Some suggestions for the China region in EU5

[soul_of_fire7007]

Hello, I am an EU4 player. After reviewing Tinto talks and some videos, I would like to offer my suggestions related to the China region in EU5.
1. Based on previous information, the province density in China is significantly lower than that of Korea and Japan, which may reduces China's population capacity. I hope the province density in China can be increased to a level close to or matching that of Japan.
2. The surnames of the Red Turban warlords in China should align with historical records rather than being randomly generated. This would enhance immersion for players during gameplay.
3. The Red Turban situation should conclude within 50 years, and the Red Turban warlords should not remain at peace with the Yuan Dynasty for extended periods. Historically, the Red Turban Rebellion lasted only 15 years before the Ming Dynasty defeated the Yuan and unified China.
I suggest that when the Yuan Dynasty and Red Turban warlords controlled by the AI, they should actively declare war and attack each other. If a warlord refuses to pledge loyalty to the Yuan, the Yuan should declare war on them. If a warlord submits to the Yuan, they should be peacefully annexed shortly afterward. The end result should be either the Yuan reunify China or a new Chinese emperor reunify China.
4. The surname of the Chinese emperor should never change. In ancient China, the dynasty was synonymous with the empire—a change in the ruling family meant the fall of the empire.
5. The Yuan Dynasty should start with a standing army—a corrupted and weakened one. China had established standing armies since the Qin Dynasty（BC221), and after the Song Dynasty, standing armies became the primary military force. Thus, China should begin the game with the technology for standing armies.
Yuan once had a powerful standing army, but by the game's start date, it had been severely weakened due to financial collapse and corrupt leadership. This could be represented by starting the game with estate privileges that debuff the Yuan's standing army.
6. When playing in the China region, many players want to roleplay as a Red Turban warlord and strive to conquer all of China. However, these warlords only appear after 1350, forcing players to start as the Yuan, wait for some time, and then switch tags. This is not only inconvenient but also breaks immersion. I suggest adding an event or game setup option to allow the Red Turban Rebellion to emerge in 1337, making it easier for players to engage with this content.
These are my suggestions for the China region in EU5. I hope they can be useful. Thank you for reading!

 

[Nekoluve]

China should have a standing army, there is no problem with that. But moving the Red Turban Rebellion forward to 1337 is not good for players who want to play Yuan. I also have a suggestion that the Red Turban Rebels should take a form similar to the Japanese Daimyo. Suppressing a rebellion is obviously not just about taking the land the rebels hold, you have to defeat their army. That is, the Red Turban Rebels should be army-based countries that has no territory at the beginning. If you choose to be loyal to the Yuan, you should not have independent territory from the Yuan(although you actually control some of the land), and once you try to rebel, you can establish a landed country by taking land.

 

[zeruosi]

4. The surname of the Chinese emperor should never change. In ancient China, the dynasty was synonymous with the empire—a change in the ruling family meant the fall of the empire.

For this, I think it's actually feasible. However, after changing the surname, the name of the dynasty must also be changed. This was very common during Wang Mang's usurpation of the Han Dynasty and the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period.

 

[Foke]

6. When playing in the China region, many players want to roleplay as a Red Turban warlord and strive to conquer all of China. However, these warlords only appear after 1350, forcing players to start as the Yuan, wait for some time, and then switch tags. This is not only inconvenient but also breaks immersion. I suggest adding an event or game setup option to allow the Red Turban Rebellion to emerge in 1337, making it easier for players to engage with this content.
These are my suggestions for the China region in EU5. I hope they can be useful. Thank you for reading!

Many people want to play as the US, so let's add the thirteen colonies from game start and make the rebellion happen in 1337 too. Forcing players to play England for a long time before switching tags is just inconvenient and breaks immersion imo.

 

[Commodus]

Sorry but the last point is completely nonsense. There are few things more immersion breaking than moving definitive moments in history arounf to make them playable at game start.

 

[luo]

1. Based on previous information, the province density in China is significantly lower than that of Korea and Japan, which may reduces China's population capacity. I hope the province density in China can be increased to a level close to or matching that of Japan.

This is highly regarded in the Chinese player community, especially with Hokkaido having over 60 locations, while Manchuria, with several times its area and dozens of times its population, has only 1/3 more locations than Hokkaido.

