I don't understand this. Why is it that one of the most centralized empires in the world can't have below 50% provincial autonomy?
Celestial Empire means that a province can never be below 50% autonomy.WHAT?
- Thread starter darthfanta
- 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.
Because, an unhandicaped china would be in europe in 1500 bordering russia and ottomans
In the stream, Wiz use this as the reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Ming_dynasty#Taxation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Ming_dynasty#Taxation
There was some explanation on the stream (can't recall exact statement).
Reasons mentioned:
Balance (increased BT + number provinces for Ming in AoW).
I'm rather more annoyed by the horde low cap of 25%
Reasons mentioned:
Balance (increased BT + number provinces for Ming in AoW).
I'm rather more annoyed by the horde low cap of 25%
Still pretty ridiculous. Ming didn't increase taxes because the government thought it would be a bad for the economy, it wasn't because they can't do it or anything.
Well, you can westernize and lost the limits...
Also, there is the faction system...
At least these two are what I take as 'counter' for the autonomy cap, if I take Wiz word correctly...
From that wiki page: "When the Wanli Emperor sought to increase the salt tax, his measures were opposed by violence and the eunuchs he sent to collect the tax were beheaded by local officials."
I think it can be very much argued that there was a huge amount of local autonomy and that they couldn't increase taxation.
Because China either needs some very hefty internal mechanics to tie it up in itself, or just plain old nerf.
Since making such mechanics for a single country is way too much, you can easily guess what will happen.
Since making such mechanics for a single country is way too much, you can easily guess what will happen.
Wanli was a bad example. By then, the Ming Empire was in steep decline.Wanli's eunuchs were also deeply corrupt. They go around the provinces and extort the local people and officials alike for bribes.Pretty much the entire empire hates their guts.
What? you want historical accuracy or even plausibility? that ship has sailed my friend. Welcome to the tyranny of equality...er I mean "balance"
Wiz said that if China westernizes they become an incredible super power and they can drop autonomy lower. They tripled the province count in China, why in the world would you want them to run at full potential early on?
/thread
/thread
It's part of the Celestial Empire mechanics, which already give similar severe penalties in the current version of the game. In the next patch they're simply folding a lot of the CE mechanics into the autonomy system. Can still be countered with the factions, most likely.
No, the entire internal perfection and faction system is reduced in magnitude (ie less extreme), so its more like the merchant republic factions. Previously you ALWAYS had to switch when you wanted to tech or war or core or get a heir, which made switching factions system with points a necessity rather than a meaningful choice.
The 50% autonomy will remain in place until westernisation, or until Qing comes over.
Historically speaking, China DID have a lot of local autonomy (I wrote an undergraduate research paper on this,so I like to believe that I know something, but please correct me if I'm wrong).
The confusion comes from the fact that when we say "centralized", we really mean two different things. One is we mean centralized as in a unitary state as opposed to a federal state (France vs. the USA vs. Switzerland) in which the government's sovereignty over its people belongs more to the central government or to local governments. The other is centralized in terms of the actual government; a country that does its actual governing at the central level vs at the local level.
In Europe, it was very rare for a country to rate differently on these two scales, so the distinction rarely came up. But historically in China, the emperor had the sole legal right to rule, but in practice allowed a huge amount of autonomy for local regions, to the point where the central governments main sources of revenue were things like the salt tax, which was essentially a trade toll, instead of directly taxing the peasants.
For perspective, during the Meiji restoration, the tax burdens on Japan's peasantry, which were previously at comparable levels to that Chinese peasants paid, increased between five- and tenfold depending on the region and still ended at a level that was normal for European states. As an aside, the fact that Chinese peasants basically did not have to pay taxes is the reason why average incomes in China were comparable to those in Europe as late as the Qing dynasty, even though China's decline had begun in the late Ming dynasty, or possibly even earlier in the Mongol conquest.
That raises the question, however, whether this is just a legal issue that exists only on paper or whether the emperor would have actually been able to greatly raise taxes if he so desired. The Ming and Qing never attempted either of those, but the Sui dynasty was deposed in part for attempting exactly that (in addition to losing a war with Korea), so it seems that, while the emperor in theory could raise taxes, it was a power he lacked in practice. In fact, the best example of a state that was influenced by China's government raising taxes in this way is, again, Japan's Meiji restoration, which is the poster child for Westernization, so it seems fair to require Westernization to remove this restriction.
