Sun_Zi_36 said:
i think tendency to spread is a bit different from the number of settlers. tendecy to spread is mostly covered by number of missionaries. there is a big difference between settling and converting. for Hindu, in fact, they did settle overseas areas. Champa is an example. i also dunno whether pagan should get too much penalty. afterall, greek, phoenicians, micronesians, melanesians, etc did colonise quite a lot. for the same reason being sunni doesnt necessarily mean more settlers. more missionaries definitely.
uh... the ahistorical results caused by Sunni missionaries is the whole reason that this thread got started. Giving Sunni bonus missionaries causes ahistorical conversions in northern India and in the Balkans. The Sunni conversions that happened in this era are adequately covered by events, both random and scripted.
Sun_Zi_36 said:
i think taxation infrastructure is more related to infra tech. tax penalty is due to tendency of Confucian ideals putting particular pressure on rulers who are harsh on the people, eg imposing high taxes.
OK, perhaps a tax penalty is in order. But maybe a random event for Confucian nations should be scripted to address this situation? Give the ruler a choice between losing some taxvalue or losing stability/gaining revoltrisk?
Sun_Zi_36 said:
on the other hand while confucianism disfavour merchants, they are not that particularly disfavourable when compared with other religions, eg catholicism used to disfavour commerce and islam forbid charging interest for lending money, etc.
I definitely disagree. In practice, neither of these religions prevented the flourishing of major merchant houses. Such a thing never happened in China. In fact, successful merchants in China often abandoned trade altogether and used their wealth to become landowners so that they could climb the social ladder. And of course both China and Japan actively supressed external trade at several points in this time period. These effects should be reflected in a large trade penalty.
Sun_Zi_36 said:
i'll change diplomats to -180. that way confucian countries will get 4.2 diplomats per year max in peace and 5.2 diplomats max at war. it will start getting more than 1 diplomat (1.2) in peace if its normal monarch rating its 5 with max aristocracy. in fact this is a good disincentive to choose the naval option.
That's still too harsh in my opinion. For me, anyway, this would create the opposite incentive.
"Jeez, even if I push my slider all the way right, I still only get a trickle of diplomats. I may as well go plutocratic for the other benefits, and take advantage of the hard minimum of one diplomat per year." I think -100 is the limit of reasonable effects.
Sun_Zi_36 said:
so my new suggestions to modify doktarr's proposal would be:
trade eff
confucianism -10
I still say at least -15 here, maybe -20.
Sun_Zi_36 said:
tax income
confucianism -15
maybe a bit less tax penalty, but a religion-specific random event?
Sun_Zi_36 said:
buddhism -10
morale
confucianism -20
colonist
Confucianism -100
Buddhism -100
Hinduism -50
Shiite -50
Sunni -30
diplomats
conficianism -180
Again, I think -100 is the most isolationist you can go before you start to disincentiviize Aristocracy.
Sun_Zi_36 said:
buddhism -50
missionary
confucianism -70
buddhism 50
sunni 100
Again, no missionaries for Sunni. If anything, give them slightly negative. They will have "heretics" and "Sufi mystic" events, in addition to all the nonrandom events in Turkey and Indonesia, which will allow for a historic rate of conversion.