Is there any hope for 1.20 China Patch?

[Canute VII]

400 admin points for 0% autonomy when you have 600 dev? No way. There should be a trade-off by introducing lvl 4 advisors or more ways to get monarch points, or else this would be way too punishing.

As if big countries faced the most intensive of troubles when an heir came about.

The concrete numbers can be tweaked ofc (!!!), but even having this in mind your calculation is incorrect, because it would be 300 MP when you are at 0% local autonomy and have constructed neither courthouses nor townhalls (which would give reductions in my suggestion) and do not have any artist advisors (-10%) or ideas (religious -25%), trading in wine (-20%), loyal clergy estate (not counting in 25% la), policies etc.. - Please also note, the higher the stability cost, the more valuable a %-reduction becomes.

With 900 dev, we would be at 400 MP cost to increase stability at 0% LA, but only at 250 with 50% local autonomy (e.g. like Ming -> inward perfection, anyone? ). As I suggest in the other thread, I'd liked to let Ming start with a few courthouses in some of their high dev provinces, which would reduce their stability cost even further.

 

[Mingmung]

The concrete numbers can be tweaked ofc (!!!), but even having this in mind your calculation is incorrect, because it would be 300 MP when you are at 0% local autonomy and have constructed neither courthouses nor townhalls (which would give reductions in my suggestion) and do not have any artist advisors (-10%) or ideas (religious -25%), trading in wine (-20%), loyal clergy estate (not counting in 25% la), policies etc.. - Please also note, the higher the stability cost, the more valuable a %-reduction becomes.

With 900 dev, we would be at 400 MP cost to increase stability at 0% LA, but only at 250 with 50% local autonomy (e.g. like Ming -> inward perfection, anyone? ).

My apologies and I do appreciate the thinking you've put into this, but it's still much in my opinion. I already find 100 admin points excruciating painful to pay in-game xD


Big catholic countries can for example spend their papal authority to boost stability (lovely button, really). So in that way it's also quite unfair to other big countries (not that all nations should have homogenous buffs, not at all, but no stupid maluses to only a few just to spite them.)

My philosophy is about more unique buffs and unique geographics for more heterogenous countries. Arguably makes for a more rewarding system (or let the player think that way).

Blizzard did some kind of dev diary long ago, that various forms of rewards provide a more engaging gameplay than "punishing" debuffs and the like. Of course having 0 debuffs and malusses and the like might be unrealistic, but it is a vision one can have. And one I share and will strive to defend here.

 

[Grand Historian]

300 admin points for 0% autonomy when you have 600 dev? No way. There should be a trade-off by introducing lvl 4 advisors or more ways to get monarch points, or else this would be way too punishing.

As if big countries faced the most intensive of troubles when an heir came about.

Every country had troubles. Every country had to learn and adapt. Not only big ones.

And is blobbing really a problem at the moment? I think it's in a decent state right now. Might depend on skills and situations, but still.

In my opinion, the biggest issue right now is how institutions spread. But that's a thread for another time.

Blobbing, is, more or less, at a decent state right now, I think it would be more appropriate to say there's little challenge in actually holding onto your blob.

 

[Canute VII]

My apologies and I do appreciate the thinking you've put into this, but it's still much in my opinion. I already find 100 admin points excruciating painful to pay in-game xD

Yeah, sure, I understand your concerns. It's qite easy to balance, however. You could specify instead of

• stability cost = base stability cost + (total development / 3) * (100% - development weighted local autonomy)
• with base stabilty cost = 100

to have something more like

• stability cost = [base stability cost + (total development / 4)] * (100% - development weighted local autonomy)
• with base stabilty cost = 75

With 900 dev that would give 150 stability cost at 50% local autonomy (instead of 250%).

 

[LordBufo]

I think it has been made quite clear through various posts, comments, and videos that the Far East is hilariously misrepresented in terms of mechanics, and down right broken/unfair for others. The desire has been there for some time for a major rework for both a Ming tributary system and a Japan "HRE-like" system. I am consistently seeing threads pop up on this either requesting something done or suggestions made, with little to no response from any of the devs.

So my question is: is there a chance 1.20 will be the change that's been asked for? I'm getting the feeling it won't be, but I am still hopeful. What I am thinking at this point is that the next DLC/Expansion will be based on internal order and stability, which is a mechanic that also needs some love, but the Far East is definitely in need of some attention.

Thoughts?

inb4 TMIT and Grand Historian comments

One thing that would be cool is to make some general mechanics that work well for East Asia, like treaty ports and sending missionaries to other countries.

 

[Drakridr]

Looking at Japan Im seeing new provinces, at least 1 or 2 from the screenshot thus far.

 

[Grand Historian]

Looking at Japan Im seeing new provinces, at least 1 or 2 from the screenshot thus far.

That's my work; hence the 'ignore Japan' comment in parenthesis right above it.

(19 additional provinces last time I counted.)

 

[Dakka]

That's my work; hence the 'ignore Japan' comment in parenthesis right above it.

