Mandates and Korea

[The Turk2]

Ok fair enough, you hate substates and puppets and satellites. But then why does Korea start off with only 10 relationship points with China? That if anything does not make sense at all, and you have to agree on this. You have substates and puppets represented elsewhere, I don't understand why its so taboo to use it in this case? Not to mention it wouldn't make such a large difference at all, like having Serbia a puppet of Russia would. If anything the relationship between China and Korea should be represented in another way, either through alliance and high relationship points, or them being a puppet, which shouldn't affect anything except the historicity and reality of this game. As for Japan invading Korea, I agree with you, it should not deterministic, at least for the human. Instead perhaps only the AI Japanese should be encouraged to take Taiwan and Korea (but more importantly Korea). Would giving the player a casus belli against Korea be too deterministic in your opinion?
Is the mod that changes the names of Korean regions to Japanese names, added to this mod (including APD)?

Also have Tunisia as a puppet of the Ottomans, when in fact the Dey was very independent of the Ottomans (just like Korea to China), in fact the Tunisians have the oldest Constitution in the Middle East in 1861 (independent of the Ottomans). In fact Tunisia modernized quite quickly, with a new army, a high level bureaucracy and developed economy, even sending troops to the Crimean War and against the French.

Also I'll reply about Lebanon and that region next, I did some extra research, and I've realized your using a the army flag of modern Lebanon (no wonder I've never seen it before). Whoever did the setup for the region, didn't do a very good job at all.

PS. When Napoleon III comes to power, why does his flag change to the fleur de lis? I don't think the French Tricolour was removed during his reign, even if he was a "King" (or Emperor) of France.
EDIT: Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Second_Republic
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_Empire
The Second Republic, when Napoleon III came to power after 1848, continued to use the French Tricolour. Minor error but still considerable.
If you really want to represent Napoleon III you can use this flag. But I believe that was only his personal standard, rather than something that could represent the entire 2nd French Empire.

[Muskeato]

PS. When Napoleon III comes to power, why does his flag change to the fleur de lis? I don't think the French Tricolour was removed during his reign, even if he was a "King" (or Emperor) of France.
EDIT: Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Second_Republic
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_Empire
The Second Republic, when Napoleon III came to power after 1848, continued to use the French Tricolour. Minor error but still considerable.
If you really want to represent Napoleon III you can use this flag. But I believe that was only his personal standard, rather than something that could represent the entire 2nd French Empire.

I'm pretty sure that's to do with flags being tied to government types.

[Rylock]

I'm pretty sure that's to do with flags being tied to government types.

It is. We'd need to either change the French monarchy flag or switch Napoleon's government type to dictatorship, though this has been discussed before at length.

[Rylock]

Also I'll reply about Lebanon and that region next, I did some extra research, and I've realized your using a the army flag of modern Lebanon (no wonder I've never seen it before). Whoever did the setup for the region, didn't do a very good job at all.

I didn't do the setup for Lebanon, but a word of advice: if you'd like us to listen to suggestions, you might want to make them sound like actual suggestions and less like lectures-- because that's how they're coming across. Middle Eastern history is something Naselus knows very well. It's his field of study. So whatever you're researching, it's not something he doesn't already know.

[The Turk2]

It is. We'd need to either change the French monarchy flag or switch Napoleon's government type to dictatorship, though this has been discussed before at length.

Hmmm... I forgot about that. But since when does France revert to a full-fledged monarchy anyway? I understand that Charles X used the fleur-de-lis but after 1830, he was dethroned, and they would never come to power ever again. Starting with Louis-Phillipe the French tricolor was used throughout the July Monarchy. Overall France always is extremely liberal, and then either socialist or fascist, but it never reverts, nor did it in history. So perhaps wouldn't it be better just to represent the monarchy with the tricolour as well, as it did represent Louis-Phillipe and Napoleon III (both Kings/Emperors of France).

I didn't do the setup for Lebanon, but a word of advice: if you'd like us to listen to suggestions, you might want to make them sound like actual suggestions and less like lectures-- because that's how they're coming across. Middle Eastern history is something Naselus knows very well. It's his field of study. So whatever you're researching, it's not something he doesn't already know.

Fair enough, I do get quite heated about these things, especially during the work week. But you should know that the only reason I'm taking my time to do this, is because of the extreme awe and amazement at the job you guys have done in A Pop Demand Mod and in A Pop Divided mod. I understand if I can come of as pushy, but I'm not very good at writing out more persuasive posts. I'll just post information, and I hope you guys take into account. I by no means expect you, nor am I demanding you to change anything. I am one person in a community of many others, and therefore only represent one voice. But again let me assure you, that I would not be doing this, if I did not already have great admiration for your work. If you don't want to add something, just don't. I'm extremely sorry that I've offended you, that was not the impression I was trying to make at all; I just want to try and help you guys make this mod even better than vanilla, and better than it already is. Once again sorry if I've offended you, that was not my objective.

And yes I know you did not do the setup for the region, I'm just saying there are a few errors with it, which can be easily fixed, as you said.

