Why is the map scope of China hegemony unreasonable?

[DeanTheDull]

Legal territory should be calculated based on the peak period territory, otherwise why should Rome calculate based on the Mediterranean, Britain, and even Mesopotamia, India calculate based on the entire South Asian Peninsula and Myanmar, and China calculate based on the remaining territory of the declining period?

Because the hegemony of Rome does not exist, and is expected to continue not existing, and the hegemony of China does exist and is expected to continue existing, despite hiccups.

The balance of mechanics is based on what not only the players, but the AI, are able to do with them. One of the core mechanics of the game is the casus belli system for giving a basis for going to war. One of these, in turn, is the de jure ('legal territory' as your refer to it) casus belli, which over the course of the game goes from 'one county at a time' to 'all de jure territory at once.' If you make the de jure hegemony the map of peak period territory, you give every Chinese hegemon title holder a permanent de jure casus belli on the de jure territory until it drifts into another hegemony.

Which is impossible, since there are no other hegemonies for it to drift into. As such, de jure casus belli are an always-available casus belli for the hegemony of China for every part of the de jure hegemony scope.

Note that Rome, specifically, does not have this de jure option. The Roman Empire is de jure the territory that is held by the empire re-creating Rome. It unifies all the held de jure empires- it does not give a single de jure claim elsewhere.

What the Roman Empire does give is a 'restore imperial province' casus belli, which is not (and generally worse than) the de jure casus belli... not least because by the time you can use it, you very likely have either (a) already taken the territories, or (b) have considerably better casus belli than a single-duchy-at-a-time war. (Like, say, claimants for the Kingdoms.) This comes far later, and would be far less useful, than a hegemony-level de jure option.

 

[Abiehmuni]

I don't think de jure territory of Liaoning has vanished. Even though it was lost for some time, the will to recapture it has always existed. This is a reconquest movement belonging to China.

 

[luo]

neither Ming

Another issue that needs to be pointed out is that the Ming Dynasty went much deeper into the Zambian region of southwestern China than the Tang Dynasty. In addition to directly controlling Yunnan Province, administrative institutions were also established in the southern regions of Myanmar and Laos for tax management. In the Manchurian region, the Ming Dynasty far exceeded the control of the Tang Dynasty. Unlike the indirect control of the Tang Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty even established direct military strongholds at the mouth of the Amur River. In the direction of Tibet, the Ming government directly conferred titles on local religious leaders, exerted political influence, and collected other Tibetan tribes as tribute states. This area was under the control of its main rival, the Tubo Empire, during the Tang Dynasty. Even in the Western Regions, which the Ming Dynasty paid the least attention to, the Ming Dynasty set up seven military fortresses to control the eastern part of the Tarim Basin. At that time, the Chagatai Khanate was also a tributary country of the Ming Dynasty. Compared with the Ming Dynasty, the Tang Dynasty had more territory in the entire Gobi Desert, the entire Tarim Basin, and more western land to the Aral Sea and Afghanistan.

 

[luo]

The balance of mechanics is based on what not only the players, but the AI, are able to do with them. One of the core mechanics of the game is the casus belli system for giving a basis for going to war. One of these, in turn, is the de jure ('legal territory' as your refer to it) casus belli, which over the course of the game goes from 'one county at a time' to 'all de jure territory at once.' If you make the de jure hegemony the map of peak period territory, you give every Chinese hegemon title holder a permanent de jure casus belli on the de jure territory until it drifts into another hegemony.

I think the dynastic cycle mechanism has answered your question. At the beginning of the game, the Tang Dynasty was in an unstable period, while the Song Dynasty was in a period of internal focus, both of which did not encourage expansion. If AI China can expand freely in both periods, then the issue that should be considered is the cyclical mechanism of dynasties. If ai china enters the expansion period again, there will be no problem in territorial expansion to the Tarim Basin.

Or, why can't China expand into the Tarim Basin? China has been ruling these territories for hundreds of years in history, starting from 100 BC and also in the early Tang Dynasty.

In the situation where the capital of the Anxi Protectorate of the Tang Dynasty was completely surrounded and cut off from external supplies by the Tubo Empire, and lost contact with the central government of the Tang Dynasty, the local Tang army still held their ground for 20 years until the garrison died of aging before being captured. After the decline of the Tubo Empire, rebel forces immediately emerged in the Western Regions and established the Guiyi Kingdom under Han people rule, while demanding a return to Tang rule from the Tang government at that time. Can't these reflect the legal territory concept of the Chinese people at that time?

