Tinto Maps #24 Korea and Japan Feedback

[Sirbab]

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

I would like to explain my general feelings when and why location density is necessary:
1: RGOs, if multiple substantial resources were gathered close to each other, it makes sense to divide them to represent both goods.
2: these locations changed hands either within the period, or shortly outside of it. (see the sudetenland, hre prince's that were independent at one period and relavent.)
3: are necessary to simulate a large population, having a giant Paris province wouldn't be great as the economic activity, education, infrastructure etc varied significant within compared to outside of the city.
4: significant terrain such as mountains, passes, hills, etc can be spun off as a different province to allow a small area to be defensively relevant, but not drag down a large area with an unfavorable terrain.
5: cultural lines such as heavily Francien controlled on one location compared to heavily waloon on another. In this way, it wouldn't make a ton of sense to have one province that was half and half.

I might be missing some, but these I feel like are some good reasons to add more locations.

I would caution, that more isn't necessarily better.
Usability suffers the smaller provinces get both in terms of seeing the province, reading the text on it, and physically clicking on it.
Each new province adds some small amount of processing overhead. I don't mean for this one to be an abject no on more provinces, just that we should be cautious.
It leads to something of an arms race, if one region gets a ton of provinces, and another doesn't, then it makes people understandably upset. Again I understand why people see like Italy, and get frustrated seeing China, just a consideration.
If population gets too small in a province, mechanics like control cost, building employment may become frustrating. With the density of places like China, that's not a huge issue I suspect in the east.
Warfare, if we hypothetically add 2x the number of provinces, that means theoretically some increased ratio of forts to protect these new provinces. This one is more of a guess than a necessary conclusion, but if wars take unhistorically long for the red turban rebels to get to easy, this is not a good outcome in my mind.

If I missed a post detailing any of these, I would be happy to see that, I only read about 5 of the pages of feedback so far.

 

[zeruosi]

It seems to me that a new product has appeared - beeswax. It's great.

Traditional Chinese and East Asian honeybees do not produce beeswax. While candles were essential, East Asian candles were primarily made from plant-based waxes—such as seeds of the Triadica sebifera (Chinese tallow tree) or wax secreted by Ericerus pela (Chinese white wax insect)—with only partial use of paraffin wax.

Possibly PDX (Paradox Development Studio) consolidated these categories, but I’m uncertain.

 

[Sirbab]

I have no idea if it's period appropriate, but will there be a way for the emperor to become the ruler of Japan, instead of the shogun?

 

[Darkstar399x]

It really isn't inaccurate, but 'Eastern Buddhism' instead of 'Mahayana Buddhism' really does throw me off. Would be cool if geographic terms for strands of Buddhism could be enabled or disabled if that's the naming theme (Mahayana vs Eastern, Vajrayana vs Tibetan, etc),

 

[APlayerInMC]

I'm not sure what you expected...View attachment 1315845

So where is Changbai Mountain, which erupted at least 3 times (in 1597, 1688 and 1702) in this period?

 

[APlayerInMC]

Raw Materials:

And here, where's Jiapigou Gold Mine, which has a mining history of nearly a thousand years?

 

[zeruosi]

And here, where's Jiapigou Gold Mine, which has a mining history of nearly a thousand years?

I believe you should translate it—99% of the users here can't read Chinese.

 

[ArVass]

Are you comparing the region of Bohemia with Korea?
Bohemian territory is only about 52,000 km2, while the Korean peninsula is 222,000 km2. Seriously?
South Korea alone (currently) is twice the size of Bohemia. Please!

Do you understand the concept of density?

 

[ArVass]

Aren't tsunamis often caused by volcanoes and earthquakes which are already in game, so those disasters would sometimes cause double location debuffs? How many surprise tsunamis actually occurred in the game's time-frame that weren't reflective of a different natural disaster occurring? I think it'd be fine to have the most famous ones be represented by events like the tsunami caused by the 1700 Cascadia earthquake.

So an important difference is:
- tsunamis can be caused by earthquakes that are not otherwise destructive to human settlements (such as underwater earthquakes)
- tsunamis can wreak havoc much further, as the waves can travel hundreds of kilometers even

 

[lemosus1]

1.Can a location have 100+ buildings owned by 100+ tags?

2. And have 10+ forts in one location owned by different tags?

E.g.
Kikuchi 18 forts is very famous for the Kikuchi clan withstanding encirclement by northern court forces from all sides, but sadly, they are all located in the same location in EU5
Which is owned by 15 different clans
Meaning 15 tags owning 18 forts in one location

And this happens very often in Japan: having many tags in a location. Another example is the Oda clan, whose main holdings are in a shoen called Odasho, which is located in the Nyu Location in EU5, currently occupied by the Shiba clan. Since Clans in Japan are BBC, being able to have clan holdings of different tags within a single location would be fantastic.

3. Will Japanese clans constantly split into more branches?
Since different branches of the same clan often fight each other, it is an important characteristic of the time since clans rise and fall often due to infighting between different branches of the same clan. Almost all noble clans in Japan at that time came from only a couple of clans, but due to clans splitting, a huge number of clans are created. Please have clan splitting be a feature for Japanese clans.

 

[ArVass]

For Czechia, I counted 57, with Czechia being ~79,000 km in area, having a 1.39 factor.

For Korea, I counted 137 with it being ~223,000 km in area and having a 1.63 factor.

