Hi Silk, I will get back to your response in more detail soon. Tomorrow I'm flying back to my family in Europe so I'm kind of busy tonight. I did send you the Japan save game in case you are interested.
Hi Silk, I will get back to your response in more detail soon. Tomorrow I'm flying back to my family in Europe so I'm kind of busy tonight. I did send you the Japan save game in case you are interested.
Thanks for the saved game, Brasem. Here's a few considerations concerning technological advances:
Ming used to count on higher income before rebels and Manchus took over parts of China. The inflation delta is in favour of Japan, as is the technological cost due to innovativeness: that's, more or less, -16% tech costs compared to China. The problem is that Japan has 30% more provinces, with slightly less income. This difference should provide about one or two technologies of advance per category, considering the relatively low neighbour bonus. While Chinese trade, production and naval technologies are comparable to Japanese ones, Ming boasts +9 land techs and +8 government techs over Japan. These, I believe, are the reasons:
- Ming has 40 provinces and 90.4 ducats of income 2.26 monthly ducats per province
- Japan has 52 provinces and 87.7 ducats of income 1.68 monthly ducats per province
- Ming's AI has a "militarist" personality it prioritised land ideas ("Military Drill", "Glorious Arms", "National Conscripts") and land technology over other aspects
- the Chinese own two universities (Beijing's is a novelty in the mod, while they seem to have acquired one by event in Guyang
- they had decent advisors throughout the campaign, including the last six stars statesman the high number of rich provinces helps
- the additional land and government techs are actually comprised between levels 12 and 17, which are very cheap to increase on account of the minimal difference between average discovery dates (2, 3, 5 years from each others)
The question remains: what are the reasons behind Ming's high income in your campaign?
Frankly, the most evident and surprising argument is that the AI managed to reform the Celestial Government and get rid of factions. It's only the second time I see this kind of development in an "Omnium Contra Omnes" campaign. Ming has rallied behind the Eunuchs and is now a despotic monarchy. That means they don't have negative modifiers affecting their trade, tax or production income. Even more surprising is the fact that the AI managed to keep its stability at +2. The disheartening fact is that, much as in vanilla, the AI doesn't build as much as it should: it's sitting on 38,000 ducats in your game, while inflating. New trade goods prices, trade centres (two rather than one) and other aspects bestow Ming with adequate income in the mod, slightly higher than in vanilla. Ming's most obvious problem lays with factions limitations and a feeble military.
playing as Muscovy->Russia I am having problem with enacting 'Adopt Permanent Direct Taxation' decision. The 3rd condition (to have constable in every core) is never fulfilled, since I guess I have cores outside of my country (owned by GH) where obviously I can't build constable. Is it intentional or not? If not I suggest to modify the condition to be 'having constable in every province which is owned and is a core'.
Also GH was reduced to 3 provinces but refuses to attack me and I can't have any casus belli against it. I waited around 1 century but nothing. Is this a bug? Is it intentional that the stir up border dispute does not give any CB against hordes, neither do I have the conquest CB against them if I have cores on their territory? Also when I pay tribute to them I can't stop it unless attacking them which due to having no CB means a hit of 2 stability...
Edit: How do manufactory pricing work? I have build quite some weapon manufactories, yet something made them again to drop in price? Can it be that it depends on the number of provinces (i grew since then)? Or something else?
That's not a bug, it's a new mechanic introduced by the beta patch. This is what the changelog reports: "nomads will not start any new wars if at -3 stability or war exhaustion".Also GH was reduced to 3 provinces but refuses to attack me and I can't have any casus belli against it. I waited around 1 century but nothing. Is this a bug? Is it intentional that the stir up border dispute does not give any CB against hordes, neither do I have the conquest CB against them if I have cores on their territory?
There's a new mission, titled "End the Tribute Due to X", which grants a new casus belli named "Emancipation". You're rewarded with the equivalent of one year of tribute, when war is declared on hordes to whom you're paying tribute. You probably didn't get it because you went past the "Empire" threshold, meaning you're bigger than 25 provinces. I judged that, reaching a large size, you would have access to more opportunities to find a suitable CB. It's strikingly easy to pay a low tribute in 1400, to keep the threatening horde at bay. You may end up paying the same 0.9 ducats in 1500, as Muscowy, with an income ten times higher than your initial one. The small price to pay for maintaining tributary relations throughout expansion is a surmountable lack of CB.Also when I pay tribute to them I can't stop it unless attacking them which due to having no CB means a hit of 2 stability...
In your case you may need to rely on national ideas, diplomacy or espionage to avoid the stability loss. The "Stir Border Dispute" espionage mission could be handy, given hordes chronic low legitimacy.
