AGC-EEP Indonesia & Phillipines

[Mad King James]

A serious revolt/jihad should occur in Majapahit in 1478, causing Mataram (in Bandung) to revolt from Majapahit. Mataram should then proceed to destroy both Majapahit and Pajajaran. In 1548 Banten (in Sunda) should break from Mataram in a dynastic squabble. Mataram should then have pretty much a civil war by the end of which the capital is moved east.

Anyways, the whole story of all the conquests and etcetera is here:
http://www.gimonca.com/sejarah/sejarah01.html

The capital of Pajajaran is at Jakarta and the capital of Majapahit is at Surabaja.

 

[Mad King James]

This is going to be one of those one-sided discussion threads ain't it
C'mon Indonesia is a damn spicy area in the game, I mean damn just look at that history of conflict and power-play!

 

[Norrefeldt]

Have to write something then...
I note that ten new tags are used in your map, which ones do you regard as most needed in terms of importance and also event-wise? Which ones got into AGC? How did the states introduced affect colonisation in the area?

 

[Twoflower]

Really sorry, I know this is all very well thought-out and justified, but I am strongly against using up 10 new tags for Indonesia.
Besides, I'm afraid many people won't like colonization in Indonesia being almost entirely impossible.

 

[Mad King James]

The places that were colonized were the areas that should be colonized and culturally dominated by Euros (northern Phillipines, Timor Island). Remember that most of the sultanates weren't conquered by Europeans until the mid 19th century.

All of them are extremely important, but the most important are Majapahit, Ternate, and Pajajaran.

By the way, Gowa=Makassar (Makassar was the capital of Gowa).

And actually, if you count revolters, it's 13 tags...

I know it's a lot, but Indonesia is the most neglected area in the ENTIRE GAME. Even east africa had a passable attempt at representation.

 

[Mad King James]

Originally posted by Twoflower
Really sorry, I know this is all very well thought-out and justified, but I am strongly against using up 10 new tags for Indonesia.
Besides, I'm afraid many people won't like colonization in Indonesia being almost entirely impossible.

Colonization in Indonesia is supposed to be impossible, I'm not sure why it's possible in the regular GC.. Very few areas in Indonesia were colonized as EU represents colonization.

 

[Twoflower]

Originally posted by Mad King James
Colonization in Indonesia is supposed to be impossible, I'm not sure why it's possible in the regular GC.. Very few areas in Indonesia were colonized as EU represents colonization.

Well, I can't help but agree probably then. So how do you wanna free 13 tags?

 

[Mad King James]

Don't suppose we can talk Johan into uncapping that tag limit eh?

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Mad King James
Colonization in Indonesia is supposed to be impossible, I'm not sure why it's possible in the regular GC.. Very few areas in Indonesia were colonized as EU represents colonization.

Well I'll go back to my old argument that most of it was TPed, and a good representation of these sultanates is lots and lots of ferocious natives, so that a real army is needed to take them out.

It is true that the historical situation just doesn't work under the EU model.

 

[Mad King James]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Well I'll go back to my old argument that most of it was TPed, and a good representation of these sultanates is lots and lots of ferocious natives, so that a real army is needed to take them out.

It is true that the historical situation just doesn't work under the EU model.

There were parts of China that were even more TPed though, should they be empty?

 

[Garbon]

I think moderation ( which mean axing a dis-united Ethiopia ) is called for in this situation. Which states can't we live without and which states are so necessary?

And that passable attempt at East Africa isn't over yet. When I'm done, the Portuguese won't have a spot to colonize. Taking land or having it handed over should be done by events not colonizing. I couldn't get the events done in time, so Portugal is still allowed to colonize in places that are rightfully Kilwa's.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

most of these were already in the AGC, and the map here doesnt even show a couple of phillipine nations, such as Magindanao, which were agreed to be removed but didnt get removed in the latest AGC version. all of them will need to be included unless we come to some agreement. I am still against Luwu Buton Gowa as separate nations so maybe we could try and fuse them into the one realistic province in some way. i would also say that Kedah is a marginal nation. basically the need to be represented as a nation decrease if there was not that much conflict with external forces.

