Tinto Maps #24 Korea and Japan Feedback

[Poh]

No eurocentrism here, I’m citing a major European tag, one of the starting great powers, and noting it has the same location density as Korea, the tag you are complaining doesn’t have enough locations and are crying Eurocentrism over, even though it is, along with Japan, the single worst example of eurocentrism in the map, given it is exactly the same density asthe specific European tag you dismissed. I’d like to compare with France but I’m not counting all those. I suspect it’s the same density as Korea + Japan though.

I counted France. Its 463 + 8 for corsica locations (for modern france borders). on 551.695 km2

Japan, which has an area of about 377,000 km² (366 if we count only the main islands), was noted to have roughly 300 locations (however I couldn't count them myself because I keep losing track halfway), if we accept that number as an accurate estimate, we get a factor of 1.25. That is significantly higher than Czechia of Hungary, and closer to France's density.

Japan is 397 locations, including hokkaido


EDIT:
And Korea is

89 locations for south korea - 100.210 km2

59 for North. - 120.520 km2

for 148 on 220.730 km2

 

[ArVass]

I counted France. Its 463 + 8 for corsica locations (for modern france borders). on 551.695 km2


Japan is 397 locations, including hokkaido

So basically, Japan has a higher location density than France. Significantly, actually.

Point proven.

 

[Gurtannon]

Coming from relative ignorance of this period of East Asian history, I am curious why people are complaining about the number of provinces in Korea, Japan, and to a smaller extent China. Please don't take this as euro centrism, I am genuinely curious.

1: what are the reasons you see why more locations is a good thing?

Because it is tied with the potential of the region, location sizes doesnt matter as 100 km^2 grassland and 10km^2 grassland has base population capacity of 50k

Development is capped at 100 for per location too and population doesnt increase after the location hit its cap

Therefore potential of Chinese region will be very underrepresented compared to Japan and Korea in terms of economic gameplay

Also from what we seen so far, location densities were determined because of historical significance of the region, and its overall urbanity and fertility and also the political granularity

The 3-4x location density jump usually happens between North Africa to Sahara, East Europe to Steppes etc (Germany to France is like 2x change)

Also you can justify Japan for its political granularity, but it was just one state overall looking from outside, as the others are clans and other than Sengoku Jidai, they wouldnt even be represented as individual tags I guess as many country had local families etc, also only political granularity doesnt justify 4x density change as in Germany/France there is 2x change

Both China and Korea was relatively unified for the gamespan and the 3-4x density jump between them is unjustifiable, it just treats China as unimportant region compared to Japan/Korea, because there is no other explanation possible

They already dont have a good track record from eu4 regarding China I guess as province sizes were absurdly large in that game, seeing same thing in eu5 is not a good sign

2: did these locations have interactions like change in ownership for significant periods that the provinces they are currently a part of did not?

Korea was also unified mostly, so the contrast between China and Korea doesnt make any sense no matter which way you look at

Also India is less dense too which was politically granular a lot



Also the worst part is this:

Here is a small example from a small part of China. Locations are similar in size to other parts shown.

View attachment 1098642

They probably think China is fine because it got denser compared to Eu4 lol, because about year ago Johan did this reply as if China was granular, but after seeing the big picture, we know it isnt the case

 

[Javilos Septim]

I am once again begging you to make the Yuan not green.

3D map looks fucking sick BTW, so cool.

 

[Sizvahstar]

So basically, Japan has a higher location density than France. Significantly, actually.

Point proven.

Japan - 377,000 ÷ 397 = 949.6221662469

France - 551,695 ÷ 463 = 1,191.56587473

This seems pretty similar, how is it a significant difference?

 

[Fehervari]

Japan - 377,000 ÷ 397 = 949.6221662469

France - 551,695 ÷ 463 = 1,191.56587473

This seems pretty similar, how is it a significant difference?

397 / 377 000 = 0,00105305039787798408488063660477
Multiply this value with France's area and you get this:
0,00105305039787798408488063660477 * 551,695 = 580,96263925729442970822281167109

This means Japan's level of location density for France would mean it having about 581 locations. This is 118 locations more than it currently has.

 

[ArVass]

Japan - 377,000 ÷ 397 = 949.6221662469

France - 551,695 ÷ 463 = 1,191.56587473

This seems pretty similar, how is it a significant difference?

25% difference is significant, I think. If Japan was the same size as France, it would have 100 more locations.

