How much more are you going to nerf Ming?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Making monuments for dharmic also means more players will try dharmic tags rather than mughals, experiencing their mission treess
+1

I'd say the Dharmic nations got buffed quite a bit. With the new -15% CCR monument, I'd wager Bharat is an actually solid formable these days. 5% Admin efficiency from ideas and the extra CCR, on top of a solid mission tree with multiple permanent rewards. Also, Bharat can be formed quite early when starting with a major like Vijanagar (by 1550 or so). Nothing is a strong as the Mughals ofcourse with their permanent +10 admin efficiency. But it's getting close.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The devs tried to evenly spread out the monuments by region more than by size of the continent. Ming: 1 nation, thus max of 3 monuments. Same goes for France, Spain and England that each have only 1-2 monuments.

India is actually pretty darn big, especially development wise, and requires quite a bit of conquering for the monuments. Additionally, while most require Dharmic, a fair few monuments require Islamic religion making them mutually exclusive.

I find the current distribution quite fair actually. Some regions could use 1-2 extra, but nothing is super neglected imo.
you are mixing regions and nations. While Ming is a single tag, the China-super region actually consist of 3 regions; North China, South China and Xinan, by your logic, Ming should have max 9.

for reference,
india, 5 regions, 13
france, 1 region, 2
iberia, 1 region, 3
britian, 1 region, 2
gemany, 2 regions, 5
itlay, 1 region, 6

Also should be note that all 3 regions in China-super region are huge, populous and culture rich, comparable to the 5-region india-super region. So if anything, the 3 regions in China should be in the higher end of the specturm in terms of monument density.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
HRE gets quite a lot but not NA and JP, that's the irony
Japan starts as one tag controlling all of the main island - it just happens to be via subjects. That's obviously not the same situation as India. The HRE does have a great deal of monuments (almost as many as India as a whole, but far more concentrated in regions), many of which are much more useable for everyone in the HRE. The HRE also has a feature to become one whole tag (and it gets a bunch of associated bonuses with the HRE mechanics etc).

At the end of the day, its terrible for balance to have one single nation start with a bunch of monuments. Ming has just as much access to the Indian monuments as eg Mughals do (for the ones that aren't religion locked for just one of them at least). There's no need to bring some jingoistic notion of cultural value into the equation. These are not here to do that. They're a "fun" gameplay mechanic to sink money into to increase some numbers. That's all.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
you are mixing regions and nations. While Ming is a single tag, the China-super region actually consist of 3 regions; North China, South China and Xinan, by your logic, Ming should have max 9.

for reference,
india, 5 regions, 13
france, 1 region, 2
iberia, 1 region, 3
britian, 1 region, 2
gemany, 2 regions, 5
itlay, 1 region, 6

Also should be note that all 3 regions in China-super region are huge, populous and culture rich, comparable to the 5-region india-super region. So if anything, the 3 regions in China should be in the higher end of the specturm in terms of monument density.
I'm not mixing regions and nations. I should have said culture groups, not regions, not subcontinents or continents. Then you have about 3 usable monuments for a single culture group with a single religion. That said, it depends on amount of nations in said culture group and the amount of religions that are being practiced in that group.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Japan starts as one tag controlling all of the main island - it just happens to be via subjects. That's obviously not the same situation as India. The HRE does have a great deal of monuments (almost as many as India as a whole, but far more concentrated in regions), many of which are much more useable for everyone in the HRE. The HRE also has a feature to become one whole tag (and it gets a bunch of associated bonuses with the HRE mechanics etc).

At the end of the day, its terrible for balance to have one single nation start with a bunch of monuments. Ming has just as much access to the Indian monuments as eg Mughals do (for the ones that aren't religion locked for just one of them at least). There's no need to bring some jingoistic notion of cultural value into the equation. These are not here to do that. They're a "fun" gameplay mechanic to sink money into to increase some numbers. That's all.
I'm not against nerfing Ming as I believe the game flaw makes any super large tag abnormally strong. The gain and upkeep cost of developments are too propotional while in reality a large expanding empire gains very little and the cost increase should be exponential.
I just don't like people pretend that is justified/fair/deserved when it's purely for balance reason.
As a Chinese I also feel its unfair that PDX never put as much effort to make later big empires formed in game appear balanced, because you know, that just make playing wide unfun.
I'm not mixing regions and nations. I should have said culture groups, not regions, not subcontinents or continents. Then you have about 3 usable monuments for a single culture group with a single religion. That said, it depends on amount of nations in said culture group and the amount of religions that are being practiced in that group.
:rolleyes:then you have latin group that has 6. I'm fine if it's purely for balance reason, but that's arbitrary not something 'quite fair'.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
The devs tried to evenly spread out the monuments by region more than by size of the continent. Ming: 1 nation, thus max of 3 monuments. Same goes for France, Spain and England that each have only 1-2 monuments.