Manufactories prices depended on manpower. In the beta patch, it's now the number of owned provinces which determines marginal increases. I am not sure, but I seem to remember eight provinces signals a step increase. Do you have comments on manufactories prices? They weren't reviewed in the mod, and I fear they may be too cheap compared to alternative investment opportunities.How do manufactory pricing work? I have build quite some weapon manufactories, yet something made them again to drop in price?
For the manufactory price question, I indeed built quite some since I have quite few magistrates, but a huge empire. I have no problem with their price. Anyway a big empire can't really reach a lot of high lvl building provinces due to the lack of magistrates, so I think manufactories are a good investments for them. While for medium or small countries, they can just build fully their provinces and profit from the smaller size and the very good infrastructure, especially the later buildings which are really good. All in all I find it balanced at the moment.
Firstly, the mod requires the latest beta patch to run properly. It's available in this forum section. You should verify that, on executing the game, the checksum reads as the first thread's title.
These are the steps to install the mod:
- delete any previous installation of the mod, both the "Omnium Contra Omnes" folder and the .mod file need to be erased
- download the archive, the link is in this post
- extract the archive into the "mod" folder, contained within your Europa Universalis installation path
- run the game launcher, named "eu3.exe", select "Omnium Contra Omnes" and execute it
- close the game once it has loaded and restart it, verify that the checksum is the one reported in this post
- The first time you run the game it will be relatively slow, as it needs to rebuild the map cache. The latter isn't packaged in the archive to reduce the download size and force a clean rebuild, necessary for multiplayer purposes.
- It's necessary to remove old mod versions because files and their names sometimes change: unused ones would remain, affect the checksum and introduce bugs.
- You may want to back up saved games before deleting any previous mod installation.
- To avoid running the launcher every time, you could simply create a shortcut that directly launches the mod: right click on eu3game.exe, create shortcut, then right click on the shortcut to edit its properties, type -mod Omnium Contra Omnes, after the ending quote, in the "target" field.
Last edited by silktrader; 15-07-2012 at 15:16.
Hey silktrader, my monday game just ended and I am going to start a new one. Needless to say I stumbled upon this post and wanted to check out this mod and see if the majority of my community would be interested in playing a campaign with it. However, I do not want to play with the 5.2 beta patch that nerfs manpower and makes MP very.... bad. So I was wondering if you have any plans for a rollback to the more MP firendly 5.1 or 5.2 ZZFZ?
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
"Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times."
Frankly, like you, I disagree with recent beta changes to manpower regain rate. In my view they:
- tend to condone the status quo between belligerents
- reduce the number of battles (tactical occasions) one can sustain during a war
- decrease the number of wars one can involve himself into, or recover from
I've had an exhaustive conversation about these aspects, during the development of the beta path: it's more than likely that these manpower changes are here to stay — we might as well embrace them.
In the latest beta iterations, losses due to casualties and attrition were mitigated. Supply limits multipliers were also changed, as were rebels reinforcements. The mod alters other aspects, like force limits, reinforcement rates, scorched earth, etc. to match the new situation: while I think that balance is achieved, I remain unsure whether it's an entertaining context.
There are ways to restore the old manpower regain rate: you can read about increasing provinces manpower base, a few posts back. In my view, there are too many drawbacks to this and other accommodations though. I can't maintain two mod versions: some beta features would be lost and it would require yet another reconsideration of force limits, manpower modifiers, attrition and casualties rates, mercenaries costs, etc.
So, I am hoping that my cause for alarm concerning manpower changes is ill placed, that wars remain a lively aspect, even with drastically reduced manpower regeneration. The one thing that would dispel doubts is a multiplayer campaign.
Along with "westernisation" this is one of the most rewarding and demanding long term goal for nomads: it allows them to escape the constant state of war and secures their borders against foreign settlements. Legitimacy stops being a constant concnern and diplomatic options with hostile neighbours are restored. The peculiar military characteristics of hordes are though forfeited: fewer casuatlies in steppes, army tradition gained when looting, etc.