And I have already given the scope of my viewpoint, which is limited to increasing the Tarim Basin and Liaoning region, and does not require the entire territory during the peak of the Tang Dynasty. I think it is reasonable to add these two regions, both in terms of gameplay and historical significance.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

The current map of China hegemony is more like a correspondence to the political situation in 867, but the legal territory should not be so closely related to the politics at the beginning of the game.

For a long time since the AD era, Rome and China were considered the two major hegemons of the East and the West. However, the legal territory of Roman hegemony was the map of the Roman Empire's peak, while the legal territory of China hegemony was only within the scope of the Tang Dynasty after its decline in 867, which is unreasonable.

What? Since Christ's birth it's the Romans and Persians that have been the main hegemons of East and West, with China largely unknown.

The current situation is as strange as the legal territory after the reconstruction of Roman hegemony is limited to the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire in 867.

To reform rome you just start as byz and get a bit of italy and egypt, its really not hard

This was not controlled at the beginning, and it cannot be said that it was not included in the legal theory. Especially, even in the Song Dynasty, which was the most militarily weak, there were attempts to attack the western regions, and the Longyou Protectorate 陇右都护府 was established in 1104 (extending from Xining in Qinghai to the southeast corner of Tarim Basin)

Considering that the legal territories of the other three hegemonic titles are usually compared to their heyday, the legal territorial scope of Chinese hegemony should also be treated in the same way. For example, the whole Tarim Basin (the so-called Western Regions), which was inevitably controlled by several Chinese dynasties in the past, and the Liaoning area within the Great Wall (I have always wondered why here was excluded from the scope of China when there was Han people as the major ethinic group for a long time even untill Ming Dynasty, especially the Great Wall of the Qin and Han dynasties was still on the border of Liaoning region).

View attachment 1312417
Map of the Eastern Han Dynasty, imo the legal territory of China hegemony should be
View attachment 1312419
Map of the Tang Dynasty in its peak (period of Emperor Gaozong Lizhi 李治, son of Emperor Taizong Lishimin 李世民)

View attachment 1312420
The protrusion in the northwest of the map is the direction of the Song Dynasty's attack, and the Longyou Protectorate was established in 1104

View attachment 1312423
The light orange area is the Longyou Protectorate, the red arrow represents the military's marching route

Just like in many Western European countries where the legal territory is not fully mastered at the beginning of the game, this situation actually gives players the motivation to play, that is, to conquer all the legal territory of the current country.

For the player of Chinese dynasties, reclaiming lost territories and back to the peak period is an important source of immersion, especially when establishing various protectorates in the surrounding areas like the dynasties in history (I think this may be achieved through resolutions, such as honorary titles like Guiyi Kingdom, but at the imperial level)

Reclaiming lost territories has nothing to do with the unification of a full china, which is what the hegemony represents. Adding the Tarim Basin, Mongolia, and Korea is obviously too much land. Not everything the devs add, have to be what chinese players want added, they can add far more reasonable mechanics and borders.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Another issue that needs to be pointed out is that the Ming Dynasty went much deeper into the Zambian region of southwestern China than the Tang Dynasty. In addition to directly controlling Yunnan Province, administrative institutions were also established in the southern regions of Myanmar and Laos for tax management. In

Do you mean the southern regions of those respective countries, or that those countries, which are south of China, had some admin institutions set up by the Ming?

 

[strattonthebard]

Given the way the hegemony is supposed to break apart and reform it makes far more sense for the de jure boundaries to be "land required to be considered a unified China" rather than "land Chinese dynasties controlled at their greatest extent" (honestly I'm a big skeptical of Annan being included for that reason). If the Roman hegemony was de jure on the map at game start in a similar fashion I'd expect it to have the post crisis of the third century borders under Aurelian rather than at their fullest extent under Trajan.

 

[luo]

Supporters of strict legal territorial theory may need to first explain why Byzantine legal territory includes regions such as Georgia, Croatia, Serbia, Sicily, etc. Byzantium lost these regions, but could still declare war on the grounds of territorial claims, while the Tang Dynasty could not after losing the Western Regions. Perhaps you would say that Byzantium is not a hegemonic rank title, it doesn't matter anymore.