So yes, Czechia is more dense than Korea, but this is expected as it was noted that Northern Italy and the HRE would be more dense than anywhere else on the map. The 1.63 factor is pretty comparable to most of Europe. Also much of this drop is due to a lower density in the Northeast of Korea, if we take this area out then the factor would be even lower.

Certain areas do absolutely need a higher density of locations (Sudan, China, India, Georgia, etc.) but neither Korea nor Japan do (in my opinion), and I would rather the devs time be spent there, rather than here. If anything is added, it should be a hill/mountain location on Jeju.

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.

 

[ArVass]

Why should "the rest of Asia" be the benchmark and not Europe?
I think it's fair to want similar density, especially when the pop count is that saturated(!) and people should speak up.

Will PDX do a third round? I doubt it, I think we'll see more granularity in future region-specific DLCs (maps being the free update that goes with them) like we have these past years.
It would be nice if the map was actually done and the DLCs could be stuffed with more interesting things, though.

FYI, I don't argue against more locations, I argue against:
- mindlessly repeating "Eurocentrism!" like a mantra even when a country actually got its due amount of care and flavour
- not actually giving any solution and listing with locations are too large and could be rearranged to make space for a historically important additional one

The map should be reviewed not based on a broad sense of "I think you should add more because it's less locations than France and less is always bad", but rather like "hmm, I think this and this towns are historically important enough to fit them in between these other two locations which are large enough to be split somewhat."

 

[Cri11e]

Some stuff like Gwangju in Korea is in wrong place!

Downloadable folder with Korean Maps from the Korean ''Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport'' in English

The original place of THE NATIONAL ATLAS OF KOREA Please scroll to the bottom and check this government website! There is no doubt historical maps here as well

And here I include korean map from ~1400s: Kangnido (Wikipedia read here)
It also includes some other countries

 

[Cri11e]

Hello and welcome to another week of Tinto Maps Feedback. Today, we will take a look at Korea and Japan. This area has required less rework than other ones, but still some adjustments have been made.

...

Some stuff like Gwangju in Korea is in wrong place!

Downloadable folder with Korean Maps from the Korean ''Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport'' in English

The original place of THE NATIONAL ATLAS OF KOREA Please scroll to the bottom and check this government website! There is no doubt historical maps here as well

And here I also include korean map from ~1400s: Kangnido and a (Wikipedia read here)
It has some other surrounding countries as well

 

[Thorum]

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

First of all: I don't know if this discussion needs to happen for Japan or Korea, which have huge swathes of less inhabitable regions, but as a general remark for location sizes between equally developable region.

Second of all, why the difference in location sizes between equally developable areas matters (copy-pasted from a previous post of mine):

Having 2 locations in Kerala for every 5 in Belgium means :
- 2 goods instead of 5
- 2 choices among city/town/rural instead of 5
- 2 steps to traverse them instead of 5
- a max of 2 defensive forts to siege down instead of 5. Even if total same time (say 150 days), there's a big difference between 2 75-day sieges and 5 30-day sieges...
- less potential for interesting geography
- much less building slots for the same investment
- ...

And that's assuming that the "pixeldistance" parameter which was added a few weeks ago for mods, has been / will be fully integrated into the calculations the game makes, preferably after using a "kilometersperpixel" parameter which changes by latitude.

You just keep proving my point tbf. You:
- refuse to actually detail where you want more locations and why

The density an sich is the issue, not that there's a specific location missing.

 

[Tibi088]

Is Sakhalin part of China?

 

[Freshplayer]

Is Sakhalin part of China?

I don't feel this is the topic for this post.

 

[Sirbab]

I don't feel this is the topic for this post.

Would it be better to ask is it part of Japan?

 

[Sizvahstar]

Sorry, I didn't mean to conflate posters but it happens.

Apology accepted, all good.

I was mostly annoyed because showing a side by side comparison of size is less useful than me giving the actual ratio of land area.

I think it's always helpful to keep in mind the true sizes of regions since none of us can hold a 3D map in our head, is all.

As for the exact count [...] the south is denser so really it's the density tapering off in the north (likely because Korean density is meant to form a gradient between China/Manchuria and Japan) that causes this.

I guess that's acceptable, but I don't want to speak for anyone native to the are or with better historical knowledge.

Because Japan and Korea are in Asia and there's no good reason for them to be held to a different standard. If the location density of Asia is largely unacceptable, as I think it is in the case of India and China, then fine, but Korea and Japan are already in a really good place as is. They are the last place outside of Europe which should be getting a surge of locations. It's very strange for people to be complaining about a lack of new locations here of all reviews.

This is a phallacy (I'll use harsh language for effect here, not directed at you); your argument is that DESPITE all of Asia being subpar to Europe, Korea and Japan should sit down and shut up because they got more than China did. "Be happy you got more than the other guy" while still they got less than Europe.
Sorry but that is by definition eurocentricm, the idea that for some reason that's "just how it is" but come on, we can do better!

If you want a higher standard for China then you should expect the same for Korea and Japan so you can refer to their treatment.

 

[Sizvahstar]

While I agree that China is underpopulated in terms of locations, especially in this panhandle, Japan genuinely has to be this dense. There are a lot of tags crammed in there which will become settled countries eventually, so I think that justifies a much higher density than the rest of Asia.

Could you unpack this, please?
I assume you are referring to the daimyos, but AFAIK they will keep being ABCs or BBCs, not ending up as CBCs - unless they take land from the Shogun.