1.07 10th april discussion

[Zeitgeist]

It does seem to unfairly penalize minors w/ only one or two shields. Had history turned out differently, many of those could have been the countries that we know and love today.

Here's another alternative... instead of hurting noncore provinces, boost core provinces, and make them give, say, 125% tax. This will help majors, without crippling ambitious minors.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Hive
This is a problem, if you ask me.... if the AI behaves like this, imagine what a human player could do....

Human player China has all days been a cakewalk. Including the revolt events in the seventeenth century, if you know they are coming.

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by boehm
Personally I like that the 25% census tax bonus applies to cores and NOT to stateculture provinces....this way u have to weight the RR problem caused by TC against the fact that non-core territories (eg. colonies) also benefits the most from a TC! - eg. if all state cultured provinces had the 25% bonus I fear that noone would build TCs in non-core colonies.....AFAIK in real life the new world was pretty much a very bad investment to the english until they decided to start taxing them (ei buying TCs) which then caused many of those areas to revolt...ei. the US....now we as players face some of the same dilemma!

I just can't see the sense of getting 25% census in cores when cores don't really represent anything in particular (see my earlier posts for a more detailed explanation). Cores are such a loosely defined concept that they are just not a good factor to introduce into a model.

I don't think 25% is such a huge amount that people wouldn't want to build TCs in colonies anyway. I know I'd still do it. I still think TCs are almost mandatory. It is not the fact that you can get census taxes without a TC, or even the amount that you get, that I am objecting to - it is the use of such a loosely defined (and already overpowered) concept.

As I understand it, the change is designed to help countries who can't build TCs, not change the dynamics of colonialism (which I don't think it will anyway).

 

[boehm]

which reminds me...with the new RR has anyone tested to see whether the Netherlands will form?! with only one yearly revolt check I would be concerned about whether it wouldnt be too easy for Spain to suppress them?!

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
Here's another alternative... instead of hurting noncore provinces, boost core provinces, and make them give, say, 125% tax.

That would increase the overall amount of money in the game, something I think Johan wants to avoid.

 

[M@ni@c]

Re: Re: Re: 1.07 10th april discussion

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
By my guess, it is more likely a direct consequence of the fact that the tech curve now also affects trade and infrastructure research, and players (in both MP and SP) were used to be far, far ahead of those dates. Coupled with the increased importance of getting infrastructure 5 as early as possible, as the effect of governors is proportional to the time you have them, I can see why one might want to cut down on the restrictions.

That could be solved by moving governors to infra level 3 and refineries to level 5.

I don't think the improvement of the Chinese tech group will have much effect. After all, before the Zheng He event was fixed in 1.06 or 1.07, they already spent most of their time in muslim tech group (x1.4). And I can't recall them ever being a high tech giant.

In the few of games I've played with the betas China already goes on a colonisation spree. In all three I have seen China colonise the Indian sub-continent before the Europeans.

A Chinese influence in southern India is historical (the first decade of the game at least ).

 

[Medicine Man]

Very positive change

This patch was 99% a major improvement. Many of the major issues present since 1.07 have been addressed in this patch. Time and further beta testing will determine how much more (if anything) needs to be done. Personally, I am very hopeful now. It would appear that primary balancing efforts are being directed exactly where they need to be: inflation (for the AI), census taxes, technological growth for ROTW countries. Johan even addressed the problem with a dozen Cots appearing in Italy. Tres bien.

Okay. Okay.

I'm trying to be cool about this but I think I may have given Johan the idea about tying base census tax to centralization. If so, I am one whinging pom who deserves some bragging rights. This may well be the first time I've accomplished anything on this forum other than annoying Katsyev.

There is really nothing wrong with making core provinces produce more census taxes anyhow. Cores are meant to represent areas where the people readily recognize the monarch's right to rule there. Hence, no nationalism, less war exhaustion and more taxation. Because nearly every nation starts with some core provinces, this rule should help nations avoid early bankruptcy.

