Let's talk about Japan

[duelistgamer]

Japanese feudalism was very different from European feudalism, with where the authority lied and how sovereignty worked etc.

If Japan gets added and naval gameplay gets a boost, piracy should be added in.

Japan specific (from the perspective of Japanese Buddhist/Shinto characters; obviously the norse pagan King of Sweden doesn't have to observe many of these rules during his fishing trip in the Sea of Japan)

* It should be extremely difficult to overthrow the emperor. He's believed to be literally a descendant of god, to the extent that even in WW2 Japan didn't surrender unless they were guaranteed that the emperor would remain emperor. You could weaken him all you want, but overthrowing him is like getting a big curse upon yourself. Everyone will hate you.

* Japan by size is also small enough so ruling as a shogun (let's make him a King in-game) shouldn't be a problem. Enable it after a certain degree of authority in feudalism. Heian and Nara Japan were roughly feudal but mostly autonomous clans, and it was the Kamakura period that the consolidation of power became more apparent.

* Emperor should be a hybrid religious/secular character who is succeeded by dynastic Agnatic descent. Male members of the Emperor's dynasty wouldn't be allowed to marry matrilineally as long as Japanese religion is a thing.
* Of course you could get descendants into your dynasty matrilineally or outside wedlock and then press their claims to put your own house on the imperial throne. But this would weaken the authority of the emperor completely, until the Yamato line is restored (something about only the Yamato having the sovereign right to hold the title), or until a certain number of generations of your house have ruled. The people would reconcile with the fact that you do have some legitimacy because you were descended from Amaterasu even though not a part of the Yamato line, and that it must have been a work of the spirits to punish an emperor who had gone decadent.

* There should be a bonus with emperors and heirs of emperors who are born to your close relatives.

* If you have a clan, say Tokugawa, it can't be vassalized between multiple lieges, say Fujiwara and the Yamato, because family bonds. If a clan gets split, the part that gets split off becomes a new clan. You could use this to reduce the power base of clans.

* Emperor could declare you an enemy and that could result in civil war against you. All clans would have to comply. Emperors could do this to control your power when their authority is weak and they are ambitious.

* Divorces should be easier, because for a time women were seen more as spies of the other family and for producing heirs. Children would be locked to education in the mother's family's realm until the age of 12. This is crucial for influencing the emperor.

* Of course, samurai class. Army commanders could only be from that class. Retinues would be samurai, levies would be peasants. Levies would be much weaker than retinues, and you would have a much larger relative retinue limit than other nations in the game with a similar technology level after the shogunate is established.

* Temple/Barony/City mechanics would be different from European tiles. Temples would provide next to no levies, with moderate taxes at the highest level. There would be no cities, only villages, which would provide mostly peasant levies and lots of tax. Baronies would provide lots of samurai but little tax.

Possible starting situation:

Between 793 and 1192, the emperor is generally very powerful. The shogunate does not exist, only the clans do with the heads being called governors (shugo). The title of shogun would be honorary and awarded by the emperor to any of his direct vassals. He could choose to establish the shogunate, which would create the kingdom-level title of shogun that would have to be awarded to one of the clans. The titles of the shugo will convert to daimyo. During the Kamakura period, the Shogunate would already be established (the Shogunate start?).

 

[Teonod]

So? This is not EU, this is CK where you can play as vassals and governors (also, China too would be mostly one nation and be probably less decentralized).
With that said, the Emperor's authority is weakening so playing with him would be harder than playing any other top ruler in CK2.

That said. No nation but the Byzzies has received it's own DLC. And I'd argue that The Eastern Roman Empire played a more significant role in Eurasian politics than the Japanese during this time period.

 

[duelistgamer]

That said. No nation but the Byzzies has received it's own DLC. And I'd argue that The Eastern Roman Empire played a more significant role in Eurasian politics than the Japanese during this time period.

Rajas of India was an expansion of it's own, no?

 

[Nyrael]

That said. No nation but the Byzzies has received it's own DLC. And I'd argue that The Eastern Roman Empire played a more significant role in Eurasian politics than the Japanese during this time period.

