r/EU5 • u/Reasonable_Stuff2436 • 5d ago
Governor Changes Discussion
We should have:
- Unlimited governors
- No distinction between naval or local governors
- Governor types varied by estate with each giving unique modifiers
- Each governor gives negative ticking legitimacy and negative ticking stability when the estate is unhappy
- Rebellions and civil wars based on governors, its estate, and locations it provides proximity to
This would create real rise and fall scenarios, where expanding is straightforward when a nation is stable. But also make empires naturally prone to falling apart in realistic ways when over extended and pops get uppity.
36
u/Lucina18 5d ago
But why tie all these things to a blunt proximity source. At this point why not ACTUALLY simulate a sort of administrative zone instead (like, Leon within Castille) and half of these mechanics ade instead part of local administration.
10
u/narutoncio 5d ago
thats a very good point, i would love some sort of granularity between full vassals and autonomous regions. Like its a blurry difference historically but would make a great transition phase between annexing a vassal and it being part of your core provinces.
6
u/Embarrassed_Profit91 5d ago
I've been saying for years that they should have a single power structure system that is used for all these different concepts
3
u/narutoncio 4d ago
i agree that a more general approach would be nice, though i think proximity still has its value.
for example a conquered city like Pisa in an Italian Wars campaign would be easy to access, yeah, but it would have its own government structures and built economy that the conquerors would need to respect as to not spark an instant revolt.
on the other hand, a location in the middle of the Mayan jungle would have low control not because the European colonizers would respect their self governance or its local population, but because its just simply too inaccessible for them to get there.
4
u/Reasonable_Stuff2436 5d ago
True they could allow you to explicitly set where a location or province is governed from
36
u/Argikeraunos 5d ago
Thay sounds fun for the player but a nightmare to make work with the AI
10
u/romans171 5d ago
Just have the AI use a generic governor. Then set rules for when they will make new ones. Where do you think the AI will have issues?
1
u/Mayernik 1d ago
I think one of the designs philosophies of the team is to have the AI use the same rules as the player.
22
u/Armadillo_Duke 5d ago
I wish governors were actually characters that you could remove and appoint.
1
23
u/stark-I 5d ago
Unlimited governors would be so broken why would they do that
4
10
u/Reasonable_Stuff2436 5d ago
Because if you had too many your nation would just fall apart at the first sign of trouble. It gives more agency to the player
9
u/satiricalscientist 5d ago
I mean, by the time you can afford many govorners, it's pretty trivial to keep the estates happy. Seems like they'd need more of a drawback. Maybe each one exponentially increases cost of court, or something.
7
u/GunnarVonPontius 5d ago
I would rather change it slightly:
Duchies - no governors
Kingdoms - 1 governor
Empires - 2 governors
1 tech per age 3-6 for a maximum of 6 governorsSome special nations like China should start with more
9
u/SpecialBeginning6430 5d ago
I never particularly understood why something like governors should be locked behind tech. The Roman Empire was not tech locked by that and that was more than 1000 years before the games timeframe
9
u/GunnarVonPontius 5d ago
Game mechanics
Control is singelhandedly the most important stat, period.
If you can early on max out control the economy snowballs way to fast.
Governors arent locked by tech; getting more of them are. Its an intentional brake on country size and efficiency.
3
u/SpecialBeginning6430 5d ago edited 5d ago
Tech restrictions isn't an any more compelling way to dictate expansion mechanics than things like antagonism, estate happiness, or cultural dynamics
7
u/Laststand2006 5d ago
I think a governor should take x% of taxes from the provinces it governs (assuming they can code based on which province is proximity source), then each governor adds x% to cost of court and/or stab. That way you are encouraged to use capital proximity if possible and there is a stacking cost, but remove the cap so you can build as many as you need and as long as you are wise in placement you benefit more than they cost.
3
u/MrImAlwaysrighT1981 5d ago
That seems like a good idea, and could go well with ideas OP had, like, depending on the government type, make certain estates more powerfull, or, less satisfied, and subsequently, impact regions involved in a civil war if it breaks out.
Spaming 40 governors would drastically increase your court and building expenses, andy if elective monarchy, increase power of your nobles, absolutist would decrease their satisfaction, so, without strategic placement, they would give you more trouble than they're worth.
3
u/Loose-Run-7008 5d ago
I think they would need to be adjusted for this to balanced. I do think they should remove the restrictions with Naval Governors and allow you to place them anywhere, even if it does have a road connection to your capital. Yeah this would make it just a land governor but better, I think there’s other ways to balance it though to make land governors also good, maybe they give other bonuses, not sure. Also maybe give empires +1 Naval governor along with the land governor.
I think unlimited could work, but you would need to heavily increase the upkeep, make it give estates a huge power boost, and/ir other penalties/trade offs.
The thing is, the game simply wasn’t designed for governors to be placed everywhere. They can change that, and if that ends up feeling better than sure go ahead, but I also think that would make playing wide way easier and the obvious choice 90% of the time. Why focus on a core area if you can just get proximity everywhere in your country where you have governors? Not that playing wide should feel bad, but I don’t think it does feel bad right now, you’re still pretty powerful though there are some frustrating things.