The location density of the entire traditional Han Chinese land area is only half of that of Japan (China for 45 locations/1000 km², Korea for 65 locations/1000km², Japan for 107 locations/1000 km²), which is crucial for simulating historical population growth and communication efficiency between simulated locations.

I don't want to reduce the density of locations in Japan, I just want to increase the density of locations in China and Korea.

3. The Red Turban situation should conclude within 50 years, and the Red Turban warlords should not remain at peace with the Yuan Dynasty for extended periods. Historically, the Red Turban Rebellion lasted only 15 years before the Ming Dynasty defeated the Yuan and unified China.

Perhaps the war mechanism of Chinese warlords needs to be modified to conform to history, for example, the occupied areas can be directly integrated without creating a core.

5. The Yuan Dynasty should start with a standing army—a corrupted and weakened one. China had established standing armies since the Qin Dynasty（BC221), and after the Song Dynasty, standing armies became the primary military force. Thus, China should begin the game with the technology for standing armies.

In fact, Chinese historical books throughout history have detailed the number and composition of standing armies, including even the number of weapons and armor. For example, the famous Ming Dynasty Shenji Battalion 神机营 is famous for their use of standard firearms.

Generally speaking, the number of standing armies ranges from 100,000 to 200,000. For example, in 1449 of the Ming Dynasty, the Three Capital Battalions 三大营 (including the Three Thousand Battalion 三千营, the Five Military Battalion 五军营, and the Shenji Battalion 神机营) had a total of 170,000 people.

Among them, the Three Thousand Battalion is mainly composed of 3,000 Mongolian cavalry as the core, with a total number of nearly 10,000 people; the Five Military Battalion is a major elite army with over 100,000 soldiers. It was established during the Red Turban Army period and has gone through multiple Northern Expeditions against Mongolia during the Hongwu and Yongle periods, as well as the establishment of the Nurgan Dusi in Manchuria. It is well-equipped and has strong combat effectiveness; The Shenji Battalion was a major military force equipped with firearms, including firearms and artillery, established in 1407, a century earlier than the standard firearms armies in Europe.

6. When playing in the China region, many players want to roleplay as a Red Turban warlord and strive to conquer all of China. However, these warlords only appear after 1350, forcing players to start as the Yuan, wait for some time, and then switch tags. This is not only inconvenient but also breaks immersion. I suggest adding an event or game setup option to allow the Red Turban Rebellion to emerge in 1337, making it easier for players to engage with this content.

Oppose, as it would greatly undermine the sense of historical immersion.

 

[soul_of_fire7007]

This is highly regarded in the Chinese player community, especially with Hokkaido having over 60 locations, while Manchuria, with several times its area and dozens of times its population, has only 1/3 more locations than Hokkaido.

The location density of the entire traditional Han Chinese land area is only half of that of Japan (China for 45 locations/1000 km², Korea for 65 locations/1000km², Japan for 107 locations/1000 km²), which is crucial for simulating historical population growth and communication efficiency between simulated locations.

Yes,I've heard many Chinese players care about this question.

 

[Song of Falcon and Owl]

Let me offer a few small suggestions.
Regarding the third point, I hope to have the ability to struggle for power. Zhang Shicheng or Fang Guozhen had both expressed their submission to the Great Yuan, and there were even cases where they cooperated to transport grain to alleviate the predicament of Dadu. However, this does not mean that they will be directly controlled by the Yuan Dynasty or be annexed after some time. The tactic of "two ends of the rat" is commonly used by warlords. It would be better to allow the warlords who choose to submit to have the ability to engage in power struggles to demonstrate independence or submission to the central government of the Great Yuan. They could also regain independence by completely tilting the balance in their own favor due to interests. Similarly, warlords who completely oppose the Great Yuan should also be able to join this dynamic either voluntarily or by being admitted. Or rather, the warlords who choose to submit but maintain high independence should be at the middle of this ability bar, while the one on the far right is being annexed by the Great Yuan, and the one on the far left is completely hostile to the Great Yuan - it is worth ending this situation with events such as the complete reunification of China.
The fifth point, I need to clarify, is that the tradition of China's standing army is not limited to the Qin Dynasty. In fact, it is much earlier. Even the standing army system of the Great Qin itself was inherited from its past rather than being institutionalized after unification. During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods, various states had many elite standing armies, such as the Wei Wuzu of the Wei and the Qi Jiji of the Qi. So is this the destination? No, in fact, when the Zhou Dynasty was first established, there were already the systems of the Chengzhou Six Army and the Zongzhou Eight Army. And what about earlier? Archaeological evidence from the Shang Dynasty indicates the existence of a military system consisting of Lv, Hang and Great Hang. The Xia Dynasty is indeed somewhat shrouded in mystery. After all, it was an ancient era with a great lack of relevant records and archaeological discoveries. It was so distant that most civilizations at this time had not even spread their swaddling clothes. However, it can be seen that the tradition of standing armies in China has a very long history.

