National Taboos and the Piety Bar

[master_kong]

I will suggest adding two things to the game: (Completely separate from each other)

1. Piety Bar for muslim nations: This should be separate from Mysticism-Legalism bar and should effect the bonus from mysticism or legalism. For example if you are low on piety your bonus should be lowered too.

Right now mysticism seems like low piety but it's not. It's a way of approach to the religion and shouldn't be shown with minus at bar either.

This piety bar can be change by events and declaring war on other nations like now. For example it doesn't make any sense moving towards legalism with declaring war on Ottomans as Qara Qoyunlu. This should be represented with piety bar. Game right now wants shias only war with fellow shias for staying mysticism. Isn't it ridiculous or am i missing something?

2. National Taboos: Most or almost every nations at the starting date of 1444 have some taboos. Paradox can add some historical flavor with adding these to the game as like opposing to national ideas.

For example at 1444 Ming dynasty and Chinese people have some taboo for the sea and the outer world; Ottomans have taboos for shias and they don't want them. This can be extend for every nation. And these taboos might be overcome with ideas or maybe government changes with rebellion.


These are only IDEAS of mine and not perfect of course. Even examples are limited with a few. But the main ideas are there and can be expand with discussion in comments or by Paradox themselves.

 

[Canute VII]

Some factions in the Imperial Court certainly did. It would have been enough for the bureaucracy to simply wrest power back from the Eunuchs, but they also not only destroyed Zheng's fleet, they burned the shematics for his ships and then instituted a seaban.

Yes, maybe I should have said: They certainly had no taboo for exploration per se.

 

[moscal]

The most important element, causing stop of the east powers sea expansion, was poor political, economical etc. diversification in Far East. Christopher Columbus could not get support in Portugal, but he could look for support in another country - Spain, England, France etc. Level difference was relatively small, so lack support in one place wasn't problem in second place. Meanwhile, the Far East was under the hegemony of China, so lack imperial support resulted in the loss of support for the entire super-region. Providing support could lead to a risk of deterioration of relations with the Emperor, this can lead to political, economic, trade and even military conflicts.

 

[Canute VII]

The most important element, causing stop of the east powers sea expansion, was poor political, economical etc. diversification in Far East. Christopher Columbus could not get support in Portugal, but he could look for support in another country - Spain, England, France etc. Level difference was relatively small, so lack support in one place wasn't problem in second place. Meanwhile, the Far East was under the hegemony of China, so lack imperial support resulted in the loss of support for the entire super-region. Providing support could lead to a risk of deterioration of relations with the Emperor, this can lead to political, economic, trade and even military conflicts.

Uhh, I think if we are to pinpoint the main reason, then it probably was a much much MUCH higher exposure of east and south Asia to natural disasters, e.g. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/somalas-volcano-little-ice-age_n_4029092.html

(i.e. higher than Europe's)

 

[Grand Historian]

Uhh, I think if we are to pinpoint the main reason, then it probably was a much much MUCH higher exposure of east and south Asia to natural disasters, e.g. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/somalas-volcano-little-ice-age_n_4029092.html

(i.e. higher than Europe's)

I have to agree with Moscal. Had all of Europe been under the control of a single, centralized Empire like China and that crowned head refused to provide support for what was a highly risky endeavor, then it would have been incredibly unlikely Columbus would have been able to amass the financial backing and support required elsewhere.

Similarly, to dismiss it as natural disasters is to similarly ignore that the Little Ice Age had already well kicked in in Europe by Columbus' time: the Medieval Warm period had come to a halt, and the cooling made navigating the oceans far more difficult (and also strangled the Norse colonies in Greenland to death). And yet they still attempted it in the face of natural disasters - that the Chinese didn't is telling as being caused by a lack of desire rather than an inability to carry it out. (Even further is that the Japanese would later try to establish their own maritime empire across numerous incarnations - the Otomo sent delegates to Rome and Spain, the Toyotomi invaded Korea, the Tokugawa had designs on invading Taiwan and the Philippines, and the Date outright built a Galleon and used it as an Embassy to visit Spain, sailing around South America in the process.)

That Junks are also flat-bottomed vessels ill-suited for sailing beyond shallow waters was also a large contributing factor.

