Religion In Far East

[Frogbait]

Actually, larger nations should be more prone to suffer from events giving negative stability. I'm thinking about natural disasters, spread of pests, bad harvests + famines. I'm thinking about being dow'ed by a coalition giving neg. stability.

Cool story, that's not how it works in game though. Your natural disasters, spread of pests, etc... is not relevant for a large nation - an earthquake effecting 1-2 provinces of your nation won't cause nation wide stability issues. Famine / bad harvests aren't an issue for a large nation either since not all of even most your food producing provinces will be hit by it.

I haven't played EU1-3, so I cant comment on the implementation. However I understand that some will deem fixed stab cost penalties, that you cant counter, "un-fun". Therefore my proposal includes a trade-off between stab cost and local autonomy (which evidently can, among other effects, reduce income quite substantially).

On a related note, an "administrative monarchy" could give a stab cost reduction, while being less favourable towards expansion (in comparison to e.g. absolute monarchy with its +5% discipline). So large countries could be induced to choose this goverment form.

Estates overrule your LA compromise. Getting rid of player choice and agency is overall a bad thing to do. Historically, the biggest issues that have plagued large nations are Civil War and independence revolts while the mainland is distracted / occupied by a foreign power (aka Spain during the Napoleonic Wars resulting is their colonies revolting). Notice how relatively stable the British empire was who faced neither of these issues after the american independence movement. If you really want to making keeping a nation internally stable, you'd need to make civil wars more of a possibility. However from a game perspective, that'd really just make people not want to stay as a monarchy.

 

[Darkath]

In the case of Confucuanism it covers religion with Confucian ideals imposed on it.

Ah yes, paradox idea of chinese religion. Daoists persecuting Buddhists in a state that's supposedly Confucian.
You could at least change the factions name to reflect the actual factions of the Ming court, and remove these frankly offensive descriptions.

 

[grommile]

Famine / bad harvests aren't an issue for a large nation either since not all of even most your food producing provinces will be hit by it.

The most populous nation in the world suffered a famine in the early 17th century that allowed its smaller but more dynamic neighbour's ruler to usurp the throne.

 

[Darkath]

The most populous nation in the world suffered a famine in the early 17th century that allowed its smaller but more dynamic neighbour's ruler to usurp the throne.

A famine, debased currency, economical crisis, underfinanced army, 2 revolts, and a few other things.

 

[Canute VII]

Cool story, that's not how it works in game though. Your natural disasters, spread of pests, etc... is not relevant for a large nation - an earthquake effecting 1-2 provinces of your nation won't cause nation wide stability issues. Famine / bad harvests aren't an issue for a large nation either since not all of even most your food producing provinces will be hit by it.

Even a relatively regional event can profoundly damage a nation's economic balance. Look at the historic Ming, look at the french revolution, there is really no lack of evidence. After all, ming's "mandate of heaven lost" modifier is just a stylized event that could happen to each and every country.

Estates overrule your LA compromise. Getting rid of player choice and agency is overall a bad thing to do.

Introducing a trade-off is the opposite of "getting rid of player choice and agency".

Historically, the biggest issues that have plagued large nations are Civil War and independence revolts while the mainland is distracted / occupied by a foreign power (aka Spain during the Napoleonic Wars resulting is their colonies revolting). Notice how relatively stable the British empire was who faced neither of these issues after the american independence movement. If you really want to making keeping a nation internally stable, you'd need to make civil wars more of a possibility. However from a game perspective, that'd really just make people not want to stay as a monarchy.

Vassals and colonial nations evidently should not count towards your stab costs. There was a reason the british empire organised it self the way it did (" The British Empire comprised dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories. Dominions were semi-independent polities that were under the British Crown, constituting the British Empire, beginning with Canadian Confederation in 1867. They included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State, and then from the late 1940s also India, Pakistan, and Ceylon.").

