empowered "colonial governors". The easily obtained "trading in slaves" has been reviewed to provide a lesser increase to those who trade — failure to sustain one's colonies with cheap workforce (slaves or otherwise) will be accompanied by a malus. The "Convoy System" has now tangible consequences on the number of ships one can field — they are either used to secure overseas income or made available for military actions. The "Gold Fleet" and "British Merchant Navy" are alternative decisions unique to Spain and Great Britain.

**silktrader** · 05-01-2012 14:23

Mediterranean Sugarcane Plantations

A new decision was introduced, allowing "sugar" to be produced in selected Mediterranean islands. The intention is that of a) reflecting historical developments while b) reinforcing competition in areas which usually witness little action. One of these regions was identified as the stretch of land and islands which was historically contested between the Ottoman Empire, Venice and other regional powers.

The decision's description informs the player why certain provinces are more suitable for sugar production, rather than others — they are: Messina, Crete, Cyprus and the Baleares. It will be possible to replace "fish" (or "wine", in Crete) with "sugar" on condition of paying 195 ducats and satisfying several requirements:

There are two an additional exigencies to meet, they are a bit complex and will be preceded by a historical note. Sugar, much sought after by Europeans, was originally imported from the Levant to Mediterranean islands, where production proved profitable. The crop required intensive labouring and thus a large and cheap workforce, or slaves — in game terms, it is necessary to acquire a 20% share in the world's slave market trade (Alexandria). After the discovery of the Americas and the Caribbeans, sugar producers in Europe were undercut. The mod features an event which can remove "sugar" in the Mediterranean and replaces it with "fish" — the event's description explains why:

While sugar cane remains an enticing crop, on account of its market price, demand is finally meeting supply in Europe. We are struggling to keep up with New World imports, where production is proving to be inexpensive despite higher shipping costs. The reason derives from climatic conditions: while canes reach the harvesting point within one or two years in the Mediterranean, the same period is shortened to seven months in tropical areas. This concoction of circumstances has greatly diminished $PROVINCENAME$'s landholders margins, who are now turning to other economic activities.

For "sugar" to remain sustainable in the Mediterranean it is imperative to either:

be the production leader
impede the production leader from gaining eight sugar producing provinces

For balancing reasons, eight sugar producing provinces in the New World are considered to be a supply threat to the less efficient sugarcane plantations in the Mediterranean.

Notes

At the beginning of the grand campaign, given sugar's prices, it isn't optimal to invest in sugar plantations in islands.

Unlike colonies, islands in the Mediterranean won't be limited to one production unit — income from sugar can be a surprising addition to one's economy.

Those who gain one Mediterranean sugar producing island will want to get the others: the "production leader" bonus will both increase their local production efficiency and shield them from New World imports.

A player in Turkey, owning Mediterranean islands, may want to slow down or prevent the Iberian or others from gaining a foothold in the Caribbeans, so to avoid losing the sugar plantations. An alternative is to colonise the place to retain the production monopoly.

The switch to "sugar" as a production good is accompanied by "Tax Exemptions", a temporary, local, decrease in taxes — aimed at representing the long term value of the decision. The justification is that the new industry requires private incentive to established (the lack of fiscal obligations).

**silktrader** · 06-01-2012 15:59

Separation of Powers

This post describes changes to the decision named "Separation of Powers". There are three issues with the vanilla version:

The revolt risk decrease is redundant and downplays that provided by courthouses and "Bill of Rights". It contributes to situations where the maximum war exhaustion is inferior to revolt risk decreases (allows permanent war taxes, unassailable defensive positions, etc.).
There aren't negative side effects to the hefty revolt risk decrease and magistrates gain — nor are the requirements demanding. Since the decision is a given when one switches to "Constitutional Monarchy" its effects could actually be pictured as government bonuses.
The political principle behind a "Separation of Powers" prescinds from government forms as portrayed by the game. "Constitutional Republics", for instance, would make as good a candidate as "Constitutional Monarchies": the essential requirement is a "constitution" — codified, or otherwise.