 

[Canute VII]

I have to agree with Moscal. Had all of Europe been under the control of a single, centralized Empire like China and that crowned head refused to provide support for what was a highly risky endeavor, then it would have been incredibly unlikely Columbus would have been able to amass the financial backing and support required elsewhere.

Similarly, to dismiss it as natural disasters is to similarly ignore that the Little Ice Age had already well kicked in in Europe by Columbus' time: the Medieval Warm period had come to a halt, and the cooling made navigating the oceans far more difficult (and also strangled the Norse colonies in Greenland to death). And yet they still attempted it in the face of natural disasters - that the Chinese didn't is telling as being caused by a lack of desire rather than an inability to carry it out. (Even further is that the Japanese would later try to establish their own maritime empire across numerous incarnations - the Otomo sent delegates to Rome and Spain, the Toyotomi invaded Korea, the Tokugawa had designs on invading Taiwan and the Philippines, and the Date outright built a Galleon and used it as an Embassy to visit Spain, sailing around South America in the process.)

That Junks are also flat-bottomed vessels ill-suited for sailing beyond shallow waters was also a large contributing factor.

There have been many contributing factors, sure. And there have been many more nations in SEA than only ming china, which honestly didn't give a damn about other countries exploring or not. There's nothing "dismissive" in pointing out natural disasters as a major source of headache for SEA countries, they were simply much more effected than europe. On the contrary, to blankedly surmise "lack of desire" on the chinese side is dismissive, but it is also true as their desire was to counter disaster and devastation, which bound up a huge amount of ressources.

 

[moscal]

@Canute VII - nope. Similar mechanism had place in ancient east part of Mediterranean Sea. Small and numerous polis in greek world was a friendlier place for innovators and experimenters than great empires of east. Hellada was and is a less friendly region (in terms of natural disasters) than eg Persia or Egypt, but this did not prevent the development of Greek political and economic thought.

 

[Canute VII]

@Canute VII - nope. Similar mechanism had place in ancient east part of Mediterranean Sea. Small and numerous polis in greek world was a friendlier place for innovators and experimenters than great empires of east. Hellada was and is a less friendly region (in terms of natural disasters) than eg Persia or Egypt, but this did not prevent the development of Greek political and economic thought.

Again: I'm not disputing This. The reasons are multi-faceted.

 

[Grand Historian]

On the contrary, to blankedly surmise "lack of desire" on the chinese side is dismissive, but it is also true as their desire was to counter disaster and devastation, which bound up a huge amount of ressources.

If a historical fact is dismissive, then so be it. I see no evidence whatsoever that the Little Ice Age exacted a bigger toll on the Ming's naval capacities than their own edicts against shipbuilding, especially when the smaller nations of Europe were more than capable of doing it.

 

[Canute VII]

If a historical fact is dismissive, then so be it. I see no evidence whatsoever that the Little Ice Age exacted a bigger toll on the Ming's naval capacities than their own edicts against shipbuilding, especially when the smaller nations of Europe were more than capable of doing it.

Now it's getting ridiculous.

 

[moscal]

Again: I'm not disputing This. The reasons are multi-faceted.

We talk about main factor This one.

Second. If the factor X is an obstacle - it should also be an obstacle in any other place. Eg. for steels moisture is a factor friendly to corrosive. It isn't important where is steel - in Germany, India, Madagascar or Haiti, always moisture is a factor friendly to corrosive. If the factor is not universal - it cannot be treated as a rule for game. Universal problems (eg. caused by hegemony) can be implemented, but not-universal problems cannot (a region exposed to natural disasters once is a source of colonial expansion <greek colonization> and once it blocks it <far east>).

 

[Canute VII]

We talk about main factor This one.

Second. If the factor X is an obstacle - it should also be an obstacle in any other place. Eg. for steels moisture is a factor friendly to corrosive. It isn't important where is steel - in Germany, India, Madagascar or Haiti, always moisture is a factor friendly to corrosive. If the factor is not universal - it cannot be treated as a rule for game. Universal problems (eg. caused by hegemony) can be implemented, but not-universal problems cannot (a region exposed to natural disasters once is a source of colonial expansion <greek colonization> and once it blocks it <far east>).

Moisture in SEA is higher than in Spain.

 

[Grand Historian]

Now it's getting ridiculous.

How? I think banning the construction of ships is rather self evident that a governing body has no interest in exerting itself across the seas.