[Rylock]

Hmmm... I forgot about that. But since when does France revert to a full-fledged monarchy anyway? I understand that Charles X used the fleur-de-lis but after 1830, he was dethroned, and they would never come to power ever again. Starting with Louis-Phillipe the French tricolor was used throughout the July Monarchy. Overall France always is extremely liberal, and then either socialist or fascist, but it never reverts, nor did it in history. So perhaps wouldn't it be better just to represent the monarchy with the tricolour as well, as it did represent Louis-Phillipe and Napoleon III (both Kings/Emperors of France).

Possibly, though one must also account for the possibility of a Reactionary rebellion and thus a monarchy coming into power that has nothing at all to do with Napoleon-- we must account for the ahistorical things the game can do, not simply the ones that happen as a result of scripted events.

I actually tried the Napoleonic version of the flag before, and it just didn't look very good in-game. I suppose we could switch to the regular tricolor flag for monarchies... but then I think that's all France has. How boring.

I'm extremely sorry that I've offended you, that was not the impression I was trying to make at all; I just want to try and help you guys make this mod even better than vanilla, and better than it already is. Once again sorry if I've offended you, that was not my objective.

I'm not offended. Having someone lecture on history, however, does make it really tempting to simply not listen at all. History's great, but it doesn't always translate well into the game-- and that's ignoring the fact that there seem to be ten different interpretations of such things, the setup in the Middle East especially.

And yes I know you did not do the setup for the region, I'm just saying there are a few errors with it, which can be easily fixed, as you said.

Read what I said about interpretations-- history is rarely that set in stone, especially when one tries to translate it into limited gameplay mechanics. We could change it to your specifications (if that's even possible), and then have someone come along two months from now and be determined that it must be some other way completely... possibly by presenting the same evidence or Wikipedia links. Happens all the time, in fact.

So be careful about presenting things as "errors", that's all I'm saying.

[Naselus]

Alright guys, chill the beans; let's not throw the 'offended' word around here :P

First things first; I'm an academic anthropologist by trade - an economic anthropologist, in fact, but none the less I've had considerable amounts of academic training in regards to the history of the Middle East, where I considered doing fieldwork (I'm now looking at working class identity in the USA, actually, but I've got a while before they pack me off), and which I've written more essays than I can count on pre-and-post colonial politics. There's two things to remember about that - first, I've had dozens of lectures from world-leading experts on middle east history, and second, it means I've been rigorously trained to regard wikipedia as slightly less trustworthy than a bloke I meet in the pub.

Now, I respect that you've done a course on Middle Eastern history. I respect that you've read some books on the subject; it's more than likely that I've read them too, in fact. I very definitely prefer that to the usual requests for changes we get, which are based more on 'I'm Polish and I live in Leipzig, so there should be a Polish core there' approach that we get from people requesting changes. On the other hand, don't quote wikipedia articles at me. Quote page numbers and academic texts - don't worry about whether I can get hold of them, as I can assure you I can; John Rylands Library is literally five minutes from my house and I have unlimited access to all 2.4 million books in it. I can, in fact, quite comfortably track down the May 1842 legal records for the civil court in Manchester, and tell you what happens in line 47 of page 432. If you can build a case for a change based on that, and we cannot find a decent rebuttal, then I will make changes.


HOWEVER. Quoting Wikipedia is a great way to make us completely ignore you. As I say, I don't rate it as a source, because if I ever quote wikipedia in a piece of work that wasn't directly addressing how flawed wikipedia is, I would be crucified. Like Rylock says, we make a change based on your interpretation of history backed up by a wikipedia source, and then ten minutes later someone else quotes the exact same wiki article telling us we should change it back. Poland is one of the best examples of this; Rylock changed the Polish core setup dozens of times before he finally got sick of it.

Yes, it seems a little OTT to demand a peer-reviewed academic text as backup for alterations on a mod for a computer game; and yes, sometimes what gets put in is weirdly ahistorical for gameplay reasons (Tunisia, for example, was vassalized so the French would stop taking it over by 1838). However, if we change things whenever someone says 'I disagree with this', all we'd do is move cores back and forth all over Poland all day, and the game would also become ludicrously random extremely quickly. I plot a course between 'what the game permits' (which is hugely relevant when dealing with non-Westphalian states like the OE) and 'what can be understood to have actually happened at the time' (which, let's be brutally honest, you don't know any better than anyone else - you know what you've been told, just like the rest of us).

It really, really doesn't offend me in the slightest to be told I'm incorrect; tbh, it's more or less what I do for a living. I fully expect to be critiqued, as it's part and parcel of the job I'm being trained to do. However, I DO need a lot more than a couple of wiki pages that you could quite easily have changed yourself immediately before posting links to. I'm not saying that's what you did; what I am saying is, they could easily have been written by a bored janitor who'd read the first four pages of Ottoman, and neither of us would know (well, I would in that particular case, but if it was a piece on Brazilian autonomous regions within the Amazon Jungle in 1836, I wouldn't).

Many things in the mod are as they are for technical or gameplay reasons, as well; those won't be changed even if history demands it. Better to have an ahistorical Tunisia that survives until the historical annexation date than a historical one that disappears in 3 months every game. As such, labelling things 'errors' should be done with great caution, and history should NEVER be taken as an absolute - as in the Korean case, where vassalization is undesirable, and the Tunisian case, where it IS desirable, regardless of the fact that historically both countries were in more or less the same position in 1836 - tribute-paying but politically independent states.