 

[Song of Falcon and Owl]

For this, I think it's actually feasible. However, after changing the surname, the name of the dynasty must also be changed. This was very common during Wang Mang's usurpation of the Han Dynasty and the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period.

Um... Please allow me to correct a little rudely. China's territory is so vast and its history so profound that there may often be a few minor exceptions. So there are also a few cases where the usurper did not change the state title after plotting to seize the dynasty. For instance, in the more ancient times, the Tian family replaced the Qi. During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, the nobles from the Chen State replaced the original Jiang family of the Qi State, but they did not change the state title and instead continued to use the Qi. For instance, during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the regime known as Western Yan experienced a process where the emperor was betrayed by a coup and the ruler changed from the Murong clan to the Duan clan. However, the state title remained Yan. Coincidentally, during the An Shi Rebellion, it was Yan again. After Shi Siming killed An Qingxu, he still inherited the state title of Yan... Of course, there are also some other examples, but I think that's enough. Let me mention some other more interesting cases. For instance, the renowned Liu Yuan, as a spiritual Han person, established the Han Dynasty. Later, this regime was usurped by Jin Zhun. However, Jin Zhun did not change the state title. Instead, Liu Yao, a descendant of Liu Yuan, changed the state title to Zhao after killing Jin Zhun in return. Let me sigh once again. The vastness and depth of China enable many rather strange special cases to occur. I think this is really very interesting.
Of course, I agree that the matter of changing the country's title after usurping the throne should be included in the game. After all, special cases are just special cases. Although there are many existing examples, they are not universal. Or it could be taken into consideration as an option with a very low probability of being chosen by ai. Suppose that among a hundred games, two or three ai would choose to usurp the throne without changing the country's title, then I think I personally can accept it.

 

[Crunbum]

Manchuria definitely does deserve more locations, imo.

However, on China - it starts as the highest development region in the world, with climate, topography and vegetation highly conductive to huge populations, and with plentiful access to Rice - the most nutritious food-producing good in the game - while Japan is mostly Mountains and Forests with slightly worse climate, which combined results in its far lower population capacity and development growth and heavy penalties to proximity / control.

Yes, Japan is indeed much more location dense per km², but China is 222% as population dense per location to begin with.

When compared with Europe, China has 264% the starting population density per location, with +/- 90% of Europe's entire population concentrated on only a third as many locations - which is extremely beneficial for Control purposes. as is its circular shape. The better development, climate, topography and vegetation help offset its modest overall location density because each of its locations is worth that much more.

 

[soul_of_fire7007]

Manchuria definitely does deserve more locations, imo.

However, on China - it starts as the highest development region in the world, with climate, topography and vegetation highly conductive to huge populations, and with plentiful access to Rice - the most nutritious food-producing good in the game - while Japan is mostly Mountains and Forests with slightly worse climate, which combined results in its far lower population capacity and development growth and heavy penalties to proximity / control.

Yes, Japan is indeed much more location dense per km², but China is 222% as population dense per location to begin with.

When compared with Europe, China has 264% the starting population density per location, with +/- 90% of Europe's entire population concentrated on only a third as many locations - which is extremely beneficial for Control purposes. as is its circular shape. The better development, climate, topography and vegetation help offset its modest overall location density because each of its locations is worth that much more.