 

[zeruosi]

397 / 377 000 = 0,00105305039787798408488063660477
Multiply this value with France's area and you get this:
0,00105305039787798408488063660477 * 551,695 = 580,96263925729442970822281167109

This means Japan's level of location density for France would mean it having about 581 locations. This is 118 locations more than it currently has.

This is simply shocking—a tiny corner on the edge of the world has a location density even higher than the supposedly densely location core regions of Europe as emphasized in the game's depiction.

To be clear from the start, Japan has historically been an isolationist backwater in world history. If anyone respectfully disagrees, please provide examples of Japan colonizing the New World, waging great wars with European powers, and becoming a global superpower—within the context of this world.

 

[Thorum]

This is simply shocking

125% difference in location density is statistical noise, plenty of similar places where the difference is more like 300% or 500%.

 

[Thorum]

125% difference in location density is statistical noise, plenty of similar places where the difference is more like 300% or 500%.

For the people disagreeing, have you seen the map of (southern) India ?

 

[111asdasd1234]

This is simply shocking—a tiny corner on the edge of the world has a location density even higher than the supposedly densely location core regions of Europe as emphasized in the game's depiction.

To be clear from the start, Japan has historically been an isolationist backwater in world history. If anyone respectfully disagrees, please provide examples of Japan colonizing the New World, waging great wars with European powers, and becoming a global superpower—within the context of this world.

I guess Japan gets so much attention because it has a unique military aristocratic class that symbolizes courage and honor. That is also why Japan was granted so much locations, to reflect all those daimyos. Its Confucian neighbors are very different. Their elites spend their days memorizing history stories and moral rules and taking exams year after year just to land a top official post. They end up seeming like a bunch of boring nerds.

 

[sterile2]

I understand that location density in EU5 is generally determined by factors such as a region's historical significance, political fragmentation, and population.

However, a counter-example to this is Hokkaido

Hokkaido, with an area of 83,457 km², has a total of 61 locations in the game.

Calculating the locations density for Hokkaido alone: 83,457 ÷ 61 = 1,368.1475409836 km²

In contrast, calculating the locations density for Korea: 220,730 ÷ 148 = 1,491.4189189 km²

The key issue is that Hokkaido only began its full-scale development in the late 19th century (1869), well after EUV's playable period (1337-1836).

Furthermore, at the time of its development, Hokkaido's population was less than 100,000. Additionally, unlike mainland Japan, Hokkaido was not a politically fragmented region.

In other words, this region does not align with the known locations density subdivision formula in terms of population, political fragmentation, or historical significance. (Of course, this is not to say that Hokkaido's locations density should be lowered.)

Despite these points, Hokkaido's locations density is comparable to the average density seen in Europe.

What could possibly be so special about this region that it received such a high location density?

I genuinely cannot understand it. Is there some hidden, special history of Hokkaido that I might be unaware of?(If there's anything I don't know, I'd like someone to let me know.)

 

[Sizvahstar]

To be clear from the start, Japan has historically been an isolationist backwater in world history. If anyone respectfully disagrees, please provide examples of Japan colonizing the New World, waging great wars with European powers, and becoming a global superpower—within the context of this world.

Be that as it may, we don't play these games to re-enact history step by step - perhaps a minority do, at most.
Japan quickly became a colonial empire when they industrialised, so in the Player's hands this outward expansion can take place earlier.

Secondly, people have pointed out that the daimyos will carve up Japan. I view this situation as the HRE of the east - and we've come to accept that the HRE has 2x the density as France, so 1.25x honestly seems incredibly fair.

Thirdly, outside of colonial expansion, If you've played Japan in EUIV, there aren't many avenues. You can take Korea fairly easily and I expect the same for the Jurchen, but even if you can take bites out of Yuan you will be truce-locked until you can make it implode. If you were to jump down to the South East or Indonesia, your reach is significantly weaker, if you can even reach them early on.

Now, I don't want to blob, so expansions is not something I factor in. I think focusing on the Daimyo-HRE sounds a lot more interesting - but then the region needs to be well fleshed out as well.
Playing as a daimyo in EUIV was a shortlived affair because there were only so many daimyos and 'locations' to conquer before you took it all. Hopefully this added granularity means that period can be extended.