[Muskeato]

John Rylands Library is literally five minutes from my house

Stalker mode activated

[Rylock]

Alright guys, chill the beans; let's not throw the 'offended' word around here :P

Oh, I was just urging caution on the language-- I'm not angry. You've seen me angry, after all.

Insofar as my specific thoughts on these things:

Lebanon: I'd like to go down to just LEB cores and get rid of LBC and LBM entirely. They won't split up according to the religion of the pops involved, after all... you'd need to make two new rebel groups for each which are specific to the pops' religions. Even then, countries which try to free either of them will do so randomly and don't free the one that corresponds to their own religion anyhow.

Ideally I'd like to take out LEB, PLS and JOR cores and replace them all with SYR cores... and have those other cores replace the SYR cores whenever someone other than Egypt or the Ottoman Empire controls their respective states. That would be easy to do, and corresponds to Greater Syria and the Arab Kingdom of Syria (yes, I know, Wikipedia links). But you've said previously that the cultures in those other places were already different enough to warrant their own cores, so I won't argue the point.

Korea: The only part where I'd agree with The Turk2's assessment is the part where Russia often ends up grabbing Korean provinces in a very ahistorical fashion (I've seen that, too) after taking HaIshenwai. An easier fix would just be to increase Russia's relationship with Korea so the AI won't invade. It would be easy enough to make a few events to switch around the Japanese invasion or otherwise deal with a Korea where that event doesn't occur... but I imagine the vassal thing would mean we'd be exchanging one set of issues for another.

[The Turk2]

Possibly, though one must also account for the possibility of a Reactionary rebellion and thus a monarchy coming into power that has nothing at all to do with Napoleon-- we must account for the ahistorical things the game can do, not simply the ones that happen as a result of scripted events.

I actually tried the Napoleonic version of the flag before, and it just didn't look very good in-game. I suppose we could switch to the regular tricolor flag for monarchies... but then I think that's all France has. How boring.

Its true that there might be reactionaries (ultra-royalists), and of course you need to be prepared for every outcome, but frankly not only does that never happen in French History (after 1830), but I have never in my life seen France go back to being an absolute monarchy on its own in any Victoria 2 game (modded or not). But still I agree that you need to be prepared for the possibility, which is why the French Tricolour (because you have the attached Napoleon III event), makes sense for the Absolute Monarchy, as even during the rule of Louis-Phillipe (who in his own way became more and more of an absolutist) and after that Emperor Napoleon III, they all used the French Tricolour. And if I remember correctly France has different flags if it becomes a Communist country or if it goes fascist (which I have seen happen quite a lot); so they wouldn't 'only' have the French tricolour.

I'm not offended. Having someone lecture on history, however, does make it really tempting to simply not listen at all. History's great, but it doesn't always translate well into the game-- and that's ignoring the fact that there seem to be ten different interpretations of such things, the setup in the Middle East especially.

Read what I said about interpretations-- history is rarely that set in stone, especially when one tries to translate it into limited gameplay mechanics. We could change it to your specifications (if that's even possible), and then have someone come along two months from now and be determined that it must be some other way completely... possibly by presenting the same evidence or Wikipedia links. Happens all the time, in fact.

So be careful about presenting things as "errors", that's all I'm saying.

Ok, I hate to admit this, but my English is not that great (its not my first language), and therefore I tend to struggle at times. So once again I'm not trying to be pushy at all, I understand that you have absolute power when it comes to modding, so when you read my posts, just remember I'm not trying to be rude or impetuous towards you, I'm just trying to improve a mod which I love so much, for a game I greatly enjoy. That is all.

All the suggestions I'm making are doable (if they are not, just tell me), all I'm asking for is that Korea be a puppet of China,, which I believe I have given evidence towards. You have replied back saying that you both detest Puppets/Satellites, and that is your opinion, so I'm not going to try to change that. All I'm going to say is that having Korea as a puppet would not change gameplay that much, except create a more realistic setting in East Asia, as currently Korea is a free country with only 10 relationship points with China, there is no representation of their vassalage to China, which I personally believe is an oversight in the region. Those are just my two cents, take it or leave it, that is all.

Also when I say things like "errors" I mean in a strict historical sense, it would be an error. I'd be really stupid to believe that this game can follow history 100% (But I love that you guys try, like your work with the Boer Wars, which is really awesome). So if I say "xyz" is an error, I'm simply referring to the fact that for historical reasons it is wrong. I'm not trying to lecture you or tantalize you into accepting my version of everything.

Korea: The only part where I'd agree with The Turk2's assessment is the part where Russia often ends up grabbing Korean provinces in a very ahistorical fashion (I've seen that, too) after taking HaIshenwai. An easier fix would just be to increase Russia's relationship with Korea so the AI won't invade. It would be easy enough to make a few events to switch around the Japanese invasion or otherwise deal with a Korea where that event doesn't occur... but I imagine the vassal thing would mean we'd be exchanging one set of issues for another.

Yes, and not only that, its not like they take the far northern province (closer to them), they pick a province, dividing the country in two, which is frankly ridiculous. Where I disagree with you though, is that Korea and Russia need to have a higher relationship. Not only is that not historically plausible, but we'd see Korean-Russian alliances against China or Japan or whomever, it would be a very odd mix.

