AGC & EEP: Far East

[unmerged(2456)]

The event in 1430 shouldn't have drastic effects. Commishiooing/Not commishoing the treasure fleet now wouldn't do much either way. Yes definatly some naval investment, diplomatic and other such impact, but it should be miminmal.
FE: Option A should not be given more bonus colonist and only 2 merchants. land and infra shouldn't be affected as much. Instead a slightly bigger hit to the treasury (-250). Relations with most of the costal countries from SEA to Middle East should increase slightly (+15).

 

[Khephren]

I can't seem to find a chart in FAQ on the costs to get to each progressive naval tech level. By going all naval you get at added 13500d. Does anyone know what naval tech level this will put them at in 1525??

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Originally posted by Jinnai
The event in 1430 shouldn't have drastic effects. Commishiooing/Not commishoing the treasure fleet now wouldn't do much either way. Yes definatly some naval investment, diplomatic and other such impact, but it should be miminmal.
FE: Option A should not be given more bonus colonist and only 2 merchants. land and infra shouldn't be affected as much. Instead a slightly bigger hit to the treasury (-250). Relations with most of the costal countries from SEA to Middle East should increase slightly (+15).

relations should only be affected when china actually explores the indian ocean, ie through separate tribute recieving events. treasury hit is already 350. effect on investment is already the smallest to go below 1000 in investment effects means nothing for China. whether to add 2 or 4 merchants, 0 or 2 colonists doesnt really matter but i dont see why recommissioning Zheng He should not matter close to as much as if China chose to continue expansion in 1424.

Originally posted by Khephren
I can't seem to find a chart in FAQ on the costs to get to each progressive naval tech level. By going all naval you get at added 13500d. Does anyone know what naval tech level this will put them at in 1525??

if i remember correctly, cost to go from level 3 to level 4 tech definitely costs more than 10000.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Originally posted by Khephren
relations should only be affected when china actually explores the indian ocean, ie through separate tribute recieving events. treasury hit is already 350. effect on investment is already the smallest to go below 1000 in investment effects means nothing for China. whether to add 2 or 4 merchants, 0 or 2 colonists doesnt really matter but i dont see why recommissioning Zheng He should not matter close to as much as if China chose to continue expansion in 1424.B]

Recomishioning him in 1430 was largely done a symbolic messure to 1> placate the very small minority who wanted to see more outward-looking china. They chose Zheng He because he was already a national hero and despite the current emperor's distate for him it would shut the small number of critics he had up. 2> He could have allowed them to travel seperatly back to their nations, but they had an implied perogative from the previous emperor that Zheng He, assuming he was still alive, would be returning them in the same manner if at all possible. 3> it once again allowed China to let everyone know who was top dog, if subtly.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

not really symbolic. the mission of the 7th voyage was just the same as the mission of other previous voyages.

 

[Khephren]

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36


if i remember correctly, cost to go from level 3 to level 4 tech definitely costs more than 10000.

The reason I was wondering is that according to what I've read, there's a general consensus that China's navy was far superior to anyone else in the world at that time. Granted, we can't start them out at a higher tech because there is no way to reverse the tech levels once the fleets are dismantled. But if a player goes all naval, (and weathers the internal storms it warrants ) shouldn't they get a boost to at least nav3 or 4?? (I'm thinking even higher than that, but best stay conservative )

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
not really symbolic. the mission of the 7th voyage was just the same as the mission of other previous voyages.

Moreso than the others it was symbolic. Zheng He did little more than be an escort...he did get gifts and act as a diplomat, but for the former, like the previous voyages the cost was more than the return and for the latter, if you think not giving the nations an additional +15 or even +5 relationship is okay, i can understand that.

[color=green]
#Recommissioning of Zheng He#
event = {
	id = 00060
	country = CHI
	name = "Recommissioning of Zheng He"
	desc = "After nearly a decade without any major voyages, the Emperor has the desire to commission the aging Zheng He for one more great voyage."
	style = 1
	date = { month = April year = 1430 } 
	action_a ={		
		name = "Once again for the glory of China"[/color]
		command = { type = colonist value = 2 }[color=red]
		command = { type = merchants value = 2 }[/color][color=green]
		command = { type = diplomats value = 2 }
		command = { type = land value = -1000 }
		command = { type = infra value = -1000 }
		command = { type = naval value = 2000 }
		command = { type = trade value = 1000 }[/color][color=red]
		command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = -1 }[/color][color=green]
		command = { type = domestic which = MERCANTILISM value = +1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = -1 }
		command = { type = DIP which = 2 value = 60 }[/color][color=red]
		command = { type = treasury value = -300 }[/color]
		command = { type = ai which = ChinaExplore.ai }[color=green]
	}
	action_b ={		
		name = "Zheng He's time has passed"[/color][color=blue]
		command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = 1}[/color]
		command = { type = colonists value = -2 }[color=red]
		command = { type = merchants value = -2 }[/color][color=green]
		command = { type = diplomats value = -1 }[/color][color=red]
		command = { type = land value = 1000 }[/color][color=green]
		command = { type = infra value = 2000 }[/color][color=red]
		command = { type = naval value = -2000 }[/color][color=green]
		command = { type = trade value = -1000 }[/color]
		command = { type = ai which = ChinaDontExplore.ai }[color=green]
	}
}
[/color]

Changed Lines
Added Lines
Deleted Lines
This is not the kind of event to be changing the AI with. 1424 and 1436 yes, but this one was an exception to the rule of the new Emperor's policy on long voyages.

