|
Mr. Fowl posted:Killjoys. Just because you made a situationally broken Idea, doesn't mean you have to give it a ridiculous cost. Let people have fun. Not caring about achievements is the liberation promised in the Dharma. Let go and fun awaits.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Anarchy Stocking posted:Let's say I'm an idiot and over the course of several wars my armies have become a lovely array of random compositions. If my forcelimit is 40 and I have 33 infantry and would like to replace some of them with cavalry and artillery, is there a way to do that without disbanding units and eating through my manpower pool? You can combine them if they are not at full manpower. Otherwise you're probably best off just slowly hiring up to force limit and waiting to expand force limit. Typically when you are still at 40 forcelimit you're not far enough along in the game for artillery backrows to be that important. Early on artillery does jack poo poo in combat so until you develop midgame tech you're perfectly fine just having a few cannons around to knock over forts and otherwise using infantry and a few cav.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Anarchy Stocking posted:Let's say I'm an idiot and over the course of several wars my armies have become a lovely array of random compositions. If my forcelimit is 40 and I have 33 infantry and would like to replace some of them with cavalry and artillery, is there a way to do that without disbanding units and eating through my manpower pool? Generally, I use force limit increases post-conquest as an excuse to start recruiting more artillery/cavalry. So just conquer some more land. Insufficient cannon won't really start loving you until late game, and insufficient cavalry doesn't really gently caress you too much at all imo, so you should still be fine if you just correct your composition moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Having all of China be the same culture group is stupid, increasingly so since they stopped basing culture groups on language groups. Breaking all that up into chunks could help reign in their absurd finances a bit. I think the way to balance their wealth is probably to hit them with lots and lots of inflation (and probably also corruption). EU4 inflation doesn't work like irl inflation of course but by the time the game starts, Ming paper money was worth less than a tenth of a percent of its original value. They stopped printing notes in 1450 and switched to silver ingots -- these were at first too rare in circulation to be an effective currency, but once the Spanish silver mines in the Americas really got going the country was absolutely flooded with silver. When this flow of silver was stopped in the 17th century the resulting increase in its value triggered economic chaos which did a lot to bring the dynasty down. The Ming did have notably low taxes, low enough that it eventually impaired the government's ability to pay the military, but it wasn't because of any especial cultural differences between the government and the people that this was the case -- they just didn't have the ability to enforce a higher rate and every time they tried, people revolted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Having all of China be the same culture group is stupid, increasingly so since they stopped basing culture groups on language groups. Breaking all that up into chunks could help reign in their absurd finances a bit. Breaking up the cultural groups would do a lot, yeah. Maybe give it back in the form of some kind of special cultural union thing for one of the later Mandate reforms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Speaking of cultural groups does Manchu get stuck with China being wrong-culture land even after forming Qing with their recent change?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Redmark posted:Speaking of cultural groups does Manchu get stuck with China being wrong-culture land even after forming Qing with their recent change? Doesn't the mandate give whoever has it acceptance of all Chinese cultures?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Doesn't the mandate give whoever has it acceptance of all Chinese cultures? No, and in fact if you don't accept at least 2 you will get a disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
I thought so, but the wiki doesn't mention it and the Empire of China in Name disaster doesn't make sense that way edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:Killjoys. Just because you made a situationally broken Idea, doesn't mean you have to give it a ridiculous cost. Let people have fun. YOU WILL PLAY THE BORING VERSION AND YOU WILL LIKE IT! Groogy fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Also that isn't a particularly expensive idea, you can still devour the Americas for the cheev in short order by putting it in a later slot and giving yourself a garbage heir.