I've noticed it as well that bots don't run out of money. In my case it was the Ottomans, but I've done similar things to them to what you are describing doing to Ming. I hold all of their territory for a few years just to deny the tax, trade control etc. and by the end of it they have 2 loans on. It makes me think that the bots cheat on money.
Ming is Broken, some basic fixes are needed!
- Thread starter Sukramo
- 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.
You decided to attack Ming with 50 years left in the game for the first time, what did you expect would happen? 0 Mandate troops are paper, you're greatly exaggerating Ming's power.
To whoever said Ming was 10/10/10 in 1525, this is my current game:
Last edited:
The doing still very good in your game are in tech on East European level. But my games showed me they are ahead if the player plays in the region.
Yes Ming is not weak and historical the hordes on the North Border were the only external thread during weak times. And in EUIV the Manchu tribes are not threat at all against nobody, while played by the AI.
Also internal turmoil often caused Ming to crash, that is not happening and that is the point.
Even if you attack Ming early it won't break it, except you conquer Land and isolate it. And as most countries you defeat Ming only in mid game. Some don't want to conquer Ming just let it crash.
In my game I can defeat Ming in a short War and can take some spoils, but what I want is to fracture it and not take Land.
My Solutions would be bigger Rebelsstacks spawning in Ming, so they are not that easily wiped out and supporting Rebels makes sense.
Also events showing Ming military-, economic weaknesses,famines and the many intriques before it's downfall. They are some in places, but are solved with a little money which Ming has more than enough and armies which supress any Rebellion.
You can read upon Ming and see in it's current shape it is not historical neither is it good balanced.
Yes Ming is not weak and historical the hordes on the North Border were the only external thread during weak times. And in EUIV the Manchu tribes are not threat at all against nobody, while played by the AI.
Also internal turmoil often caused Ming to crash, that is not happening and that is the point.
Even if you attack Ming early it won't break it, except you conquer Land and isolate it. And as most countries you defeat Ming only in mid game. Some don't want to conquer Ming just let it crash.
In my game I can defeat Ming in a short War and can take some spoils, but what I want is to fracture it and not take Land.
My Solutions would be bigger Rebelsstacks spawning in Ming, so they are not that easily wiped out and supporting Rebels makes sense.
Also events showing Ming military-, economic weaknesses,famines and the many intriques before it's downfall. They are some in places, but are solved with a little money which Ming has more than enough and armies which supress any Rebellion.
You can read upon Ming and see in it's current shape it is not historical neither is it good balanced.
I find it funny that a lot of people complain about the Ottomans not reaching their historical borders, but only some complain about the Manchus.
Because one makes the game harder and the other doesn't, like how a stable Ming makes the game harder and all of a sudden everyone's a history PHD. If anything AI Ming should form Qing via event and expand in Asia, or Ming can get 50k stacks of pretender rebels who'll fight any outsiders except for hordes.
The premise of this thread is someone who was going for a blobbing achievement that had nothing to do with Ming, who decided to attack Ming anyway for fun in 1775, then complained about how the game is imbalanced because the war took longer than what is considered acceptable to casual players.
This is the same story for most proponents of Ottoman nerfs I'd imagine. They would like to see the entire world balkanized so they can expand at will, not realizing of course that a fractured Anatolia, like a fractured China, would only make blobbing more difficult due to AE and alliances.
The premise of this thread is someone who was going for a blobbing achievement that had nothing to do with Ming, who decided to attack Ming anyway for fun in 1775, then complained about how the game is imbalanced because the war took longer than what is considered acceptable to casual players.
This is the same story for most proponents of Ottoman nerfs I'd imagine. They would like to see the entire world balkanized so they can expand at will, not realizing of course that a fractured Anatolia, like a fractured China, would only make blobbing more difficult due to AE and alliances.
To be fair scrubbing Ming off the map in 20 years or less in the late game IS possible, and not all that hard to execute for runaway human empires since the AE you slap on them makes them keep joining wars against you at will and they are quickly separated from their forts.
The expectation aligned with the game's reality, it's the execution that fell short of reaching the expectation.
Like with any strategy game, better micro/macro can overcome most obstacles that seem "overpowered," whatever that means in a single player game. Of course there are plenty of design issues with Ming/Asia region but proposals with the mindset of making conquest easier for casuals are usually garbage.
The only thing I agree with the OP is the ability to recruit troops inside tributaries (but even for that there is a workaround to avoid it). I also agree with @TheMeInTeam WRT the tributaries military access by default. I remember thinking when I saw those for the 1st time "WTF they can do this? It does not make sense". Anyway everything else the OP said fits the 'Ming/Ottomans/BBB/AI are overpowered, please nerf' kind of thread that IMO usually mean trouble for the game. The last one that I can remember that completely trashed the AI for the next few patches was a well-known dude complaining that the AI cheating on fort maintenance had to go. The result was an AI without enough money to even reach its force limits, giving up on wars too soon and more bankruptcies.
Ming is one of the very few bosses in EU IV that is still strong enough to deserve some respect from the player (at least during the 1st war). I say learn new strategies to deal with the difficulties instead of trashing the "bosses" and therefore the game.
Last edited:
I think people don't understand the Problem, if you want the game easier or harder you can complain about it or choose a different country etc., but saying we just want to destroy your end-boss is laughable. EU IV has no goals and wanting some end-bosses confuses me, are we playing an RPG?
Yes I know EU IV is not totally historical and never can be. Russia for example is historical also totally overpowered, but pretty balanced in the Game . Also it is not the Problem defeating Ming. As I stated it is still easy.
But it is nearly impossible to fracture it without conquering it's or it's neighbors and doesn't represent Ming and the struggle the government slightly. They had many problems and there were many minorities in the Ming Empire and so on...
