Areas in Europe might be too small

[P.Quirinius]

As far as I understand areas in Project Caesar will serve as an administrative unit since the Age of absolutism, after the nation researches an advance that will allow it to integrate an entire area at the same time (and possibly also perform other cabinet actions on this level). This system will allow for faster expansion since this age, but it seems to me that the divergences in the size of areas in different regions might make conquest in some regions disproportionately easier or harder. Looking at the map of the region of France https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/1148900/Areas.png for example I can count 19 areas that I believe are considered as part of that region, while in the region of China https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/1192973/Areas.png there are roughly 20 of them and in India https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/data/thfeature/feature_backgrounds/3/3290.jpg?1726813390 there are roughly 25. As I understand it, this would mean that integrating all of China or India would take only a little longer than integrating France, without taking into account some special mechanics that China will probably have, like the Mandate of Heaven. If we look at the size of the areas in Europe, some of them are really small. It probably makes sense to have Wales as a separate area, even though its population is quite small compared to areas like Britany, but in many cases I believe the areas could be somehow connected into bigger areas.

In France for example I would suggest connecting Franche-Comté to Burgundy (it is the Comté de Bourgogne after all), Alsace could be attached to Lorraine, and Romandy to Western Switzerland, Lyonnais possibly to Auvergne, Aquitaine could maybe replace Gascony and Guyenne. In the region of Germany https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/1158384/Areas.png Austria has too many areas, Bavaria could only be one area, and Moravia and some other areas also feel too small. If we compare many of the European areas to the area of Levant in Syrian Levant https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/1152397/Areas.png , which is (measuring from north to south) about as long as the entire region of France, they look really tiny. And I don't believe administrating a small area around Lyon would take as much effort as administrating such a territory.

An argument for such a distribution of areas could be, that it would prevent the integration of large conquests in Europe, which historically did not happen. However, I don't believe that it was the administrative challenges that prevented such conquests, but that the reasons why this did not happen were mainly military. Therefore, it would make more sense to render such conquests very difficult through mechanics like aggressive expansion and coalitions. Additionally, if other cabinet actions like increasing development will be done on area level since the Age of absolutism, it would hinder European nations from increasing the development of their locations, which would go against what happened in real life in this period.

 

[Thorum]

I agree that locations, provinces and areas in all decently habitable places should be similarly sized, wherever in the world, for two main reasons:

- balance, both during gameplay and during the final phases of development (release and again each dlc)

- educational purpose, as currently proposed this game will teach a lot of people a wrong concept of the respective sizes between regions, even though the map is now better than in eu4 (with the to me incomprehensible choice to keep pretending it's a cilinder)

I very much disagree the problem lies in Western Europe.

 

[GenericUsername1444]

The smaller areas of western Europe, compared to the larger Indian or Chinese areas, only serve a gameplay purpose in-game.
The thing is, this part of the world remained politically divided for a very, very long time - hence the massive amount of locations, provinces, and yes, areas too.
To give an example:

Political Map:

Area Map:

 

[P.Quirinius]

The smaller areas of western Europe, compared to the larger Indian or Chinese areas, only serve a gameplay purpose in-game.
The thing is, this part of the world remained politically divided for a very, very long time - hence the massive amount of locations, provinces, and yes, areas too.

I understand that to represent the HRE as fragmented you need a lot of locations. But is it consequently necessary to have more provinces and areas as well? Could one provinces or area not contain different amounts of locations? Is the intention to make European territory more difficult to administrate once it is politically united to prevent anyone from uniting a too large territory? Many of the areas are divided between multiple nations so it does not seem like they would be meant as some sort of administrative unit that would be preserved after the territory was conquered by someone else.

 

[Ispil]

Issue is that they're trying to keep provinces/areas to a consistent number of locations.

Really this just circles back to a point I've made time and time again, where we need to have the player come up with how they internally divide up their lands.