The problem is that it doesn't just affect the Ming, it also affect all the Jurchens tags and Mongolia/Oirat because their main goal is to conquer China and form the Qing/Yuan, currently even if you reach the historical peak of the Qing Empire as the Qing/Yuan you will only get 6 monuments (7 if you add Korea), meanwhile conquering just the northern part of Indian sub-continent will get you 8 monuments, and shafting China in terms of monuments because it is controled by only one tag at the beginning is also bullshit because the Ming is one of the very few country which is basically meant to collapse during the first century of the game because of its unique disaster and WILL collapse 80%-90% of the time, so in terms of gameplay China should not be considered as just one tag because unless Ming is controled by a player it won't stay as just one tag for very long, so treating China like India would be logical.

Additionally, while most require Dharmic, a fair few monuments require Islamic religion making them mutually exclusive.

Only one requires Islamic religion, the Taj Mahal, 3 have no requirements, and the 9 left are dharmic (and sometimes also accessible to Buddhists), so Hindus have access to 12 out of the 13 monuments in India, while Muslims only have access to 4 out of the 13 monuments, considering that around half of the tags in India at the start are muslim how does that makes any sense in terms of gameplay ?

Making monuments for dharmic also means more players will try dharmic tags rather than mughals, experiencing their mission treess

If the Dharma DLC (which as quite a lot of content) and the Sikh rework didn't encourage players to try dharmic tags then I highly doubt that a few monuments will, and as we have seen over the years with the data released by Paradox, adding new content to a region only has a very limited impact on how much player will actually try the tags in that region.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem is that it doesn't just affect the Ming, it also affect all the Jurchens tags and Mongolia/Oirat because their main goal is to conquer China and form the Qing/Yuan, currently even if you reach the historical peak of the Qing Empire as the Qing/Yuan you will only get 6 monuments (7 if you add Korea), meanwhile conquering just the northern part of Indian sub-continent will get you 8 monuments, and shafting China in terms of monuments because it is controled by only one tag at the beginning is also bullshit because the Ming is one of the very few country which is basically meant to collapse during the first century of the game because of its unique disaster and WILL collapse 80%-90% of the time, so in terms of gameplay China should not be considered as just one tag because unless Ming is controled by a player it won't stay as just one tag for very long, so treating China like India would be logical.



Only one requires Islamic religion, the Taj Mahal, 3 have no requirements, and the 9 left are dharmic (and sometimes also accessible to Buddhists), so Hindus have access to 12 out of the 13 monuments in India, while Muslims only have access to 4 out of the 13 monuments, considering that around half of the tags in India at the start are muslim how does that makes any sense in terms of gameplay ?



If the Dharma DLC (which as quite a lot of content) and the Sikh rework didn't encourage players to try dharmic tags then I highly doubt that a few monuments will, and as we have seen over the years with the data released by Paradox, adding new content to a region only has a very limited impact on how much player will actually try the tags in that region.

Like, this is an argument that's impossible to win. Every country needs to have access to exactly the same amount of monuments, based on some arbitrary rule, or the game is 'unfair'.

You're acting like India is one country. It has 3k (at least after the first 100 years) development. That's 2,5-3 times as much as Ming. It also has a ton of nations. You don't get access instantly to all these monuments. You need to conquer other nations. Expand aggressively. On top of that, by what date will you be able to upgrade them mostly? 1650? 1700? Sure, you can upgrade one or two mostly by taking everyone's money in peace deals, but you can't do that for all of them.

By 1650-1700 any decent China player will have conquered more than its fair share of other monuments outside of China too. Faster than they can upgrade them.

I'd wager that any decent Qing player will be able to access more monuments more quickly than any India player.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
On top of that, by what date will you be able to upgrade them mostly?
Starting in India is ridiculous in terms of money. And non-existend AE.
Im talking 150/month surplus within a few decades.

