This thread is to concentrate discussion about the SE Asian region that originally started in the AGC & EEP: Far East thread which has a more general focus.
-
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.
continuing the discussion from the Far East thread:
The following is my opinion on this topic: I don't see why isolation with no external interference should mean that the country should be united rather than divided. in fact I see argument the other way. the existence of neighbouring nations forces a comparison in terms of the status of the respective nations and representing them as 2 nations will weaken Vietnam too much and fail to represent the territorial integrity of Vietnam that in fact had been the case for many centuries even though it is internally divided. the Tay Son uprising for example was a rebellion that spread across the whole of Vietnam and I support it being represented as revolts. on the other hand if there are no external forces, it would be easier to represent different factions as different nations. With Japan, the way the division is represented is to have revolts only when a major war occurred between the factions, this could also be done for Vietnam.
well i never said that the same for japan should automatically apply to vietnam, and you have raised some good arguments why they should be differentiated. however, unlike what you said, vietnam wasnt divided for the entire period, it was divided for just over 2 centuries of the 400 years game period. and it's also technically not true that the lesser regime finally taking over, the Tay Son brothers were in fact peasants originally not related to either faction. regarding the comparison with Manchu-Ming dispute, severe revolts was in fact what paradox used to "create" the Manchu conquest. In any case, there is suggestions in the AGC China thread that Manchu should not exist (be part of Ming) until they declared independece from Ming, from which point it is an entirely different story from the situation in Vietnam.
The following is my opinion on this topic: I don't see why isolation with no external interference should mean that the country should be united rather than divided. in fact I see argument the other way. the existence of neighbouring nations forces a comparison in terms of the status of the respective nations and representing them as 2 nations will weaken Vietnam too much and fail to represent the territorial integrity of Vietnam that in fact had been the case for many centuries even though it is internally divided. the Tay Son uprising for example was a rebellion that spread across the whole of Vietnam and I support it being represented as revolts. on the other hand if there are no external forces, it would be easier to represent different factions as different nations. With Japan, the way the division is represented is to have revolts only when a major war occurred between the factions, this could also be done for Vietnam.
Sun Zi raises a good point regarding the effect "external factors" work in the game. Neighboring nations will interfere with a nations integrity and cause screwy things that wouldn't happen historically. By having a nation split into two parts, each nation now has an independent foreign policy that can result in the formation of alliances and wars to spawn that shouldn't happen.
There are many small principalities/Rebels/factions that are represented in EU2 by beinga seperate country. I find that in most cases this does cause goofy things to happen.
It would be nice if a uniform standard was used throughout the game...basically if a faction never had a foreign policy outside the home country it shouldn't be represented as its own country in the game.....BUT this is not the case, a civil war spawns splits your country into two seperate countries. The English Civil War...French War of Religions......
It would be nice if there were "Factions"....basically seperate nations, but they cannot form any foreign entanglements.
HO hum EU3 I guess.
BTW, I have downloaded and played around the EEP with Philiph's SEASIA MOD. I found it to be very well thought out and a lot of fun. I would support it being used in the merger fo the AGC and the EEP.
Late,
Jester
My knowledge of Japan is very limited, but when I brushed up on some Japanese history, their "civil war" seems more like what feudal Europe was: a bunch of feuding nobles. In Vietnam, however, there were two distinct families who claimed the same title. It was split officially into two seperate countries, each doing its own diplomacy and war.
If Dai Viet and Annam are simulated with revolts in one country, then what is the country? The Le dynasty was effectively ousted from any real power once the the Macs siezed control. If sticking with Dai Viet, then rebels would represent all instability and battles of civil war? (Dai Viet fighting itself?) What about historical lulls in fighting? Whole country is at peace, but surely Dai Viet did not have access to resources of whole country. IMO, I would find it inaccurate to have the player recieve events where for example where the North seeks aid from China against the south and then the South seeks aid from France against the North.
One might give the whole country non-stop revoltrisk from mid-1500s to the end, but that may be very unbalancing.
Aside from the simulation of civil war inside one vietnamese state, the whole state would be in historical conflict/diplomacy with other countries, when it was only either the north or south. For example, Cambodia only became vassals to the Nguyen family of the south and later ceded them the Mekong Delta. China only invaded Dai Viet in 1788.
Edit: About the gaining of vietnamese culture by China, I agree. I rushed through that event right before releasing the mod, and thus didn't really think about that. Afterwards, I knew that that was too easy, but i had to throw in some event that would lower revolt risk in those provs and "reward" China for all the revolts it put up with.