 

[Rule Britannia]

"As far as I understand areas in Project Caesar will serve as an administrative unit since the Age of absolutism, after the nation researches an advance that will allow it to integrate an entire area at the same time"

What do you base the above on, can you give a reference or link to where this is discussed because I must have missed it. Thanks!

 

[laylosigma]

China and india should swiftly be conquered, europe shouldnt. Given historically how europe retained far more autonomous states for longer than those two sub continents did

 

[P.Quirinius]

"As far as I understand areas in Project Caesar will serve as an administrative unit since the Age of absolutism, after the nation researches an advance that will allow it to integrate an entire area at the same time"

What do you base the above on, can you give a reference or link to where this is discussed because I must have missed it. Thanks!

It is here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...o-talks-30-25th-september-2024.1705317/page-2 "At the start of the game, a cabinet member can integrate an entire province at once, but in the Age of Absolutism you have an advance that will let you integrate an entire area at once." I don't know if they have other purposes as well.

 

[Rule Britannia]

It is here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...o-talks-30-25th-september-2024.1705317/page-2 "At the start of the game, a cabinet member can integrate an entire province at once, but in the Age of Absolutism you have an advance that will let you integrate an entire area at once." I don't know if they have other purposes as well.

I see thanks. I did see that but did not read it as if the administrative unit was changed, only that you could integrate a larger area in one go. But maybe I was reading a more revolutionary approach in your original post than what you meant. I thought you meant that locations would effectively be amalgamated into areas.

 

[Chieron]

The smaller areas of western Europe, compared to the larger Indian or Chinese areas, only serve a gameplay purpose in-game.
The thing is, this part of the world remained politically divided for a very, very long time - hence the massive amount of locations, provinces, and yes, areas too.
To give an example: [..]

The areas in the HRE are awful for multiple reasons, you could've taken any other region instead.. And there are quite a few size differences here as well (Pomerania and Bohemia are huge compared to e.g. the Swiss areas.

Issue is that they're trying to keep provinces/areas to a consistent number of locations.

Which makes not that much sense, when the region has different granularity to accommodate smaller tags at start.

 

[P.Quirinius]

China and india should swiftly be conquered, europe shouldnt. Given historically how europe retained far more autonomous states for longer than those two sub continents did

Well I agree Europe should not be swiftly conquered as I said before, but the question is about integration. I'd say China was conquered and integrated using the Mandate of Heaven mechanic. I don't know much about Indian history, but I certainly would not say that the British integrated it. As for Mughals, I don't know. My point is that large European territories should be very hard to conquer, but not impossible to integrate.

 

[Birchinjaro]

Issue is that they're trying to keep provinces/areas to a consistent number of locations.

Really this just circles back to a point I've made time and time again, where we need to have the player come up with how they internally divide up their lands.

There's a thread that talks about that:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/eu4-states-vs-dynamic-administrative-divisions.1688020/

Lots of great ideas about how it can be implemented,though it may be too ambitious since none of the devs responded to it

 

[laylosigma]

Well I agree Europe should not be swiftly conquered as I said before, but the question is about integration. I'd say China was conquered and integrated using the Mandate of Heaven mechanic

But not each warlord can have the mandate of heaven when rapidly expanding

. I don't know much about Indian history, but I certainly would not say that the British integrated it

The east india company integrated ot pretty quickly yeah

. As for Mughals, I don't know. My point is that large European territories should be very hard to conquer, but not impossible to integrate.

Mughals also did it quite quick

 

[P.Quirinius]

But not each warlord can have the mandate of heaven when rapidly expanding

But multiple warlords can claim it at the same time. I think this will be somehow handled by situations like the Red turban rebellion. By that time they wouldn't have the advance for integrating by areas either.

The east india company integrated ot pretty quickly yeah

I don't know, they controlled much of it by the intermediary of vassals, which would certainly not count as integrated provinces in PC. They also conquered a lot of it near the end of the game so they may not even have enough time to integrate it until the end It is also questionable whether they actually integrated it or if they just suppressed rebels efficiently. And if they integrated it, they may have used some advances that they got after the end of the game.

