Government Capacity too low

[giovdb]

I like the idea of Government Capacity, and I know the point of it is to limit expansion. BUT, it's TOO restrictive right now. At first I thought it wasn't going to be a big deal because you can pay 20 government reform points to increase capacity by 20. But I didn't know is that 20 capacity is nothing. It doesn't even cover a full state... not even by half if it's a decent state. And the ever-increasing cost each time you do it adds up way too fast. In the previous system, it took a while to get to the point where you had double the states in territories. Now some nations already start at their caps, while others can get there within a war or too. It's far too restricting. Not to mention that malus from going over is FAR worse than corruption. Corruption was only money, this is money (advisors), increased AE, and increased monarch point usage. It's far too devastating.

Here are some possible solutions:

1) Drastically increase the starting capacity. At least double.
2) Either increase the amount of capacity you get from spending gov reforms points, or decrease or eliminate the increasing cost (I think 20 for 20 in perpetuity is fair... those points are precious).
3) Decrease the amount of capacity used by states.
4) Decrease maluses for going over cap (I think the other options are better fixes)

What are your thoughts?

 

[Franconian]

Something like that is cleary needed. When AI formed HRE in 1550, they went bankcrupt in a decade. Loans spirralled without a war to over 40k for them - probably because they have to be so massively over the cap...

 

[Canute VII]

I don't really agree there's a problem. However, that really depends on play style

From what I have seen, each estate can give you 100 governing capacity if you grant them the corresponding priviledge. Maybe there should be some scaling governing cost reduction based on % land held by the estates?

 

[ImperatorRoman]

If you use Courthouses and Town Halls Government Capacity is fairly easy to manage, in my experience.

 

[giovdb]

I bet everyone who disagreed has only played small nations or hasn't played far into the game. I'm not sure if a WC is possible with the current set up. I'd be curious to see screenshots of people with very large empires with GC under control.

 

[Zephyrum]

The 20 increase truly is nothing, so I agree here. Specially for countries who can't just become an Empire quickly enough. Not really a fun mechanic to handle.

Also, it also disencourages actually taking times without fighting wars. Developing provinces mean they take more government capacity, which is atrocious to handle.

 

[giovdb]

The courthouses help, but not enough... the manufactury also helps but it's expensive. The estates giving extra capacity is nice, but it requires you to lose crown land, so it takes time to enact them, and by the time absolutism comes around you'll likely abandon these... but it's the time you'd need them most. So you have to trade 15 absolutism for 300 capacity... terrible.

 

[SneakBug8]

Something like that is cleary needed. When AI formed HRE in 1550, they went bankcrupt in a decade. Loans spirralled without a war to over 40k for them - probably because they have to be so massively over the cap...

Being over cap doesn't give any negative country bonuses except for adviser cost. It only slows futher expansion by increasing AE gain and decreasing improving relations speed.

 

[Vin55]

I had a Brandenburg where I whent for Prussia first game in the new Patch and I was over the limit when forming Prussia and I had only the Prussian states and Pommern to Lübeck nothing to big. Also with Italy you have a big Problem since you rather tech up then to develop now so increasing it a little more would be quite ok. THe punishemnt if you are slightly over is also very harsh (advisors are immediatly 50% more expesive if you are 5 over the limit cmon. But a good limit to expansion I like it a lot and it is better than the state limit of old.

 

[Mr Joke]

Good idea man it's too much toxic mechanic right now and need change like you proposed

 

[MateuszNH]

I like the idea of Government Capacity, and I know the point of it is to limit expansion. BUT, it's TOO restrictive right now. At first I thought it wasn't going to be a big deal because you can pay 20 government reform points to increase capacity by 20. But I didn't know is that 20 capacity is nothing. It doesn't even cover a full state... not even by half if it's a decent state. And the ever-increasing cost each time you do it adds up way too fast. In the previous system, it took a while to get to the point where you had double the states in territories. Now some nations already start at their caps, while others can get there within a war or too. It's far too restricting. Not to mention that malus from going over is FAR worse than corruption. Corruption was only money, this is money (advisors), increased AE, and increased monarch point usage. It's far too devastating.