The previous requirements and effects:

The new requirements and effects:

Considerations:

While the magistrates gain may seem tempting, the decision belongs to the later game phase, when the return on magistrates spent on buildings may be inferior to previous times. Stability costs, on the other hand, may prove to be challenging.

Republics would certainly be able to enact the decision with more ease, being able to select "diplomat" rulers.

**silktrader** · 06-01-2012 16:02

The Orthodox Patriarchate

The problem with the vanilla decision named "Establish Russian Patriarchate" is old and glaring: it allows permanent war taxes to be exacted, while at maximum war exhaustion — it otherwise can allow zero revolt risk while war exhaustion is maxed.

"Omnium Contra Omnes" alters both requirements and effects. Rather than a Russian exclusive decision it is now one available to every Orthodox nation. At the time of its introduction the game concept of "tolerance" wasn't yet a feature, so it was decided it would affect war exhaustion. It is my view that "own tolerance" better suits the religious decision.

These were the old requirements and effects:

The new requirements and effects dictate:

An additional effect is considered: for a period of fifteen years the "Orthodox Patriarchate" claimant will gain a "liberation casus belli" against any nation (who isn't Orthodox) holding Orthodox provinces. The timing of the decision is thus essential to optimise conquests and infamy increases.

Considerations:

There can be only one "Orthodox Patriarch" at the same time. Let's suppose Novgorod takes the two necessary narrowminded steps to enact the decision and wins the "Defender of the Faith" attribute. Muscowy has the opportunity to later annex Novgorod and claim the Patriarchate again.

The "Defender of the Faith" obligation assumes a country has more prestige than all others who may want to claim the "Patriarchate".

The decision isn't exclusive to Russia or Russian countries — it is also available to Serbia, Bosnia, Ukraine, Armenia, should they accomplish a surprising feat and rule over the majority of the Orthodox provinces in the world.

Unlike in vanilla, claiming the "Third Rome" won't slow down westernisation. The "narrowminded" is no longer a requirement.

Owning 38 Orthodox provinces usually presupposes that the Russian player owns all of white Russia, along with bits of Ukraine or converted Tartar lands — the number represents two thirds of the initial Orthodox community. Either conquest, or conversion, are necessary. Likewise, should the Ottoman Empire decide to tolerate (therefore not converting) and integrate Orthodox provinces, the Russian player may need to wrestle Orthodox provinces away from his neighbour.

**silktrader** · 07-01-2012 19:00

Amend the "Habeas Corpus" Writ

This new decision is justified by the need to assist the "Bill of Rights", particularly during the initial stage. The national idea is overshadowed by the many decisions which decrease revolt risk and increase tolerance. It is particularly unattractive at the start, although it picks up later in the game when a) its effects are generally multiplied by a high number of provinces and b) large war cause dreadful war exhaustion.

A premise is necessary: there is a substantial difference between "global revolt risk" and "minimum revolt risk". The latter increases the base revolt risk in every owned province, regardless of global revolt risk decreases. An example: nationalism causes a "minimum revolt risk" which isn't affected by positive stability and the lower revolt risk it carries.

The "Habeas Corpus" is an extension available to every state subscribing to the "Bill of Rights" — it decreases minimum revolt risk by one, which happens to be a perfect complement to the "global" revolt risk decrease brought by its parent national idea.

The vanilla version features few items bearing "minimum revolt risk". Proximity to the "national focus" and stationed troops decrease it, while "nationalism" and "overextension" represent the sole reductions. The mod alters the picture — this is a list of aspects increasing the minimum revolt risk:

One can infer that the "Habeas Corpus" is most useful when expansion and conversion are combined — as well as to deal with national crises.

The decision's requirements and effects are summarised:

The amendment is available relatively early, when conversions and conquests are frequent. Its detractor, the lower spy defence, is not particularly threatening in the early stages when most nations lack the infrastructure (spies) or funds to undertake espionage missions.

