Hegemon: Please add Governing Capacity Increase, or Cost Reduction

[giovdb]

All Hegemons, IMO, should have a LARGE governing cost reduction or governing capacity cap increase, since their point is to help WC runs (%, not straight numbers). Right now, governing capacity issues are extreme in the late game, even with Town Halls and State Houses in just about every province. Even with HRE vassal swarm. I think an overall reduction to province GC cost, or a major increase to the cap would make the game more fun (or even doable) for those of us who want to conquer the world, which is the whole point of a Hegemon.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

I believe the intended purpose to Hegemony was to add fun to the late game in the form of a goal to aim for and cool bonus that you would get upon completing the goal. They seemed intended not to make conquering the world easier (though the bonus they give certainly help), but make conquering the world funner. I know we don't agree on the topic but I still believe Governing Capacity is crazily available, and when conquering the world you don't really need to state everything anyway (especially with the reductions to territory autonomy through some Government reforms and Expansion idea group).

 

[giovdb]

I believe the intended purpose to Hegemony was to add fun to the late game in the form of a goal to aim for and cool bonus that you would get upon completing the goal. They seemed intended not to make conquering the world easier (though the bonus they give certainly help), but make conquering the world funner. I know we don't agree on the topic but I still believe Governing Capacity is crazily available, and when conquering the world you don't really need to state everything anyway (especially with the reductions to territory autonomy through some Government reforms and Expansion idea group).

The developer's diary directly states its meant to make a WC less tedious. GC does the opposite. I also just completed a WC as Austria. Managing GC is literally just building two types of buildings and nothing else. It's not very interesting in that way. It adds a lot of micro.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

The developer's diary directly states its meant to make a WC less tedious. GC does the opposite. I also just completed a WC as Austria. Managing GC is literally just building two types of buildings and nothing else. It's not very interesting in that way. It adds a lot of micro.

It already makes it very much less tedious; they all add some of the most powerful modifiers in the game to your nation. And you really don't even have to build a single building to help Governing Capacity (unless you want to state every region in the entire world). By 1600 without a single Court House I had 4500 development worth of states (whilst completely staying under my Governing Capacity). I also had never used the Strengthen Government mechanic to get extra Governing Capacity during the whole time too and had saved them all up to switch to a Theocracy.

 

[giovdb]

It already makes it very much less tedious; they all add some of the most powerful modifiers in the game to your nation. And you really don't even have to build a single building to help Governing Capacity (unless you want to state every region in the entire world). By 1600 without a single Court House I had 4500 development worth of states (whilst completely staying under my Governing Capacity). I also had never used the Strengthen Government mechanic to get extra Governing Capacity during the whole time too and had saved them all up to switch to a Theocracy.

That's just not at all true. I literally had to build town halls and State Houses in EVERY SINGLE eligible province. I only stated things in Europe. The rest was TC or territory. AND I HAD A VASSAL SWARM, which any other country wouldn't have.

Go do a world conquest then come back and we'll talk.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

That's just not at all true. I literally had to build town halls and State Houses in EVERY SINGLE eligible province. I only stated things in Europe. The rest was TC or territory. AND I HAD A VASSAL SWARM, which any other country wouldn't have.

Go do a world conquest then come back and we'll talk.

View attachment 591401

Well I did stop in 1600 to play a game as So, but other than having to have a few territories I did control all of Western/Central Europe, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Eastern Africa with a whopping +2.8% advisor cost (though I did revert some TC's into territories just to save up some space for more stated development) without having to build a single building. From my experience and from looking at your screenshot it does still seem to show to me that Governing Capacity is quite generous.

 

[giovdb]

Well I did stop in 1600 to play a game as So, but other than having to have a few territories I did control all of Western/Central Europe, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Eastern Africa with a whopping +2.8% advisor cost (though I did revert some TC's into territories just to save up some space for more stated development) without having to build a single building. From my experience and from looking at your screenshot it does still seem to show to me that Governing Capacity is quite generous.

I don't know if you're trolling or serious. How being to required to build a building AND manufactory in just about every province, along with having a TON of vassals be considered generous?

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

I don't know if you're trolling or serious. How being to required to build a building AND manufactory in just about every province, along with having a TON of vassals be considered generous?

So you own most of the world and are still only barely over capacity in that screenshot. That sounds like something you should be able to deal with (pretty sure you should have to go a decent amount over your capacity to conquer the world as you should not be able to rule such a large amount of land).

 

[giovdb]

So you own most of the world and are still only barely over capacity in that screenshot. That sounds like something you should be able to deal with (pretty sure you should have to go a decent amount over your capacity to conquer the world as you should not be able to rule such a large amount of land).

Half of the world are my vassals because of the HRE mechanics. My concern is for any other country attempting a WC, especially if outside of Europe. Im pretty sure I already wrote that above. Not sure why it's so difficult to understand such a simple argument.

 

[giovdb]

So you own most of the world and are still only barely over capacity in that screenshot. That sounds like something you should be able to deal with (pretty sure you should have to go a decent amount over your capacity to conquer the world as you should not be able to rule such a large amount of land).

Please show me SS of a three mountains run, for example, with the current mechanics. Yeah... didn't think so.

 

[Twoflower]

Half of the world are my vassals because of the HRE mechanics. My concern is for any other country attempting a WC, especially if outside of Europe. Im pretty sure I already wrote that above. Not sure why it's so difficult to understand such a simple argument.