Reclaiming lost territories has nothing to do with the unification of a full china, which is what the hegemony represents. Adding the Tarim Basin, Mongolia, and Korea is obviously too much land. Not everything the devs add, have to be what chinese players want added, they can add far more reasonable mechanics and borders.

Wait, don't modify my original words. I only mentioned two regions, Liaoning and Western Regions.
Are you claiming that I also demanded Mongolia and Korea because you think others won't read my exact words?

 

[luo]

It seems that I need to make a new statement.

My view is to increase the Tarim Basin and Liaoning, but not to reach the full territory of the Tang Dynasty. Although Mongolia, Korea, and Manchuria were ruled by the Tang Dynasty at different times, they did not last long enough, and there was no Han cultural or political identity in the local areas, so they are not in my opinion.

My reasons:

Both the Tang Dynasty and the previous unified dynasties owned these two regions (except that the too short Qin Dynasty only owned Liaoning), and even the equally short Sui Dynasty also owned half of the Tarim Basin and disintegrated after three failed wars to conquer Liaoning. This represents a sufficiently long period of rule, and the unified Chinese dynasty will attempt to control these two regions and continue to rule as territories. Especially in Liaoning, the Qin and Han Great Wall was built along the border of Liaoning region, and according to the division of the Great Wall, Liaoning should not be separated from China's legal territory.
During game time, the populations in these areas have a Chinese cultural and political identity. Especially in the Western Regions, there were Han uprisings requesting to return to the rule of the Chinese dynasty, which represented the local people's understanding of the legal territory of the Chinese dynasty at that time.

Regarding whether it will affect game balance:

The dynastic succession system may be able to adjust the tendency of AI China, and only during periods of expansion will it have a normal tendency towards aggression.
The Tang Dynasty was in an unstable period, while the Song Dynasty was in a period of focusing on domestic affairs. Adjusting AI could enable AI China to maintain a low tendency towards aggression without changing dynasties. When the expansion era dynasty appears, players are already strong enough and can serve as challenges in the later stages of the game.
Most importantly, the Tarim Basin has a small number of earls, and almost all of them are desert and dry land. Liaoning has only one principality. I find it hard to imagine that adding these two regions would significantly affect the balance. The addition of legal territory is to encourage AI to expand more towards these two historical expansion directions, rather than towards strange directions such as Tibet, Cambodia, or Japan.

Does it affect the establishment of the new dynasty:

During the establishment of the Song Dynasty, the number of territorial counts exceeded 3/4 of the hegemonic territorial scope I proposed, which was fully sufficient to rebuild hegemonic title of China.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

It seems that I need to make a new statement.

My view is to increase the Tarim Basin and Liaoning, but not to reach the full territory of the Tang Dynasty. Although Mongolia, Korea, and Manchuria were ruled by the Tang Dynasty at different times, they did not last long enough, and there was no Han cultural or political identity in the local areas, so they are not in my opinion.

My reasons:

Both the Tang Dynasty and the previous unified dynasties owned these two regions (except that the too short Qin Dynasty only owned Liaoning), and even the equally short Sui Dynasty also owned half of the Tarim Basin and disintegrated after three failed wars to conquer Liaoning. This represents a sufficiently long period of rule, and the unified Chinese dynasty will attempt to control these two regions and continue to rule as territories. Especially in Liaoning, the Qin and Han Great Wall was built along the border of Liaoning region, and according to the division of the Great Wall, Liaoning should not be separated from China's legal territory.
During game time, the populations in these areas have a Chinese cultural and political identity. Especially in the Western Regions, there were Han uprisings requesting to return to the rule of the Chinese dynasty, which represented the local people's understanding of the legal territory of the Chinese dynasty at that time.

Regarding whether it will affect game balance:

The dynastic succession system may be able to adjust the tendency of AI China, and only during periods of expansion will it have a normal tendency towards aggression.
The Tang Dynasty was in an unstable period, while the Song Dynasty was in a period of focusing on domestic affairs. Adjusting AI could enable AI China to maintain a low tendency towards aggression without changing dynasties. When the expansion era dynasty appears, players are already strong enough and can serve as challenges in the later stages of the game.
Most importantly, the Tarim Basin has a small number of earls, and almost all of them are desert and dry land. Liaoning has only one principality. I find it hard to imagine that adding these two regions would significantly affect the balance. The addition of legal territory is to encourage AI to expand more towards these two historical expansion directions, rather than towards strange directions such as Tibet, Cambodia, or Japan.

