Is there any hope for 1.20 China Patch?

[Grand Historian]

Does anyone think Paradox will actually manage to find a solution to China that lets it be very strong in income and army but not end up blobbing away everything?

Not without changing underlying base mechanics or making it unplayable.

 

[Zerodv]

Not without changing underlying base mechanics or making it unplayable.

Unplayable in the sense that no one will want to play it? But there are people that want to play tall and stuff like this.

 

[Grand Historian]

Unplayable in the sense that no one will want to play it? But there are people that want to play tall and stuff like this.

Unplayable in the sense that it would be beyond infuriating.

 

[chrnno]

The rather bad history classes seems to be pretty widespread. From Brazil here and as far as basic education is concerned European history after the fall of the (Western)Roman Empire and up to WW1 is Crusades, Discovery of the New World, Reformation and Napoleon.

 

[Zerodv]

Unplayable in the sense that it would be beyond infuriating.

What exactly would be infuriating?

The rather bad history classes seems to be pretty widespread. From Brazil here and as far as basic education is concerned European history after the fall of the (Western)Roman Empire and up to WW1 is Crusades, Discovery of the New World, Reformation and Napoleon.

Well, depending on how many hours you have history every week(possibly 2 to 4) there isn´t much time to do everything.

 

[Grand Historian]

What exactly would be infuriating?

Well, think about it; without any sort of inhibitors, you would already win the game if you start out as Ming. And while tributaries need to be represented, beyond role-playing, what mechanic would exist that would just keep a Ming player from outright ignoring such a mechanic and just annexing everything around them? Obviously some type of inhibitors need to be put into place, and the larger we make Ming the more severe or complex the inhibitors would be.

 

[Zerodv]

Well, think about it; without any sort of inhibitors, you would already win the game if you start out as Ming. And while tributaries need to be represented, beyond role-playing, what mechanic would exist that would just keep a Ming player from outright ignoring such a mechanic and just annexing everything around them? Obviously some type of inhibitors need to be put into place, and the larger we make Ming the more severe or complex the inhibitors would be.

Would you say that what others and me suggested as inhibitors wouldn´t work or that they also would tedious or annoying to deal with?

 

[Grand Historian]

Would you say that what others and me suggested as inhibitors wouldn´t work or that they also would tedious or annoying to deal with?

Not entirely. Both you and Koramei have excellent ideas, but I feel it still doesn't answer the underlying question of what would stop a player from just ignoring them or biting the bullet and still annexing everything around them. Putting arbitrary hardcaps or making mechanics that feel like they're punishing you for merely playing them would just make people upset.

 

[Zerodv]

Not entirely. Both you and Koramei have excellent ideas, but I feel it still doesn't answer the underlying question of what would stop a player from just ignoring them or biting the bullet and still annexing everything around them. Putting arbitrary hardcaps or making mechanics that feel like they're punishing you for merely playing them would just make people upset.

I see, that makes sense. I would say that even if like forced China to use its money in either many forts(to prevent Mongol raids) or any kind of internal politics or tributaries diplomacy, the main deal would be to fix the semi exponential growth caused by buildings mechanics. That would fix many other countries also.

 

[Grand Historian]

I see, that makes sense. I would say that even if like forced China to use its money in either many forts(to prevent Mongol raids) or any kind of internal politics or tributaries diplomacy, the main deal would be to fix the semi exponential growth caused by buildings mechanics. That would fix many other countries also.

Mhm. I think a general rework of Stability would be good for this; I believe it would be safe to say it's a bit on the easy side to maintain a large empire, especially late game, unless if you're perpetually conquering everything around you.

 

[Zerodv]

Mhm. I think a general rework of Stability would be good for this; I believe it would be safe to say it's a bit on the easy side to maintain a large empire, especially late game, unless if you're perpetually conquering everything around you.

Yeah, the game right now is more or less: conquest->consolidate->conquest , the bigger you get the more internal politics you should play, given you should actually have to deal with the people you conquered outside the first decades of separatism.

If there was a way to make something other than conquest be more psychologically rewarding the game could go more in that direction.

 

[Grand Historian]

If there was a way to make something other than conquest be more psychologically rewarding the game could go more in that direction.

Well, I would assume if we make maintaining conquests more difficult, they would become more rewarding.

