Stagnation, Decay, and Blunders Feature Implementation Request. Why all Great Empires Fall.

[fishirboy]

Why do we need corruption or a failure mechanism for Empires? Historically speaking they were quite stable and often more prosperous than random no-name kingdoms.

I guess the main thing is that yes the underline structure of rule was stable for most big countries but as soon as people got complacent bad actors seeped in, lack of correct military standards, more laws to benefit powerful people, corruption is always a normal thing it just wasn't so blatant to uncover. There are so many mechanics that could be implemented that the play could focuse on fixing or having new content to deal with. It just is hard to do right and why I'm not making the game since I dont know what would work correctly.

 

[Nikolai II]

You guys are grossly oversimplifying why nations failed. These examples also dont apply to France and UK, because they didnt lose the technological edge. They lost so much of their manpower in WW2 that they were unable to hold control in the colonies.

Yes, but this is a part of gamification. And it's not technological edge alone that loses your power. The descent and fall of Venice also coincides with how they added laws to prevent upstarts from unseating established powers.

Is this causation? Maybe not. Is it correlation enough to make a good "ludonarrative experience"? Maybe yes.

 

[Muezzahan]

If you ignore the reforms that happened.

Ottomans started doing actual, long-term reforms after the 1768-1774 Russo-Turkish war, where they experienced a humiliating defeat. Now, calculate the years passed since the "long Turkish war (1593-1606)" where ottoman empire struggled against habsburgs.(ottomans technically gained few forts, but austrian emperor stopped accepting ottoman sultan as his superior from this point on)
1774-1593=181 years.

It took 181 years for ottomans to realize they were dramatically behind europe in tech, and then, it was getting too late.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Yes, but this is a part of gamification. And it's not technological edge alone that loses your power. The descent and fall of Venice also coincides with how they added laws to prevent upstarts from unseating established powers.

Is this causation? Maybe not. Is it correlation enough to make a good "ludonarrative experience"? Maybe yes.

I dont see any correlation between the fall of the Mongols, the Romans, the British Empire and the Ottomans. Like absolutely 0. What is the ocrrelation?

 

[GeneralNoob]

Ottomans started doing actual, long-term reforms after the 1768-1774 Russo-Turkish war, where they experienced a humiliating defeat. Now, calculate the years passed since the "long Turkish war (1593-1606)" where ottoman empire struggled against habsburgs.(ottomans technically gained few forts, but austrian emperor stopped accepting ottoman sultan as his superior from this point on)
1774-1593=181 years.

My man you are wrong on so many levels.

1. I am not talking about military reforms alone. Also political/economic ones. E.g. Köprülü reforms conducted prior to the Great Turkish Wars.

2. The Great Turkish Wars happened in 1683-1699. You got the wrong date. I am not talking about "the long turkish war". Mind you some of the territory that was lost from this war, was reconquered.

3. In the Great Turkish Wars you have about half of Europe directly or indirectly being involved against the war with the Ottomans with the aim to destroy them, something Europe failed to do. There are a number of great defeats, but also a number of great victories. The Ottoman military falls behind over the course of the 18th century, but that is besides the point, because the number of reforms happen in the late 18th century.

4. No significant military reforms happened by 1768-1774. The naval academy was founded in 1773. The Janissaries got disbanded in 1826. The nizam-i cedid was set up in the early 19th century. And these reforms had massive success. The Ottoman-Russian war of the 1870th happened after a famine, the stock market crash and several rebellions on the Balkan. Long story short: Despite literally defaulting twice right before the Russian invasion, the Ottoman army was extremally potent. In Plevna a small contingent of the Ottoman army was capable of holding the entire Russian forces. If the economic crash didnt happen prior to this war, the Ottomans most likely could have holded the Russians on their own. Eitherway, the point is that these reforms were conducted and that it wasnt a "growth -> stagnation -> decay" process as implied.