I don't fully understand what you were writing about, with the whole "Japanese events switching", but an easy fix (and I've already done this in a couple of my APD games), would be having Korea as a vassal of China. What this effectively does, is protects Korea from outside influence and attack, and what's cool is that I saw China put down rebellions in Korea, keeping it isolationist. Unfortunately though in both my French and Sicilian game, I have not gotten to the point of seeing how Japan would react. Also you say that this would create more issues, how so though? Is it because of the events? Are they hard to change? I have yet to delve into modding events, looks interesting though.

[The Turk2]

Alright guys, chill the beans; let's not throw the 'offended' word around here :P

Well lets get one thing straight, I'm not offended, but I'm afraid that I've offended the both of you, which was not my intent at all.

Now, I respect that you've done a course on Middle Eastern history. I respect that you've read some books on the subject; it's more than likely that I've read them too, in fact. I very definitely prefer that to the usual requests for changes we get, which are based more on 'I'm Polish and I live in Leipzig, so there should be a Polish core there' approach that we get from people requesting changes. On the other hand, don't quote wikipedia articles at me. Quote page numbers and academic texts - don't worry about whether I can get hold of them, as I can assure you I can; John Rylands Library is literally five minutes from my house and I have unlimited access to all 2.4 million books in it. I can, in fact, quite comfortably track down the May 1842 legal records for the civil court in Manchester, and tell you what happens in line 47 of page 432. If you can build a case for a change based on that, and we cannot find a decent rebuttal, then I will make changes.

I've done more than one course in Modern Middle Eastern and East Asian History (starting 1700), so I can claim to have that knowledge fresh in my head. And watch what you say Naselus, or else I'll start quoting all sorts of things, and you'll have to make changes then!
Seriously speaking though, I do have some of my textbooks with me at home, but you have to realize that 80% of my posts here are from when I'm outside of my home, and/or do not have time to do that. Frankly speaking though I think that is one of the great things about wikipedia, because it does the "high detailed" research for you. I might sound naive saying this but I've never had a problem with wikipedia at all. I'm just stating widely known historical facts, nothing specific that would need to be quoted out of a 1842 book on legal records, nor do I think you can disagree with anything I am saying history wise. Not only that but I actually had the great fortune of meeting Jimmy Wales, (wow I'm going off topic), and I asked him that exact question about the accuracy of wikipedia's articles, and he smoothly responded saying that all of wikipedia's articles are required to have a bibliography (which all the links I have posted have, in great abundance), and not only that Wikipedia has begun hiring experts on certain fields (especially the science and history pages), to correct any slight mistakes that there might be. But once again Naselus I'm not quoting any unknown fact here. The fact that Korea was a puppet of China until 1895 is a known fact. The fact that there was no such thing as "Muslim Lebanon" or "Christian Lebanon" is another well-known fact (it would be like calling the UK, "Britannia"). The only thing I guess you could argue are the links to flags, but I have no other way of proving that, other than through wikipedia, which has its on bibliography you can look up at the end of the article. Needless to say I plan to present my case with further research on Lebanon, and the region, once we are finished with this issue of East Asia.

HOWEVER. Quoting Wikipedia is a great way to make us completely ignore you. As I say, I don't rate it as a source, because if I ever quote wikipedia in a piece of work that wasn't directly addressing how flawed wikipedia is, I would be crucified. Like Rylock says, we make a change based on your interpretation of history backed up by a wikipedia source, and then ten minutes later someone else quotes the exact same wiki article telling us we should change it back. Poland is one of the best examples of this; Rylock changed the Polish core setup dozens of times before he finally got sick of it.

I replied to most of this above, but I just wanted to add, that if you think that ANYTHING I'm telling you, is inaccurate, or if ANYONE in this entire forum can argue that what I say is inaccurate then so be it, I'll withdraw my case. But the fact is that I'm stating very well known historical facts, that anyone can find in any book. The reason I use wikipedia, is because I don't have access to books, while writing this, and because wikipedia remains to be the most concise and easy to read format for me to distribute information to you and everyone else, rather than forcing you to believe I a quote from a book, you do not have access to, or that anyone else as access to. So to sum up everything, wikipedia is not for expert discussion, but I'm making broad statements, I'm not trying to quote the tax returns of citizens of Paris in 1899 (if there were even tax returns )

Yes, it seems a little OTT to demand a peer-reviewed academic text as backup for alterations on a mod for a computer game; and yes, sometimes what gets put in is weirdly ahistorical for gameplay reasons (Tunisia, for example, was vassalized so the French would stop taking it over by 1838). However, if we change things whenever someone says 'I disagree with this', all we'd do is move cores back and forth all over Poland all day, and the game would also become ludicrously random extremely quickly. I plot a course between 'what the game permits' (which is hugely relevant when dealing with non-Westphalian states like the OE) and 'what can be understood to have actually happened at the time' (which, let's be brutally honest, you don't know any better than anyone else - you know what you've been told, just like the rest of us).

Ok so if you dispute anything I say for historical reasons, just ask me (with the exception of the flags), and I'll find further proof from a book.

