Centralized versus Decentralized: Not balanced?

[Secret Master]

I've played through a few full games now, and I've begun wondering about the Centralization slider. Looking at the benefits, it seems that there is no real reason to be decentralized.

Centralizing increases tax and production, decreases research speed, and lowers the war exhaustion maximum. Decentralizing reduces income, increases research speed, and increases the war exhaustion maximum.

Yet, if you look at the income increase/decrease and the tech research increase/decrease, it looks like your tech speed is changed the exact amount your income is changed by (i.e. -1% decrease to production and tax revenue, +1% increase to research speed for decentralizing). This results in no net increase or decrease to tech research speed. On the other hand, because of the income increase, centralized governments can mint more money if they have to than decentralized governments can. This makes it easier to build manufactories, which can dramatically increase research speed.

If you combine this with the war exhaustion benefit of centralizing, it seems that there are no practical benefits of being decentralized. Is this intentional, or is there something I am missing?

 

[FAWS]

That's true if taxes and production income dominate your tech investments, but centralization doesn't increase trade income tolls, vassal tributes etc., and neighbour bonuses and monarch abilities (and possibly advisors) are more important that budget investments in tech for small countries anyway.

Overall centralisation is better for large, backwards empires (if production efficiency is low and trade income non existant tech speed can actually behigher than with decentralization) And decentralization better for small trading countries.
I'm not sure it should be this way, intuitively the other way round makes more sense to me.

 

[unmerged(8351)]

There are events to consider too.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

It is not supposed to be balanced.

Centralization is better, but it comes at the cost of stability (for slider moves) and penalties with event choices (where other choice is decentralization).


In HoI2 for example, interventionalism-isolationalism is extremely unbalanced. Consider centralization-decentralization as a lite version of that.

 

[OutsiderSubtype]

This is designed to simulate the dynamic you saw in places like France, where monarchs were trying desparately to centralize to overcome the effects of feudalism. Remember, this period saw the transition from medieval fiefs to modern nation-states.

 

[unmerged(68610)]

it seems that there are no practical benefits of being decentralized. Is this intentional, or is there something I am missing?

I am guessing this is intentional. Growing centralization was one of the defining features of the early modern period. States that succeeded (England, France, Prussia) became strong and successful national states. States that failed (Poland), failed.

Also, there are events ("cities demand old rights" etc) which give you a choice between more decentralization and lower stability. If decentralization wasn't a bad thing, you would prefer it to the stab hit every time.

Overall centralisation is better for large, backwards empires (if production efficiency is low and trade income non existant tech speed can actually behigher than with decentralization) And decentralization better for small trading countries.

And yet that's exactly how it has been historically: large empires like Russia and China strived to centralise under a strong emperor (and were strong and successful insofar as they succeeded, e.g. under Peter the Great). Small trading countries like Holland and Switzerland were decentralized confederations.

The point presumably is that a small wealthy country can afford to be decentralized because it is sufficiently compact to hold together. Large backward empires that fail to centralize tend to fall apart.

 

[Secret Master]

I won't dispute the historical angle; I know the history behind various states centralizing.

I was just wondering because in EU2, there were at least SOME perks to being decentralized under some patches. It seems now that there are no real advantages to being decentralized, unless you are a one province minor (and even then, it may not make a difference).

Are there any bad events that you avoid being decentralized (or at least get longer MTTHs for)?

 

[SpiralPegasus]

I just double-checked to make sure, but I was right: Each point towards decentralized actually decreases tech costs at half the rate of a same point towards innovation. So decentralization leads to faster tech improvements than centralized.

 

[Grosshaus]

I just double-checked to make sure, but I was right: Each point towards decentralized actually decreases tech costs at half the rate of a same point towards innovation. So decentralization leads to faster tech improvements than centralized.

Well... that depends on the ratio of your income that comes from tax and production income opposed to other sources. If the income gain from centralisation offsets the raised costs of technology, then it is worth it.

 

[Therlun]

I just double-checked to make sure, but I was right: Each point towards decentralized actually decreases tech costs at half the rate of a same point towards innovation. So decentralization leads to faster tech improvements than centralized.

Indeed.
Decentralization decreases tech cost.

 

[Boblof]

I feel the opposite here, there is no ingame reson to go centralized, by going centralized you get more expensive tech and a little lower war exhaustion maximum (which is totally worthless anyway). the increase in tax and production doesn't really cut it since the increase in thoose departments is only the same size as the increse in tech costs.
finacially you can only remain on a status quo if your empire don't have any CoTs, no vassals, no gold and don't trade but you never go on the plus side no matter what really and the only thing you get in return is decresed war exhaustion maximum.
and then the events are made so that we should accept a stability drop to go centralized while decentralization is painless event wise.
there have to be some really bad decentralization events out there otherwise decralization is the only logical way to go.
the only positve thing I can see is that the increse in tax means more money in the beginning of the year to spend on stuff that will increase the nations income later.

 

[von Rosen]

Remember that production efficency is tied in to alot of game functions such as colonising and converting provinces. Production efficency also influences a lot of events. But seriously, the changes in slider values is such a great change from EU2. In that game you always knew exactly where you wanted all the sliders. This time you have to think before you click.

 

[N Katsyev]

"Balance" is really not applicable as the needs of every country, situation and style differ. Decentralization has some benefits (decreased tech time, etc.), centralization has some benefits. It's about what matters most in your game.

 

[unmerged(57561)]

Why would they need to be balanced?

Most countries start decentralized and centralizing them is a major long term task that soaks up slider moves.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

I've played through a few full games now, and I've begun wondering about the Centralization slider. Looking at the benefits, it seems that there is no real reason to be decentralized.

Quite right. What benefit could there be in having a weak government that isn't really in charge of anything?

 

[Baneslave]

Quite right. What benefit could there be in having a weak government that isn't really in charge of anything?

They can't be super corrupted and steal all your ducats for their own pockets?

Eh... Stupid joke, stupid time... Too tired..-

 

[unmerged(46195)]

Interesting discussion, and to high jack it a bit:

I really think the Offensive Defensive is a bit lopsided, +firepower and a boost to Moral is much better than a moral penalty, and a modest increase in seige. (Cheaper cannon is pretty much a joke, in terms of benefits.)

 

[unmerged(68955)]

Interesting discussion, and to high jack it a bit:

I really think the Offensive Defensive is a bit lopsided, +firepower and a boost to Moral is much better than a moral penalty, and a modest increase in seige. (Cheaper cannon is pretty much a joke, in terms of benefits.)

I agree on this one. I usually go for decentralization because I get 80% of my income from trade. But when it comes to defencive/offencive I always go for offencive. But there is also the factor that you can't change anything else if you change. So I often find other sliders more important to change even though other sliders are "unbalanced".

 

[DrunkenOne]

I agree on this one. I usually go for decentralization because I get 80% of my income from trade. But when it comes to defencive/offencive I always go for defencive. But there is also the factor that you can't change anything else if you change. So I often find other sliders more important to change even though other sliders are "unbalanced".

Why would you possibly go for defensive?

 

[unmerged(68955)]

Why would you possibly go for defensive?

When I said defencive, I of course ment offencive. Wasn't it obvious?