EDIT:

And if the 19th century is too late for you, we can also take the interregnum as an example. That is clearly a "decay" that happened. Yet the Ottomans recovered and grew to new levels. It was clearly a roller-coaster with lots of ups and downs. Empires rarely have a linear development/story.

 

[Strompator]

Concepts similar to this were tried using a decadence mechanic in the game Field of Glory: Empires, and similarly, an authority mechanic in Field of Glory: Kingdoms.

It was a solid effort to try to reflect these aspects of the rise and fall of powerful realms , but in the end it turned out to be pretty gamey.

 

[fishirboy]

Concepts similar to this were tried using a decadence mechanic in the game Field of Glory: Empires, and similarly, an authority mechanic in Field of Glory: Kingdoms.

It was a solid effort to try to reflect these aspects of the rise and fall of powerful realms , but in the end it turned out to be pretty gamey.

Ya i was trying to see if there would be new ideas to keep it from getting a to big to fail situation

 

[Nikolai II]

I dont see any correlation between the fall of the Mongols, the Romans, the British Empire and the Ottomans. Like absolutely 0. What is the ocrrelation?

Ottomans were already mentions, Romans too got big enough that there was no credible threat to their heartland for long enough that they mostly had internal strife for a while, the Mongols didn't last long enough to get a problem (but can also be said to have gotten internal problems super fast due to being so OP).

Admittedly the British Empire is in this amusing excuse for a hypothesis an exeption that literally proves the rule.

 

[IAmATurky]

i love the stagnation idea, especially the one that laws which were enacted for a long time should be difficult to remove. However, i think this should also include estate privileges. Therefore, a longstanding estate privilege should be almost untouchable unless you’re welling to accept them really really hating you.
This can add something amazing to the game, all the momentum of past becomes present and haunt the nation.
This could make playing different countries (even if they were neighbors) be more unique since you have to overcome new combination of “obstacles” that you can’t just click to remove.

 

[Praetorian44]

Their entire country was sieged for several years by the french, ultimately losing control over colonies. That is far from "believing in being big and strong". It wasnt a typical invasion either, but a coup d'etat followed by a civil-war like situation.

Spain was on the decline long before Napoleon's invasion...

 

[GeneralNoob]

Ottomans were already mentions,

With false claims. At the end of the day the Ottoman Empire did not collapse. It was conquered in an extremally bloody and hard way. That is no where near what was said.

Romans too got big enough that there was no credible threat to their heartland for long enough that they mostly had internal strife for a while,

Grossly oversymplifying the massive barbarian movements into the Roman Empire, the division of the Empire to two and its subsequent weakening as well as the remergence of Roman might in later centuries. The damn country stood for +1000 years with lots of ups and downs.

the Mongols didn't last long enough to get a problem (but can also be said to have gotten internal problems super fast due to being so OP).

They didnt have internal problems. The territory was just split among the sons, like it was done in other feudal societies (e.g. within HRE). The countries naturally grew apart over time due to proximity.

A fabled "growth -> stagnation -> decay" doesnt exist. That is a massive simplification and falsification of history.

 

[Nikolai II]

At the end of the day the Ottoman Empire did not collapse. It was conquered in an extremally bloody and hard way. That is no where near what was said.

...no, the Ottoman Empire was long gone by WW1. It could maybe have survived as a country without WW1, but any claim to being a "Great Power" had been lost decades earlier. (And by WW1 it had already turned towards becoming a Turkish state anyway)

 

[Lamartine]

There should honestly be a “at war or recently been at war” score which increases you research speed.

I think something like this would be a good thing but not so simple as war = bonus. Something more like

• States at war, especially a threatening war against a peer, have an easier time corralling internal factions to rally around the crown. Something to the effect of "if you don't set aside your petty squabbling we're all going to die". Powerful empires that are never seriously threatened will struggle to get their factions on board with hard but necessary reforms.
• States at peace take a hit to stability if their factions are unhappy. But if they're at war, then their stability might already be lower because of the war, and unhappy factions cannot lower that stability further. So you have big peaceful empires that refuse to adopt destabilising technologies and reforms because it will upset the factions. But states at war are already destabilised as much as possible, so there's less downside to upsetting your factions by adopting the reforms.
• Pops fighting away from home might increase the spread of technology where they're fighting back to their home. If you send troops to fight somewhere with more advanced farming techniques, your soldiers might notice and take those practices home.

