I think EU could use a better way of modelling the difficulties of governing large empires with pre-industrial technology. After all, in all of EU time-frame, communications moved at the speed of the horse or the boat. There were also no means to monitor people from great distances -- the ocean is one thing, and we have colonial nations now -- but this problem was by no means unique to the European seafaring empires. The Ottomans, Qing and Mughals suffered from similar problems. It would take weeks for information to travel and the emperor living comfortably in his capital would have no means to monitor his officials, who might be abusing his subjects with impunity.
Now with the new autonomy mechanism, I think government range could be made into a useful feature. This range would increase gradually --- VERY gradually --- with improved diplomacy technology, but it would never become a non-issue to a country. A truly global government should be essentially impossible, and most importantly, a complete economic disaster (which it would have been at the time).
The government range would work, centered in the capital, spreading out in twin concentric circles. The first circle would embrace the region closest to the capital. This would be called the "government core" (or whatnot). Here, the central government would be at its strongest, monitoring officials and citizens with no difficulty.
The core would feature:
> conventional autonomy mechanism
> rapid autonomy decline
> cultures present in the core would be more likely to become accepted
> no autonomy limits
> smaller coring costs in provinces within reach
> cultures present in the core would also become settlers, making their appearance in colonial nations (
The second circle would embrace regions more distant from the capital, but not so distant as to enjoy no central government influence. This periphery would be where the lack of monitoring technology and the slow speed of communication already starts to limit what the administration can accomplish. In the peripheral provinces, minimum autonomy is set at 30 %. Going below this limit would be possible, but it would lead to corruption.
Corruption is the abuse of power by central government officials, who being neither monitored by the capital nor accountable to local authorities, would use their powers and lack of accountability to line their pockets at the expense of the locals. Lowering autonomy below this safe limit would give local authorities no leeway to serve as a check and balance, while the remote capital would be unable to ensure the honesty of their officials. So while lower autonomy would still give you more money and manpower from the provinces, it would also lead to intermittent destruction of development.
The periphery would feature:
> 50 % slower autonomy decline
> a 50 % to 30 % minimum autonomy limit (depending on diplo tech).
> like the core, peripheral cultures would appear in colonial nations, even if not accepted.
Outlying provinces
These provinces lay entirely outside the government range and as such pose significant difficulties to the government.
Outlying provinces would function very differently from the core, and quite differently even when compared to the periphery. Outliers would have a minimum autonomy limit set at much higher level than the periphery, at 75 % to 50 %. Likewise, going below this autonomy limit would destroy development, and the further below it you push it, the more rapid this destruction becomes.
However the outlying provinces have added difficulties. Increasing autonomy would no longer reduce revolt risk: instead any good will won by concessions would be offset by the additional, unchecked resources made available to local subversives and separatists. Leeway here is destabilizing. Below the minimum autonomy limit corruption and graft festers, but outliers would also have a maximum autonomy limit of 50 %, above which local rebels start to grow more powerful due to all the unchecked resources available to them. Therefore, owning outlying provinces would be problematic.
Closely related to my ideas on government range, is a system of corruption, which would work in a two-fold way.
Local corruption
Local corruption events would destroy local development, as explained above. Nonexistent in the core, the risk of local corruption would increase in the periphery and the outlying provinces when autonomy is set below the minimum level.
Global corruption
Every time a local corruption event is triggered, it adds points to your global corruption count. At higher levels, your global corruption begins to sap away at tax income, trade income and production income, not just in the outlying and peripheral provinces, but in the core of the country as well. Massive global corruption will lead to huge uprisings, which risks breaking your country.
Global corruption would be highly toxic to republican tradition.
Global corruption would also come with negative events, imagine nasty surprises like:
"merchants fold under corrupt tax men" (-50 dip)
"Ill-gotten gains from the provinces fund pretenders and usurpers" (-30 legitimacy)
etc.
Fighting global corruption would involve spending diplomacy points, perhaps similar to spending adm points to reduce inflation.
Now with the new autonomy mechanism, I think government range could be made into a useful feature. This range would increase gradually --- VERY gradually --- with improved diplomacy technology, but it would never become a non-issue to a country. A truly global government should be essentially impossible, and most importantly, a complete economic disaster (which it would have been at the time).
The government range would work, centered in the capital, spreading out in twin concentric circles. The first circle would embrace the region closest to the capital. This would be called the "government core" (or whatnot). Here, the central government would be at its strongest, monitoring officials and citizens with no difficulty.
The core would feature:
> conventional autonomy mechanism
> rapid autonomy decline
> cultures present in the core would be more likely to become accepted
> no autonomy limits
> smaller coring costs in provinces within reach
> cultures present in the core would also become settlers, making their appearance in colonial nations (
The second circle would embrace regions more distant from the capital, but not so distant as to enjoy no central government influence. This periphery would be where the lack of monitoring technology and the slow speed of communication already starts to limit what the administration can accomplish. In the peripheral provinces, minimum autonomy is set at 30 %. Going below this limit would be possible, but it would lead to corruption.
Corruption is the abuse of power by central government officials, who being neither monitored by the capital nor accountable to local authorities, would use their powers and lack of accountability to line their pockets at the expense of the locals. Lowering autonomy below this safe limit would give local authorities no leeway to serve as a check and balance, while the remote capital would be unable to ensure the honesty of their officials. So while lower autonomy would still give you more money and manpower from the provinces, it would also lead to intermittent destruction of development.
The periphery would feature:
> 50 % slower autonomy decline
> a 50 % to 30 % minimum autonomy limit (depending on diplo tech).
> like the core, peripheral cultures would appear in colonial nations, even if not accepted.
Outlying provinces
These provinces lay entirely outside the government range and as such pose significant difficulties to the government.
Outlying provinces would function very differently from the core, and quite differently even when compared to the periphery. Outliers would have a minimum autonomy limit set at much higher level than the periphery, at 75 % to 50 %. Likewise, going below this autonomy limit would destroy development, and the further below it you push it, the more rapid this destruction becomes.
However the outlying provinces have added difficulties. Increasing autonomy would no longer reduce revolt risk: instead any good will won by concessions would be offset by the additional, unchecked resources made available to local subversives and separatists. Leeway here is destabilizing. Below the minimum autonomy limit corruption and graft festers, but outliers would also have a maximum autonomy limit of 50 %, above which local rebels start to grow more powerful due to all the unchecked resources available to them. Therefore, owning outlying provinces would be problematic.
Closely related to my ideas on government range, is a system of corruption, which would work in a two-fold way.
Local corruption
Local corruption events would destroy local development, as explained above. Nonexistent in the core, the risk of local corruption would increase in the periphery and the outlying provinces when autonomy is set below the minimum level.
Global corruption
Every time a local corruption event is triggered, it adds points to your global corruption count. At higher levels, your global corruption begins to sap away at tax income, trade income and production income, not just in the outlying and peripheral provinces, but in the core of the country as well. Massive global corruption will lead to huge uprisings, which risks breaking your country.
Global corruption would be highly toxic to republican tradition.
Global corruption would also come with negative events, imagine nasty surprises like:
"merchants fold under corrupt tax men" (-50 dip)
"Ill-gotten gains from the provinces fund pretenders and usurpers" (-30 legitimacy)
etc.
Fighting global corruption would involve spending diplomacy points, perhaps similar to spending adm points to reduce inflation.
Last edited:
- 18
- 4
Upvote
0
