Or, why conquests in Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis often go in the opposite way to real life.
In CK2, the reconquista almost never happens (without player involvement), and rather than Afghanistan based forces invading India, India conquers half of Persia.
Likewise, in EU4, the Manchus don't conquer China, they are conquered by Korea, and if the Timurids collapse, the Mughals have a zero chance of forming.
In one direction - the conquest of poor, peripheral land by rich empires in game when it never happened in reality - this is often talked about. The explanation is that, in game, all land makes one's country stronger, no matter how undeveloped, while this was not the case in reality. The precise cause of this is, I believe, also the reason things like Asturias pushing into the Ummayads and a minor tribe in Afghanistan does not sweep into India in the 16th century; that money is worth the same everywhere on the map.
For example; paying your armies is a constant theme in the EU and CK series, but they are payed almost the same wherever you are. In reality, invading Anatolia as the Finns should be practically free as In real life, the troops main income would be loot. In game, fielding an army as an Arctic empire is monetarily much more difficult than a temperate one of similar military capacity as the Arctic is much poorer, meaning that in a war between the two, the temperate empire has the advantage. But in reality, the Arctic troops would be payed (and satisfied with) much less. Such a war would give great motive for the Arctic empire to take part of the temperate empire, and greatly enhance their own wealth and war-making capabilities, but not the other way around.
It's why China and the Roman Empire payed attackers to avoid them rather than paying their own people to fight them off; the barbarians will be satisfied with a little money (which for them is a lot) while paying your own subjects enough to make being part of the army a satisfying prospect is very expensive. This is further enhanced by the fact that, as the rich country is (or at least seems) a nicer place to live than the poor one, much of the poor country's population will be part of its army with the expectation of settling in the rich one, giving the mongols and goths vast armies compared to China and the Roman Empire.
Wait, you say, difference does regional wealth make at all then? Well, I've illustrated part of the reason already; while holding rich land is unlikely to help with domestic issues, for international purposes like bribing the Pope, paying dowries or hiring condottiere, it pays to be rich.
This, I think, would help gameplay in CK3 or EU5 quite a lot. Aside from the greater historicity, which many people enjoy paradox games for, it would significantly level the playing field both between many starts and along the course of many games, something valuable for multiplayer in the former case and keeping a challenge in the latter.
In CK2, the reconquista almost never happens (without player involvement), and rather than Afghanistan based forces invading India, India conquers half of Persia.
Likewise, in EU4, the Manchus don't conquer China, they are conquered by Korea, and if the Timurids collapse, the Mughals have a zero chance of forming.
In one direction - the conquest of poor, peripheral land by rich empires in game when it never happened in reality - this is often talked about. The explanation is that, in game, all land makes one's country stronger, no matter how undeveloped, while this was not the case in reality. The precise cause of this is, I believe, also the reason things like Asturias pushing into the Ummayads and a minor tribe in Afghanistan does not sweep into India in the 16th century; that money is worth the same everywhere on the map.
For example; paying your armies is a constant theme in the EU and CK series, but they are payed almost the same wherever you are. In reality, invading Anatolia as the Finns should be practically free as In real life, the troops main income would be loot. In game, fielding an army as an Arctic empire is monetarily much more difficult than a temperate one of similar military capacity as the Arctic is much poorer, meaning that in a war between the two, the temperate empire has the advantage. But in reality, the Arctic troops would be payed (and satisfied with) much less. Such a war would give great motive for the Arctic empire to take part of the temperate empire, and greatly enhance their own wealth and war-making capabilities, but not the other way around.
It's why China and the Roman Empire payed attackers to avoid them rather than paying their own people to fight them off; the barbarians will be satisfied with a little money (which for them is a lot) while paying your own subjects enough to make being part of the army a satisfying prospect is very expensive. This is further enhanced by the fact that, as the rich country is (or at least seems) a nicer place to live than the poor one, much of the poor country's population will be part of its army with the expectation of settling in the rich one, giving the mongols and goths vast armies compared to China and the Roman Empire.
Wait, you say, difference does regional wealth make at all then? Well, I've illustrated part of the reason already; while holding rich land is unlikely to help with domestic issues, for international purposes like bribing the Pope, paying dowries or hiring condottiere, it pays to be rich.
This, I think, would help gameplay in CK3 or EU5 quite a lot. Aside from the greater historicity, which many people enjoy paradox games for, it would significantly level the playing field both between many starts and along the course of many games, something valuable for multiplayer in the former case and keeping a challenge in the latter.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