If you want...option 1 doesn't haveto lower land, but if not it should do nothing...so in slider perspective it would be whether the player wanted more mercantilism or more land

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Originally posted by Jinnai
Moreso than the others it was symbolic. Zheng He did little more than be an escort...he did get gifts and act as a diplomat, but for the former, like the previous voyages the cost was more than the return and for the latter, if you think not giving the nations an additional +15 or even +5 relationship is okay, i can understand that.

This is not the kind of event to be changing the AI with. 1424 and 1436 yes, but this one was an exception to the rule of the new Emperor's policy on long voyages.

If you want...option 1 doesn't haveto lower land, but if not it should do nothing...so in slider perspective it would be whether the player wanted more mercantilism or more land

it's not correct to say Zheng He did little more than escorting. i dunno where that idea came from, but the major mission for Zheng He in the 7th voyage was to get more tribute from foreign nations, just like any other previous voyage. In fact the 7th voyage was more concerned with that than any other previous voyage and the stops made were the most numerous while the length of the voyage was also the longest. to say that it is an exception to the rule of the new emperor's policy does not mean that at the time of the recommissioning, the emperor was just as serious and pro-naval as any other voyage. in fact the size of the fleet in the 7th voyage was just as grand as the 1st voyage with just as many people. once again i dont really care whether merchants increased by 4 or 2, or whether treasury decrease by 350 or 300, but i disagree with the reasoning is based on arguments about being symbolic. not affecting the AI would mean Zheng He wont even move to the indian ocean, which is not acceptable.

Originally posted by Khephren
The reason I was wondering is that according to what I've read, there's a general consensus that China's navy was far superior to anyone else in the world at that time. Granted, we can't start them out at a higher tech because there is no way to reverse the tech levels once the fleets are dismantled. But if a player goes all naval, (and weathers the internal storms it warrants ) shouldn't they get a boost to at least nav3 or 4?? (I'm thinking even higher than that, but best stay conservative )

i want to be more conservative because if tech levels are raised too much while they cannot be dropped, that will unbalance the effects of the events. also, i wouldnt say if all pro-naval is chosen that would boost naval tech by 3 or 4 straight away. 1 or 2 perhaps, and let the player direct the investments on his own. China should also have starting naval tech at 5.

 

[Khephren]

My only other comment would be that maybe China should start out with a bit of inflation due to all of Hongxi's projects putting such a strain on the economy. Then have some come off in 00050 when Hongxi dies ( his son releases the finance minister from jail - maybe a sepaerate event??) and the rest come off in 00070a.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
it's not correct to say Zheng He did little more than escorting. i dunno where that idea came from, but the major mission for Zheng He in the 7th voyage was to get more tribute from foreign nations, just like any other previous voyage. In fact the 7th voyage was more concerned with that than any other previous voyage and the stops made were the most numerous while the length of the voyage was also the longest. to say that it is an exception to the rule of the new emperor's policy does not mean that at the time of the recommissioning, the emperor was just as serious and pro-naval as any other voyage. in fact the size of the fleet in the 7th voyage was just as grand as the 1st voyage with just as many people. once again i dont really care whether merchants increased by 4 or 2, or whether treasury decrease by 350 or 300, but i disagree with the reasoning is based on arguments about being symbolic. not affecting the AI would mean Zheng He wont even move to the indian ocean, which is not acceptable.

It was symbolic because it had no other purpose really than that. China could have had other ways to get tribute from all but the most remote areas if it had chose another means, but i won't argue this point any longer.

But once China decided it was the fleet, the emperor was in a bind to build it atleast as big as the previous one. If you come in with a smaller force demanding more tribute (in whatever flattering way you want) it doesn't give the same backing. People will notice that and many might believe its a sign that China's power would be weakening, not something you want to do when coercing tributes and benefical trade routes.

I do not believe the emepror was naval orgaiented at all. He came into power because many of the Beurocrats supported him. However, he knew the nobles still wanted trade so he imo used the excuse of returning the forigen diplomats home to placate the nobles, or he may have been forced into it. Whatever the case he wasn't very naval oriented and was much more concerative than most of the rulers when it came to china's outward influence.