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Not that I am a pro at this game or anything but all this talk about Ming exploding or not exploding really boils down to what type of gameplay you like. If you like a non deterministic type of game for EU4, especially for outside Europe, then Ming is probably just fine, as is Musketmen on the Indian subcontinent being fielded in large armies by Indian powers or Chinese musket formations in the 1700s by Ming or whoever is there. If you want it to be non deterministic only for Europe then yeah, Mandate kind of sucks donkey balls. The core problem isn't making a special set of events to blow Ming up 95% of the time, its that these events happen all the time to large empires of the EU4 period. Its way too easy to make and hold a huge empire in this game given the technology available to these people in the time period. This entire "Mandate of Heaven" is kind of a bollocks idea anyways. While it was true that there was a vague concept of the Mandate given by divine powers that could be revoked, it really was not that different than European ideas of "the god given right to rule" until they didn't and got usurped by your filthy half cousin who has a terrible logical claim to the throne . The Mandate historically wasn't anything special. If you had lots of natural disasters, a series bad harvest or lots of corrupt minions doing your work, people are going to get pissed and they are looking to blame someone or something. Uprisings happen and if it happens to topple the reigning government of the time, bam, Mandate must have been revoked or this could not have been possible. China in this case was no different than any other historical empire at the time. In every empire, once it reaches a size where a single man or family can no longer reliably control the territory under it, tensions that work against cohesive rule starts to creep in. Corrupt Enuchs, semi-rebellious governors, peasants feeling the weight of excessive taxation, threats of outside the borders up etc etc existed in China as in anywhere else. Empires can survive if there are invaders, natural disasters, rebellions, famine, or have a lovely ruler if these occur singularly but they tend to collapse they occur in multiples in the same time frame and someone without these problems comes along and challenges your rule. If you don't beat the upstart super fast, then every rear end in a top hat comes out of the woodworks since some level of defacto autonomy had probably built up in the further reaches of the empire, and even those nominally loyal might see the odds against them and simply switch sides. Kaput goes the ruling dynasty. And thats what happened historically with the Ming. The Little Ice Age was just a small factor that could have been survived if inflation didn't sky rocket due to trade imbalances, if the Emperor wasn't incompetent and let his Eunuchs do all the work, or if the Manchu's didn't have a particularly strong leader at the time that managed to unite the clans, or if maybe the generals and soldiers were a little bit more loyal and competent but that didn't happen. Now the question is whether EU 4 is supposed to arbitrarily impose all of this on a Ming AI/player? Just so the Qing can come along and take over everything? Or is it more of a problem with EU4 just allowing nations to blob way to easily with no penalties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Not that I am a pro at this game or anything but all this talk about Ming exploding or not exploding really boils down to what type of gameplay you like. If you like a non deterministic type of game for EU4, especially for outside Europe, then Ming is probably just fine, as is Musketmen on the Indian subcontinent being fielded in large armies by Indian powers or Chinese musket formations in the 1700s by Ming or whoever is there. If you want it to be non deterministic only for Europe then yeah, Mandate kind of sucks donkey balls. But China is now more deterministic. Ming will always be a super stable giant empire, pass all their reforms by 1600, and end up with a force limit in the 500,000 range. Every time, no exceptions. Before, there was at least a little variance with how the minors worked out, and hell, sometimes Ming even used to survive. I don't mean to imply Mingsplosion was a good idea, but it definitely had more variation than this. quote:The core problem isn't making a special set of events to blow Ming up 95% of the time, its that these events happen all the time to large empires of the EU4 period. Its way too easy to make and hold a huge empire in this game given the technology available to these people in the time period. While this is the core of the matter, I'd argue that there's one big problem with Ming in EU4 is balance. Other times that Mega-empires form, it's due to how the game progresses, and you get to have fun watch The Ottomans conquer all the way to Prussia, or the PLC becoming all of Eastern Europe. But with Ming, they just start that way. There's no sense that the nation accomplished something. there was no difficulty it overcame, no rivals it had to crush. It just is. It's literally the only country in the game that has no threat starting in 1444, and this game is pretty explicitly supposed to favor fun and balance over historical accuracy anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:If they want to get serious about modeling China they need to get serious about modeling the internal structures of the nations in the game. A unified well run China was and should be a nearly unstoppable behemoth, but once the kingdom started to become divided among factions, when inflation made currency practically useless, and natural disaster displaced hundreds of thousands it created a situation where external enemies and ambitious generals could kick down the whole rotten system with ease. So basically CK2: Asia Edition? Sounds like a cool mod. Koramei posted:Ming in the 15th century wasn't anything like as unified as China today, but the days of a unified China being an anomaly had passed by about a thousand years. There was a cultural and philosophical identity that united the region, extended to its neighbors, and made eventual unification the expectation of basically every power that arose there. Or as a friend of mine put it: "Nationalism! Something else everyone forgets china invented before europe".