 

[GeneralNoob]

...no, the Ottoman Empire was long gone by WW1. It could maybe have survived as a country without WW1, but any claim to being a "Great Power" had been lost decades earlier.

You dont have to be a great power in order to have a strong country. I didnt claim it to be a great power, but the tanzimat reforms most definetly were a massive improvement in all layers of society, including the military, which is the point I am making. There is no internal collapse in this time period. It is a global stock market crash drying up all funds for the Ottoman government over night, followed by a famine and revolts and lastly the Russian-Ottoman war. Even after that the military was undergowing reforms. To make this clear:

The Ottomans are ending despite their reforms, which is far from being a "decay". There is no "expansion -> stagnation -> collapse" process here.

(And by WW1 it had already turned towards becoming a Turkish state anyway)

The independence movement doesnt start being formed pre-, during or direclty post-WW1. The CUP has a turkish focus pre-WW1, but it is pure speculation regarding what would have happened, if the Ottomans survived post WW1. The turkish focus doesnt stop the Ottomans to be the Ottomans either.

 

[zeruosi]

For stagnation, it’s important to recognize that war/ conflict breeds innovation.

I’d argue that one of the primary reasons Europe came out on top in this time period was the sheer amount of wars it experienced as opposed to the rest of the old world.

There should honestly be a “at war or recently been at war” score which increases you research speed.

It would incentivize players to join wars for reasons other than gaining clay.

I don't agree with this view. Prolonged, large-scale, and high-intensity wars only bring destruction, rather than fostering innovation. If Europe had been plagued by wars on the scale of the Thirty Years' War throughout that period, it would not have progressed but regressed instead. Not only a life of peace and comfort can lead to decline, but high-intensity wars can do the same. Just look at the population decline and destruction of buildings in China during each dynastic change.

In China's nearly two thousand years of history, it's almost as if it rises by one meter every two hundred years, only to fall back ninety centimeters in a large-scale, devastating war.

The idea that war promotes innovation is, to some extent, a misattribution. It merely forces humans to apply unstable and experimental technologies prematurely, rather than truly driving progress.

 

[Ispil]

I'd rather just represent the competing interests of the estates. Much of "stagnation and decay" is a consequence of the estates enshrining their power into law; capturing that to me is infinitely more interesting than arbitrary modifiers because your country's too big and too old.

Arbitrary modifiers are frustrating. Having something to actually fixate your ire onto, that you're actively working against, is far more engaging.

 

[dbruser]

You dont have to be a great power in order to have a strong country. I didnt claim it to be a great power, but the tanzimat reforms most definetly were a massive improvement in all layers of society, including the military, which is the point I am making. There is no internal collapse in this time period. It is a global stock market crash drying up all funds for the Ottoman government over night, followed by a famine and revolts and lastly the Russian-Ottoman war. Even after that the military was undergowing reforms. To make this clear:

The Ottomans are ending despite their reforms, which is far from being a "decay". There is no "expansion -> stagnation -> collapse" process here.


The independence movement doesnt start being formed pre-, during or direclty post-WW1. The CUP has a turkish focus pre-WW1, but it is pure speculation regarding what would have happened, if the Ottomans survived post WW1. The turkish focus doesnt stop the Ottomans to be the Ottomans either.

Well the thing is they went from a great power, with arguments for them to being the greatest power to an empire facing numerous internal troubles, having lost a lot of land - many of which to rebellion, all during the 17/1800s. They stood at the forefront of technology in the 14-1600s but were relatively backwards by the time the 20th century rolled around.
The Tanzimat reforms was an attempt (fairly succesful) to revitatlize a country that had significantly stagnated and fallen behind other European powers since their peak for example.