India is one nation, Horse Lords is about the Mongol nation and Charlemagne was about one man. Oh, and the Aztecs! Can't forget the Aztecs!
importance or being more than one nation is NOT an requirement. All that is required is that people are interested in it and helluva lot people are not interested in Japan, but LOVE it (and that includes the Devs). Japan always gets extra stuff, even when it sometimes (arguably) doesn't deserve it.

 

[LACKADAISICAL]

I would love to see Japan, but realistically how could it be added without adding China, Korea, etc? I think the best thing would be for paradox to make Sengoku 2, using all that they've learned through the development of CK2.

 

[PastaTapestry]

I honestly don't see them adding it or China in in a way that even approaches historical accuracy. The games models are strained enough as they are (and each expansion has made them more so to an extent), I'd rather them not double the size of the game map for a disconnected (from Europe/NA) part of the world. My preference is for more DLCs that focus 100% on depth, not 60% on width and 40% on depth or what have you.

 

[killerbee256]

I honestly don't see them adding it or China in in a way that even approaches historical accuracy. The games models are strained enough as they are (and each expansion has made them more so to an extent), I'd rather them not double the size of the game map for a disconnected (from Europe/NA) part of the world. My preference is for more DLCs that focus 100% on depth, not 60% on width and 40% on depth or what have you.

But it's not disconnected... In the last few versions of the game I've India invaded or an Indian state expand into central Asia rather regularly, China would be no different. Frankly I rather not have an abritary invisible wall to my east when I play the steppes, Persia or India. Given your statement I would guess you seldom play anything other then western Europe.

 

[Aunel]

* It should be extremely difficult to overthrow the emperor. He's believed to be literally a descendant of god, to the extent that even in WW2 Japan didn't surrender unless they were guaranteed that the emperor would remain emperor. You could weaken him all you want, but overthrowing him is like getting a big curse upon yourself. Everyone will hate you.

Overthrowing the Japanese emperor should be as easy as overthrowing a Chinese emperor. After he gets overthrown, however, the system Japan uses should become Chinese, as the thing which set Japan apart from China is that the emperor was never overthrown. Aristocrats and later samurai worked within the system, rather than trying to overthrow it.

The emperor has been a source of legitimacy for the ruling elite of Japan since Heian period, and only rarely did he have any power beyond that (which is also a reason he was never overthrown; he didn't have a lot of power). By the time of WW2 the Japanese emperor was thought so important by the Japanese because of indoctrination. Fun fact: the Shouwa emperor told the Japanese people they had lost the war because the government was too afraid that if he didn't and someone else did, the Japanese people might rally around the emperor and continue fighting the Americans.

* Japan by size is also small enough so ruling as a shogun (let's make him a King in-game) shouldn't be a problem. Enable it after a certain degree of authority in feudalism. Heian and Nara Japan were roughly feudal but mostly autonomous clans, and it was the Kamakura period that the consolidation of power became more apparent.

A kingdom would fit, but the shogunate was only after 1192, which is well into the game (taking CM as a starting point). The emperor should hold that kingdom title first, and transfer it to a samurai when a shogunate is formed. Also, see my previous post. Heian and Nara Japan wasn't autonomous clans from the start; the state was still very centralized in the Nara period. It regressed over time to the point where previous nobody warriors (they fought because they weren't prominent enough nobles) came to rule the country.

* Emperor should be a hybrid religious/secular character who is succeeded by dynastic Agnatic descent. Male members of the Emperor's dynasty wouldn't be allowed to marry matrilineally as long as Japanese religion is a thing.

Empresses in Japan weren't unheard of, but there are none in the game's period. The emperor should also only be allowed to marry members of the dynasty of his regent, the dynasty of the shogun or members of the Fujiwara clan (look at wikipedia, more than half of the empress consorts were Fujiwara).

* Of course you could get descendants into your dynasty matrilineally or outside wedlock and then press their claims to put your own house on the imperial throne. But this would weaken the authority of the emperor completely, until the Yamato line is restored (something about only the Yamato having the sovereign right to hold the title), or until a certain number of generations of your house have ruled. The people would reconcile with the fact that you do have some legitimacy because you were descended from Amaterasu even though not a part of the Yamato line, and that it must have been a work of the spirits to punish an emperor who had gone decadent.