If Dai Viet and Annam are simulated with revolts in one country, then what is the country? The Le dynasty was effectively ousted from any real power once the the Macs siezed control. If sticking with Dai Viet, then rebels would represent all instability and battles of civil war? (Dai Viet fighting itself?) What about historical lulls in fighting? Whole country is at peace, but surely Dai Viet did not have access to resources of whole country. IMO, I would find it inaccurate to have the player recieve events where for example where the North seeks aid from China against the south and then the South seeks aid from France against the North.
One might give the whole country non-stop revoltrisk from mid-1500s to the end, but that may be very unbalancing.
Aside from the simulation of civil war inside one vietnamese state, the whole state would be in historical conflict/diplomacy with other countries, when it was only either the north or south. For example, Cambodia only became vassals to the Nguyen family of the south and later ceded them the Mekong Delta. China only invaded Dai Viet in 1788.
Edit: About the gaining of vietnamese culture by China, I agree. I rushed through that event right before releasing the mod, and thus didn't really think about that. Afterwards, I knew that that was too easy, but i had to throw in some event that would lower revolt risk in those provs and "reward" China for all the revolts it put up with.
Last edited:
These are very good summaries about the division of the country, and I certainly accept that there are elements of division. however, i would be reluctant to emphasise only the effects of division on the game and ignore unifying factors. First and foremost, I see no historical division between two states titled "Dai Viet" and "Annam". "Annam" was what the area was called under Chinese occupation during Tang and Ming and the Imperial Chinese had always got used to refering the wholw area as Annam. When Le Loi retook the country from China in 1428, he proclaimed himself emperor and called his state "Dai Viet". The name "Dai Viet" was never changed until 1802, niether the Mac who usurped the throne from the Le, nor the Nguyen who restored the Le and Trinh who divided the country against the Nguyen ever switched the title of the state and proclaim a new state. this is quite important in terms of how the whole ritualistic political system works in the Orient - the whole state was always called Dai Viet. In this sense, it would actually be not inaccurate to say that the fighting between the Trinh and Nguyen was a situation where Dai Viet was fighting itself. the only historically acceptable nation names i can see are "Northern Dai Viet" and "Southern Dai Viet" rather than "Dai Viet" and "Annam", but the nation can't still be called "Southern Dai Viet" once it has unified the country in the game.
furthermore, I see difficulties in simulating the country as two nations rather than viewing it as internal wars within a nation. the division caused by usurpation by Mac Dang Dung and the division between the Trinh and Nguyen are separate episodes and must be viewed separately. usurpation by Mac of the throne of Dai Viet caused Nguyen Kim to retreat and set up a rival administration by putting a new Le emperor on the throne of Dai Viet in the south. Dai Viet thus have 2 rival emperors/dynasties: the Mac and the Le. we can interpret this in game terms as either enough to give independence to a nation in the south with the southern nation later conquering the northern nation OR, rebel forces springing up in the south, serious enough to take control of northern provinces which will trigger the ousting of Mac event. Both solution will mean that the north will not gain access to the resources in the south, and both are feasible in terms of the effects in the game, but the former solution will cause more irregularity because there are so little number of provinces for each nation, while the latter gives less independence to the south than is historical. i would definitely not have a problem with either solution, if only the situation can be viewed on its own.
However, the subsequent episode of division between the Trinh and Nguyen is even more problematic. Nguyen Kim defeated the northern Mac thus actually reunified the country under one administration and one emperor in 1592. if the game turned out completely historical outcomes, there is definitely no longer any reason to justify separate nations at that point. At this point Vietnam is definitely one nation. Nguyen Hoang, Nguyen Kim's younger son, had always been in charge of certain southern provinces, and he remained loyal to his brother-in-law Trinh Kiem after Nguyen Kim's death. theres nothing as far as I see that can point to actual division until 1627, when Nguyen Hoang began to opening fight Trinh. for a bit less than half a century, the two factions fought seven wars until 1672. again at 1627 u can simulate the situation by making the south independent again, even though this time both factions are even under the same dynasty, and have all the irregularities one of the most important being to have to comply with the annexation rules - that you have to annex the capital last. OR, again you can simulate it as rebellion or other penalties in the area where the war was fought (province 663) as well as other general penalties such as stability within the single Dai Viet state, just like in Japan when there are major wars between the families.
the Tay Son Rebellion is a final obstacle to be overcome. from 1773 to 1776 the Trinh, Tay Son and Nguyen were basically in a triangular war, until the Tay Son made a truce with the Trinh, and finally ousted the Nguyen to Siam in 1783. in 1784 Siam invaded the Tay Son in an attempt to restore the Nguyen, but was defeated by 1785. the Tay Son then defeated the north in 1786, but left it in turmoil (revolts). if Nguyen should be separate nationally from Trinh, it is hard to see why the Tay Son faction by conducting diplomatic dealings and conflicts on their own should not by the same principle also be a separate nation.
in terms of diplomacy/conflict with neighbours, there are some problems with a single nation, but I only see it as minor. by playing the single nation, u represent the state "Dai Viet", from which all factions derive ultimate authority. thus there is no problem to justify that Dai Viet defeating or vassalising Cambodia is a dealing done by the Nguyen family rather than Trinh. In terms of foreign intervention, the alliance system doesnt represent how it works anyway, so events declaring war is the only way. But in a number of occasions, such as the Qing intervention in 1788 and the earlier Siamese intervention, the intervention actually played into the hands of national unity. After defeating the north and reunifiying Dai Viet, the Tay Son handed back authority to the Le emperor and left but the north soon fell in turmoil. the Qing intervention in 1788 actually justified the Tay Son coming to the defence of the country as a whole.
I think I have said enough in this long post. I haven't made up my mind on this completely yet, as both approaches have disadvantages. I will be on vacation for a week from tommorrow, so wont be saying more, but i may think about it meanwhile.
there is still a number of things to go through, such as the culture set up, how a number of areas should be done, eg, burma, etc.
furthermore, I see difficulties in simulating the country as two nations rather than viewing it as internal wars within a nation. the division caused by usurpation by Mac Dang Dung and the division between the Trinh and Nguyen are separate episodes and must be viewed separately. usurpation by Mac of the throne of Dai Viet caused Nguyen Kim to retreat and set up a rival administration by putting a new Le emperor on the throne of Dai Viet in the south. Dai Viet thus have 2 rival emperors/dynasties: the Mac and the Le. we can interpret this in game terms as either enough to give independence to a nation in the south with the southern nation later conquering the northern nation OR, rebel forces springing up in the south, serious enough to take control of northern provinces which will trigger the ousting of Mac event. Both solution will mean that the north will not gain access to the resources in the south, and both are feasible in terms of the effects in the game, but the former solution will cause more irregularity because there are so little number of provinces for each nation, while the latter gives less independence to the south than is historical. i would definitely not have a problem with either solution, if only the situation can be viewed on its own.
However, the subsequent episode of division between the Trinh and Nguyen is even more problematic. Nguyen Kim defeated the northern Mac thus actually reunified the country under one administration and one emperor in 1592. if the game turned out completely historical outcomes, there is definitely no longer any reason to justify separate nations at that point. At this point Vietnam is definitely one nation. Nguyen Hoang, Nguyen Kim's younger son, had always been in charge of certain southern provinces, and he remained loyal to his brother-in-law Trinh Kiem after Nguyen Kim's death. theres nothing as far as I see that can point to actual division until 1627, when Nguyen Hoang began to opening fight Trinh. for a bit less than half a century, the two factions fought seven wars until 1672. again at 1627 u can simulate the situation by making the south independent again, even though this time both factions are even under the same dynasty, and have all the irregularities one of the most important being to have to comply with the annexation rules - that you have to annex the capital last. OR, again you can simulate it as rebellion or other penalties in the area where the war was fought (province 663) as well as other general penalties such as stability within the single Dai Viet state, just like in Japan when there are major wars between the families.
the Tay Son Rebellion is a final obstacle to be overcome. from 1773 to 1776 the Trinh, Tay Son and Nguyen were basically in a triangular war, until the Tay Son made a truce with the Trinh, and finally ousted the Nguyen to Siam in 1783. in 1784 Siam invaded the Tay Son in an attempt to restore the Nguyen, but was defeated by 1785. the Tay Son then defeated the north in 1786, but left it in turmoil (revolts). if Nguyen should be separate nationally from Trinh, it is hard to see why the Tay Son faction by conducting diplomatic dealings and conflicts on their own should not by the same principle also be a separate nation.
in terms of diplomacy/conflict with neighbours, there are some problems with a single nation, but I only see it as minor. by playing the single nation, u represent the state "Dai Viet", from which all factions derive ultimate authority. thus there is no problem to justify that Dai Viet defeating or vassalising Cambodia is a dealing done by the Nguyen family rather than Trinh. In terms of foreign intervention, the alliance system doesnt represent how it works anyway, so events declaring war is the only way. But in a number of occasions, such as the Qing intervention in 1788 and the earlier Siamese intervention, the intervention actually played into the hands of national unity. After defeating the north and reunifiying Dai Viet, the Tay Son handed back authority to the Le emperor and left but the north soon fell in turmoil. the Qing intervention in 1788 actually justified the Tay Son coming to the defence of the country as a whole.
I think I have said enough in this long post. I haven't made up my mind on this completely yet, as both approaches have disadvantages. I will be on vacation for a week from tommorrow, so wont be saying more, but i may think about it meanwhile.
there is still a number of things to go through, such as the culture set up, how a number of areas should be done, eg, burma, etc.
i come back surprised to see no discussion continued.
i think for Dai Viet, there could be 3 possible solutions:
1) represent all internal conflicts as revolts. that would be most stable especially considering the small number of provinces concerned. historically the country was always under one national title but would not be enough to represent the historical independence the the various factions.
2) represent the Mac usurpation as international conflict but other conflicts as revolts. that would give more historical independence to one of the conflicts, and could be justified because different dynasties were proclaimed at the time, but wouldnt give independence to later factions where no new dynasties were proclaimed. it would probably still preserve integrity of the nation in the game somewhat.
3) represent all conflicts as international conflicts. that would mean the Mac, Trinh, Nguyen and Tay Son factions all be different nations (bcoz there is no justification to make Tay Son not a nation when the others are nations). it would represnt sufficient historical independence of the nations, but at times more than enough, and there is a much higher risk that the whole region will turn out very strange borders.
i personally think that (3) is not the best solution both in terms of historical principle and effects in the game. solution (1) may be a bit dull. would (2) be a good idea?
i think for Dai Viet, there could be 3 possible solutions:
1) represent all internal conflicts as revolts. that would be most stable especially considering the small number of provinces concerned. historically the country was always under one national title but would not be enough to represent the historical independence the the various factions.
2) represent the Mac usurpation as international conflict but other conflicts as revolts. that would give more historical independence to one of the conflicts, and could be justified because different dynasties were proclaimed at the time, but wouldnt give independence to later factions where no new dynasties were proclaimed. it would probably still preserve integrity of the nation in the game somewhat.
3) represent all conflicts as international conflicts. that would mean the Mac, Trinh, Nguyen and Tay Son factions all be different nations (bcoz there is no justification to make Tay Son not a nation when the others are nations). it would represnt sufficient historical independence of the nations, but at times more than enough, and there is a much higher risk that the whole region will turn out very strange borders.
i personally think that (3) is not the best solution both in terms of historical principle and effects in the game. solution (1) may be a bit dull. would (2) be a good idea?
I like option 2. I need to do some testing. In relation to other Southeast Asian states, a divided Vietnam wouldn't be too small in provinces as most SE Asian states (at least to begin with) are 1-3 provinces in size.
I think Tay Son brothers don't need their own states. Simulating the Tay Son Rebellion with revolts is adequate IMO, as it was a rebellion to overthrow current rulers.
I think Tay Son brothers don't need their own states. Simulating the Tay Son Rebellion with revolts is adequate IMO, as it was a rebellion to overthrow current rulers.
ok. so only the Mac usurpation from 1527 - 1592 should grant independence to a nation in the south. subsequent conflicts such as between Trinh and Nguyen families, where no new dynasties were founded, would only be represented as internal conflicts (revolts). I was thinking of new names for the 2 nations, and came up with the names "Dai Viet (Le)" and "Dai Viet (Mac)", which avoids the difficulties that may occur by calling them "south" and "north", but then again, the name would be wrong after the founding of the Nguyen dynasty towards the end of the game. any better ideas?
in relation to the Tay Son, yes they were a rebellion to overthrow current rulers, the current rulers of Dai Viet as a whole being including both the Nguyen and Trinh families. but from the perspective of the Trinh, Nguyen Hoang's attack in 1627 is also a rebellion to overthrow current rulers, so is Trinh Kiem's actions in trying to control the Le court a rebellion in Nguyen Hoang's perspective. my assertion was that the Tay Son faction enjoyed as much independence as did the Trinh and Nguyen families. Not to mention the independence it enjoyed in the south after the fall of the Trinh and Nguyen dynasties, where they left the north at the hands of the Le King who was unable to control the affairs, and they in the end were the ones to replace the Le dynasty. If the Trinh and Nguyen is to become separate nations, there is just as much, if not even more reason why the Tay Son faction should be represented as a separate nation.
btw, Phillip V's culture setup in SE Asia doesnt seem to show up in my PC, maybe i have changed something before that it could not replace, can someone tell me how the culture is setup?
in relation to the Tay Son, yes they were a rebellion to overthrow current rulers, the current rulers of Dai Viet as a whole being including both the Nguyen and Trinh families. but from the perspective of the Trinh, Nguyen Hoang's attack in 1627 is also a rebellion to overthrow current rulers, so is Trinh Kiem's actions in trying to control the Le court a rebellion in Nguyen Hoang's perspective. my assertion was that the Tay Son faction enjoyed as much independence as did the Trinh and Nguyen families. Not to mention the independence it enjoyed in the south after the fall of the Trinh and Nguyen dynasties, where they left the north at the hands of the Le King who was unable to control the affairs, and they in the end were the ones to replace the Le dynasty. If the Trinh and Nguyen is to become separate nations, there is just as much, if not even more reason why the Tay Son faction should be represented as a separate nation.
btw, Phillip V's culture setup in SE Asia doesnt seem to show up in my PC, maybe i have changed something before that it could not replace, can someone tell me how the culture is setup?
At least from original EEP setup from which I worked off of, Tay Son rebellion brought on revolts, but the two Vietnamese states became Tay Son states as the Tay Son were monarchs of those states.
As for your technical problems, are you using EEP and starting EU2 from EEP icon on your desktop?
As for your technical problems, are you using EEP and starting EU2 from EEP icon on your desktop?
well, i didnt find EEP up till 1.4.1 changed anything for the situation in Vietnam, i think they are all original paradox events, so theres nothing that we have to implement in the merger. the original paradox events were quite sloppy on the division of the country, with the failure to separate the 2 divisions - the Mac/Le division and the Trinh/Nguyen division - being the most important. i dont have a problem with the Tay Son as revolts, as long as the war between the Trinh and Nguyen under the restored Le dynasty are also simulated as revolts. so to narrow down the issues i guess i m talking abuot changes to events 157009 and 157010 in ur mod, or converting them to accomodate the seven wars between Trinh/Nguyen from 1627-1672 as revolts and then the final truce.
i also have some slight query on the timing of events 157004 and 157005. the 004 event start in 1527, but the description seems to say the turmoil started in 1497. shouldnt the event be winded back to better match with the description and the historical facts (peasant revolts did occur around this period)? also i have no idea why 1545 is chosen as the date of dividing the nation in the 005 event. i guess it is close to the year when the anti-Mac forces took the western capital, but they already controlled substantial portion of the nation right at the beginning when they restored Le emperor to the throne (in 1533). so i favour winding that event back to 1533.
i also have some slight query on the timing of events 157004 and 157005. the 004 event start in 1527, but the description seems to say the turmoil started in 1497. shouldnt the event be winded back to better match with the description and the historical facts (peasant revolts did occur around this period)? also i have no idea why 1545 is chosen as the date of dividing the nation in the 005 event. i guess it is close to the year when the anti-Mac forces took the western capital, but they already controlled substantial portion of the nation right at the beginning when they restored Le emperor to the throne (in 1533). so i favour winding that event back to 1533.
more suggestions about those events. instead of only having date statements, how about adding in some real triggers to the ousting of the Mac's event more realistic? something like control of the northern provinces by the southern forces as a trigger for ousting of the Mac's would be good, as a consequence the northern provinces could be immediately annexed as a whole rather than letting them annex strangely thru the normal way (non-capital province first).
Unfortunately, as summer is winding down and school approaches for me, and already school summer assignments are upon me, my work on my mod is pretty much on hold at this time.
After some consideration and perusing through Japanese events and history, I suppose we will have to use how division in Japan was simulated as the precedent from which Vietnamese division should be simulated. Are we agreed, for this will free up the ANN tag?
We don't need to worry just yet about the particulars concerning events and such for the initial beta merger, right?
After some consideration and perusing through Japanese events and history, I suppose we will have to use how division in Japan was simulated as the precedent from which Vietnamese division should be simulated. Are we agreed, for this will free up the ANN tag?
We don't need to worry just yet about the particulars concerning events and such for the initial beta merger, right?
Wouldn't all those thai-cultured orovinces in the current version allow for an overpowered thai state?
The only provinces that could arguably be separated from the Thai area i think would be the Laotian provinces. but when I was implementing the cultures for AGC I used a more generous division, one that IMO would match the severe penalties that comes with ruling a province with different culture (-30% income, manpower penalty, etc). I think there is not such severe penalties with Thai and Laotian cultures so I merged them. I dont think the 3 relatively poor laotian provinces would make that much of a difference to gamplay anyway.
Btw, I havent freed up the ANN tag yet. since japan reserved a tag for the shogunates it might be ok to use an extra tag for Dai Viet's division.
Btw, I havent freed up the ANN tag yet. since japan reserved a tag for the shogunates it might be ok to use an extra tag for Dai Viet's division.
I have done two hands off games as Mercenaries observing from mid to late 15th century.
Both times, Cambodia and Lan Xang have been too strong, with the latter being way overpowered. Cambodia would remain intact and conquer an extra province. It beats Ayutthays severely in war. Lan Xang stretched all the way west conquering Lan Na and Myanmar, and all the way north into southern China and some of Dai Viet.
Ayutthaya and Myanmar are the big losers. Ayutthaya was reduced to a one province minor in both tests. This may be due to its early attempts to fight a two front war with Malacca and Cambodia. Myanmar disappeared off the map in both tests. Something needs to be done to stengthen these two nations, who are historically supposed to be the main powers of the region.
Dai Viet is too weak. Perhaps Champa's capital should be moved to Da Lat, as it being in Da Nang is hampering Dai Viet's historical southern expansion.
Hopefully, tomorrow, I will do further testing to verify what I am seeing.
Both times, Cambodia and Lan Xang have been too strong, with the latter being way overpowered. Cambodia would remain intact and conquer an extra province. It beats Ayutthays severely in war. Lan Xang stretched all the way west conquering Lan Na and Myanmar, and all the way north into southern China and some of Dai Viet.
Ayutthaya and Myanmar are the big losers. Ayutthaya was reduced to a one province minor in both tests. This may be due to its early attempts to fight a two front war with Malacca and Cambodia. Myanmar disappeared off the map in both tests. Something needs to be done to stengthen these two nations, who are historically supposed to be the main powers of the region.
Dai Viet is too weak. Perhaps Champa's capital should be moved to Da Lat, as it being in Da Nang is hampering Dai Viet's historical southern expansion.
Hopefully, tomorrow, I will do further testing to verify what I am seeing.
in the other thread about handsoff game, Jester has observed that Ayutthaya and Myanmar become the major powers. I think the outcomes may vary quite a lot.Phillip V said:
With Champa, may be events could be made to allow Dai Viet to annex it outright (and subsequently remove Cham culture) once Dai Viet had occupied the whole of Champa.
Well historically, Dai Viet only gradually kept on picking off at the Champan northern border. Nevertheless, events should be made that convert the provinces to Vietnamese culture and religion some time after Vietnamese annexation. That actually makes me wonder if Cham culture is necessary at all, being that they only exist for a short period of the game. Then again, I do not mind if there are enough culture tags. I like the flavor.Sun_Zi_36 said:
I will do some more testing.
If that's true, then putting the capital in the southern of their two provinces seems sufficient for getting historical results most of the time. That will allow them to grab 664 in the first war, and 665 in the second. A reasonable event would then be:Phillip V said:
Code:
event = {
id = 157001 #assuming this id is free...
random = no
country = DAI
trigger = {
owned = { province = 664 data = -1 }
owned = { province = 665 data = -1 }
}
name = "Incorporation of the Cham"
desc = "With the defeat of Champa, the Cham were incorporated into Dai Viet."
style = 1
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1465 }
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1819 }
offset = 180
action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = conversion which = 664 }
command = { type = provinceculture which = 664 value = vietnamese}
command = { type = conversion which = 665 }
command = { type = provinceculture which = 665 value = vietnamese}
}
}There's no practical limit on available cultures.Phillip V said:
Rough population breakdown of the countries:
I want to bring:
- Ayutthaya up to 45k
- Cambodia down to 35k
- Champa down to 20k
- Lan Na up to 20k
- Burma up to 25k
That should balance things out quite a bit, along with the move of the Champan capital.
Also, why is there not a port in the Mekong Delta?
Code:
Ayutthaya - 30k
Cambodia - 70k
Champa - 40k
Lan Xang - 33k
Lan Na - 16k
Mon - 17k
Burma - 8k
Shan States - 33k
Ark - 20kI want to bring:
- Ayutthaya up to 45k
- Cambodia down to 35k
- Champa down to 20k
- Lan Na up to 20k
- Burma up to 25k
That should balance things out quite a bit, along with the move of the Champan capital.
Also, why is there not a port in the Mekong Delta?