So you didn't take mandate? If so why did you need tributaries on the frontiers?
Bigger nations must have more problems!
- Thread starter Roubik
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
So you didn't take mandate? If so why did you need tributaries on the frontiers?
Forming Qing does not demand that you have the Mandate. Or maybe they changed it at one point
I'm saying when I eventually take the mandate I obviously play the whole tributary game, but I remember one game going rather terribly because I took the mandate far too early, so since then I barely bother with it at all. I can't say I find the whole mandate system very compelling. If you take it early enough to assist in a rapid and easy conquest and China you'll probably create more problems for yourself, but the rewards for having it barely matter once you're big and it's mostly just annoying flavor at that point.
I personally think a world conquest should be possible within the EU4 timeframe, but there was no nation in history big and desperate enough to attempt it.
I mean, United Kingdom, Russia, Mongols, Ottomans, Spain, Roman Empire got really large, but nowhere near. The sheer cost and discipline required to run such a ginormous administration for such a long time would be prohibitively expensive and not just in money but in number of required like-minded people with the right skillset.
I don't actually think rebellions would be that much of a problem for a religiously and culturally tolerant empire, at least for a few decades, perhaps even centuries. After all, all large nations like China or France started out fragmented yet they keep their integrity for hundreds of years.
After a certain size, the "one faith/race/etc." approach stops being beneficial to growth of the empire, as history proves, but EU4 has the right tools to forge a nation capable of it.
The only thing I'd like to see is actually easier conquests if you tick all the proper boxes. Considering how really opressive most regimes were at the time, I don't think populations (and nobles) would mind absorption into a much bigger, more tolerant and economically powerful empire as much as they pretend to in EU4.
I mean, United Kingdom, Russia, Mongols, Ottomans, Spain, Roman Empire got really large, but nowhere near. The sheer cost and discipline required to run such a ginormous administration for such a long time would be prohibitively expensive and not just in money but in number of required like-minded people with the right skillset.
I don't actually think rebellions would be that much of a problem for a religiously and culturally tolerant empire, at least for a few decades, perhaps even centuries. After all, all large nations like China or France started out fragmented yet they keep their integrity for hundreds of years.
After a certain size, the "one faith/race/etc." approach stops being beneficial to growth of the empire, as history proves, but EU4 has the right tools to forge a nation capable of it.
The only thing I'd like to see is actually easier conquests if you tick all the proper boxes. Considering how really opressive most regimes were at the time, I don't think populations (and nobles) would mind absorption into a much bigger, more tolerant and economically powerful empire as much as they pretend to in EU4.
Last edited:
I'm just very confused, did you or did you not take mandate? If so, when? Afterwards how were you able to offset the mandate penalties while continuously expanding across Asia?
Forming Qing does not require taking the mandate at all. Only Yuan requires that.
Been over this already. Depends on the run, most resulting in mandate eventually being taken. The when may as well be phrased as "any time after Ming is gone or just about to be." But there is no hard when. As far as offsetting mandate penalties while expanding? Who cares, you can bear some penalties for a little while during expansion. I have never done some incredible power gaming feats of conquest min maxing every little thing. The scrutiny of your questions feels absurd relative to the actual experience of playing the game. It's as if you interrogated me about my US America's conquest game on how I managed to fight the higher development European powers in excruciating detail. You just play.
I'm asking what you did in the specific run where you conquered Asia. I wrongly assumed you took mandate asap because I was confused. I am asking so many questions because I do not understand how it is possible to take over Asia as EoC without a specific, clearly thought out strategy to prevent mandate tank. It's impossible to do so by "just playing."
Client states? Managing alliances, coalitions, meddling in foreign governments...
The most fun I ever had in this game was building up and developing Switzerland as a rich fortress in the mountains in a multiplayer game. Lending money to friends in their wars, often against each other. Offering Condottieri in the conflicts, fomenting unrest if they weren't paying money back. It's interesting how many of the tools are already in the game for non strict conquest play styles, they just can't be used with the current AI.