Does it affect the establishment of the new dynasty:

During the establishment of the Song Dynasty, the number of territorial counts exceeded 3/4 of the hegemonic territorial scope I proposed, which was fully sufficient to rebuild hegemonic title of China.

There was probably an equal amount of han settlement in the tarim basin as there was in korea. I think the translation quirk of "de jure territory" to "legal territory" gives away how chinese people might be insulted that parts of their modern day borders arent included, when its perfectly reasonable for the tarim basin to be outside of the chinese hegemony when much of ck3 period will see it outside of chinese control. Wanting chinese rule doesnt mean you are chinese, it just means your prefer the rule of the chinese emperor to whatever local ruler you have, whether you are han, sogdian or turkic

 

[Byzantium2000]

Ultimately as others have said Hegemonies as they’re being implemented are gameplay first reality or logic second.

If a Hegemony is United Roman Empire then 867 Tang and 1066(let alone 1178) Song are definitely not Hegemons. If we apply China standards to the rest of the world then 1066 Byzantium should be a declining hegemony. Heck ingame Admin Byzantium is the strongest(broken op) realm on the map where’s its Hegemon status lol.

But I agree with all of Rubidiums point. It’s easier to balance for the player and ai this way most likely.

 

[luo]

There was probably an equal amount of han settlement in the tarim basin as there was in korea. I think the translation quirk of "de jure territory" to "legal territory" gives away how chinese people might be insulted that parts of their modern day borders arent included, when its perfectly reasonable for the tarim basin to be outside of the chinese hegemony when much of ck3 period will see it outside of chinese control.

I think I have explained the reason in detail: for a long time, the Tarim Basin has been regarded as an important part of China, while Korea is not, even though it seems strange. The Han, Jin and Tang dynasties all ruled the Tarim Basin rather than Korea for a long time, even though Korea seems more "sinicized".

Regarding the issue of translation, in fact, these two words have completely identical meanings in Chinese, simply because I am not sure what the correct translation should be. Stop your arbitrary speculation about my thoughts, this is just a discussion of historical issues, unrelated to modern boundaries and politics.

I even believe that Yunnan should not be included in the scope of China hegemony, because the Han and Jin dynasties had more indirect rule over this area, while Yunnan in the Tang dynasty was completely independent. In 867, the last Chinese dynasty to control Yunnan was the Jin dynasty, which was close to 500 years ago.

In contrast, the control of the Tang Dynasty over the Tarim Basin did not end until 840. Did the "de jure territory" here disappear completely less than 30 years later? This is completely unreasonable.

 

[CrazyRat]

Maybe – instead of extending the de jure Hegemony at the 867 – there should be a “Recreate the Western Protectorate” decision that would incorporate the reconquered territories back to the Hegemony? This way the main Chinese Hegemony title holders would be less likely to maintain direct control through the majority of CK3 timeframe, but the reconquering Empire could very quickly reestablish full extent of the prior borders on de jure map.

 

[TheSeraphim]

It's good to see China threads taking up the banner of Balkan threads.

 

[strattonthebard]

I don't think it's totally unreasonable for the Tarim Basin to be included in the de jure hegemony but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion either. Under the Han it seems to have been governed different from most of China and was a distinctly peripheral territory, under the Tang it was consistently being lost to Tibetan conquest and regained and lost again, none of which really suggests integral part of the Chinese empire to me. I think once we get a better look at the de jure map a little further to the west and see what the de jure empire it's included in looks like the picture might be a little clearer.

 

[treb]

The current map of China hegemony is more like a correspondence to the political situation in 867, but the legal territory should not be so closely related to the politics at the beginning of the game.

For a long time since the AD era, Rome and China were considered the two major hegemons of the East and the West. However, the legal territory of Roman hegemony was the map of the Roman Empire's peak, while the legal territory of China hegemony was only within the scope of the Tang Dynasty after its decline in 867, which is unreasonable.

