• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 27th of August 2019

And now for something completely different.

Introducing 1.29: Manchu!

manchu loading screen.png


Think always of your ancestors,
and cultivate virtue.
Always strive to accord with the Mandate,
and seek for yourself many blessings.
Before Yin lost their multitudes,
They were in accord with the High Di.
Look to Yin as you would a mirror,
The great Mandate is not easy to keep.
- The Book of Odes

The 1.29 Manchu update will include not only the long-awaited 64 bit upgrade, but also a hefty chunk of free content for North-East Asia. Over the next few weeks I’ll be laying out what you can expect from the Manchu update; our focus is of course on Manchuria itself, but the update also has a huge impact on Mongolia, China, Japan, Korea, and parts of Central Asia.

Before we get to that, I’ll say a word about how Manchu came to be. Early in the year we set our programmers to work on tech debt (explained here by our own @MatRopert ), while @Groogy and @DDRJake were busy laying out the design for next years’ European update and expansion. With the design for the future at such an early stage it didn’t make sense for Team Content Design (at the time consisting of myself, @Ofaloaf, and @Caligula Caesar) to begin working on Europe just yet. And so we decided to use this time to create a free content update. We had originally planned to release Manchu somewhat earlier in the year, but various factors beyond our control prevented this from happening and we’ve finally secured a September release. While Manchu will contain some bug fixes, it won't contain the quality of life features we've been talking about lately - those will come with the Europe update next year. So to reiterate: the time we spent working on Manchu did not take any time away from our work on the European update.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about China!

Many players, including myself, haven’t been happy with the balance of Mandate of Heaven’s Emperor of China mechanics and the way they affect the experience of playing in East Asia. What we typically see in 1.28 is a perpetually stagnant Ming and by extension a stagnant East Asia. Players are averse to taking the Mandate of Heaven even as Qing because it is seen (somewhat justifiably) as more trouble than it’s worth. Players starting as Ming are offered very little challenge in their campaign.

We decided to use the Manchu update as an opportunity to revisit these mechanics. We want the Mandate to be desirable while still presenting a unique challenge and gameplay experience for both Ming and those who would usurp the Mandate. What follows is a list of the changes we’ve made to Mandate of Heaven’s Empire of China system:
  • Neighboring non-tributary nations no longer cause Mandate loss.
    • This prevents Mandate loss from bordering large nations such as Russia.
    • It also means that nations that take the Mandate from Ming no longer experience crippling Mandate loss from non-tributaries.
    • The Empire will still gain Mandate from having tributaries, so it is still rewarding to surround the Empire with Tributary states.
  • For each 5 loans the Empire loses -0.03 Mandate per month. Bankruptcy causes a -0.05 Mandate loss per month.
    • The Emperor is expected to bring prosperity to China, not poverty and ruin.
    • Opponents of the Empire now have the option of target the Chinese economy in all manner of creative ways in order to reduce its Mandate.
  • Passive Meritocracy decay has been increased to -2 per year
    • In 1.28, simply having low skill advisors is enough to maintain maximum Meritocracy at all times, so there is no need to ever worry about low Meritocracy.
    • This makes Meritocracy a more scarce resource that will take more time to accumulate.
  • For each 5 Corruption, the Empire loses 0.05 Mandate per month
    • Speaks for itself. A corrupt Empire is not a healthy Empire.
  • -100% Mercenary Availability at 0 Mandate changed to -200%
    • At 0 Mandate Ming shouldn’t be able to hire mercenaries. With Ming’s huge forcelimit, any positive modifier to Mercenary Availability (e.g. Administrative Ideas) allows them to hire a large mercenary army.
  • Low Mandate now has a scaling Global Manpower penalty, up to -50% at low Mandate
    • Ming has a gigantic Manpower pool. Wearing it down is difficult, especially when they take Quantity ideas (which again they often do). Their sheer numbers can help them overcome opponents that they historically struggled to defeat.
    • Dynasties in periods of economic or political decline struggled to raise large or disciplined armies. This was another indicator that the Dynasty was at risk of losing the Mandate.
  • High Mandate now reduces monthly War Exhaustion, up to -0.03 per month
    • This rewards a strong Empire with the ability to sustain itself in wars for long periods of time. It broadcasts that attacking the Empire at a time of strength may be unwise.
    • When a dynasty is perceived to clearly and firmly possess the Mandate, the people are assured that the hardships of war will pass and the Emperor will be victorious.
  • Two new Ruler Personalities have been added, exclusive to the Emperor of China. Humane gives a bonus to Mandate while Petty reduces it.
    • Based on the Confucian concept of ‘ren’. A morally virtuous Emperor is the center of a harmonious Empire.
  • Not owning and controlling Beijing, Nanjing, and Canton reduces Mandate by -0.05 per month each.
    • This adds new tactical and strategic elements to both playing and fighting the Empire. You can damage the Empire’s Mandate by sieging key cities, and even further by taking them in a peace deal. The Emperor must take care to defend these key provinces.
  • The Unguarded Nomadic Frontier disaster will now account for the development of the subjects of Horde nations
    • It is no longer necessary for a Horde that wishes to challenge the Empire to directly control massive swathes of land. Vassals and Marches can be used to increase your power for this purpose.
  • Low Meritocracy now causes Corruption, up to 0.1 per year at 0 Meritocracy. High Meritocracy reduces corruption to the same degree.
    • A player-led Qing or Ming will likely be expansionist. This reduces the impact of corruption from territories. And can be a means to reduce Mandate loss from high corruption.
    • Meritocracy represents the efficiency of the Confucian bureaucracy. Corrupt bureaucrats (which in Ming was extremely common) did not administer efficiently.
  • The Empire gains 0.05 Mandate per month while using the Unite China CB, and new Emperors gain +0.05 monthly Mandate for 20 years. Countries that seize the Mandate begin with 60 Mandate and 60 Meritocracy.
    • This helps countries that have recently gained the Mandate an early source of Mandate, a common issue when playing as Qing or Yuan.
  • We’ve rebalanced a number of Chinese historical events. I won’t go into the details now but an important focus was adding Mandate effects to many event options.