Due to China's low province density, the total population cap in China is also relatively low. Excessively low province density may hinder population growth in this area.
From the 14th to the 19th century, China's population grew from 80 million to 400 million. If the province density is too low, the game's simulation of China's population growth could be severely constrained, potentially leading to a highly ahistorical population distribution in East Asia.
Another issue is that insufficient province density may result in resource shortages, frequently triggering famines.

 

[luo]

Yes, Japan is indeed much more location dense per km², but China is 222% as population dense per location to begin with.

Japan had a population of approximately 9,000,000 in 1350 and 30,000,000 in 1800, with an area of 378,000 km².

The population density of Japan in 1350 was 238,000/1000 km², and in 1800 it was 793,000/1000 km².
The population density of China in 1350 was 250,000/1000 km², and in 1800 it was 1,000,000/1000 km².

It is difficult to say that there is a difference in population density between the two, even with such rough calculations, it can be seen that the difference in population density is not significant.

When compared with Europe, China has 264% the starting population density per location, with +/- 90% of Europe's entire population concentrated on only a third as many locations - which is extremely beneficial for Control purposes. as is its circular shape. The better development, climate, topography and vegetation help offset its modest overall location density because each of its locations is worth that much more.

However, there is a significant gap in population growth between Europe and China or India until the end of the game, which is difficult to achieve in the game when the total number of locations is much smaller than in Europe.

I haven't calculated it in detail, but what I can confirm is that the entire Europe, excluding Eastern Europe, has an area similar to that of mainland China, and the number of locations in Europe is about 2~3 times that of China (about 1800 locations in mainland China, about 450 locations in France, and about 350 locations in Britain, with a location ratio of 44.4%, while the sum of the areas of England and France is about 21.6% of the area of mainland China (865,000 km²/4,000,000 km²), and this does not take into account that the location density in Germany is much higher than that in England and France)

Considering that in 1350, the population of Europe was about 50,000,000, and that of China was about 100,000,000. In 1800, the population of Europe was 200,000,000, and that of China was 400,000,000. That is, China needs less than half of the number of plots in Europe to achieve 200% of the population growth in Europe. I find it hard to believe that existing game mechanics can achieve this without changing the number of locations.

However, on China - it starts as the highest development region in the world, with climate, topography and vegetation highly conductive to huge populations, and with plentiful access to Rice - the most nutritious food-producing good in the game - while Japan is mostly Mountains and Forests with slightly worse climate, which combined results in its far lower population capacity and development growth and heavy penalties to proximity / control.

In fact, the ratio of the number of locations to the area in Japan is basically twice that of China, comparable to the level of Europe, which results in Japan's population capacity being twice that of China with the same area. And you also mentioned that the population capacity and development growth per unit area in Japan should have been lower than in China, which is contradictory.

That is to say, the number of locations in China should be at least 3800 or more, twice than now, and roughly equivalent to Europe. The population size of India is similar to that of China (100 million in 1350 to 400 million in 1800), and it should also reach a similar level.

Of course, I agree with your viewpoint that additional locations are needed in Manchuria, but for other viewpoints, based on the above data, I may have to choose to respectfully disagree.

 

[Sithodox2286]

1. Based on previous information, the province density in China is significantly lower than that of Korea and Japan, which may reduces China's population capacity. I hope the province density in China can be increased to a level close to or matching that of Japan.

Agree and I think there are quite a few posts and threads discussing what can devs do to improve the map of China in the game.

2. The surnames of the Red Turban warlords in China should align with historical records rather than being randomly generated. This would enhance immersion for players during gameplay.

This issue have been reported in other threads, agreed and hope dev consider this.

I suggest that when the Yuan Dynasty and Red Turban warlords controlled by the AI, they should actively declare war and attack each other. If a warlord refuses to pledge loyalty to the Yuan, the Yuan should declare war on them. If a warlord submits to the Yuan, they should be peacefully annexed shortly afterward. The end result should be either the Yuan reunify China or a new Chinese emperor reunify China.

That's an eh, maybe. I saw and implemented similar mechanics in my EU4 mod. But, I always find this kind of mechanics too static and too forceful for players. I got as much complaints from my mod's player before and after something like this was implemented. My current opinion leaning on making the sernario easier to solve, rather than making it an endless war declaration loop.

You can however, block the "Ask for Peace" buttons after the wars are triggered among TAGs.