Perhaps now I'll just retire peacefully to the 'Improve the OE' thread and try to avoid raising a ruckus from now on. I don't want to press my luck.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Well, its also historically plausible, as most countries got more taxes from areas which are cores in EU II (with few exemptions, like Byzanium)

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by Medicine Man
There is really nothing wrong with making core provinces produce more census taxes anyhow. Cores are meant to represent areas where the people readily recognize the monarch's right to rule there. Hence, no nationalism, less war exhaustion and more taxation. Because nearly every nation starts with some core provinces, this rule should help nations avoid early bankruptcy.

But what is a core? What does it mean? I don't buy the 'Cores are meant to represent areas where the people readily recognize the monarch's right to rule there' thing. Did the Balkans fall down and thank Allah that the Ottomans had militarily annexed them, recognising them as their rightful lords? I think not. Did they welcome the invaders by suddenly deciding to pay more taxes? Its just plain wrong. Cores represent a number of different situtations, in some of which it makes no sense to increase tax revenue. Using culture there is no such ambiguity.

I could be wrong but I believe every nation also starts with culturally similar provinces.

I will repeat what I said earlier because I am never sure people actually read any more of a thread than the last couple of posts.

Originally posted by SJG
Do cores really signify provinces that you have an easier time ruling? I was under the impression that cores didn't really have any one particular property. Sometimes they signify areas to expand into, sometimes the heartlands of a country, sometimes ways to increase the probability of tension and war...

If cores were distributed more consistently it wouldn't be a problem, but given their inconsistent distribution they already seem too powerful (particularly the doubled WE). A small number of advantages wouldn't bother me but together they add up to a huge advantage.

Cores are just such a loosely defined umbrella concept that I can't really see why they would generate more tax income. It makes much more sense using cultural similarities.

Originally posted by SJG
As I mentioned earlier the Ottomans (and others) have cores with cultures that they don't have. This gives them a +1 RR during peace-time(which is doubled during war, I think). Now, most Italian minor have only one or two cores but there are lots of surrounding provinces that have Italian culture. If they take these they don't get any added RR. So we can have provinces with higher RR and higher income if they are core and different culture. Are they easier to govern or not? This is what I mean when I say it is inconsistent.

Given that Italy is a united country now, and was under the Romans, I don't think it would be more difficult Italian minors to govern other Italian provinces than it would be for the Ottomans(or any other countries in a similar situation) to govern the Balkans (or equivalent).

Using culture instead of cores really wouldn't really make that much of a difference but would be much fairer.

It wouldn't hurt the Ottomans or the Chinese, as they have as many or more (many, many more in the case of the Ottomans) culturally similar provinces than cores.

I really can't why it would be easier to tax a province that is a core (which can mean a variety of things) than a province with whom you share a culture.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by SJG
But what is a core? What does it mean? I don't buy the 'Cores are meant to represent areas where the people readily recognize the monarch's right to rule there' thing. Did the Balkans fall down and thank Allah that the Ottomans had militarily annexed them, recognising them as their rightful lords? I think not.

I could be wrong but I believe every nation also starts with culturally similar provinces.

I will repeat what I said earlier because I am never sure people actually read any more of a thread than the last couple of posts.



Cores are just such a loosely defined umbrella concept that I can't really see why they would generate more tax income. It makes much more sense using cultural similarities.



Using culture instead of cores really wouldn't really make that much of a difference but would be much fairer.

It wouldn't hurt the Ottomans or the Chinese, as they have as many or more (many, many more in the case of the Ottomans) culturally similar provinces than cores.

I really can't why it would be easier to tax a province that is a core (which can mean a variety of things) than a province with whom you share a culture.

I don't really see where your argument is going except for those countries that are part of a large culture but have few cores i.e. Italian and German minors, Arabic minors, poss. French minors. The other problem would be that some nations (Ottomans and Venice amongst them but also weird ones like The Knights, Navarre and Savoy would have a huge benefit.) The cores principle is at least mostly related to the historical size of the country (Byzantium excepted) so is related to the "norm" performance.

Basically we are arguing over not a lot. Lets play the game a bit and see if it needs tweaking from current set up.

