Regarding China.

[Mike6979]

National income is another failure of EU2/3. These games were originally modeled for Europe so i understand their problems with this but it is time this was fixed.

Tax revenue cannot be a function of population. By the 14th century the average Chinese farmer was cultivating 2-3 acres of land for his family, either wheat or rice. There was virtually no leeway for the average farmer and he payed virtually no physical tax, just enough to feed the local magistrate. Corvee labour was common and i would love to see a system where peasant labour and taxes were handled in two different pools for different purchases.

Mike

 

[Don_Quigleone]

True, the successor could pull an Ieyasu, but its so mind bogglingly unlikely when there are legitimate descendants of the house of Zhu, the Ming Dynastic house, that have kept records since their joining of the Qing that someone who wasn't a member of the house could somehow gain the legitimacy of it.

In the first 100-150 years after the accession of the Qing, after that it's more likely for people to rally around an alternative dynasty (as the Ming will have faded from the popular consciousness). However, the Qing only came to power 100 or so years before the end of the game so...

Its far more likely that a new Dynasty would form. The Dynasty that formed after the Qing's demise was not the Ming.

There was no dynasty after the Qing!

 

[Jolt]

Xin and Later Zhou would be the "few exceptions" I mentioned. When Liu Shan finally surrendered to Wei, that was the end of any real Han resistance. There wasn't generations of "restore the Han" once the Jins came to power shortly after. People saw that Han and Wei were really cooked this time and accepted that this was just how the system worked. Strong dynasties replace weak ones.

The fact is that over the course of history, even centuries after Han's disapearance, there were still warlords claiming to be descendants of the Han Dynasty, and naming their states as Han, which does not mean that a reappearance of a former dynasty cannot happen in EU4.

 

[Garak]

I like the idea of doing the dynastic naming with China.

There was no dynasty after the Qing!

Thank you! I was just thinking that myself.

 

[knul]

What I would like to see that China is not an undefeatable juggernaut, achieved by general game mechanics. So no special, unique China-only shackles.

Something like the faction system could work, but I would like to see some kind of internal political struggle in every nation. Nations like the 16-18 century Ottoman Empire, China and late Japan could be simulated by having internal mechanics that prevent them from being effective abroad, while European empires have less of these problems and can operate abroad.

Of course, these internal struggles can be harnessed and enable these inward empires to turn outward and become global players, but not without significant effort. Likewise, it should be possible for (European) succesful empire to decline and become less dynamic (f.e. the Spanish).

In EU3, the only serious opposition a player has is from other nations. This makes it impossible to model nations that mostly had to deal with internal problems, like China.

 

[vyshan]

What I would like to see that China is not an undefeatable juggernaut, achieved by general game mechanics. So no special, unique China-only shackles.

Something like the faction system could work, but I would like to see some kind of internal political struggle in every nation. Nations like the 16-18 century Ottoman Empire, China and late Japan could be simulated by having internal mechanics that prevent them from being effective abroad, while European empires have less of these problems and can operate abroad.

Of course, these internal struggles can be harnessed and enable these inward empires to turn outward and become global players, but not without significant effort. Likewise, it should be possible for (European) succesful empire to decline and become less dynamic (f.e. the Spanish).

In EU3, the only serious opposition a player has is from other nations. This makes it impossible to model nations that mostly had to deal with internal problems, like China.

Agreed, plus internal issues and things to deal with will also mean that as I grow an empire then I have more stuff to do and play with besides just more conquest thus making the game more challenging

 

[icedt729]

I'd like to see a faction system for every country, but which factions they have to deal with would depend on religion, culture, government type, etc. There would be a clash between merchants and nobles in almost every country, Christendom would have the landed clergy, Chinese-influenced countries would have Confucian scholar-administrators, Japan would be influenced by sohei... all gaining or losing power through player decisions or random events, and influencing everything from stability cost to troop morale to tech rates. It also gives a more meaningful framework for revolts and civil wars and makes government type more important, so I think it'd be a pretty major gameplay improvement overall, not just for China.

 

[vyshan]

I'd like to see a faction system for every country, but which factions they have to deal with would depend on religion, culture, government type, etc. There would be a clash between merchants and nobles in almost every country, Christendom would have the landed clergy, Chinese-influenced countries would have Confucian scholar-administrators, Japan would be influenced by sohei... all gaining or losing power through player decisions or random events, and influencing everything from stability cost to troop morale to tech rates. It also gives a more meaningful framework for revolts and civil wars and makes government type more important, so I think it'd be a pretty major gameplay improvement overall, not just for China.

Also make it modable what factions would be in. that way modders can have fun with them

 

[Serpent]

What I would like to see that China is not an undefeatable juggernaut, achieved by general game mechanics. So no special, unique China-only shackles.

Something like the faction system could work, but I would like to see some kind of internal political struggle in every nation. Nations like the 16-18 century Ottoman Empire, China and late Japan could be simulated by having internal mechanics that prevent them from being effective abroad, while European empires have less of these problems and can operate abroad.

Of course, these internal struggles can be harnessed and enable these inward empires to turn outward and become global players, but not without significant effort. Likewise, it should be possible for (European) succesful empire to decline and become less dynamic (f.e. the Spanish).

In EU3, the only serious opposition a player has is from other nations. This makes it impossible to model nations that mostly had to deal with internal problems, like China.