 

[Zerodv]

Well, I would assume if we make maintaining conquests more difficult, they would become more rewarding.

Yeah, I guess than in the short term a Eu4 player would get discouraged from having anti blob mechanics because he is used to take half the word by 1700 but if he gets used to more historical plausible outcome then the success-reward system would be calibrated better.

For example in dev MP games they play with score, that would work quite well with more historically focused gameplay over blobbing, because that way you don´t necessarily need to have the biggest number of income or provinces etc. but you just need to succeed in your own corner of the world as best as possible. More dynamic victory cards could meet this goal quite well.

 

[fred.erick]

Yeah, the game right now is more or less: conquest->consolidate->conquest , the bigger you get the more internal politics you should play, given you should actually have to deal with the people you conquered outside the first decades of separatism.

If there was a way to make something other than conquest be more psychologically rewarding the game could go more in that direction.

Historically speaking, separatists rose repeatedly in certain regions, and led to established empires disintegrating (I'm looking at you now, Austria-Hungary.) Simulating this in the game would be very interesting, in my opinion. Even in the game, old national inspirations are supposed to be rekindled in the 18th. century, but I don't see this mechanic actually working.

 

[Koramei]

Mhm. I think a general rework of Stability would be good for this; I believe it would be safe to say it's a bit on the easy side to maintain a large empire, especially late game, unless if you're perpetually conquering everything around you.

I think you're right that this is the root of the issue. Fix this and you could fix China easily, and it's also relevant for every single empire in the game. Personally I have no suggestions how they'd fix it (Wiz has talked a bunch about how stronger rebels and so on are a no go- players have overwhelmingly voiced that they hate that), but my money's on there being a good chance it's what we'll end up seeing in the much anticipated dev diary next Tuesday. If there is a solution for empires blobbing I'd love it, and it'd make gimmicky solutions for China like mine obsolete, which would be great.

but I feel it still doesn't answer the underlying question of what would stop a player from just ignoring them or biting the bullet and still annexing everything around them.

In my idea, for every province they take it'd tank their "Mandate of Heaven" (like Imperial Authority for the HRE)- and in the China-HRE thing, the reforms can be lost as easily as gained. So while you could absorb a few provinces (although it would set you back), blobbing would find you losing all the centralization you'd achieved and, if you did it enough, break the constituent states away totally.

I can't disagree that it's an arbitrary limitation though. Personally I think it would be engaging, and an enormous improvement over the currently boring as hell Ming game, but I guess there are plenty of players who enjoy Ming as it is right now.


also from a bit ago but:

However, I would like to point out something I feel should be addressed; such a system would be a little too Ming-centric. Representing China's internal weakness by breaking it up into a bunch of small nations and having an HRE-esque mechanic for it is indeed an ingenious way to handle it, but how would someone replace the Ming? Should there be any distinction between tributary and internal Chinese nations? What would happen were the Ming to be replaced? If someone conquered all the Ming's land in a single war, why shouldn't they be allowed to retreat elsewhere like what happened with the southern Ming rather than just being annexed? What happens in the event that the Ming lose the Mandate of Heaven? And so on. It's a very well thought out idea, I feel it just needs to be a little more flexible.

I don't have a perfect solution for all of this (stuff like Southern Ming), but I totally forgot to go over replacement dynasties. That's a vital component of any China-solution, I think; I would really like an EU4 where we can feasibly get AI Qing or other successor dynasties.

So yeah, for my idea basically, since it's an HRE-like, you'd have it so Ming would lose the emperorship and someone else would take it up, if certain conditions are fulfilled- mostly whether they had the "vote" of the other states in the China-HRE. At a certain level of reform, Ming could have an "irrefutable Mandate", where the China-HRE states couldn't vote for anybody else but Ming- but below that level, it could be lost. Not just immediately on monarch death or something, but say, if one of the China-HRE subdivisions got the support of some of the other subdivisions, they could form a rebellion together and go to war against the incumbent emperor (Ming) + its loyal divisions, prompting a giant civil war. This war could also be triggered by a Chinese tech outsider (like say, a unified Manchuria) if it had managed to get the subdivisions' support.

