Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

How much more are you going to nerf Ming?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 82627 EUIV: Bug Reports 1256 EUIV: Suggestions 19355 EUIV: Technical Support 6864 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 241 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Show only dev responses
genyuab said:
And you didn't answer my first argument:
Mandate loss for non-tributary borders is not realistic in the first place. Qing as EoC historically bordered Russia before 1650 and did not explode until 1912. And, bordering a non-tributary country was not and never the cause of the collapse of EoC
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure what your point was, since it no longer works that way anyway. It was changed for the better, in the form of a buff that also made it more historically accurate. I never said that the old system was better or more accurate, you seem to have projected that onto me yourself.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
genyuab said:
And you didn't answer my first argument:
Mandate loss for non-tributary borders is not realistic in the first place. Qing as EoC historically bordered Russia before 1650 and did not explode until 1912. And, bordering a non-tributary country was not and never the cause of the collapse of EoC
Click to expand...
Having a great power border you helps them use their influence to have your periphery break off. Easy to smuggle weapons to the tibetans as india than airlifting them in as Britain
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
genyuab said:
The monument map just showed how unfamiliar China sub-continent is to EU4 dev team.
Click to expand...
Maybe that.
Or maybe it showed that, in terms of wonder per nation competing, China has far better access than most.
Having Ming start with a dozen wonders that all do something while the others continents need to do battle royal to even start the construction
does not sound like balance. Especialy with Ming being able to afford the cost rather easily ontop of not having to fight for it.

Thats no even considering that the wonders close to China are either specificaly for the Mandate or just useful in general.
The ones in Pegu and Bangkok are both easily accessible and really good.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
JacobiteJames said:
Having a great power border you helps them use their influence to have your periphery break off. Easy to smuggle weapons to the tibetans as india than airlifting them in as Britain
Click to expand...
Then Ming cannot do the same thing to others? And if you want to smuggle weapons to Tibetans, you don't need to border Ming, just border Tibet.
JacobiteJames said:
Because theyd be over gov capacity at game start causing them to release two vassals
Click to expand...
From which history book did you find Ming over gov capacity?
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
EmagDrolBot said:
I wasn't sure what your point was, since it no longer works that way anyway. It was changed for the better, in the form of a buff that also made it more historically accurate. I never said that the old system was better or more accurate, you seem to have projected that onto me yourself.
Click to expand...
You said, The removal of mandate loss for non-tributary borders was massive recent buffs to Ming. Mandate loss for non-tributary borders is not realistic in the first place. Recent patches just fix this incorrect mechanism, not an improvement. And Never the past nor the present system is accurate.
 
  • 6
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Vulkandrache said:
Maybe that.
Or maybe it showed that, in terms of wonder per nation competing, China has far better access than most.
Having Ming start with a dozen wonders that all do something while the others continents need to do battle royal to even start the construction
does not sound like balance. Especialy with Ming being able to afford the cost rather easily ontop of not having to fight for it.

Thats no even considering that the wonders close to China are either specificaly for the Mandate or just useful in general.
The ones in Pegu and Bangkok are both easily accessible and really good.
Click to expand...
Is it better to compare wonders per nation, or wonders per region?
 
JacobiteJames said:
1.31 patch which made ai release vassals if over gov capacity - by Johan et al (2021)
Click to expand...
So your history lesson is learned in this game? The over gov capacity issue is ahistorical that supposed be fixed. And why not make the celestial empire's gov capacity 500, instead of 470? As I said, ALL other government type gets a governing capacity of the multiplier of 50.
 
Last edited:
  • 12
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Ok, so I think I understand:
historically: Ming exploded, so it must explode in-game as well.
game balance: Ming is so powerful, give it as few buffs and many debuffs as possible
Nicely done!
 
  • 16
  • 4Like
  • 3Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
That disaster has been there and it is hardly effective at doing anything if you are a semi experienced player. Also the disaster is actually good to pass another reform because you get events that give you mandate unless this was changed in origins. If you are in MP id just not pass any reforms and not worry about it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Drmcdevitt said:
That disaster has been there and it is hardly effective at doing anything if you are a semi experienced player. Also the disaster is actually good to pass another reform because you get events that give you mandate unless this was changed in origins. If you are in MP id just not pass any reforms and not worry about it.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the effect of the disaster before you draw a conclusion.

1636909633117.png
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
To be fair, monument density in Europe was lower than Asia until the last patch dropped. Asia's probably next for monument additions.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
genyuab said:
Recent patches just fix this incorrect mechanism, not an improvement
Click to expand...
You do realise it can be both?