The current situation is as strange as the legal territory after the reconstruction of Roman hegemony is limited to the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire in 867.

This was not controlled at the beginning, and it cannot be said that it was not included in the legal theory. Especially, even in the Song Dynasty, which was the most militarily weak, there were attempts to attack the western regions, and the Longyou Protectorate 陇右都护府 was established in 1104 (extending from Xining in Qinghai to the southeast corner of Tarim Basin)

Considering that the legal territories of the other three hegemonic titles are usually compared to their heyday, the legal territorial scope of Chinese hegemony should also be treated in the same way. For example, the whole Tarim Basin (the so-called Western Regions), which was inevitably controlled by several Chinese dynasties in the past, and the Liaoning area within the Great Wall (I have always wondered why here was excluded from the scope of China when there was Han people as the major ethinic group for a long time even untill Ming Dynasty, especially the Great Wall of the Qin and Han dynasties was still on the border of Liaoning region).

View attachment 1312417
Map of the Eastern Han Dynasty, imo the legal territory of China hegemony should be
View attachment 1312419
Map of the Tang Dynasty in its peak (period of Emperor Gaozong Lizhi 李治, son of Emperor Taizong Lishimin 李世民)

View attachment 1312420
The protrusion in the northwest of the map is the direction of the Song Dynasty's attack, and the Longyou Protectorate was established in 1104

View attachment 1312423
The light orange area is the Longyou Protectorate, the red arrow represents the military's marching route

Just like in many Western European countries where the legal territory is not fully mastered at the beginning of the game, this situation actually gives players the motivation to play, that is, to conquer all the legal territory of the current country.

For the player of Chinese dynasties, reclaiming lost territories and back to the peak period is an important source of immersion, especially when establishing various protectorates in the surrounding areas like the dynasties in history (I think this may be achieved through resolutions, such as honorary titles like Guiyi Kingdom, but at the imperial level)

I mean strictly speaking "Rome" in CK3 is defined as just 15 duchies, You can have the title E_Byzantium and only these 15 duchies and form Rome and be a hegemony. Here is the what that would effectively look like...

 

[DiabloDeVille]

I think I have explained the reason in detail: for a long time, the Tarim Basin has been regarded as an important part of China, while Korea is not, even though it seems strange. The Han, Jin and Tang dynasties all ruled the Tarim Basin rather than Korea for a long time, even though Korea seems more "sinicized".

But you didnt use a source to show the han population of korea vs the han population of the tarim basin

Regarding the issue of translation, in fact, these two words have completely identical meanings in Chinese, simply because I am not sure what the correct translation should be. Stop your arbitrary speculation about my thoughts, this is just a discussion of historical issues, unrelated to modern boundaries and politics.

They do mean the same thing, but de jure territory is a game mechanic, even if de jure is just french for "by legal right".

I even believe that Yunnan should not be included in the scope of China hegemony, because the Han and Jin dynasties had more indirect rule over this area, while Yunnan in the Tang dynasty was completely independent. In 867, the last Chinese dynasty to control Yunnan was the Jin dynasty, which was close to 500 years ago.

In contrast, the control of the Tang Dynasty over the Tarim Basin did not end until 840. Did the "de jure territory" here disappear completely less than 30 years later? This is completely unreasonable.

Its not completely unreasonable, the caliphate has ruled iran for so long, and yet its under the persian empire not the arabic empire. Barcelona was long a part of the visigoths, but in 867 is under francia. De jure in game isnt an exact modelling of what states have been organised how 100 years before (how long assimilation is in game). As pointed out above, should tibet have it as de jure for recent ownership and so a reunified tibet (which even has a cheevo) can easily invade it? Steppe people influenced the region greatly and it had even been part of the Gokturks and Ughyur khanates, so we can see its not an undisputed chinese possession

 

[DiabloDeVille]

I mean strictly speaking "Rome" in CK3 is defined as just 15 duchies, You can have the title E_Byzantium and only these 15 duchies and form Rome and be a hegemony. Here is the what that would effectively look like...

The file name should be "i love the buy claims perk"

 

[pCWentY]

Suitable map scope of China hegemony​

​

Map scope of Tang​

 

[Basiluca]

I agree with Liaoning but not Tarim basin, it depends on the poplution of this territory but not merely control time, where Han people live in where is China