while I would certainly pay for that, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for it to be added to the scenario with the rest of the corrections in the works, like the OOB issues.
A House Divided: Why No Taiping Rebellion?
- Thread starter kingofparades
- Start date
-
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.
This game has Potato famine events, which can kill millions and destroy populations.
Deaths during the industrial revolution would be hard to represent but this is a war, well a rebellion that killed like 20-100 million people.
I think it's worth mentioning.
Deaths during the industrial revolution would be hard to represent but this is a war, well a rebellion that killed like 20-100 million people.
I think it's worth mentioning.
Doesn't China suffer from rebellions through most of the game? For the people who have no idea about the Taiping Rebellion (myself for example) would naming one of these rebel groups really make any difference? Or would they just kill them and move on like with any other batch of rebels.
Eh, the Taiping folks never controlled more than a tiny percentage of de jure Chinese territory. And I REALLY question the Army figures. If Taiping really fielded several million troops, then why in the world did they send less than 80,000 to the Qing capital?
Yes the Taiping Rebellion is a major event in world history, but I think people have got the wrong focus here. Do we really want another event chain, forcing the game down a predefined historical path? Or instead, should we encourage PI to focus on creating the mechanics that allow you to bring such events on yourself? I remember my frustration in Vicky I at having to constantly fight the Opium War as China regardless of what actions I took, because it fired off as an event. I think instead of creating a 'Taiping Rebellion' event chain, or even add it in the 1861 scenario, PI would be better served (and I have no doubt they are doing this anyway) focusing on tweaking rebels so that a badly managed China (or indeed, any nation in the world) will suffer from a serious, devastating and hard-to-defeat rebellion.
Also, very quickly in defence of the ACW included: it increased cotton prices, leading to massively increased revenue for the Khedives in Egypt, who then borrowed massively and built the Suez canal. The end of the ACW led to a decrease in cotton prices, forcing Egypt into debt, which lead to it being absorbed by the British, giving them control of the Suez Canal. International implications right there .
Also, very quickly in defence of the ACW included: it increased cotton prices, leading to massively increased revenue for the Khedives in Egypt, who then borrowed massively and built the Suez canal. The end of the ACW led to a decrease in cotton prices, forcing Egypt into debt, which lead to it being absorbed by the British, giving them control of the Suez Canal. International implications right there .
Last edited:
It is not "forcing the game down a predefined historical path" to represent, at game start, something major which was happening at game start. It's simply reflecting what was happening, much like Italy is mostly unified in the 1861 start.
Also, the Taiping cannot be represented by normal rebels, since for starters there's no rebels in the game that change a country's primary culture and religion (nor should such rebels really be appearing in most places). They would also have had significant effects on Chinese society if successful, that can be modelled by in-game modifiers.
While rebels cannot change a country's primary religion or culture, what they can (technically) do is to create a (technically) different country in its place, with a different primary religion or culture.
However, as you state, the Taiping cannot be represented by normal rebels, meaning they'll have to be given special treatment even in an 1861 start. That means that you have to allow it to happen from an 1836 start, which means some sort of event chain if it cannot be fitted into the current game mechanics. So we end up back at the "forcing the game down a predefined historical path". As you say, there is a deficiency in the rebel system that cannot really accommodate the major rebellion of the 19th century. I would argue that rather than creating an ad-hoc solution, surely a better way would be to fix up rebel mechanics? Modders can always add events for those who feel the need for them, but I'd prefer a game which responds to the decisions and changes I make, rather than ending up with the same boring old outcomes time after time because of too many events directing the game.
Last chance: if this doesn't stick strictly to gameplay discussion from here on, I'll close it.
A number of major V2 mods incorporate Taiping, so it certainly isn't impossible just using the current mechanics to model it.
This discussion is quite weird. For me, as playing Great Power in this game, the most important is to have more events to intervene. In this case, no matter ACW or Taiping rebellion are very good cases which the players as GP can get involved. Actually all GPs in this period try to intervene in crisis events for their benefit. It's not like someone say the taiping rebellion is not significant -- it will impact seriously on English and French benifit. The 2 countries always walk side by side for their benefit in China. The other case, if the event in China is not signifcant, historically the Tripartite Intervention shall not happen. Why Frence and German would help Russia ? I really expect the dev team shall bring more events to player. Just for enjoyment of play.
Last edited:
This could be create a disaster like the DW which will likely ruin the gameplay of such "focused/improved" nations.
For those of you who support Taiping (seem like most ppl), you have to let the devs do it step by step, which start by changing the 1861 scenario and adding either Taiping rebels all over the place or a unified Taiping nation in the South. Then the discussion of whether to add specific events/event chains can continue.
If the devs can't even realize the first step, feel free to rage over the roof like many others who are shocked by the new broken mechanics (GPs going bankrupt is usual right?)...
Well not really, since they are at heart religious rebels.
Unless your idea is to have them nationalists for the Taiping Heaven'y Kingdom? In which case the state they form has Taiping Christianity as its religion?
Also, doing some research into the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, they were in certain respects, more modernists. For example, foot binding and the hairstyles that indicated subservience to Manchu lords were abolished. And women fought too. Then again of course, there was the in theory vs the in practice administration, and corruption (boatloads of concubines, de facto kingship, etc). Maybe they should start the war with massive modifiers to their administration capability, and after they win, the modifiers gradually disappear.
As for their cult Christianity...the more I look at it, its not so much too different. Its certainly less...'heretical' (for want of a better word) than Mormonism (Latter Day Saints). Certainly, if they had won in some form, we would be calling it a Christian sect today. Either way, at the very least, China should get some modifier that helps make people taiping Christianity, and if they lose, the Taiping Christians mass emigrate if they can.
I don't quite understand your opinion/idea here... Care to explain/expand a bit?
Basically he's saying, you don't need to make special religious rebels just for the taiping rebellion, because making them nationalists and then having the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom have the religion works just as well.
Religious rebels would be a huge problem to properly simulate. You really end up courting controversy if you go out and try and simulate ethnic and religious conflict in a realistic manner. Best just to leave it alone.
Im not expert but Hong was trying to establish a kingdom, similar to the Renaissance Vatican with himself in power.
The nationalists would be trying to gain take control of their cores, which would be most of Southern China. A house divided has divided China up so it may be a
challenge to implement.
The nationalists would be trying to gain take control of their cores, which would be most of Southern China. A house divided has divided China up so it may be a
challenge to implement.