Is there any hope for 1.20 China Patch?

[Dakka]

Although, looking at it more closely now, I only see a few new Steppe provinces...

I think Beijing got split. Though I may be just remembering it incorrectly.

Trin Tragula said in this very thread that a complete overhaul of East Asia would take far more work than Denmark patch. Maybe they are doing it slowly, redrawing the map (and there is a lot to redraw) over several patches before implementing new mechanics. At least, this is my secret hope

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

 

[Grand Historian]

I don't want to be obliged to keep 500 admin points in reserve. As you said, it's too binary.

Mechanics should be engaging. Options are key.

Absolutely. Though, we want to be careful in not going too much the other way - after all, Stability is by definition rather binary. I suppose organic would be a better term for what I would want out of a stability overhaul - something that feels natural and adjusts depending on your size and your current internal situation.

 

[Grand Historian]

I think Beijing got split. Though I may be just remembering it incorrectly.


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

Yeah, you're right, Beijing did get split.

For reference in case if anyone feels like finding the new provinces, here's vanilla (ignore Japan):

 

[Mingmung]

Absolutely. Though, we want to be careful in not going too much the other way - after all, Stability is by definition rather binary. I suppose organic would be a better term for what I would want out of a stability overhaul - something that feels natural and adjusts depending on your size and your current internal situation.

I could live with a more organic and dynamic system, yes.

The situation we have is that expanding is arguably the most fun way of playing, I fear it would ruin gameplay if we throw maluses and negative modifiers to them.

Autonomy can be quite punishing for example: it renders whole provinces useless for a time if you've just conquered it. Especially frustrating if you start small and in poor lands. I fear that mechanics like decimation will make it even worse.

There must be ways around this somehow. To make it engaging and fun at the same time while not making the game a cakewalk.

 

[Katsuki126]

I'd also want to see something less binary in terms of Stability myself (something more indepth beyond a -/+3 scale).

I don't want to be obliged to keep 500 admin points in reserve. As you said, it's too binary.

Mechanics should be engaging. Options are key.

Monarch-personalities are fun for example. Events are nice, as well as giving you alternative options in some otherwise negative events.

Absolutely. Though, we want to be careful in not going too much the other way - after all, Stability is by definition rather binary. I suppose organic would be a better term for what I would want out of a stability overhaul - something that feels natural and adjusts depending on your size and your current internal situation.

I couldn't agree more. I was actually thinking about Prussia militarisation when I wrote the suggestion. The bigger you get, the harder it is to maintain. Stability would not be +/-3 anymore, it could naturally decay (like prestige). It would then become easy to maintain high stability within a small nation, while a big one would definitely have trouble.

Thousand of modifiers could then be applied. If you boost stability by 75 admin power increment, which then give +x stability depending on your modifiers, plus passive increases, then monarch personalities, ideas, random events, even spying actions could affect it. A disaster would lower your stability and give passive stability reduction (like a -1 prestige would do to prestige) effectively lowering the stable point of your stability (where decay compensate the various modifiers).

 

[Mingmung]

Another question is: Did size really make a nation more likely to destabilize by default?

Why don't we have thousands of small nations in the world instead of some small and some VERY big ones?


There is obviously something that is positive about being big aside from MOAHR TAXES!

 

[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

 

[Grand Historian]

Also, I can't tell if covering up Japan was a strategic choice or not, but I don't think anything has been done to it yet; Tsushima and what little of Hizen is shown looks like it still has the Ouchi's color, and were Japan to get a split I can't really see the doing it without making Hizen its own province.

Unless if they have done it and picked a very close color for the Shoni to use.

Another question is: Did size really make a nation more likely to destabilize by default?

Not size itself, per se, but by homogeneity, the strain of communication, and of course the all present issue of personal ambition. Basically, the problems associated with large scale expansion.

 

[Warial]

Another question is: Did size really make a nation more likely to destabilize by default?

Why don't we have thousands of small nations in the world instead of some small and some VERY big ones?

It certainly increased the inefficiency of the bureaucracy, leading to provinces being essentialy self-governed (visible even in PRC). That on the other hand creates a very fertile soil for corruption and rebellions.

 

[Sian]

Also, I can't tell if covering up Japan was a strategic choice or not

Johan tends to be a teasing creator so until otherwise said, I'd say "it is deliberately covered"

 

[Mingmung]

It can also be a WIP. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[chrnno]

Another question is: Did size really make a nation more likely to destabilize by default?

Why don't we have thousands of small nations in the world instead of some small and some VERY big ones?

It depends entirely on what they did to get to that size. It is just that the methods that don't cause issues are generally called 'colonization' instead of 'expansion' see Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Russia and United States for examples amongst the biggest nations.

