Are local autonomy floors needed at all?

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

Those same Americas allow a freed CN to completely dominate the entire thing and not endure a colony floor. USA or Mexico, as former CNs, get full value out of all that tax you just discussed, and can get started in earnest before native nations can. Also, we have no evidence of non-floored natives overperforming in a material way, and I will assert that PI doesn't either. If they'd tested extensively to really get a handle on THAT, we wouldn't see massive numbers of friendly rebels popping in every single game (if not for us than the AI).

It makes controlling unrest very hard, they want rebellions.

Isn't the inability to raise autonomy when you're nowhere near 100 a bug? It doesn't really make sense that the lower cap is also the upper, as some players have been reporting.

On a side note, nobody has actually managed to cite evidence that 1444 horde monarchies were materially different from European monarchies to the point of introducing a nerf limitation on them, and that's pretty mysterious given there's a 20+ page thread on it that includes developer comments. Sure, they could have been compensation...or they could simply have not been hit with the nerf bad without valid basis. That would have worked too.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Isn't the inability to raise autonomy when you're nowhere near 100 a bug? It doesn't really make sense that the lower cap is also the upper, as some players have been reporting.

I thought of that too but with all the hype around the LA and especially the 50% LA for colonies/Ming I could not wrap my head around the idea of PDS letting a huge bug like that slip unnoticed; I mean it has such a huge implication in-game and it is so easy to spot that if PDS did not noticed it then their pre-release testing quality is really, really, I mean really terrible (…) Anyway you are probably right but we wil see what Wiz has to say.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I thought of that too but with all the hype around the LA and especially the 50% LA for colonies/Ming I could not wrap my head around the idea of PDS letting a huge bug like that slip unnoticed; I mean it has such a huge implication in-game and it is so easy to spot that if PDS did not noticed it then their pre-release testing quality is really, really, I mean really terrible (…) Anyway you are probably right but we wil see what Wiz has to say.

Don't forget that this is released alongside the bug where friendly rebels pop up and just sit there eternally, which is readily observed in minutes of play in Manchu, near Russia (even for AI Muscovy), and a number of areas in west Africa.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

Those same Americas allow a freed CN to completely dominate the entire thing and not endure a colony floor. USA or Mexico, as former CNs, get full value out of all that tax you just discussed, and can get started in earnest before native nations can. Also, we have no evidence of non-floored natives overperforming in a material way, and I will assert that PI doesn't either. If they'd tested extensively to really get a handle on THAT, we wouldn't see massive numbers of friendly rebels popping in every single game (if not for us than the AI).

My wording was weird -- the numbers I counted are all from provinces that are already owned in 1444 and won't ever have an autonomy limit, migration aside. I.e. provinces that the Mesoamericans and Andeans are capable of conquering and reducing to 0% LA before the Europeans can.

Here's a rough abstract example of what I'm getting at: if a player-controlled native can conquer 250 more American BT in 1.8 than a player could in 1.7.3 (this is about what I've done so far), and if a native-held colony is now worth half a normal province (which is conservative given that colonies still hold full value in some aspects of the game, and non-colonies will often be above 0% LA), it would take 500 BT worth of colonies before the 1.7.3 player would catch up to the 1.8 player.

That doesn't excuse the automatic -50% LA for CNs and it doesn't excuse the use of a limit for the hordes, but in terms of Ming and American balance, both are in stronger positions in 1.8 even with the autonomy limit.

Isn't the inability to raise autonomy when you're nowhere near 100 a bug? It doesn't really make sense that the lower cap is also the upper, as some players have been reporting.

Yeah, I think you're right. Especially given that it doesn't happen consistently.

Seriously, though, that caught me off-guard when I started seeing my first reactionaries...

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Don't forget that this is released alongside the bug where friendly rebels pop up and just sit there eternally, which is readily observed in minutes of play in Manchu, near Russia (even for AI Muscovy), and a number of areas in west Africa.

Indeed but at least the LA thing is coherent with their love for arcade rebellions that leads to nations spawning from them!

 

[mgoetze]

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%.

That would be much too easy for Ming and completely excessive against hordes, though the horde idea could be interesting if it were 5% rather than 25%.

I love the overseas idea though, except I hate the Paradox definition of "distant overseas". So why not fix it - make all provinces gain (distance to capital)/10000 autonomy every month? That would be awesome. It would make more advanced governments a prerequisite for successfully admininstrating a large empire. Put it like that and I think it would be really awesome.

 

[Squirrelloid]

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

LA does affect FL, or I'd have FL over 25 with 40+ provinces as Kongo. I swear the only way I'm going to get survivable FL is forming a CN in SAmerica. (Had to colonize there anyway to westernize, because there's no longer a land connection around the coast to portugal/spain invasion/colonization points.)

Also, upon annexing a vassal, the increase in FL is barely noticeable because all those provinces start at 75% LA.

Wiki agrees, and the person who edited mentioned an observation to demonstrate. (Probably replacing the previous overseas modifier to FL from a province, except LA affects more than just overseas provinces now).

 

[mgoetze]

Wiki agrees, and the person who edited

That would be me. It's very easy to see: Load up as Burgundy 1444, force limit is 30. Increase Autonomy in every province, run the game for a month, force limit is 23.

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

LA does affect FL, or I'd have FL over 25 with 40+ provinces as Kongo. I swear the only way I'm going to get survivable FL is forming a CN in SAmerica. (Had to colonize there anyway to westernize, because there's no longer a land connection around the coast to portugal/spain invasion/colonization points.)

Also, upon annexing a vassal, the increase in FL is barely noticeable because all those provinces start at 75% LA.

Wiki agrees, and the person who edited mentioned an observation to demonstrate. (Probably replacing the previous overseas modifier to FL from a province, except LA affects more than just overseas provinces now).

Yes, I know that now, the exact workings weren't known at the time, and it wasn't stated anywhere that that would be the case.