In addition, we’ve designed two new highly impactful event chains to shake up the Chinese world.

dd_ming_crisis.jpg

The Mandate is not easy to keep;
May it not end in your persons.


Though the Ming dynasty was ultimately defeated by the Manchu conquest, its collapse had already begun before the invasion. Disaster and mismanagement within the Ming dynasty were the catalyst for a major peasant rebellion in the 1630’s led by Li Zicheng. Li Zicheng was extremely successful; his forces won many battles against the Ming armies and he captured Beijing in 1644, proclaiming himself Emperor of the Shun Dynasty. Only then did the newly-united Manchus invade, initially under the pretext of defeating Li Zicheng’s rebellion. We’ll talk more about the Manchu invasion next week, for now we’re interested in Ming’s internal crisis.

The Crisis of the Ming Dynasty is a new Disaster that will challenge Ming players and very often lead to the collapse of an AI-controlled Ming. The Disaster can begin any time after the Age of Discovery if Ming has low Mandate or has lost the Mandate entirely. When the Disaster hits they’ll immediately receive penalties to Land Morale, Technology Cost, and Global Unrest, as well as taking a flat hit to their Stability, Mandate, and Corruption. Events will periodically spawn Peasant rebels. This is going to be a very difficult time for Ming. Ming must restore their Mandate by any means necessary or face dire consequences. If rebels manage to occupy 10 provinces in a single Chinese region (North China, South China, and Xinan), an event will fire that immediately spawns breakaway nations. In Xinan the Yunnan Protectorate (represented by the nation of Dali) will demand self-rule, which can be accepted at the cost of Mandate or denied at the cost of a bloody war. In the South, local governors will take matters into their own hands, defying the authority of the Empire and raising their own armies to restore order. Wu and Yue will be spawned on the map, and once again the choice to accept their independence or fight against them will be presented. In North China there will be no such choice. Rebels will seize power in the region and declare that Ming has lost the Mandate of Heaven, proclaiming the Shun Dynasty and immediately declaring war on Ming for the Mandate. The southern revolter states can play a role in the rise of the Qing later in the game, representing the Three Feudatories which we’ll talk about more next week. Ming players must now guard their Mandate jealously lest they fall into ruin and despair.

dd_tumu_crisis.jpg

In this playthrough Esen Taishi managed to get himself killed in battle, but Kundelung Kirghiz has taken up his mantle.