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:While this is the core of the matter, I'd argue that there's one big problem with Ming in EU4 is balance. Other times that Mega-empires form, it's due to how the game progresses, and you get to have fun watch The Ottomans conquer all the way to Prussia, or the PLC becoming all of Eastern Europe. But with Ming, they just start that way. There's no sense that the nation accomplished something. there was no difficulty it overcame, no rivals it had to crush. It just is. It's literally the only country in the game that has no threat starting in 1444, and this game is pretty explicitly supposed to favor fun and balance over historical accuracy anyway. And ming was historically threatened both from within and without anyway, so it fails on both fronts! And yeah the reason it's such a huge problem for ming is that things literally can't go wrong for them. Every other strong nation in the game can win or lose wars, grow or shrink, even with the AI piloting them. Ming, despite having no historical precedent for doing so, can only grow and stay impossibly strong, forever. It makes no sense, it isn't fun, it doesn't serve a purpose. I Love You! fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
I think the Emperor of China should suffer scaling Autonomy and Unrest penalties with negative Mandate again. Then strengthen the Manchurian hordes up until the disaster firing and Qing forming are at least somewhat likely to happen in observer games. And make being a tributary much more costly (but perhaps with asymmetrical benefit to EoC) and the AI look askance at joining Team China more often, if you don't use a blunt instrument like diplo range. I'm fine with Ming being the god tag should everything fall into place though. 
Ormi fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Is there some simple list that will tell me what my most profitable potential state is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 07:02
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Is there some simple list that will tell me what my most profitable potential state is? I wish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Is it worth buying the new DLC for its Orthodox improvements (I want to finally do a Byzantium run successfully), if I've played the Russian countries to death already?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Is there some simple list that will tell me what my most profitable potential state is? If you hover over the make state alert or over the territories in the stability interface, the list given there should be sorted based on what will generate the most money/development (not most net-money though) since this patch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
They can't really show you that with a simple list anyway since it depends on what you focus on prod/trade/tax. You'll have to use the map modes for that, it only really matters for the first 20ish states anyway. A Ming hotfix I'd like to see is the removal of diplomatic option to become a tributary, so they actually have to beat everyone to make them pay tribute. This should come with AE and opinion hits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Is there some simple list that will tell me what my most profitable potential state is? On page 8 of the ledger (States & Territories) you can sort by development. This doesn't directly tell you how much profit you will make but it can help you narrow it down considerably. I'll usually take the largest few territories, investigate them individually and then make my best guess based stuff like whether the provinces have an accepted culture, what trade node it's in, and if any good province modifiers exist
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:A Ming hotfix I'd like to see is the removal of diplomatic option to become a tributary, so they actually have to beat everyone to make them pay tribute. This should come with AE and opinion hits. I really think this wouldn't be such a bad fix. Or at least if the AI never accepted the offer, or was dramatically less likely to. Or maybe only if they're not in the eastern religious group. War is the central part of this game, so forcing Ming to have to do a lot of it wouldn't be that bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
make tributaries give resting AE
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:make tributaries give resting AE Oh, that's a fun idea 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Yeah just demanding they become a tributary should generate AE, and tributary status could maybe be broken through rulers dying like in CK2 or after a time limit. It would be great to see coalitions against Ming, even if they fail the devastation would bring mandate down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
I dunno about resting AE but I'm pretty sure that many states near Ming would oscillate between being Tributaries or not - depending on trade and regional stability, like the aforementioned "someone gets their poo poo together and units the tribes and decides that they would rather loot and pillage than trade", or one of the steppe nomads bordering Ming had someone on the other side of them pressuring them and poo poo happens. I know a huge part of the Silk Road was steppe nomads trading things like horses (China doesnt have a lot of pastureland) for Silk, but sometimes they fought instead if there were other factors affecting willingness to trade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
