Game about ancient China

[RX2000]

Game about ancient China

*yawn*

 

[Limith]

I'm looking forward to Rise of the Three Kingdoms for Kingdoms: Total War.

Mechanics would be a pain to model. EU3 doesn't do it correct really, neither does MEIOU, and since my external hard drive with EU3 on it died on me recently, I've given up on EU for a while since I had a ton of custom modifications to MEIOU on EU3 regarding China mechanics.

Also contrary to what you might think about direct appointments and stuff, China WAS incredibly decentralized. and remains so even to this day (yes modern China is actually decentralized, many local governments don't enforce things the central government wants). CK2 feudalism wouldn't be that big of a stretch. Probably remove infamy penalty from revoking titles, make it harder to gain the king title, and add an event based system for lower-level bureaucracy appointments (you can't gift them) to represent civil service exams. Perhaps limit ability to influence titles only immediately below yours (in the sense that the king doesn't hand out barony titles, but rather duke titles, who are the local magistrates, and the barons are directly tied to the local magistrates. Yes, a king could go around directly appointing stuff de jure, but de facto, this wasn't commonly done. Perhaps add an infamy hit or something in game.)

Food was a major factor in battles yes, but manpower wasn't a big deal as you suggest, one could always conscript men. Training and weapons on the other hand was the limiting factor, along with supplies and food.

 

[salvettic]

I would prefeer a enhacement on CKII that includes India and China, that would gave us chinese history from the late Tang to the early Ming.

 

[darthfanta]

I would prefeer a enhacement on CKII that includes India and China, that would gave us chinese history from the late Tang to the early Ming.

I like the idea, but how do you actually simulate that? Late Tang was more or less a feudal state with weak central authority, which is the exception, rather than the general trend in Chinese history. Subsequent dynasties, starting with the Song, were centralized states ran by bureaucrats. I'm already disgusted by the way the ERE's depicted in the game, they'd have to change a lot of mechanics in the game before any CK-styled game could be made about China.

 

[salvettic]

I like the idea, but how do you actually simulate that? Late Tang was more or less a feudal state with weak central authority, which is the exception, rather than the general trend in Chinese history. Subsequent dynasties, starting with the Song, were centralized states ran by bureaucrats. I'll already disgusted by the way the ERE's depicted in the game, they'd have to change a lot of mechanics in the game before any CK-styled game could be made about China.

Well, we already have Feudal Pagans wich is stretching the Feudal system to the limit. I think that CK3 should build on a par of concepts wich are, Centralized-Decentralized Governments, and Centralized-Decentralized Religions/Cultures. If you use this par to model the game mechanics then you can expand to include more eastern flavor cultures/nations such as India and China. It's already questionable how muslims and pagans are managed thru the Feudal system, so game mechanic should go one level higher, where the actual Feudal system is just one possibility given a level of centralization in the type of government and religion/culture. Of course, if this is the way to go, then Crusader Kings is no longer Crusader Kings, it should have another name!

 

[ekamsul]

Support this idea!

It reminds me of the great game from KOEI, Romance of The Three Kingdoms.

Hope Paradox would consider this for their next project.

 

[Knightofhonnor]

Hypothetical, if Paradox were to make a game about ancient China, it would be The Three Kingdoms as it is one of the most well-known eras in ancient Chinese history for western audience.

 

[Will Steel]

I would really love a game about China. Any timeframe would do, since there is a good capacity for both CK-style character management and EU style diplomacy/trade alongside Vicky style economy. And in most timeframes, from Zhou Kingdom all the way to Ming Empire.

I think even CK2 can handle some parts of the Song Dynasty (960-1279).

 

[nikssims]

A whole new game no, but an expansion for ck2 yes.

 

[icedt729]

For example:
Inheritance: Inheritance was Agnatic Primogenitre, but with the wife's sons taking precedence over concubines, with the possibility for rulers to bypass the rule.

Would it be possible to model something like this on the 'Born in the Purple' trait? Sons of the wife get a special trait that puts them higher in the line of succession, but the ruler can hand out an honorary title like 'Caesar' to equalize a concubine's son?

Army: Spring and Autumn armies were limited to 3 armies for major powers, 2 for medium powers, and 1 for minor states, of 12,500 people each (at least nominally).

This could be modeled by levy-reducing modifiers that pop up by event when a state's armies get too large.

Army II: Spring and Autumn states operated citizen armies, in which conquered peoples and farmers were not eligible.

We already have province modifiers nerfing levies from conquered provinces- you could just extend these, possibly add similar modifiers for wrong-culture provinces, etc.

Army III: Warring States armies were mass peasant levies and could not be raised all the time unless the country was sufficiently stocked with supplies and food.

Add in events that trigger when levies have been raised for too long that model food shortages by reducing tax income and levies, damaging troop morale and possibly even giving characters diseases.

Warfare: Long term wars (~months) were impossible to finance and logistics were a massive limiting factor.