Its more than possible to have 5+ monuments upgrading to rank 3 by 1550.
Or even finished already since you have more than enough mil points to hurry them along.

I have not played as Ming so i dont know how fast or how much money you could get into them.
But with either start by 1650 should be possible have all the monuments in both India and China online.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Starting in India is ridiculous in terms of money. And non-existend AE.
Im talking 150/month surplus within a few decades.

Its more than possible to have 5+ monuments upgrading to rank 3 by 1550.
Or even finished already since you have more than enough mil points to hurry them along.

I have not played as Ming so i dont know how fast or how much money you could get into them.
But with either start by 1650 should be possible have all the monuments in both India and China online.
Ah, so that's why all these true heir of timur achievement runs have thousands upon thousands of ducats in their coffers. Oh, and that's why they say coalitions are never a problem. I'm being sarcastic of course. All these runs are bound by two things: managing aggressive expansion and having enough men to fight your wars. And ultimately, men are paid for with money. And that's 100 years. And that's only top tier players who can do it.

You're being hyperbolic. There is no way you get that amount of money in the first few decades.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
You're being hyperbolic. There is no way you get that amount of money in the first few decades.
Ive not done True heir of Timur. But thats a speedrun. You have to take those provinces, no choice, little diplomacy, little taking advantage of the situation.
Those runs are more brute force than anything else. It is for example not worth building manufacturies because they barely pay back before the deadline.

But if its money you want i stand by my points. Just play in India.
I have 3 wonders done on level 3, 3 others upgrading to level 2 and 2 others having their provinces converted after which construction will start.
That still happened on 1.31. I have to use Vassals to pre-build some of them for later use.
Imagine with the new wonders. As Bahmanis have a Vassal build the one in Vijay, switch Hindu after integrating and abuse the shit out of your estates.

eu4_17.pngeu4_18.png

And that run wasnt even optimised nearly as much as it could have been.
If you really want to be pendantic you dont build statehouses before manufacturies as i did multiple times here.

So no
But with either start by 1650 should be possible have all the monuments in both India and China online.
is not hyperbole.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Let's keep it civil and respectful, please.
 
You're acting like India is one country. It has 3k (at least after the first 100 years) development. That's 2,5-3 times as much as Ming.

Yes, and the dev difference between India and China is completely ridiculous, you're basically arguing that because China got shafted in terms of development and province density for the sake of game balance and nothing else (China was both more populated and richer than India during eu4) then it should also get shafted in terms of monument density because of that and the fact that it STARTS as one tag (I've already explained that the Ming is completely railroaded into imploding if it's controled by the AI, so balancing the entire China region based on the fact that it only has one tag at the beginning and the Ming starts very powerful is completely stupid), how is that not arbitrary ?

I swear a lot of people here are ACTIVELY looking for reasons to justify the fact that China is one the most badly represented region in the game, China got shafted in every way possible at this point, ridiculously low dev, low province density, low monuments density, and some people still have the guts to call those who complain about that "Chinese nationalists" ??

I'd wager that any decent Qing player will be able to access more monuments more quickly than any India player.

More monuments that they can actually use? No, definitely not, not only is India stacked with monuments that can be used by Hindu tag, but it's also surrounded by monuments that can be used by Hindu, the Afghan monument can be used by Hindu, all the Burma monuments can be used by Hindu, all the monuments in Southeast Asia with the exception of one can be used by Hindu, meanwhile the Qing can't even use the Qaraqorum and Lhasa monuments (both of which can be used by Hindu btw), they can't use most monuments in Southeast Asia, they can't even use 1/4 of the monuments in India (Hindu tags on the other hand can use all monuments in China except one), they can only use 2 of the 3 monuments in Japan, they can't use the Samarkand and Afghan monuments, so where are all those easily accessible monuments that the Qinq can get and use ? The Qing would have to conquer more than half of Asia just to get the 12 monuments that Hindu can get just by conquering 3/4 of India.
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
More monuments that they can actually use?
While you are not entirely wrong please note that there are only 5 Hindu nations with the ability to unlock the Buddha deity. Everyone else cannot use half the monuments you mentioned. And those 5 arent exactly the strogenst starts.
And its not like Buddha is all that good if you consider that half the wonders give Missionary bonuses which makes his ToH less useful
and that you lose the 10% CCR from Shiva.
 