It really, really doesn't offend me in the slightest to be told I'm incorrect; tbh, it's more or less what I do for a living. I fully expect to be critiqued, as it's part and parcel of the job I'm being trained to do. However, I DO need a lot more than a couple of wiki pages that you could quite easily have changed yourself immediately before posting links to. I'm not saying that's what you did; what I am saying is, they could easily have been written by a bored janitor who'd read the first four pages of Ottoman, and neither of us would know (well, I would in that particular case, but if it was a piece on Brazilian autonomous regions within the Amazon Jungle in 1836, I wouldn't).

Well I'm happy that you were not offended, again that was not my intention
And yes I agree with you, if I read something on wikipedia which sounded off, I check it from an other source, but I have yet to encounter that problem. And as you have seen from my previous posts, I have not been talking about such specific things like the autonomous regions in the Amazon jungle, I'm making very well known statements about the state of Lebanon and the region after WW1 and the state of Joseon Korea as a puppet/vassal of China. So whether you want to add in a puppet/vassal into the game is up to you, but I don't think you can dispute the fact that Korea was a puppet of China up until 1895 (first Sino-Japanese War).

Many things in the mod are as they are for technical or gameplay reasons, as well; those won't be changed even if history demands it. Better to have an ahistorical Tunisia that survives until the historical annexation date than a historical one that disappears in 3 months every game. As such, labelling things 'errors' should be done with great caution, and history should NEVER be taken as an absolute - as in the Korean case, where vassalization is undesirable, and the Tunisian case, where it IS desirable, regardless of the fact that historically both countries were in more or less the same position in 1836 - tribute-paying but politically independent states.

First off, forget about what I said about Tunisia, it might have confused you, and frankly after reading it again, I confused myself. I like that they were a puppet of the Ottomans, it annoyed me to no end in vanilla that Tunisia would collapse so quickly to the French.
And yes I agree with you that history is not an absolute, (you can read what I wrote to Rylock concerning this), but I don't think you or anyone else can argue the fact that Korea was not a puppet of the Qing Dynasty until 1895. It is well proven evidence that Joseon Korea became independent (or nominally, as the Japanese crept in), at that time.

Furthermore I cannot see how making Korea a puppet would be so difficult. I've already done it, (on top of APD 3.0.3), and its worked really well, and Russia has not weirdly invaded it. But as I've said above, I would like to see how Japan reacts, when it is unified and modernized. But I believe events which are already in place, and represent Japan attacking China and freeing Korea.

[Naselus]

Heh, some of the sources quoted for wiki bibliographies are rather laughable in themselves, tbh; their approach of 'you must have a bibliography' would work a lot better if they realised that simply being in a bibliography doesn't make a source accurate - I've read some shockingly inaccurate stuff which wikipedia claims to be fact, and then checked their source to find they've quoted a knitting magazine, a blog post or even just a random forum entry. It's a shame, since wikipedia is a really nice idea; but their methods for 'ensuring' that the pieces are truthful are generally better for making it look like they're trying for accuracy than for actually assuring accuracy. I've spent a lot of time sifting through archaeological pages, and they regularly present theory as fact, and even quote absurd creationist or Von-Daniken-esque books as if they were scientific studies. It's not bad for a very, very, very general overview of a subject, but I wouldn't trust it as far as I can spit over any details.

Now, on Korea - the Chinese say it was a vassal, but the Chinese presented EVERYONE as a vassal, and have for about three thousand years. It's just the logical extension of calling your emperor the leader of 'all under heaven' - it would be logically impossible for anyone to approach him on even terms, so everyone else must be vassals. In simply practical terms, there's no way Qing China could seriously prevent anyone from attacking Korea (since they couldn't prevent anyone attacking themselves, either) - in fact, they historically didn't (c/f the French 1866 campaign, and the 1871 US intervention). A vassalized Korea makes historical events impossible to achieve without clunky event mechanisms. History shows quite clearly that the supposed vassal relationship between China and Korea was pretty much on paper only - Korean kings were pretty firmly anti-Manchu, save for queen Min, and while they made an exception in their isolationism for the Chinese, there was no real military support from either side and little interference in Korean politics unless it was requested. Compared to 'real' vassal relationships (like the British in India, or the Russians in Finland), it just doesn't measure up.

The ideal solution would, as I've said before, be for Korea to be in the Chinese SOI (which is considerably closer to how their relationship actually worked), but since China doesn't have an SOI until it modernizes it's not implementable. And since vassals are extremely poorly done in V2, the only real effect of making them a vassal would be making Korea pretty much invulnerable for three quarters of the game. This is not desirable, as several powers did attack Korea during the supposed Chinese supremacy, decades before Japan did so. The official end of the protectorate was in 1876, but in truth the protectorate had ceased to operate years earlier. If anything, the Sino-Japanese war was as much a matter of China trying to regain influence it had lost long before as it was Japan trying to usurp China.

And we're not saying that making Korea a vassal would be difficult - we know exactly what we'd have to do to implement the change. We're saying that there's not enough of a good reason to do so, given the number of problems that vassal states cause. Chief amongst these, of course, is that vassals are incredibly boring to play as, and a modernized Korea is a fairly popular choice for players. If the AI understood vassals better, or if vassal relationships were made more flexible than they presently are, then I would make Korea into a Chinese vassal quite happily; but since the AI doesn't understand vassals and they aren't flexible at all, I won't. We essentially use vassals to break the game when it's required (like the Tunisia example), and in Korea's case it's not really required. We tried to do a lot of things to protect Tunisia before we turned it into an Ottoman satellite, too; in the end, we were forced to do it rather than actually choosing to do so - vassal treaties are used as a last resort.