See above. This could also be achieved by significantly increasing the costs of raising troops (so that major campaigns could only be launched after long periods of saving up).

Warfare II: Spring and Autumn states were essentially city states vying for farmlands that should be won and lost at little cost (warscore).

Simple enough- the contested farmlands would be low-holding counties and the city states would be holding-dense. Make the 'farmland' holdings lightly fortified, low-levy, but rich. Add in special CBs allowing quick county conquests and you're set.

Warfare III: Warring States states transitioned to building cities for more effective rule; control were based on whose armies were in the city.

Handled well by having significant improvements to cities unlocked through technology.

Sieges I: Defenders often fortified large armies within major settlements, which were not easily taken.

This is true of Europe as well so it's a shame it hasn't been modeled in CK2. But, it's a relatively minor thing.

Sieges II: Mountain passes were hugely effective chokepoints that could not be easily by passed by, well, walking through them.

Make liberal use of impassable terrain. We even have new 'chokepoint' battle mechanics that allow smaller armies to defeat larger ones in thsi kind of terrain, so it just comes down to drawing the map well.

Administrative I: The central government ruled the country directly with appointed officials, rather than feudalism.

Appointment succession. The trick, then, is to find a way to make sure families still have 'personal holdings' so that you have a pool of actual gentry to appoint into offices and not just random courtiers who spawn at the click of a button and die childless.

Administrative II: Powerful nobles existed with hereditary estates and private armies, and tried to co-opt public lands into their private domains.

This is the really tricky part, and I think it could best be modeled as a distinction between feudal lands run on a more standard CK2 basis and public lands administered through something like a priesthood with free investiture. Make nobles and bureaucrats dislike each other and create various plots and CBs to encourage encroachment of lands so that rulers can have a fun time sorting it all out. They could even be barons within 'public' counties.

Administrative III: Population was important; losses on the battlefield was expensive to replace and directly harms productoin.

Reduce the regeneration rate of levies and introduce economy-damaging events that become more likely to occur as casualties are taken.

Politics: Tribal politics dominates the Spring and Autumn period especially smaller states, which constrains the ability of rulers to wage war etc.

I don't know this aspect very well, but do you think it could be modeled by something like the Pagan restraints on crown authority and Faction buffs? The main things you'd want to reflect here are that (1) the rulers don't have very much coercive power within their realms and (2) their subjects are more willing to resist their liege. Low authority and increased willingness to join factions seem to fit the bill.

Diplomatic: Spring and Autumn international affairs were dominated by the major states attempting to become hegemons, collecting nominally sovereign satellites.

This part is tricky, because this is basically something like suzerainty or a sphere of influence and CK2 has no such mechanic. The only solution I can see around it would be to have the minor states' titles be one tier lower than the major states and, by tweaking diplomacy, CBs, plots, and factions, make it so that these minor states are easy to vassalize but hard to dismantle, and prone to rebellion and plotting against their liege. This way you'll see the subjugated or diplo-vassalized instead of picked apart piecemeal, and even when vassalized they'll still be dangerous and unpredictable.

Just some things off the top of my head. Some of these could be modelled, and others could be ignored. But, the inability to garrison a large citizen army of the nation at the capital, for example, means that small states could be ahistorically easily gobbled up - even if maintenance were raised to model the inability of states at the time to actually field armies for any length of time. That's not to say CK2 doesn't have a very good framework already. It definitely does. But there's limits on what you could do with modding, unfortunately.

It's true, and as much as I hate to suggest something this straightforward you could always have a 'small state' buff to garrisons and fort strength that improves the survivability of these tiny realms.

 

[ironchanchellor]

it would still be hard to portray china correctly in any period of time with CK2 because ancient china had a particular importance attached to it generals, a good general at the time of the warring kingdom like sun tzu could lure and kill army's 4 to 5 time his size, while in CK2 we can't even fight a battle even number without losing terribly. Or in the period of the three kingdom liu bei 3 most trusted general were like one man army that supposedly could hold off large army's and killing 50 to 60 men on their own and CK2 just can't accurately portray that

 

[icedt729]

it would still be hard to portray china correctly in any period of time with CK2 because ancient china had a particular importance attached to it generals, a good general at the time of the warring kingdom like sun tzu could lure and kill army's 4 to 5 time his size, while in CK2 we can't even fight a battle even number without losing terribly. Or in the period of the three kingdom liu bei 3 most trusted general were like one man army that supposedly could hold off large army's and killing 50 to 60 men on their own and CK2 just can't accurately portray that

The battle side is actually really simple to mod and there's already several mods out there that increase the importance of good generals. You just need to modify the tactics, and those are all in a single text file.

 

[Darkath]

...

Sure a mod is doable, and could even be interesting, but it would require the same amount of work as major mods like Game of Throne, and still wouldn't be able to capture the uniqueness of the era...