Look at the really big nations they are a group that expanded onto other people's lands over a large period of time and became majority whether by death, assimilation or immigration(normally a combination of all three).

First otherwise is India in the seventh place and half the size of the sixth which had UK as the superpower of the age forging it together overtime, even then quite a bit broke away.

 

[Grand Historian]

It depends entirely on what they did to get to that size. It is just that the methods that don't cause issues are generally called 'colonization' instead of 'expansion' see Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Russia and United States for examples amongst the biggest nations.

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

 

[Katsuki126]

Another question is: Did size really make a nation more likely to destabilize by default?

Why don't we have thousands of small nations in the world instead of some small and some VERY big ones?


There is obviously something that is positive about being big aside from MOAHR TAXES!

Well, it depends on the system itself. If you rely heavily on decentralization, which mean a feudal system during eu4 timeframe, the bigger you are, the harder it is to keep everyone in line, there will always be someone on the edge of your Empire who will effectively be independent. Not to mention rebellion from powerful Lords etc...
If you rely on centralization, you will definitely have trouble maintaining your authority on the entirety of your Empire because of communications, distance, and over-reliance on the monarch for trivialities.
However, if you have a strong "spiritual" way of enforcing your authority (divine right ie. Mandate of Heaven) people will more easily be kept in line (it does not eliminate the aforementioned problem, but it reduce their impact). Nationalism is another "spiritual" way of keeping the country together. One people, one country, but this is later in the timeframe. Having a cultural union over the various cultures of your land help maintaining stability throughout your realm, not the only factor though.
This is the main reason behind nowadays massive, and somehow stable in their borders, nation.

 

[Grand Historian]

Well, it depends on the system itself. If you rely heavily on decentralization, which mean a feudal system during eu4 timeframe, the bigger you are, the harder it is to keep everyone in line, there will always be someone on the edge of your Empire who will effectively be independent. Not to mention rebellion from powerful Lords etc...
If you rely on centralization, you will definitely have trouble maintaining your authority on the entirety of your Empire because of communications, distance, and over-reliance on the monarch for trivialities.
However, if you have a strong "spiritual" way of enforcing your authority (divine right ie. Mandate of Heaven) people will more easily be kept in line (it does not eliminate the aforementioned problem, but it reduce their impact). Nationalism is another "spiritual" way of keeping the country together. One people, one country, but this is later in the timeframe. Having a cultural union over the various cultures of your land help maintaining stability throughout your realm, not the only factor though.
This is the main reason behind nowadays massive, and somehow stable in their borders, nation.

Of course, the issue with the Mandate of Heaven is that it can be lost or claimed.

 

[Mingmung]

Nationalism is a tough one. In Austria-Hungary for example, not all minority movements wanted independence, some wanted more rights, others a more decentralized or even federalized state. Austria-Hungary had another thing going which were rivalries between cultures within the empire, which also factored heavily in the empire's survival after the 1848 revolutions. Almost a form of "healthy" competition, really. The country was conservative, yes, but arguably not as backwards and unstable as most historybooks tell you. Nationalism, like any movement, is not black or white.

'Multicultural' and big nations are not a burden for themselves per se. They're just different and come with their own set of problemsn of course, but so does every nation. Population and size aren't even the only variables. So are geography, neighbors, history, resources etc.

My point is that it shouldn't be too punishing to be a wide nation in eu4. Or, heck, even punishing at all.

 

[Zerodv]

My point is that it shouldn't be too punishing to be a wide nation in eu4. Or, heck, even punishing at all.

It should be, otherwise the singleplayer games would have no challenge after a while.

 

[Mingmung]

It should be, otherwise the singleplayer games would have no challenge after a while.

In other ways than maluses and negative numbers, fine.

 

[Canute VII]

Well, what about making stability cost modifier scale with the number of provinces ? (and not development to encourage inward perfection) Or any state above a state cap slowly, but surely, give modifier to the stability cost modifier. Thus blobbing terribly would still be possible, but you would have to cope with the consequences. Ming will be struggling internally should it want to expand. As far as I know, huge empire usually had trouble maintaining themselves in the very long run, Mughals, Ming easy conquest by Qing, Qing fall (out of the timeframe though), late Ottomans, Timurids etc...
That way a stab hit would be desastrous for a massive empire.

Yep, you might want to read my suggestion as to stability:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ial-bureaucracy-and-imperial-factions.974782/ Maybe not ideal, but a stepping stone.

 

[Mingmung]

Yep, you might want to read my suggestion as to stability:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ial-bureaucracy-and-imperial-factions.974782/ Maybe not ideal, but a stepping stone.

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.