Addressing the Oversized Elephant in the room

[Phibs]

Not sure what part of +15 unrest for losing mandate makes them 'more stable'.

Wait what?

[...] now it's just 'lose mandate, become confetti'.

I just see the Ming implosion happen much less frequently as of late. Indeed I see Ming performing spectacularly well more than half of the time (stable, some expansion, keeping up with western tech levels). I don't care to argue isolated mechanics, a whole lot was changed after all. But in toto, I feel Ming has not been hit with the nerf-stick by the last patch. I might be completely wrong *shrug*

As to Lithuania, see my other posts. I don't think we really disagree there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Mandate lost removes your -5 unrest and, due to a stealth nerf in 1.13, adds +10 unrest for a total of +15 unrest.

It's a bit of a head-scratcher to see Lithuania described as "too fragile", given the railroaded destruction of Ming that happens super early, and the nonsense representation of the Timurids shattering (as opposed to, say, being conquered). Lithuania's hand-holding leaves PLC in a place it wasn't historically and creates a mega-bloc in Eastern Europe with fair frequency. I don't see what good that has for balance or how the region plays out. A while back Wiz said that Poland/Hungary weren't historical friends because it was too hard on the Ottomans, but this representation of Lithuania is doing the same thing.

An extra side effect is that players complain about Muscovy being "too weak", which is a joke given that they're already strong compared to their historical 1444 position...but historical Muscovy struggled to gain control of the region they didn't have some top-development superpower on their borders instantly.

 

[Phibs]

Mandate lost removes your -5 unrest and, due to a stealth nerf in 1.13, adds +10 unrest for a total of +15 unrest.

I ... did not know that. Though I think counting the five points bonus negative unrest as an 'increase' is a little rich.
Anyways. I don't see it happen very often and it was my theory up until now that's because ming->money->advisors->points->positive stability

As to Lithuania (and Russia), again I agree.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I ... did not know that. Though I think counting the five points bonus negative unrest as an 'increase' is a little rich.
Anyways. I don't see it happen very often and it was my theory up until now that's because ming->money->advisors->points->positive stability

As to Lithuania (and Russia), again I agree.

Because of Ming's tuning, mandate lost is something is atypical unless they get a weak claim. Negative or zero stab is something the AI will typically buy up unless you badly overextend it or something. Counting the -5 from having mandate against mandate lost is fair. That government form forces you into a floor of 50% LA, making it one of the most punitive governments in the game.

Ming is pretty all or nothing right now.

 

[Zak Preston]

Lithuania is extremely fragile, so we wont nerf it.

Yeah, low religious unity, high autonomy, moderate unrest: any high WE leads to huge rebellions.

 

[zsImmortal]

I ... did not know that. Though I think counting the five points bonus negative unrest as an 'increase' is a little rich.
Anyways. I don't see it happen very often and it was my theory up until now that's because ming->money->advisors->points->positive stability

As to Lithuania (and Russia), again I agree.

I see it every single game, no matter how things go. It's always been about losing mandate, usually through low legitimacy heir (which there is no way of preventing). Their ruler/heir combo start with fairly similar ages, so it's not uncommon for both to die close enough to make them lose mandate early (sometimes in the first 10 years).

Like I said, I mostly play in the vicinity of Ming and I've never seen it make it very far united (part of it may be my fault because I'll fight them regardless of their situation). I can even post a screenshot of my current game with a huge Ming bleeding territory to rebels. To say that 'Lithuania is too fragile' for a nerf when a country that has a trigger to make them completely prone to breaking actually gets nerfed, on top of already being severely handicapped is absurd in logic.

Let's not even mention the Timurids who are given plenty of ahistorical slaps to the face to make them break.

 

[Phibs]

Because of Ming's tuning, mandate lost is something is atypical unless they get a weak claim. Negative or zero stab is something the AI will typically buy up unless you badly overextend it or something. Counting the -5 from having mandate against mandate lost is fair. That government form forces you into a floor of 50% LA, making it one of the most punitive governments in the game.

Ming is pretty all or nothing right now.

I don't see what LA has to do with stability. It's not like the mingans are ever short in manpower and/or money.
But naturally I agree that their government form sucks.

*shrug*

And yes if Ming does loose the MOH for a long time, they tend to explode. I just see it happening way less than it used to for whatever reason(s).
Which is why I don't agree that the patch nerfed them into the ground.

Anywho enough about Ming.

I see it every single game, no matter how things go. It's always been about losing mandate, usually through low legitimacy heir (which there is no way of preventing). Their ruler/heir combo start with fairly similar ages, so it's not uncommon for both to die close enough to make them lose mandate (sometimes in the first 10 years).
Like I said, I mostly play in the vicinity of Ming. To say that 'Lithuania is too fragile' for a nerf when a country that has a trigger to make them completely prone to breaking actually gets nerfed, on top of already being severely handicapped is absurd in logic.
Let's not even mention the Timurids who are given plenty of ahistorical slaps to the face to make them break.

What difference does it make if you play in the vicinity? When I discover them, they're almost always as big as ever if not bigger and on western tech levels to boot.
I find it strange that our outcomes should be so drastically different.

On both the Timurids and Lithuania, I'm with ya.

 

[zsImmortal]

What difference does it make if you play in the vicinity? When I reach them, they're as big as always and on western tech levels to boot. I find it strange that our outcomes should be so drastically different.

On both the Timurids and Lithuania, I'm with ya.

The difference it makes is that I see it. I'm not playing games in Europe then quit before getting any kind of info on that side of the world. Then the few games I play out far enough I notice that Ming hasn't collapsed. No, I always know what's going on over there and it is overwhelming how many times Ming doesn't make it past a considerable amount of time united.

 

[Phibs]

The difference it makes is that I see it. I'm not playing games in Europe then quit before getting any kind of info on that side of the world. Then the few games I play out far enough I notice that Ming hasn't collapsed. No, I always know what's going on over there and it is overwhelming how many times Ming doesn't make it past a considerable amount of time united.

I always play my campaigns at the very least until the mid 17hundreds, usually longer.
If Ming coheres for that long, things are fine as is for my taste and I will agree to disagree.