Pillaging development as peace treaty term

[Kamiran]

A lot of people call for a game mechanic that destroys development to control the skyrocketing development of minor nations but in my opinions there can be too much damage, especially for the player, if development can be destroyed by looting.

Instead there should be a new peace treaty term "pillaging". This term will permanent reduce the development of provinces from nations that accept the term and will increase the own development of provinces. I would suggest one of the two options:

1. Provinces can be selected and in these provinces 15% of development is stolen (randomly if adm/dip/mil), minimum 1. Province with 1/1/1 cant be selected.
2. 10/7/5% of total development is stolen, depending on rank of enemy nation dutchy/kingdom/empire. The greater the development of a province, the more likely it will lose points in development.

The gained points are randomly spread over the nation within a radius around the capitol.

The downside of this term is the need of a high warscore and a big AE cause its barbaric to pillage.

This would increase the the reason why nations, even minor nations, declare war each other. And increase the options to play tall.

 

[Jomini]

The very idea that diligent government helps development is widespread but completely wrong.
The most diligent government of all times was the Soviet Communist government, and the experiment failed precisely because it proved unable to stimulate development.
On the other side of the scale, once upon a time there was a country which experienced so called benign neglect...

Well yes and no. In this era, the line between private and public is a lot more blurry. Was the Bank of England private (as it claimed) or public (as its major assets early one were its unique governmental privileges)? Certainly the BoE financed a lot of development and at a far faster rate than anything else in the private sector.

Likewise, how do we count the colonies? Many of them were run by private companies, but actually in the colonies they became fairly autocratic fiefdoms. Is a sole proprietorship colony a private development as an individual has bought the right to set up rules, direct settlement, and develop land ... or is it just a subsidiary monarchy?

Conversely some of the worse public expenditures of the era were little more than disguised personal projects of private citizens. The Banque Royale, for instance, ended up as little more than private scheme of John Law.

People in this era thought nothing of using governmental positions for private ends or of using their private means for governmental ends (assuming they saw some eventual profit by it).

 

[Maq]

Well yes and no. In this era, the line between private and public is a lot more blurry. Was the Bank of England private (as it claimed) or public (as its major assets early one were its unique governmental privileges)? Certainly the BoE financed a lot of development and at a far faster rate than anything else in the private sector.

Likewise, how do we count the colonies? Many of them were run by private companies, but actually in the colonies they became fairly autocratic fiefdoms. Is a sole proprietorship colony a private development as an individual has bought the right to set up rules, direct settlement, and develop land ... or is it just a subsidiary monarchy?

Conversely some of the worse public expenditures of the era were little more than disguised personal projects of private citizens. The Banque Royale, for instance, ended up as little more than private scheme of John Law.

People in this era thought nothing of using governmental positions for private ends or of using their private means for governmental ends (assuming they saw some eventual profit by it).

I've read something about John Law recently. And it has been noted that his schemes would fare in very different way had he tried the same in England. In France, he persuaded the king on something on Monday, and on something else on Thursday. This was a case of a profoundly private enterprise in an environment where private was subject to strong state control. That's one of the worst constellations, always ending in corruption and mismanagement.
Bank of England, on the other hand, operated in a very very different environment.
But we should stick to the GAME in the first place, shouldn't we? My point was that 'development' as a result of government's effort is not very plausible solution, at least to me. It implies the theory that the more control over your people you have, the better. Your points were fair enough, but in general, such scheme cannot stand the test of history.

 

[Danfish77]

But we should stick to the GAME in the first place, shouldn't we? My point was that 'development' as a result of government's effort is not very plausible solution, at least to me. It implies the theory that the more control over your people you have, the better. Your points were fair enough, but in general, such scheme cannot stand the test of history.

You seem to be conflating all government spending with a totalitarian command economy; I don't think anyone can dispute that using outside tax dollars to building a well-designed road in an area with otherwise-poor transport networks can help improve network infrastructure and lead to better market outcomes, assuming other requisite factors are in play. Is that represented well in-game? No, not really. But the basis for the abstraction is sound.

And if you're going to "stick to the GAME in the first place", why are you bringing up examples of twentieth century political entities whose founding principles wouldn't have been thinkable during the game's timeframe?

 

[Maq]

And if you're going to "stick to the GAME in the first place", why are you bringing up examples of twentieth century political entities whose founding principles wouldn't have been thinkable during the game's timeframe?

Then Confucian China, perhaps?
No one could match imperial China in her ability to extract taxes and use them for large-scale projects, like roads, canals, ponds, irrigation systems, grain depots, etc. Can you see my point now?

 

[Danfish77]

Then Confucian China, perhaps?
No one could match imperial China in her ability to extract taxes and use them for large-scale projects, like roads, canals, ponds, irrigation systems, grain depots, etc. Can you see my point now?

Ming China, one of the richest lands in the world, envy of Europe? Yes, I see you arguing my point perfectly.

 

[Maq]

Ming China, one of the richest lands in the world, envy of Europe? Yes, I see you arguing my point perfectly.

Unfortunately, that's a common mistake: a rich China. Why then she performed that poorly? And if she were that rich in the period covering the early game, why she did not develop?

 

[Danfish77]

Unfortunately, that's a common mistake: a rich China. Why then she performed that poorly? And if she were that rich in the period covering the early game, why she did not develop?

So because China did not develop industrial and military technology and act as a colonial power in the same model as Western Europeans did for a few centuries, that means that it is not possible that China could have possibly been wealthy or well-governed for large spans of time?

