Carving the Chinese melon

[unmerged(6160)]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I am not very deeply into the history of China at this time, but I've understood from my history classes that the US was responsible for China's survival, ie that they wasn't split up like for example Africa. The US didn't want the European powers to split up China, since that would be against their interest. In which way they acted to accomplish this I don't know. But I guess some of you know?

I believe the US incouraged/threatened European powers to only take parts of some cities, not entire regions. The US also sent soldiers and gunboats to China, espically as the revolution began, IIRC...

 

[unmerged(6465)]

Now, if memory serves me correctly, the US forced the European powers to have an 'Open Door' policy of trade. So, instead of using Merchantilism trading policies, the European slices of China would also trade with the United States.

I still can't wait for the Opium Wars

And it would be so kickass if opium was one of the goods that showed up in the providences. (you know, along with coffe and spices, etc)

 

[unmerged(3921)]

>I've understood from my history classes that the US was responsible for China's survival

No, the reason that China was able to avoid being entirely colonialized was due to its immense size and population. Even by the mid-19th century when China's economy was obviously lagging, its economic output was still large enough that whatever European trade/economic penetration had occured the vast majority of China was still untouched by Western influence.

The US "open door" policy by the way was not an "ALL should be equal" policy rather it was an "all Western countries should be equal policy". Tt was motivated by the US' late start in the colonial game. Thus the US sought to capture the same trade advantages held by the traditional colonial powers so it could replicate their profits.

 

[unmerged(3921)]

More generally I think that if the game is unable to handle the events in China it will tend to have difficulty in other areas as well. In many respects the pseudo-colonization of China during this period of history is representative of events in other areas of the world. In particular, Latin America should be thought about.

In general for these areas, imperialists did not achieve full military control over the territory. However economic penetration was significant (in Latin America, and in the coastal regions of China). This in turn lead to the loss of full political independence for these territories. Thus I feel that the game needs to have a significant build-out of its economic and political abilities relative to EUII. Failure to do so will result in a military-oriented game that is ill suited to model historical behavior.

Personally I think it would be a great thing if they modeled economic output of each province and calculated the share of economic output held by each country/civilization. Once that share of output (or GDP for short) reached certain threshholds, advantages would accrue such as the ability to exploit natural resources (and thus more GDP control), base military forces, and ultimately garner outright political control. It is this kind of system that would be able to accurately model the difficulty imperialists had in penetrating the deep hinterlands of China and to a lesser extent India. For example by the early 19th century the single province of Szechwan in inner China had roughly the same GDP as all of Italy. These realities are simply not modeled in EUII where there is a rough equivalence in province value and the European provinces are micro-detailed and the African/Asian provinces are generally aggregated.

However my guess is that Paradox is already deep into the build-out of game mechanics, and I would be surprised if they had something this detailed.

 

[Grosshaus]

I agree, complete conquest of nations that were even a bit advanced wasn't usually that succesfull at the time. Sure there were economical spheres of interest and rights to garrison troops, but nobody truly got even close to control China or Japan. Or actually any part of the world with only minimal amount of Caucasian population. For example, parts of French Equatorial Africa. Sure, they were part of France, but the colonial authorities couldn't control them even remotely as well as a colony like Algeria with loads of European settlers.

I'd suggest a system where in order to make a region a full colony you'll need a big proportion of Europeans living there. So 10000 settlers in Bechuanaland enables a colony, but 10000 in Szechwan some kind of a trade post.

 

[crazy canuck]

I assume from the FAQ that colonies will not be created merely by sending a set amount of settlers.

I assume that colonial control will require some kind of colonial administration and the force of arms to carry out the wishes of that administration.

I would hate to see colonial control dictated by the propotion of population that is from the colonial power.