There are several reasons one may want to prefer sedentarisation before westernisation:
reforming the government allows greater income gains through centralisation — a better technology group needs to be associated to moderate income to yield fruits
the process of sedentarisation is one that endangers the country militarily — it may be better to face possible enemies when the technological disparity isn't overwhelming, so towards the start of the campaign
the stability loss due to sedentarisation (-5) is more easily recouped when one is narrowminded — while westernising by decision requires innovativeness
westernisation by decision requires 98 legitimacy (a small margin, below 100, is allowed so to void monthly fluctuations) — it's undeniably harder to maintain such a high level for hordes
There obviously also are reasons to westernise before sedentarising. Choice is what determines complexity and needs to abound, after all:
after westerning (to muslim, eastern or western) it becomes possible to reform the military — the process doesn't require centralisation at all in the mod, but high army tradition among other things: the steppe horde government provides many ways to increase that variable, changing the government might harden things
sedentarisation takes 50% less time when the horde has sustained a previous westernisation (that's 15 years shaved off from the process, once it's triggered)
This is how the Renounce Nomadism decision is described in the mod:
The dichotomy between traditional nomadism and sedentarism, among our subjects, has become equivocal. Our cities have prospered in size, our government is firmly ruled from Sarai where a teeming administrative class has developed. We could incite our subjects to settle down and abandon nomadic life: we would surely derive fiscal and administrative advantages, but the process could prove to be long, strenuous and weakening for our military ranks…
at least three notches away from maximum decentralisation
not more than 10% of the country in revolt
cultural tradition equal to or higher than 85
the capital hosts at least 30,000 people
Let's start with the last item: a certain degree of urbanisation is required. Hordes whose capital isn't populated have the opportunity to change capital to more dense areas: that's how the Mongol Khanate would attempt to restore the Yuan empire, for instance. It's otherwise possible to sack large enemies cities and deport some of its citizens to one's capital.
Every horde starts with maximum decentralisation, so two slider moves to the left are required. It so happens that's also the maximum policy value: more centralisation results in higher revolt risk. Although, for the purposes of sedentarisation, the higher one's centralisation is the faster the process.
Cultural tradition is certainly the toughest requirement to meet. These are generally the options one has:
prestige (+1 year)
artist (+3 year)
horde specific missions to "Plunder Shrines" in important cities (+6 per city)
decision "Naadam Festival" (+2 per year — 8 years)
decision "Tuuli Epic" (+3 year — 16 years)
hosts the "Silk Road" (+1 year)
Other cultural tradition sources, available to Western and Eastern countries, are out of reach for hordes. Please note that "Patron of the Arts" can't be chosen as a national idea. The important fact to remember is that, to reach and maintain a cultural tradition of 85, it's necessary to average a +4.5 yearly gain.
Cultural tradition will be discussed more in depth in other articles. It should be added though that a simple state of war doesn't decrease cultural tradition, as it did in vanilla: war exhaustion does, in the mod.
One would expect the sedentarisation process to take decades and unfurl progressively. While I felt it was essential to invite players to plan in advance, I also considered that few interruptions (events, pop ups) should be required during the process: the multiplayer stage is already demanding in this context. There's only one event which heralds the culmination of the sederentisation and changes the government form.
When the horde enacts the "Renounce Nomadism" decision a "Settling Down" modifier is applied. Its effects are:
-35% land forcelimits
-30% reinforce speed
The manpower and force limits modifiers match the bonus bestowed by the Steppe Horde form of government. The decreased reinforce speed might force one in a defensive stance, when sacking and legitimacy become problematic — exasperating the horde's innate dilemma.
The "settling down" duration varies. It's never inferior to fifteen years, but generally as long as 45 years: that's two multiplayer sessions at least, sufficient time for opponents to adjust and counter the move. These variables decrease the time needed to settle down, the most tangible ones are listed last:
high number of cores compared to owned provinces
the "Bureaucracy" idea
a monarch's administrative rating equal to eight
high cultural tradition
a good statesman
centralisation steps in excess of the required ones
having westernised before
As you can immagine these same items increase the time to settle down, when they're negative, along with low legitimacy and high war exhaustion or revolting provinces.
Once "Sedentarism Ushers into State Reform" the player will be reminded that:
Our nomadic society has traditionally been resistant to political organization, gathering occasionally around strikingly charismatic leaders. We started a transition, aimed at curtailing kinship structures to reinforce the authority of our central state. As a result of sedentarisation, control over fiscal revenues has improved to the point where tribute and loot from military expeditions does not arise from necessity. Our diplomatic relations with sedentarised states can thus be normalised and our perennial state of war brought to a long coveted end.
The country will lose three stability points, turn into a despotic monarchy. Yam stations will be removed and the player will be awared with one additional centralisation move. Legitimacy will stop being a constant concern, as will succession crises, a host of new decisions will become available, and women will finally start wearing knee short skirts, for the springtime of your country has finally arrived.
Hordes Sacking Cities
In vanilla, whenever a horde wins a siege, by either assaulting the fort or waiting it out, an event fires and grants the following:
-0.25 war exhaustion
There are a few differences in the mod. Firstly the description now reads:
It is written in our Code of Law that, once permission is granted to sack the enemy's remnants, every combatant shall have their equal share. Thrace has fallen to our forces and the Khan has announced the sack of Istanbul. To the victor belong the spoils of war and to Khan Timur the glory of victory!