Maybe a Sayyid like trait would work, though in that case we direly need cadet branches. A great amount of clans were off shoots of the Imperial family, after all. I agree that overthrowing the emperor should throw the country into turmoil, but perhaps a distinction should be made between an emperor being overthrown when there is a shogun and when there is no shogun. The shock would be greater when there is a shogun, since in that case the position of the emperor is more symbolic. I think causing Japan to adopt China's system of a dynastic cycle would be most realistic in this case, though (and this should also cause a lot of chaos).

* There should be a bonus with emperors and heirs of emperors who are born to your close relatives.

This makes sense if you are playing as someone other than the emperor, and I agree that there should be a prestige bonus. If the child of the empress consort of your dynasty (so your grandchild) becomes emperor and requires a regent, then the game should automatically appoint you, as this is what the Fujiwara did all the time.

* If you have a clan, say Tokugawa, it can't be vassalized between multiple lieges, say Fujiwara and the Yamato, because family bonds. If a clan gets split, the part that gets split off becomes a new clan. You could use this to reduce the power base of clans.

I don't think this is how clans splitting off should be represented. Cadet branches would work better. Besides, the emperor was the de-jure "liege" at all times, so all clans should be under him. The Fujiwara should then be able to manipulate the emperor with their regents. If a shogun rises, all clans should become his direct vassal.

* Emperor could declare you an enemy and that could result in civil war against you. All clans would have to comply. Emperors could do this to control your power when their authority is weak and they are ambitious.

Agreed, but the emperor would need a champion, as always happened historically. This champion leads the revolt and if he wins, he gets the option between becoming shogun or putting the emperor back in charge. Which he chooses depends on opinion of the emperor, ambitious/content, envious, greed/charitable etc.

* Divorces should be easier, because for a time women were seen more as spies of the other family and for producing heirs. Children would be locked to education in the mother's family's realm until the age of 12. This is crucial for influencing the emperor.

Is there any proof of divorces happening in pre-Edo Japan? I don't think children need to be educated by the family of their mother. This should only happen with the emperor and only when he has a regent (the regent then decides).

* Of course, samurai class. Army commanders could only be from that class. Retinues would be samurai, levies would be peasants. Levies would be much weaker than retinues, and you would have a much larger relative retinue limit than other nations in the game with a similar technology level after the shogunate is established.

High-ranking samurai clans were nobles first, warriors second for the Nara and Heian period. Retinues, as in standing armies, were abolished in the Nara period (see my previous post). There is no clear line between peasant and samurai until the sword hunt in 1588. Anyone could have a weapon and fight for someone else. I think that the system tribals use would work best here. The overlord has his own retainers (levies) and can ask his direct vassals to join him. If they are loyal they will, if they are not they won't (honorable samurai will always do this). In short, there is no real samurai "class" in the time period of the game.

* Temple/Barony/City mechanics would be different from European tiles. Temples would provide next to no levies, with moderate taxes at the highest level. There would be no cities, only villages, which would provide mostly peasant levies and lots of tax. Baronies would provide lots of samurai but little tax.

Temples owned their own land and they weren't vassals to anyone. Cities are indeed a bit weird in the Japanese sense, as they started off as castle towns most of time, but I still think they work fine. They should provide no levies, only tax, and castle should provide only levies. Temples can be asked to join you in war.

 

[DarthJF]

Earliest start date would coincide with Nara period and specifically with the reign of Empress Kōken. It was a time when the government was very much modelled after Chinese examples and Buddhism and Buddhist priests were having large impact on government.

The game would need to be able to simulate the tensions caused by Buddhists interfering in court politics that led to the capital being relocated to Kyoto at the start of Heian period, expansion of Japanese state against Emishi in the east, weakening of central authority and rise of regional nobles over the course of Heian period which resulted in the Genpei War and establishement of the Kamakura shogunate, Hojo regency taking over the shogunal authority, crumbling of the Kamakura system, potential Kenmu Restoration of imperial authority, splintering of imperial court and rise of new Ashikaga like shogunate if imperial restoration doesn't succeed. Traditional sengoku period is beyond the game's timescope, so we wouldn't be seeing Oda, Takeda or Tokugawa clans in important roles.