But, that's not actually historically accurate though. As Zhu, Chen and other rebel leader (despite Liu Futong I think) did surrender to Yuan at some point, to buy time for themselves.

4. The surname of the Chinese emperor should never change. In ancient China, the dynasty was synonymous with the empire—a change in the ruling family meant the fall of the empire.

I agree.

5. The Yuan Dynasty should start with a standing army—a corrupted and weakened one. China had established standing armies since the Qin Dynasty（BC221), and after the Song Dynasty, standing armies became the primary military force. Thus, China should begin the game with the technology for standing armies.
Yuan once had a powerful standing army, but by the game's start date, it had been severely weakened due to financial collapse and corrupt leadership. This could be represented by starting the game with estate privileges that debuff the Yuan's standing army.

Absolutely agree.

But, I think what should be done before that is to properly design the standing army and levy system. I have seen and participated multiple threads talking about that, such as: 1) Levies - Re-imagined, 2) Levies should probably be a little stronger + other warfare issues/thoughts and 3) Levies too weak(?).

6. When playing in the China region, many players want to roleplay as a Red Turban warlord and strive to conquer all of China. However, these warlords only appear after 1350, forcing players to start as the Yuan

Not really, that would break history completely. I think the right thing is that we shall call for another startdate after the game is out.

 

[Crunbum]

Japan had a population of approximately 9,000,000 in 1350 and 30,000,000 in 1800, with an area of 378,000 km².

The population density of Japan in 1350 was 238,000/1000 km², and in 1800 it was 793,000/1000 km².
The population density of China in 1350 was 250,000/1000 km², and in 1800 it was 1,000,000/1000 km².

It is difficult to say that there is a difference in population density between the two, even with such rough calculations, it can be seen that the difference in population density is not significant.


However, there is a significant gap in population growth between Europe and China or India until the end of the game, which is difficult to achieve in the game when the total number of locations is much smaller than in Europe.

I haven't calculated it in detail, but what I can confirm is that the entire Europe, excluding Eastern Europe, has an area similar to that of mainland China, and the number of locations in Europe is about 2~3 times that of China (about 1800 locations in mainland China, about 450 locations in France, and about 350 locations in Britain, with a location ratio of 44.4%, while the sum of the areas of England and France is about 21.6% of the area of mainland China (865,000 km²/4,000,000 km²), and this does not take into account that the location density in Germany is much higher than that in England and France)

Considering that in 1350, the population of Europe was about 50,000,000, and that of China was about 100,000,000. In 1800, the population of Europe was 200,000,000, and that of China was 400,000,000. That is, China needs less than half of the number of plots in Europe to achieve 200% of the population growth in Europe. I find it hard to believe that existing game mechanics can achieve this without changing the number of locations.

In fact, the ratio of the number of locations to the area in Japan is basically twice that of China, comparable to the level of Europe, which results in Japan's population capacity being twice that of China with the same area. And you also mentioned that the population capacity and development growth per unit area in Japan should have been lower than in China, which is contradictory.

That is to say, the number of locations in China should be at least 3800 or more, twice than now, and roughly equivalent to Europe. The population size of India is similar to that of China (100 million in 1350 to 400 million in 1800), and it should also reach a similar level.

Of course, I agree with your viewpoint that additional locations are needed in Manchuria, but for other viewpoints, based on the above data, I may have to choose to respectfully disagree.

Thats a lot of words but :

1337 Europe in-game starts with ≈5300 locations and ≈100 million people across 8.23 million km²
(Modern Germany, France, Italy, Iberia, British Isles, Scandinavia, Low Countries, Balkans including Turkey west of the Bosphorus, Hungary, Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia west of the Ural mountains)

1337 China in-game starts with ≈1900 locations and ≈91 million people across 7.57 million km²
(Whole Yuan Empire, including Dali).

China starts with a population density of 12.02 / km² or 47.98k per location.
Europe starts with a population density of 12.15 / km² or 18.87k per location.

The population density per km² is pretty much identical.
(I should note the pop count and location total are approximations because there are so many locations, but they should be very close to the in-game values).

