Beyond the fact that a rework is coming, I am more repeating the age-old complaint of "reduce modifier stacking".
- 2
-
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.
It should already been reworked for admin government to be honest. It's why the capital of Constantinople is so important because it's the central hub of where the tax money is at, and why every revolt needed to take the capital so badly.
- 1
Yes, I was merely commenting on the system you see in admin government where instead it's a form of tax farming to support the local army rather than money from a public treasury.
Because there's some workarounds like transferring units from interior province to frontier province but it's quite iffy.
Another thing is that Chinese adminstration is more civil personnel heavy, and the civil servants per capita is higher than the late Roman and Byzantine system.
I think the Chinese meritocracy government should have a mix of military Vs civil governance differences that's even more pronounced. Each civil province/circuit could come with both a civil governor and a military commander of the units in the area. So there could be underlying tensions as the civil governor do not have access to local military troops and have to work with the local commander to get anything done. A player playing as local general would also have to seek civil governor permission to deploy soldiers as well, particularly in the Song dynasty.
I think the Chinese meritocracy government should have a mix of military Vs civil governance differences that's even more pronounced. Each civil province/circuit could come with both a civil governor and a military commander of the units in the area. So there could be underlying tensions as the civil governor do not have access to local military troops and have to work with the local commander to get anything done. A player playing as local general would also have to seek civil governor permission to deploy soldiers as well, particularly in the Song dynasty.
Also, a huge difference is also Chinese emperors basically almost never lead an army in person. They basically always reside in the capital most of the time due to their needs to run the empire from the capital. I am not sure how this can be reflected in CK3, where admin governments should still allow the Byzantine emperors to lead armies in person when needed, but Chinese emperors less so.
Byzantine system is more vulnerable to highly charismatic generals that are successful, while for China, it's much harder to dislodge the emperor of a dynasty. To depose a dynasty is a much harder task for the Chinese than it is for the Byzantines.
Byzantine system is more vulnerable to highly charismatic generals that are successful, while for China, it's much harder to dislodge the emperor of a dynasty. To depose a dynasty is a much harder task for the Chinese than it is for the Byzantines.
When we dont have regional governors fighting whoevers invading a border region as the byz, I doubt we'll get it for the chinese either
867: laughs in jiedushi.
I have no idea if the devs could make China in 867 and 1066 play akin to their historical situations while only making one type of China government though.
- 1
This is why I hope the devs expand upon the admin government mechanics for AUH.
They said there's different kinds of era for the dynastic cycle to represent the Tang ( a more military-focused era) vs the Song ( a more tech focused era). What this actually meant is quite...unclear as of yet
dynastic cycles are one of the things about the celestial government type that have my curiosity the most. What I need though is for it to be sufficiently tied into whatever system they use to represent Mandate of Heaven
Tang at its height is apparently in an expansionist era, while the song is in a advancement era. The question is how will this affect the government of different eras, and how this translate to a different playstyle, is something I'm not certain about.
Song is also an expansionist era, despite repated failure. They try to conquer Xijin (now Peking) and Xia for many years.
I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the Tang and Song though. Many of the mechanical and medical innovations of the Tang perished with the dynasty and the Song never really recovered them.
But I am employing the mental strategy of "if I have low expectations for the DLC I would be less disappointed when it comes out". If it's actually good then I get nicely surprised, so it's a win-win strategy.
- 1
I think it's mostly to go with the general impression of the difference in dynasties. To me the accuracy of the dynastic cycle stages is less of an issue than whether we can get enough mechanics to be flexible and adjust how different dynasties and eras handled adminstration differently.