 

[sterile2]

I guess Japan gets so much attention because it has a unique military aristocratic class that symbolizes courage and honor. That is also why Japan was granted so much locations, to reflect all those daimyos. Its Confucian neighbors are very different. Their elites spend their days memorizing history stories and moral rules and taking exams year after year just to land a top official post. They end up seeming like a bunch of boring nerds.

Did Hokkaido also have a unique military aristocratic class that symbolizes courage and honor?

 

[Arumdaum]

By the way, I counted 173 locations in Hungary in an area that is roughly 282,000 km², which also gives a factor of 1.63 - basically exactly the same as that of Korea.

Japan, which has an area of about 377,000 km² (366 if we count only the main islands), was noted to have roughly 300 locations (however I couldn't count them myself because I keep losing track halfway), if we accept that number as an accurate estimate, we get a factor of 1.25. That is significantly higher than Czechia of Hungary, and closer to France's density.

Perhaps I'm opening up another can of worms here (especially considering the massive populations of India and China), but people in this thread seem to be disregarding population when it comes to province density. Joseon and Goryeo had a population several times the size of England and Hungary.

The population of late Goryeo and early Joseon is estimated to be around 9-10 million. For reference, the combined population of Hungary and Croatia in 1500 was 3 million, and the population of Great Britain around this time was 2.5-3 million.

I've seen population estimates for early Goryeo range from 3 million to nearly 7.8 million. For comparison, England and Hungary each had ~1.25 million people around the year 1000.

By 1800, near the end of the game, Joseon had a population somewhere between 13-18 million, while Great Britain had 10.4 million and the Kingdom of Hungary 6.3 million.

 

[Sizvahstar]

Hokkaido's locations density is comparable to the average density seen in Europe.

What could possibly be so special about this region that it received such a high location density?

I genuinely cannot understand it. Is there some hidden, special history of Hokkaido that I might be unaware of?

I don't know. The only expansion you can make in Japan that doesn't put you at odds with Yuan as soon as you make landfall?
(EDIT: I'm not being sarcastic.)

 

[ZigTheNorweigan]

Japan isn't on the same level of location density as Europe. More than 100 new locations were added to the Iberian Peninsula in the second revision (Iberia Map Comments). I won't even mention the other countries (Italy, France, the German region, etc.) because it's so disproportionate that it seems like they used the same EUIV map of the China and Japan region for Europa Universalis V.
So no, it's not enough, with so much history and so much to do in China and Japan and so few locations...

Thats because Japan already has a shitton of locations, It literally has some of the highest location density on the map you can see it in the location density thread, Koreas is a bit smaller compared to Europe but not terrible, China's at its current state is somewhat unsatisfactory and could be improved but Inner Manchurias is really bad

 

[magistairs]

The Yuan Dynasty designated Jeju Island as a horse-breeding ground, supplying a significant number of warhorses. Later, the Ming Dynasty also demanded warhorse tributes from Jeju Island—though they primarily sourced warhorses from Ryukyu.

Cool! Is it because of a fertile ground or something?

 

[ArVass]

Perhaps I'm opening up another can of worms here (especially considering the massive populations of India and China), but people in this thread seem to be disregarding population when it comes to province density. Joseon and Goryeo had a population several times the size of England and Hungary.

The population of late Goryeo and early Joseon is estimated to be around 9-10 million. For reference, the combined population of Hungary and Croatia in 1500 was 3 million, and the population of Great Britain around this time was 2.5-3 million.

I've seen population estimates for early Goryeo range from 3 million to nearly 7.8 million. For comparison, England and Hungary each had ~1.25 million people around the year 1000.

By 1800, near the end of the game, Joseon had a population somewhere between 13-18 million, while Great Britain had 10.4 million and the Kingdom of Hungary 6.3 million.

This would be a valid point, but your numbers are wildly different than what I could find by lightly skimming through Wikipedia, and it looks a bit like cherry picking the lower estimates for Europe and the highest ones for Korea. From a light scanning through Wikipedia:

Early Joseon:

Late Goryeo:

14th to 16th century Hungary:

Moreover, Hungary in 1800 had a population of 8-9 million, not 6.3; the two regions actually had comparable populations for most of the period, with Korea being slightly more populous (makes sense, given that first the Black Death swept through Hungary, and later it faced significant population decline during its tripartition and the Turkish wars).

If you look at the median population estimates, they are actually very similar (but Korea is smaller, and therefore has a higher density).

 

[Sizvahstar]

Cool! Is it because of a fertile ground or something?

I asked and got a reply further on.