It would also be nice to have special mechanics for things like cloistered rule and new Buddhism sects spreading to Japan from mainland Asia.

In short, Japan experienced a lot of changes and upheavals during CK2 timeline and doing justice for all the developments it went through would be extremely complex process. The samurai dominated society we typically associate traditional Japan with only emerged during 1100s, so it's relatively late in the game period.

 

[dulahan]

One thing to keep in mind - not everyone is going to want to play the Emperor! Some might want to be one of the border warlord sorts who eventually helped establish the Shogunate and who pushed against the Ainu/Emishi. So saying it would suck to play the Emperor isn't a bad thing!

A player SHOULD have a chance to stave off the rise of the Shogunate, just as they should be able to cause it, possibly even quicker than in history. That's what this game is for!

I do think special mechanics representing the break down are needed, which is why I agree a separate DLC would be ideal. Especially since the work that goes into a China one would be needed as a root to build off of.

 

[Scotty the Scot]

Well, this isn't getting ahead of ourselves or anything....

I think if you want Sengoku II than you should try a different forum.

 

[duelistgamer]

Overthrowing the Japanese emperor should be as easy as overthrowing a Chinese emperor. After he gets overthrown, however, the system Japan uses should become Chinese, as the thing which set Japan apart from China is that the emperor was never overthrown. Aristocrats and later samurai worked within the system, rather than trying to overthrow it.

That wouldn't work because the Japanese system basically required you to descend from god to be able to rule Japan. It's a religious thing quite unlike the Chinese mandate of heaven. If you were to overthrow the emperor, unless you could prove that the next ruler was also descended from Amaterasu, your emperor wouldn't have any legitimacy whatsoever. The rulers were also religiously inclined to not depose their head priest (which, as you know, is what the Emperor was). That's why I said that these situations are in the context of Shinto. By overthrowing the emperor, I was referring to the traditional form of emperor, someone with blood from the Yamato line.

The emperor has been a source of legitimacy for the ruling elite of Japan since Heian period, and only rarely did he have any power beyond that (which is also a reason he was never overthrown; he didn't have a lot of power). By the time of WW2 the Japanese emperor was thought so important by the Japanese because of indoctrination. Fun fact: the Shouwa emperor told the Japanese people they had lost the war because the government was too afraid that if he didn't and someone else did, the Japanese people might rally around the emperor and continue fighting the Americans

Not quite. He didn't have control over the clans, but as a ruler over his personal territories, he was still decently powerful until around 1000AD. Emperor Daigo, for example, was able to keep the Fujiwara out of his court, and this should be represented in the game properly. Of course the emperor didn't have control over the lands ruled by the clans, so they couldn't keep the clans' powers in check. The indoctrination was a result of the Meiji restoration through which the peasants were reminded that they did actually have an emperor, and he was used to unify everyone.

A kingdom would fit, but the shogunate was only after 1192, which is well into the game (taking CM as a starting point). The emperor should hold that kingdom title first, and transfer it to a samurai when a shogunate is formed. Also, see my previous post. Heian and Nara Japan wasn't autonomous clans from the start; the state was still very centralized in the Nara period. It regressed over time to the point where previous nobody warriors (they fought because they weren't prominent enough nobles) came to rule the country.

I disagree here. From 793 to 1192, there should be no shogun, but only duke-level vassals of the emperor who has anywhere between medium and limited crown authority (depending on the time period). After that, the shogunate should be established in the playable years. This actually brings me to the point of the vassals actually serving two direct lieges. The emperor being de jure, while the shogun being de facto.

Empresses in Japan weren't unheard of, but there are none in the game's period. The emperor should also only be allowed to marry members of the dynasty of his regent, the dynasty of the shogun or members of the Fujiwara clan (look at wikipedia, more than half of the empress consorts were Fujiwara).

