• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think the division of Okinawa in three provinces aims at reflecting the three kingdoms that fought in the island, I personally think it gives actual depth to the political situation of these territories. For example, the division of Japan in multiple territories might help better to feel the struggle between local feudal powers who came to rise. For Korea , until the 7th century the country was divided and making just a few provinces wouldn't enable to simulate the possible regional divisions, the country wasn't a monolithic entity throughout its history. Well that's just my point of view I'm not a dev after all.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
is it even possible to have postmortem naming? at face value it seems like not much more than rehashing the newborn naming event but such simplicity generally belies the unceasing pain in the ass that events like these can pose.
It could be handled by rename or by nicknames. It's certainly possible. Why do you think that those events would "belly the unceasing pain in the ass"?

Also, why is Vietnam called Annam? It was known as Dai Co Viet since 968 and in 1054 it was renamed to Dai Viet by Emperor Ly Thanh Tong (personal name Ly Nhat Ton).
 
:3

i was hoping for that. i wasn't sure though since the chinese dynasties liked to have family names that differ from the official.
seriously who'd ever guess that these guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Zhu are actually the ming dynasty?

at least the koreans knew what the hell their family names were!:p

Yeah, the Chinese and the Koreans liked to establish a Dynasty name which doubled as the country name, separate from the family names which were based on clans meaning a lot of them had the same family names. Though different from the Western concept, I have decided to go for the dynasty names rather than family names for the established dynasty, since a) they sound cooler and b) this is a dynasty game.
Additionally, a Chinese dynasty equates a family only 99% of the time, like Later Qi to Later Liang was an in-house usurpation of Xiao family between 4th cousins once removed, yet the winner changed the dynasty name, and there's Later Zhou whose throne passed from a Guo to a Chai, the former's adopted son, without a dynasty change; however it's due to the previous emperor executing their respective families for no obvious reason that they revolted anyway.
 
at least the koreans knew what the hell their family names were!:p
That's why Koren ruling family during Goryeo Dynasty bore Wang surname, or during Joseon dynasty they were named Yi... oh wait.
 
I think the division of Okinawa in three provinces aims at reflecting the three kingdoms that fought in the island, I personally think it gives actual depth to the political situation of these territories. For example, the division of Japan in multiple territories might help better to feel the struggle between local feudal powers who came to rise. For Korea , until the 7th century the country was divided and making just a few provinces wouldn't enable to simulate the possible regional divisions, the country wasn't a monolithic entity throughout its history. Well that's just my point of view I'm not a dev after all.
True, but these counts make the map unbalanced.

I count 63 provinces in Japan (just the red provinces, not counting either tribes or the southern islands). That's more than France (52, which is k_france + k_aquitaine + d_flanders), who had around 9 million people in the year 1000.
Population estimates for Japan of the time average around 6 million. So Japan should have had 2/3rds of France's province count (which is 35), but instead it has 1/5th more. That's 45% too many provinces.

Now, for Korea (just the blue parts) there's 43 provinces on this new map. I cannot find Korean (Goryeoan) population estimates anywhere, but I did read that the population remained fairly homogeneous throughout the ages, with very little immigration. That's about the same case with Japan. So, I now make the assumption that the ratio between the populations of the countries stayed sort of consistent over the past 1000 years. 76 (N+S Korea) / 126 (modern Japan) * 6 (medieval Japanese population) = 3.6 million people. 3.6/9 (France medieval population) *52 (France provinces) = 21 provinces. It has more than twice that on this map.

I know I took a couple leaps of logic here. I know I should have counted holdings instead of provinces, but I cannot see holding counts in the screenshots. I know that there's little chance for France to ever get in a war with Korea (I probably should have compared to Indian regions, but I doubt I would have found population figures there if I cannot even find them for Korea). But this should at least demonstrate that something is off. This way, a ruler of Korea gets twice the income of the ruler of a similarly-populated country in Europe. They can have twice the amounts of grand tournaments, build twice as many castle towns, etcetera.

To offset these population imbalances, each Korean and Japanese province would need to be about twice as poor. That in turn would make any single one of them less worth conquering, and grant them a military advantage while it also slows down warfare.

That's why I think there's just too many provinces, and that a lot of them should be merged.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
True, but these counts make the map unbalanced.

I count 63 provinces in Japan (just the red provinces, not counting either tribes or the southern islands). That's more than France (52, which is k_france + k_aquitaine + d_flanders), who had around 9 million people in the year 1000.
Population estimates for Japan of the time average around 6 million. So Japan should have had 2/3rds of France's province count (which is 35), but instead it has 1/5th more. That's 45% too many provinces.

