Chinese "cheats" going a bit far...

[Inochi]

I know you want it to be a "monster", but if your AI team can't handle to make it dangerous and you already resort to any war army of theirs being 3 times your size - and maybe calling all their tributaries on you - can you NOT give them attrition resistance?!

I played Tibet, mounted a defense and won against half their 45k doomstack with 15k due to mountainous defense. However ultimately you got no chance if 20k tributarries come to you and the Chinese lost ONLY 500 men to attrition - of out of SUPPLY!

I am Tibet and I die in my own winter mountains which give the owner up to 7k. But apparently China owns modern equipment of the 20th century that would make Napoleon and Hitler jealous. 40k in max 6k mountains.

I myself lost 5k to sudden winter... in my CAPITAL! Just to mount an army to fight them 'maybe'.

I don't mind a monstrous dragon and I love me a fair fight. But the attrition resistance of event troops is downright cheating. Especially if it makes YOU less efficient in your own homeland than the damn -30% hostile holdings enemy by a factor of 1:10. At this point the game become a blatant cheat due to lack of AI programming ability.

The Mongols needed it to get a foothold. China does NOT!


How about cultural specific event troop resistance and focus on conquest?

Mongols: No stack attrition in Steppes/Plains etc. but in forests and mountains. Makes them focus on all but Tibet and the later Europeans with their initial doomstack. Make them chose wargoals respectively.

China: Sure give them attrition resistance... in Silk Road provinces and flatlands! I don't want to see them with barely a sniffle on Mount Everest ever again. 40k... quite the climbers party.

 

[Drakridr]

I know you want it to be a "monster", but if your AI team can't handle to make it dangerous and you already resort to any war army of theirs being 3 times your size - and maybe calling all their tributaries on you - can you NOT give them attrition resistance?!

I played Tibet, mounted a defense and won against half their 45k doomstack with 15k due to mountainous defense. However ultimately you got no chance if 20k tributarries come to you and the Chinese lost ONLY 500 men to attrition - of out of SUPPLY!

I am Tibet and I die in my own winter mountains which give the owner up to 7k. But apparently China owns modern equipment of the 20th century that would make Napoleon and Hitler jealous. 40k in max 6k mountains.

I myself lost 5k to sudden winter... in my CAPITAL! Just to mount an army to fight them 'maybe'.

I don't mind a monstrous dragon and I love me a fair fight. But the attrition resistance of event troops is downright cheating. Especially if it makes YOU less efficient in your own homeland than the damn -30% hostile holdings enemy by a factor of 1:10. At this point the game become a blatant cheat due to lack of AI programming ability.

The Mongols needed it to get a foothold. China does NOT!


How about cultural specific event troop resistance and focus on conquest?

Mongols: No stack attrition in Steppes/Plains etc. but in forests and mountains. Makes them focus on all but Tibet and the later Europeans with their initial doomstack. Make them chose wargoals respectively.

China: Sure give them attrition resistance... in Silk Road provinces and flatlands! I don't want to see them with barely a sniffle on Mount Everest ever again. 40k... quite the climbers party.

Yea I honestly think that should be changed, or maybe do a attrition reduction for china but still give them attrition, they outright do not need that resistance... and maybe Tibet needs some sort of extra attrition reduction within their own land? I kinda find it hard to believe Tibet can't find the right ways to minimalize their attrition and lack the equipment, in contrast to china who are taking on a whole other animal in the Tibetan mountains... Especially since Tibet owns that land.

 

[A1vin]

I guess they reduced / removed attrition due to the AI not being smart enough and thereby easily abusable. If the AI can't handle the attrition they should either upgrade it, or rework the attrition system.

A short while back I made an suggestion of adding supplies bar to units (somewhat like the loot bar). While the units are in an area where there were more supplies than needed, they would replenish, and it would be consumed if the province did not have enough. That way the AI (and players) would have a buffer, to reduce the chance of abuse as well as relive some of the frustration of an AI marching trough a province causing attrition to you. Raiding and besieging could also replenish supplies.

I hate when the AI gets to cheat for the purposes of "balancing" (compensating for poor AI).

 

[Inochi]

That system is in Total War Britannia. However the current one (attrition after x days without friendly holding) would be fine... if it was more punishing. You lose like 0.1% attrition after a month out of supplies. That is a joke.