 

[N Katsyev]

Re: Very positive change

Originally posted by Medicine Man

I'm trying to be cool about this but I think I may have given Johan the idea about tying base census tax to centralization. If so, I am one whinging pom who deserves some bragging rights. This may well be the first time I've accomplished anything on this forum other than annoying Katsyev.

Congratulations. What if I said you annoyed me at the same time? Double bonus! Nah, just kidding.

Right so, back to more serious issues... Poland. This core thing makes the core changes i've proposed for Poland all that more vital and important... In fact, i'm going to put them in red to signify a "red alert" status, so here goes:

Poland should by every right and justification inherit cores on Poltava, Krementjug, and even possibly (with the new patch) Jedisan. If the point of the UoL event is that Poland inherits the claims of Lithuania as well, which in fact is what is happening, as the two countries there were the same, are now the same in every way, sense, and form... and that these provinces are Lithuanian cores, they should be Polish corse after UoL. Jedisan before I ceded could be left out due to some issues a couple had with it, however with this new light on core provinces, and their new importance, my interest in seeing it added has been rekindled. Don't forget the centralizaiton thing hurts Poland a lot, she really suffers from lack of this + events that make it worse, it nots pretty and these cores really are truly justified. Notice even i'm leaving out Bujak as a form of appeasement.

The tech change was incredibly welcome. I' m not all too concerned even if China does get very wealthy and teched out, there is nothing more sickening than France walking in 1580 and ripped CoT's away from her. Hopefully this will prevent that from happening, hopefully. The muslims definitely needed this change as well, especially the North Africans, Crimeans, Persians and Mughals. Very good change here.

Hmm.. what else, is it possible we may see some Siberian CoT's now possibly? If it is tied to population I know for sure there are a nice 5k natives sitting in the lower parts of Kamatchtka just waiting to start a new trade venue... I hope, I hope, I hope.

Oh and before I forget, Lithuania should have Ruthenian culture in 1419/1492, but only Lithuania. After UoL things in the region began to change quite noticeably, and even though it was quite a bit after UoL, this is a good, and probably generally accepted cut-off date. Not that Poland would be getting it at all anyway.

Right so, off to my little thread. Very good patch, and thank you.

 

[Medicine Man]

It is already more advantageous to occupy provinces of your own culture, SJG. Doing otherwise negatively impacts your monthly production and taxation income by 30%. If we base the census taxation on culture as well we would make state cultures by far the most important attribute of any nation. A bad idea in my humble opinion.

That said, I can understand why a person might object to this rule. It does limit how much a minor nation can benefit from ahistorical expansion. Ahistorical or not, empire building is nevertheless an enjoyable part of this game.

My feeling is that the current census tax scheme isn't perfect, but I much prefer it to the system in place on the 9th of April. 25%+ census tax in core provinces is preferrable to *nothing* what-so-ever. If you want to change this rule yet again, you are going to have to come up with a better suggestion.

The Ottoman Empire cores aren't completely unreasonable either. One oft-lamented fact is how the game does not accurately model how well the OE was able to govern and tax the various nations in their empire. While not perfect, the OE cores at least approximate this now.

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
I don't really see where your argument is going except for those countries that are part of a large culture but have few cores i.e. Italian and German minors, Arabic minors, poss. French minors. The other problem would be that some nations (Ottomans and Venice amongst them but also weird ones like The Knights, Navarre and Savoy would have a huge benefit.) The cores principle is at least mostly related to the historical size of the country (Byzantium excepted) so is related to the "norm" performance.

Basically we are arguing over not a lot. Lets play the game a bit and see if it needs tweaking from current set up.

Yeah, that is where it's going. There are only a few countries which have a large number of cores and they get boring after you've played them a couple of times. The suggested alternative would make many more nations viable (and fun) alternatives to play. Using cores is just wrong because of the many reasons that a country might get a core.

