Wat. Be it hordes or Russia, China had threats on its border more often than not in this period, and certainly before.
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.
Wat. Be it hordes or Russia, China had threats on its border more often than not in this period, and certainly before.
Am I reading that hordes will have a minimum of 25% autonomy, or that they will have a minimum of 75% autonomy? I missed the bulk of the stream.
25%, half of Ming's penalty. My understanding of autonomy is that a *floor* of 75% wouldn't be survivable (you'd at least want key provinces far below that).
I wouldn't want this to apply to all nations. I feel pretty safe in saying Chimu and Albania should basically be lose-states. I mean, I'd like every nation that had a plausible chance at surviving to be plausible, yes, so if you restrict your statement to that, I think we're in agreement.
You're talking to someone else, here. I said in my post I think some of the other hordes do too poorly - I specifically listed Kazan. I think those hordes should be 'buffed'.
I have an admittedly slightly smaller sample of 7 save games to at least 1650 since 1.7, and the Timurids lost Persia in one, and that was because of me. Regardless, if the Timurids kept Persia long enough for the Ottomans to get there, that already seems strongly implausible. They're in a prolonged civil war at game-start and on their last legs, which currently isn't even really modelled at all. They were pushed out of Persia within two decades of game-start.
I want plausible. I agree that France has too much power early game; they reliably take the Low Counties and parts of Italy in my 1.7 games, and it is very frustrating. I would like that changed. My argument is not "we should only nerf all of the hordes, that is all the game needs to be plausible", it is that "all nations should follow plausible paths, it is not plausible that Chimu should be a viable nation, therefore Chimu should not be a viable nation". I would agree to the argument "all nations should follow plausible paths, it is not plausible that France would control northern Italy as frequently and early as it does, therefore France should be reduced in power".
So this is largely the way I feel: if we make fixes 'country-specific', then it becomes perilously close to rail-roading. France didn't do well historically because of the fact it was France, that's tautological. It did well because of a combination of factors: high population, fertile land, geographical position, cultural and religious practices, and so on. Ideally, another country that was not France but did fit all these factors should also do as well as France, if our model is accurate. I would not want to see a Timurid-specific fix for the same reasons - it's close to rail-roading to pick out specific countries like that (for reference, I do indeed hate the Burgundian Inheritance event). What I would like to see is an understanding of why the Timurids lost Persia - no clear succession mechanism, no real system of nation-wide administration other than handing out regional posts to subordinates who couldn't be relied upon anyway, the fact the centre of government lay outside of the main Persian areas of population and meant there was no real way of keep an eye on events - and then see it so that any country which also fits those criteria fails. That may sometimes apply to another horde nation - actually holding areas outside of your horde's heartland should be be bloody difficult without essentially Persianization or Sinicization, an attempt to pick up the existing system of government, and in general a repudiation of the homeland in much the same way the Manchu elite did.
As I said, I don't want universal horde nerfs. I want a range of different horde buffs and nerfs, with each designed to bring them in line with plausibility.
The legalistic details pertaining to the death of Charles the Bold were sufficiently peculiar to the French duchies of the time, and had sufficient impact on the politics of the region and beyond that special events are the only reasonable way to arrange them within the context of EU4.; I will agree, though, that the details of the events as implemented are problematic.
Well, Albania is a mechanics abuse opening, but they did last much longer in reality and it's not IMPOSSIBLE that someone could have attacked the Ottomans before they fell. Chimu on the other hand never should have been a lose-state. They had one of the more populated regions there if I'm not mistaken, and were not guaranteed to fail as of 1444. In 1.8, the distribution of provinces and who owns them there will reflect that.
Yes, by Aq Qoyunlu. Who pushes them now? The biggest problem here is that nobody is willing to attack them.
However, plausible is not objectively quantifiable. Some of the things that actually happened in history were implausible, the inheritance being a good example, as well as Muscovy's rise or Aq Qoyunlu becoming the most powerful horde in that region from their position, or Manchu walking all over China because they were essentially allowed to do so. Chimu surpassing the Inca is *more* plausible than these actual historical outcomes, since it would only take one bad battle or even an accident killing their ruler to spark their civil war earlier.