Overall, leading a large empire (before information age) necessitates decentralization, which breeds a lot of inefficiency and corruption over a long period of time.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Well the thing is they went from a great power, with arguments for them to being the greatest power to an empire facing numerous internal troubles,

They didnt face more troubles than other contemporary empires. The difference is that other empires were not dog-pilled on by multiple superpowers, thanks to the concert of Europe trying to prevent exactly that. I also gave examples with:

-the interregnum prior to massive Ottoman expansion

-The Köprülü reforms

-The tanzimat reforms

I dont know why you guys are hell bent to claim that it was a simple "expansion-> stagnation-> decay" process, when it clearly wasnt.

having lost a lot of land - many of which to rebellion, all during the 17/1800s.

None to "just rebellions". The only successful break-aways are Greece and Serbia. Both of which had heavy involvement by western powers. Imagen: Any nation in that time period is going to have issues when multiple super-powers are dog-pilling on you.

They stood at the forefront of technology in the 14-1600s but were relatively backwards by the time the 20th century rolled around.

No. They lacked money, not technology. The Ottoman army was not run by swords. The Tanzimat reforms brought a f+ck ton of western experts. Society was already shifted towards a legalistic view. Stuff like medicine and science was overemphasized. You had railway projects reaching from Istanbul to Mecca/Medina. You had Beirute transforming from a backwards vilalge to a premier port in the 19th century. One reason why France and UK wanted Ottoman territory, was precisely not because it was some backwards place, but because they were equally involved in modernizing large parts of Ottoman society, the investment of which they wanted to secure.

This obviously doesnt mean that the Ottoman Empire had british standards, far from it, but various urban centres were not lacking behind. Most definetly not Istanbul. The Ottomans were obviously not a beacon of innovation, but it wasnt the 3rd world country, you are making it out to be.

Mind you, the WW1 entrance is preciselys because of this. Ottoman war-supporters smelled an opportunity to get away from this nonstop dog-pilling by France/UK/Russia. The generals did not believe that they were lacking behind technologically and were confident that they could in fact muster great power, if the efforts are focused on a single great power. Something they proved in Canakkale, Iraq, Medina and to a large part in the Levant. It makes no sense for the british to lose in Canakkale, if the Ottomans were "technologically behind" or were "backwards". That is a nonsense take.

The Tanzimat reforms was an attempt (fairly succesful) to revitatlize a country that had significantly stagnated and fallen behind other European powers since their peak for example.

Overall, leading a large empire (before information age) necessitates decentralization, which breeds a lot of inefficiency and corruption over a long period of time.

The core Ottoman territories that were directly controled continued to be directly controlled. Ottoman control over the Levant or the Balkan didnt decentralize. I dont even know where you are getting this from. Areas like Egypt, Iraq, Hejaz, the Maghreb were decentralized, but they were decentral all along.

 

[fishirboy]

I'd rather just represent the competing interests of the estates. Much of "stagnation and decay" is a consequence of the estates enshrining their power into law; capturing that to me is infinitely more interesting than arbitrary modifiers because your country's too big and too old.

Arbitrary modifiers are frustrating. Having something to actually fixate your ire onto, that you're actively working against, is far more engaging.

Yes I agree that having gameplay focusing around entities with their own I'll is much more compelling gameplay. The original idea is just to find a better solution to the ideas I have thrown out there.

 

[Druch11]

I think it's the existence of competition that breeds innovation. War and conflict is a byproduct of competition getting out of hand.
There were plenty of times where fierce competition even during peace times brought plenty of innovation.

The only thing EU5 has to mimic this is a rival system they brought from EU4 and there might be some tiny irrelevant penealities if you have no rivals, so yuan dynasty will have no rivals to pick for example.

What if you controlled too much trade in multiple trade zones impacted the administrative costs since I don't think the corruption mechanic is in the game.

You are right,thats how free market worked.