Another challenge to Ming rule came much earlier in our time frame. By 1444 the Oirats had consolidated their power under the ambitious warlord Esen Taishi (more about the Oirats next week). In 1449 he led an invasion of China, captured the Emperor in battle, and came close to winning the siege of Beijing. These events are known as the Tumu Crisis, and they’re now an event chain in EU4. As the Oirats begin the game refusing to pay tribute to the Ming Emperor, they often find themselves in an early war. When this happens Ming receives an event informing them that the Emperor has decided to lead his armies personally, converting the Yingzong Emperor into a (very inept) general. If the Oirats defeat a Ming army commanded by the Yingzong Emperor in a battle an event will immediately fire granting the Oirats combat and siege bonuses, while Ming receives an event reduces their Mandate and Stability, as well as forcing them into a temporary Regency Council. From here the goal for the Oirats is to capture Beijing before the Emperor dies and before Ming appoints a new Emperor to the throne. Should the Oirats succeed the rewards are great: they’ll immediately occupy every province in the North China region owned and controlled by Ming, resulting in a huge amount of warscore which they can use to secure an advantageous peace deal. The capture of Beijing will also cause huge Mandate loss for Ming, though their beloved Emperor will be returned safely to the throne. By pursuing the goals presented in this event chain an Oirat player can make a powerful opening move in their campaign, potentially paving the way for a restored Yuan dynasty.

We’ve had a long time to observe the impact of our work in this region and we’re very satisfied with the results. In 1.29 Ming survives “intact” to the end of the game in less than 1⁄3 of hands-off tests, with the remainder of cases having a variety of results such as a powerful Qing dynasty, a perpetually shattered China, the rise of a new Chinese dynasty (Shun and Wu are the most common), and opportunistic European conquests that exploit China’s internal troubles. I’ve even seen Mughal China a couple of times. The result here is a much more dynamic and much less predictable political situation in East Asia. In the hands of a player Ming is still by far the most powerful nation in the game, though it faces new challenges to its dominance.

It’s great to finally have the chance to talk about 1.29 Manchu after so many months. I’ll be back with more over the next few weeks building up to its release in September. Our next development diary will hone in on the 3 M’s: Maps, Manchus, and Mongols!


Manchu will be a free update to EU4 with new content and the 64 bit upgrade. The European Update and DLC will be coming in 2020.
 
Last edited:
I'm excited for this! I went to China during my summer vacation and it made me keen to play as China, but I've been holding off playing any nation that doesnt have mission trees.
And this update is coming next month! I can wait a month longer and play around in a revamped Asia!

PS: Is giving Japan mission trees also part of this update?
 
A feeling of a united India has been prevalent throughout the period of Indian history. The concept of Samrat Chakravarti has been long before the arrival of any foreign invader. The largest Indian empire to do was the Mauryan Empire, far greater than the British Raj and/or the Mughal (not Mongol) Sultanate. And throughout Indian history, kings didn't all out conquer India but rather enforce a tributary status on the vanquished kingdoms. The feeling of a united India was just never realized for a very long time because India was fragmented by warring kings both internal and foreign. But there have been times were India was united much like China, example the Maurya Empire, the Gupta Empire, the Marathas. Many regions in Africa were conquered by the British but when they left they didn't merge as one contiguous nation, that is because there was truly no such concept. In India however, there was always that concept, be it from the Samrat Chakravartin under the Indians to the Shahenshan-e-Hind under the Islamic invaders to the Empress of India under the British.