Notes:

Amending the "Habeas Corpus" doesn't contribute to a situation where revolt risk becomes irrelevant due to the many decreases (as in a case of permanent war taxes) — its action is parallel to "global revolt risk".

Logistical issues asides (recruit speed, lowered spy defence, dealing with rebels with higher land maintenance), revolt risk has a very simple economic implication — it reduces taxes.

Let's consider a province with base tax six and a workshop, newly conquered and subject to thirty years of nationalism. For a period of thirty years, at the very least, the province will present a minimum revolt risk higher than one and "Habeas Corpus" will reduce actual revolt risk by one. If we consider that a province takes 50 years to become a core, and we exclude "Consolidate Acquisitions", "Habeas Corpus" will have provided 5% more taxes for 50 years for that province (and more if we assume the presence of a constable) — the equivalent of thirty five ducats (to be split between income and census) per non accepted culture province.

The decision can be repealed by removing "Bill of Rights" as a national idea.

**silktrader** · 08-01-2012 00:17

Revolt Risk

The unmodded game features an excessive number of coexisting revolt risk modifiers. This is a list which comprises only those items which significantly decrease revolt risk globally, ephemeral or local modifiers aren't considered:

There also are other local revolt risk decreases, starting with the "National Focus" aura, stationed troops, kontors, local customs, organ concerts, etc. — these are excluded from our discussion, although they reinforce the argument that revolt risk reductions are far too abundant. Most decisions are exclusively available to the western and eastern group. The maximum global revolt risk reduction that can be achieved is an incredible -29 (Catholics, late game).

There are several consequences to this abundance of revolt risk decreases:

War Exhaustion

It is an enticing possibility to permanently raise war taxes: a nation can stack up revolt risk reductions so to match the maximum war exhaustion. I am presenting two practical examples, which are easily attainable. We are assuming that legitimacy isn't a factor: it's a valid assumption in the case of republics, and an equally good one when considering the diminutive legitimacy losses from war exhaustion. There are many more combinations than are illustrated here.

Westernised Russia

Revolt Risk: -16.5

Maximum War Exhaustion: 14.3

Centralised Austria

Revolt Risk: -23.5

Maximum War Exhaustion: 19.3

In the above cases there will be zero revolt risk in most owned provinces, even while war exhaustion is at its maximum and war taxes are being levied: that's a hefty +50% taxes, lasting ad infinitum. It isn't sufficient to solve the issue by removing a few modifiers: even a revolt risk as low as +3, while featuring maximum war exhaustion is a trivial obstacle. War exhaustion is meant to determine how well a player used his resources, how aggressive his tactical manoeuvres can be, whether it is worth continuing war for higher gains, how soon a successive one can be planned, etc. Revolt risk from a depleted nation, featuring maximum war exhaustion must be, in all cases, a concern.

"Bill of Rights"

Both the national idea and the government buildings are belittled by the many modifiers decreasing revolt risk. We've illustrated examples which assume extreme circumstances: maximum war exhaustion. Let's consider a player weighing "Baroque Music" and "Bill of Rights": the first actually decreases revolt risk by one additional point and increases cultural tradition, at the cost of 10% taxes. The obvious choice would be to discard "Bill of Rights", take "Baroque Music" and perhaps save the idea slot for "Bureaucracy" providing +10% taxes.

Given the many "revolt risk" modifiers, the "Bill of Rights" percentage of the overall decrease is hardly significant — whereas a "national idea", by design, is intended to be a defining attribute of a nation.

"Courthouses", "Colleges" and local decisions

Just as with "Bill of Rights", any concurrent revolt risk modifier diminishes the relative worth of "courthouses" and "colleges". An equally important issue stems from the local effect of these amenities: why seek local revolt risk decreases when global modifiers are easily attainable.