 

[BrokenSky]

Estates overrule your LA compromise. Getting rid of player choice and agency is overall a bad thing to do. Historically, the biggest issues that have plagued large nations are Civil War and independence revolts while the mainland is distracted / occupied by a foreign power (aka Spain during the Napoleonic Wars resulting is their colonies revolting). Notice how relatively stable the British empire was who faced neither of these issues after the american independence movement. If you really want to making keeping a nation internally stable, you'd need to make civil wars more of a possibility. However from a game perspective, that'd really just make people not want to stay as a monarchy.

Well maybe if the stab and disaster mechanics were overhauled there could be more downsides for non-monarchies too? Stuff about cities breaking away from merchant republics or similar?

Actually maybe it would be good to give some tech and idea cost reduction to low stability (with penalties at high stability) so that sitting at low stability gave rewards, encouraging riskier play (and so increasing the odds of disaster) with penalties to tech cost and idea cost at high stability (so stabler nations stagnate while volatile ones progress more)?

Maybe then Confucianism could have bonuses relating to mitigating some of the penalties of high stability or something? I dunno.

 

[Frogbait]

The most populous nation in the world suffered a famine in the early 17th century that allowed its smaller but more dynamic neighbour's ruler to usurp the throne.

Qing formation was rather an odd case. And that's arguably the result of/is a civil war more than anything else.

 

[Frogbait]

Even a relatively regional event can profoundly damage a nation's economic balance. Look at the historic Ming, look at the french revolution, there is really no lack of evidence. After all, ming's "mandate of heaven lost" modifier is just a stylized event that could happen to each and every country.

Introducing a trade-off is the opposite of "getting rid of player choice and agency".

Vassals and colonial nations evidently should not count towards your stab costs. There was a reason the british empire organised it self the way it did (" The British Empire comprised dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories. Dominions were semi-independent polities that were under the British Crown, constituting the British Empire, beginning with Canadian Confederation in 1867. They included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State, and then from the late 1940s also India, Pakistan, and Ceylon.").

It's not player choice when it's essentially - assign this to an estate or get screwed.

Economic balance =/= stability. Large countries won't have an issue of people starving to death due to a bad harvest impacting one part of the country since they'll be able to divert resources from another part. That said, please tell me how it makes the game more fun to implement these events. It's essentially like taking over-extension events and tying them to your entire nation reaching a certain size. So you either don't reach that size or you rule out the player's ability to own whatever they want under a single tag. Thus less player agency and imo, less fun. My idea of fun isn't sitting at speed 5 waiting for something to happen.

 

[Canute VII]

Qing formation was rather an odd case. And that's arguably the result of/is a civil war more than anything else.

While the "civil war" was the result of a famine

 

[Canute VII]

It's not player choice when it's essentially - assign this to an estate or get screwed.

Economic balance =/= stability. Large countries won't have an issue of people starving to death due to a bad harvest impacting one part of the country since they'll be able to divert resources from another part. That said, please tell me how it makes the game more fun to implement these events. It's essentially like taking over-extension events and tying them to your entire nation reaching a certain size. So you either don't reach that size or you rule out the player's ability to own whatever they want under a single tag. Thus less player agency and imo, less fun. My idea of fun isn't sitting at speed 5 waiting for something to happen.

My feeling about events is that something DOES happen (even if this might disturb my plans and force me to adjust). I concede that I like better those events that give a choice of reaction, where the choice is no no-brainer.

 

[ywxiao]

While the "civil war" was the result of a famine

It was more like a peasant war.
Easy way to model this time of troubles is with an event "Little Ice Age", which should reduce local goods produced and increase revolt risk in grain producing provinces in west China unless you spend ducats/reduce local tax etc. Maybe even monthly events that require your action or spawn rebels.

Li couldn't really have been considered a claimant until he broke Luoyang and robbed the Fortune King's treasury, from which he became a real force to be reckoned with. So maybe peasnt rebels should be able to turn into Pretenders in if they occupy enough provinces in confucian culture?

 

[Frogbait]

While the "civil war" was the result of a famine

I'm not going to argue the Qing specifics since it is no where near my expertise. However, based on my knowledge of events, I would be very, very surprised if everything was the result of a simple famine. I personally have no idea how large the famine was (like I said, no where near my expertise, I know next-to-none more in depth details on the Qing rise), but assuming it was a famine that impacted a relatively small part of the larger country I seriously doubt that was the sole cause and rationale behind a huge stability crisis that impacted the entire country. Famine and natural disasters on how they impact EU4 would need to work similar to how Plague and Blockade events work - several options that impact a single province (maybe up it to an area like cruelty of mercs event).