Some links can be seen below, the concept of a universal Indian ruler dates back to the Vedic period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_Chakravartin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakravarti_(Sanskrit_term)

I am sure I can dive deeper and find more links but I'll leave that up to you these are the easiest ones that can get you started.
I would like compare the Mauryan Empire with the Ancient Roma (I guess you won't say the Mauryan Empire is greater in this time), they are both admirable and influential without any doubt, but it doesn't mean Florence or France should have a CB to reunite Europe. I am still wondering about that 25% of world where the data comes from?

And to further elaborate your point, the feeling of unity comes only through the introduction of diversity. Once you realize there is more in common between a Chinese from Beijing and one from Shanghai, than say a European colonial, you will feel the unity. The Chinese always differentiated themselves say from the Mongols, the Koreans, the Indo-Chinese ethnics. There is always that outsider that makes you aware of your commonality.
I would like to say the united China concept is based on the road system, the administrative structure, the unique official language in everywhere, all of those foundation was built in the same time when the Empire was established. As I know even today there are a few place doesn't speak Hindi in India. I think that could perfectly explain why China has a big culture group in game and India didn't.

In India this concept of commonality was ancient because their interaction with the world was ancient. India was the reason the Europeans sailed West and around the Cape, because that connection was cut off with the rise of the Islamic empires at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. Indians always interacted with foreign people from foreign lands, as a place of fabled riches it was often sought out. From these interactions with foreign people, India must've at some point realized it's commonality.
Just like I said before an united India was mostly defined by foreign.
 
Last edited:
Looks good. I thought I didn't really have much to say with others having already cast uncertianty on if the mandate will be worth taking, though this is only the first diary, and others also having already mentioned that pet opm ming to declare pointless unify wars on is the new pet opm ming to store the mandate on, though that's a minor gamism.

However, I wanted to address this post I found in the thread:
@neondt

Can you please separate taking Confucian Religion from taking the Mandate of Heaven? Just give the player a 50% Mandate and Meritocracy Penalty for NOT being Confucian while having the Mandate of Heaven. There have been several games I wanted to take the Mandate but would NOT because doing so would have changed my Religion to Confucian, which would have taken ~30ish years to harmonize with the majority of my empire.

Or could you please make it so that it is NOT Tengri that is automatically Harmonized when the Mandate is taken, but the Religion of the player taking said Mandate?

While I would prefer the first solution, the second one is probably MUCH easier to implement.

Thank you for your time.
Uh, am I missing something? Control F on the op didn't give me any indication that I had missed something about changes to the way this works.

Currently, you don't get forced into Confucian when taking the mandate. There are 2 things related to the mandate and converting to Confucianism: The Qing formation, which currently does not at all require the mandate (You can currently forever be Manchu with it or Qing without it; Qing probably shouldn't be that way, especially considering the way Yuan is, but that's how it is), and An Ideology for an Empire (I think that's the name), the event that fires once in a campaign to give a new emperor a choice between converting and getting mandate & meritocracy or iirc getting stabhit and losing meritocracy. Permanent penalties for not converting would therefore be a step in the opposite direction of what this post seems to want to accomplish.

This post seems to simply conflate the current effects on religion from forming Qing with taking the mandate.

I have before suggested making An Ideology for an Empire auto-harmonize your former faith if you choose to convert, and making the Qing formation do that instead of always harmonizing pagan regardless would also make sense.
 
If the Oirats defeat a Ming army commanded by the Yingzong Emperor in a battle an event will immediately fire granting the Oirats combat and siege bonuses, while Ming receives an event reduces their Mandate and Stability, as well as forcing them into a temporary Regency Council.

The human player is not incentivized to do that. The events are designed to punish the Emperor's ineptitude, and if the player is Ming then the degree of ineptitude is up to them and not the AI.

Suggestion: if the Yingzong Emperor manages to personally defeat an army commanded by Esen Taishi in battle, then his military monarch power stat will be increased by +1 or will get ruler peronality "inspiring leader" with +5% land morale.

Also if the emperor becomes a general he will immidiately acquire the trait "glory seeker" with +50% prestige/tradition from battles.

All this or some to give an incentive to players to actually use this imperial general.

I believe adding an event where there routinely is only one valid option for the player, is quite underwhelming (especially if the AI will equally routinely jump at the other option).
 