One might formulate a similar nonsensical argument: "Britain had cows, and Britain colonized Kenya. Zimbabwe didn't colonize Kenya, so therefore there were no cows in Zimbabwe."
Wealth and good governance are not the one and only requirement (or possibly a requirement at all) for technological progress and imperialism. China, both under the Ming and the Qing, was for most of the EU timeframe one of the richest and well-developed areas in the world. To argue otherwise is to argue from ignorance or from malice.

 

[Maq]

China, both under the Ming and the Qing, was for most of the EU timeframe one of the richest and well-developed areas in the world. To argue otherwise is to argue from ignorance or from malice

No, China was just big. Her immense size and population enabled them to accumulate enough money and labour force to create wonders, but the mass of Chinese population remained poor and primitive. Let there be no doubt that average Englishman, not to mentiaon an Italian, lived better than his Chinese counterpart even in 1444. And that difference grew bigger and bigger over time.
And don't forget that imperialism is not a European monopoly. Russia, China, Ottomans, Moghuls also conquered as far as they could handle. And many other, smaller 'imperialists' were everywhere.
Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland became rich, too. Without any conquests or colonies. China remained poor. By what other means would you measure 'success' and 'good governance'?
Don't accuse me of ignorance. I also believed that China was the most prosperous place in the world, that is, before I began study this issue.

 

[Jomini]

Richest depends on how you calculate wealth in an era of extremely limited trade. By some studies China was developed and rich per capita, but using those same methodologies also tells us silly things like southern PLC/Russia being some of the wealthiest and best developed areas of Europe.

More aptly, China had a reached a point of development with diminishing rates of return. As its population was close to carrying capacity, it had relatively little wealth to invest into growth (per capita); in Europe, if you had the money, you could clear forest, dike new land, or drain marshes for new farmland that could support increased population and more revenue. In China, just getting horses to farmers was exceedingly difficult. Being near capacity bid up the price of food, making it very difficult to find land for pasture or fodder near the main belts of population; certainly not with the number of landless or extremely small holding households was high and drove down the wages of simple manual labor.

Likewise, the examination system made if far, far more profitable for the average wealthy individual to invest resources in securing a greater share of the current wealth than building new wealth (this was a perennial problem, but particularly bad in China). The Manchu conquest is pretty enlightening, even though the Manchu brought exceedingly little in the way of new technology or organization, by dispossessing a lot of deadweight officials they freed up a lot of resources to do things like expand the frontier or build capital improvements.

Ultimately having a high population to land ratio made a lot of traditional development less efficient. Four field crop rotation, animal/wind/water power, deep hull trading, limited liability law, and colonization were all things that paid out too slowly for the average Chinese government. Even when you look at things where China excelled, like canals, the rate of improvement was terribly low and the vast majority of expenditures remained on simple upkeep.

 

[Maq]

diminishing rates of return

Your points are valid, but somehow missing the core, I believe. Every society sometimes faces so called diminishing rates of return. In Europe, scientist identified what is called crisis of the high medieval. Quite the same problem as you have described for China: less land for clearances, diminishing possibilities for extensive growth. But European society was much more dynamic, and adopted innovations. You wrote on 'era of extremely limited trade'. But trade has made much of the difference in Europe!
On the other side, Confucius taught that merchants create nothing and just parasite on others' work. That was a Confucian dogma for centuries.
Have you noticed that Chinese always fared much better overseas than at home? Once they stand on their own feet, free of suffocating rigid imperial (or communist) government, they CAN prosper. That said, they do so not in farming, which is Confucian preferred activity, but in trade and manufacturing business.
These and similar observations led me to my conclusion that it was exactly that Confucian, humanist, diligent management that invested more and more effort in old, non-innovative development with diminishing rates of return, and willingly suppressed any innovation, any deviation from Confucian dogma.
In a way, it worked. China actually used to be relatively prosperous country, compared with her neighbours, or India. Things seemed to confirm their philosophy, so they kept stuck to it. That is, only before much much more dynamic, innovative Europeans arrived and changed the world forever.

 

[Canute VII]

View attachment 134011

Look at the size of my empire, the income and my treasury. I could have more money if i hadnt run 13 colonies at same time even i had only 5 colonists.
I run lvl 3 advisors since 200 years. I build manufactories everywhere. All buildingslots are used. I conquered all what i wanted. I built the panama channel. Ive enough money to build one through africa.

BUT.... Even i am a giant economic world power, i cant develop more then one adm/dip/mil every 5 month cause this development its paid with imaginary magic monarch power.
MAKE THIS SENSE??
Why in gods name Iam not allowed to spend money in the development of my provinces and instead have to use bureaucracy and diplomatic power?
Your complaining pillaging wouldnt improve the economy of a province, even stealing equipment would do this, but its impossible to speed up the development with money? Please explain this??

Every timw I see these outsized empires I feel that AE and coalitions should kick in much earlier, probably also aggravated by sizw of an empire, so that small nations could easily go to war whereas a big one would attract a rather massive retaliation to restore the balance of powers.

 

[Kamiran]

Every timw I see these outsized empires I feel that AE and coalitions should kick in much earlier, probably also aggravated by sizw of an empire, so that small nations could easily go to war whereas a big one would attract a rather massive retaliation to restore the balance of powers.

Theres only a small part that is conquered. I started as western tech nation at the edge of mesoamerican nations. (nation designer)
I maxed colonizing ideas asap and colonized the coastlines first to block europeans. There were only around 12 provinces colonized in north america by britain and protugal, 5 provinces in caribbean and only spain was able to form a bigger colonial nation in brazil.

You shouldnt complain about AE for bigger nations. It was more the fault of the bad naval invasions the AI made.
In 80% of the wars vs the europeans I had only to defend the small island chain in the caribbean. All i had to do was holding a fleed in the area and one big army on these islands.
Instead integrating new unbalanced development system thy should rework the AI.