As to Lebanon - sure, I can't see any sensible justification for having two Lebanons. I think they were put in by Atmafox back in 2010 to try and permit a Christian- or Muslim-ruled revolt, but that was long before we understood how rebels worked, or that religion is simplistic to the point of absence. Getting rid of one wouldn't be a problem, tho as I say there were plenty of Muslim Lebanese attempts to break free of the Ottomans prior to the period, so its not as clean-cut as just having Christian Lebanon and Muslim Syria. But then again, nothing has ever made much sense in the Middle East.

I'm not keen on the idea of replacing all the Arab minors with just Syria at the start - at the very least, it makes it much harder for small nations to break off from the OE, and also makes it harder to use Free Peoples against them. Hell, it would also probably risk Syria never showing up at all. Given the tendency of the OE's pasha's to go rogue, it probably makes more sense to give each Vilayet a tag and the capacity to rebel against the sultan, and remove those cores if the area's not controlled by the Vilayet or the OE. Have the modern cores there as well. etc etc.

In truth, it's probably just time we revisited the Middle East from scratch, and built in some more metasystems for the tumultuous post-empire states. A Syrian core-spread device might be cool, for instance, when Arab nationalism starts to occur.

[Mikeboy]

I've made flags for a united Hashemite state, if you think that would help you in future.

[The Turk2]

Sorry for the long delay, I've been away on vacation (part of my trip in Lebanon ), and sorting out other real world stuff, so I haven't had time to post anything recently.

Anyway before I begin about the Middle East (don't know how I got so side-tracked on Korea, when IMO there are much larger issues at hand), I'd just like to say that if you are so against puppet states, something I still disagree with you on, then at least boost the relations between China and Korea. This is something I said earlier, but you either ignored it or missed it, but currently their relationship starts at "0". It should at least be above 150, if not higher then that. You cannot deny the simple statement that China heavily influenced Korea throughout the 19th century, so the fact that they are so distant from China I find to be very strange. Lastly the main reason I wanted you have Korea as a puppet of China, is because all too often Russia comes and eats a province or two of Korea, which is really weird. Is it possible to force Russia to loose interest in Korea? Or for it to be harder for Russia to wage such huge wars against China/Korea in general. Also I'm not sure if this is in place, but having China demand Port Arthur would be interesting (although it shouldn't be called Port Arthur until its given over to the Russians/other Western powers).

Lebanon/Syria
I wrote this a while ago, I've just been saving it until after we finished the Korea issue.

As to the Middle East thing - I didn't actually set up the multiple Lebanons, and I don't really recall who did, so I'm not terribly invested in them and it's a very clunky answer to the problem. However, I'd also dispute that Lebanon would reliably want to remain part of Syria under Muslim control - since it's not only just plain untrue, but also what about if Lebanon is released from the Ottoman Empire without Syria? Would Lebanese rebels like Fakhr al-Din in the 17th century have refused independence unless they took Syria with them?

I’ve been told that you were responsible for it. I’m guessing therefore that this was a random mod that was added to APD afterwards? Because I find the representation of a few elements in the Middle East (most likely, things you had nothing to do with), to be badly portrayed or misrepresented completely. That’s actually a very good point you make about Fakhr al-Din, but as you said he was from the 17th century, and really he does not have any place with the centralizing tendencies of the Ottoman Empire especially by the time the Ottomans recapture the Levant (which in every game I’ve seen, they manage to do). But it still leaves a question mark, if the British had put the region of Lebanon into their SoI, (which is improbable considering that the French have had a stake in the region since the 16th century), but even still, if the British release Lebanon, then it would be the “Emirate of Lebanon”, (example: Bashir III, who was appointed 1840); not “Muslim Lebanon”; I have no idea where the idea for the flag or the name came from though. Here is a good Wikipedia article on it, with the proper flag and name. (NOTE: It can be called Principality of Lebanon, if it is an independent Ottoman puppet/satellite, but otherwise if Muslim and independent it would be called the Emirate of Lebanon.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Lebanon
Another interesting link (note that 1860; which I’m referring to, is when Lebanon is separated as a province away from Syria, and administered by *Christians*, not Muslim/Druze families).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Le...l_intervention

You need to think outside of context. Yes, specific case of the French mandate was opposed by the Muslim majority, who would rather have been part of Syria than live under a Christian government in a French colony; however, there's more than enough examples of the individual Muslim rulers of Mount Lebanon who wanted to control an independent, Islamic Lebanon, dating back to the very start of Ottoman rule in the area. There's no reason an independent Lebanon would always be ruled by Christians, as the vast majority of attempts to free it from Ottoman rule were by either Druze or Muslim groups - who were not always interested in combining with Syria.

