Are local autonomy floors needed at all?

[Hakuromatsu]

Devil's advocate haberdashery. If you want to complain about native nerfs, there may (?) be a thread for that. If you want to complain about horde nerfs, there may be a thread for that, just don't get yourself banned.

Anyway, I posit that autonomy floors aren't needed at all:

Ming: Autonomy doesn't drop while at peace.
Hordes: Autonomy increases by 25% across the board whenever your ruler dies.
Overseas: Autonomy increases by 1% yearly across the board, micro be damned and/or featuring a big "reduce all provinces' autonomy" button.
Colonies: Autonomy starts at 100%.
Bonus: CNs: Don't exist and/or are able to deal with their own rebels, and/or overseas autonomy feeds into liberty desire with a dynamic colonial region system that lets you form CNs the same way you form client states.

Okay, these lasers aren't assembling themselves. Night all.

 

[Vishaing]

Every single government should have a minimum autonomy but the autonomy Floors should be soft caps. That way you Could go under the 'Minimum' Autonomy, but you'll incur increasingly higher Unrest and enable a whole host of possible negative province events based on your government type. This would actually provide some semblance of strategic choice and would be more realistic. China may have a 50% 'Minimum' Autonomy, but a talented and ambitious Emperor could dip down beneath that and weather the consequences while also, potentially, reaping great rewards.

 

[User4035]

Does Autonomy affect force limits?

Cause that's all I really care about since currently I'm the player who just accepts all the demands of rebels and barely gets money from provinces anyway.
And I make use of vassals to manage the crappy non-accepted culture, different religion lands anyway. I don't blob like a newb.


I'm gonna play Eu4 like I do CKII and just have others manage my lands for me.

 

[ragingrondo12]

Does Autonomy affect force limits?

Cause that's all I really care about since currently I'm the player who just accepts all the demands of rebels and barely gets money from provinces anyway.
And I make use of vassals to manage the crappy non-accepted culture, different religion lands anyway. I don't blob like a newb.


I'm gonna play Eu4 like I do CKII and just have others manage my lands for me.

Peace, Accepting Rebel demands now = Rebel Enforcement of Demands.

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

Does Autonomy affect force limits?

Cause that's all I really care about since currently I'm the player who just accepts all the demands of rebels and barely gets money from provinces anyway.
And I make use of vassals to manage the crappy non-accepted culture, different religion lands anyway. I don't blob like a newb.


I'm gonna play Eu4 like I do CKII and just have others manage my lands for me.

No, LA does not affect force limits, though money is technically extra "force limits"

 

[blackchoas]

To be perfectly honest I have thought long and hard about the autonomy system and its caps and restriction in certain areas and come to this shocking revelation

We still haven't played with this system at all. Am I the only one that thinks we should actually play the game and try out and experiment with this brand new system before arguing over specific balance issues. While there are likely issues with the current system I think we need to give it an actual try in practice before we can really say whether or not something needs to be changed about it

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

To be perfectly honest I have thought long and hard about the autonomy system and its caps and restriction in certain areas and come to this shocking revelation

We still haven't played with this system at all. Am I the only one that thinks we should actually play the game and try out and experiment with this brand new system before arguing over specific balance issues. While there are likely issues with the current system I think we need to give it an actual try in practice before we can really say whether or not something needs to be changed about it

No, we need something to do until the patch hits.

On a slightly more serious note, I feel like I know the game well enough by now to see the impact of changes before I play with them, as long as they're explained in detail. Which this is, for the most part. I still don't know for sure if LA consists of additive multipliers like it does currently or if it's multiplicative, but that doesn't actually matter for my stance on this subject.

 

[blackchoas]

No, we need something to do until the patch hits.

On a slightly more serious note, I feel like I know the game well enough by now to see the impact of changes before I play with them, as long as they're explained in detail. Which this is, for the most part. I still don't know for sure if LA consists of additive multipliers like it does currently or if it's multiplicative, but that doesn't actually matter for my stance on this subject.

Really maybe I missed the details? what is the base starting autonomy for all world provinces, how much autonomy is gained on conquest and does different religion or wrong culture affect autonomy and how much? What is the base rate at which various different government types lower a regions autonomy? How many and how harshy do various event impact autonomy?

I feel we know what autonomy is but we don't know how it plays and we won't know this until we do play the game

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

Really maybe I missed the details? what is the base starting autonomy for all world provinces, how much autonomy is gained on conquest and does different religion or wrong culture affect autonomy and how much? What is the base rate at which various different government types lower a regions autonomy? How many and how harshy do various event impact autonomy?

I feel we know what autonomy is but we don't know how it plays and we won't know this until we do play the game

I think you're missing my point somewhat. Yes, there are plenty things we don't know, and having a discussion where those things are important would be silly. That's why I mentioned the stacking mechanics as well.

But what we do know is fairly detailed, and enough to build an argument on for some things. For me, the only thing I object against is the fact that CN's don't get any minimum LA, and I do have enough information to make my mind up on that one.