And the supplies replenish by raiding/sieging hostile lands/visiting friendly lands/winning battles. So the only time this is an issue is marching TO the enemy if they are FAR FAR AWAY, or when you really avoid those battles in borderlands and run like an idiot to foreign peaceful land.

It is so easy to counteract that it SHOULD be vamped up. That way the Pope marching to Khazaria - while half of Europe is Germanic or Muslim but THIS kingdom is important for crusade because the PLAYER owns it! - would die of hunger before he reaches there.
This would force PDS to finally give the AI a less hostile attitude to foreign regions due to "lack of access" for troop supplies, makes coalitions weaker due to distant members not able to assist - if they got a brain and stay in friendly lands for food.

But no... cheats it must be and the main issue - illegal crossing of non friendly borders with ZERO repercussions - will also continue as the supply debuff is weak as heck.

 

[Fire6all]

Thanks. I agree and I laughed a lot. I think that Chinese cheat must be done in order to always tend on white peace, nothing more

 

[Jaevelklein]

I just ran as Zoroastrian. Got like 10 vice royalties under me. 100G monthly income and 100 000 soldiers including my holy order raised without any mercenaries bought as of yet. But I can't become Saoshyant. Why? Because the Western Protectorate owns a barony title in one of my dejure counties. The Western Protectorate is a giant blob as well [currently in a civil war], but only a third of my size. They can muster about 40 000 excluding their tributaries. No events of China suffering for the last 100 years or so. I go to war anyway. But before I did so, I spent my grace on hiring good Chinese siege engineers. Meanwhile this was going on, one of my Viceroys fights a holy war of his own against the Western Protectorate. So me (Emperor), my Viceroy and an ongoing civil war. 60% warscore for me. What happens? China sends a doomstack of 100k to assist him. Of course these guys don't care about my Viceroy or the ongoing civil war at all. No they all gang up on me. I fight them off anyway since they split up like fools and attacked me under defensive terrain. 94% warscore and the civil war suddenly ends with my fight now being invalid and cancelled. I wasn't very pleased about it. Honestly, all this just for a holding in a county which I already own. Low on money with my vassals hating me, I'm stuck playing the turtle game to recover. I redo the event this time without an ongoing civil war, but once again I'm forced to white-peace out. Why? Because China is always prospering and always send their doomstacks to assist the Emperor of the Western Protectorate. And then the Black Plague comes, of course. Point is this Western Protectorate guy is too hard when he can just swallow others up and expand uncontrolled. Anyone who dares to question him will be met with the wrath of China (Yes, he asked me for a peaceful subjugation, but I refused and China sent a doomstack against me). If they [his "vassals"] were his tributaries, sure, but he shouldn't be able to expand the way he is with King tier vassals. One Hindu vassals was even stronger than him, capable of mustering 44 000 soldiers. It makes the game way too hard. Some opinion penalty modifiers towards him [The Western Protectorate] at the very least is necessary imo. Or something to peacefully ask for the control of a holding without having to fight a 100% warscore battle for it. If a war is still to be fought, they should surrender earlier (70%). It's just a far-away barony anyway. Or the warscore should have reached 80% just by sieging the holding [territorial priorities] instead of like 11% with the rest of his territory being miles away. After all, it's only a holding I'm fighting for, not a duchy or kingdom...

 

[Inochi]

The tributary by life mechanic (allowed to be called in war) is definetly wrong here. The game handles them as a tributary state afterall! It is a Protectorate, not a march. Yet you still pay China a huge income part and remain tribut. So China gets effectively BOTH tributary types in one for their "colonies". That is surely another part of making them a "potential" monster - yes I saw them crumble under many crisis, but dare you if NOT.

Also members of the protectorate are automatic allies, even against other tributaries. So if you saw Kabul and Rajastan murdering each other yesterday in holy war, tomorrow they defend each other against your small conquest of a province. Makes zero sense and at least for us roleplayer is a sure way to kill immersion... in a game meant to focus on roleplay and atmosphere. Great job...

In the end all odds are stacked "Pro-China" mostly by lack of AI programming - either will, time or ability. The only way to escape their insanity is to become Taoist. If you manage that they seem to leave you alone nearly 90% of the time. Even though you would expect China preferring Han/Taoist for permanent expansion over unruly and unreliable - as they SHOULD be - tributaries and vassals. Yet I never saw ANY state more loyal and ready to fight for a ruler than a Chinese tributary.