Sure, Europe has 257% the locations per km², but location count isn't the end all be all to population that you seem to think it is. Its average climate, topography and vegetation are far worse for population capacity than China's which also starts with broadly greater location development that greatly affects it too, on top of ample access to Rice RGOs. It does not need more locations to grow to its historical size because its locations have a far higher pop ceiling on an individual basis.

You cite 1350 Europe population being 50 million to China's 100 - but 1350 is right after the Black Death killed every other person in Europe, while leaving China basically untouched in comparison. The game does not start in 1350 - it starts in 1337, when Europe had ≈100m people and China had ≈91m. You could argue the European estimate is on the higher end of historical consensus for the period, but it absolutely is within the bounds of it.

 

[Sithodox2286]

1337 Europe in-game starts with ≈5300 locations and ≈100 million people across 8.23 million km²
(Modern Germany, France, Italy, Iberia, British Isles, Scandinavia, Low Countries, Balkans including Turkey west of the Bosphorus, Hungary, Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia west of the Ural mountains)

I don't have the map on my hands like you guys, but, I think there is a big "Eh" here about including Ukraine, Belarus and Russia west of the Ural mountains. As I remember it correctly, the location density in eastern europe or specifically "Russian plains" would be much lower than west+central Europe. So, by including them you bringing down the Average.

While location density across China in game is pretty homogenous, more like central and western Europe.

I might be wrong though. But I think the point for those people to make is about comparing China to at least western Europe. Since HRE is another exception with a relatively high location density for gameplay reasons, which would lift the averge up.

 

[Crunbum]

I don't have the map on my hands like you guys, but, I think there is a big "Eh" here about including Ukraine, Belarus and Russia west of the Ural mountains. As I remember it correctly, the location density in eastern europe or specifically "Russian plains" would be much lower than west+central Europe. So, by including them you bringing down the Average.

While location density across China in game is pretty homogenous, more like central and western Europe.

I might be wrong though. But I think the point for those people to make is about comparing China to at least western Europe. Since HRE is another exception with a relatively high location density for gameplay reasons, which would lift the averge up.

China is not just the North China Plain, Yangtze River Delta and the Sichuan Basin. I might be mistaken on this, but did 80% of the population of China not live in these three regions that only accounted for 7% of its entire land area or something insane like that?

What matters is the whole, not individual regions. Europe is Europe, China is China and I am comparing them in their entirety, not individual parts. If the argument is that China had the better civilization cradle heartland, in these three regions? Sure it did, it had the best in the world. But it was a small part of the whole.

You could make the argument that maybe the more fertile areas in China should have higher location density at the expense of the rest, like they do in Europe, but not that "China needs 3800+ locations to reach its historical population and potential" because it does not. Locations are not made equal and the average European location is 2-3 times worse than the average location in China. China doesn't have fewer locations because its undertuned, it has fewer because Europe was highly fragmented so greater granularity is necessary to represent its tiny independent counties, duchies and petty kingdoms, which China doesnt tend to have.

 

[Sithodox2286]

What matters is the whole, not individual regions. Europe is Europe, China is China and I am comparing them in their entirety, not individual parts. If the argument is that China had the better civilization cradle heartland, in these three regions? Sure it did, it had the best in the world. But it was a small part of the whole.

I get your point, yes. I think a viable solution that mediating everybody's wish would be a more dynamically distributed location density in China.

 

[Sithodox2286]

You could make the argument that maybe the more fertile areas in China should have higher location density at the expense of the rest, like they do in Europe, but not that "China needs 3800+ locations to reach its historical population and potential" because it does not.

I think this is reasonable points people are making. And I agree with you.

Is just that, when Japan getting Hokkaido (historically not develop-able untile Meiji era) in detail, France getting like around 100 more locations after redone, there is no reason why should China got at least a dynamic attention.

Some may argue "Unified China could be overpowered if too many locations are given to them". But, I think in EU5, unlike previous games, balance should be done via more mechanics or economical twicks to make admin cost and corruption of the empire more serious and playable. Rather than nerf locations, which is about something different than "provinces" back in EU4.

However, gamespeed-wise, too many locations are a troubling problem. But, I think a better solution is for devs to merge locations averagely around the globe. Doing things that way would also be more popular around different groups in the community anyway. "More location overall merged for game speed optimization, less locations in one region merged or lost to optimization."