I already know all that. While most of the consorts were from the Fujiwara, this was a result of the influence that the Fujiwara had over the Imperial house, not because there was a rule. It also doesn't change the fact that there was a heavy preference for male successors, which was later enshrined during the Meiji restoration.

Maybe a Sayyid like trait would work, though in that case we direly need cadet branches. A great amount of clans were off shoots of the Imperial family, after all. I agree that overthrowing the emperor should throw the country into turmoil, but perhaps a distinction should be made between an emperor being overthrown when there is a shogun and when there is no shogun. The shock would be greater when there is a shogun, since in that case the position of the emperor is more symbolic. I think causing Japan to adopt China's system of a dynastic cycle would be most realistic in this case, though (and this should also cause a lot of chaos).

In this situation cadet branches would mess up the game's succession rules (GG if your heir is of a different dynasty) and make it impossible for you to move up in the hierarchy the traditional way.

This makes sense if you are playing as someone other than the emperor, and I agree that there should be a prestige bonus. If the child of the empress consort of your dynasty (so your grandchild) becomes emperor and requires a regent, then the game should automatically appoint you, as this is what the Fujiwara did all the time.

Prestige bonus only if of your dynasty, but also a relations bonus if you are a close relative because the empress consort/empress dowager/heir's consort is your daughter or sister.

I don't think this is how clans splitting off should be represented. Cadet branches would work better. Besides, the emperor was the de-jure "liege" at all times, so all clans should be under him. The Fujiwara should then be able to manipulate the emperor with their regents. If a shogun rises, all clans should become his direct vassal.

Dynasties wouldn't work effectively. Clans were multiple families, not necessarily just one enlarged family. It doesn't make much sense that you'd be a feudal ruler vassalized by another clan when your entire clan ruled a different area and is not under the control of your clan. You would have to break off from your clan. The lands were distributed clan-wise. It shouldn't be limited to the Fujiwara. Every clan should be competing for power and influence over the emperor. This brings me back to the two lieges point that I mentioned previously. If the shogunate is established, and if you make all the daimyo vassals of the shogun, the emperor becomes virtually powerless, and as a playable character that makes no sense. Besides, if the emperor declares the shogun to be an enemy, the daimyo are required to fight the shogun, or they could choose to side with the shogun. Clan system makes it easier to represent, as vassals would be considered revolters by the game mechanics, and they would nominally be at war with you. It sounds like an unnecessary rework. The shogun, depending on his crown authority, could either invite the daimyo to his wars, or he could obligate them to.

Agreed, but the emperor would need a champion, as always happened historically. This champion leads the revolt and if he wins, he gets the option between becoming shogun or putting the emperor back in charge. Which he chooses depends on opinion of the emperor, ambitious/content, envious, greed/charitable etc.

That's the emperor's job and he would appoint the head of whichever clan he likes most. Anybody with enough influence and relations could ask him to declare a clan the enemy though.

Is there any proof of divorces happening in pre-Edo Japan? I don't think children need to be educated by the family of their mother. This should only happen with the emperor and only when he has a regent (the regent then decides).

I don't know if they did, but I do have some context (which is off my memory and so the details may not be accurate) to back up my statement. One of my readings mentioned a wife of the heir of a clan, who heard of her father-in-law planning to murder members of the wife's clan's family. The wife sent a message to her father, and her father acted promptly attacked the other clan, causing the deaths of many members, including the heir and his father. I don't remember the name of the woman, but this was a reading from a college course, and it was in the context of wives being seen as tools to make babies and as spying instruments. That is, her ultimate loyalty was to her blood-relatives. Also, I do know that especially during the Fujiwara period (heh), the Emperor's children were educated by the Fujiwara until a certain age (I think it was 15, but since the game makes you an adult at 16, it doesn't give you enough flexibility).

High-ranking samurai clans were nobles first, warriors second for the Nara and Heian period. Retinues, as in standing armies, were abolished in the Nara period (see my previous post). There is no clear line between peasant and samurai until the sword hunt in 1588. Anyone could have a weapon and fight for someone else. I think that the system tribals use would work best here. The overlord has his own retainers (levies) and can ask his direct vassals to join him. If they are loyal they will, if they are not they won't (honorable samurai will always do this). In short, there is no real samurai "class" in the time period of the game.