This is where I believe you are wrong, as French influence in Lebanon did not begin in 1918/1919, right after WW1 (as I’m sure you know), but rather the Catholic Maronites and other Christian Catholic communities of not only Lebanon, but also Syria and Palestine, had always special trade and social ties with France. Napoleon III for example styled himself as the Protector of the Christian peoples in Mount Lebanon. As you know, this was largely shown in the Lebanese 1860 Conflict:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Lebanon_conflict
Although the Ottomans moved quickly to re-establish peace and order in the region, by cracking down on the Muslim offenders, France still sent a force to keep the peace (and push their own political agenda, which they failed to do so). Also France was the main country that created the settlement that created an autonomous Lebanon, under a Christian governor (mutasarrif).
Therefore a really cool event you could easily include would be the Muslim massacre of the Christian of Lebanon. It would be an event which would fire to France, Austria, UK, Prussia (historically correct, but gameplay wise perhaps not). The event would ask the player or AI to either not do anything but for increased consciousness, or greatly decrease relations/influence with the Ottomans, but if enough money is spent (representing the intervention), then a Mount Lebanon country can be formed, as a satellite of the Ottomans, but in the SoI of the French (or if you want to include Austria and UK, then them too). But of course before this happens, the Ottomans get a message, which either allows them to ignore the crisis, for lowered conciseness' or intervene, increasing militancy in Syria, but keeping its territory intact as historically happened, with increased consciousness in the Lebanon region.
Obviously this is just my interpretation of such an event, but I’m sure you could create a much better one yourself.
And you could use this painting as the pop-up image (French soldiers intervening in Lebanon 1860):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ugust_1860.jpg

Of course, the game's quite limited in this respect, so it's probably not worth having both. But we need better justification than the reaction of the Lebanese people to one specific instance in history, especially when it's quite clearly not representative of the long-term trend in the area. What it mostly boils down to is that the Middle East is a mess IRL, which makes it quite hard to represent properly in the game.

EDIT: I found the flag I believe the person used for Muslim/Christian Lebanon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le...ficialflag.png
It’s the flag of the modern Lebanese military -___-“ (fail).

In conclusion, as you said in your above quote, the entire region needs a shakeup, I would just like to highlight one part of that shakeup. Definetly though an alt history of a Kingdom of Syria with no European mandates should be considered as a possibility, and a possible outcome. In this case though the Kingdom of Syria should be formed if the Arab Revolt succeeds and Damascus is occupied by Arab (Mishriqi) rebels. Then a Kingdom of Syria cores should be added responding to what Sharif Hussein envisioned his sons future Kingdom would look like; with perhaps the additional effect that the Kingdom of Syria would be in the UK's SoI, angering France, who would then demand a a free (Christian) Lebanon (which would be in their SoI). And then you could have increased pressure for a Jewish state, putting Israeli cores on Palestine. Now that would be a MUCH more interesting Middle East to look at and play with

Persia
Qajar Persia is almost always sucked up by Russia and then by the Ottoman Empire. In reality though Nasir al-Din Shah of Persia (there should be an event in 1848 for his coronation), was a great friend of Russia and Britain, sacrificing his own people for their imperial interests. Can we have it so that Russia/UK fight over sphering Persia rather than fighting over territory of Persia? Also Persia should be more interesting to play, for example you could have an event for the establishement of the Cossack Brigade, with the need for high relations with Russia, giving Persian troops perhaps a slight bonus and closer relations with Russia. Another event can be the Tobacco Protestwhich would trigger a revolt if relations are too close with Russia/UK, hence forcing the player to either fight the revolt or pay the indemnity to the Tobacco company and face a relationship penalty with the UK. Again I'm unsure if this is already included but the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1906 should be represented somehow, making Persia a Prussian Constitutionalism state, or the opposite by angering liberals and sparking a revolt. Also just as China is "Qing China", Persia should be "Qajar Persia", and then around 1920 (historically 1925), a Pahlavi take over should take place, sparking a Civil War, and if the Pahlavi's win changing the state to an Absolute Monarchy, changing the name to Pahlavi Persia and of course a change of the flag. Overall something should be done to make the UK/Russia more interested in sphereing Persia. And modernizing Persia should be a harder task overall.

[ayafox]

As I have known, Korea became china's actual Satellite in 1882(Imo Incident). Qing made a sequence of unequal treaty with Korea and stationed an army in there, which absolutely menaced japanese imfluence in Korea. Since then Japan had tried hard to rebuild their influence, but it's not successful until 1894 First Sino-Japanese War when Japan finally cleared out Chinese influence in Korea(or, maybe release it from China). But that doesn't mean Korea will be added to the Japanese Sphere. As a matter of fact, Japan was fell into another competition with Russia, which made Korea become considerable independent until Russo-Japanese War in 1905.

Then turn to the France question. Isn't it a better idea to make Second French Empire a prussian constitutional government? Tricolore can be adopted in prussian constitutional government while absolute monarchy flag remains as it's usual.
Apparently, it's not complicated.