While you are not entirely wrong please note that there are only 5 Hindu nations with the ability to unlock the Buddha deity. Everyone else cannot use half the monuments you mentioned. And those 5 arent exactly the strogenst starts.
And its not like Buddha is all that good if you consider that half the wonders give Missionary bonuses which makes his ToH less useful
and that you lose the 10% CCR from Shiva.
True, I forgot that not every Hindu tag has access to the Buddha deity (even without this specific deity, Hindu still have access to 14 monuments that the Qing wouldn't be able to use), It's definitely worth it to use the Buddha deity once you get both the Imperial City Hue and Angkor Wat though, 10% CCR is good but unless you blob like crazy it's not going to be as good as the combined tier 3 of these two monuments.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
To stop ai expanding, estate privilege "Inwards Perfection" can easily do the job. Then give Ming some extra development so that it could suffer from over governing capacity, it will keep Ming busy with internal affair for a long time.

Inwards perfection is too easy to revoke.

I suppose the AI could be coded to never revoke Inward Perfection, and I'd be okay with that I guess, though I still think Ming should have a disaster that sometimes makes it collapse.
 
So I have read both sides of the argument. On one side, OP thinks that the system(disaster/Eoc mechanics) is ahistoric, unfair to the nation.
On the other side, people support this system because of gameplay balance and fun.

To be fair, this system is ahistoric. Paradox wants to make this game "less historical and fun" by making everyone's favourite nation - Byzantium be able to beat the Ottomans. Have OP mission trees for the Mughals (which is very very easy to form). Also Austria in China? HISTORICAL? So why can't they also change a bit for Ming ? Since AI barely can finish their mission trees, update Ming's mission tree so that it is very hard to finish the first few missions but the rest are easy to do can solve the problem?

I don't know why normal people like to play Ming right now? It's boring. No mission tree, weird mechanic. Confucianism is mediocre at best (Harmonization is crap). WC? But there are so many better options for WC (Oirat/Horde, Austria, Mughals, Ottomans, etc..) Update the mission tree so that player Ming can avoid the disaster "Crisis of the Ming dynasty" but make it very hard for AI to complete it would solve this whole discussion won't it? I mean PDX already introduced "Crisis of Majapahit, Crisis of Zimbabwe and Crisis of Mali Empire" in the new DLCs, so why can't they do it for good old Ming? It is very pitiful that a big major nation like Ming has such a crappy mission tree. Pdx should work on Ming after their rework on Scandinavia.

AI Ming will still very likely to collapse, but player Ming won't and would enjoy playing Ming. (Hey Pdx, this can be another immersion pack.... just so you know)
This would not change gameplay balance?
Also Multiplayer, people will still ban Ming so no problemo?
 
  • 6
Reactions:
So I have read both sides of the argument. On one side, OP thinks that the system(disaster/Eoc mechanics) is ahistoric, unfair to the nation.
On the other side, people support this system because of gameplay balance and fun.

Not to be that guy, but I spent several paragraphs illustrating how the EoC mechanics reflect historical developments in Imperial China.

I don't know why normal people like to play Ming right now? It's boring. No mission tree, weird mechanic. Confucianism is mediocre at best (Harmonization is crap). WC? But there are so many better options for WC (Oirat/Horde, Austria, Mughals, Ottomans, etc..) Update the mission tree so that player Ming can avoid the disaster "Crisis of the Ming dynasty" but make it very hard for AI to complete it would solve this whole discussion won't it? I mean PDX already introduced "Crisis of Majapahit, Crisis of Zimbabwe and Crisis of Mali Empire" in the new DLCs, so why can't they do it for good old Ming? It is very pitiful that a big major nation like Ming has such a crappy mission tree. Pdx should work on Ming after their rework on Scandinavia.

AI Ming will still very likely to collapse, but player Ming won't and would enjoy playing Ming.
I'm playing a Ming game right now and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. What on earth do mission trees have to do with how much fun a country is to play? Mission trees could be completely removed from the game and nothing of value would be lost. EoC? It's much more interesting than yet another feudal monarchy with legitimacy mechanics. WC? Get outta here. If people want to do a WC, that's their business, but the game shouldn't be balanced around WC.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions: