AGCEEP: China

[zdlugasz]

So either of you (or someone else) like my proposal for Dai Vet of removing RR (except nationalism) and just scripting events to fire every few months. When Le Loi comes in we can add a 1-2% additional RR depending on event choices as well.

Well, question about Dismantling of Treasure fleet: choice c) - need more ships - why extra 10 freebe ships? They already have huge fleet, or do you propose to decrease size of initial fleet? (It would be good IMO, since there I do not know any way to "desert" fleet) and historical choice leaves China with huge fleet.

(Sorry, I havent read events about Dai Viet yet , but do they produce historical outcome in most of games? (independence and vietnamese culture)

 

[unmerged(5206)]

Yeah, they stay independent. That's historical. However it's like forcing Dutch independence but making it last 150 years instead of 80 with 800% RR instead of ~30%... can it really be justified? There's so little incentive for the player to keep fighting the rebels for the entire duration just for the small reward of three cores and the culture of two of them (one is Thai... )

Actually, if we make it so the player can gain cores on all of the Netherlands and Dutch culture I'd be all for 800% Dutch RR events for 80 years :rofl:

 

[doktarr]

Jinnai, I definitely agree with the move toward less revoltrisk in the Vietnam sequence. It seems really silly to attempt to approximate this conflict with revoltrisk, when we actually have a tag at our disposal.

If we really want to make it hard to pacify Vietnam, my suggestion would be to have a couple more copies of the "2nd invasion of An Nam" sequence. That sequence is well-designed in my opinion. Have a 3rd and a 4th invasion event, maybe one every 20 years or so, perhaps triggered by a one of the three provinces being rebel-controlled. If China can win the war 3 or 4 times, then they get much lower RR after that, and eventually incorporate them into han culture.

The "Lord of Han" sequence still seems like a hack to me. Rebels don't know that their goal is to attack Hebei.

 

[zdlugasz]

Jinnai, I definitely agree with the move toward less revoltrisk in the Vietnam sequence. It seems really silly to attempt to approximate this conflict with revoltrisk, when we actually have a tag at our disposal.

If we really want to make it hard to pacify Vietnam, my suggestion would be to have a couple more copies of the "2nd invasion of An Nam" sequence. That sequence is well-designed in my opinion. Have a 3rd and a 4th invasion event, maybe one every 20 years or so, perhaps triggered by a one of the three provinces being rebel-controlled. If China can win the war 3 or 4 times, then they get much lower RR after that, and eventually incorporate them into han culture.

The "Lord of Han" sequence still seems like a hack to me. Rebels don't know that their goal is to attack Hebei.

I agree, also with this 3rd and 4th invasion

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Well, question about Dismantling of Treasure fleet: choice c) - need more ships - why extra 10 freebe ships? They already have huge fleet, or do you propose to decrease size of initial fleet? (It would be good IMO, since there I do not know any way to "desert" fleet) and historical choice leaves China with huge fleet.

Even with full support and moving along coastline there will be attrition for humans. I'm not sure about the AI what it would do.

Jinnai, I definitely agree with the move toward less revoltrisk in the Vietnam sequence. It seems really silly to attempt to approximate this conflict with revoltrisk, when we actually have a tag at our disposal.

If we really want to make it hard to pacify Vietnam, my suggestion would be to have a couple more copies of the "2nd invasion of An Nam" sequence. That sequence is well-designed in my opinion. Have a 3rd and a 4th invasion event, maybe one every 20 years or so, perhaps triggered by a one of the three provinces being rebel-controlled. If China can win the war 3 or 4 times, then they get much lower RR after that, and eventually incorporate them into han culture.

Well if its designed for up until ~1580 currently, that's 160 years. Every 20 years would make up to 8 events. Even the alternate one (where you institute reforms, is until ~1530 (110 years), but there should be no revolts then.

However since there would be multiple attempts then at reforms, i'm thinking that each attempt at reform should cut the timeframe by so many years (at the cost of lower income for the area). This would require a lot more events, but be a very dynamic situation allowing players to chose what would be better at the moment.

The "Lord of Han" sequence still seems like a hack to me. Rebels don't know that their goal is to attack Hebei.

I think tha'ts why there were so many produced. With that many, it's almost certain one will march to Heibei.

 

[zdlugasz]

Even with full support and moving along coastline there will be attrition for humans. I'm not sure about the AI what it would do.

Human will pump money in diplomation and get military accesses. AI will sent the whole fleet home (and AI cheats with naval attrition) and if AI is feeling exploratory will send single ship for exporation.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I think tha'ts why there were so many produced. With that many, it's almost certain one will march to Heibei.

That's what I saw in all tests. First target of rebels is always Hebei when Qingdao is under their control.

About Dai Viet, maybe we could use random events like "Petty Kingdoms of the Barbary Coast" (without stab hit) to simulate rebels uprising with a much lower RR.

 

[doktarr]

As an aside: couldn't all the "failure to pacify An Nam" events be condensed into one? It will have a long and complicated trigger, and it will have to clear a ton of flags that may or may not be present, but I think one event can handle it.

Even with full support and moving along coastline there will be attrition for humans. I'm not sure about the AI what it would do.
Well if its designed for up until ~1580 currently, that's 160 years. Every 20 years would make up to 8 events.

It's even worse than that, right? After all, each set needs two events: the triggering event based on rebel control of a province, and then the conclusion event: "Success of the Xth invasion of An Nam". So it's 16 events. Still, it's not as if this is an exceptional drain on mod resources. How about just every 30 years in stead, so that the intervals where an invasion event is possible correspond with the intervals of the "gradual pacification" events? That reduces it to 10 extra events, right?

My point was to have at least one of these per generation, for as long as we feel it is appropriate for Vietnam to have some extra level of resistance. My broader point was that as long as we have an appropriate tag (Dai Viet) at our disposal, there's no need to approximate this war entirely with rebels. I think all major conflicts (i.e. after rebels have captured a province) should be modeled using the tag.

Even the alternate one (where you institute reforms, is until ~1530 (110 years), but there should be no revolts then.

However since there would be multiple attempts then at reforms, i'm thinking that each attempt at reform should cut the timeframe by so many years (at the cost of lower income for the area). This would require a lot more events, but be a very dynamic situation allowing players to chose what would be better at the moment.

Sounds good. It wouldn't mean that many extra events if the choices were built into the "gradual pacification of An Nam" events.

I think tha'ts why there were so many produced. With that many, it's almost certain one will march to Heibei.

Fair enough; if what Yoda says is true, it works. My only lingering concern is that this event, if not properly handled by the AI, could lead to province defections. Whether this risk is significant depends on the layout of the new map.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

General update to let you know how things are going. I have successfully finished redoing up through the death of Le Loi. I've redone and stripped many events from the file. There will be no gradual pacification events, or if there are, they will be very few and likely only 16th century. Instead what will happen is a short respit before another leader comes along and revolts.

I would like to do this based on historical leaders, but since An Nam was successful and the leaders that followed were all dynastical, its hard to find evidence for future leaders. I do not want to use generic revolters either.

I will likely start the next invasion at 1450-1475. I'm not sure if inbetween then i should put any minimal amount of RR. And one every 25-35 years after (ie once a generation), until An Nam is pacificed in ~1580-1600, unless you make reforms and then it happens more quickly.

So my question is, should i make up generic leaders if i can't find any or not?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Another thing i'd like to add, once i get done with this sequence, is Paper money inflationary events for China.

Start China out at a very high inflation rate, say 10% or even up to 25%. In 1421 there will be a choice to abolish paper money because of the rampant inflation it causes. Historically this was done. However the price for doing this was very drastic.

It would signifitgantly lower inflation, but most of the heavily populated costal areas would all get -1 taxvalue. If you chose not to, every X amount of years inflationary events would occur. There would be seperate tracts here, lower inflation for humans vs. AI because the AI is better at handling inflation than humans (and i was only thinking of giving humans 1-2% inflation). Also every monarch would get the chance to repeal this, unless they were short lived. Then they might not. There would be no way to go back, except maybe after the Mandate of Heaven sequence with the new dynasty. Those events would basically undo the -1 taxvalue.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Good idea. But why have different inflation for humans and AI? Players should be more careful and China has plenty of money anyway...

Maybe 25% is too much...
but 15% should be affordable.

Only problem I see is for tech research. Would a player choose to not lower inflation, especially at the beginning of the game (and even starting with low inflation level)?

I'm not sure B choice worths the pain.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Good idea. But why have different inflation for humans and AI? Players should be more careful and China has plenty of money anyway...

Maybe 25% is too much...
but 15% should be affordable.

Only problem I see is for tech research. Would a player choose to not lower inflation, especially at the beginning of the game (and even starting with low inflation level)?

I'm not sure B choice worths the pain.

Well, in the long run, if you don't do anything about it, you will continue an upward spiral of inflation. Even if you have govenors in every province, you will still have a net gain in inflation as the game goes on. I might have to tweak the numbers so it really in the long run makes it not worth-while.

However, 1421 isn't nessarily the absolute date it needed to happen. Inflationary pressures had been building for some time in China.

Removing paper money will also lower inflation, either immedatly or within a year or so. I would prefer immediatly because its easier to script. It wouldn't eliminate it though because paper money in use was still allowed to be used, but was eventually destroyed or worn out.

So at the beginning of the game, the player would have a chance to lower inflation and have some excess cash on hand after this. However, he'll haveto deal with a lot less cashflow because a signifigant number of provinces just got poorer. Also likely any trade investment he had would be wiped out...or atleast some of it.

On the other hand, he can keep the inflation at and his economy the way it is at no additional immediate cost. Every 5 or 10 years or so he will recieve an event that raises inflation by X amount, not much, but more than enough to be offset by govenors. Delaying it a bit won't do much and each time you delay it between each occurance inflation will rise, but not signifigantly. However over the corse of 100 years it will be signifigant.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

X amount?
With 1% inflation each ten years. It is 10% per century. Affordable or do you plan more?

Just a thought, governors could fight this increase each ten years but it won't be easy for accumulated inflation and before corresponding tech + governors in every province.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Vanin and Bogorodsk are Manchu cities in 1419 and 1520 but not "colonized" in 1648 scenario. Shouldn't they be Chinese cities at start of this scenario (with at least same population as in 1520)?

 

[zdlugasz]

Vanin and Bogorodsk are Manchu cities in 1419 and 1520 but not "colonized" in 1648 scenario. Shouldn't they be Chinese cities at start of this scenario (with at least same population as in 1520)?

IMO yes

 

[unmerged(2456)]

X amount?
With 1% inflation each ten years. It is 10% per century. Affordable or do you plan more?

Just a thought, governors could fight this increase each ten years but it won't be easy for accumulated inflation and before corresponding tech + governors in every province.

Then 1% each 5 years or 2% each 10 years. I prefer the former because it would affect the prices of stuff between each 5 years, but that means more event spam for the player (but more accurate dipiction of price increases). It needs to be impossible for the govenors to completly fight.

Also i making everyone (except Le Loi) from the Le dynasty dormant. This is because Le Loi came from a local village leader, very humble origins. If he did not succeed, there would never have been a Le dynasty.

However, this leads to 3 problems.
1. No real monarchs if Le Loi dies. The fallen Tran Dynasty is the most likely replacement, but I cannot find anyone from it until the Mac dynasty forms. I'm not sure how we at AGCEEP should handle this. IE, should we remove just have an ongoing "Tran Dynasty" or make finctional rules?
2. It is unlikely the Mac Dynasty would come into being, because the Mac Dynasty is the Tran Dynasty. However, this is minor and could be overlooked.
3. The Mac Dynasty would likely have never fallen. This leads to the same problem as #1.

Because of the nature of these events affecting both China and Dai Vet and the number of them, and the complexity, i'd also like to split them off into a seperate file when done.

 

[unmerged(55982)]

4 proposals of Manchu:

1, Give Jehol(645) to Manchu in 1419 sce.
It is a mongol area, but we have no inner Mongolian state, I think give it to Manchu is better than Ming.
2, Give Liaotung(646) to China in 1520 sce.
In 1520, this area is still owned by Ming.
3, In 1419, Manchu's capital should in Jilin(643), not Nakhodka(640).
In 1419 they have no capital, so it should be same to 1520 sce. Nurhacian Manchu state's capital is in north corner of Liaotung, but place it in Jilin in Game is more correct.
4, Manchu should have less troops and better relation to China and Korea in both 1419 and 1520 sces.
In these times, Manchu still are tribes which often fight each other, not a stronly aggressive regional power.

Opinions?
Thanks.

 

[unmerged(55982)]

2 proposals of China:

1, In 1648 sce. China should have mongol culture as country culture.
2, All manchu/mongol/korean culture provs in 1520 and Jehol in 1419 should remove from China's core.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

About point 4 in post #237, could you be more specific wit troops. Problem with China is she diplo-annex too often Korea and Manchus, raise relation between China and Manchus won't help. Anyway, could you please more specific too?

I'm fine with other proposals but I have to check consistency for point 2 in post #238 (and I can't right now). Does it mean cores for China will be the same in 1419 and 1520 scenario on this border with this proposal?

 

[unmerged(55982)]

About point 4 in post #237, could you be more specific wit troops. Problem with China is she diplo-annex too often Korea and Manchus, raise relation between China and Manchus won't help. Anyway, could you please more specific too?

I'm fine with other proposals but I have to check consistency for point 2 in post #238 (and I can't right now). Does it mean cores for China will be the same in 1419 and 1520 scenario on this border with this proposal?

1, About relation, you are right, current setting is better than my proposal; about troops, Manchu have 70k army (supply limit 38k) in 1419 and 60k army (sl 39k) in 1520, these armies are usually wasted.

2, Yes, because between 1419 and 1520 there's no historical big border change and claim of land.

Another proposal: Chi and Mch monarch 084007 Abahai should be Hong Taiji, 084011/032017 Yangzheng sb Yongzheng, 084013/032019 Jiajing sb Jiaqing.

Another question: Will new map have Inner and Outer Mongolia?