Ming's instability addressed by the devs?

[Abnormalmind]

Curious. Been playing EU4 (and EU3) and my thoughts focused on why Ming was so unstable? I started reading up on the Ming dynasty and found some interesting tidbits. Ming became unstable in the 17th century when the world's silver supply became scarce. Ultimately, that led to Ming's economic downfall coupled with the famine caused by the Little Ice Age. The game greatly exaggerates Zhengtong's capture by giving Oirat incredible bonuses. His capture was rather lackluster (Emperor replaced by the younger brother). The siege of Bejing was a disaster for Oirat. The Oirat vanguards (yes, plural) were tricked into the city, whence the gates were shut behind and they were annihilated. The siege lasted barely a week before Oirat was forced to withdraw. Zhengtong was returned to the Ming (not for their ransom demands) for a measly trade agreement.

My amateur opinion: Ming is far too unstable. It's an injustice how the game models the dynasty's resilience.

 

[LukasYork]

Ah sh*t, here we go again

Ming is too unstable, Ming is too stable. Ming is OP, Ming is too weak...

Actually Ming is in a really nice spot between realism and gameplay - It sometimes blows up, sometimes doesn't, without Player intervention it is always a gamble and it's how it should be. It gives a little excitment from discovering Far East.
It might be a little to easy to break them once they become unstable but that's a whole different topic - it definitely is too easy for a player but for the AI it's about the right challenge, maybe should be a little easier still because in my almost 6k hours I'm yet to see Qing conquering all of China on it's own

Make Ming more stable and it will be:
1. Boring to play as
2. Extremely tedious for countries around Ming
3. Boring to play around
4. Boring to discover China in the same state over and over again

Make Ming less stable and again, it will get stale and sameish from game to game. I don't want to deal with this massive blob every time I play remotely around China.

Bottom line is, there's no point discussing any of this before we see how it plays in Domination, since Ming gets a lot of changes.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Yeah this topics comes up ever so often. Doesn't matter what they do someone is always experience one or the other extreme.

So far in my games they seem to be exploding every game and the question is just when. I am fine with that since it makes that area of the World more interesting and dynamic.

They could push the unification a bit more (I know thy did a couple of patches back, but I still haven't seen it really). Though making them more stable (e.g. pushing the collapse date back) will make the reunification more difficult as the average playtime doesn't allow the AI to conquer enough.

I haven't seen Ming collapse to the Oirat ever so not sure why you are focusing on the event. The effects in my game are minimal.

Anyway it remains to be seen what the current changes will bring before trying to change something again.

 

[FishieFan]

Curious. Been playing EU4 (and EU3) and my thoughts focused on why Ming was so unstable? I started reading up on the Ming dynasty and found some interesting tidbits. Ming became unstable in the 17th century when the world's silver supply became scarce. Ultimately, that led to Ming's economic downfall coupled with the famine caused by the Little Ice Age

Gotta love monocausal history

. The game greatly exaggerates Zhengtong's capture by giving Oirat incredible bonuses. His capture was rather lackluster (Emperor replaced by the younger brother). The siege of Bejing was a disaster for Oirat. The Oirat vanguards (yes, plural) were tricked into the city, whence the gates were shut behind and they were annihilated. The siege lasted barely a week before Oirat was forced to withdraw. Zhengtong was returned to the Ming (not for their ransom demands) for a measly trade agreement.

My amateur opinion: Ming is far too unstable. It's an injustice how the game models the dynasty's resilience.

Oirat can capture the Emperor but then fail the siege of beijing, the ai normally has enough troops to relieve the siege because its game start Ming with high mandate

 

[bigbadwolf_45]

Curious. Been playing EU4 (and EU3) and my thoughts focused on why Ming was so unstable? I started reading up on the Ming dynasty and found some interesting tidbits. Ming became unstable in the 17th century when the world's silver supply became scarce. Ultimately, that led to Ming's economic downfall coupled with the famine caused by the Little Ice Age. The game greatly exaggerates Zhengtong's capture by giving Oirat incredible bonuses. His capture was rather lackluster (Emperor replaced by the younger brother). The siege of Bejing was a disaster for Oirat. The Oirat vanguards (yes, plural) were tricked into the city, whence the gates were shut behind and they were annihilated. The siege lasted barely a week before Oirat was forced to withdraw. Zhengtong was returned to the Ming (not for their ransom demands) for a measly trade agreement.

My amateur opinion: Ming is far too unstable. It's an injustice how the game models the dynasty's resilience.

I’m okay with Ming as is, but I wish they made it easier for AI successor states to reunify China. I have never seen a unified China under Qing, and just the other day I saw the Shun dynasty unite China for the first time in my years of playing. In my experience China is always divided by 3 kingdoms until the end of the game after Ming collapses. I’d love to see China’s wealth and properity shine a bit more after 1600.

 

[FishieFan]

I’m okay with Ming as is, but I wish they made it easier for AI successor states to reunify China. I have never seen a unified China under Qing, and just the other day I saw the Shun dynasty unite China for the first time in my years of playing. In my experience China is always divided by 3 kingdoms until the end of the game after Ming collapses. I’d love to see China’s wealth and properity shine a bit more after 1600.

What more do you need than the current buffs? Years of playing was years prior to the buffs given. Qing suffers from being made a tier 1 monarchy even if emperor of china is abolished so can never conquer as quickly as a horde could with take mandate

 

[bigbadwolf_45]

What more do you need than the current buffs? Years of playing was years prior to the buffs given. Qing suffers from being made a tier 1 monarchy even if emperor of china is abolished so can never conquer as quickly as a horde could with take mandate

I never said I needed anything, didn’t I just say that I wish it was made easier for the AI to unify China? How thats implemented can be left to the devs and content creators, but there are numerous ways that it can be accomplished.

Off the top of my head, even a system similar to the “x country joins the Netherlands” event could be implemented, where (slowly) one province at a time is added to China with some sort of heavy debuff like 90% autonomy for x years. I usually see Delhi or Bengal cross over Tibet and conquer Southern/Western China due to the lack of Chinese unification. China was unified for almost the entire EU4 timeline, I don’t see why this shouldn’t be reflected in game.

I still want to try the new DLC before actually making any suggestion though. For all I know my wish will come true with nothing more than the announced changes.

 

[Tydeus Cicero]

What more do you need than the current buffs? Years of playing was years prior to the buffs given. Qing suffers from being made a tier 1 monarchy even if emperor of china is abolished so can never conquer as quickly as a horde could with take mandate

You get automatic cores as emperor of China if you use the Unify China CB.