 

[artemis667]

We still haven't played with this system at all. Am I the only one that thinks we should actually play the game and try out and experiment with this brand new system before arguing over specific balance issues. While there are likely issues with the current system I think we need to give it an actual try in practice before we can really say whether or not something needs to be changed about it

You're not the only one. There seems to be an element of panicking going on. I'm more enthusiastic about the new features, and I want to see how the game feels and plays with the mechanical changes before passing judgement.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

To be perfectly honest I have thought long and hard about the autonomy system and its caps and restriction in certain areas and come to this shocking revelation

We still haven't played with this system at all. Am I the only one that thinks we should actually play the game and try out and experiment with this brand new system before arguing over specific balance issues. While there are likely issues with the current system I think we need to give it an actual try in practice before we can really say whether or not something needs to be changed about it

Okay, I've played with it enough now, and yes, something needs to be changed. Not for balance reasons, since the Americas received a net buff in AOW, but for what-the-hell-is-this-mechanic-even-supposed-to-do reasons. Here are the current problems with it:

1. It's applied inconsistently. Hordes can raise autonomy above 25%, but the Ming and colonies can't raise autonomy above 50%. Which means that:
2. Colonies will start with a higher LA than some provinces you conquer normally despite the point of the autonomy "floor" being to make colonies more autonomous, and:
3. Raising autonomy to deal with rebels (especially reactionaries during westernization) isn't possible, despite being a logical and natural strategy.
4. The autonomy floor only appears in the increase/decrease autonomy hover tooltips, and it's not obvious which provinces have the arbitrary distinction of being colonies or former colonies.
5. The arbitrary distinction of "colony" only applies to provinces that were uncolonized at the date you started at. It magically disappears if you select a later start date.
6. It makes more sense to wait for OPM natives to migrate to desirable provinces rather than colonizing them (I've done this for both Rio de la Plata and Rio de Janeiro as Inca).
7. If you're an American native and your goal is painting all of the Americas, the optimal (not necessarily most fun, but optimal) strategy is forming a colonial nation in the other America, tag switching to it, then going back to the original America, as Squirreloid has outlined a few times. This makes no sense.

Balance isn't the biggest issue with colonial autonomy floors, or even an issue at all, arguably. The biggest issue is that it's jammed into the game ill-fittingly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Removing caps but implicating penalties that are harsher than the caps in practice won't solve the actual issue with caps, which is unnecessary tampering of power balance in favor of the nations that were already plenty strong while gimping those that already were not.

In other words, if "balance isn't the issue", then what purpose do autonomy caps serve? That is usually (very poorly) answered on a case by case basis, logic which then gets applied inconsistently into the game.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

Removing caps but implicating penalties that are harsher than the caps in practice won't solve the actual issue with caps, which is unnecessary tampering of power balance in favor of the nations that were already plenty strong while gimping those that already were not.

In other words, if "balance isn't the issue", then what purpose do autonomy caps serve? That is usually (very poorly) answered on a case by case basis, logic which then gets applied inconsistently into the game.

But, except in the case of hordes, it is necessary. Ming and the Americans have had a ridiculous increase in effective base tax that's accessible before the Europeans can even touch it; by my count, the Americas jumped from 213 to 502 BT of preowned, uncolonized land in 1444 -- more than an entire French region's worth of extra conquest, not limited at 50 LA. In just South+Mesoamerica that tripled from 104 to 312 BT.

Native colonization was nerfed hard, but the value of native conquest has increased beyond that. In player hands, at least.

Ignore the specific ideas in the OP, I was still buzzed after a night out :laugh: -- my point is that the design of autonomy floors is more problematic than the balance of them.

 

[radiatoren]

But, except in the case of hordes, it is necessary. Ming and the Americans have had a ridiculous increase in effective base tax that's accessible before the Europeans can even touch it; by my count, the Americas jumped from 213 to 502 BT of preowned, uncolonized land in 1444 -- more than an entire French region's worth of extra conquest, not limited at 50 LA. In just South+Mesoamerica that tripled from 104 to 312 BT.

Native colonization was nerfed hard, but the value of native conquest has increased beyond that. In player hands, at least.

Ignore the specific ideas in the OP, I was still buzzed after a night out :laugh: -- my point is that the design of autonomy floors is more problematic than the balance of them.

I love the autonomy system. I think it is a huge step foreward as a mechanic. When that is said, changes in the autonomy-number still lacks further incorporation with other mechanics in the game and I am not sure the current implementation of floors are that useful in the longer run. As a temporary mechanism it has some merit, though it seems far too crude and annoying for particularly min/maxers.

Particularly in terms of Native colonizing it seems illogical and there may be better ways to represent the struggles more colonies caused, Ie. 100% autonomy after finishing a colony as a tribal government, with a floor of 90% unless you use decrease autonomy, after which the floor is 60% untill you decrease autonomy etc... In that way the delay in getting real value from the colony will be significant, given the 30 years between each buttom-push. As I see it, delaying the value from colonies is more important than reducing it since the game already has exponential increase on the economy by way of how trade increase with production and production with tax, together with the production and trade efficiency increases in technology.