And to a degree, this game eschews plausibility intentionally. Coalitions, truces, colonial range, war score, alliance mechanics, rivalry mechanics, army composition, and even *starting Terra Incognita* don't just challenge plausibility, they actively and openly spit in the face of plausibility. There is not a single nation in the game where rising to super power status is materially less "plausible" than how coalitions function, or that you can drag combat widths of artillery full speed across Siberia (nobody in the period had this technology, ever), or that hordes can't see Europe/SS Africa can't see Berbers/Europe can't see Asia. Compared to that, compared to nations shipping 3/4 of their FL abroad from Europe w/o consequence, Spain meeting Chimu instead of Inca is a TRIVIAL difference, not something that breaks plausibility in a material way.
If you're truly advocating for plausibility, you're talking about crafting an entirely different game full-stop, else we fall back to letting these nations do something.
? Hordes were basically monarchies.
China's province count was nearly tripled, and the basetax is probably somewhere around twice as high, even with the 50% autonomy penalty you'll have an endless supply of manpower and cash.
If cash ever somehow becomes an issue you can just pick up trade ideas, the tripled province count (which means tripled trade goods) is going to make trading ridiculously lucrative.
If cash ever somehow becomes an issue you can just pick up trade ideas, the tripled province count (which means tripled trade goods) is going to make trading ridiculously lucrative.
Last edited:
I think a great way of halting the Chinese giant would be to make it so that there's massive attrition penalties in the border provinces of China. Historically, when China tried to venture towards the south, like Burma during the reign of Qianlong,the problem isn't that they don't have the money or manpower to fight the war, it's just that most of their soldiers succumbed to tropical diseases.
Honestly,paradox might want to make it so that the entire area of southeast asia possess tropical diseases(attrition penalties) which only native powers have immunity over.
Honestly,paradox might want to make it so that the entire area of southeast asia possess tropical diseases(attrition penalties) which only native powers have immunity over.
Last edited:
While the Ming dynasty was highly centralized, local officials often had a lot of discretion in implementing policies decreed by the emperor. There is a Chinese saying, "the mountains are high and the emperor is far away (山高皇帝遠)" which illustrates the commoners view of local independence in official matters. There was also the problem of corruption, with some officials channeling taxes collected into their own pockets. So I think there is some historical basis in setting a cap onto local autonomy.
Gameplay wise, I am most hesitant in seeing a Big Ming Blob as it limits gameplay options. So for lack of a better alternative, I think the proposed setup in AOW is quite reasonable.
Gameplay wise, I am most hesitant in seeing a Big Ming Blob as it limits gameplay options. So for lack of a better alternative, I think the proposed setup in AOW is quite reasonable.
Except the problem of corruption in the absolute monarchies of Europe was just as ridiculous. The Chinese officials weren't the only ones channeling taxes into their own pockets.
Well, we are just talking about a local autonomy cap of 50% here, so my way of seeing it is that the celestial empire being a huge bureaucratic machine is unable to effectively control the daily operations on a local level, thus hampering their tax collecting ability.
Except it was actually far more efficient than the system used in contemporary Europe.The Europeans would have struggled even more with their system than Ming if they governed a landmass that's equally big.
Absolutely right. The 50% autonomy system being tied to the Ming government is pretty generous if you know much about Imperial China's late era economies. Ming had extremely low tax policies for the era and the majority of that nominal tax came from land. As derly2004 said earlier, corruption was an issue because of the Imperial salary system that would remain unchanged until late Qing. Government officials were not paid that well (at times being paid with 'peas'). The low salary tied in with the fact that the gentry owned over 25% of the land in China...corruption lowered the coffers of the state treasury. Since most of the state's actual income came from agriculture you can see how corruption lowered the wealth of the state.
