Appointing Provincial Governors

[unmerged(52982)]

I'm not sure if it is too far in the development process to implement this, or if any announcement has been made on this subject, so I will throw this out there...

One of the first strategy games I enjoyed playing was the original Romance of The Three Kingdoms. In this game, rulers appointed generals and advisors as governors of provinces. In times of war they would act as generals in the field.

I was wondering if this could be an aspect of gameplay that could be implemented in EUIII? These provincial governors could effect peacetime developments, for good or ill, such as how the populace views the government (stability), how well business grows, etc. And, in times of war, they would help determine the course of battles. Also, appointing provincial governors helps to personalize gameplay.

I know it would probably be too late to implement something like this if it hasn't been implemented already, but there you go.

 

[unmerged(485)]

I like the idea but can't help but wonder how many players would turn over the running of parts of their country to the AI - which is what a governor is.

 

[Sute]{h]

I like the idea. Ohh... and loved Romance of The Three Kingdoms.

The governor here doesn't need to actually take control, simply let the governors stats affect the province production, tax income, revolt risk, etc. The gain of including governors is that you have to work with these local elites, which can be made much more interesting that simply fighting random revolts.

The decentralization-centralization slider could affect the significans of the governors. In a fully centralized country only the monarchs stats affect the province, while in a fully decentralized country only the governors stats affect the province. Also the governors should of course fight attempts to centralize power. Especially governors with a different culture than your stateculture.

 

[unmerged(485)]

.......................................


The gain of including governors is that you have to work with these local elites, which can be made much more interesting that simply fighting random revolts.

.........................

Which amplifies my point by reminding us of how well the AI handled revolts.

 

[unmerged(52982)]

One of the reasons I posted this idea is after I saw how advisors to the court can be retained in the game. This could possibly be expanded to retain these types of characters as provincial governors...? I am not sure.

However, this may entail too much research on the part of Paradox to find enough historical characters to handle this. That said, maybe the option could possibly be programmed into the game from the start and at a later date, Paradox could release a patch which would allow this option to be fully exercised or allow modders to create these characters.

And the usage of governors could vary, like others said. For instance, the very centralized monarchy's would not appoint governors that would change to much how their decisions effect their realm. Decentralized monarchies with weak rulers and a weak court could have some problems, like collecting taxes or stability if the governor is beligerent.

It could work, I think, but it would take a lot more research.

 

[Mad King James]

It would be better if the govenors were like they were in Master of Orion II, providing bonuses to tax income, production / trade effiency, troop / ship recruitment and RR. It could even sometimes be a tradeoff, one govenor might be a harsh taskmaster and boost production and tax income, but jack up the RR by 2 points. Just like in MoO2 there could be govenors who are independently wealthy and actually add to your coffers every month as well.

 

[EvilSanta]

Some sort of vassal system from CK but provinces more directly under your control?I like it.

 

[Alexandre]

It would be better if the govenors were like they were in Master of Orion II, providing bonuses to tax income, production / trade effiency, troop / ship recruitment and RR. It could even sometimes be a tradeoff, one govenor might be a harsh taskmaster and boost production and tax income, but jack up the RR by 2 points. Just like in MoO2 there could be govenors who are independently wealthy and actually add to your coffers every month as well.

MOO3, actually.

One of the most disapointing games ever -- they almost had something fantastic, and then stopped developing it. That's what I really like about Paradox: they might put out almost great games, but they keep giving us patches till they get it right.

I still have MOO on my computer -- graphics are horrible by now, but I was playing it as recently as Sunday.

 

[Avernite]

MoO2 had them too, Colony Leaders (though AFAIK none had penalties there)

I like the idea, but it should really be hit and forget, and there should be a 'replace all trade governors with war governors' kind of function, if replacing them is allowed.

If not, we'll be stuck clicking 200 times whenever going to war and then again when signing peace...

 

[unmerged(11600)]

MoO2 had them too, Colony Leaders (though AFAIK none had penalties there)

I like the idea, but it should really be hit and forget, and there should be a 'replace all trade governors with war governors' kind of function, if replacing them is allowed.

If not, we'll be stuck clicking 200 times whenever going to war and then again when signing peace...

If there are these governors (viceroys may be a better term, especially as 'governors' already exist in the game), there should be a cost to arbitrarily replacing them this way. Perhaps a new monarch can replace them upon ascenssion without cost, but if done arbitrarily as you're suggesting it should cost local revolt risk.