It's pathetic, although an improvement over the old one which contained errors, so a new description would be welcome.
The event won't fire when one's legitimacy is unquestioned. The event won't fire when the province's tax base is lower than four. These conditions seemed necessary to reduce the amount of event spam.
There won't be any prestige, or war exhaustion, differences: prestige is always granted for any siege. Steppe hordes yearly legitimacy loss is linear and arbitary; small and large hordes always lose three. The legitimacy gain from sacking cities though is variable and depends on how many men are employed in operations:
- a horde whose army is large, sacking a city 2 legitimacy
- a horde whose army is modest, sacking a city 3 legitimacy
- a horde whose army is small, sacking a city 5 legitimacyThere is an ulterior exception: when a horde reaches a province whose tax base and population are high (Moscow, Kiev, Vilnius, Nijni-Novogorod, etc.), the player may choose to either sack the province, or more methodically kill and deport its citizens. The second option entails:The "Oirat Horde" would therefore need fewer sacks per decade, compared to the "Golden Horde" who needs to defend against many more enemies, fielding a larger army. The rationale is that to satisfy more men, the loot needs to be commensurate.
the province loses 5000 population
the horde's capital gains 3000 population
the horde gains +3 badboy
the horde gains +1 official
Hordes generally feature low infamy, as their conquests do not result in badboy accumulation. On the other hand there now are ways to spend badboy and put some tools to use (diplomat, monarch's diplomatic rating, consolidate acquisitions, embassy, etc.): this event option is one of them.
Hordes do not gain officials, unless they reach positive stability levels. Even in that case, the increase hardly supports their ability to conquer new territory. Officials are needed for few decisions, to build forts where there are none, and naturally other infrastructure.
In closing, sacking cities is the most accessible way to keep legitimacy from reaching alarming levels and trigger succession crises. It's therefore essential to constantly wage war, and seek new or old enemies.
This is the Muscowy I have built w/o fighting a single war, using just _one_ spy to spawn Russian patriots:
Steps to reproduce (I hope it is reproducible):
1. start paying tribute to GH from the very beginning
2. once Ryazan will be in a war w/ GH and GH will occupy some Ryazan province, spawn Russian patriots --> rebel stack will be very huge
3. Ryazan will peace out paying tribute to GH
4. Patriot stack will not disappear but will occupy all Ryazan provinces seceding that to Muscowy
5. after that patriot stack will not disappear but will travel to Tver and Yaroslavl and secede these to Muscowy
6. after that patriot stack will not disappear but will travel to Pskov and Novgorod and secede these to Muscowy (Novgorod took 10 years to secede)
7. after that patriot stack will travel to Smolensk where it will be finally killed by combined Polish/Lithuanian forces
IMO there is some bug in v5.2 or OCO -- steps 4, 5, 6 are wrong.
Let's put "Support Patriots" effects on rebel size aside, for the moment: they are meant to be variable, as pretenders are (legitimacy), as heretics are (tolerance) and as nationalist are (nationalism).
Patriot rebels are unchanged from vanilla (5.1), but for the movement logic. The steps you describe above are as relevant (and common) in vanilla, as they are in the mod. Like you, I think this dynamic is less than ideal. These two points are debatable:
(a) Patriots become an option when the province controller doesn't share its culture: the Golden Horde isn't Russian, for instance. A province controlled by rebels is always a candidate for patriots. When "supported", via the spy mission, these will secede provinces to the country who funded them. So, Muscowy can stir patriots up in Russian Ryazan, only when Ryazan is occupied by a non Russian or rebels. The provinces will defect to Muscowy, when the patriots are supported by them, despite Ryazan being Russian.
(b) There are two ways provinces are seceded: 1) rebels occupy a given province for 36 months and 2) rebels enforce their demands: four random provinces secede.
Patriots can rise and liberate territory that is occupied by enemies: that's the reason behind the "controller doesn't share the province's culture" clause. A problem arises when players take advantage of the temporary culture mismatch of the occupant, to fund patriots working against the owner, despite their same culture. Patriots didn't disappear in your case, because the supporter's tag (yours) is different from the owner.
Unlike pretenders, brigands and other rebels, patriots weren't reviewed: they will be changed soon. Thanks for the feedback.
since a while I did not see any news, may I ask if there is anything at the moment in development and if yes, what?
Hey, i would like to thank you for upgrading everything and basically making the version we truly needed to have.
A eu3 newfag.
one day i will step out of the closet again