Okay, so Victoria 3 has a lot of issues that I mostly agree with. Yes, the military system needs work; yes, the UI needs changes; yes, bugs need to be ironed out. I agree, and this is where most of the dev time should (and seems to) be devoted. All great - I agree.
Let's move on to the fun stuff.
Something that bothers the hell out of me is the current portrayal of Japan. Look, I know this is the least of the issues, but I haven't actually seen it brought up in this general forum (I am sure it has before -- I just haven't seen a thread dedicated to it). This is kind of strange since the 19th century was incredibly important for Japan, and Japan was a major player -- not a side-actor. I think Asia deserves a bit more attention, in general, but Japan, at least, should have correct borders in the official game. Is this game-breaking? Nah, but it affects my immersion deeply.
Now, I do not expect the devs to change the map based on a forum post. I do not know exactly how they decide when the map should or should not be changed. This is just kind of a "hey, please check this out!" type of post for the devs to take another look.
To be clear, we're not talking controversial takes on current territorial disputes, but established history that appears in previous games like EUIV (and even Victoria 2). These fixes and changes can be done relatively easily, and have already been done by mods (there are many for Victoria 3, historical Japan is a good one on the workshop), so I am not asking for a huge rework, either.
This is the current portrayal of Japan in unmodded Victoria 3.
Where to begin...
For ease of understanding, I have annotated the map below to give readers unfamiliar an idea of what we are talking about.
Okay, let's start off with number 1: what would become the Okinawa Prefecture, the Ryukyu Kingdom. This Kingdom was nominally independent until 1879, but a vassal of the Satsuma Domain from the early 17th century. From this perspective, I get why it was not included. However, the borders are just terrible.
Firstly, the two islands next to Taiwan had been part of the Ryukyu Kingdom for hundreds of years. They should be included in the territory of Ryukyu (or, in our case, the Shogunate). Also, these islands (all of islands in the chain) should have sugar production centers. Okinawa is famous for "black sugar," and there is a very strong alcohol made from this sugar.
2) Kyushu and the northernmost Islands of the Okinawa chain. In-game, Kyushu (the large island in the red #2 square) comprised of a number of domains. It included the southern most islands in the box, as well. This is a historical relic from when one of the Japanese daimyo's invaded Okinawa in the 17th century. It remains to this day -- it should be changed.
3) Hokkaido is another place that is poorly represented. It's hard to get into this without going into a history lesson, but Ezo (Hokkaido) and the islands to the north were not fully integrated into Japan proper until the Meiji Restoration. Japan only maintained a foothold in Hakodate (which is the southern tip of Ezo) until then. This does not mean they did not control the island, or the islands to the north. They maintained control through merchant colonizers, who obtained essentially political control over the Ainu population and the resources of the North through licenses and hereditary appointments from the Daimyo in Hakodate, and from the central government to him. This is a very simplistic and long-winded way of saying: the entirety of Hokkaido and at least some of the islands to the north (including part of Sakhalin/Karafuto) should be made into full Japanese control. Failing that, the Ainu (Ainu Mosir) should be a vassal of Japan, not open to colonization by Russia. In fact, I would actually expand Ainu Mosir in such a scenario to include the Kuril Islands, and much of Hokkaido.
Actually, the current colonization system can model with well for the northern islands, especially Karafuto/Sakhalin -- giving Japan (and even Russia) some outposts on the island (and even in the Northern part of the Kuril chain) would go a long way in better representing the the area.
4) These are both kind of strange to me. Japan should absolutely NOT have the southernmost chain of islands under their control; neither should be in the Kyushu state -- instead, the southern most (if they remain with Japan) should be part of Micronesia, and the northern most should be part of Kanto (as it is today, and as it was in history).
Those are the main issues, as I see them.
I'm not going to get into the mechanics and how they fit with Japan in 1836. I think the current IG setup, and general political system does a poor job at representing the Meiji Restoration in some ways. Removing the Shogunate from the Shogunate? Uh, okay... such a coup would have triggered outright war. Also, the lack of the domains as vassals to the Shogun is also a rather problematic misrepresentation. The Shogun was first among equals, and he maintained that position through force of arms. The reason the Shogun fell was not through progressive reforms, but a fear in the Japanese domains and realization that the Shogun was: 1) viewed as weak to the point of ineffectiveness, and thus unable to protect Japan from what the Western Powers were doing in China, 2) the Shogun's inability to reform Japan (they did try, but they failed because they weren't powerful enough to compel the domains).
To be fair to the Shogun, they were not happy (as they are in game) with Russia simply taking Hokkaido from them, and religion...I don't want to get into Western portrayals of Eastern religions, really...IGs are a topic for another discussion.
Anyway, I get that Japan is sort of a meme on the internet because of pop-culture, but this is one of the defining moments in Japanese history (and, thus, the world) -- and there are so many interesting ways to portray it in a game about the 19th century. I think getting the map right should be expected, especially since Paradox got it right in Victoria 2, and EU4.
Let's move on to the fun stuff.
Something that bothers the hell out of me is the current portrayal of Japan. Look, I know this is the least of the issues, but I haven't actually seen it brought up in this general forum (I am sure it has before -- I just haven't seen a thread dedicated to it). This is kind of strange since the 19th century was incredibly important for Japan, and Japan was a major player -- not a side-actor. I think Asia deserves a bit more attention, in general, but Japan, at least, should have correct borders in the official game. Is this game-breaking? Nah, but it affects my immersion deeply.
Now, I do not expect the devs to change the map based on a forum post. I do not know exactly how they decide when the map should or should not be changed. This is just kind of a "hey, please check this out!" type of post for the devs to take another look.
To be clear, we're not talking controversial takes on current territorial disputes, but established history that appears in previous games like EUIV (and even Victoria 2). These fixes and changes can be done relatively easily, and have already been done by mods (there are many for Victoria 3, historical Japan is a good one on the workshop), so I am not asking for a huge rework, either.
This is the current portrayal of Japan in unmodded Victoria 3.
Where to begin...
For ease of understanding, I have annotated the map below to give readers unfamiliar an idea of what we are talking about.
Okay, let's start off with number 1: what would become the Okinawa Prefecture, the Ryukyu Kingdom. This Kingdom was nominally independent until 1879, but a vassal of the Satsuma Domain from the early 17th century. From this perspective, I get why it was not included. However, the borders are just terrible.
Firstly, the two islands next to Taiwan had been part of the Ryukyu Kingdom for hundreds of years. They should be included in the territory of Ryukyu (or, in our case, the Shogunate). Also, these islands (all of islands in the chain) should have sugar production centers. Okinawa is famous for "black sugar," and there is a very strong alcohol made from this sugar.
2) Kyushu and the northernmost Islands of the Okinawa chain. In-game, Kyushu (the large island in the red #2 square) comprised of a number of domains. It included the southern most islands in the box, as well. This is a historical relic from when one of the Japanese daimyo's invaded Okinawa in the 17th century. It remains to this day -- it should be changed.
3) Hokkaido is another place that is poorly represented. It's hard to get into this without going into a history lesson, but Ezo (Hokkaido) and the islands to the north were not fully integrated into Japan proper until the Meiji Restoration. Japan only maintained a foothold in Hakodate (which is the southern tip of Ezo) until then. This does not mean they did not control the island, or the islands to the north. They maintained control through merchant colonizers, who obtained essentially political control over the Ainu population and the resources of the North through licenses and hereditary appointments from the Daimyo in Hakodate, and from the central government to him. This is a very simplistic and long-winded way of saying: the entirety of Hokkaido and at least some of the islands to the north (including part of Sakhalin/Karafuto) should be made into full Japanese control. Failing that, the Ainu (Ainu Mosir) should be a vassal of Japan, not open to colonization by Russia. In fact, I would actually expand Ainu Mosir in such a scenario to include the Kuril Islands, and much of Hokkaido.
Actually, the current colonization system can model with well for the northern islands, especially Karafuto/Sakhalin -- giving Japan (and even Russia) some outposts on the island (and even in the Northern part of the Kuril chain) would go a long way in better representing the the area.
4) These are both kind of strange to me. Japan should absolutely NOT have the southernmost chain of islands under their control; neither should be in the Kyushu state -- instead, the southern most (if they remain with Japan) should be part of Micronesia, and the northern most should be part of Kanto (as it is today, and as it was in history).
Those are the main issues, as I see them.
I'm not going to get into the mechanics and how they fit with Japan in 1836. I think the current IG setup, and general political system does a poor job at representing the Meiji Restoration in some ways. Removing the Shogunate from the Shogunate? Uh, okay... such a coup would have triggered outright war. Also, the lack of the domains as vassals to the Shogun is also a rather problematic misrepresentation. The Shogun was first among equals, and he maintained that position through force of arms. The reason the Shogun fell was not through progressive reforms, but a fear in the Japanese domains and realization that the Shogun was: 1) viewed as weak to the point of ineffectiveness, and thus unable to protect Japan from what the Western Powers were doing in China, 2) the Shogun's inability to reform Japan (they did try, but they failed because they weren't powerful enough to compel the domains).
To be fair to the Shogun, they were not happy (as they are in game) with Russia simply taking Hokkaido from them, and religion...I don't want to get into Western portrayals of Eastern religions, really...IGs are a topic for another discussion.
Anyway, I get that Japan is sort of a meme on the internet because of pop-culture, but this is one of the defining moments in Japanese history (and, thus, the world) -- and there are so many interesting ways to portray it in a game about the 19th century. I think getting the map right should be expected, especially since Paradox got it right in Victoria 2, and EU4.
- 29
- 7
- 4
- 3