National Defense

Whenever a player is attacked he will benefit from -5 RR in every province that is a core. It doesn't matter who attacks him, it may be a rival, a puny nation or an enraged ex girlfriend: revolt risk will still be decreased by five. As is obvious such a dynamic can be easily manipulated, by either causing an AI controlled nation to attack or asking a cosy neighbour to declare war while actual foes are fought.

Changes:

Every revolt risk decreasing modifier has been reviewed in the mod. Some were changed, some removed. These aren't present anymore:

Combination Act — redundant effects, escapes the game's context and time-frame by being about trade unions
Dissolution Act — redundant effects, which don't match the actual description, replicated by "Separation of Powers"
Sunday Schools — redundant effects, replicated by "School Establishment"
Formalised Measures — overwhelming effects for a futile historical aspect
National Defense — easily exploitable, overwhelming effects
Colleges — their unique effect now revolves around magistrates

The new list of possible revolt risk reductions is definitely shorter than the vanilla version:

The maximum decrease, in peace time, is -17. "Omnium Contra Omnes" though also alters how war exhaustion affects legitimacy: it simply isn't possible anymore to maintain maximum legitimacy during a decade of maximum war exhaustion. If we exclude legitimacy's beneficial effects, without considering its negative ones (as with republics), we end up with a reduction of -14 at best.

It's now possible to decrease maximum war exhaustion by 4, from a starting base of 20. It is therefore always higher than global revolt risk reductions, by at least 2. As a reminder: we are not considering local reductions. War taxes now increase maximum war exhaustion by four — levying them even when war exhaustion is at its peak, while rebels are in check, will therefore have negative effects (income and additional revolts).

These are the new local revolt risk reductions:

In the mod, local reductions have a greater impact, in percentage, compared to the stock game. Some, like "Local Customs" or "Religious Minorities Support", can only be present where revolt risk is higher by default (not accepted culture and religion).

Conclusions:

It isn't anymore possible to fight a war with perennial maximum war exhaustion, safe in the knowledge that revolt risk will be irrelevant. Nor is it possible to continuously raise war taxes without consequences for revolt risk.

Players can't rely on the "National Defence" assitance, as when asking allies to declare a "fake" war or provoking innocuous AI.

"Bill of Rights" is now the single most determinant factor in decreasing revolt risk, along with stability. It's not "Baroque Music" anymore ...

Local reductions are more important, in relation to global reductions and to previous, vanilla, values.

**silktrader** · 09-01-2012 11:31

The Ibadat Khana

The decision establishing a "House of Worship" has been slightly reviewed. Its context has been centered on Muslim-Hindu relations: its requirements and effects have been accordingly changed. It would otherwise overlap with the "Ottoman Tolerance" decision and provide excessive benefits.

These are the vanilla effects bestowed by the "Ibadat Khana":

The requirements are incredibly easy to satisfy, they are one slider move away from the Ottomans starting setup: one needs to a) move one notch towards innovativeness and b) refrain from claiming the "Defender of the Faith" title. The Ottoman player could thus count on the "Ibadat Khana" in 1399, while the decision (which is quite appropriate to historical developments) read: "A 'House of Worship' has been established to encourage philosophers, leaders and others knowledgeable in the matters of religion to discuss religious issues in regards to both Hinduism and Islam."

As is explained elsewhere, revolt risk decreasing decisions were in abundance and needed to be decreased, changed or — as in this case — contextualised within specific circumstances.

The new requirements are more demanding:

The decision now provides:

The decision's description has been updated to reflect changes: it doesn't lower revolt risk for every province, it only does so for heathen ones. The decreased "diplomatic skill" represents increased difficulties to deal with Muslim neighbours. Akbar the Great, the historical sponsor of the "Ibadat Khana" was hinted at as an apostate by his peers.

Positive tolerance for Hindus can only be achieved through "Humanist Tolerance". Although the national idea is necessary, it is not sufficient.