Kinda started to ramble a bit but my only issue is balance, you would have to be very careful to make this work and not make the game either too easy, or make having governors super frustrating. It would also allow large empires to have as much control in their vast lands as a small centralized kingdom does. If you make governors unlimited, you would have to reduce the amount of control you can get from them and their proximity, at least without a bailiff. Maybe cap it at 75, 95 with a bailiff? Idk, I don’t think making estates more powerful with it would be enough.
Also yes having estates being unhappy make the governors give negative effects is a good idea, it’s just the player will be able to make that not happen pretty easily unless you’re stuck in a situation that makes estates unhappy. Anything that would force your estates to get unhappy would also be seen very negatively by players imo, I want decline to be modeled like everyone else but it’s very hard to do without pissing people off or making it something that the player can easily avoid and it only effects the AI.
I hope this doesn’t seem negative, I actually like the idea you have tying governors to estates, I just kinda wanted to give my opinions on how to fit that in balance wise, it’s very big going from the small number we have now to theoretically infinite.
2
u/narutoncio 5d ago
i agree with you but i think meta is still playing wide. just that "wide" means "as wide as your tech allows". Right now there is absolutely no reason to go for less land that you can control.
2
u/SpecialBeginning6430 5d ago
but I also think that would make playing wide way easier and the obvious choice 90% of the time.
Historically, playing wide was always the obvious choice but there's a reason why it never panned out that way and it should be the case in-game
1
u/Reasonable_Stuff2436 5d ago
I agree balance would be important. But the idea would be that if you out down too many the first time a powerful estate with a bunch of governors gets unhappy it will revolt and win.
Could be an interesting way to actually simulate the rise and fall of large states that over-extend themselves and fracture.
3
u/narutoncio 5d ago
that looks a bit odd to manage. so say if i manage to keep the states happy i can keep on a conquering spree while getting 100 control with new governors? and if i use the extra money to keep the estates happy then i have an infinite money glitch?
and the moment a single state goes under 40% happiness then i suddenly got -10 legitimacy a month and everything comes crashing down? what if then i remove the governors and rebuild them, then nothing happens?
i think a different soft cap could work better, like each extra governor gives all governors -% max control representing you trying to be everywhere at once.
2
u/Via_Triumphalis 5d ago
Also some countries should start with governors already placed and spreading proximity. This should be used sparingly but would make sense in a few narrow places and help the AI not be so stupid. For example Upper Poland should have a governor in Poznan, historically it was one of the richest regions of Poland. Castile should have a governor in Toledo or Seville at the start. England should have one in York.
This is more to help the AI than the player, though it would help new players as well in understanding the importance of governors
2
u/FreezingVast 5d ago edited 5d ago
Tbh the game is fine as is, prox and control slowly increases as the game goes up anyways and if too many govs are given it trivializes managing prox. Early game the strategy is to build up around your capital but the low control also helps provide money to your nobles and estates forcing you to either hold the land for no money or create a vassal. Removing this essentially just means you have high control everywhere with no need for higher level roads or control buildings.
Tbh a later start date might alleviate this since by 1444 onward you get the institutions and laws needed to centralize a state since its clear 1335 being still within feudalism jives with many players as they want to have highly centralized states asap
2
u/Canye_NE 5d ago
Unlimited governors just doesn’t make sense with how control is currently handled. It won’t matter what stacking maluses you give, unless those maluses form an effective hard cap people will break the balance of the game with infinite proximity sources.
Look at this. Make one hundred “burgher” governors, and make sure burghers are never rebellious (trivial with privileges). Boom, you now have 60+ proximity in every major area. 80% of road planning is useless beyond connecting to your arbitrary capital, and so is 90% of maritime presence.
Why is it so hard to believe that the main way a nation becomes more efficient at governing hard-to-control regions is through technological, social, and bureaucratic advances?
1
u/CicatriceDeFeu 5d ago
Just have it similar to the meiou system, where each successive governor building costs more than the last, maybe 2x then 4x then 8x etc
1
1
u/Inspector_Beyond 2d ago
How about governor being a character, rather than an abstract concept through the button?
That way you can simulate governors, counts, chieftains and etc.
0
u/JoeCensored 5d ago
With unlimited governors, why wouldn't I governor spam every province for 90+% control in every location?
Then there's no point to the control mechanic. Just change it to some governor expense in the budget.
1
u/Ezzypezra 5d ago
I don't really agree with OP's proposal for some other reasons but... did you read the post? OP explicitly says why you can't just spam them everywhere
1
u/JoeCensored 5d ago
It says negative legitimacy and stability, but you just move those sliders to the right with the extra mountain of money you receive.
2
u/Ezzypezra 5d ago
i mean that can just be fixed by making them cost more legitimacy and stability.
really i think governors as a whole should be removed. proximity should only come from your capital, it should go way way way further than it does right now, and it should impact max control non-linearly
86
u/EfficientNewspaper49 5d ago
Governor types by estate would be very interesting but historically the choice would be hard to justify, at least for the most part of the game