Finally as for the AI...if that's the case I can live with that.

 

[doktarr]

ok, one last study into the events. sorry if i seem like nitpicking but these events will replace the "strategic decision after Zheng He's journey" event, which is probably considered by many as one of the most important in China, so although to me it is quite satisfactory when looked at generally, i think we shold be extra careful to study the details.

Absoluitely; nothing wrong with looking at the details.

calculating horizontally, i noticed that some of the shifts do not balance exactly to zero. historically that doesnt really matter but we should note that, because of this, the choice will be favourable to pro-naval choices, and so we may have to use other means to tilt back the balance.

Other means were already present - notably, the "a" choices brough small stability boosts, and the "b" choices brought inflation and revoltrisk. I see no need to make all the investmentas balance exactly.

looking vertically, i m noticing that 1424 has the strongest effect. however, i tend to think that banning all construction (1436) and destruction of all large ships (1525) should result in stronger effects, while whether to recommission Zheng He for one last voyage (1430) should be weakest.

I agree.

i think option b could be divided into two: the milder "keeping large oceangoing vessels (dont destroy)" and the more radical "we should in contrast expand our shipbuilding". the former could have no effect on investment, the latter could again shift investment in the pro-naval pattern.

Yeah, I like what you did with that event.

comparing the starting position with the total effect, i regret to say that i still think arist is moved just a little bit too much. perhaps 1426 should only -1.

That sounds reasonable, but I still think the net effect of "b" choices should be -3.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Originally posted by Jinnai
I do not believe the emepror was naval orgaiented at all. He came into power because many of the Beurocrats supported him. However, he knew the nobles still wanted trade so he imo used the excuse of returning the forigen diplomats home to placate the nobles, or he may have been forced into it. Whatever the case he wasn't very naval oriented and was much more concerative than most of the rulers when it came to china's outward influence.

whatever the real hidden intention of the Emperor, simply theres no indication that the emperor did not order the expedition seriously, did not make the voyage recieve as much high profile or did not cause it to be as big a deal both domestically and internationally as previous expeditions. The direct consequences of the expedition were in that sense really no different from previous expeditions, ie more ships were being constructed, more money being diverted to spending on the navy, more trade with foreign countries, etc, just as much as in previous expeditions. the direct effect of the new expedition was, similar to earlier expeditions, more concentration into naval activities by the nation than before when expeditions were suspended. the emperor was therefore pro-naval because he caused the pro-naval consequences to happen. so whether his internal mind was pro-naval or whether he made anti-naval policies afterwards (taken care of in 1436) is not really relevant to how much effect we should give to his policies in 1430.

i edited the colonists, merchants and investments that you highlighted to some extent, see if you are happy with it.

Originally posted by doktarr
Other means were already present - notably, the "a" choices brough small stability boosts, and the "b" choices brought inflation and revoltrisk. I see no need to make all the investmentas balance exactly.

yes i agree they dont need to balance exactly but i see the other effects as not enough even if the investments were balanced exactly, because of the importance of favourable DP shifts, extra explorers, tribute recieving events and most importantly because of the need to represent the historical pressures to stay away from pro-naval. i didnt make all investments balance exactly in the new version i edited either. are you happy with the new investment amounts in this new version or are you more happy with the investment amounts of the old version??

Also, for the whole set of events overall are you more happy with the new edited version or are you more happy with the last version you posted?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I still think not investing in the voyage should increase land by 1. The rest is livable with.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

if anti-naval in 1430 gives +1 land then anti-naval choices in other years will have to get reduced effect in land. is that what you want? in fact after thinking about it i think anti-naval choices effect on land should be reduced across the board:
1424 gives 0
1430 gives 0
1436 (a) gives +1
1525 (a) gives +1
new events on conflicts with mongol/vietnam/burma should push DP too much towards land already. i think we should use real pro-land events rather than anti-naval events to push the slider towards land.

 

[doktarr]

i edited the colonists, merchants and investments that you highlighted to some extent, see if you are happy with it.
yes i agree they dont need to balance exactly but i see the other effects as not enough even if the investments were balanced exactly, because of the importance of favourable DP shifts, extra explorers, tribute recieving events and most importantly because of the need to represent the historical pressures to stay away from pro-naval.

OK, fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that balancing it isn't really crucial. Another thing to consider is that subtracting investments isn't as bad as adding investments is good. This is because if you subtract 4000d from naval when only 200d is invested, you only get -200d. But if you add 2000d naval when only 300d is needed to reach the next level, you get 1700d invested toward the next level after that.

i didnt make all investments balance exactly in the new version i edited either. are you happy with the new investment amounts in this new version or are you more happy with the investment amounts of the old version??

They're fine by me. I really don't have a clue what the right amounts would be for realism/game balance/et cetera.