 

[Norrefeldt]

If we apply MKJ:s Ragusa rule for real but perhaps not so useful states, that I found rather neat in all it's simplicity:

a: A state was firmly under the thumb of a local power
b: Tended to just let foreign powers march through their territory without being too annoyed by the fact
c: Didn't do a hell of a lot of consequence in their entire history

How many of these states will pass? If not, I agree with Isaac Brock, ferocious and numerous natives work out well as a representation, since it covers point a and b, and does what c says.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

for (a), i think you mean a state was NOT firmly under the thumb of a local power. otherwise, it is opposite to (b) or (c)

just responding off the top of my head to start with, Ternate and Sulu certainly do not pass (b) because they were nations historically posed strong resistance to European colonisation. the nations on java island certainly dont pass (c) and (a) just by the sheer size of the number of subjects under their rule, the state of their civilisation, and the frequent interaction including wars engage with other nations. if they are not nations, then most of the nations in the world at that time shouldnt be nations. Brunei was a great trading nation with sophisticated administration and diplomatic interaction with nations in SE Asia as well as China, expanding into southern Phillipines during the course of the timeframe, i find it difficult to say it doesnt pass (a) or (c). Jambi, Palembang and Banjar had frequent interactions with nearby nations and fought wars especially against the ruling dynasty in Java who always tried to subdue them in times of strength, i doubt you can say they dont pass (c) let alone (b) or (a).

i seems hard to justify not including most of these nations unless a regionally biased perspective is brought in. in fact, i think some nations which dont pass the test is already excluded in the game due to the fact that much looser detail is given to divide regions into provinces that are more further away from Europe. this leads to important wars not being able to be simulated for example when Malacca took two large provinces Pahang and Kedah from thailand, nearly doubling its size, that wouldnt even show up as a border change in the game. it also means that important nations that exist within the same province cannot be created even when the province quite easily can support several important urban centres, unlike in Europe. These problems show up consistently in the entire Far East region, especially in SE Asia and E Indies.

 

[Mad King James]

Yep, Sun Zi is right.. the most important states in Sulawesi for instance are all crammed in Makkassar province. Of all the above mentioned states, it's hard to justify removing any of them other than on the basis that you don't think that part of the world is important

 

[Norrefeldt]

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
for (a), i think you mean a state was NOT firmly under the thumb of a local power. otherwise, it is opposite to (b) or (c)

No I think it was ment as I wrote it. As written the states of Ramazan (EEP) and Croatia could be omitted, since they couldn't really act like a fully independent state. This rule isn't very strict, and you need to make a separate judgement for each state, but anyway...
It will be interesting, and soon needed, to get the list of possible states. Before this we don't really know where to draw the line. I'm afraid that location in the world will matter, since a big part of the game *is* about European expansion in the world.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

i was saying that the way u worded the tests, if a historical state satisfies (a), it should be independent in the game. if the historcial state satisfies (b) or (c) however, it should NOT be independent in the game. therefore (a) is worded in a way opposite to (b) and (c). (a) should be reversed to make it consistent with (b) and (c). or else (b) and (c) should be reversed to make it consistent with (a).

if regional bias is brought into the issue, which nation should exist will become a simple question of preference for the individual player. personally, i think the game in itself is already regionally biased enough to make the big part of it about European expansion in the world. Just look at how each region is divided into provinces. The British Isle has 15 provinces, but the Island of Sumatra, two times bigger, only consists of 4 provinces. the same level of division should give Sumatra 30 provinces, or alternatively, the British Isle should only be divided into 2 provinces. how can anyone doubt that the game is not already extremely focused about european expansion into the world? therefore, IMO the game in itself is already regionally biased enough to achieve its purpose strongly in favour of Europe. we do not need to be regionally biased again in our own assessments to add to that purpose. therefore IMO our tests should be regionally neutral, within the limits of the game, to avoid easily pushing other areas to the point of obscurity in the game.

 

[Norrefeldt]

?

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
i was saying that the way u worded the tests, if a historical state satisfies (a), it should be independent in the game. if the historcial state satisfies (b) or (c) however, it should NOT be independent in the game. therefore (a) is worded in a way opposite to (b) and (c). (a) should be reversed to make it consistent with (b) and (c). or else (b) and (c) should be reversed to make it consistent with (a).

I ment that if a state was firmly under the thumb of a local power, (a vassal of some form) and tended to just let foreign powers march through their territory without being too annoyed by the fact and didn't do a hell of a lot of consequence in their entire history, it should not be independent.
That is how I understood it at least...

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Re: ?

Originally posted by mnorrefeldt
I ment that if a state was firmly under the thumb of a local power, (a vassal of some form) and tended to just let foreign powers march through their territory without being too annoyed by the fact and didn't do a hell of a lot of consequence in their entire history, it should not be independent.
That is how I understood it at least...

dont u mean under the thumb of a foreign power? or, maybe my english is not that good afterall...

EDIT: anyway, i understand what u mean now.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Sun_Zi_36,
that is what I ment.
Would be more clear if it was 'foreign' power, I agree. The text was stolen, so I didn't think much about it.
Anyway it wouldn't alter anything in your descriptions of the states above I suppose? I was trying to get a grip of just how important the different states were in comparison to each other, since I'm admittedly ignorant of the history of this part of the world.
It seems some tags should be going this way...