The level of centralization the Ming starts at (and an AI Ming should I think be unlikely to pass more than a single reform at most) would make it extremely open to losing the emperorship like this. If you as an outsider beat it in a war, for instance, it could prompt it losing the support of its divisions- they probably wouldn't vote for you, mind (maybe doing things like taking key cities like Beijing, Nanjing and Xi'an could increase their support for you), but rather one of their own (or two, or three of their own- China would divide into competing power blocks). But it'd mean you could still cause immense turmoil in China by beating them in a war or two.

Also, this would give the subdivisions something to do, since I imagine they'd be playable. Try to win over the other subdivisions and then make a civil war to seize the emperorship of China.

edit: oh, and the internal Chinese states are very very different from its tributaries. Tributaries should be very little more than a symbolic relationship, for all intents and purposes they act like independent nations.

 

[Kastomoño]

EUROPA UNIVERSALIS ... has the subject in his name. Iam fine if PDX would leave off far east because Europe is what the game is about and that's the reason IAM playing it. That's of course my opinion you don't have to share it but that's why iam not " upset " if Asia stay as it is.

But don't you want even more detailed stuff for your European Superpower to conquer though?

 

[Zerodv]

Historically speaking, separatists rose repeatedly in certain regions, and led to established empires disintegrating (I'm looking at you now, Austria-Hungary.) Simulating this in the game would be very interesting, in my opinion. Even in the game, old national inspirations are supposed to be rekindled in the 18th. century, but I don't see this mechanic actually working.

Well even without 19th century nationalism you have regional upper classes or powerful groups inciting unrest periodically or when the oppurtunity is right and also religious separatism.

For example having Bohemia rebel the way it did in 1618 would be quite epic, you could use DHE or some semi-flexible mechanics for that. You also have the Dutch on top of that, their DHE is more known and has lost his effect but is still quite good. Other examples are Ireland, Catalan revolt, Hungary(austrian succession war) and some others.

Those happened after centuries of rule from the country they were revolting against and while yes most of them did have autonomy in a way that would be borderline PU, I would say or argue that that was the case pretty much anywhere(the game should also use autonomy a bit better with a progressive decline of local nobilty and centralization for certain countries instead of having the same system for 4 centuries of conquer>consolidate>conquer, devastation would help but autonomy can also be better used).

 

[chrnno]

Well, depending on how many hours you have history every week(possibly 2 to 4) there isn´t much time to do everything.

I am not talking about actually explaining things otherwise only Discovery of the New World would even be in the list until WW2. I am talking about it coming up at all.

To give an example. The Roman Empire fell leaving everything around a mess then at some point Muslims conquered Jerusalem(never said from who) eventually leading to the Crusades which were a series of wars waged by Christians to get it under their control which ultimately failed. I am not summarizing, that is literally what I know about the Middle Ages from school.

I like history and until I started learning for myself I didn't even know things like the Holy Roman Empire or the caliphates existed.

 

[fred.erick]

Well even without 19th century nationalism you have regional upper classes or powerful groups inciting unrest periodically or when the oppurtunity is right and also religious separatism.

For example having Bohemia rebel the way it did in 1618 would be quite epic, you could use DHE or some semi-flexible mechanics for that. You also have the Dutch on top of that, their DHE is more known and has lost his effect but is still quite good. Other examples are Ireland, Catalan revolt, Hungary(austrian succession war) and some others.

Those happened after centuries of rule from the country they were revolting against and while yes most of them did have autonomy in a way that would be borderline PU, I would say or argue that that was the case pretty much anywhere(the game should also use autonomy a bit better with a progressive decline of local nobilty and centralization for certain countries instead of having the same system for 4 centuries of conquer>consolidate>conquer, devastation would help but autonomy can also be better used).

Good examples. Then you have Indian empires, like the Bahmanis, which disintegrated into separate kingdoms due to failed wars against Vijayanagar. In game, war exhaustion and unrest just don't have such far reaching. I think they should, for a more dynamic play, where empires rise and fall.
I know that ruins the idea of world conquest. I don't care.

 

[fred.erick]

But don't you want even more detailed stuff for your European Superpower to conquer though?

Conquer, or interact with.
What if you, as a European power, could negotiate trade rights from Asian nations, not only wage war against them all. Could be interesting, in my view.