(19 additional provinces last time I counted.)

Grand Historian is secretly a dev and the reason we haven't gotten the Japan rework yet is because he is too busy commenting on the forums.

The little screenshot of Japan is his WIP

 

[Grand Historian]

Grand Historian is secretly a dev and the reason we haven't gotten the Japan rework yet is because he is too busy commenting on the forums.

The little screenshot of Japan is his WIP

Ach! My cover's blown!

 

[ocelot64]

After PDX fucked up the save system in 1.19, I'm just hoping they won't fuck up any part of the game that has worked okay thus far.

 

[Lopatou_ovalil]

i think, historical additions: borders+ nicely represents map of asia

 

[Mingmung]

Any word about dev diaries starting again this week?

 

[Tzz2006]

Any word about dev diaries starting again this week?

If they are still keeping with Tuesdays, we should get a dev diary today.

 

[Xdevo]

I'm going to guess that 1.20 is going to be a China/east Asia patch in the same way that mare nostrum was a patch to the naval powers or Cossacks was an east Europe patch.

 

[Katsuki126]

But 1.20 is a DLC patch, which would be considerably larger than the Denmark stability patch. So there could be hope

When Johan said that the ages where "the biggest feature ever made", I knew in my heart that a full Asia overhaul will not make it for 1.20 However, 1.22 could be it. Modifications in the next two patch, then new mechanics. Let's keep hope

Seems like I have let pessimism overtook me, look at the right bottom corner of the screenshot in the last DD. And look at Japan

 

[kitemasaki]

Seems like I have let pessimism overtook me, look at the right bottom corner of the screenshot in the last DD. And look at Japan

Yeah. It is pretty much confirmed for at least China, an overhaul. Yay.

 

[Dakka]

Japan is getting a lot more provinces, and it seems they are following GH's map suggestions. Now here's hoping for an engaging HRE/Unification mechanic for Japan and I will be sold on this DLC for that alone

 

[chrnno]

Except that Spain, France and Britain eventually ended up losing almost all their colonies to nationalistic movements.

Colonies that became a bunch of really big nations and many above average as nations go, that is what that part means.

Making it so that the people of a nation see themselves as one is a pretty important thing for long-term stability regardless of how you do it, my point is that the most successful realizations of that for a big area tend to be called colonization for instance the examples listed in the post you quoted. Though the inverse is by no means true, see so much of Africa.

It is not guaranteed stability as even people who see themselves as the same can fight and split not to mention be imposed by external forces but as long as there are different population groups in a country the issue is going to keep coming up and make other problems significantly worse.

 

[HMatsunaga54]

Well, I am not really convince but the ''HRE thing'' for China. As much as it would be better for Japan, China wasn't historically some groupe of semi-independant country like the HRE. It's early this morning, but I think of 2 small idea.

First: the Manchu never really conquered all of China to establish the Qing: they only took the capital and the north and became ruler. Gamewise, it could be put inside the type of government (+15 revolt risk when capital occupied), making China more inclined to collapse in face of Northern hordes.

Second: China was never that expansionist during the EU4 timeframe. Why wouldn't the Overexpansion be use on that, making anything more than maybe 20% overextention losing the Mandate of the Heaven ?

With those 2 small change, the Bot will probably have a hard time to keep Ming together and will be unable to blod quickly. On the other hand, player will still be able to play around it.

Which China, the Ming or the Qing? The Ming weren't expansionist, but the Qing where, modern day China owes its borders to the Qing who added Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet to what is considered China with only Outer Mongolia breaking away. I would see if it's possible to at least mod the A.I Ming to be less interested in conquests perhaps doubling overextension and coring costs or for the Ming tag or any other traditional dynasty save the Qing tag.

I do agree a HRE mechanic would just make no sense at all if the Ming was like the later Han after Emperor Ling and had a weak emperor with semi-autonomous provinces then a "hre" system could work.

 

[kitemasaki]

Which China, the Ming or the Qing? The Ming weren't expansionist, but the Qing where, modern day China owes its borders to the Qing who added Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet to what is considered China with only Outer Mongolia breaking away. I would see if it's possible to at least mod the A.I Ming to be less interested in conquests perhaps doubling overextension and coring costs or for the Ming tag or any other traditional dynasty save the Qing tag.

I do agree a HRE mechanic would just make no sense at all if the Ming was like the later Han after Emperor Ling and had a weak emperor with semi-autonomous provinces then a "hre" system could work.

It won't be an HRE mechanic. Nobody could really try to explain how that would make sense. It is is beyond anything resembling 'realism' that you couldn't even use Johan/Wiz's previous responses of realism not being a solid argument. It is so ludicrous that even their responses would be puffed up air. It is most likely some type of 'influence' mechanic or power projection unique for whoever holds "China" of the Chinese culture group. The tab element, which of course is nowhere near finished, simply said China. It didn't say Ming/Qing/Tang/Wu...etc etc. So it probably is for whoever has the majority of power in China and will get some type of perks/bonuses/PP from it.