It wasn't the Nara but the Heian period when the imperial retinues were disbanded in favour of using the clans' armies. I don't think the tribal system would quite work. The "samurai" of this time were actually mercenaries, as opposed to the bushi/saburai who later become the samurai (earliest usage is around the 10th century).

Temples owned their own land and they weren't vassals to anyone. Cities are indeed a bit weird in the Japanese sense, as they started off as castle towns most of time, but I still think they work fine. They should provide no levies, only tax, and castle should provide only levies. Temples can be asked to join you in war.

Temples owned their own land but the emperor was(and still is) the head priest of the Shinto religion so if he chooses to he should be able to tax them. This will be unlike papal/free investiture in that sense. Buddhist temples though, should be able to lend you sohei for money.

 

[DesNibelungen]

That said. No nation but the Byzzies has received it's own DLC. And I'd argue that The Eastern Roman Empire played a more significant role in Eurasian politics than the Japanese during this time period.

Put it this way:

Japan received an entire expansion centered around it for EU3 (Divine Wind).
Japan received an entire game set in Japan (Sengoku)

Clearly, Japan is a significant enough nation to get its own expansion, from the PDS perspective. I'd argue that a Japanese expansion would be even more popular than a China expansion. Westerners love Japan.

 

[Blastaz]

And diplomacy. We would also need more inter-state diplomacy to model Japan's relations with, most notably, China. Basically an Emperor swearing oaths to another Emperor. Game doesn't really do that right now.

The "Emperor" of Japan would be a king tier title in the same way that the "Kings" in Britain/Ireland/Scandi are Duke tier titles...

The de jure Empire title would probably be just Japan (and maybe Korea) and just require you to own a couple of "king" level titles on the continent as well to justify your elevation in rank...

 

[killerbee256]

Sounds like some of the features of horse lords might be useful for representing clans in Japan.

 

[Aunel]

That wouldn't work because the Japanese system basically required you to descend from god to be able to rule Japan. It's a religious thing quite unlike the Chinese mandate of heaven. If you were to overthrow the emperor, unless you could prove that the next ruler was also descended from Amaterasu, your emperor wouldn't have any legitimacy whatsoever. The rulers were also religiously inclined to not depose their head priest (which, as you know, is what the Emperor was). That's why I said that these situations are in the context of Shinto. By overthrowing the emperor, I was referring to the traditional form of emperor, someone with blood from the Yamato line.

The whole emperor being a descendant of Amaterasu story getting so big was because of the Meiji government who wanted to do some nation building. In fact, all old Japanese clans who came about around the same time as the Yamato clan have similar stories of them being descendants of gods, but you never hear them because they didn't contribute to the nation building. Also, the Japanese started recording history of the empire just like the Chinese did because they -expected- a dynastic cycle to set in, but it just never did. Shinto wasn't a religion on its own before the Meiji period either. It was completely mixed in with Buddhism. Again, the Meiji government used what is now Shintoism as a part of their nation building, since Shintoism has the benefit of being uniquely Japanese and it enabled them to give the emperor the highest position (which Christianity, for example, wouldn't have because that would put God above all).

All in all, the emperor was a respected person and source of legitimacy during shogunates and Fujiwara regencies, and very early on the de-facto ruler, but not regarded as a god-emperor father of the nation until the Meiji period.

Not quite. He didn't have control over the clans, but as a ruler over his personal territories, he was still decently powerful until around 1000AD. Emperor Daigo, for example, was able to keep the Fujiwara out of his court, and this should be represented in the game properly. Of course the emperor didn't have control over the lands ruled by the clans, so they couldn't keep the clans' powers in check. The indoctrination was a result of the Meiji restoration through which the peasants were reminded that they did actually have an emperor, and he was used to unify everyone.

The Taika reforms, which were an attempt to simulate the Chinese emperor, made all of Japan the emperor's personal lands. He then started renting it out so that people would invest in turning it into farmland, and when that didn't get enough people enthusiastic the ownership of the land was made hereditary. Unless you are saying that the emperor didn't have direct control over those lands, in which case I agree with you, but those land owners weren't autonomous and they still were underneath the emperor (they didn't have armies, either, they were just nobles). Emperor Daigo and emperor Uda are exceptions to the trend that the imperial court was dominated by the Fujiwara during the Heian period. It should be possible for an emperor in game to break away from a regency, but it should not be easy.

I disagree here. From 793 to 1192, there should be no shogun, but only duke-level vassals of the emperor who has anywhere between medium and limited crown authority (depending on the time period). After that, the shogunate should be established in the playable years. This actually brings me to the point of the vassals actually serving two direct lieges. The emperor being de jure, while the shogun being de facto.

I meant that the title should be the title which encompasses all of Japan de-jure (excluding Hokkaido). The emperor has a duchy-level title like the Fylkirate. When the emperor title and the Japan title are held by the same person, the emperor effectively rules Japan (unless regents). When the emperor doesn't hold the Japan title but another Japanese does, it turns into a shogunate and the emperor is able to be restored.

I already know all that. While most of the consorts were from the Fujiwara, this was a result of the influence that the Fujiwara had over the Imperial house, not because there was a rule. It also doesn't change the fact that there was a heavy preference for male successors, which was later enshrined during the Meiji restoration.

I agree that agnatic would work and be completely reasonable, seeing how inheritance works in the game. There is no rule that the emperor marries a Fujiwara, but looking at the history it is either a Fujiwara or a member of another powerful clan, like the one who is current shogun.

In this situation cadet branches would mess up the game's succession rules (GG if your heir is of a different dynasty) and make it impossible for you to move up in the hierarchy the traditional way.

What do you mean by moving up the hierarchy in the traditional way? If there are no cadet branches, the Minamoto, the Taira and god knows how many clans will all be of the emperor's dynasty. A succession law for the emperor that allows him or his regent to choose a member of his dynasty when there is no male child would work to keep the title in the family.

Prestige bonus only if of your dynasty, but also a relations bonus if you are a close relative because the empress consort/empress dowager/heir's consort is your daughter or sister.

I agree.

Dynasties wouldn't work effectively. Clans were multiple families, not necessarily just one enlarged family. It doesn't make much sense that you'd be a feudal ruler vassalized by another clan when your entire clan ruled a different area and is not under the control of your clan. You would have to break off from your clan. The lands were distributed clan-wise. It shouldn't be limited to the Fujiwara. Every clan should be competing for power and influence over the emperor. This brings me back to the two lieges point that I mentioned previously. If the shogunate is established, and if you make all the daimyo vassals of the shogun, the emperor becomes virtually powerless, and as a playable character that makes no sense. Besides, if the emperor declares the shogun to be an enemy, the daimyo are required to fight the shogun, or they could choose to side with the shogun. Clan system makes it easier to represent, as vassals would be considered revolters by the game mechanics, and they would nominally be at war with you. It sounds like an unnecessary rework. The shogun, depending on his crown authority, could either invite the daimyo to his wars, or he could obligate them to.

Clans are multiple families, but that's not what I mean. There is a hierarchy of vassals when it comes to samurai, it's just not always as obvious because samurai, as opposed to European nobles, did not have to hold land. So I can be a retainer who happens to hold land of a daimyo who has sworn loyalty to the shogun. That would place me beneath the daimyo, who is placed beneath the shogun.

Clans should only compete for influence over the emperor if there is no shogunate. And I do think distance should be a large factor in this. If you are a lord who holds a ton of land in Kyushu, then you're not going to be able to influence the emperor nearly as much as an imperial courtier who resides in Kyoto.

Daimyo should be vassals of the shogun. In fact, shogun loosely translates as 'general', so why shouldn't he command all the military? I know that leaves the emperor virtually powerless, but isn't that what happened? If an imperial restoration occurs, which a player emperor should be able to speed along, then the emperor no longer legitimizes the current shogun, which means that he de-jure no longer rules anything but his own lands. When a restoration occurs all but the most loyal to the shogun should rally behind the emperor's champion.

That's the emperor's job and he would appoint the head of whichever clan he likes most. Anybody with enough influence and relations could ask him to declare a clan the enemy though.