Now, for Korea (just the blue parts) there's 43 provinces on this new map. I cannot find Korean (Goryeoan) population estimates anywhere, but I did read that the population remained fairly homogeneous throughout the ages, with very little immigration. That's about the same case with Japan. So, I now make the assumption that the ratio between the populations of the countries stayed sort of consistent over the past 1000 years. 76 (N+S Korea) / 126 (modern Japan) * 6 (medieval Japanese population) = 3.6 million people. 3.6/9 (France medieval population) *52 (France provinces) = 21 provinces. It has more than twice that on this map.

I know I took a couple leaps of logic here. I know I should have counted holdings instead of provinces, but I cannot see holding counts in the screenshots. I know that there's little chance for France to ever get in a war with Korea (I probably should have compared to Indian regions, but I doubt I would have found population figures there if I cannot even find them for Korea). But this should at least demonstrate that something is off. This way, a ruler of Korea gets twice the income of the ruler of a similarly-populated country in Europe. They can have twice the amounts of grand tournaments, build twice as many castle towns, etcetera.

To offset these population imbalances, each Korean and Japanese province would need to be about twice as poor. That in turn would make any single one of them less worth conquering, and grant them a military advantage while it also slows down warfare.

That's why I think there's just too many provinces, and that a lot of them should be merged.

You're right. Maybe a solution as you said would be two keep the number of provinces but with less holdings or poorer..
 
You're right. Maybe a solution as you said would be two keep the number of provinces but with less holdings or poorer..
A problem with that would sadly be that there's no longer an intuitive relation between city size and no of holdings. Paris, Rome and Alexandria are big-ass cities, and have seven holdings each. So if Beijing (he said he'd update China too), also a big-ass city, has 3 holdings, it sounds like it is half the size of the other three, while it is really that a number of the outskirts are in different provinces.
 
Love the changes to Japan.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
By the way, I want to clarify that I love the level of detail @Deathlinger put into the map. I greatly respect his efforts, and will never approach his level of knowledge on the area. I just think this is not the right direction.
 
Well considering that east Asia and Europe will hardly never meet, it's not such big of a problem neither. But i understand that you could find it less immersive in a way.
Maybe for people who just want to play in east Asia the immersion would be lower if the number of holdings weren't as high. I guess expectations vary depending on people.
It depends on whether or not people want to play this mod only to play in Asia or want to have a real "worldwide" mod..
 
Last edited:
Hey all, the province number of Japan was based on this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Japan to properly display the political system that's in the area. Japan is very unique in it's power and law structure that when it's fully coded and event-ed, it should be a reward for the player to be powerful (as it takes a while to get to that stage imposing a sort of balance, as of 1066 and of writing this Japan fields a smaller army than France.) Of course all balance issues are up for discussion and we might have to lower the number of potential holdings for the provinces, at the moment it is significantly weaker than China and at the start date even Korea as in real life.
As for Korea this design choice was made for a more strategic area, as it now has more less holding provinces than a small number of large provinces with a huge number of holdings. Korea at the start date fields about the same as France, which is in part due to the more militarised bow-man states in the north that are used to fighting the Khitans.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
It could be handled by rename or by nicknames. It's certainly possible. Why do you think that those events would "belly the unceasing pain in the ass"?

idk it just seems like the kind of event that looks simple but is actually difficult to mess around with. i've never seen any mod so much as touch it so it kinda weirds me out.

but even with the nicknames you'd still want to be able to name them. it's the difference between Hirohito I "Shōwa" Yamato and Hirohito I "thatguywhobingewatcheskabuki" Yamato

That's why Koren ruling family during Goryeo Dynasty bore Wang surname, or during Joseon dynasty they were named Yi... oh wait.

east asian dynasty naming is weird:confused:

Hey all, the province number of Japan was based on this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Japan to properly display the political system that's in the area. Japan is very unique in it's power and law structure that when it's fully coded and event-ed, it should be a reward for the player to be powerful (as it takes a while to get to that stage imposing a sort of balance, as of 1066 and of writing this Japan fields a smaller army than France.) Of course all balance issues are up for discussion and we might have to lower the number of potential holdings for the provinces, at the moment it is significantly weaker than China and at the start date even Korea as in real life.

As for Korea this design choice was made for a more strategic area, as it now has more less holding provinces than a small number of large provinces with a huge number of holdings. Korea at the start date fields about the same as France, which is in part due to the more militarised bow-man states in the north that are used to fighting the Khitans.

nice! i really wasn't sure about so many provinces but both of these make things very clear.
 