While Ming China itself was immensely rich, the government was not and had many issues tied to non-payment to state employees (army & govt). Merchants and privatized industries became very wealthy during this time, but they were not a major source of income for the actual state. Merchants were considered the bottom of society as was in all Confucius influenced governments in the era (China, Korea & Japan).
I think the Paradox team is doing a nice job in trying to balance out gameplay and historical plausibility. Besides, we currently already have -50% taxes as Ming. The team is reworking the entire Inward Perfection mechanic for the expansion so we will see what it will look like. If anything it should be reflected that Ming China was immensely rich, but not efficient. We are already lucky that the "Little Ice Age" is downplayed in the EU series. If that were really implemented, and player would have a hard time trying to save China from collapsing.
On the other hand, I would love to try and salvage a collapsing Ming China.Would be fun to fight both the Jurchens and the peasant rebellions at the same time.
I've always thought tropical, arctic and steppe regions were far too easy to travel and conquer in EU4. It's absurd when Russia marches 100k men across Eurasia to make war in Manchuria.
In order to properly model Southeast Asia, though, you'd probably need some sort of unique mechanic, since many of those regions were only tenuously governed by a central authority. The Art of Not Being Governed by James Scott deftly illustrates state-building (or not-building) in that region of the globe.
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 stuffIf 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.
Some balancing stuff is needed to make the game playable. This is not simulation of the planet.
You know, it's really funny that when someone asks for the game to be more plausible or accurate, there are a handful of people on this forum that respond with similar comments as yours and TMIT's. These are straw men at best, as no one, ever, has asked for the game to follow a railroaded historical path... because it would rather obviously not be a game anymore.
As for your comments on realism. Well, the map may represent the general outline of various states at the time, but the game is far from being realistic. There is almost no representation of internal politics. Religion is a joke. Radio apparently exists in 1444 because world spanning empires are possible. Over extension, which is supposed to model the difficulty of managing a massive empire of various cultures is a joke. How Monarch Points function is poorly executed, and have minimal connection to realism. Also, the very notion that you can conquer a territory, and within a few years convert the culture, religion and national identity of the populace is also silly.
The list goes on and on, and I'm not even arguing that all of these be made more realistic. However, some of the 'features' are so ludicrous that it makes the game unfun for many players. So, please reconsider your comment about my motives/desires and rethink just how realistic this game is.
Ming gets huge maluses because in the timeframe, they collapse. Not weakened, but collapsed, as in they ceased to exist in the end of the timeframe. Without these maluses, they would conquer half of all Asia due to their strength.
It's kind of like the Timurids, who without the disadvantages of being a horde (succession crisises), would conquer the other half of Asia that Ming left behind.
It's kind of like the Timurids, who without the disadvantages of being a horde (succession crisises), would conquer the other half of Asia that Ming left behind.
Their collapse is not the reason they have balance modifiers. The gameplay balance is the reason so we avoid a Ming that conquers the world every time. Many governments collapsed and rose during the EU time frame and they do not have nation-unique governments or balance modifiers. It would be wonderful to see all of the historical Great Powers receive some type of balance modifiers like the Ming have. I am sure we could have a forum filled with examples of inefficiency, corruption and bad policy to reflect many nations in the time frame. Unfortunately, most of world is given vanilla "free passes" and allowed to just enhance their modifiers.
A player Ming can still own and China while it had a centralized government, regions were still very autonomous as many people have said and had low tax policies. I prefer to have Ming actually hopefully fall the the Manchu then to have Ming rampage across a continent.
Trust me, regions are no where as autonomous than in England,France and Spain for that matter.The local officials can give false reports to the emperor but can't actually defy them if an edict has been drafted.In case you don't know, the Ming Dynasty actually has MULTIPLE MASSIVE secret police networks throughout the entire empire implanted in various ranks of local governments,army units as well as within the populace itself.The secret police organizations include:Jinyiwei,Eastern Depot and Western Depot.Speaking of which, there was actually never a unified eunuch faction. Quite often, the Jinyiwei,Eastern Depot and the Western Depot where under the control of different eunuch factions who competed with each other.
Last edited: