Is there any hope for 1.20 China Patch?

[Koramei]

But thing is, China is quite centralized already. Treating it like CK2 is just out of place. People downvoted me before, but I will say it again. Is better to leave China with the current development instead of putting filler nation there that are totally out of place. Building such a system would undermine the historical accuracy of the 1444 start a lot. Is not like there aren´t any other way.

It'd be different but like I said in the post, I think the fact the game's general systems for empire building are tailored for Early Modern empires rather than older style ones means it's not unwarranted. From my understanding, in game already you have parts of empires carved off into being vassals if they weren't so centralized, in e.g. India or the Mamluks. And China's gonna need something special no matter what.

And the thing is I don't think leaving it like it is now is better. China blobs incredibly ahistorically as it is, that needs to change, the development it has is already broken, and still ahistorically small. I guess it's personal preference, but I think misrepresenting the scale of China does way more of a disservice to history than having it decentralized.

It would be interesting if like Ming paid money and maybe some other price while gaining some buffs in return, not too strong and surely not something that would give them a bigger income but something related to their religion, legitimacy, prestige or tech/idea cost.

Gaining institution by development should be harder, Colonialism should also frankly require some effort on the Asian part and Alaska(and Canada and Eastern US Coast) shouldn´t count. It´s just stupid from a gameplay and historical PoV. Otherwise China just steamrolls(I´m thinking it as a player, the AI would not do this ofc). Mana sink.

I think something to sink the cash into would be a good idea, and actually I was thinking about "vanity project" sort of things as another form of adding to your Mandate of Heaven (in my idea) in a more peaceful way- something exorbitantly expensive to resuscitate Zheng He style missions would be a good fit for that. And you could have it so China can only trigger the colonialism institution by sending out those missions? Just a thought.

My biggest concern is that it would make Mingsplosion even more rare than it already is, and a few surrounding nations need it to happen in order to prosper. On the other hand, making the China mechanic central to any Asian playthrough sounds like a fun idea. Very similar to how the HRE affects Europe. Maybe combine it with Zerodv's ideas to meet somewhere in the middle. Both combined would make Asia a much more unique experience from the rest of the world

Thanks for the kind words. I guess it depends on what you want out of a Mingplosion. I think it'd be a lot harder, but more reliable. Right now some games in East Asia are trivial, but others are incredibly difficult; it's totally random based on whether the Ming roll a bad dice, I don't think it's ideal. With the HRE-like thing, you could have it so you can reliably hamper them, it would just take you beating them in a war. Beat them in the first war, they get decentralized once and, say... now their administrative regions don't join in wars with them. Beat them in a second war, it decentralized again, now their regions start infighting. Then as that goes on for long enough, eventually they can't hold on to the emperorship anymore and Ming dissolves. And so you have a reliably weaker China! If you can beat them in a war, that is.

Also one of the central parts of any Ming rework I think should be to stop it being hellish to play around them, by stopping them from expanding. There shouldn't be a threat of them just eating you one day, even if that did happen historically on occasion. But you should still have to worry about them exerting influence over you- I guess I didn't expand on it much, but I don't think being a tributary under Ming should be totally ideal- it should be something you want to get out of, if you can. Dramatically slower institution spread, for instance?

I would add that it should be possible for outside forces like the Manchu to claim the Mandate of Heaven and take control of the empire for themselves. Perhaps even for any eastern religious nation, if we want an alternate history.

Good point, that should be essential for any system they add, Qing being able to form needs to be possible. You could do it in an HRE-like system by letting someone come in and claim the emperorship (by taking key cities, like Beijing and Nanjing, maybe) if the incumbent emperor loses the mandate of heaven and gets decentralized enough.


Ah, also a couple of random other suggestions- Ming (or China) should not be able to rival anyone, and nobody should be able to rival them back, not without fulfilling some conditions at least (beat them in a war first, maybe?). The concept of someone being their rival- and so to an extent, their equal- was just totally outside of the Ming and Qing worldview.
On the same sort of note, no nation in East Asia (in the Chinese tech group, how about) should be able to upgrade to an Empire without massively pissing off China and all the nations in China's sphere of influence. The Chinese emperor was the emperor, everyone else was just a king. Japan's emperor coming to the forefront in Japanese politics again during the Meiji restoration was world shattering to the Chinese and meant the Koreans wouldn't even accept their embassy.

 

[Grand Historian]

I hope I explained that well enough, it's been floating around my head for a while. At the end of the day I'm sure there are lots of good solutions, some that don't involve splitting up China- but I really think there needs to be something that achieves the Sino-centric world that East Asia was in the period, stops Ming from blobbing like crazy, and lets you give them their historical power without making them OP. I think this does all 3. Thanks for reading!

This is a really good idea mechanically, though I agree with Zerodv's counter as well. However, I would like to point out something I feel should be addressed; such a system would be a little too Ming-centric. Representing China's internal weakness by breaking it up into a bunch of small nations and having an HRE-esque mechanic for it is indeed an ingenious way to handle it, but how would someone replace the Ming? Should there be any distinction between tributary and internal Chinese nations? What would happen were the Ming to be replaced? If someone conquered all the Ming's land in a single war, why shouldn't they be allowed to retreat elsewhere like what happened with the southern Ming rather than just being annexed? What happens in the event that the Ming lose the Mandate of Heaven? And so on. It's a very well thought out idea, I feel it just needs to be a little more flexible.

Basically you have:

• Land raids
• Naval raids and piracy
• Internal faction and estate system
• Harem system(if it makes sense)
• Mandate system
• Tributaries system
• Confucianism

Is this enough?

On paper, yes, and while I most certainly agree with you in principle, the issue is I feel that it would make playing Ming infuriating - it seems like it would just be getting slammed by one thing or another. Now, this isn't bad - again, Ming should have to face a lot of internal issues - but we have to make sure that it won't make it unfun to play with.

I have some ideas, but I don't know enough about EUIV to be sure they wouldn't cause serious balance issues.

My first idea would be to have a 'Martyrdom Tradition' counter, which basically functions like a reverse of war exhaustion. The more casualties a Sikh country takes in a war, the more the Martyrdom Tradition counter increases. Having high Martyrdom Tradition could have a bunch of positive effects, maybe increases in morale, missionary effectiveness, religious unity, prestige or other things like that. The other side of course is that actually losing wars (as opposed to winning with high losses) is a bad thing by itself, even if you do get a lot of Martyrdom Tradition you don't want to end up losing provinces or getting annexed.

This could work, but I think it could use some balance to avoid gamey stuff like leaving one regiment armies to get stackswiped to help drive Tradition up with minimal losses.

 

[Timewalker102]

One thing I really want to see is Isolationism.

Isolationism
This would be available for every Chinese technology group nation, including nations such as Korea and Japan.

At 0 Isolationism (openness) you would have some benefits and penalties:

-10% technology cost
+10% trade efficiency
+15% national manpower modifier
-1% missionary strength
-5% production efficiency
-2.5% morale of armies

At 100 Isolationism (closedness) you would have the opposite:

+2% missionary strength
+10% production efficiency
+5% morale of armies
+5% technology cost
-5% trade efficiency
-7.5% national manpower modifier

Isolationism would be mainly increased or decreased by events and decisions, but it could also be increased and decreased by the usage of monarch points: for each 80 Administrative Points that the nation uses, isolationism increases by 1, while for each 80 Diplomatic Points that the nation uses, isolationism decreases by 1. This means, for example, if you integrate a 100 dev vassal (800 diplo), you'll have -10 Isolationism by the time the integration ends, but if you core 80 development (800 admin), you'll have +10 Isolationism. And yes, I do know that Administrative points are more used than Diplomatic points, but that's intentional: that generally means that nations are going to be more isolated rather than less, just as in reality.

Then, when the nation embraces Global Trade, the Isolationism slider is removed entirely. (After all, it's GLOBAL Trade for a reason). The Isolationism slider could then even tie into various events.

 

[Jules Brunet]

Well, I am not really convince but the ''HRE thing'' for China. As much as it would be better for Japan, China wasn't historically some groupe of semi-independant country like the HRE. It's early this morning, but I think of 2 small idea.

First: the Manchu never really conquered all of China to establish the Qing: they only took the capital and the north and became ruler. Gamewise, it could be put inside the type of government (+15 revolt risk when capital occupied), making China more inclined to collapse in face of Northern hordes.

Second: China was never that expansionist during the EU4 timeframe. Why wouldn't the Overexpansion be use on that, making anything more than maybe 20% overextention losing the Mandate of the Heaven ?

With those 2 small change, the Bot will probably have a hard time to keep Ming together and will be unable to blod quickly. On the other hand, player will still be able to play around it.

 

[Zerodv]

One thing I really want to see is Isolationism.

Isolationism
This would be available for every Chinese technology group nation, including nations such as Korea and Japan.

At 0 Isolationism (openness) you would have some benefits and penalties:

-10% technology cost
+10% trade efficiency
+15% national manpower modifier
-1% missionary strength
-5% production efficiency
-2.5% morale of armies

At 100 Isolationism (closedness) you would have the opposite:

+2% missionary strength
+10% production efficiency
+5% morale of armies
+5% technology cost
-5% trade efficiency
-7.5% national manpower modifier

Isolationism would be mainly increased or decreased by events and decisions, but it could also be increased and decreased by the usage of monarch points: for each 80 Administrative Points that the nation uses, isolationism increases by 1, while for each 80 Diplomatic Points that the nation uses, isolationism decreases by 1. This means, for example, if you integrate a 100 dev vassal (800 diplo), you'll have -10 Isolationism by the time the integration ends, but if you core 80 development (800 admin), you'll have +10 Isolationism. And yes, I do know that Administrative points are more used than Diplomatic points, but that's intentional: that generally means that nations are going to be more isolated rather than less, just as in reality.

Then, when the nation embraces Global Trade, the Isolationism slider is removed entirely. (After all, it's GLOBAL Trade for a reason). The Isolationism slider could then even tie into various events.

Personally a one dimeonsiola slider mechanic seem a bit too simple, I would connect it to pirate activities, to Eunuchs factions and Merchants estates.

At the same time global trade should be available even with isolationism(in part ofc) because trade happened anyway in some form and another, for example in the Dutch and Portuguese ports in South Japan.

 

[Zerodv]

Well, I am not really convince but the ''HRE thing'' for China. As much as it would be better for Japan, China wasn't historically some groupe of semi-independant country like the HRE. It's early this morning, but I think of 2 small idea.

First: the Manchu never really conquered all of China to establish the Qing: they only took the capital and the north and became ruler. Gamewise, it could be put inside the type of government (+15 revolt risk when capital occupied), making China more inclined to collapse in face of Northern hordes.

Second: China was never that expansionist during the EU4 timeframe. Why wouldn't the Overexpansion be use on that, making anything more than maybe 20% overextention losing the Mandate of the Heaven ?

With those 2 small change, the Bot will probably have a hard time to keep Ming together and will be unable to blod quickly. On the other hand, player will still be able to play around it.

First: Yeah, also 80% of their armies were like defectors Chinese. But resistance didn´t end at that time, it took around 45 years do take all of China, end the Taiwanese government in exile and destroy the 3 feudataries revolt. At the same time provinces should cost less to take or there should be no peace treaty at all until the mainland is either taken or such. Maybe give a war enthusiasm modifier like in the league wars.

Second: That would be a bit too much, but if you think about it China couldn´t really control the Mongols and in part Manchurians. For this reason I think that provinces north of the OTL border should simply have periodic events of raids, autonomy increase, unrest and such. In Manchuria same but there you should have more the possibility of vassalize the local clans instead.


I want to remind that China survived 2 centuries OTL from 1444 to 1644, we don´t want it to explode overnight.

 

[bitmapmedivh]

The Far East is so overdue for an update it's not even funny. The faction system is basically unchanged from the band-aid it was when first introduced in EUIII to stop the blobbing, despite it serving very little purpose today since most of the things it was set up to combat have been achieved with other mechanics, like Autonomy.

I'll just restate what I said on the subject in an earlier post:

China's Celestial Empire
With China, what's needed is a rework of the Celestial Empire mechanics. Right now, when the situation in the empire is good, it's very good. But as soon as it turns even the sligtest bit bad, things collapse completely. There is no sense of relative decline or anything. Two bad events coupled with an illegitimate birth and the Mandate is lost. A gradual system is needed, where the player can see the coming catastrophy and take measures that might occupy him without things turning becoming a complete hell first.

First off, replace legitimacy with another decimal-based value counter, like Republican Tradition. Call this counter Mandate of Heaven. This will work similarly to how RT works for republics and Karma/Piety works for Buddhists and Muslims. Events options, unrest, unjust wars, low stability, uprisings, bankruptcy and losing wars will affect the value of this counter. At high value, it gives bonuses, at low value it gives maluses. Why replace legitimacy? Because legitimacy works more for European type monarchies, where dynasty and state are separate entities. In the Chinese dynastic system the dynasty, in effect, IS the state due to being the current sons of Heaven. This better reflects the dynastic cycle, rather than seeing the Yi family inherit the Ming tag. And it gives the region unique flavor apart from Europe.

Secondly for China, do away with the factions as they are now. Instead, either introduce unique estates or, more likely since Estates are behind the Cossacks paywall, create an Estate-like system. The purpose of this system is to simulate the loss of central authority to regional governors and warlords that happened in every dynasty before they collapsed. In this system you grant provinces to an estate called Governors inside the China super-region. When the Mandate of Heaven has a high value they won't ask for many provinces and have a high loyalty, providing bonuses to tax income and lowered corruption and unrest. As the Mandate values weakens they'll start to ask for more provinces and they'll instead provide maluses to tax income, increase corruption and unrest. At very low Mandate there's a chance the tags that have cores on their provinces declare independence.

The second estate is called Commanders and can be granted to provinces outside the China super-region. They work largely the same as Governors, but provide a bonus to manpower and stability cost at high Mandate and a malus to the same when it's low. They will rebel with large armies when Mandate is very low and seek to overthrow the central government. Each "region" will spawn their own rebel army. They represent all the regional generals that, left to their own devices, sought to carve out their own fiefdoms or claim the throne for themselves.

The third and last estate are the Eunuchs. They give bonuses to diplomatic reputation and trade power at high Mandate and maluses to the same at low.

When an estate gets too high influence a disaster called Palace Coup will begin to tick. This is similar to Estate Coups in the normal system and represents that particular estate seizing power and making the Emperor a rubber stamp puppet. Naturally this won't go over well with the other Estates. Estate Coups and/or low Mandate will make the Warring States disaster start ticking. Upon completion all Governors and Commanders will declare independence.

When the central government collapses like this, all the revolter states gain a permanent conquest CB on all other tags within the Chinese cultural group and super-region. When they fullfill the requirements for the Celestial Empire (20 provinces in the region etc) the may claim the Mandate, giving them CE government type and permanent claims on the entire region, thus beginning the dynastic cycle anew.

The reason to make the factions akin to estates is that you can more easily see their influence spread across the Empire and interact with them through the menu options in the Estates tab. Placate them, bribe them, etc. As is, there is little reason to juggle the factions and they don't represent the internal strife of China in any good way. All dynasties fell through some combination of bad finances, an eternal cycle of famine/floods that sparked rebellions and banditry which in turn depleted the treasury even more, giving room for regional governors and military commanders to expand their influence until central authority finally collapsed completely. Likewise, using a replacement for legitimacy will give you a greater insight into system itself, and you'll be able to see a bad situation coming and be able to rectify it before it becomes a fullblown disaster that punishes you by way of RNG-rolls. No more loss of mandate just because you had the emperor die during a war to be succeeded by a low legitimacy heir and immediately after lose another stability point by event thus sending you over the threshold into complete disaster land. Now, you will see a gradual loss of income and manpower, and a growth of corruption that slowly eats away at you if your Mandate is low.

South East Asia
For South East Asia, I'd say introduce a unique government for all of the region, including Indonesia and the Philippines: Mandala. This government type is all about vassals, and represent the Power Centre-surrounded-by-fluid-borders type of city-states that were dominant in the region up until the Colonial Era.

In this government type, only the capital state can be a state, everything else is territories. You expand mainly by making other states your vassal. But vassals aren't limited in their diplomatic options, and can be vassalised by another Mandala state if they have higher relations with the would be vassal than the current overlord has. Low legitimacy, relative strength and development level give relationship bonuses betwen Mandala states. Together this represents the almost feudal, personal relationships between rulers the system was based on. Vassalage is beneficial for both vassal and overlord, providing income and trade bonuses for both of them.

A state with negative stability and low legitimacy will run the risk of the Empire collapse disaster, which will result in all vassals declaring independence. This system will represent the fluid situation in the region, where regional centers rose and fell in ways unique to the region itself. This way you have a government system that mirrors the tributary-based city-state "empires" that fell almost as quickly as they rose. So in short you get a system that borrows both from the current Shogunate/Daimyo and Aztec systems, in some ways.

Other
I don't really know what to do with Confucianism and Shintoism. Stability bonii and malii, perhaps?

The tributary system was largely just a diplomatic fiction that consisted of rulers sending the occasional trade delegation with gifts for the Chinese Emperor in return for good relations and way to legitimize their own rule. If needed, it can just be a series of national decisions and modifiers that give improved relations between the minor and the Celestial Empire, aswell as some trade efficiency boost. Could give a boost to China's ability to enforce peace between tributaries aswell. Might restrict it to Chinese Tech Group aswell.

 

[Zerodv]

The Far East is so overdue for an update it's not even funny. The faction system is basically unchanged from the band-aid it was when first introduced in EUIII to stop the blobbing, despite it serving very little purpose today since most of the things it was set up to combat have been achieved with other mechanics, like Autonomy.

I'll just restate what I said on the subject in an earlier post:

China's Celestial Empire
With China, what's needed is a rework of the Celestial Empire mechanics. Right now, when the situation in the empire is good, it's very good. But as soon as it turns even the sligtest bit bad, things collapse completely. There is no sense of relative decline or anything. Two bad events coupled with an illegitimate birth and the Mandate is lost. A gradual system is needed, where the player can see the coming catastrophy and take measures that might occupy him without things turning becoming a complete hell first.

First off, replace legitimacy with another decimal-based value counter, like Republican Tradition. Call this counter Mandate of Heaven. This will work similarly to how RT works for republics and Karma/Piety works for Buddhists and Muslims. Events options, unrest, unjust wars, low stability, uprisings, bankruptcy and losing wars will affect the value of this counter. At high value, it gives bonuses, at low value it gives maluses. Why replace legitimacy? Because legitimacy works more for European type monarchies, where dynasty and state are separate entities. In the Chinese dynastic system the dynasty, in effect, IS the state due to being the current sons of Heaven. This better reflects the dynastic cycle, rather than seeing the Yi family inherit the Ming tag. And it gives the region unique flavor apart from Europe.

Secondly for China, do away with the factions as they are now. Instead, either introduce unique estates or, more likely since Estates are behind the Cossacks paywall, create an Estate-like system. The purpose of this system is to simulate the loss of central authority to regional governors and warlords that happened in every dynasty before they collapsed. In this system you grant provinces to an estate called Governors inside the China super-region. When the Mandate of Heaven has a high value they won't ask for many provinces and have a high loyalty, providing bonuses to tax income and lowered corruption and unrest. As the Mandate values weakens they'll start to ask for more provinces and they'll instead provide maluses to tax income, increase corruption and unrest. At very low Mandate there's a chance the tags that have cores on their provinces declare independence.

The second estate is called Commanders and can be granted to provinces outside the China super-region. They work largely the same as Governors, but provide a bonus to manpower and stability cost at high Mandate and a malus to the same when it's low. They will rebel with large armies when Mandate is very low and seek to overthrow the central government. Each "region" will spawn their own rebel army. They represent all the regional generals that, left to their own devices, sought to carve out their own fiefdoms or claim the throne for themselves.

The third and last estate are the Eunuchs. They give bonuses to diplomatic reputation and trade power at high Mandate and maluses to the same at low.

When an estate gets too high influence a disaster called Palace Coup will begin to tick. This is similar to Estate Coups in the normal system and represents that particular estate seizing power and making the Emperor a rubber stamp puppet. Naturally this won't go over well with the other Estates. Estate Coups and/or low Mandate will make the Warring States disaster start ticking. Upon completion all Governors and Commanders will declare independence.

When the central government collapses like this, all the revolter states gain a permanent conquest CB on all other tags within the Chinese cultural group and super-region. When they fullfill the requirements for the Celestial Empire (20 provinces in the region etc) the may claim the Mandate, giving them CE government type and permanent claims on the entire region, thus beginning the dynastic cycle anew.

The reason to make the factions akin to estates is that you can more easily see their influence spread across the Empire and interact with them through the menu options in the Estates tab. Placate them, bribe them, etc. As is, there is little reason to juggle the factions and they don't represent the internal strife of China in any good way. All dynasties fell through some combination of bad finances, an eternal cycle of famine/floods that sparked rebellions and banditry which in turn depleted the treasury even more, giving room for regional governors and military commanders to expand their influence until central authority finally collapsed completely. Likewise, using a replacement for legitimacy will give you a greater insight into system itself, and you'll be able to see a bad situation coming and be able to rectify it before it becomes a fullblown disaster that punishes you by way of RNG-rolls. No more loss of mandate just because you had the emperor die during a war to be succeeded by a low legitimacy heir and immediately after lose another stability point by event thus sending you over the threshold into complete disaster land. Now, you will see a gradual loss of income and manpower, and a growth of corruption that slowly eats away at you if your Mandate is low.

South East Asia
For South East Asia, I'd say introduce a unique government for all of the region, including Indonesia and the Philippines: Mandala. This government type is all about vassals, and represent the Power Centre-surrounded-by-fluid-borders type of city-states that were dominant in the region up until the Colonial Era.

In this government type, only the capital state can be a state, everything else is territories. You expand mainly by making other states your vassal. But vassals aren't limited in their diplomatic options, and can be vassalised by another Mandala state if they have higher relations with the would be vassal than the current overlord has. Low legitimacy, relative strength and development level give relationship bonuses betwen Mandala states. Together this represents the almost feudal, personal relationships between rulers the system was based on. Vassalage is beneficial for both vassal and overlord, providing income and trade bonuses for both of them.

A state with negative stability and low legitimacy will run the risk of the Empire collapse disaster, which will result in all vassals declaring independence. This system will represent the fluid situation in the region, where regional centers rose and fell in ways unique to the region itself. This way you have a government system that mirrors the tributary-based city-state "empires" that fell almost as quickly as they rose. So in short you get a system that borrows both from the current Shogunate/Daimyo and Aztec systems, in some ways.

Other
I don't really know what to do with Confucianism and Shintoism. Stability bonii and malii, perhaps?

The tributary system was largely just a diplomatic fiction that consisted of rulers sending the occasional trade delegation with gifts for the Chinese Emperor in return for good relations and way to legitimize their own rule. If needed, it can just be a series of national decisions and modifiers that give improved relations between the minor and the Celestial Empire, aswell as some trade efficiency boost. Could give a boost to China's ability to enforce peace between tributaries aswell. Might restrict it to Chinese Tech Group aswell.

I like the governor idea, I think you could have more factions than 3 though, between Eunuch, military leaders, religious figures or philosphers, merchants, local nobles and bureaucrats you have a lot of internal politics going on. I really think the tributary system should be a semi requirement to maintain the Mandate. After the closure of trade the tributary mission were one of the few ways trade was happening. Reinforcing peace though would a bit too much, I mean where did it really happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles#Ming_dynasty_.281368.E2.80.931644.29

Seems to me the intervention in Korea was more something done on direct self interest basis than on some tributaries idea.

 

[bitmapmedivh]

I like the governor idea, I think you could have more factions than 3 though, between Eunuch, military leaders, religious figures or philosphers, merchants, local nobles and bureaucrats you have a lot of internal politics going on. I really think the tributary system should be a semi requirement to maintain the Mandate. After the closure of trade the tributary mission were one of the few ways trade was happening. Reinforcing peace though would a bit too much, I mean where did it really happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles#Ming_dynasty_.281368.E2.80.931644.29

Seems to me the intervention in Korea was more something done on direct self interest basis than on some tributaries idea.

One has take care not to overdo it though. Adding lots of estates just for the heck of it risks making the system opaque and needlessly chaotic. Governors, Commanders and Eunuchs all have a clear goal: Provincial power cliques, Occupational power cliques and Palatial power cliques vying for power. Bureaucrats, Generals and Servants. Each of these represent a to China unique and recurrent power struggle.

My goal with the above suggestions was to be as in line with PDS DLC policy and gameplay philosophy as I could. Three estates is more than enough.


Point taken on tributaries, though.

 

[Frogbait]

Most people do know who the Hapsburgs were, have an acceptable knowledge about medieval and renaissance France, know the HRE was a thing and that Prussia was a dominant power in Germany. Byzantium is obscure.

For reference, in the states I don't think we ever learn about Prussia in our primary education. HRE as a whole is skipped over. I had no idea what a prussia was until I started playing this game. My historical love / hobby is for ancient near east / roman, so independently I didn't come across it either

 

[Dakka]

For reference, in the states I don't think we ever learn about Prussia in our primary education. HRE as a whole is skipped over. I had no idea what a prussia was until I started playing this game. My historical love / hobby is for ancient near east / roman, so independently I didn't come across it either

Most American education minimalizes a lot of Euro History. I think there was maybe one paragraph on Napoleon, and as far as earlier than that it barely touches on anything in the early medieval- renaissance [memory from high school]

 

[Frogbait]

Most American education minimalizes a lot of Euro History. I think there was maybe one paragraph on Napoleon, and as far as earlier than that it barely touches on anything in the early medieval- renaissance [memory from high school]

Well yeah, our history classes focus a bit on the rest of the world, but then teach us Lewis and Clarke and the American revolution several times a piece. Napoleon gets a mention for the Louisianan purchase. Mayflower and Thanksgiving is as in that batch, but to a much lesser extent. And that's for K-12.

And by a bit on the rest of the world, I mean I remember talking about ancient egypt, ancient Mesopotamia, ancient greece, and rome from a broad level once or twice throughout those 12 years. Alexander the Great and Caesar were the most indepth any of them really went into.

 

[Grand Historian]

For reference, in the states I don't think we ever learn about Prussia in our primary education. HRE as a whole is skipped over. I had no idea what a prussia was until I started playing this game. My historical love / hobby is for ancient near east / roman, so independently I didn't come across it either

In the States we also don't learn about Byzantium, or really much of any post-Ancient Roman European history outside of stuff England had a hand in.

Most American education minimalizes a lot of Euro History. I think there was maybe one paragraph on Napoleon, and as far as earlier than that it barely touches on anything in the early medieval- renaissance [memory from high school]

It depends on the state - some alternate American and World history with each grade, if I recall correctly.

 

[DanubianCossak]

In the States we also don't learn about Byzantium, or really much of any post-Ancient Roman European history outside of stuff England had a hand in.

Tsk tsk tsk tsk. Lousy colonial peasants. But yall know every single president all 50whatever many of them dont you?

Of much outrage.

 

[Dakka]

Tsk tsk tsk tsk. Lousy colonial peasants. But yall know every single president all 50whatever many of them dont you?

Of much outrage.

Nah, they only covered a few of those. Put simply, we learnt a lot about Ancient Greece, Rome, a bit on the crusades, touch upon Imperialism, the American Civil War, the Cotton Gun, WWI, WWII, and the rest of it is civil rights history. In fact I'm pretty sure the majority of our "world history" focus is on civil rights. An awful lot of it is either praising American Industrialism or condemning a lot of American social structure throughout our short lifetime as a sovereign nation. I think that is a big contributor to a lot of the American world view... but that may start going too much into political views.

 

[Frogbait]

Tsk tsk tsk tsk. Lousy colonial peasants. But yall know every single president all 50whatever many of them dont you?

Of much outrage.

On a broad level we're taught Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Both Roosevelts, WIlson, Truman, Nixon only about Watergate, JFK, Robert Kennedy (Not a president, but gets more coverage than most of our presidents and is relatively close), and Reagan. I'm guessing now Clinton is being taught and the dot com stuff.

As far as other presidents taught, I think it varies by state. But Jackson, Monroe, and both Adams I think are covered fairly frequently.

Granted, at my highschool we meme'd about Millard Filmore our glorious 13th president because reasons. It is rather ironic though how we're never taught about the Whig party or the split of the democrat-republican party.

For non-presidents and excluding WW2 generals, Franklin and MLK we're probably taught more about than anyone outside of Washington. Lewis and Clarke's journey may have been a regional thing for me (Grew up in Missouri, L&K expedition is fairly big across the midwest).

 

[Dakka]

Lewis and Clarke's journey may have been a regional thing for me (Grew up in Missouri, L&K expedition is fairly big across the midwest).

We touched on them, livin in CA.
(Also, this thread seems to be derailing )

 

[Frederick_Will]

On a broad level we're taught Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Both Roosevelts, WIlson, Truman, Nixon only about Watergate, JFK, Robert Kennedy (Not a president, but gets more coverage than most of our presidents and is relatively close), and Reagan. I'm guessing now Clinton is being taught and the dot com stuff.

As far as other presidents taught, I think it varies by state. But Jackson, Monroe, and both Adams I think are covered fairly frequently.

Granted, at my highschool we meme'd about Millard Filmore our glorious 13th president because reasons. It is rather ironic though how we're never taught about the Whig party or the split of the democrat-republican party.

For non-presidents and excluding WW2 generals, Franklin and MLK we're probably taught more about than anyone outside of Washington. Lewis and Clarke's journey may have been a regional thing for me (Grew up in Missouri, L&K expedition is fairly big across the midwest).

Yea, this about covers what i learned through K-12. Usually you hit the same topics year after year, without really expanding on it too much.(like the pilgrims) people like frederick the great were a paragraph at most. napoleon was barely mentioned. Unless one took a history class dedicated to other parts of the world or a specific era,(hippie history) you pretty much got a glance at a person or topic before you moved on. Even my world history classes would jump hundreds of years or condense hundreds of years into a quick lesson.

It is a shame, as there is so many fascinating characters and events out there, but one barely learns them or hears about them. I try to find books to read for the various era's to learn more about them where possible.

and kids going through now weren't even born when 9/11 happened. A lot of my text books didn't even have that mentioned as they were that old.(i had some books from the 80's) by the time i graduated, they were just starting to add that in to their new text books.

 

[Grand Historian]

Nah, they only covered a few of those. Put simply, we learnt a lot about Ancient Greece, Rome, a bit on the crusades, touch upon Imperialism, the American Civil War, the Cotton Gun, WWI, WWII, and the rest of it is civil rights history. In fact I'm pretty sure the majority of our "world history" focus is on civil rights. An awful lot of it is either praising American Industrialism or condemning a lot of American social structure throughout our short lifetime as a sovereign nation. I think that is a big contributor to a lot of the American world view... but that may start going too much into political views.

Yeah. Most of our history education in the states can just be summed up as how white men are the source of all the world's problems and how WWII was the most important thing to happen in history.

 

[Zerodv]

Does anyone think Paradox will actually manage to find a solution to China that lets it be very strong in income and army but not end up blobbing away everything?