What will make Meritocracy government not just an improved version of admin government?

[ray243]

Everything we know about Meritocracy government so far sounds like an admin government but more improved with more mechanics. A central treasury system, seemingly a mechanic that feature more of your non-military official ships in the bureacracy.

All these are also features that would be easily applicable in the historical Byzantine empire as well. What is stopping players who wants a better modelled government for the Byzantines to simply use the Meritocracy government as a default government (if not modding it if it's not easily available as an option) instead of admin government?

What are the key differences that will ensure admin government won't end up as just being an inferior version of Meritocracy government?

To be honest, the only key difference it seems is the civil examination that the Byzantines lacked, but aside from that both forms of governments feels quite similar that I wonder if we need to make Meritocracy a new distinct government.

 

[lo24681]

correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the name of the gov "celestial empire" and not "Meritocracy"? I believe Meritocracy is the resource for the gov. not at all relevant the the meaning of your post, in which I am holding off on any judgment until I see a dev diary or something.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

China is coming in q3, theyre not going to give us key details now

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

They gave us one detail, which is the existence of a national treasury distinct from the ruler's personal treasury. There really isn't enough information available to make any particular comparisons to admin government.

 

[GhostDanny]

the existence of a national treasury distinct from the ruler's personal treasury.

Yeah, I don't get that one.
How that's going to be different to me just upgrading buildings in vassals territories?

 

[ray243]

Yeah, I don't get that one.
How that's going to be different to me just upgrading buildings in vassals territories?

Potentially means of corruption by siphoning public treasury for private gain? Also ensuring new governors coming in can pay for troops?

 

[Rubidium]

Yeah, I don't get that one.
How that's going to be different to me just upgrading buildings in vassals territories?

Imperator had this system, which I assume they will use as an inspiration.

Things like buildings/etc. were paid out of the national treasury, while things like bribes were paid for out of the personal treasury (and events could be either one, depending on the event). Soldiers who were loyal to the government were paid by the national treasury, whereas troops who were loyal to individuals (e.g., claimants prepping for a civil war) were paid out of their leaders' personal treasury (and, if said leader was disloyal, would actively refuse the player's commands). And corruption tended to funnel money from the national treasury to the personal one (rendering it unavailable for national use, but also making the corrupt character more powerful).

One other obvious change is that China will presumably be able to get independence/dissolution factions, while the current administrative government can't (although realistically they should, at least for independence factions).

 

[AchedTeacher]

correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the name of the gov "celestial empire" and not "Meritocracy"? I believe Meritocracy is the resource for the gov. not at all relevant the the meaning of your post, in which I am holding off on any judgment until I see a dev diary or something.

Why hold off judgment like a sound person instead of wildly speculating on barely-teased content two expansions down the line??

 

[Videogames]

I would think that the vassal experience might be a bit more precarious for Chinese government. Byzantine noble families could coast by on inherited prestige for generations even after producing incompetents or traitors, whereas Chinese officials were always at risk of their family returning to obscurity within a couple generations if they couldn't produce a son who succeeded in exams.

 

[klopkr]

They gave us one detail, which is the existence of a national treasury distinct from the ruler's personal treasury. There really isn't enough information available to make any particular comparisons to admin government.

Yes, they also said in one dev reply that might maybe come to admin too.

Really we don't know anything other than it's going to based around china, have a treasury, and Korea and Japan will have their own special governments that may or may not be based on it.

Also something about dynastic cycles.

 

[ray243]

Imperator had this system, which I assume they will use as an inspiration.

Things like buildings/etc. were paid out of the national treasury, while things like bribes were paid for out of the personal treasury (and events could be either one, depending on the event). Soldiers who were loyal to the government were paid by the national treasury, whereas troops who were loyal to individuals (e.g., claimants prepping for a civil war) were paid out of their leaders' personal treasury (and, if said leader was disloyal, would actively refuse the player's commands). And corruption tended to funnel money from the national treasury to the personal one (rendering it unavailable for national use, but also making the corrupt character more powerful).

One other obvious change is that China will presumably be able to get independence/dissolution factions, while the current administrative government can't (although realistically they should, at least for independence factions).

In China there's more of a history of setting up rival courts in declaration of rebellion while for the Byzantines other than things after 1204 resulting in rival regimes, it doesn't really seem to happen for the most part, with most rebellion aiming to capture Constantinople.

Whereas China doesn't seem to put as much value on just one central city, and any city could become a new captial. Whereas the Byzantines this rarely happened, and the one emperor who tried that by moving captial to Sicily got assassinated for trying to do so.

Why hold off judgment like a sound person instead of wildly speculating on barely-teased content two expansions down the line??

Raising questions early could at least give more time for ideas before things becomes too late to fix it by time dev diaries comes along. Often it seems like dev diaries don't give enough time to offer major feedback changes...

I would think that the vassal experience might be a bit more precarious for Chinese government. Byzantine noble families could coast by on inherited prestige for generations even after producing incompetents or traitors, whereas Chinese officials were always at risk of their family returning to obscurity within a couple generations if they couldn't produce a son who succeeded in exams.

It seems complicated for this era as this is the era where Tang dynasty decline and regional governors becomes powerful.

That said you do get a scholar-gentry class that is perhaps less focused on military affairs than Byzantines noble families.