**silktrader** · 10-01-2012 17:26

Promote Neo-Confucianism

There are four problems with this vanilla decision — which is otherwise particularly interesting, given the few, available, Eastern-specific decisions.

it is immediately accessible and beneficial, requiring no effort to fire
it grants yet another revolt risk decrease
it represents circumstances that precede the game's context
its effects are, in some cases, only nominal

There were two requirements, immediately met on day one: a) no war and b) one stability. The effects "Neo-Confucianism" brought used to be:

The +6% missionary cost discount represents but 1.5 ducats per sent missionary. The "Mandate of Heaven" also used to decrease revolt risk by five.

The mod alters "Promote Neo-Confucianism" in an attempt to avoid redundant effects, like the problematic revolt risk decrease. Conditions are also changed, initially putting the decision out of reach:

Circumstances need to be weighed to conclude whether the decision's effects are effectively beneficial:

On firing the decision there are chances of receiving either a five star philosopher or a statesman — who could prove to be particularly useful with westernisation (and with taking advantage of the lowered government tech costs).

While the net technological difference is negative, it can be easily demonstrated how the government branch can be more beneficial than the production one, for a nation attempting to westernise or change sliders speedily. The additional +1 heretic tolerance will never allow overall tolerance to be higher for heretics than it is for one's own faith — it will come handy should expansion be envisaged or Buddhism somehow spread in Ming's lands ...

I have tried to justify these effects with historical evidence, as can be read in the description:

A new philosophical school by the name of Xin Xue, ushered from Neo-Confucianist doctrines, is gaining intellectual ground among our nation's elites. This idealist interpretation of Mencius teachings borrows from Buddhist and Taoist precepts and advocates striving for wisdom through cultivation of the innate knowledge of one's own mind. Its ways suggest that study be central to one's existence and education be reformed, ostracising memorisation and recitation in favour of self criticism and discussion. Detractors maintain that this emphasis on interior knowledge, combined with a denial of the world outside the mind, may hinder the development of physical science and question the possibility of objective scientific study. We could espouse Xinxue's principles, sponsor scholarly undertakings and honour its practitioners, with a view to changing how our civil servants are formed.

**silktrader** · 11-01-2012 13:54

Establish Federal Courts

The "Judiciary Act" has been renamed. I never understood why so many decisions are named after historical English parliamentary acts while that form of governance was hardly shared by the majority of countries. Regardless, the "Judiciary Act" bears resemblance to the United States' establishment of a federal judicial system, in 1789.

Issues with the decision are:

it's possible to enact it in the early 1500s, adding to the myriad other, contemporary, revolt risk modifiers
requirements are surprisingly easy to meet: a decent administrative ruler, a courthouse and a constable in the capital
effects do not pose a threat — the decision is a no-brainer

Here are the old effects:

Here are the new ones:

As you can see the revolt risk reduction is still present; requirements though force one to wait until at least the 1640s before the decision can be taken, when other revolt risk decreasing decisions are obsolete, like "Commedia dell'Arte". The +14 government tech investment is a tangible asset even for a large nation: it's the equivalent of two universities, but doesn't increase marginal manufactory costs. Stability costs, described elsewhere, were significantly increased: that 12% increase represents a third of "Church Attendance Duty", while -1 revolt risk is comparable to a third of "Bill of Rights" effects.

These bonuses, which are arguably more sizeable than the decision's vanilla counterpart, though demand:

It is inexplicable how the "Judiciary Act" could require a degree of centralisation in the unmodded game. It is my understanding that "federalism", which was central tenet of the historical act, is undeniably associated to decentralisation. The decision was a good occasion to lift decentralisation's benefits in the middle to late game — when its "build cost" advantage is less marked. The twelve required courthouses cover, at most, a third of a nation's provinces. The decision's description has been reviewed to reflect changes.

**Lama43** · 11-01-2012 14:37

I really like your work of making all these things more realistic and balanced, i'm waiting for a test campaign.