Colonies in the time period of Vicky were not settlements but sources of raw materials and strategic points through which raw materials and goods could be transported and protected.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Colonies controlled due to proportion of ppl in colony to people in the homeland wouldn't be very good for Britain and India.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
well, i agree, to some extent it is a choice of focus. but from what i observe over time working on improving the EU2 game for China and opinions of others which agree with me, we dont agree a number of things that paradox had done for China. and that is not just the detail and structural stuff, it's more plain stuff like borders of nations, cultures, even names of provinces that we think is off by a rather substantial margin. even Japan had more events than China in EU2. i havent said it's not a lack of focus that caused the lack of knowledge. it may well be that they do not aim to devote much into getting info for China to gain the historical knowledge in the first place.thats what i m doing. but like u said, if the game accomdates more of China's social, political and economic history, it is much easier to modify that to be accurate than have little to no way to model something and try to think of a way to get around it..

It was actually a lack of time that was the source of problems for China (and other nations) in EU2. China almost had no events (only two IIRC, the Closure of China and the Treaty of Nirchiinsk) at all until nearly the end of the beta testing period - there was so much more to be done than focus on event scripting during that time. Toward the end of the beta, we really started to churn out events for many different nations, but time limitations cut us off before we could really give every nation the events they deserved. Thus, I added in as many events for China as could be gotten in under the time constraints (if you open the China event file, you will see that most of those events were scripted by yours truly, so don't blame Paradox, but blame me for any faults you find in the event file). It wasn't a perfect group of events (I wish I had had more time to fine-tune the Ming-Manchu transition), but it is certainly much better than having virtually no events at all...

 

[unmerged(10128)]

ok, so it's lack of time/focus/effort devoted that explains why fine-tuning, getting more detailed historical knowledge etc was not done as well for China as some other nations. thats what i said might well have been the case, and that is entirely understandable. nothing is perfect and i never "blamed" anyone for any of the "faults". (btw, Treaty of Nerchinsk was one of the first events that i noted inaccuracy as many provinces that should be in the treaty are missing).


I agree that colonies in Vic should be represented more in terms of their economic/trade value rather than as settlements. there were no western settlements in China. even Hong Kong and Macao were never destinations for western settlement. the trade aspect represented can either be for raw materials (eg, wool, slaves, timber, etc) from colonies or, in the case of China for enlarging the market (eg, selling weaponry, machinery, opium). so i think a good system of resource and trade would be good to simulate China, and it probably don't need to be too much of an addition since it would be useful for other parts of the world as well.

 

[veji2]

first of all, concerning China's representation in EUII, you must not forget that the core of the game are the european countries and those that had strong interactions with them ( ie OE, Persia, Khanates ). therefore China was not intended to be fully modelled, same goes for the very misrepresented situation of the Indian penisula throughout the game. This is not a problem to me because I admit that it is not the focus of this game, these countries have been made playables as a courtesy to the buyers and a commercial boost, but don't forget the game's title, "europa Universalis".

Furthermore, China had very few interractions with Europe during the time frame, so its influence on the european centered game is minimal, therefore is not a priority. Feel free to do a mod of your own and have the community enjoy it.

As for China in Vic, there it played a truly inmense role, being the pilar of the western powers action in far east asia at the time. So here, failing to correctly implement the features needed to render the situation properly would be a setback ( although like many things in EUII, the community will probably account for a great part of the game in later mods ).

from what I have understood, provinces will be the small military territorial divisions, while regions will be for administrative /economic purposes. At the end of a war you will get provinces in the peace treaty provided that that is wath you were going for. I think there should be some form of trade tech that models westerners trade superiority,and allow the one province you control to drag the trade of the surrounding ones, the extent of the dragging depending on the level of trade opening forcefully imposed on the target country.

Say that China is divided in 20-25 regions, like the provinces in EUII, which represents a total of say 200-300 provinces. The western country wouldn't have to annex big chunks of the territory as it would only give them huge BB. just annex one lousy province, and you could drag to it, depending on your trade tech and that of your target and the level of trade agreement reached, 25; 40; 60 or 75 % ( these numbers are just out of the blue examples ) of the trade wealth of the surrounding 20 to 75 provinces. this would represent the likes of Hongkong and the commercial carving up of China. Add to that the possibility to build TPs in already controled provinces and you have tools that could easely represent most of what was going on not only in China but also in the dying OE, and what could have happened in South America had it not been for the Monroe doctrine ( but then, you can change that in game).

a british trade agreement with Argentina giving Brits the right to build up TPs throughout the country would represent Queen Victoria's saying that Argentina was the most profitable colony of the crown.

Altough this raises the issue of commercial pillaging of a country ( like in China's case) and mutually benefiting trade agreement like in the case of Argentina and UK. How to model that ?

PS : Could you believe that the nowadays bankrupt country that is Argentina was in 1920, just after WWI the 6th economic power in the world ! Yes believe me, if you go to buenos Aires you feel like visiting Milano turned poor. Argentina and China are indeed very good tests for Vic's trade model.

 

[unmerged(5110)]

what's really gonna bake my noodle is figuring out how the heck they are going to simulate the warlord period in China that broke out around 1917.

I mean there was an incredible amount of chaos and confusion that happened starting 1912 that China went through that would make any game infinitely more complicated.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Originally posted by XieChengnuo
what's really gonna bake my noodle is figuring out how the heck they are going to simulate the warlord period in China that broke out around 1917.

I mean there was an incredible amount of chaos and confusion that happened starting 1912 that China went through that would make any game infinitely more complicated.

My guess would be, through the creation of the Chinese Republic, followed by massive revolts throughout the country, effectively incapaciating the government - in effect, just like the 1848 revolts in Europe

 

[unmerged(10128)]

if China is divided into hundreds of provinces and ceding 1 port is represented as 1 province being annexed, then that would be a good idea. but i doubt China would be given hundreds of provinces. Remember that "Victoria", as its name suggests, is also a eurocentric game. If the number of provinces given to China is similar to EUII, ceding 1 province would be gross over-representation of ceding of ports historically in the unequal treaties. Plus it doesnt differentiate ceding of ports (ie, Hong Kong and a few others) and opening of ports to trade (ie, many other ports).

i'd suggest an alternative idea, that provinces need not be physically annexed in the game but u can gain certain rights in each province increasing in penetration as a terms of treaty (merchants can stay permanently, increase trade volume in the province, rights to build infrastructure, military access, permanent political institutions (protectorate), etc).

China's social politcal upheaval during Vic era is also very interesting and not easy to model. i gather that Vic will have much more detailed population demographics than EUII, but what effects that has on the game remainst o be seen. Probably better if they could include non-european ideologies and social issues. the warlord era is quite unlike revolts and unrest in Europe. it is actually more like a state of civil war where warlords were in control of different parts of China fighting each other out for more than a decade and the nationalist government existed in name only - as a vehicle to promote the dominant warlords' aims.

I hope they could introduce a system of civil war, as distinct from revolts in Vic, where clearly different factions are fighting but still under the name of a single nation, ie, not represented as separate nations. that would be good not only for the warlords period but also the Taiping Rebellion.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
if China is divided into hundreds of provinces and ceding 1 port is represented as 1 province being annexed, then that would be a good idea. but i doubt China would be given hundreds of provinces. Remember that "Victoria", as its name suggests, is also a eurocentric game.

I'd say Victoria is going to be less eurocentric than EU2 was. Afterall we have the Americas (both continents have much potential) and Japan. And since costal China was a popular playground for "european" powers wouldn't it actually serve an eurocentric game well to have a lots of provinces there?

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
I hope they could introduce a system of civil war, as distinct from revolts in Vic, where clearly different factions are fighting but still under the name of a single nation, ie, not represented as separate nations. that would be good not only for the warlords period but also the Taiping Rebellion.

This would be a good way to model the Russian Revolutions/Civil War as well, as you don't have two different nation-tags, but rather a couple of factions aligning and realigning to fight each other.

Also, it would be a way to model national uprisings like the 1848 ones in Austria, where you had nations revolting and chasing the Imperials out of their provinces, but neither lived long enough to form a state structure as of 19th century standards.