Definately. That would also allow the developers to represent the sheer size of china a lot more accurately without unbalancing the game. In EU3 there were less provinces in China than in Germany or France when in fact the population and economical output of China was greater than the whole of Europe for most of the time-period. It's even more rediculous when you compare the number of provinces and their total income in China with those in the Americas or Australia. China and the whole east Asia (except Japan) need a lot more provinces, manpower and income.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

I think China would be better represented by absurdly high increases to province stats, e.g. base tax, manpower, production, rather than increasing the number of provinces.

There really wasn't a lot of political diversity in China during this period, and at least since the Qin, never anything to rival that of Europe, especially the HRE/Germany. Adding more provinces to China increases lag but doesn't add much benefit.

Then there's the problems it would cause. China as is is already a juggernaut, that can't be restrained without arbitrary limits like the faction system or giving an entire religion -50% to tax income. Of course, if Paradox puts in measures to restrict blobs, especially monstrous ones like China, they could still up the tax and manpower and, most importantly for the rest of the world, production/trade to realistic levels, be it through more provinces (bad) or buffed provinces (good).

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to make a unified China fun to play as in an EU game, at least for more than one or two campaigns. The internal strife and other unique problems which could make China fun are entirely separate from the externally focused nature of a normal Paradox game. Events and special systems can get close, but I don't know if it would provide over 300 years worth of enjoyment. Now, if someone were to make a China-focused grand strategy game, based around internal management, court intrigue, barbarian hordes, and manipulating tributaries...

*cough*pleasedoitJohanI'llloveyouforever*coughcough*

 

[colinljx]

I think China would be better represented by absurdly high increases to province stats, e.g. base tax, manpower, production, rather than increasing the number of provinces.

There really wasn't a lot of political diversity in China during this period, and at least since the Qin, never anything to rival that of Europe, especially the HRE/Germany. Adding more provinces to China increases lag but doesn't add much benefit.

China has over 50 provinces in DW, over half of which have low stats. If things are done your way, they can be reduced down to maybe 20 large ones with very high stats, each having base tax between 10 to 20. Far from ideal for multiplayer, but acceptable for historical accuracy and singleplayer. The rebel hunting would become a justifiable excruciating pain, but many lazy asses would still complain as they always do.

As for the internal management aspect, EU3 was never an empire management game like Vic2 (more of an empire builder perhaps), so I doubt EU4 would be any different. The devs simply don't have the time or resources to make every country unique, not to mention their lack of knowledge in world history outside Scandinavia.

 

[knul]

A potential problem with the "few provinces, high stats" approach is that research and stability costs depend on number of provinces, so a nation constructed with few high-quality provinces will have an easier time with research and stability. Such a change needs balancing.

 

[colinljx]

A potential problem with the "few provinces, high stats" approach is that research and stability costs depend on number of provinces, so a nation constructed with few high-quality provinces will have an easier time with research and stability. Such a change needs balancing.

Exactly, those who like singleplayer would love a powerful Ming to play with while those who deal with multiplayer would have to come up with house rules like before HTTT, unless the DW faction stays mostly unchanged (which is unlikely considering its controversial nature). Since the dev mentioned a player friendly multiplayer in EU4, Asia will probably stay the crappy way it is for the sake of balancing/European advantage.

As usual, it is probably up to the modders to create a more enjoyable/historical world by giving the rest of the world better tech at game start or better tech rates than the vanilla ones, which the devs are always afraid to do.

 

[unmerged(193360)]

One big problem with representing China as a smallish number of huge, rich provinces is that these provinces would become prime targets for colonial conquest. Taking just one could be a huge boost for any European nation, and since there are so few provinces converting all of China to your religion/culture would be far too easy.

 

[colinljx]

One big problem with representing China as a smallish number of huge, rich provinces is that these provinces would become prime targets for colonial conquest. Taking just one could be a huge boost for any European nation, and since there are so few provinces converting all of China to your religion/culture would be far too easy.

A China with 20 to 30 Siberian sized province is smallish... The colonial conquests are meant to be easy for the Europeans, maybe easier with less provinces, but the tech lag is what makes them easy.

 

[unmerged(193360)]

Conquering China is definitely not meant to be easy for the Europeans.

 

[Taiisatai64]

A China with 20 to 30 Siberian sized province is smallish... The colonial conquests are meant to be easy for the Europeans, maybe easier with less provinces, but the tech lag is what makes them easy.

Considering Europe never conquered China, I would say that colonial conquests are certainly not meant to be easy for the Europeans...

 

[colinljx]

Conquering China is definitely not meant to be easy for the Europeans.

True, but unfortunately, under the current system, it is, and a slightly upgraded EU4 won't be too different (unless they make every Chinese province insanely expensive as Kyoto in DW). Maybe the devs will make some attempts to revive Asia, but I doubt seeing that happen in vanilla EU4.

 

[chatnoir17]

Conquering China is definitely not meant to be easy for the Europeans.

On the other hand, the Jurchens having lower technology than the European countries (from the aspect of the EU series) conquered China successfully.

I really hope a logistical war/diplomacy system in EU IV.

 

[colinljx]

On the other hand, the Jurchens having lower technology than the European countries (from the aspect of the EU series) conquered China successfully.

I really hope a logistical war/diplomacy system in EU IV.

Yea, the only way to simulate the Jurchen conquest of China in EU3 was a war of independence by a Manchu annexed by Ming.