Which wouldn't matter at all with a manpower pool of 2m. Once those "barricades" are torn down, the world would fall rather easily. Hell, their WE wouldn't even rise a bit from the attrition.
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.
Which wouldn't matter at all with a manpower pool of 2m. Once those "barricades" are torn down, the world would fall rather easily. Hell, their WE wouldn't even rise a bit from the attrition.
You know as well as I do that there's no way any Asian nation would be able to have more than three hundred thousand manpower in 1444 within this game even if Ming provinces are tripled,probably much less than that even.
Last edited:
Of course Ming's magnificant beaucratic system should be admired. Any new conquered land instantly gets administrated like how Nanjing or Beijing does! (50% autonomy) [/sarcasm]
Even if provincial level nerf on Ming is necessary (I doubt it somehow), linking it with province autonomy is not a good idea. Better introduce seperate mechanisim.
Even if provincial level nerf on Ming is necessary (I doubt it somehow), linking it with province autonomy is not a good idea. Better introduce seperate mechanisim.
It would be useful to know specifics on province autonomy vs rebel function (parameters, not just the gist), as it would help to determine whether we're looking at a relative buff or nerf. For example if this is in lieu of inward perfection and you're not luck ****'d at random by mandate of heaven lost due to an event, this + tax changes could be viewed as a buff. We'll see.
Fixed that for you. Feudal era in China completely ended in 223 BCE, 1500 years prior to Europe. The aristocracy were either exterminated or incorporated into the court, making nobles less powerful than nobles in European absolute monarchy in 18th century.
What we need is an administrative efficiency to represent difficulty in ruling a huge empire. Provinces further away from capital should have much less manpower, tax, and production and high RR so that Ming doesn't have much extra strength to expand further.
Local Autonomy does not require a strong aristocracy. There're quite a few modern western states with a high level of "local autonomy". I expect Ming to be stronger than before, especially for the AI, which was simply unable to handle the factions at all.
The AI does not care about attrition. It already happily clumps up all troops into 100k+ doomstacks walking around and bleeding men to death. Hell, it no longer views scorched earth as impassable walls either. Attrition would only slow the advance westward, maybe, but it certainly wouldn't contain Ming.
Ming didn't have a high level of local autonomy. Provinces were ruled by civil administrators sent on a fixed term to rule a district with strict surveillance from the central government in accordance to universal laws applied across China. Even Japan in Edo period were more centralized than contemporary Europe.
This is true. I think we just have to get over the terminology being used and just look at the gameplay balance. While it wasn't 'autonomy' that hampered the Ming, it was policy and corruption. Now I know people will bring up corruption not being unique to China and this is absolutely true. An example is France in the 16th century who was lucky to get even 25% of their collected money to the king due to extreme corruption despite high taxes. This wasn't resolved until Louis XIV. Paradox has a funny way of turning a blind eye to European 'backwardness' in the game.
From what I see it works this way.
Autonomy is modifier to the manpower,tax,etc. (efficency). It rises during (conquest, occupation bla,bla,bla) and lowers automatically each period of time (year?) depending on the type of the government. (completely random number - for example Feudal Monarchy lowers by 1% LA each year while Administrative Republic by 4% etc)
Unrest is not affected by the autonomy level. Unrest is affected by the fact of either lowering or raising autonomy (similiar to the liberty desire, raising or lowering tariffs affects liberty desire, but actual tariff level does not affect liberty desire).
Autonomy is modifier to the manpower,tax,etc. (efficency). It rises during (conquest, occupation bla,bla,bla) and lowers automatically each period of time (year?) depending on the type of the government. (completely random number - for example Feudal Monarchy lowers by 1% LA each year while Administrative Republic by 4% etc)
Unrest is not affected by the autonomy level. Unrest is affected by the fact of either lowering or raising autonomy (similiar to the liberty desire, raising or lowering tariffs affects liberty desire, but actual tariff level does not affect liberty desire).
Which you could (not sure if Paradox is going to do this, mind) by giving europeans a very high starting local autonomy in most provinces, and then having the various decisions/buildings/time, etc.) decrease it.
That's not quite true though: The post-tang era warlords acted pretty much like feudal lords, for instance.
And the end result of Ming raising taxes was the complete collapse of the dynasty.
Meanwhile europeans pretty consistently raised taxes over the period, and while there were disturbances, nothing on the scale of the fall of the MIng.
Because nobles aren't mobile. They can hole up in their castles. (which is why artillery is so important) but they can't just move away, since all their stuff is tied up in land and peasants.
Europe had nothing near the size of Ming. It's easy to forget how *grossly* misrepresented Ming is in terms of size/pop/density. You're talking about something that is significantly larger than a fully united HRE + France combined in land area. There is no European equivalent to that in the period, especially not when also factoring population density.
If you want to compare apples to apples, you would have to spank everyone with autonomy outside of primary culture after a certain size.
This is true of a few of the hordes in 1444 also. Sure, a regional noble could pick up and leave, but he'd be leaving quite a few assets behind.
However that's only true regarding size. And since large parts of Russia were almost devoid of any meaningful population it's a pretty rough comparison to china.
Russia only became competitive in size *much* later, and never even breathed the same air in population density to administer. It's a completely different scenario, but they were exactly who I had in mind for "especially when factoring population density". Russia was much later too IE only a fraction of the period, and it wasn't exactly pristinely efficient or without its own problems in the time period, some of them related to said size.
It would work better than the coalition/truce idiocy we had now, if those mechanics were altered to behave in a more sensible fashion. It would also allow one's economic development of already-owned provinces to carry more weight and create some incentive towards culture conversion.
I'm not sure of your point.
China during WWII was in a state of civil war with various warlords. In chaotic times, the central government's grasp of regional control slipped and warlords rose up for supremacy, but eventually when China was united it went back to a highly centralized government structure. Was China in 1940 a feudal society because "warlords acted pretty much like feudal lords?" You can't generalize a situation of civil war to norm. In addition, even when China was divided, when the intense fighting decreased, stabilized states all implemented traditional bureaucracy of China. Nobles as a powerful class equivalent to European aristocracy ceased to exist by 223 BCE when total war was waged all over China for more than 200 years and when traditional feudal states were eaten by highly effective centralized bureaucratic states.
Chinese local 'autonomy' was non-existent in presence of stabilized government. Warlord problem comes from the way the central government allowed authority to regional military commanders in order to deal with external threat effectively. As long as the central government's grip didn't slip, these military commanders didn't have any say on local administration.
Then again, what's your point? That unified Ming should have high local autonomy and strong aristocratic pretense because post-Tang warlords more than 500 years before Ming during civil war lacked proper centralized structure? That is very weird.
Last edited:
One wonders how China so many times after 223 BC seemed to break into bickering regional warlords with such alarming regularity. Perhaps there was something about the way it was administered that allowed regional governors to quickly obtain vast personal power in times of Imperial weakness, despite lacking a true feudal structure.
It's a worthy point, but that doesn't mean they should get this treatment "just because Ming". If anything, that it had periods of unity at that size makes it more impressive.