That said, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a large nation to be rather stable. Succession was really when there were issues with large nations and really it just impacted monarchies. Large republic stability issues by and large came from one man getting too much power/fame and making a play to turn the republic into a monarchy. It really boils down to Civil War - that is seriously the biggest and most common factor that weakens empires, causes huge stability issues, and allows empires to fragment. Honestly it's something that would be rather hard to model in EU4 and keep it remaining fun. If corruption wasn't implemented poorly and instead worked on a slider similar to Islamic faiths (positives to both sides) and also included negatives to both, it could be used for stability issues and trying to maintain a power balance over your empire. But then that becomes a slider balance that is rather meh on player interaction.

Gameplay purposes, making it difficult to hold onto power once you've gained it while keeping it fun and engaging to the player is going to be difficult. It needs to be player choice and institutions are probably the best they've gotten to something that gives player agency while making something more difficulty by expanding. You can blob to your hearts content, but then it takes longer to get an institution the bigger you are (relatively speaking - obviously blobbing is quicker to get knowledge roots than waiting for it to pop locally). It's not a perfect example, but like I said - it's probably the best / closest they've gotten.

 

[Canute VII]

I'm not going to argue the Qing specifics since it is no where near my expertise. However, based on my knowledge of events, I would be very, very surprised if everything was the result of a simple famine. I personally have no idea how large the famine was (like I said, no where near my expertise, I know next-to-none more in depth details on the Qing rise), but assuming it was a famine that impacted a relatively small part of the larger country I seriously doubt that was the sole cause and rationale behind a huge stability crisis that impacted the entire country. Famine and natural disasters on how they impact EU4 would need to work similar to how Plague and Blockade events work - several options that impact a single province (maybe up it to an area like cruelty of mercs event).

That said, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a large nation to be rather stable. Succession was really when there were issues with large nations and really it just impacted monarchies. Large republic stability issues by and large came from one man getting too much power/fame and making a play to turn the republic into a monarchy. It really boils down to Civil War - that is seriously the biggest and most common factor that weakens empires, causes huge stability issues, and allows empires to fragment. Honestly it's something that would be rather hard to model in EU4 and keep it remaining fun. If corruption wasn't implemented poorly and instead worked on a slider similar to Islamic faiths (positives to both sides) and also included negatives to both, it could be used for stability issues and trying to maintain a power balance over your empire. But then that becomes a slider balance that is rather meh on player interaction.

Gameplay purposes, making it difficult to hold onto power once you've gained it while keeping it fun and engaging to the player is going to be difficult. It needs to be player choice and institutions are probably the best they've gotten to something that gives player agency while making something more difficulty by expanding. You can blob to your hearts content, but then it takes longer to get an institution the bigger you are (relatively speaking - obviously blobbing is quicker to get knowledge roots than waiting for it to pop locally). It's not a perfect example, but like I said - it's probably the best / closest they've gotten.

Like ywxiao mentioned, I would hint to "little ice age" which was due to the eruption of a vulcano in what is now indonesia. Even as far away as Europe the impact on harvests was felt. So while bad harvests can be local, there are clearly famines that can be on a regional (even continental) scale. On top of rather exceptional events like "little ice age", in what is now china there were frequentky issues with flooding of their two main rivers causing huge devastations. Actually, the need to cope with these devastations and implement precautionary measures like building of damns, contributed to the establishment of a centralized state. I agree some thought must be invested to model things in a way that are fun and at the same time add depth, however, as institutions show (at least I believe so from what I know), pdx can do it.

 

[Nassau]

When it comes to culture, religion and class, EU takes a winner takes all mentality into the game. It misrepresents history and causes a lot of weird events and scenarios. It would be best possible improvement coming to either EU4 or a EU5.

 

[Canute VII]

There's a jewel in the suggestion forum:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ucian-religion-mechanic.971112/#post-21883097