That said, if we want to be VERY historically accurate, autonomy should be very difficult to increase. While by 1800, China's government was unusually decentralized by European standards, in 1444 it was not at all unusual for states to have that degree of local autonomy. So it would make sense if in the early game, lowering below 50% province autonmy was actually a difficult achievement which got easier as the game progressed. For gameplay reasons though, this might not be ideal.
The confusion comes from the fact that when we say "centralized", we really mean two different things. One is we mean centralized as in a unitary state as opposed to a federal state (France vs. the USA vs. Switzerland) in which the government's sovereignty over its people belongs more to the central government or to local governments. The other is centralized in terms of the actual government; a country that does its actual governing at the central level vs at the local level.
In Europe, it was very rare for a country to rate differently on these two scales, so the distinction rarely came up. But historically in China, the emperor had the sole legal right to rule, but in practice allowed a huge amount of autonomy for local regions, to the point where the central governments main sources of revenue were things like the salt tax, which was essentially a trade toll, instead of directly taxing the peasants.
For perspective, during the Meiji restoration, the tax burdens on Japan's peasantry, which were previously at comparable levels to that Chinese peasants paid, increased between five- and tenfold depending on the region and still ended at a level that was normal for European states. As an aside, the fact that Chinese peasants basically did not have to pay taxes is the reason why average incomes in China were comparable to those in Europe as late as the Qing dynasty, even though China's decline had begun in the late Ming dynasty, or possibly even earlier in the Mongol conquest.
That raises the question, however, whether this is just a legal issue that exists only on paper or whether the emperor would have actually been able to greatly raise taxes if he so desired. The Ming and Qing never attempted either of those, but the Sui dynasty was deposed in part for attempting exactly that (in addition to losing a war with Korea), so it seems that, while the emperor in theory could raise taxes, it was a power he lacked in practice. In fact, the best example of a state that was influenced by China's government raising taxes in this way is, again, Japan's Meiji restoration, which is the poster child for Westernization, so it seems fair to require Westernization to remove this restriction.
That said, if we want to be VERY historically accurate, autonomy should be very difficult to increase. While by 1800, China's government was unusually decentralized by European standards, in 1444 it was not at all unusual for states to have that degree of local autonomy. So it would make sense if in the early game, lowering below 50% province autonmy was actually a difficult achievement which got easier as the game progressed. For gameplay reasons though, this might not be ideal.
There was some explanation on the stream (can't recall exact statement).
Reasons mentioned:
Balance (increased BT + number provinces for Ming in AoW).
I'm rather more annoyed by the horde low cap of 25%
The horde cap is absurd unless they undo one of the other > half dozen nerfs they've handed them. Why make fun nations to play continually less competitive and viable? Because herpscrubs think that Timurids are too strong because they're a horde, and not because PI screwed up the rivalry mechanic?
Sounds inane to me. France, England, and Muscovy are all too strong relative to the period's start (though in AI hands England gets owned by its terrible ruler and events). France reaches its historical borders over a century early in a lot of games. I know EU III Ming was ridiculous and that if you go too far you can shatter the region, but at the same time heavy handed nerfs to countries/regions that already perform poorly is difficult to justify using any lens, historical or balance.
That said, we don't know the full effects of local autonomy or how Ming will perform with the province changes. It might well be buffed relative to now.
Equality? More like "slopshod arbitrary distribution of countries that over or underperform wrt history on a consistent basis".
The penalties and faction system are getting reduced as well. While the specifics are not known, Paradox has stated that they do not want to make it a requirement to switch factions in order to get anything done.
Agreed.
I'm fine with particular nations not being competitive or even viable. Chimu was a doomed... well, I hesitate to even call it a state, so we'll say a doomed polity or set of polities. Equally, France was probably always going to dominate Europe, given how it contributed to a sixth of the European population at the time. I think creating plausible paths is probably more important than making everyone competitive. Currently, the Timurids don't lose Persia, ever, since about 1.6. That's not plausible, the horde was held together by little more than Temur's force of charisma, brutality and ingenuity, and the loyalty that inspired. This isn't to say there aren't some hordes which do implausibly badly - there definitely are, Muscowy hands it to Kazan far too early. But the key point is that it's not about making nations do well or badly relative to each other in a multiplayer scenario or what not, it's about making them do well or badly relative to history.