In game terms, for the Chinese/Russian civil war, you'd have different political factions taking up arms against the government, whereas in Austria, Germany et al we would see different nations/cultures rising against their rulers.

This would IMO also be a good alternative to the EU2-style generic revolt risk, as it would represent historical circumstances much more accurately.

 

[Pseudodragon]

I just hope it's possible (though probably pretty difficult) to somehow keep Sun Yat-Sen in power and the warlords out...

Anyways, back to the subject at hand, hopefully the game will have some sort of "most favoured nation" treaty status the Euros enjoyed, if for no other reason than to save them Diplomats/DIPs or whatever winds up being used each time someone gets something new off of China. If there's no most favoured nation, then it needs to be easier to win concessions for later nations. To use EU terms, it might take 10% war score for Britain to get trading rights, while a year later it'll only take 8%, then 6% for the third country and so on. Without either of these mechanisms, one of China's main weaknesses in dealing with the west is eliminated...

Also, how can things like the Boxers be handled? Normal rebels probably wouldn't ork too well if they start smashing up everything in sight rather than just the European infrastructure...

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Originally posted by Väinö I
I'd say Victoria is going to be less eurocentric than EU2 was. Afterall we have the Americas (both continents have much potential) and Japan. And since costal China was a popular playground for "european" powers wouldn't it actually serve an eurocentric game well to have a lots of provinces there?

i guess they probably would give more provinces to at least to coastal China in Vic (lets hope). off the top of my head, there were 6 ceded ports in coastal China by the end of Qing. And they are what they are, just coastal enclaves or islands with not much population, production and economic value other than serve as a place of distribution and naval base. If each of them is represented by 1 province, then coastal China alone should have as an ablsolute minimum around 40 provinces (in EU2 it's a little over 10). Not to mention it would be more fun to make an even finer division: Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and New Territories different provinces to represent the different unequal treaties that enlarged the size of Hong Kong. if they r really going to make the division so fine that would be really cool, but difficulties arise as to balancing the division of inland China and other aspects of the game as well (eg, movement of troops should be much faster for very small coastal provinces than larger inland provinces).

are there a lot of examples in Vic period (esp European ones) of civil war that the generic revolts will just fail to represent? China and Russia are examples, but seems to me the 1848 revolts are not really that ridiculous to represent thru generic revolts. Hmm... American Civil War, I forgot about that. but the danger with raising that example is some very enthusiastic people may well prefer the civil being represented with separate nation tags. I think the main difference between civil wars and normal wars must be that with civil wars, (in EU2 terms) no treaties are required to be concluded to annex provinces, mere control of the province by military occupation will allow u to run the province as if you own them.

Boxer Rebellion is another very interesting & difficult problem. i think to adequately represent it, a system of accruing economic/trading rights and benefits would have to be there for the rebels to destroy, thus raising an excuse for Europeans to invade.

 

[unmerged(5110)]

I'm afraid considering the complexity and uniqueness of the Boxer situation, the matter may have to be handled by events.

I mean the only thing that would be close to duplicating this would be to have Europeans having generic events like "Colonial Possession smashed by locals" made more specific. But really this was the only time IIRC that basically the entire world pounced on one nation so vigorously.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Originally posted by XieChengnuo
I'm afraid considering the complexity and uniqueness of the Boxer situation, the matter may have to be handled by events.

I mean the only thing that would be close to duplicating this would be to have Europeans having generic events like "Colonial Possession smashed by locals" made more specific. But really this was the only time IIRC that basically the entire world pounced on one nation so vigorously.

I think this was because almost every nation in Europe saw its economic interests in China at stake at the same time, and decided it was more effective to band together against this "common enemy"...

 

[veji2]

I probably overestimated the number of provinces China will be given, but since Vic's divide is between regions and provinces, I think we can estimate that an EU province would be 2 maybe 3 vic ones thus giving China around 80 provinces, which should be enough if only 4-5 are given up to Europeans...