Even before MOH there sometimes were a powerful enemy.
Now speaking about solution.
Ming needs debuff in income(like having only 10k during 1650 and not 350K)
Mustn't recruit Mercenaries in tributary nation.
Rebellion need to be stronger(not only raw army strength), generally speaking. ( I think I open a thread for this, when I collected enough ideas)
Loosing War and Province should have in impact in Mandate power and Meritocracy(Because releasing Nation doesn't really do much in the long term)
Chances of Revoking reforms, like the HRE (Maybe not wargoal but as Event)
Make it harder generally for Nations to generate Tribute Nations and maybe lower the income from it.
Make Institutions spread more slower, also generally.
In given Devastation much heavier modifier in mandate reduction.
I don't want to nerf it to oblivion. I want good chances to dismantle without fighting 100 years if I don't want provinces.
I think generally some mechanics lack now and want to address this also in different post, but many play in Ming hands and want to present solutions not only Problems.
And this thread already appeared, also I would love if Countries have slightly historical touch. Ming government had a lot of Problems, just read about it.
I think some player just want a harder game, which I totally understand, but some things need a re-balance.
Yes I know EU IV is not totally historical and never can be. Russia for example is historical also totally overpowered, but pretty balanced in the Game . Also it is not the Problem defeating Ming. As I stated it is still easy.
But it is nearly impossible to fracture it without conquering it's or it's neighbors and doesn't represent Ming and the struggle the government slightly. They had many problems and there were many minorities in the Ming Empire and so on...
Even before MOH there sometimes were a powerful enemy.
Now speaking about solution.
Ming needs debuff in income(like having only 10k during 1650 and not 350K)
Mustn't recruit Mercenaries in tributary nation.
Rebellion need to be stronger(not only raw army strength), generally speaking. ( I think I open a thread for this, when I collected enough ideas)
Loosing War and Province should have in impact in Mandate power and Meritocracy(Because releasing Nation doesn't really do much in the long term)
Chances of Revoking reforms, like the HRE (Maybe not wargoal but as Event)
Make it harder generally for Nations to generate Tribute Nations and maybe lower the income from it.
Make Institutions spread more slower, also generally.
In given Devastation much heavier modifier in mandate reduction.
I don't want to nerf it to oblivion. I want good chances to dismantle without fighting 100 years if I don't want provinces.
I think generally some mechanics lack now and want to address this also in different post, but many play in Ming hands and want to present solutions not only Problems.
And this thread already appeared, also I would love if Countries have slightly historical touch. Ming government had a lot of Problems, just read about it.
I think some player just want a harder game, which I totally understand, but some things need a re-balance.
One thing Ming and ottomans immensely profit are Merc spam. But this was also addressed in other threads.
Indeed. The randomness of the game prevents any meaningful "end-boss". While nations like France, the Ottomans, Austria, England and Russia are most likely to succeed and thrive. The game does not guarantee their success as a certainty. For instance you might play a nice game as the Aztecs and when the Europeans show up to your horror discover that Flanders went on an unstoppable rampage and now dominates the continent. However such is a rarity. I would much prefer if the fall of Ming happened around 65-70% of the time.
The "difficulty" of beating Ming is not at all what I am complaining about. Ming, like any other country is extremely easy to beat as a late game player. And he never got any respect from me, as I easily beat him in 3 years, and kept the war going as an experiment. That experiment led to 1.6 million dead Ming mercs, with him not even collapsing after 15 years of death.
What I am complaining about is how Ming is:
A) Ignoring mechanics like Mandate that are meant to weaken him. And how tributaries help him in clearly unintended ways.
B) Break the game by being laughably stronger than any other nation and getting bizzare ahistorial bonuses like Global trade, manefactories and better tech than the Europeans every game. Infinite money and near infinite Monarch points and infinite soldiers even when fully occupied.
You ran a 25 stack into a 40 stack when the combat width is 40 and somehow think it's the game's fault you lost?
Experiment. And yes, I did expect to win a 25 v 40, with me stacking all those bonuses (Every single military bonus I could reliably get) Ming should not be able to win a 25 v 40 while being at 0 mandate. It proves that:
Mandate penalties are too low and dont affect Ming nearly enogh. They dont cause him to reliably collapse and they dont affect the quality of his soldiers nearly enogh.
Do you understand that the low mandate bonuses are for damage received, not dealt? Not sure why you'd think a half CW stack should win. The game provides a set of penalties, you fail to make use of them and complain about how the mechanic doesn't work.
I think the penalty should be changed. Damage recieving is only important, if you use manpower. While I play against Ming it is constantly at zero Manpower. And money is out of Hand at this game so it doesn't bother either.
I think moral reduction would be the way to go or the money/merc Problem ingame will be fixed
I think moral reduction would be the way to go or the money/merc Problem ingame will be fixed
Can differiante between two people you are responding?
The Problem with all strong Nation now is that they are getting ton of money and Mercs are cheap and plenty are there.
Also all your bonuses aplly to them. (All my top 5 Nation except of me have 0 Manpower town of gold are constant at war and fill they manpower limit with mercs)
That the reason many people complain about them.
Damage reduction is irrelavant if you can flood the field with troops/mercs.
So you need something that goes more for winning a battle quicker/ or solve the merc spam.
Yes Most player could also Merc Spam, but some people just don't like it and want it changed.
Also some player want, that you can fracture Ming without spending 100 years, by slowly releasing Nations and defending them.
I'd also like for AI Ming to collapse in the mid-1600s and be replaced by Qing in 70% of the games, when the player doesn't intervene in the region. Doesn't mean the Celestial Empire has to be nerfed to oblivion, just to have the game play a little more historically if the player isn't intervening.