Here are some possible solutions:

1) Drastically increase the starting capacity. At least double.
2) Either increase the amount of capacity you get from spending gov reforms points, or decrease or eliminate the increasing cost (I think 20 for 20 in perpetuity is fair... those points are precious).
3) Decrease the amount of capacity used by states.
4) Decrease maluses for going over cap (I think the other options are better fixes)

What are your thoughts?

I think good solution would be not to increase starting capacity but too give some mechanism to decrease influence of development on it. For example having more stated provinces developed over 10/20(or in general the more the better) development should decrease gov cap or atleast give less cap than 1 per each development, my point is the most concertrated and developed your country is, the more u are allowed to expand later. Their aim was to end mindless blobbing so this would make it work but with this mechanism we have now u can't play wide nor tall, the proposition i give would nicely balance the tall and wide and encourage player to use both to make the greatest empire . The other good solution i see is to decrease trade companies from 50% to 25% gov cap and to delete territories and trade companies influence of gov cap later on the game ( let's say after 1700 or earlier if u get full absolutism, 100% absolutism would give 0 gov cap from them). In that case it would allow to make world conquests but as an late game possibility, not 100 years cheesy rush. Also some special mechanism to decrease gov cap given by state instead of just a building would be very nice(for example based on corruption, devastation,long prosperity and mentioned development, something like this).

 

[giovdb]

Being over cap doesn't give any negative country bonuses except for adviser cost. It only slows futher expansion by increasing AE gain and decreasing improving relations speed.

That is literally the worse thing you could do LOL. Money, AE, and AE reduction. A true nightmare. Lol.

 

[SpaceCat007]

I hope paradox will see it and changes it beacuse eu4 is becoming less funny game with these type of changes. For example missions are very cool and fun additives however making wall on expending is not fun. I'm not saying you should be able to do WC as newbie in 50 years but these changes are not the way. I usually stay out of the direct way of communicating but changes made to eu4 lately aren't good improvements and I want them to be cos I love this game. I've 2k hours and want to make even more fun experience

 

[Vin55]

Maybe more Ideas to increase it not only admin and maybe some policies as well so you could actually do something. I mean the British Empire and French Empire and even the Spanish existed in the time frame and they had little problem there. Ottomans as well before 1640s

 

[Zephyrum]

Honestly, I'd be happy if provincial development was much less of a factor. Why the fuck should I develop anything that isn't my capital if everytime I raise the dev, it also means I lose valuable admincap to use on other, conquerable provinces?

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

Everytime any tiny limit or soft-lock is put on conquering all the world the same people will say it is restrictive and protest about it until the penalties aren't restrictive anymore and then there is no point because if there is no penalty there is no reason to not just take more provinces than you need. I feel that Governing Capacity and the Estates system has helped draw a much closer balance between playing tall or wide (i.e. you can create a colonial empire to grow your power without going over your Governing Capacity, or you can release extra land as vassals until you have the capacity to integrate them later on etc.). This new system rewards stable expansion with more careful choice of which provinces to take and which to develop.

Honestly, I'd be happy if provincial development was much less of a factor. Why the fuck should I develop anything that isn't my capital if everytime I raise the dev, it also means I lose valuable admincap to use on other, conquerable provinces?

If you develop your provinces instead of conquering new one's you will start earning more money sooner, and if you combine it with a Court House and other modifiers you can get 3 development in a province for every Governing Capacity. Additionally by not going out to conquer every province your average autonomy is a lot lower which means you earn more Governing Capacity much faster and can then expand your nation even further.

Maybe more Ideas to increase it not only admin and maybe some policies as well so you could actually do something. I mean the British Empire and French Empire and even the Spanish existed in the time frame and they had little problem there. Ottomans as well before 1640s

With all four of those Empires however they never "stated" everything they controlled. GB didn't even "state" Ireland in our history and certainly didn't completely govern any of their overseas dominions. If you copied GB for example you would easily be able to stay under your Governing Capacity by having your colonies in colonial nations and other provinces in trade companies etc.