The mandate loss on non tributary border was a design decision. No matter if it was wrong or not, it was designed that way and not a bug.

genyuab said:
Ok, so I think I understand:
historically: Ming exploded, so it must explode in-game as well.
game balance: Ming is so powerful, give it as few buffs and many debuffs as possible
Nicely done!
Click to expand...
I think there is aw big issue in your argument. You keep arguing for mechanics to be changed due to a lack of historical accuracy but also argue against a historically accurate deterministic approach as seen in earlier PDS games.

You also argue how unfair it is that ming china has these "debuffs", when other tags who failed during the time dont get them:
genyuab said:
Byzantine, Timurids, Poland, most of the hordes and American native, many of the Indian countries historically collapsed during EU4's timeline anyway. So let's put some unique literally-unavoidable and no-benefit-upon-overcome severe disasters on them?
Click to expand...
I am sorry to have this completely backfire for you but all the examples you noted, with the exception of india, are set up for failure via game mechanics. Not all of them are as "on the nose" as the ming disaster (Timurids and Poland are), but they all are set up for failure due to different game systems, ranging from negative acceptance modifier for alliances due to heretic religion (screws over byzantium). Dimishing effectiveness of cav only armies (hordes) to tech and institution setup (american natives). Ming is easily not alone in the "set up for failure" category and it honestly has a much better shot than all the other noted countries. Even in the worst case scenario the disaster is only gonna result in a few loans for the player. Mings abundance of forts makes devastation meaningless, their manpower pool makes rebels meaningless and the disaster events feed back more than enough mandate. Actually so much that experienced players might want to trigger the disaster intentionally to quickly chain reforms. Even the AI handles it more often than not.

Now China has some serious issues in EU4, but those are mostly related to potential successor dynasties. And those mostly can't be solved because the whole tag system doesnt work with chinese dynasties
 
  • 14
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
JaxElite said:
You do realise it can be both?

The mandate loss on non tributary border was a design decision. No matter if it was wrong or not, it was designed that way and not a bug.


I think there is aw big issue in your argument. You keep arguing for mechanics to be changed due to a lack of historical accuracy but also argue against a historically accurate deterministic approach as seen in earlier PDS games.

You also argue how unfair it is that ming china has these "debuffs", when other tags who failed during the time dont get them:

I am sorry to have this completely backfire for you but all the examples you noted, with the exception of india, are set up for failure via game mechanics. Not all of them are as "on the nose" as the ming disaster (Timurids and Poland are), but they all are set up for failure due to different game systems, ranging from negative acceptance modifier for alliances due to heretic religion (screws over byzantium). Dimishing effectiveness of cav only armies (hordes) to tech and institution setup (american natives). Ming is easily not alone in the "set up for failure" category and it honestly has a much better shot than all the other noted countries. Even in the worst case scenario the disaster is only gonna result in a few loans for the player. Mings abundance of forts makes devastation meaningless, their manpower pool makes rebels meaningless and the disaster events feed back more than enough mandate. Actually so much that experienced players might want to trigger the disaster intentionally to quickly chain reforms. Even the AI handles it more often than not.

Now China has some serious issues in EU4, but those are mostly related to potential successor dynasties. And those mostly can't be solved because the whole tag system doesnt work with chinese dynasties
Click to expand...
Neither the past nor current tributary design is historical. I've mentioned in past threads that Qing as EoC did not collapse after encountering Russia, and SE Asia countries that were not bordering Ming were its tributaries.

Since you think Ming's disaster is not severe, let's check then:
+15 unrest means constant rebellion
-50% tax & -50% Goods production means basically Ming will only half of the tax, 0 income from production or trade. This means Ming can hardly hire level-3 advisors to maintain meritocracy. Ming can also hardly maintain the "abundance of forts". And if Ming tries to take loans, 5 loans start to hit its mandate.
+0.08 devastation not only related to decline of Ming's already broken income but also decrease its mandate growth.
-15% morale & +20% technology means a middle-sized nation can easily invade and defeat Ming, this makes Ming even harder to keep its mandate growth.

How can Ming survive this disaster with horrible negative income and mandate growth?
Remember historically Ming died in 1644(if consider its leftover in Taiwan, Ming last even longer) and it passed sea ban reform in 1567. And after lifting seaban, Ming did not encounter this disaster, but instead, see an increase in income.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back