As for Ming it should stand to reason that their empire is virtually unmanageable without some local autonomy. As for hordes it seems completely reasonable to have the government decentral and autonomous. Where else should the next Greyskin come from?

 

[ahyangyi]

I love the autonomy system. I think it is a huge step foreward as a mechanic. When that is said, changes in the autonomy-number still lacks further incorporation with other mechanics in the game and I am not sure the current implementation of floors are that useful in the longer run. As a temporary mechanism it has some merit, though it seems far too crude and annoying for particularly min/maxers.

Particularly in terms of Native colonizing it seems illogical and there may be better ways to represent the struggles more colonies caused, Ie. 100% autonomy after finishing a colony as a tribal government, with a floor of 90% unless you use decrease autonomy, after which the floor is 60% untill you decrease autonomy etc... In that way the delay in getting real value from the colony will be significant, given the 30 years between each buttom-push. As I see it, delaying the value from colonies is more important than reducing it since the game already has exponential increase on the economy by way of how trade increase with production and production with tax, together with the production and trade efficiency increases in technology.

As for Ming it should stand to reason that their empire is virtually unmanageable without some local autonomy. As for hordes it seems completely reasonable to have the government decentral and autonomous. Where else should the next Greyskin come from?

I'm still not convinced by the Ming unmanagable thing. Why is Ming special in local autonomy? Just because it's big? Then what happens if Ming gets reduced to a 50 basetax nation? Why should it still suck at autonomy?
On the other hand, why other countries, say the Confucianist Korea and the Confucianist Manchu, can rule China just fine?

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

I'm still not convinced by the Ming unmanagable thing. Why is Ming special in local autonomy? Just because it's big? Then what happens if Ming gets reduced to a 50 basetax nation? Why should it still suck at autonomy?
On the other hand, why other countries, say the Confucianist Korea and the Confucianist Manchu, can rule China just fine?

Because Ming without a penalty will just steamroll the entirety of Asia from the start every game. The others can rule it just fine because they first have to put work in to get that territory. It's true that if Ming loses terribly, the autonomy floor is no longer needed, though, nor does it have to remain the entire game.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

In other words, if "balance isn't the issue", then what purpose do autonomy caps serve? That is usually (very poorly) answered on a case by case basis, logic which then gets applied inconsistently into the game.

It makes controlling unrest very hard, they want rebellions.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

I'm still not convinced by the Ming unmanagable thing. Why is Ming special in local autonomy? Just because it's big? Then what happens if Ming gets reduced to a 50 basetax nation? Why should it still suck at autonomy?

It's a very vague abstraction for balance reasons. In a perfect world, we'd have a more complex representation of Ming/Qing provincial organization featuring xunfu and prefects, but...it's not a perfect world.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with Ming having high autonomy even at a small size. That's pretty much what happened in history after the Manchu invaded.

As far as the hordes go, @radiatoren: yeah, it's reasonable for the hordes to have higher autonomy, but not at the cost of getting nothing in return. Unlike the Ming and the Americas, they didn't get a serious BT boost.

 

[radiatoren]

I'm still not convinced by the Ming unmanagable thing. Why is Ming special in local autonomy? Just because it's big? Then what happens if Ming gets reduced to a 50 basetax nation? Why should it still suck at autonomy?
On the other hand, why other countries, say the Confucianist Korea and the Confucianist Manchu, can rule China just fine?

Veritas et Fortitudo.
The divine empire getting to 50 bt seems unlikely under normal situations and if it does, why would a government change save it? I assume the invaders have already won long ago when China is down to sub-50 bt. A Westernized Ming is ridiculously strong with the new provinces. As for other countries that is an interesting question. I would argue that except for vassal-feeding the new rebel-mechanics should hold the large expansion down unless some abuse of unrest can be done. That is a separate mechanic, but it should delay the expansion to anywhere near Mingsize for enough time to give Ming opportunity to reform. Ming is meant to be a paper-tiger in the beginning to stop their economy and army from exploding in size and their nation from blobbing too much.

 

[radiatoren]

It's a very vague abstraction for balance reasons. In a perfect world, we'd have a more complex representation of Ming/Qing provincial organization featuring xunfu and prefects, but...it's not a perfect world.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with Ming having high autonomy even at a small size. That's pretty much what happened in history after the Manchu invaded.

As far as the hordes go, @radiatoren: yeah, it's reasonable for the hordes to have higher autonomy, but not at the cost of getting nothing in return. Unlike the Ming and the Americas, they didn't get a serious BT boost.

Hordes for sure got more difficult to play as and they could use some help to survive for a little longer than before. However they can expand more freely than others with the awesome CB they get and since rebellious peasants aren't as much of an issue for 100% horses, they will probably get quite a lot easier access to the extra basetax from the other hordes. I won't pretend they got appropriately compensated. They are going to be a very tough challenge to play unless you are lucky and get a government reformation.