 

[Bishweshwar]

China and india should swiftly be conquered, europe shouldnt. Given historically how europe retained far more autonomous states for longer than those two sub continents did

The fact that the British had to rely on a network of hundreds of princely states to maintain their rule in the subcontinent disproves this.

 

[laylosigma]

The fact that the British had to rely on a network of hundreds of princely states to maintain their rule in the subcontinent disproves this.

Okay, and how much was directly ruled by the company and not by princes within 60 years of plassey

 

[Karamelmasse]

The fact that the British had to rely on a network of hundreds of princely states to maintain their rule in the subcontinent disproves this.

The Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate also had to deal with lots of vassals, local governors, decentralization, and what else. Most of the Indian empires had to adapt in the shape of their subjects rather than the conquered assimilating into the conqueror's indentity, even when empires were of Indian origin. So yeah, no empire has ever been successful in assimilating India.

The only place in the world I can think of which had more or less well stablished and decently assimilated peoples; is the east asian region.

 

[laylosigma]

The Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate also had to deal with lots of vassals, local governors

Youre always going to have local governors when governing an empire, this really isnt a point against them

, decentralization, and what else. Most of the Indian empires had to adapt in the shape of their subjects rather than the conquered assimilating into the conqueror's indentity, even when empires were of Indian origin. So yeah, no empire has ever been successful in assimilating India.

The only place in the world I can think of which had more or less well stablished and decently assimilated peoples; is the east asian region.

If you can turn people into persian speaking, turban wearing muslims, thats a pretty good indictment of assimilation even if its not full assimilation into being persianate turcomongols

 

[Bishweshwar]

Youre always going to have local governors when governing an empire, this really isnt a point against them

Even with their governors and vassals, many of the territories of the Delhi Sultanate were in almost constant rebellion against the Sultans by start-date. If you have to move huge armies down every few years to put down rebels, and if an Imperial caravan can't even move through your own empire without being constantly ambushed by rebels (as shown by Ibn Battuta's experience leading a delegation through the Empire), I wouldn't really call that integration...

If you can turn people into persian speaking, turban wearing muslims, thats a pretty good indictment of assimilation even if its not full assimilation into being persianate turcomongols

Except this isn't what happened? Outside of the Imperial Court and the elites of the Empire, nobody switched from any Indian language to Persian. The conversions to Islam took many, many centuries, and even by 1947 was not complete, with Sindh, Punjab, and East Bengal all having huge Hindu minorities even after almost a millennia of Islamic rule.

 

[laylosigma]

Even with their governors and vassals, many of the territories of the Delhi Sultanate were in almost constant rebellion against the Sultans by start-date. If you have to move huge armies down every few years to put down rebels,

And when they werent in constant revolt, having governors is expected to rule territory so far from the capital. The rapid conquest of the deccan by the late delhi sultanate is a reason to have the current and not more regions

and if an Imperial caravan can't even move through your own empire without being constantly ambushed by rebels (as shown by Ibn Battuta's experience leading a delegation through the Empire), I wouldn't really call that integration...

Just cuz he's one of our few sources for the period doesnt mean you need to beleive all of his stories

Except this isn't what happened? Outside of the Imperial Court and the elites of the Empire, nobody switched from any Indian language to Persian.

We see persian in some use in the deccan, a deep penetration compared to the bases of earlier islamic rule, whether the bahamano sultanate or the vijyangar empire

The conversions to Islam took many, many centuries, and even by 1947 was not complete, with Sindh, Punjab, and East Bengal all having huge Hindu minorities even after almost a millennia of Islamic rule.

Well yes not all of india was converted, but still a significant muslim minority existing throughout is pretty indicator that having sultanates stretch from punjab to mysore had succeded in some way, with only dual state theory and the subsequent massacres making us not think of southern india as having lots of muslims