 

[giovdb]

Everytime any tiny limit or soft-lock is put on conquering all the world the same people will say it is restrictive and protest about it until the penalties aren't restrictive anymore and then there is no point because if there is no penalty there is no reason to not just take more provinces than you need. I feel that Governing Capacity and the Estates system has helped draw a much closer balance between playing tall or wide (i.e. you can create a colonial empire to grow your power without going over your Governing Capacity, or you can release extra land as vassals until you have the capacity to integrate them later on etc.). This new system rewards stable expansion with more careful choice of which provinces to take and which to develop.

If you develop your provinces instead of conquering new one's you will start earning more money sooner, and if you combine it with a Court House and other modifiers you can get 3 development in a province for every Governing Capacity. Additionally by not going out to conquer every province your average autonomy is a lot lower which means you earn more Governing Capacity much faster and can then expand your nation even further.

With all four of those Empires however they never "stated" everything they controlled. GB didn't even "state" Ireland in our history and certainly didn't completely govern any of their overseas dominions. If you copied GB for example you would easily be able to stay under your Governing Capacity by having your colonies in colonial nations and other provinces in trade companies etc.

I said I liked the system too, so we are in agreement there. I just think it needs some tweaking. +100 from the estates at the beginning, plus courthouses (once you have the tech), definitely help, but the government points is pointless. They should at least make a higher reward by spending gov points.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

I said I liked the system too, so we are in agreement there. I just think it needs some tweaking. +100 from the estates at the beginning, plus courthouses (once you have the tech), definitely help, but the government points is pointless. They should at least make a higher reward by spending gov points.

But how much is too much/not enough? With even just the Government Capacity you start the game with you can own all of France and GB combined. Perhaps the 20 Government Capacity could be increased, but with a few modifiers and with developing the right provinces that 20 Government Capacity gives you up to an extra 80 development every couple of decades which isn't much when conquering the world but if it adds too much then there is just no restriction what so ever on conquering everything. I personally feel it should be harder to get extra Government Capacity (it isn't that hard to be able to state 4000 development by 1650) but I don't want the game to be too harsh on players that find it fun to do world conquest so I am sort of stuck in the middle.

 

[BobbyStrateg]

I like the idea of Government Capacity, and I know the point of it is to limit expansion. BUT, it's TOO restrictive right now. At first I thought it wasn't going to be a big deal because you can pay 20 government reform points to increase capacity by 20. But I didn't know is that 20 capacity is nothing. It doesn't even cover a full state... not even by half if it's a decent state. And the ever-increasing cost each time you do it adds up way too fast. In the previous system, it took a while to get to the point where you had double the states in territories. Now some nations already start at their caps, while others can get there within a war or too. It's far too restricting. Not to mention that malus from going over is FAR worse than corruption. Corruption was only money, this is money (advisors), increased AE, and increased monarch point usage. It's far too devastating.

Here are some possible solutions:

1) Drastically increase the starting capacity. At least double.
2) Either increase the amount of capacity you get from spending gov reforms points, or decrease or eliminate the increasing cost (I think 20 for 20 in perpetuity is fair... those points are precious).
3) Decrease the amount of capacity used by states.
4) Decrease maluses for going over cap (I think the other options are better fixes)

What are your thoughts?-I would also like to say that currently AI is much weaker bc in my several 1.30 games Ottomans were doing really nothing , conquering a few provinces and then stop being an easy enemy to destroy , and the second problem is that i saw the bug that AI dosent form tags like Muscovy-Russia or Pol-Commonwealth and of course they have all needeed provinces and technology and thats not matter of time bc they dont form even in 1700 but yes governing capitacity problem must be solved , currently traditional wc is not possible

 

[BalticM]

Don't make states, leave conquered lands as territories.
Make some vassals.
Mechanic can be polished a bit, but for me it's one of best changes along mercenaries. Perfectly restrictive enough early game, and would even think that it's too lightly restrictive late game.