To me, the most annoying thing is not even that the player can blob (that just makes it boring for me, but I am not forced to blob, so what). It's that other countries blob and make my game hard if I don't (meh) and ahistorical (which sucks). The most notorious offenders are the larger powers with lots of opportunities to blob (Ottomans, France, Ming, Spain), but there's also regional, random blobs who just get a good start and then keep eating up everything around them over the following centuries, because once you are a little ahead nothing stops you. Mali in West Africa, Malawi or Swahili in East Africa routinely occupy most of their half of the continent if unchecked by the player. One of the Indian nations is quite likely to dominate the entire subcontinent with all others gone or reduced to some mountain provinces. I just played a game where the teutonic order ate up pretty much the entirety of eastern Europe between muscovy and the HRE and kept expanding, because it could. The only region in the world where nations don't just keep growing once they get a head start is the HRE due to the complicated set of restraints against blobbing there. Here you still find decent OPMs and strong minors with 2-5 provinces after 1750, while 80% of the rest of the world is distributed between maybe 8 countries.
I understand that blobbing AI is necessary so blobbing players still get challenged in the late game. Without a significant Ottoman or Russia blob to fight there's probably not much challenge left for a player who already conquered half of the world. But playing a tall regional power outside of the HRE that is not aiming to expand too much, but has other goals in mind, currently feels underwhelming because at some point one of the blobs comes knocking and you can either restart, or ally another blob and play piggy in the middle - although historically there should be no larger power even close to you at that point in time.
I understand that blobbing AI is necessary so blobbing players still get challenged in the late game. Without a significant Ottoman or Russia blob to fight there's probably not much challenge left for a player who already conquered half of the world. But playing a tall regional power outside of the HRE that is not aiming to expand too much, but has other goals in mind, currently feels underwhelming because at some point one of the blobs comes knocking and you can either restart, or ally another blob and play piggy in the middle - although historically there should be no larger power even close to you at that point in time.
So you pretty much played the United States of Ame...Switzerland
I think I had more of a "United Cantons of Rothschild" in mind
MP are very different from SP. In SP, it is not that interesting to be the bank of the IA wars.
Moreover, what is the point of managing alliances if the frontiers are already set by 1500? How could you have coalitions if you don't blob? Client stats come with dip level 23, so around 1700. It is very late. The vassals' management is already a thing.
That's why we need mechanics on internal politics and management.
No, thats why we need a different game.
I like playing stuff like city builder and other management simulators and im allways looking for new ones.
But not at the cost of the current EU4.
Why does EU4 not need any internal management mechanics when there is virtually none? How is EU4 a game that doesn't need it?
In its current form with the basic game outline there is nothing that can be added to make management any interesting without having it devolve into
1. Rebel hell just because you are big.
or
2. Microintensive stuff for little payoff because it has to be done on a province by province basis.
Something like the state/raiseLa/unstate trick just way worse.
or
3. Contrived arbitrary restrictions based solely on fantasy mechanics
or
4. Little sense of progress since the stuff you achieve gets watered down and pawned of to some Ai governor.
If you want to have a game like EU4 but with dedicated, delicate and complex internal management
then the scope needs to be narrowed down.
Playing a game like that on a world wide map isnt likely to work out in any enjoyable way.
It would make much more sense to have the game focus purely on say Europe, with any colonization or colonial conquests either being abstracted into numbers or they happen on seperate maps.
A game with a similar concept is Earth 2150. After finishing individual missions to completion and returning to base you will still receive the ressources you left behind.
It could even be some combination of GSG with City builder were you play mainly on a continent wide map but important cities need to be build on site Caesar3 style.
I would disagree on it because you miss one of the opportunity: give advantage to smaller that big doesn't have. For example: adjust the estate mechanics to make it easier to milk mana from a smaller kingdom than from a bigger by joining the ''give monopoly charter and cie'' a link with a scalling % of dev. Keep the same value until 300 dev, and then the result in loyalty will decrease by some mathematical result (something like: Loyalty= +15 - 0.1(Number of development-300), with a floor of 5). It would force big empire to give more land to the Estate to keep milking them (thus, giving less benefit from the newer development) or just stop milking them for Monarch point.
This is only an idea, but you get the picture maybe. It would be the same logic than with Prussia: great bonus while small, but you lose it progressively if you go bigger.
Do you know you can not give estate to territories? In term of % control of a country, the estates are looking at the statified provinces development. So you have to authorize estates on territories (but in that case, the 75% autonomy is nothing) if you want to go there.
- Status