• 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.

Decentralisation versus Centralisation

  • Decentralisation

    Votes: 23 16,1%
  • Centralisation

    Votes: 120 83,9%

  • Total voters
    143

BiB

Comité du Salut Public
21 Badges
Jan 25, 2001
27.838
11
forum.paradoxplaza.com
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
A bit of a non debate, really. Centralisation has enough bonuses to be the thing u want (bar for some very multireligious, multicultural empires) however getting there is hard. Lots of random events attacking this one, as it should, makes creating a centralised state hard. It takes some work. But that work pays off. Because of this though this is not a priority slider for me. First get so others in place, whom are easier, before I start the uphill struggle. Still, bar my time in charge of PLC, centralisation was what I preferred.
 
I threw in a lukewarm vote for decentralization.

This is mainly just my style as I like to go max innovativeness, thus staying somewhat decentralized is good to avoid war exhaustion problems.
 
Originally posted by Carligula
I threw in a lukewarm vote for decentralization.

This is mainly just my style as I like to go max innovativeness, thus staying somewhat decentralized is good to avoid war exhaustion problems.

I'm the opposite, but I've recently discovered the joys of serfdom and stability, so I usually end up ruling centralized free-thinking serfs with a land-offensive high quality army. Everything else doesn't matter to me.
 
Lol. And i happily let my slider detoriorate towards decentralizatio...Well, but recently, i turned into blitz type wars. So war exhaustion stopped bothering me, really. Not that i'm going to raise centralization first. Well, sometimes i raise free trade first(colonists). So, i'm yet to vote...
 
I am with BiB on all of the points. The benefits are just too substantial and the drawbacks minimal. Earlier in the Mercantilism/Free Trade event I brought up the point about the priority of the sliders to which BiB responded that M/FT wasn't a priority. Here I also agree that Centralization is not the most important aspect of my agenda.

The benefits are well worth it, but it requires constant effort and determinization. I hate the non-enforcement of ordinances event as you receive no choice in the matter, you are simply moved back one step. The other actions are bearable with a loss in stability. Especially early in the game when stability investment is chepear, it is often easier to select the -4 hit to stability and get the +1 to centralization when a petition of redress is brought before your throne. At least with that slider there are negative consequences with each action (revolt and -1 taxation for the other choice). Beyond that, nobles can cost you -3 stabilty and the cities can cost you -3 just to maintain centralization. With 5 events in the mix, it is tough to stay centralized.

As England, I've discovered the following. You get hit with 3 or 4 decentralizing events, either random or planning in the first 80 years of the game. Usually the events work to put me at complete decentralization by 1460. This has a benefit to it: you can select the easier option of all the frequent decentralizing events without consequence to the slider since it has reached its maximum. Sometimes it is worth it simply to avoid constant stability hits. Later when you get centralizing National events, you can start to bring this slider up. This is usually after you have achieved desired effects on at least one of the other sliders.

I find the posts on decentralization especially interesting. I have never tried it, but I can certainly see a couple of benefit, perhaps late in the game when techs are approaching max.

this game is so interesting because each slider has its own unique advantages and penalties. It the players responsibility to learn to live with those penalties, or to cover them up with another slider. I will be particulary interested to see the comments on slider interaction upon completion of the individual slider posts. Perhaps after BiB has finished with the last slider, the following week might be devoted to multi-slider interaction as this seems to be more important than any single slider in isolation. Besides, given the amount of time to finish the rest of the sliders, there will be more time for other players to acquire the game and add to the already growing number of comments on the subject.
 
Well, i though a bit. And played high centralization state, actually. And:

While in single player, when i rarely find myself in position of fighting prolonged war(why?self-explainable, really:D), i wouldn't go centralized in MP game. Or, i wouldn't if i would be larger than eight-province nation. Simple as it is, war exhaustion. Human players tend to be much more determined in war, and stalemate between centralized and decentralized state can quickly turn into decisive defeat/victory, after centralized state is hit by serios stability event. Kaboom, revolt risk goes through the roof, and decentralized state finally can gain upper hand, and also hope for governmetn fall in it's enemy. So, in MP, i wouldn't go centralized at all, probably (and definitely not above 4-5)
And this is much more important than 10% production bonus and technology speed-up.
 
Originally posted by Xenophon
I am with BiB on all of the points. The benefits are just too substantial and the drawbacks minimal. Earlier in the Mercantilism/Free Trade event I brought up the point about the priority of the sliders to which BiB responded that M/FT wasn't a priority. Here I also agree that Centralization is not the most important aspect of my agenda.