I'd like to be able to play the little guys and turn them into a reasonable sized kingdom (not WC that has never been my thing). Sometimes I'd like to unite Italy or establish a strong little German kingdom to oppose Austria but the strength of cores already makes these challenges less enjoyable and this just makes it even worse. The fact that cores are given out because of the historical outcome is a straight-jacket that reduces the enjoyment available from the game.

History is one observation of one test and we can draw absolutely no statistical conclusions from it. It is strictly wrong to say it is the 'norm'.

I don't play the game to see history repeat itself endlessly. It is much more fun to see a bit of alternative history every now and again.

As for some nations having more cultures, none of the ones you have mentioned are exactly overachievers are they?

 

[Medicine Man]

For crying out loud... It always comes back to Poland with you, eh Kat?

I don't really have much of an opinion about this but I imagine that Poland really should get the cores you are talking about. After all, Poland didn't annex Lithuania in history, they merged into the PL Commonwealth.

By the same token, I am pretty firmly against Poland ever getting Ruthenian culture. Yes, I noticed that you aren't asking for it. To me, the situation is somewhat analogous to Castile and Aragon. When Castile and Aragon form the Kingdom of Spain, they lose their italian focus. When Poland and Lithuania form the Commonwealth, they lose their ruthenian focus. There probably isn't any harm in giving Lithuania ruthenian culture up until the UoL though.

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by Medicine Man
It is already more advantageous to occupy provinces of your own culture, SJG. Doing otherwise negatively impacts your monthly production and taxation income by 30%. If we base the census taxation on culture as well we would make state cultures by far the most important attribute of any nation. A bad idea in my humble opinion.

Yet another inconsistency. If production taxes are affected by culture why on Earch, when it was decided that some property of a province was needed to give a benefit to census taxes, wasn't it used for census taxes.

Originally posted by Medicine Man
That said, I can understand why a person might object to this rule. It does limit how much a minor nation can benefit from ahistorical expansion. Ahistorical or not, empire building is nevertheless an enjoyable part of this game.

That is exactly the point. I like playing minors and building my country up to a reasonable size (but not a superpower) and taking part in the majors' wars.

Originally posted by Medicine Man
My feeling is that the current census tax scheme isn't perfect, but I much prefer it to the system in place on the 9th of April. 25%+ census tax in core provinces is preferrable to *nothing* what-so-ever. If you want to change this rule yet again, you are going to have to come up with a better suggestion.

Here it is: you should get 25% of your base census taxes in same culture provinces, because cores don't have one meaning and it has already been established that different culture provinces yield less tax

Originally posted by Medicine Man
The Ottoman Empire cores aren't completely unreasonable either. One oft-lamented fact is how the game does not accurately model how well the OE was able to govern and tax the various nations in their empire. While not perfect, the OE cores at least approximate this now.

Most of the Ottomans' cores are same culture anyway, so I don't see how it would hurt the Ottomans.

 

[unmerged(15881)]

Cores

I agree the minors are supposed to be hard, but I think it's a playability issues (as usual). If we make the majors workable for the AI, it makes it too easy for a player. Personally I would prefer the game focus on the majors as historically they were the major players in this age. I'd love to be able to play a major and feel challenged. As a minor I would want to feel like I've accomplished something if I just survived and grew a bit. While I think there should be more majors, I don't think consideration should be taken to ensure that some one province minor be a viable "winner". If you want to play a minor, set minor goals. I think the game has lost a bit of focus trying to make changes that work for both minors and majors and both SP and MP. Maybe for EUIII we can choose many of these options when we start the game and that way can play how we want?

 

[unmerged(8881)]

SJG, I've been reading this thread with some interest and I must say I agree totally with everything you've had to say.

I too want to play a minor and not have it hamstrung by the fact that it lacks core provinces, simply because it didn't do so well historically. It really makes it tough to match countries for MP games as well if you're wanting a non-major game.

Personally, giving 25% to both core and state-culture provinces makes sense to me. Already core provinces have the advantages of permanent CB against the other holders, no BB for taking in peace deals, and half war exhaustion. They're already advantageous enough.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Medicine Man
For crying out loud... It always comes back to Poland with you, eh Kat?