Landed gentry in China - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Delterius]

Yeah, I don't get that one.
How that's going to be different to me just upgrading buildings in vassals territories?

Seems to me the treasury is tied to the great works system. They talked about the great wall and maintaining infrastructure. So if I'm guessing it right, the treasury is for keeping China running. Let corruption run rampant, the rivers flood and the mandate, lost.

 

[Videogames]

Seems to me the treasury is tied to the great works system. They talked about the great wall and maintaining infrastructure. So if I'm guessing it right, the treasury is for keeping China running. Let corruption run rampant, the rivers flood and the mandate, lost.

I think it's going to do both that, and address prior complaints that even Admin government gives the local holder first dibs on tax funds and then only gives the top liege an attenuated percentage. For China now, tax revenues should hit the central treasury and only then be passed back down to the local level for officials' salaries and public works. (This should admittedly be less the case in the 867 start date with the jiedushi military governors controlling local power in China.)

 

[Azgabeth]

China is coming in q3, theyre not going to give us key details now

But honestly they should.

Because looking at how ambitious All Under Heaven wants to be, and the dev's track record of ignoring feedback... i fully expect this dlc to be very poorly viewed by the community

 

[lo24681]

I believe they said they were considering at least having the map DDs be released earlier than usual? If that’s the case I wouldn’t be surprised with some diaries in may.

 

[ray243]

But honestly they should.

Because looking at how ambitious All Under Heaven wants to be, and the dev's track record of ignoring feedback... i fully expect this dlc to be very poorly viewed by the community

The Mongols DLC already didn't have time to take in a lot of detailed feedback and only minor changes are made. For a big DLC like AUH, it's important to give suggestions even earlier in hopes that there's at least more time to potentially make adjustments.

 

[ray243]

I believe they said they were considering at least having the map DDs be released earlier than usual? If that’s the case I wouldn’t be surprised with some diaries in may.

They said it's in May, but given the East Asia map itself and 3 new governments types is going to be a huge expansion than normal, you basically need even more time for feedback than just half a year.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

The Mongols DLC already didn't have time to take in a lot of detailed feedback and only minor changes are made. For a big DLC like AUH, it's important to give suggestions even earlier in hopes that there's at least more time to potentially make adjustments.

But honestly they should.

Because looking at how ambitious All Under Heaven wants to be, and the dev's track record of ignoring feedback... i fully expect this dlc to be very poorly viewed by the community

They should, but they also shouldve started khans of the steppe dev diaries far earlier than they did. With how massive the few dev diaries were, they couldve easily started in January and responded then and there to be told Mangudai wasnt a type of unit but a tribe. But instead we waited weeks with no dev diaries. China will be a rushed job.

 

[Rubidium]

In China there's more of a history of setting up rival courts in declaration of rebellion while for the Byzantines other than things after 1204 resulting in rival regimes, it doesn't really seem to happen for the most part, with most rebellion aiming to capture Constantinople.

Whereas China doesn't seem to put as much value on just one central city, and any city could become a new captial. Whereas the Byzantines this rarely happened, and the one emperor who tried that by moving captial to Sicily got assassinated for trying to do so.

While Constantinople was important in a way that few other imperial centers have ever been, there were plenty of breakaway Byzantine regimes that never paid more than lip service to the idea of taking the capital.

Someone like Isaac Komnenos in Cyprus was never a serious threat to conquer Constantinople, and yet his rule of Cyprus lasted 6 years, and likely would have lasted much longer if he hadn't made the mistake of making an enemy of Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade. And even before the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople, the Angeloi had lost control of large chunks of the empire to local nobles who were de facto independent.

And that's not even counting groups like the Serbs, Bulgarians, or the Principality of Antioch, who fluctuated between loyal vassals and completely independent depending on the strength of any given emperor. Plus the various non-Byzantine administrative empires that can be set up by game rule (compare the Abbasids and Carolingians in 867 and 1066, for example).

And more broadly, it's really bad for game balance for any empire to be effectively unable to collapse from within.

 

[ray243]

While Constantinople was important in a way that few other imperial centers have ever been, there were plenty of breakaway Byzantine regimes that never paid more than lip service to the idea of taking the capital.

Someone like Isaac Komnenos in Cyprus was never a serious threat to conquer Constantinople, and yet his rule of Cyprus lasted 6 years, and likely would have lasted much longer if he hadn't made the mistake of making an enemy of Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade. And even before the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople, the Angeloi had lost control of large chunks of the empire to local nobles who were de facto independent.

And that's not even counting groups like the Serbs, Bulgarians, or the Principality of Antioch, who fluctuated between loyal vassals and completely independent depending on the strength of any given emperor. Plus the various non-Byzantine administrative empires that can be set up by game rule (compare the Abbasids and Carolingians in 867 and 1066, for example).

And more broadly, it's really bad for game balance for any empire to be effectively unable to collapse from within.

I mean more so in that Chinese regimes can those that aren't breakaway regimes, but rather rather courts all seeking to claim they are the true legit dynasty with the mandate of heaven. And also the idea that even a legitimate emperor can shift and change capital with less issue than Byzantine emperors had.

So perhaps from a game design perspective, a change would be how different you want your admin government to look in contrast from your Chinese-style meritocracy government. There should be some difference to highlight some of the differences in general, just to make it more mechanically interesting aside from having certain different events like chariot races.