In my opinion, it is a false assumption that there should be no penalties when doing a world conquest.

 

[Vulkandrache]

it is a false assumption that there should be no penalties when doing a world conquest.

If you think their should be inherent penalty just fro owning too much land then i asked you the same qustion i have asked for years:

How do you determine how much land is too much?
Am i allowed to own a continent? 2? Half of one?
60% of the world or just 27?

Why does the penalty have to be something that makes you want to hold onto land less?
I get that its easier to slap the player around with penalties instead of making the AI better or similar things
but i would still assume that making the game fun is important.

 

[Canute VII]

In my opinion, it is a false assumption that there should be no penalties when doing a world conquest.

To me it is a false assumption, that I should need to do a world conquest to have penalties.

Spoiler: wink wink

 

[Twoflower]

If you think their should be inherent penalty just fro owning too much land then i asked you the same qustion i have asked for years:

How do you determine how much land is too much?
Am i allowed to own a continent? 2? Half of one?
60% of the world or just 27?

Why does the penalty have to be something that makes you want to hold onto land less?
I get that its easier to slap the player around with penalties instead of making the AI better or similar things
but i would still assume that making the game fun is important.

That's an easy one. Too much is land is when you're above your government capacity. If you get it high enough to own a continent, you are very much allowed to own it. And you're allowed to go above it - then there'll be a strain because your government can't really deal with that much land.
The cool thing about government capacity is that it is a soft cap and that it can very much be influenced by the player. You do have a lot of agency. And I think the cap right now is pretty well balanced.

 

[Vulkandrache]

That's an easy one. Too much is land is when you're above your government capacity.

Thats an easy answer but its not an answer to my question.

How was the amount of GovCap determined thats available over the course of the game?

 

[Twoflower]

Thats an easy answer but its not an answer to my question.

How was the amount of GovCap determined thats available over the course of the game?

The wise Johan ascended a remote mountain and was handed down the numbers that are just right by some dignified-looking bearded guy? (could also have been a lady in a pond, though ).

More seriously: I am inclined to think the numbers are quite well balanced. In my first 1.30 playthrough as France (going for France's missions, not doing a WC because I have zero interest in that) I was very close to (and intermettently above) my government cap for most of the game and at several points had to take into account the government cap when making strategic decisions - regarding what to conquer, which conquests to state when, when and where to build state houses, court houses and town halls, whether to enhance my capacity or get government reforms quickly, what reforms to take (there are some that increase capacity).
I had the impression that the government capacity was low enough to actually be something worth considering and high enough to be manageable. And I believe that the expansion speed encouraged by the French mission tree is a rather good benchmark for a rate of expansion where the cap should be relevant but manageable.

Should it be possible to expand more than in a run where you just do the French missions? Sure. But in that case, I believe it is appropriate that government capacity puts an actual strain on you.
I think that (as problematic as historical comparisons to EU4's game mechanisms are) for example the historical Ottomans at their peak had grown so much that their government and administration ended up being unable to deal with the strain, i.e. it would in game terms actually be right for them to be "over their capacity".

And on the other hand, if the capacity were to be made, say, 25 percent higher, I could basically have ignored government capacity in that France run. Which I would consider a bad thing. I want there to be things to think about strategically when I am not doing a WC. A change that makes things less "tedious" for someone doing a WC would actually diminish my game experience as a non-WCer.

 

[giovdb]

In my first 1.30 playthrough as France (going for France's missions, not doing a WC because I have zero interest in that)

Then let us who enjoy WCs debate on the effect these changes have on it.

my government cap for most of the game and at several points had to take into account the government cap when making strategic decisions - regarding what to conquer, which conquests to state when, when and where to build state houses, court houses and town halls, whether to enhance my capacity or get government reforms quickly, what reforms to take (there are some that increase capacity).

There is no strategy. For a WC you need to build it in every province. No decision making. Just busy work.

 

[Twoflower]

Then let us who enjoy WCs debate on the effect these changes have on it.



There is no strategy. For a WC you need to build it in every province. No decision making. Just busy work.

The point - which I already made in my last paragraph - is that a change to government capacity will not just affect WCs. I believe that the capacity is pretty much just right as it is (I might even prefer it a little lower, if anything!). If the capacity is increased in order to alleviate "tedium" while doing a WC, it will become a non-factor for the playstyle that I (and I suppose others too) enjoy.

 

[giovdb]

The point - which I already made in my last paragraph - is that a change to government capacity will not just affect WCs. I believe that the capacity is pretty much just right as it is (I might even prefer it a little lower, if anything!). If the capacity is increased in order to alleviate "tedium" while doing a WC, it will become a non-factor for the playstyle that I (and I suppose others too) enjoy.

It will if it's a Hegemon bonus. As is the whole point of this thread. Your concerns are not valid if the change is done to all Hegemons (their whole point, as stated in the developer diaries) is to make WCs less tedious.

 

[Abnormalmind]

A TC province with a Town Hall and a statewide State House has an effective 1% GC burden. Micro requires, sure. Still doable.

As has it always been, some nations are better. This patch it's probably Russia. They get a huge GC bonus, can cycle wars between Christains, Muslims, Confusicious, Hindus, Tengris, and Buddhists. They also can RM, and nabbing France, Castile, Austria, or GB is also doable.