Yes, exactly.

I don't know if they did, but I do have some context (which is off my memory and so the details may not be accurate) to back up my statement. One of my readings mentioned a wife of the heir of a clan, who heard of her father-in-law planning to murder members of the wife's clan's family. The wife sent a message to her father, and her father acted promptly attacked the other clan, causing the deaths of many members, including the heir and his father. I don't remember the name of the woman, but this was a reading from a college course, and it was in the context of wives being seen as tools to make babies and as spying instruments. That is, her ultimate loyalty was to her blood-relatives. Also, I do know that especially during the Fujiwara period (heh), the Emperor's children were educated by the Fujiwara until a certain age (I think it was 15, but since the game makes you an adult at 16, it doesn't give you enough flexibility).

Hmm. I do know that women could run away to a temple and become nuns, thus making their marriage obsolete. There's a temple in present-day Kamakura which is famous for having a lot of women flee to it. Also, I think what you say would make for an interesting mechanic. Of course, the wife's intrigue, opinion and traits would need to factor into this.

It wasn't the Nara but the Heian period when the imperial retinues were disbanded in favour of using the clans' armies. I don't think the tribal system would quite work. The "samurai" of this time were actually mercenaries, as opposed to the bushi/saburai who later become the samurai (earliest usage is around the 10th century).

I don't know, the book we used in college says that it was the Nara period in which the imperial retinues were disbanded except for a small garrison on the borders. Samurai then started policing for higher ups and eventually organized into small armies at the end of the Heian period. It was a very gradual process.

Anyway, the samurai underwent a lot of change. The class wasn't properly defined until just before the Edo-period and anyone could be a samurai really. The samurai at the end of the game, just before the Sengoku period, are vastly different from the samurai during the Genpei war. I don't remember there being formal contracts of who had to provide troops for who. It was just a matter of who you wanted to serve, that's why I think a the tribal mechanic would work best.

Temples owned their own land but the emperor was(and still is) the head priest of the Shinto religion so if he chooses to he should be able to tax them. This will be unlike papal/free investiture in that sense. Buddhist temples though, should be able to lend you sohei for money.

Thing is though, that there was no formal distinction between what is now Shinto and Buddhism. This distinction was made in the Meiji period. A lot of kami were also Buddhas or Bodhisattvas and vice versa. Amaterasu = Dainichi = Vairocana. But what we would now call Shinto priests didn't hold any ground, only Buddhist temples did, and the emperor was not the head of Shinto (still isn't, actually) so Shinto priests paying him tax would be odd.

 

[Teonod]

Put it this way:

Japan received an entire expansion centered around it for EU3 (Divine Wind).
Japan received an entire game set in Japan (Sengoku)

Clearly, Japan is a significant enough nation to get its own expansion, from the PDS perspective. I'd argue that a Japanese expansion would be even more popular than a China expansion. Westerners love Japan.

I thought Divine Wind was the expansion that ruined Ming? It was FINALLY fixed.

 

[Alectron]

If they add Japan then I would like to have water provinces above Siberia, so as a Norseman you can conquer Japan in an invasion war and convert them to Germanic faith.

 

[Scotty the Scot]

India is one nation, Horse Lords is about the Mongol nation and Charlemagne was about one man. Oh, and the Aztecs! Can't forget the Aztecs!
importance or being more than one nation is NOT an requirement. All that is required is that people are interested in it and helluva lot people are not interested in Japan, but LOVE it (and that includes the Devs). Japan always gets extra stuff, even when it sometimes (arguably) doesn't deserve it.

India is not one nation (not for a good few hundred years anyway), Horse Lords is about ALL the steppe nomads in the CK2 map, and Charlemagne the man was known as the father of Europe and essentially began the Middle Ages period...And besides the Abbasids, Saxons, Picts, and Zunists seem to be just as important in that DLC . And the Aztecs was just the Devs having some fun on their own time.

 

[killerbee256]

If they add Japan then I would like to have water provinces above Siberia, so as a Norseman you can conquer Japan in an invasion war and convert them to Germanic faith.

I would prefer the horn of Africa route.