**silktrader** · 11-01-2012 17:03

Originally Posted by Lama43

I'm waiting for a test campaign.

I intended to start a test campaign, to be played on Tuesdays — provided a) there's enough interest, and b) changes pertaining to war exhaustion and buildings are explained.

**lukew** · 11-01-2012 19:44

Just to say I really enjoy reading your commentaries about different aspects of the game and how they could be improved and, whilst I don't always agree with your solutions for fixing unbalanced areas, the commentaries really inspire me when working with my own mod. Please keep up the good work!

**silktrader** · 11-01-2012 23:48

I am glad you enjoy these commentaries, but — by all means! — do criticise those aspects you deem lacking. That will either provide an occasion to illustrate changes in a more convincing and transparent way, or lead to further revisions. From my point of view, discussing the game would certainly be more entertaining, than simply laying out changes ...

**lukew** · 12-01-2012 01:05

Originally Posted by silktrader

I am glad you enjoy these commentaries, but — by all means! — do criticise those aspects you deem lacking. That will either provide an occasion to illustrate changes in a more convincing and transparent way, or lead to further revisions. From my point of view, discussing the game would certainly be more entertaining, than simply laying out changes ...

It's more that those aspects wouldn't work so well with my mod, because of major gameplay changes, I think they work extremely well in a multiplayer context. I'll let you know if there's anything in particular I disagree with but I can't see anything at the moment.

**Mac1** · 13-01-2012 16:53

I will soon try out the mod again.

I remember from prvious version, there were many things i did like and some which i would disagree.
After i play a bit i will see how it looks now.
I'm making a MP mod since 2-3 years for my community in Poland so I have some knowledge about what is needed and what isn't for balance in MP. If you ever need any help or advice, you can freely ask me.

I see you are trying to make Mod more realistic, which I personally like very much. But We must remember that, still it's a game to be played by many people not only historical maniacs

. Sometimes it happends that changes which are trying to make game realistic, are in fact making game much more unfriendly for common user. And MP game should stay as easy to use as possible. (that doesnt mean easy in difficulty). But what is more important, MP game should balanced as much as possible. Most choices should be almost with same value (to overall good) and there should be as much rivalisation as possible.

edit:
Ah i know what i didnt like in previous version:
That it become a bit too difficult to gain cultural tradition now, especially at start of a game. Patron of art idea is almost a must.
But maybe it's not a problem, only kills fun a bit

And artist is a must. The nation who will get lucky with random advisors and get nice artist will eventually have all nice advisors.

edit2:
Played a bit with Ottomans. The game is very annoying at start. Almost impossible to improve stability, only with lucky advisors event (but first you must have lucky to get 5star ones

).
I had few random stability hits and ended with -3 stability for 10 years. The game isnt fun this way. I don't even lose a stability with my own decision, just a bad luck.
I think if you make such changes, you should think about eastern countries like OE, Poland, Russia, who will have many provinces with bad religion. It should be much easier for them to regain at least 0 stability. Playing with minus stability for long time is not fun at all (and will make a bigger difference between them and west)

**MonMarty** · 15-01-2012 14:48

Originally Posted by Mac1

I'm making a MP mod since 2-3 years for my community in Poland

No offence, but the general Paradox forum oriented MP community is quite a bit diffrent from the Polish community, judging from what residues of said community we have seen here, and other guidelines foremostly plurality ofcorse.

**Mac1** · 15-01-2012 16:59

Originally Posted by MonMarty

No offence, but the general Paradox forum oriented MP community is quite a bit diffrent from the Polish community, judging from what residues of said community we have seen here, and other guidelines foremostly plurality ofcorse.

I noticed that, but trust me general issues of MP game stays the same.

btw. most of players from our community dont play here. There were just a few episodes. Maybe you have seen other players from Poland, that doesnt know about our community. It's possible. But don't judge us by this.

Thread: Omnium Contra Omnes — a Multiplayer Modification

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions