MIng has infinite money
- Thread starter StellarFreak
- Start date
-
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.
totally normal. they have 1.3k development, it's 1650 and they've had plenty of time to build money making buildings. ai has gotten much better at getting money since the persia update, so big countries like ming that already have a financial advantage benefit even more.
32k ducats in 1650 isn't that remarkable. They can still be beaten, anyway.
I'm not a fan of the way they can merc up from tributaries, though. Generally I'd suggest carpet occupation to counter mercspam but that doesn't work so much with Ming.
I'm not a fan of the way they can merc up from tributaries, though. Generally I'd suggest carpet occupation to counter mercspam but that doesn't work so much with Ming.
I did end up beating them and took a bunch of forts so the next war won't be as difficult.
Only won because the ai began suiciding small armies against my armies siegiing his forts, thus quickly advancing the siege progress.
Only won because the ai began suiciding small armies against my armies siegiing his forts, thus quickly advancing the siege progress.
Honestly 32k seems really low, last patch made the AI way better at investing it's money in Manufacturies, though still not anywhere near as good as a player. in my current game there are only a handful of nations with less than 10k ducats by 1700, with me hitting the money cap by 1720.
This isn't a Ming specific thing, they just show symptoms of it faster because of their massive development.
This isn't a Ming specific thing, they just show symptoms of it faster because of their massive development.
That is dumb. Everything is wrong with Ming during how many updates?
IRL tributaries were pretty costly for Ming - return gifts were pretty big, but for China it was a matter of prestige, so their tributaries gained profit too.
IRL tributaries were pretty costly for Ming - return gifts were pretty big, but for China it was a matter of prestige, so their tributaries gained profit too.
Every large opponent will functionally have unlimited money. If you want to do well in this game, especially for SP, you need to end wars much faster than you can possibly exhaust opponent stored cash and loans, especially since revanchism takes the edge off the latter if you win anyway.
Vs Ming, simply taking war goal and a few battles will get your job done. Put troops on capital and use the 60+% war score to take a bunch of forts. Follow up wars should be easy.
That said, in benchmarking your present development is below what I would expect to see around 1550, and it's 1650. At this point in time, it is plenty realistic to be more than double Ming's size, which would make simply fronting the troops to siege them to death and only fighting them when they contest something you care about more feasible.
Elite players are often hitting 3k+ by 1600 in development, but development of 1.5k+ is still on one-tag WC pace if you can get absolutism maxed quickly.
Vs Ming, simply taking war goal and a few battles will get your job done. Put troops on capital and use the 60+% war score to take a bunch of forts. Follow up wars should be easy.
That said, in benchmarking your present development is below what I would expect to see around 1550, and it's 1650. At this point in time, it is plenty realistic to be more than double Ming's size, which would make simply fronting the troops to siege them to death and only fighting them when they contest something you care about more feasible.
Elite players are often hitting 3k+ by 1600 in development, but development of 1.5k+ is still on one-tag WC pace if you can get absolutism maxed quickly.
.png){kind=avatar}
I've read this far too often on the forums. It is simply wrong.
There is two things one should know about traditional chinese government & culture.
1.) Merchants (and trade) was considerd a low position in society.
Meanwhile (government) officials was considered the highest. Of course there were rich (and influencial) merchants in China, however they would usually aquire a position as an official in one way or another, since otherwise it was far too inconvient for them to conduct business. (Especially if they wanted to do business with the government or army)
This meant, that given the choice a merchant would act in his role of offical and find some official cover for conducting trade. Most Importantly when it came to writing down their accounts they would do so. (And most of what we know about ancient china is what they wrote down after all)
So instead of "sold 10 tons of food to the army for x" the account could read "contributed 10t food to the army - received x as a reward"
Think of it like big companies nowadays. No one is really surprised if they are greedy and exploit their workers. But if they made an official statement admitting this, there would be an outrage.
The same was true for international trade of course. The officials couldn't conduct trade openly - it was considerd beneath their dignity after all. Since it's profitable they naturally still did it anyways, but they had to find a cover. So they called it "receiving Tribute" and "returning a Gift"
2.) This was convenient for another reason:
Since ancient times (Han Dynasty: 200 BCE - 220 CE) the chinese government was structured into "Three Departments and Six Ministries". These had very rigid jurisdiction and were absolutely not allowed to step outside of those. But there was no Ministry for something like trade.
In the end "Trade" (and foreign relations in general) came under the ministry of rites. But they obviously couldn't be responsible for this, as trade has nothing to do with rites. So everything had to be done under the cover of "rites". Conviently "paying tribute" fulfilled this.
This led to a lot of things being considered as paying tribute by the chinese court. In reality it could be everything from actual tribute to vassal taxes over war reperations and even trade relations. Consequently in reality "Tributary" could also mean trading partners or allies.
So the statement that
is misleading at best. Certainly in cases, where "Tribute" in reality referred to trade relations, both parties profited from them. (That's the point of trade after all.) But there were also plenty of cases where the tributaries had no (economic) profit.
Last edited:
In my defense I didn't start the game with any particular goal in mind and nor was I attempting to blob. I didn't even decide to go for the Great Yuan achievement (not sure that is the proper name?) until around 1600. And I wouldn't presume to consider myself an elite player. Don't have the patience for the micro!
Ming actions should all just be based on meritocracy and mandate.
Advisers should cost Mandate to hire and Meritocracy for upkeep.
State upkeep should cost Meritocracy.
Coring should cost Mandate.
Stability should cost Meritocracy.
Ideas should cost meritocracy.
Technology should cost Mandate.
Cultural conversion costs Meritocracy.
Celestial Empire monarchs get a Meritocracy and Mandate rating of 1-6 instead of Monarch points.
Ming should get some more scripted disasters like Yellow River floods and earthquakes.
Also income should be modified by Mandate. Anything below 80% Mandate is a negative to income.
Problem solved.
Advisers should cost Mandate to hire and Meritocracy for upkeep.
State upkeep should cost Meritocracy.
Coring should cost Mandate.
Stability should cost Meritocracy.
Ideas should cost meritocracy.
Technology should cost Mandate.
Cultural conversion costs Meritocracy.
Celestial Empire monarchs get a Meritocracy and Mandate rating of 1-6 instead of Monarch points.
Ming should get some more scripted disasters like Yellow River floods and earthquakes.
Also income should be modified by Mandate. Anything below 80% Mandate is a negative to income.
Problem solved.