 

[Enku7071]

Hello, I am an EU4 player. After reviewing Tinto talks and some videos, I would like to offer my suggestions related to the China region in EU5.

Gotta love Chinese suggestions being presented here.

1. Based on previous information, the province density in China is significantly lower than that of Korea and Japan, which may reduces China's population capacity. I hope the province density in China can be increased to a level close to or matching that of Japan.

I think it was a conscious choice on game design so that Ming doesn't curbstomp the world market, but I'd love to see more province added on China tho.

2. The surnames of the Red Turban warlords in China should align with historical records rather than being randomly generated. This would enhance immersion for players during gameplay.

Agreed, idk why they made them random.

3. The Red Turban situation should conclude within 50 years, and the Red Turban warlords should not remain at peace with the Yuan Dynasty for extended periods. Historically, the Red Turban Rebellion lasted only 15 years before the Ming Dynasty defeated the Yuan and unified China.
I suggest that when the Yuan Dynasty and Red Turban warlords controlled by the AI, they should actively declare war and attack each other. If a warlord refuses to pledge loyalty to the Yuan, the Yuan should declare war on them. If a warlord submits to the Yuan, they should be peacefully annexed shortly afterward. The end result should be either the Yuan reunify China or a new Chinese emperor reunify China.

From the Ming gameplay video that I watched, the pacing of the conquests are well suited for the irl event, which makes me wonder -- maybe it should be even more easier, so that it doesn't become slower than it is now when they (inevitably) nerf blobbing.
Also, agreed on forced wars until the situation is over.

4. The surname of the Chinese emperor should never change. In ancient China, the dynasty was synonymous with the empire—a change in the ruling family meant the fall of the empire.

I don't think they'll be changing that easily, especially in China where there's no mechanic to have different ruling dynasties for state purposes, compared to Europe.

5. The Yuan Dynasty should start with a standing army—a corrupted and weakened one. China had established standing armies since the Qin Dynasty（BC221), and after the Song Dynasty, standing armies became the primary military force. Thus, China should begin the game with the technology for standing armies.
Yuan once had a powerful standing army, but by the game's start date, it had been severely weakened due to financial collapse and corrupt leadership. This could be represented by starting the game with estate privileges that debuff the Yuan's standing army.

Or, instead, have the rebelling kingdoms have more advanced access to tech, which allows them to build standing armies from the get go, while Yuan struggles with levies. Or maybe put a heavy debuff on Yuan's levy size and go with your suggestion. Either way, severely unstable Yuan should not have a sizeable army or anything, especially considering the succession crises and internal infighting that plagued them for a long time.

6. When playing in the China region, many players want to roleplay as a Red Turban warlord and strive to conquer all of China. However, these warlords only appear after 1350, forcing players to start as the Yuan, wait for some time, and then switch tags. This is not only inconvenient but also breaks immersion. I suggest adding an event or game setup option to allow the Red Turban Rebellion to emerge in 1337, making it easier for players to engage with this content.

Nah mate, not having that. For me, having them pop up was more immersive.

 

[Crunbum]

I think this is reasonable points people are making. And I agree with you.

Is just that, when Japan getting Hokkaido (historically not develop-able untile Meiji era) in detail, France getting like around 100 more locations after redone, there is no reason why should China got at least a dynamic attention.

Some may argue "Unified China could be overpowered if too many locations are given to them". But, I think in EU5, unlike previous games, balance should be done via more mechanics or economical twicks to make admin cost and corruption of the empire more serious and playable. Rather than nerf locations, which is about something different than "provinces" back in EU4.

However, gamespeed-wise, too many locations are a troubling problem. But, I think a better solution is for devs to merge locations averagely around the globe. Doing things that way would also be more popular around different groups in the community anyway. "More location overall merged for game speed optimization, less locations in one region merged or lost to optimization."

The issue is probably that if you gave more location density to the fertile heartlands, you'd have to give mostly everything outside these very large pixel sizes per location to compensate (if you wanted the total population of China to remain similar), because the top 10% of China's land area by population density had perhaps 15 times the average population density of the other 90%. To my understanding paradox wants to avoid locations of wildly different pixel sizes bordering each other because the contrast looks very jarring on the map.