-Pat

 

[unmerged(2456)]

If there are these governors (viceroys may be a better term, especially as 'governors' already exist in the game), there should be a cost to arbitrarily replacing them this way. Perhaps a new monarch can replace them upon ascenssion without cost, but if done arbitrarily as you're suggesting it should cost local revolt risk.

-Pat

Actually i think a viceroy could be in charge on an entire area, much like a govenor is in charge of a province. Kind of a tier within them so its easier for you to manage when you have larger realms.

 

[Sute]{h]

Which amplifies my point by reminding us of how well the AI handled revolts.

I think you missed my point. By appoint a governor I DON'T mean handing over control to the AI. I simply mean that each province should have its own leader. That leader will modify the values of the province, but the control will remain in the hands of the player. The idea is to introduce negotiations with the provincial leader as a way to modify province value and revolt risks. The player isn't the monarch of a country but rather its guiding spirit.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I like the idea but can't help but wonder how many players would turn over the running of parts of their country to the AI - which is what a governor is.

I wish this idea existed in HoI II. It's so difficult waging war on 3 or 4 fronts at the same time. AI Governors would be a great addition to EU3, I think. I'd certainly let the AI manage my North American holdings whilst I concentrate on the European theatre.

It's a good idea, and besides, by default it would be off, so it's not as if people can really complain about it, because it's not compulsory.

 

[Alexandre]

MoO2 had them too, Colony Leaders (though AFAIK none had penalties there)

Do you mean the autobuild? I know that it's been a while since I last played MOO2, but I certainly don't remember any colony leaders "providing bonuses to tax income, production / trade effiency, troop / ship recruitment and RR"

there should be a 'replace all trade governors with war governors' kind of function, if replacing them is allowed.

Agreed, though I'd like to be able to do it by regions, rather than globaly to allow, say, Spain, to handle a war very differently if it's against China, the Ottomans or England/UK. E.g., if I'm fighting China, I really don't need to worry about defending Iberia. If I'm fighting the Ottomans, I really don't need to worry about defending the Americas, and if I'm fighting England/UK I need to defend everywhere.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(485)]

I think you missed my point. By appoint a governor I DON'T mean handing over control to the AI. I simply mean that each province should have its own leader. That leader will modify the values of the province, but the control will remain in the hands of the player. The idea is to introduce negotiations with the provincial leader as a way to modify province value and revolt risks. The player isn't the monarch of a country but rather its guiding spirit.

You're right, I did not understand you rproposal. o

Still don't understand it though. Do governors have ratings like monarchs do? Is this just another layer of micromanagement? Do you just keep on replacing them until you get one you like?

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

In MOO2 there were two different kinds of leaders: admirals and governors. In both cases they didn't actually "do" anything, they just modified various ship or planet qualities. Some also generated extra research and credits. The limiting factor was that you could only have four of each, and you had to wait for them to come to you before you could hire them.

In MOO3 the governors actually did "stuff". Too much. Like carry out their own little plans. Very annoying.

 

[III.Selim]

I hope governors won't work and gives equal benefits; even I'd like to see the governors which are ruining your province

I would like to see corrupted governors which shrinks province incomes and inflates the inflation; and increases the revolt risk. and we should've chance to kick them out from the office

 

[Sute]{h]

Still don't understand it though. Do governors have ratings like monarchs do? Is this just another layer of micromanagement? Do you just keep on replacing them until you get one you like?

Yes the governors have ratings like the monarch. And yes in theory you could keep replacing them, but replacing a governor should increase unrest or perhaps even lower stability. Plus a powerful governor might choose to revolt outright rather than giving up his position.

EDIT: Yes it could be seen as more micromanagement. I hate that word though. Micromanagement to me is giving troop orders in HoI2, while to some it is managing economy in Vicky. Now this would add a feature giving a greater room for domestic politics and conflict. Something more interesting than just the odd random revolt caused by revoltrisk. Now you would have a face to put on the revolter and someone to negotiate with.

 

[Falstaff]

If the governors don't do anything other than modify stats, they would just be another layer (another building).

 

[Sute]{h]

If the governors don't do anything other than modify stats, they would just be another layer (another building).

Perhaps. But governors isn't exactly buildings, since they should have personalities (like CK only more simple). Also governors will works with you at times and against you at other times. This is a way to introduce internal politics to the game. Something that EU2 doesn't really handle well. EU2 only operates with revolts, while this would allow negotiations and settlements with the local elites. Simply calling this another layer really doesn't cover it.