[ayafox]

Here is my proposal for France Quesiton:

1.Firstly, I changed some details in \events\LiberalRevolutions.txt, mostly political reform. I managed to make them more accurate.

country_event = {

	id = 10223
	title = "EVTNAME10223" #Louis-Napoleon's Coup d'Etat
	desc = "EVTDESC10223"
	major = yes

	fire_only_once = yes

	trigger = {
		tag = FRA
		has_country_flag = 2nd_republic
		has_country_flag = louies_back
		government = democracy
		election = yes
		year = 1850
		owns = 410
		NOT = { year = 1860 }
	}
	
	mean_time_to_happen =  {
		months = 2

		modifier = {
			factor = 0.75 #increase likelihood to happen
			average_militancy = 1
		}
		modifier = {
			factor = 0.5 #increase likelihood to happen
			average_militancy = 2
		}
	}

	option = {
		name = "Viva la 2nd Empire!" 
		prestige = 50
		government = prussian_constitutionalism
               	ruling_party_ideology = conservative
		political_reform = universal_voting
		political_reform = party_appointed
		political_reform = no_meeting
                political_reform = censored_press
                political_reform = state_controlled
		political_reform = underground_parties
		capital_scope = {
			any_pop = {
				ideology = { factor = 0.1 value = reactionary }
			}
		}
		any_pop = {
			limit = { pop_majority_ideology = reactionary }
			ideology = { factor = 0.1 value = reactionary }
		}
		any_pop = {
			scaled_militancy = {
				ideology = reactionary
				factor = -8
			}
			scaled_militancy = {
				ideology = conservative
				factor = -4
			}
			scaled_militancy = {
				ideology = liberal
				factor = 4
			}
			scaled_militancy = {
				ideology = anarcho_liberal
				factor = 4
			}
		}
		any_owned = {
			remove_province_modifier = labor_union
			remove_province_modifier = militant_trade_union
			remove_province_modifier = worker_union
			remove_province_modifier = strike_solution
			remove_province_modifier = province_strike
			remove_province_modifier = may_day
		}
	}
}

2.history\countries\FRA - France.txt, I changed government flag and 1861 part

govt_flag = {
	government = hms_government
	flag = presidential_dictatorship
}

govt_flag = {
	government = prussian_constitutionalism
	flag = presidential_dictatorship
}

schools = culture_tech_school

oob = "FRA_oob.txt"
1850.1.1 = {
 decision = support_french_foreign_legion
}
1861.1.1 = {
	oob = "/1861/FRA_oob.txt"
	prestige = 140
	set_country_flag = claimed_authority_over_holy_land
	set_country_flag = cochinchina_campaign
	clr_country_flag = liberal_election_win
	plurality = 65
	foreign_investment = {
		PAP = 8000
	}

set_country_flag = 2nd_empire
set_country_flag = 2nd_republic
	
# Political reforms
slavery = no_slavery
upper_house_composition = party_appointed
vote_franschise = universal_voting
public_meetings = yes_meeting
press_rights = censored_press
trade_unions = state_controlled
voting_system = first_past_the_post
political_parties = harassment
	
# Social Reforms
work_hours = twelve_hours

ruling_party = FRA_conservative_3
government = prussian_constitutionalism
upper_house = {
	fascist = 0
	liberal = 0
	conservative = 100
	reactionary = 0
	anarcho_liberal = 0
	socialist = 0
	communist = 0
}

3.And I also changed France influence in some nations. France should have weaker influence in these two Italian nations in 1836.

PAP = {

	value = 125		#relation

	level = 3		#3=cordial, 4 = friendly, 5 sphere

	influence_value = 0

}

SAR = {

	value = 125		#relation

	level = 3		#3=cordial, 4 = friendly, 5 sphere

	influence_value = 0

}

[Rylock]

Why would France be a Prussian Constitutionalism government, exactly?

[Gaius Marius I]

Why would France be a Prussian Constitutionalism government, exactly?

It is probably the closest equivalent V2 has to what France should be at least in formal terms, a limited constitutional monarchy during the Second Empire. V1 had the setting "laws by decree" which fitted it perfectly I always thought since Napoleon III didn't allow the Parliament to take many decisions.

It certainly seems better than the vanilla setting of Presidential Dictatorship at least, which doesn't even allow the Bonapartiste to be the ruling party....

I think Gerrymandering would be a better setting than Harassment though for Political Parties.

[Rylock]

It is probably the closest equivalent V2 has to what France should be at least in formal terms, a limited constitutional monarchy during the Second Empire. V1 had the setting "laws by decree" which fitted it perfectly I always thought since Napoleon III didn't allow the Parliament to take many decisions.

It certainly seems better than the vanilla setting of Presidential Dictatorship at least, which doesn't even allow the Bonapartiste to be the ruling party....

I think Gerrymandering would be a better setting than Harassment though for Political Parties.

I'm not so sure. Prussian Constitutionalism would imply some measure of democracy and/or ability for the people to determine policy vis a vis the party elected, and I don't get the sense that's the case here. Napoleon III determined policy, and the legislative body-- while elected-- had no actual influence. Just because the people might elect a liberal government, for instance, doesn't mean the government's policies would actually change.

Perhaps I'm wrong-- I have no special knowledge, after all-- but this is a case in which the gameplay effects would need to take priority over the technicalities.

[ayafox]

I'm not so sure. Prussian Constitutionalism would imply some measure of democracy and/or ability for the people to determine policy vis a vis the party elected, and I don't get the sense that's the case here. Napoleon III determined policy, and the legislative body-- while elected-- had no actual influence. Just because the people might elect a liberal government, for instance, doesn't mean the government's policies would actually change.

Perhaps I'm wrong-- I have no special knowledge, after all-- but this is a case in which the gameplay effects would need to take priority over the technicalities.

To player, ruling party changes is nothing, Prussian Constitutionalism allows you to appoint the ruling party despite vote result. To AI, some events might work.