The benefits are well worth it, but it requires constant effort and determinization. I hate the non-enforcement of ordinances event as you receive no choice in the matter, you are simply moved back one step. The other actions are bearable with a loss in stability. Especially early in the game when stability investment is chepear, it is often easier to select the -4 hit to stability and get the +1 to centralization when a petition of redress is brought before your throne. At least with that slider there are negative consequences with each action (revolt and -1 taxation for the other choice). Beyond that, nobles can cost you -3 stabilty and the cities can cost you -3 just to maintain centralization. With 5 events in the mix, it is tough to stay centralized.

As England, I've discovered the following. You get hit with 3 or 4 decentralizing events, either random or planning in the first 80 years of the game. Usually the events work to put me at complete decentralization by 1460. This has a benefit to it: you can select the easier option of all the frequent decentralizing events without consequence to the slider since it has reached its maximum. Sometimes it is worth it simply to avoid constant stability hits. Later when you get centralizing National events, you can start to bring this slider up. This is usually after you have achieved desired effects on at least one of the other sliders.

I find the posts on decentralization especially interesting. I have never tried it, but I can certainly see a couple of benefit, perhaps late in the game when techs are approaching max.

this game is so interesting because each slider has its own unique advantages and penalties. It the players responsibility to learn to live with those penalties, or to cover them up with another slider. I will be particulary interested to see the comments on slider interaction upon completion of the individual slider posts. Perhaps after BiB has finished with the last slider, the following week might be devoted to multi-slider interaction as this seems to be more important than any single slider in isolation. Besides, given the amount of time to finish the rest of the sliders, there will be more time for other players to acquire the game and add to the already growing number of comments on the subject.

You bring up a good point (tangentially) that is often neglected in these discussions. Often what is good at one time is very different from what is good later, so the trick should be trying to navigate properly through time.

Using England as an example, obviously high centralization might be less effective once you have a huge globe spanning empire. The forthcoming Offensive/Defensive discussion will probably be an example of that too - before you have artillery there is little incentive to have a high defensive value.
 
Originally posted by satan


You bring up a good point (tangentially) that is often neglected in these discussions. Often what is good at one time is very different from what is good later, so the trick should be trying to navigate properly through time.

Using England as an example, obviously high centralization might be less effective once you have a huge globe spanning empire. The forthcoming Offensive/Defensive discussion will probably be an example of that too - before you have artillery there is little incentive to have a high defensive value.

As I pointed out at the start of these debates ;) It depends on the other sliders, what nation, the time period, singleplayer versus MP, ... But that's quite hard to get in just the one poll :D
 
Am I totally stupid or dont the middle ground be a nice place to be for this slider ?
I am a starting player in EUII and have some hard time choosing slider position ( except for the naval/land :p GO AUSTRIA GO !! ).
I think that a lot of slider depend of your playing style and period...
Am I really wrong if I try to keep those sliders I dont really care about in the place the event ploace them or just in the middle ground ?
I understand that tech bonus is great but 0 Bonus and 0 malus is nice too :p
 
Originally posted by Greywolf
Am I totally stupid or dont the middle ground be a nice place to be for this slider ?
I am a starting player in EUII and have some hard time choosing slider position ( except for the naval/land :p GO AUSTRIA GO !! ).
I think that a lot of slider depend of your playing style and period...
Am I really wrong if I try to keep those sliders I dont really care about in the place the event ploace them or just in the middle ground ?
I understand that tech bonus is great but 0 Bonus and 0 malus is nice too :p

Some good points again. The true test of which slider positions are effective and which ones aren't must come from gameplay experience, which considering the newness of EU2, there is much to be discovered. I will be especially interested to see what changes are made for multiplayer. We have already had 2 good posts on it, but I think we will see more changes. A strategy game works a lot like a logical argument where a person's individual choices are the propositions and the statement "Therefore I'm going to beat you" is the conclusion. It is up to the players to strike and counterstrike and ultimately refute the other player's strategy. Don't carry my analogy too far as for a game on the complexity of EU, it breaks down really fast.

To be honest, there are several sliders that I am fairly neutral on, and others that I may run the entire gambit of positions for the game.

wow, these slider posts generate some very good discussion....great idea BiB
 
If you're a warmonger, decentralization is nice. That ultra-low risk of war-weariness or outright liberation movements makes for keeping those otherwise unwilling provinces you just crushed in line.

On the other hand, it is hard to argue with increased produuctivity and lower tech costs. If you can hold a highly centralized governemnt together, you do yourself a service.

In practice, I let this one float with little real concern either way, because I will take the benefits of either end. I generally let events take hold of it, and accept whichever way they move it. I don't consider this one so radically important to me as to spend ducats and/or stability to move it. Hence I will abstain from this one.

In my Brandenburg GC, I was random evented to max decentraization within the first 30 years. I've seen THREE separate evens that have shifted me to decentralization, two a full -3. Since I already started at 2 or 3 (almost fully decentralized), its no shock I ended up at the maximum, and I haven't found it worth my time to move out of it.