Novgorod and Autonomy in 1.8

[grommile]

A key way to deal with LA is to not use it unless it is absolutely necessary. If you allow a revolt to occur, fight the armies and put down the revolt, this reduces the unrest a great deal (tbh, I don't know the math of this part and haven't been able to find where it's documented).

When rebels spawn, the provinces they spawned in get a temporary modifier that gives -20% Unrest.

 

[Less]

Lowering autonomy every 30 years is weaker than .1 monthly ticking (which will remove 1.2% per year, or 36 per 30 years compared to 25). It's useful, but no substitute for a good -LA government type.

You're ignoring the very massive fact that you can lower autonomy by 25 *instantly*. Assuming you take claimed territory you go from 40%->15% the instant you take a province. Would you rather tick down from 40% at .2 a month or tick down from 15% at .1 a month? This isn't an even race, -autonomy per month has to catch up to instant action, and by the time it catches up both are at nearly 0% autonomy anyway (and the instant lowering option has several years of extra manpower and income by then).

The math is better in -LA's favour if you are annexing vassals with their 75% starting autonomy, but Merchant Republics probably shouldn't be doing much of that anyway.

Right now, lategame Novgorod isn't much fun. I find myself abandoning games after conquering Muscovy, as I do not want to be locked into a merchant republic playstyle from a nation without the node, position, or ideas to play the trade game.

I suppose my answer could be to NOT play Novgorod, but since I am failing to see any reason anyone WOULD play this nation, save for the more challenging opening, I'm at a loss why things shouldn't be looked at. The option of a republican Russia sounds fun. You used to be able to switch from Merchant to Noble republic. You can't anymore, and that's a problem for Novgorod.

It sounds like you shouldn't play them then. I like Merchant Republics. If you don't, pick one of the 95% of nations that aren't a merchant republic.

But seriously, I don't get your problem with local autonomy. If you lower autonomy immediately after conquering a province you're immediately getting more income than you did in 1.7, where revolt risk replaced unrest and caused provinces to be worth less than they are now. Nevermind that the overall more income in trade makes Merchant Republics more powerful. 1.8 and local autonomy changes gave a *large* buff to Novgorod.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're ignoring the very massive fact that you can lower autonomy by 25 *instantly*. Assuming you take claimed territory you go from 40%->15% the instant you take a province. Would you rather tick down from 40% at .2 a month or tick down from 15% at .1 a month? This isn't an even race, -autonomy per month has to catch up to instant action, and by the time it catches up both are at nearly 0% autonomy anyway (and the instant lowering option has several years of extra manpower and income by then).

The math is better in -LA's favour if your are annexing vassals with their 75% starting autonomy, but Merchant Republics probably shouldn't be doing much of that anyway.

You're right of course, the up front benefit is a big one that I didn't think of for some reason. Still, lowering autonomy isn't going to stack up to advanced governments (I'm talking the -.3 stuff) or even the -.2 stuff especially because that ticks while at war because it's not nearly as spammable as "constantly everywhere"; fortunately for merchant republics they don't need it to do so.

 

[CaptainChiatrol]

You're right of course, the up front benefit is a big one that I didn't think of for some reason. Still, lowering autonomy isn't going to stack up to advanced governments (I'm talking the -.3 stuff) or even the -.2 stuff especially because that ticks while at war because it's not nearly as spammable as "constantly everywhere"; fortunately for merchant republics they don't need it to do so.

When I'm play a merchant republic I spend most of the time crying into my money about that.

No wait I don't mind because of the benefits to being one.

Also a lot of the common good russia provines can't go below 50% autonomy anyway so 25% is pretty good.

And there is the faction bonus to merchant repubs you can have complete control over. There is also the easy 6/6/6 rulers.

It's more then a worthwhile trade. Extra autonomy reduction doesn't stack up to what you gain since eventually it's not helping those 0 autonomy provinces but the money bonuses and the faction bonuses and the amazing rulers will help you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I was kind of hinting that. If you can do full cw of merc from all the money and keep going LA isn't going to give much pause, it's really only theocracies that suffer from la since their bonuses aren't even in the same league but they have no easy switch.

 

[Less]

Yeah, Theocracies are pretty lame. At least they can try stacking Tolerance of True Faith high enough that they can lower autonomy with impunity after converting land, but they get nothing else of value to compare with the other government bonuses. Meanwhile Merchant Republics get OP leaders, trade power bonuses, trade value bonuses (+trade goods works best in low base-tax provinces too, e.g. Russia), Factions (compare Aristocrats and Traders with fervor bonuses Reformed gets), and free CBs on other merchant republics.

-LA is pretty neat but it's easy to over-emphasize how useful it is. By the time you get even -.2 LA monarchies you're 200 years into the game and therefore probably a pretty big nation with a huge amount of 0% LA land to pull income and manpower from. At that point I'm really not crying over the fact that some 5% of my empire is going to provide 5% less tax/production/manpower for a decade or two. Especially not with how OP trade is in 1.8. Administrative republics get -.2 LA pretty early and that's an interesting niche, though not one that I think is really overpowering.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, Theocracies are pretty lame. At least they can try stacking Tolerance of True Faith high enough that they can lower autonomy with impunity after converting land, but they get nothing else of value to compare with the other government bonuses. Meanwhile Merchant Republics get OP leaders, trade power bonuses, trade value bonuses (+trade goods works best in low base-tax provinces too, e.g. Russia), Factions (compare Aristocrats and Traders with fervor bonuses Reformed gets), and free CBs on other merchant republics.

-LA is pretty neat but it's easy to over-emphasize how useful it is. By the time you get even -.2 LA monarchies you're 200 years into the game and therefore probably a pretty big nation with a huge amount of 0% LA land to pull income and manpower from. At that point I'm really not crying over the fact that some 5% of my empire is going to provide 5% less tax/production/manpower for a decade or two. Especially not with how OP trade is in 1.8. Administrative republics get -.2 LA pretty early and that's an interesting niche, though not one that I think is really overpowering.

The huge one is ASAP access to -.1 LA. The advantage of that is ticking autonomy early (when it matters most as you say) that always happens, even during wars. This is a large advantage for nations like Byzantium, Mamluks and other iqtas, Noble/Oligarchic/Administrative republics, and fast CN jobs.

Iqtas have an amusing history in EU IV. They used to be among the worst government types you could possibly have, but then they changed the heir-kill-during-regency event to give you random stats rather than 0/0/0 every time, and now they get -LA. Once the vassal income bug is fixed, they'll be among the more fun nations to play at the start, well positioned for fast vassal-feeding for income. I'm surprised the Mamluks are not a more popular player pick, being a trade nation that can work into the Venice node and has a relatively easy time beating the Ottomans in player hands, lucky or not (gank them with galley spam ASAP before they kill BYZ and their fleet is weaker).