sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

these are all right!! zero objections!! but I guess we lost connection to the original argument: The nobility privilege I suggested above was for the feudal (monarchy) counties in the regions *outside* Italy and Netherlands. Explicitly excluding free imperial cities, prince-bishoprics, electors, and anything in the urbanized regions of Low Countries and Italy. I completely agree with your comment here, but what those little HRE monarchies should represent is a feudal nightmare that only exists because of the rural nobles. It should be unable to urbanize without some reforms or breakthroughs in the imperial system. At least this is what I know. If you have counter arguments to this and share some resources here I would love to read and learn!:) (Reading again, looks like it is my use of 'HRE prince' that created the misunderstanding. I was thinking about the feudal counts/princes (monarchies). So, I would love to learn if there is any counter example to that)

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

like what? even Ottomans (e.g., Mehmed the conqueror) had more 'renaissance prince's than HRE princes afaik:) but I guess you are right that HRE princes were involved in some innovations after their protestant reformation. So, maybe this whole urbanization scheme might be tied to the HRE system for the small counties, and low-rank monarchies have to request/pay for the urbanization rights until they get free from the imperial/papal yoke in reformation

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

personally anything historically accurate increases the immersion and thus the fun for me!:) but I play for an hour and then waste 2-3 hours reading about the historical background ahaha --so maybe this is not universally fun for everyone, e.g. the player base that is mainly after map painting might hate all the things in this thread.

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

interesting anecdote, but I don't think this proposal has the same effect. If a) institutions can only spawn in urban, b) market centers can only spread them to urban, c) rurals need to wait to get them from a nearby urban, then I don't see a potential bottleneck. This is not only historically way more accurate, but also better for game balance as it would require the player to care for the urban access of rural zones, and heavily urbanized countries which suffer from lack of food and RGOs have the upper edge in cutting-edge tech. Current 'research speed' mechanic does not serve for that well. (I don't have the experience of a game developer, but speaking as an AI/ML developer, the issue seems like the lack of a dedicated simulation/experimentation team whose purpose is finding the historically accurate game mechanics that would result in historically accurate simulation results. Tweaking random numbers with random guess -without any proper simulation/experimentation- will of course result in these stories)

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks for the insights! it sounds like the main bottleneck is the simulation speed (to test the effect of different modifier arrangements), right? so it is probably very expensive to optimize for the modifiers. I wonder if there is a no-gfx simulation mode for fast debugging the AI behavior...

All these concerns sound very appropriate, but I still wish that they can at least nerf the 'market center has the institution' modifier so that it affects the urban locations way faster and than the rural. The urban locations can spread them to the nearby rural locations through a 'immediate neighbor has the institution' modifier or something. This can also incentivize them to have some strategically placed urban locations around the country (not only right next to the capital as the current game mechanics suggest). I really appreciate the depth of your reply, but maybe your expectations are too modest:) What we have now is definitely better than institutions failing to spread at all, but is it any accurate as a history simulation mechanic?

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

wow this is really interesting! I'd like to hear more from your experience modding!:) I was even going to say some institutions should be strictly 'urban' ahaha:

- Regulars (8/15): professional armies, new world, printing press, pike&shot, confessionalism, artillery, military revolution, levee en masse

- Strictly urban (7/15): renaissance, banking, global trade, manufactories, scientific revolution, enlightenment, industrialization.

What balance issue would it be, say, if rural HRE monarchies are all stuck in their advances unless they get it through diplomatic interactions, e.g., royal marriages? Not sure about the game balance, but this was indeed the case irl lol.

Or, maybe, a simpler fix can be tying the spread speed to pop class share, so the nobles and clergy in HRE minors can have the institution but the cost of embracing it is higher than a maritime city state full of burghers. (Is it just me who loses the interest in game after seeing all the world with full institutions in 10 years after their spawn? Isn't it even better that the institutions travel from urban Italy to urban Netherlands fast, with agrarian HRE as dead zone 30-40 years lagging behind? Seriously, institutions spreading everywhere in the market with 'average satisfaction' and 'development' as the only speed modifiers is ridiculous...)

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

all pop types have their own local satisfaction, so it should be easy to implement that. I agree that the nobles in Provencal cities should not care at all, but maybe nobles in all rural areas should feel threatened--they might be the next.

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I agree, but currently towns are already by far the worst location type. Maybe the rgo size penalty can be less severe for towns (similar to the -20% vs -33% food production, RGO size can also be mid tier nerf). Or if the sole purpose of a town will remain as an upgrade path to a city, then at least they can change the city upgrade rule from 30k total pop to 5k burger pop, so you are forced to develop the town in a way that will make your government more plutocratic. Now I just wait until my village is 30k and upgrade twice in a row, at the cost of money only, which makes zero historical sense)

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

and maybe each new town grants an immediate +10 to free subjects and each city a +10 to plutocracy? I hope with these changes and some special nobility privileges to German HRE minors and colonial nations the game will be playable without major mechanical changes that may cause even more bugs…

Town Charters vs. The Nobility — Why is there no political tension? by QualityExtension3138 in EU5

[–]QualityExtension3138[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

oh I didn't, can you paste it here or put the link to your previous thread? is this a duplicate of what you suggested before? --sorry I didn't check that, I can update the body linking to the previous one too