I think one of the dumber aspects of tributaries is that they only protect you from people outside the tributary-bubble, meaning most of the smaller states who've signed on for protection near the start of the game get virtually nothing out of it since the hordes and warlike princes they want protection from in the first place are also tributaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Larger states should be less inclined to accept tributary status even if the prospective overlord is really big -- i mean this is already how it works, but it should be more so. At present Ming's tributaries will never break away unless Ming itself gets its rear end well and truly kicked (by you since the AI is not good enough to accomplish this), and even then it will only be the biggest ones while the minors remain loyal. The actual Ming dynasty and hell, most Chinese dynasties had a recurring problem with northern barbarian tributaries getting powerful enough that they decided they would rather be paid tribute than pay it -- this is what provoked the Tumu Crisis and for that matter, the final Manchu invasion of the Ming. Possibly the most basic impediment to in-game Manchurians ever posing a threat to Ming is that even now with banners, they are still way too weak to regularly get to the 300 development mark or even to the point where they revolt. The majority of the time one of the Manchu minors halfheartedly takes bites out of the others, fails to capitalize on it, and eventually gets kicked in the dick by Korea when its army gets thrashed by rebels because its HU has gone to poo poo since the AI doesn't really play aggressively enough to thrive as a horde.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
That's a good point. Heck, my vassals tend to get unruly once they get big/developed enough even when I am MANY times bigger than they are, so tributaries should have a similar limitation. In unrelated news.... Managed to finally form Italy starting as Milan, and holy crap, I've never seen so much cash roll in. Still, I don't think I can get the Roman Empire achievement, mostly because getting claims takes ages, truces even longer, and I don't get those neat "Here's 6-12 claims on a whole region" missions like the Ottos and French do. Maybe I played too cautious early on, due to the ring of strong alliances i had to dismantle to break out of the peninsula. So now I'm in 1730 and still have to eat all of France, half of Anatolia, a bit of Spain and a few bits elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:That's a good point. Heck, my vassals tend to get unruly once they get big/developed enough even when I am MANY times bigger than they are, so tributaries should have a similar limitation. It's probably still doable if you really go for it. Imperialism is a good CB like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Don't do it. The Roman Empire's colour is a hideous fluorescent purple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Definitely do it. The Roman Empire's colour is a hideous fluorescent purple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
have you considered how loving absurd absolutism is
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
So just double checking, but would Rights of Man be the last real expansion to get, to not miss out on any major, general gameplay mechanics, with stuff like Mare Nostrum, The Cossacks etc just being nice to have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:So just double checking, but would Rights of Man be the last real expansion to get, to not miss out on any major, general gameplay mechanics, with stuff like Mare Nostrum, The Cossacks etc just being nice to have? Yes. Common Sense is also important if you don't have that yet 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
I bought this game while it was on sale because I really liked Stellaris. I don't know what to do and am very intimated by the many varied options. Does anyone have a beginner's guide of sorts they could link me too? Something to explain what my general goal is and what I should be doing in the early game. I bought Art of War and Common Sense as well, if that matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Yes. Common Sense is also important if you don't have that yet I have Wealth of Nations, Res Publica, El Darado, Art of War and Common Sense. It feels like stuff like I am hoping that stuff like The Cossacks and Third Rome are things that don't I wouldn't lose out too much on, if I didn't have them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
@"AAAAA! Real Muenster @QuarkJets @skasion: Before I get into specific replies, I'd just like to thank you for taking the time to write out in detail what problems you see with the current Ming situation. It seems to me we've been talking a bit past each other due to overstating the situation, but I'm glad we've been able to keep it constructive.AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:But Ming was horribly crippled by disasters and bad leadership historically? "Ming" was a formation, not a naturally occurring nation-state. There are dozens of languages spoken by the millions of people that live there. The country was held together by an administration; when (and not if) that administration faltered, poo poo happened. As it is in EU4, Ming starts off as a unified, stable country with no problems and only gets stronger. There are currently zero drawbacks. If, as the player, you want to start as the most powerful country in the world you have to expect to be challenged somehow. Right now, there is no challenge what-so-ever and the mechanics associated with that are making the game poo poo for powers as far away as Europe. With respect, I do not think what happened historically should have any but trace influences on a state in EU4. Ideas and possible a few disasters and flavor events, sure. But emulating history after game start should IMO never be a goal in itself. But see also my response to QuarkJets and skasion below. As for challenge, I really don't see why that should be a thing. If a player wants challenge, they can play smaller nations and/or mods. I certainly don't play EU for the challenge, I play to paint the map. I consider 'making the game poo poo' to be tied solely to the tributary system. With other strong powers, I don't care much about them if I'm half a continent away. With the tributary system as-is, Ming gets involved as far away as Central Asia/the Urals. QuarkJets posted:IRL the Ottomans, Russia, and France all existed as at least somewhat-stable empires by 1821. The Timurids consistently fall apart in-game, so I'm not sure what complaint you'd raise there. Fair enough. I can definitely see the desire for multiple possible outcomes, including but not limited to the historical one. skasion posted:[snip detailed examples of possible outcomes for the other great powers] That makes sense to me. History as flavor which influences but doesn't determine gameplay is something I can get behind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:41
|
|