China, the workshop of the world

[Punderland]

China was once a very major trading partner with the rest of the world by in the time of Ming Dynasty,ie. EU timeframe. Its prosperity relates very much to the rest of the world. It was also once very strong. How would it be modeled. I would love to see a dev. diary about it.

P.S. To stop the steamroll possible for making a historical Ming, some impassible terrain could made in Siberia, rather than nerfing the actual Ming.

 

[Sakura]

You're right that Ming China was probably the most important trading partner in the world and also had the largest GDP.

I'm really not sure how that should be modeled in EU4, though, since virtually none of that money ever made it to the Ming government (which chose to continue to rely upon agrarian taxes for the vast majority of its income). I mean, in EU4 game terms, it's like the Ming had massive self-imposed penalties to their Production and Trade efficiency in place, limiting their income to Taxation.

(BTW, there have been a few past threads on China that you might want to check out.)

 

[ptan54]

IIRC the first Ming Emperor imposed a rule for all his heirs, low taxes. The merchants had a crapton of money but the Ming dynasty never taxed enough. Habsburg Spain's tax revenues >> Ming China, it was ridiculous how the administration nerfed itself.

There should be a tax modifier - "Confucian morality" or something like that, -90% tax or something (and make it -45% during a war, since taxes go up during war). That would put a serious dampener on any human Ming player who wanted to steamroller stuff. Trade efficiency should also get nerfed to model the disdain the Confucianists had for the merchant class and the fact that even state owned or state sponsored business kept the profits for themselves only. By the late Ming Dynasty the national budget was so short of money the Emperor had to "donate" money from his personal budget and ask for "donations" from prominent families.

 

[Hydro Globus]

There should be a tax modifier - "Confucian morality" or something like that, -90% tax or something (and make it -45% during a war, since taxes go up during war). That would put a serious dampener on any human Ming player who wanted to steamroller stuff. Trade efficiency should also get nerfed to model the disdain the Confucianists had for the merchant class and the fact that even state owned or state sponsored business kept the profits for themselves only. By the late Ming Dynasty the national budget was so short of money the Emperor had to "donate" money from his personal budget and ask for "donations" from prominent families.

Why not make it a religion-given malus in the first place? (OK I know the answer - all the human-controlled Chinas would instantly convert to Hindu)

 

[nijis]

One idea that has been suggested previously is a "complacency" malus -- a civilization thinks it's so on top of things, particularly in relation to trade, that it loses interest in the rest of the world. Some Indian states would also suffer from it: as a major producer of spice, gemstones, fine cloth, fine steel, and many other things, they were awash in riches that they never bothered to really sponsor their own trading networks, being content to let merchants come to them.

Such a malus should be particularly crippling to naval technology.

They also had very bad terrain for horse raising, another quality shared with China that should make it into the game somehow.

Spain was another candidate for "complacency," kicking in around the early 17th century, I would think. The problem, obviously, is that unless this is pre-scripted, it creates a disincentive to the player to play well.

 

[Fawr]

You're right that Ming China was probably the most important trading partner in the world and also had the largest GDP.

They had the largest GDP mostly because they had the most people. Their GDP per person was not only mediocre, but for most of the game was only increasing slowly.

I'd simulate this by giving them quite a few wealthy provinces, with good trade goods but on the other hand put them in a backwards tech group (so their tech doesn't increase quickly), and they will also suffer the penalties of any large country with regards to monarch points not scaling with country size.

You may need to do some later adjustments after you have Japan/India/Nomads/Portugese almost finalised, but I don't think the game would be that ready yet.

 

[Grubnessul]

They had the largest GDP mostly because they had the most people. Their GDP per person was not only mediocre, but for most of the game was only increasing slowly.

I'd simulate this by giving them quite a few wealthy provinces, with good trade goods but on the other hand put them in a backwards tech group (so their tech doesn't increase quickly), and they will also suffer the penalties of any large country with regards to monarch points not scaling with country size.

You may need to do some later adjustments after you have Japan/India/Nomads/Portugese almost finalised, but I don't think the game would be that ready yet.

Actually, China's living standards was pretty much on part with Western Europe until the 1700s.

 

[anubisfike]

Actually, China's living standards was pretty much on part with Western Europe until the 1700s.

Standard of living is not just GDP per capita or average income.

 

[aaronlaw97]

I'd simulate this by giving them quite a few wealthy provinces, with good trade goods but on the other hand put them in a backwards tech group (so their tech doesn't increase quickly), and they will also suffer the penalties of any large country with regards to monarch points not scaling with country size.

China has probably the highest tech of the time. They have gunpowder units way before the EU timeline, and during Zheng He's voyage the capital ships were twice as large as normal European carracks. Also, as Marco Polo had described, even the normal Chinese people would eat like European nobles, with fish and meat in every meal. It would be bad to nerf China ahistorically just to weaken them for balance. I agree that the terrain around China should be made with high supply penalities to stop them from blobbing.

 

[Sun_Wu]

They had the largest GDP mostly because they had the most people. Their GDP per person was not only mediocre, but for most of the game was only increasing slowly.

I'd simulate this by giving them quite a few wealthy provinces, with good trade goods but on the other hand put them in a backwards tech group (so their tech doesn't increase quickly), and they will also suffer the penalties of any large country with regards to monarch points not scaling with country size.

You may need to do some later adjustments after you have Japan/India/Nomads/Portugese almost finalised, but I don't think the game would be that ready yet.

Some parts were fabulously wealthy, others were not so much, you should concentrate the wealth and surround China with poor tax and supply limit provinces.

 

[Eh up me duck]

even the normal Chinese people would eat like European nobles, with fish and meat in every meal.

Source for this?

 

[LYNCHY]

Source for this?

He said Marco Polo did he not? surely one of his writings

 

[unmerged(75409)]

One idea that has been suggested previously is a "complacency" malus -- a civilization thinks it's so on top of things, particularly in relation to trade, that it loses interest in the rest of the world. Some Indian states would also suffer from it: as a major producer of spice, gemstones, fine cloth, fine steel, and many other things, they were awash in riches that they never bothered to really sponsor their own trading networks, being content to let merchants come to them.

Such a malus should be particularly crippling to naval technology.

They also had very bad terrain for horse raising, another quality shared with China that should make it into the game somehow.

Spain was another candidate for "complacency," kicking in around the early 17th century, I would think. The problem, obviously, is that unless this is pre-scripted, it creates a disincentive to the player to play well.

Have it be a mixed bonus/malus instead of a straight out malus.

I.e.: Minus X % tax but Plus Y % prestige generation. Minus X manpower, but plus Y diplomats per year.

After all, you are the top nation in the world

Your nation is forgetting about its finances and martial virtues, because it has other things to do: Become the cultural and diplomatical center of the world, and stay that way.

It only makes sense, that the game should encourage you to shift your playstyle from aggro-expansion to a more conservative style.

 

[Fishman786]

He said Marco Polo did he not? surely one of his writings

Heh, that would explain it. Marco Polo's Travels has some very strange stories in it, and the majority of stuff outside of the Middle East is of dubious authenticity.

Want a laugh? Read the story about how the Deccanese people collect diamonds. Hint: it involves bird poo.

 

[Abnormalmind]

Many of the challenges faced by Ming were the result of self-imposed policies, and should not be a requirement to play Ming (unless the player chooses to follow history).

 

[Jstebby]

maybe the stagnation can be represented by a high percentage of overextension, high revolt risk, and a negative malus for naval, production, and trade until you enact a decision that modernizes it all

 

[Sakura]

Many of the challenges faced by Ming were the result of self-imposed policies, and should not be a requirement to play Ming (unless the player chooses to follow history).

Yes and no. A player should be able to reform the Ming, but it should be a lengthy, painful process.

 

[Sakura]

China has probably the highest tech of the time.

This is really hard to assess. Yes, early Ming was at least Europe's equal in firearms and naval technology. But I'm not sure if that was still the case at the EU4 start date (1444). It definitely was no longer true by the mid to late Ming. The knowledge needed to create Zheng He's ships (which I think were probably not as large as claimed) had been forgotten and Ming armies were outmatched on land by Japanese firearms during the Imjin War (which were equivalent to those used by Europeans at the time; this was very much not the case when it came to naval artillery).

Another problem is that, in EU3 at least, "tech" covers a lot more than just actual technological advances. For military tech, it includes improvements in morale, supply, and tactics. The Ming military, plagued with desertion and a corrupt officer corps. at the mercy of the civilian bureaucracy, did not make great strides in these areas.

Of course, we still have almost no idea how EU4 technology is going to work. So it's hard to say how China should be modeled.

 

[Fawr]

Actually, China's living standards was pretty much on part with Western Europe until the 1700s.

Standard of living is not just GDP per capita or average income.

Many people use GDP per person as a good measure of standard of living. Its not 100%, but its much closer than making a guess.

If thats what you use then Maddison's numbers are in http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/other_books/HS-8_2003.pdf (2nd or 3rd last page). By that measure the Europeans overtook the Chinese prior to 1500 (well before the 1700s).

Is there a source for the 1700's claim? How was it measured?

China has probably the highest tech of the time. They have gunpowder units way before the EU timeline, and during Zheng He's voyage the capital ships were twice as large as normal European carracks.

To me that's an argument for making their tech high in the 1200s (when they started using gunpowder). By the 1400s I don't think its valid anymore. That would be like claiming that Wales is the most technologically advanced part of the world now because they had the first railway in 1829! It is however evidence that they should get new technology really slowly. Paper and the compass were also much earlier inventions. Unless you know of other things that they developed during the game, I'd say that they weren't coming up with new inventions anymore?

 

[Dafool]

Many people use GDP per person as a good measure of standard of living. Its not 100%, but its much closer than making a guess.

If thats what you use then Maddison's numbers are in http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/other_books/HS-8_2003.pdf (2nd or 3rd last page). By that measure the Europeans overtook the Chinese prior to 1500 (well before the 1700s).

Is there a source for the 1700's claim? How was it measured?

I believe this is the same source you used before. I actually did a little research about it a while back and found some interesting criticism. I dug up some of the stuff I looked at and this section seems particularly relevant:

Spoiler

Coastal China from Shanghai on south was probably among the richest regions on earth until the Industrial Revolution: in particular, living standards in the Yangzi Delta (population 31,000,000 plus in 1770) were probably comparable to England’s and Holland’s in the mid-18th century. Its agriculture was exceptionally productive– not only per acre, but per labor day; its extensive handicraft industries (especially textiles) yielded incomes comparable to those of textile workers anywhere, and at least its grain markets – the only ones for which we have thorough studies -- were remarkably well integrated.

This generally positive picture is contradicted by two other kinds of data, both of which can be adequately explained by factors related to the landed property system that will play a central role in this paper. First, Angus Maddison’s historical GNP estimates suggest that China already lagged well behind Europe by 1700. However, Maddison’s estimates of productivity in agriculture – by far the largest sector of the economy – are based on the assumption that the urban population is a good proxy for the size of the agricultural surplus. But the relevant measurement is not the size of the urban population per se, but the size of the non-farming population. In China a particularly large percentage of the industrial labor force was rural -- and most often part of families that also owned land (or at least cultivation rights); thus, using the urban population to measure the agricultural surplus results in a particularly large under-estimate. Jan Luiten Van Zanden has estimated that just by correcting for this problem, one brings the per capita GNP of China to within 10% of Europe’s circa 1750, and that of the Yangzi Delta within 10% of England’s.

This seems to go back to the criticism I raised when your source was first presented: How is "productivity" being calculated and is it being done in a relative way? It would seem that this isn't the case based on this source and few others I've glossed over. The general image I'm getting is that China was not notably behind the West by the 1700's, only that it was notably different from the West. This may have had serious implications for China following the Industrial Revolution, but during the Early Modern Era it doesn't seem to have been a hindrance.