1. I'm not asking for nations to be equal. I'm asking for nations to be some combination plausible/playable.
2. Timurids is not the only horde FFS. Every time horde nerfs come up, all we hear is ONE ****ing NATION. It's like saying all of the western tech group is overpowered because France is overpowered, so obviously we need to nerf Alsace, hard. That line of thought is spectacularly awful, but using Timurids this way over and over is exactly comparable.
3. Your statement that they don't lose Persia since 1.6 is false. Ottomans tore into them in my LP, and a cursory glance of 10ish games in 1.7 on my save files shows them breaking up somewhat less than 1/2 the time.
4. Do you want plausible or do you not want plausible? France having its power so early isn't plausible. If you start going into historical railroading such as what France eventually became (and would it necessarily have been so, had the King of Burgundy situation gone differently?), you wind up with inconsistent and selective arguments. The Mughal and Qing empires are more tax-rich than the vast majority of these "Timurid blobs", which are usually size inflated by the giant provinces in the steppes. In other words, historically despite land lost both the Timurid dynasty and Manchu conquered *more* tax than Timurids get in a majority of games in 1.7, not less.
Even though the way they behave doesn't fit history perfectly, even the Timurids underperform generally. Forming the historical Mughals would make them much stronger than they usually are in the game. People are pretty much just complaining that they don't lose Persia and that they don't tag switch, which is kind of absurd in the face of utter bullcrap like Burgundian inheritance firing with a healthy dynasty there or "Scandinavia" forming from a solid Kalmar union. The selective *****ing over "hordes" when Timmy underperforms history is vexing, asinine, and hypocritical from most posters (I won't lump you in with them, but to give you context as to why I'm arguing this strongly).
BS. The Timurids/Persia thing is the best evidence that it's BS. Timurids didn't just have rebels create Persia out of nothing in history, their shaky situation caused them to be *conquered* in Persia. By a horde no less, and the horde that underperforms history the most out of all of them at that. It's a perfect opposite situation of Timurids, which usually outperform history, only even MORE consistent...yet almost nobody mentions it or complains. They just explain it away as part of gameplay, but afford no such derp argument to Timmy. No, we still get idiocy pushing for MORE horde nerfs rather than a Timurid-specific one or ffs just a fix to a broken mechanic (rivalry options for hordes and against them).
You want historical plausibility? Hordes are a great potential foil to a non-autonomy crushed Ming and to an ahistorically fast expanding trashcovy. They were a bit ridiculous when they could sack to 100 legitimacy and westernize while keeping their government, but we're closing on a year since that stuff was removed, and have seen them steadily nerfed (aside from buffs that helped ROTW globally) long after their strength is implausibly small in most cases.
Last edited:
EU is one of the most accurate computer games in terms of historical stuff, and it is amazing it manages to have over 500 000 sold copies with its level of nerdy stuff
If you really need ultra - realism so much, download mods or create some on your own.You don't like balance? Well, then have fun being exterminated every time you don't play as top global power.
Historically speaking, the reason China didn't even try to conquer the world was - excluding obvious pre-industrial logistic problems - mainly its culture/mentality/social system/according to some historians, no need to do that (I mean, if an empire is top global power for centuries with almost no dangerous rivals outside,
but with enormous population and frequent organisation problems, why the hell should it conquer all these angry Muslims or Japanese? Nobody could predict the anomaly of industrialization). Now try to simulate that in a computer game. Come on, invent some stuff which would make China not conquering Europe in 1500 while not being very frustrating for human player commanding China. Civil war every time you conquer some stuff? Invisible walls? Chains of ultra negative cultural events?
Some balancing stuff is needed to make the game playable. This is not simulation of the planet.
I'd assume it's more of a balance change than anything.
I'm not sure what penalties autonomy gives, but China got new provinces.
Considering it was already one of the richest areas in the game, I'm fine with this.
I'm not sure what penalties autonomy gives, but China got new provinces.
Considering it was already one of the richest areas in the game, I'm fine with this.