 

[salvettic]

A whole new game no, but an expansion for ck2 yes.

I agree, I think that an increase in the flavour of the current games is a better option that another game so confined an specific. Truth is I find myself re-playing EU, CK and VIC and didn't even finished a game of Sengoku...

I will really like to see a CK with some East or South Asia on it... either it's called CK or not.

 

[bradleygardner]

There was one or two of the Romance of the Three Kingdom games (I believe 8 and 10) where they did relatively well with character driven storylines, with many similar mechnics to CKII - You play a character who develops a city or a region, and uses the army you develop to either assist or overthrow your overlord.

CKII modeled decentralized governance fairly well, and I really don't think that China is so peculiar that inheritance or similar things can't be modeled. The game would cover Asia and the middle-east (you could include or not include India, depending on how ambitious you were). In order to avoid issues with the great divergence (the economic break out of the west), the West should be left out, and the timeline should be limited to periods where the great divergence isn't an issue - which is a really long period of time and could happily be limited further, but I think it would be nice to have both periods of chaos and periods when the empire was re-established. Players would take control of a political family that is trying to expand its assets both militarily through state sponsored invasions (in modern Xinjiang or Vietnam, or if you're awesome enough, Japan), or peacefully through re-investment or political marriages. With enough political power (measured by manpower+relations) relative to the emperor a character can chose to revolt, which if successful leads to a period of anything-goes instability. Nomad invasions occasionally weaken imperial or personal power.

Just spitballing, but it doesn't have to be that complicated.

 

[LordTempest]

I really hope Paradox never makes another entire game set in Asia - judging by some of their past attempts it would be at best something short of a disaster. Hell, DW's portrayal of China and Japan especially was so moronic that I hope they never even make another Asian-themed expansion; there's only so much bastardisation one man can take.

 

[Darkath]

I really hope Paradox never makes another entire game set in Asia - judging by some of their past attempts it would be at best something short of a disaster. Hell, DW's portrayal of China and Japan especially was so moronic that I hope they never even make another Asian-themed expansion; there's only so much bastardisation one man can take.

They can always improve but for now even in EU4 asia is treated as a joke (i guess you saw the descriptions of the chinese factions >_>) . So yeah that'd be a pretty bad idea. They'd need to hire a consultant with a major in asian history or something

 

[LordTempest]

They can always improve but for now even in EU4 asia is treated as a joke (i guess you saw the descriptions of the chinese factions >_>) . So yeah that'd be a pretty bad idea. They'd need to hire a consultant with a major in asian history or something

They would have to hire one if Paradox chose to make another Asian-themed game or expansion, definitely. As far as EUIV goes, I would definitely consider Japan's portrayal in that game to be a massive improvement (and I cannot stress that enough) on previous titles - not ideal, but as EU is a Eurocentric game it doesn't really need to be.

 

[Darkath]

Yes it's a massive improvement but it's still moronic. The chinese factions still don't make sense (temple faction what ?) and the shogun still become somehow the emperor of japan

 

[Punderland]

I know there are many fellow Chinese here and I believe most of us can help with historical facts if we are requested. And I believe we do not have to add in too many events for history. Warring states period is a big sandbox.

What is in my mind is a game similar to Crusader Kings

Maybe we can use two to three scenarios, first: The first Overlord of Qi(Spring-Autumn Period), second:Warring State Period(7-states power Oligopoly), Third: Late Qin Dynasty with Han and Chu Rebellion.

In these scenarios, we could have the "March of the Eagles" ranking system of great power that major players (like Qin, Qi, Chu, Wei, etc.) could be confederated against their throne.

Keeping the Crusader kings character system for two hierarchy only within each state( lord and generals, bureaucracy could be simplified to modifier which affect loyalty of generals. And I believe we don't need the Son of Heaven in this case since he did not have any power)

A reformed state could evolve in to a centralised bureaucracy like Qin historically. Maybe you can make it the highest crown authority to represent this. A reformed state could not be thrown back to lower crown authority by reform but only by rebellion. It carries on all the way to the end.

For outside boarder barbarians, we can make them one of the Chinese states if they destroy a major player by complete annexation.

Total Chinese states could amount to 50 if you want simplicity. Could be amount to 200 if you want real Chinese history and chaos. As you wish. Barbarians power could be 5-20 in total.

The one who conquer all Chinese core could Claim the son of Heaven's throne eventually or, if one is strong enough, claim it before that but face world at war with him by decreasing everyones' opinion against that character.

Religions could be replaced by schools of thought that could affect the states' economies like tax from villages, cities and castle town(Regimental camp in this case) or personal prestige or army organization and morale.

And please emphasize on tactics provided by the countries' schools of thought as well as marshal in court and generals. Emphasize also on terrain rather than the sheer number.

And making a good dissent system to simulate de-moralized state machine in troubled times (Like large routing of Qin Armies in the late Qin