I don't really have much of an opinion about this but I imagine that Poland really should get the cores you are talking about. After all, Poland didn't annex Lithuania in history, they merged into the PL Commonwealth.

By the same token, I am pretty firmly against Poland ever getting Ruthenian culture. Yes, I noticed that you aren't asking for it. To me, the situation is somewhat analogous to Castile and Aragon. When Castile and Aragon form the Kingdom of Spain, they lose their italian focus. When Poland and Lithuania form the Commonwealth, they lose their ruthenian focus. There probably isn't any harm in giving Lithuania ruthenian culture up until the UoL though.

But when Poland merged with Lithuania, in reality it gained quite a lot of Ruthenian focus, quite the opposite of Iberian example you gave here.

 

[SJG]

MJames: Who said anything about winning?

I said I wanted to take a minor and make it into a reasonable sized country that could take part in the majors' wars (ie not get crushed. This is a fairly minor goal. And I said I wanted to have fun doing it.

With regards to majors being the 'major players in this age' it is a common misconception. Many of the minors had a reasonable shot at being majors. In 1419 it wasn't certain France would win the Hundred Years War, any one (or even two) of the French minors might have filled the void. Burgundy was doing pretty well until their King died prematurely. Austria should really be a minor, their inheritances weren't pre-ordained but happen almost every game to force them into being a major. I could go on.

The fact is cores channel the game down a certain path again and again to aim for a 'historical' result. But history doesn't tell us anything about what could have happend, what was likely to happen or what the 'right' result is. A more fluid game is more enjoyable.

 

[Medicine Man]

Originally posted by SJG
Most of the Ottomans' cores are same culture anyway, so I don't see how it would hurt the Ottomans.

Not true. Many of the Ottoman's core provinces are not actually state culture. I'll elaborate:

Non-state culture:
Romanian: Wallachia, Moldavia, Dobrudia, Bujak
Magyar: Magyar, Maros, Pest, Banat, Transylvania
Ruthenian: Ruthenia
Slovak: Carpathia
Albanian: Albania
Georgian: Georgia
Kurdish: Kurdistan, Nuyssaybin
Armenian: Armenia
Syrian: Aleppo

17 non-state culture core provinces in historical territories

State culture:
Turkish: Antolia, Thrace, Kastamon, Angora, Konya, Antalya, Taurus, Adana, Sivas, Daghestan
Arabic: Syria, Lebanon, Samaria, Judea, Sinai, Egypt, Alexandia, Delta, Cataract, Nile, Quattara
Greek: Macedonia, Hellas, Morea, Ionia, Crete, Corfu, Cyprus, Rhodes
Slavonic: Bulgaria, Rumelia, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Ragusa, Dalmatia

36 state culture core provinces in historical territories

That is a third of the OE's historically conquered provinces that are not state culture. There is already a 30% penalty to monthly income from non-state culture penalty. Tying the census taxes to culture places far too much emphasis on state culture. All so that certain german and italian minors can more easily benefit from a lot of ahistorical expansion?

Culture is already very powerful. If a german minor -- or heaven forbid, Austria -- were to take control of all of Germany, he could benefit from 100% monthly income due to culture and with 10 centralization he could get 100% census as well. War exhaustion would be problematic but not unmanageable, due to the lack of culture based revolt risk (no +2 rr due to culture difference). Religious differences would be manageable due to conversions being dependant on (again) culture. Monthly income, conversions, and revolt risk are all directly tied to culture already. Making another major economic factor dependant on state culture would be overkill.

You also argue that core provinces are arbitrary and the current rules unfairly favor nations with a large number of cores. Well, it is oft discussed how the state cultures are assigned somewhat arbitrarily; far too many nations have multiple cultures, according to some. Your suggestion would just favor nations that have the big cash cow cultures (german, french, arabic), rather than the superpowers. At least making census taxes dependant on provincial claims doesn't further screw the historically multi-cultural, multi-denominational nations even more.

It is just a matter of opinion now, SJG, but your idea just doesn't wash.