Last edited:
Will nation not in the pagan/Eastern religion group be able to claim the mandate in this update?
 
Yeah I welcome with open arms everything that will help Mingexplode, they were far too stable. There is not much too add on this one we will have to wait till next dev. One simple question thought, when exactly in time will release of 1.29 land?
 
  • Not owning and controlling Beijing, Nanjing, and Canton reduces Mandate by -0.05 per month each.
    • This adds new tactical and strategic elements to both playing and fighting the Empire. You can damage the Empire’s Mandate by sieging key cities, and even further by taking them in a peace deal. The Emperor must take care to defend these key provinces.


So if you intend to steal their mandate, you should first win a war for those , and then claim it? otherwise you'd suffer a huge penalty during the truce while you can't do much about it
 
So if you intend to steal their mandate, you should first win a war for those , and then claim it? otherwise you'd suffer a huge penalty during the truce while you can't do much about it

Can't you just take the provinces in the same war as you take the Mandate? According to the wiki the Take Mandate of Heaven CB has a 50% cost for taking provinces and the Mandate itself only costs 50% warscore.
 
To be completely honest, I am fan of the current changes to the mandate. Though, seeing a Mughal china scares me. But if all goes well, they could pose a good challenge to the Ottomans.

Best wishes,
Jean
 
Me and my friends were talking about starting a new campaign in Asia. Is 1.29 going to be compatible with 1.28 or should we rather wait till the update comes out?
 
I dislike stuff being added in a makeshift way just for a specific occasion, just for a specific nation. Why not add a way to capture leader rulers outright? And then add a loss in Mandate for the Celestial Emperor if they are captured?
We don't really need another incentive to not use rulers as leaders. If I remember correctly you get -1 stab if an heir general dies and a whopping -2 if it's the ruler. Capturing a ruler in battle in my opinion should add a tonne of warscore (50 or more) and probably a stab hit to the captured ruler's country as well. Historically, the capture of Francis I at Pavia, during the Italian Wars, led to the end of the war and the severe Treaty of Madrid.

I feel that capturing rulers would be a bit too much, but I would definitely love to see incentives to have ruler generals, things like added prestige, morale for that army, army tradition, chance to gain +1 military skill in battle, etc., to offset the drawbacks.
However this is often in my opinion the problem with EU4, there are either flat penalties or straight up boosts, there's often never a bonus and a drawback together. A great example is government reforms, it's always "hell yeah I want this +5 absolutism", never "if you pick this, you get this bonus, but suffer this penalty as a result". Things like absolutism and army tradition are currently no brainers, but if you added things for example like increased stability cost and unrest for the former and increased army maintenance for the latter, choices would be a bit more meaningful.

TL;DR: EU4 should make choices more meaningful and this would further take away the choice of ruler generals.
 
If I remember correctly you get -1 stab if an heir general dies and a whopping -2 if it's the ruler.
Only if they die during a battle or during a siege. I don't think making your ruler/heir into a general is a bad idea at all, unless they have particularly good monarch stats, of course. Earlygame, saving 50 Mil is quite nice (especially if you don't have a Nobility estate to get a general from) and later, it's still an additional general that doesn't count against the leader cap.

The penalty for taking one particular government reform is not taking one of the other options. There's certainly some number tweaking that can/should be done since some choices are rather one-sided (why would I ever take 10% tax over 15% manpower?), but you don't necessarily need to attach debuffs to make these choices meaningful. I do agree that some "more = better" values such as Absolutism or Mercantilism could do with either a downside to high values or some advantages that are mutually exclusive to them. In theory, I like how you can choose between the higher monarch point generation of Republics (silly as it may be that Republics generate more Monarch points) and maximizing your absolutism, although in practice, the numbers are ridiculously stacked in favour of monarchies, unfortunately.
 
Can't you just take the provinces in the same war as you take the Mandate? According to the wiki the Take Mandate of Heaven CB has a 50% cost for taking provinces and the Mandate itself only costs 50% warscore.
it's only 50? long time since i've played in that area.
well border gore , here we come, as those 3 are rather expensive iirc