Last edited:
idk it just seems like the kind of event that looks simple but is actually difficult to mess around with. i've never seen any mod so much as touch it so it kinda weirds me out.

but even with the nicknames you'd still want to be able to name them. it's the difference between Hirohito I "Shōwa" Yamato and Hirohito I "thatguywhobingewatcheskabuki" Yamato
Well, once this mod finally comes out, I plan to find some time and write some kind of a system for that. Also it would fix the problem of regnal numbers, because temple names were unique and didn't repeat during one dynasty.

Actually I would prefer the player to have either little agency over the temple name or none at all. It wasn't something you choose (most of the time), but temple names were based on the reigns. Was he the first Emperor? Taizu then. Great ruler? Taizong or Gaozong then. Warlike? Wuzong etc.
east asian dynasty naming is weird:confused:
Consider it a mental shortcut. Ming is the name of the state, while Zhu is the name of the ruling family. However, in 99% of cases whenever a ruling family changes, a new state is declared. What doest that mean? That pretty much STATE=DYNASTY and that's how it is used.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
so for the alpha are there any culture specific features implemented? seppuku, adult adoption, etc? i remember seppuku being in All Under Heaven way back in 2.1.6 days.
 
Consider it a mental shortcut. Ming is the name of the state, while Zhu is the name of the ruling family. However, in 99% of cases whenever a ruling family changes, a new state is declared. What doest that mean? That pretty much STATE=DYNASTY and that's how it is used.

that's still confusing!:p it's probably just me not knowing the culture but how does Ming get to Zhu?
 
that's still confusing!:p it's probably just me not knowing the culture but how does Ming get to Zhu?
The name of state is choosen pretty arbitrarily. Often it's connected to the geographical region where the ruler had his original power base (Liu Bang was known as Prince of Han before becoming Emperor of Han. Han itself came from the region he ruled, Hanzhong). Those geographical names in turn came from ancient states of Warring States period. The system had broken down somewhat with Mongol Yuan dynasty after which names become more descriptive: Ming - bright, Qing - pure etc.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
At the moment I must iterate that this is a working Map release. With a lot of flavour and mechanics in the works the experience at full release will be completely different to this, in such cases as Japan many mechanics are missing and so it might be quite powerful to begin with, but be assure this will be resolved in future updates.
 
Hey all, the province number of Japan was based on this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Japan to properly display the political system that's in the area. Japan is very unique in it's power and law structure that when it's fully coded and event-ed, it should be a reward for the player to be powerful (as it takes a while to get to that stage imposing a sort of balance, as of 1066 and of writing this Japan fields a smaller army than France.) Of course all balance issues are up for discussion and we might have to lower the number of potential holdings for the provinces, at the moment it is significantly weaker than China and at the start date even Korea as in real life.
As for Korea this design choice was made for a more strategic area, as it now has more less holding provinces than a small number of large provinces with a huge number of holdings. Korea at the start date fields about the same as France, which is in part due to the more militarised bow-man states in the north that are used to fighting the Khitans.
First off: I am very much pleased by hearing that you took army counts and balance into consideration :) I shall trust your judgement on Japan.

However, I do stick with my opinion on Korea. Have you thought about vassal limits? Having Korea be represented as a nation the size of the Wendish Empire will for the king of it play like a small empire, instead of it being small and wealthy and the size of Lotharingia+Brabant+Flanders, which would play like a medium-sized kingdom. Rulers of Korea can take less territory outside Korea before they have to declare themselves emperors, a title which looks off when put right next to the humongous empire of China, which technically holds the same rank.
 
First off: I am very much pleased by hearing that you took army counts and balance into consideration :) I shall trust your judgement on Japan.

However, I do stick with my opinion on Korea. Have you thought about vassal limits? Having Korea be represented as a nation the size of the Wendish Empire will for the king of it play like a small empire, instead of it being small and wealthy and the size of Lotharingia+Brabant+Flanders, which would play like a medium-sized kingdom. Rulers of Korea can take less territory outside Korea before they have to declare themselves emperors, a title which looks off when put right next to the humongous empire of China, which technically holds the same rank.
Though Goryeo was ruled by emperors before Mongol subjugation...
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Though Goryeo was ruled by emperors before Mongol subjugation...
Only because the Chinese tolerated it. I'd be tempted to call them petty emperors in this context. They were an empire the same way East Anglia was a kingdom.