Also, for the whole set of events overall are you more happy with the new edited version or are you more happy with the last version you posted?

I'm fine with the changes, except the reversal of mercantilism shifts. Mercantilism, in game terms, really reflects whether a country was more interested in trade WITHIN its borders, or trade with other nations. The pro-naval movement clearly represented a shift to external trade, and the movement away from the trasure fleets clearly represented a desire to trade mostly within China's borders. Whether the government had a large role in directing the foreign trade is, in my opinion, irrelevant. After all, we have control over merchant placement regardless of where the slider sits.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I'm not saying we nessasarily haveto balance the choices perfectly, but there is not much incentive for the player in 1430 to chose option 2. He does get bonus to land and infra investment, but at a higher cost in reduction of the other 2. He gets -1 to diplomat, merchant and colonist. What human, even one who didn't want to bother with naval investment would chose that? There has to be some reason, even if its small to chose option 2 otherwise why even bother with it.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Originally posted by doktarr
OK, fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that balancing it isn't really crucial. Another thing to consider is that subtracting investments isn't as bad as adding investments is good. This is because if you subtract 4000d from naval when only 200d is invested, you only get -200d. But if you add 2000d naval when only 300d is needed to reach the next level, you get 1700d invested toward the next level after that.

True. Maybe i should increase all the negative further.

Originally posted by doktarr
They're fine by me. I really don't have a clue what the right amounts would be for realism/game balance/et cetera. I'm fine with the changes, except the reversal of mercantilism shifts. Mercantilism, in game terms, really reflects whether a country was more interested in trade WITHIN its borders, or trade with other nations. The pro-naval movement clearly represented a shift to external trade, and the movement away from the trasure fleets clearly represented a desire to trade mostly within China's borders. Whether the government had a large role in directing the foreign trade is, in my opinion, irrelevant. After all, we have control over merchant placement regardless of where the slider sits.

true we have control to place merchants, but in terms of the effects neither mercantile or free trade absolutely disfavour trade. and i dont see necessarily either is related more to trade within borders or trade externally.

Originally posted by Jinnai
I'm not saying we nessasarily haveto balance the choices perfectly, but there is not much incentive for the player in 1430 to chose option 2. He does get bonus to land and infra investment, but at a higher cost in reduction of the other 2. He gets -1 to diplomat, merchant and colonist. What human, even one who didn't want to bother with naval investment would chose that? There has to be some reason, even if its small to chose option 2 otherwise why even bother with it.

well, like doktarr said, if naval and trade investment is at 0. then theres every reason to choose land and infra boost. bonus to land and infra cannot be equated with the cost of naval and trade.

plus the overall effect to the DP sliders when viewed together with other events are of major importance to me. an alternative bonus i can think of is add ADM rating by 1 for 60 months instead of adding to land slider.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
well, like doktarr said, if naval and trade investment is at 0. then theres every reason to choose land and infra boost. bonus to land and infra cannot be equated with the cost of naval and trade.

plus the overall effect to the DP sliders when viewed together with other events are of major importance to me. an alternative bonus i can think of is add ADM rating by 1 for 60 months instead of adding to land slider.

Your making a big assumption here, espially for a human player. I'm not saying it must be sliders, just that those would see most apporpriate, but there should be something that the player gets no matter what a bonus to because at this time its likely that he won't get the full benifits of chosing option B.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Originally posted by Jinnai
Your making a big assumption here, espially for a human player.

You asked me what reason for a human to choose option b, i answered you a reason for a human to choose option b.

Originally posted by Jinnai
What human, even one who didn't want to bother with naval investment would chose that? There has to be some reason, even if its small to chose option 2 otherwise why even bother with it.

thats what you asked.

Originally posted by Jinnai
I'm not saying it must be sliders, just that those would see most apporpriate, but there should be something that the player gets no matter what a bonus to because at this time its likely that he won't get the full benifits of chosing option B.

ok, i'll add ADM rating by 1 for 60 months then. coz adding land slider is not justified for the reasons i gave.

 

[doktarr]

true we have control to place merchants, but in terms of the effects neither mercantile or free trade absolutely disfavour trade. and i dont see necessarily either is related more to trade within borders or trade externally.

I think free trade definitely favors extrnal trade. Mercantilists get trade refusals without penalties. Provinces of free traders are more liekly to trade at foreign CoTs, while provinces of mercantilists are more likely to trade at domestic CoTs. And of course, free traders can establish more colonies and trading posts, which leads to more foreign trade.

How else could the game engine make mercantilism favor domestic trade and free trade favor external trade? Combine that with the fact that that is a large part of what mercantilism and free trade meant in those days (not precesely, but a decent first-order approximation), and it seems pretty clear cut.

On an almost totally unrelated note, here's a link to some Japanese events that Meiji-Tenno and I bounced back and forth a while back. Could be useful.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102715