• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Jinnai said:
former. You normally ad the 'not' if you disagree with the premise of the question.

YES it was a rethoric question Jinnai...
In italian language the consecutio is not so direct :wacko:
 
Norrefeldt said:
Well, so was Trabzon... ;)
I've never heard anyone use the word empire about Trabzon before. But just to make matters clear. I define empire as a center capable of laying down the laws governing interaction amongst states within its system. This empire usually has a different degree of control over the various states within the system. Ranging from direct control over dominion to hegemony.
 
Sute]{h said:
I've never heard anyone use the word empire about Trabzon before. But just to make matters clear. I define empire as a center capable of laying down the laws governing interaction amongst states within its system. This empire usually has a different degree of control over the various states within the system. Ranging from direct control over dominion to hegemony.

Trebizond is mentioned as an Empire in a variety of sources.
 
I hate to break it to you, but all it takes to be an empire is to be ruled by somebody calling himself the "emperor"
 
Pellucid, if that is really what you think, you sir, are an idiot.

For one, Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea ravaged that nation into poverty for the next 3 centuries and forced the Ming into bankruptcy, and some theorise to their ultimate fall. And that is just one megalomaniac shogun in 1590. Japan could have had more.
 
Mad King James said:
I hate to break it to you, but all it takes to be an empire is to be ruled by somebody calling himself the "emperor"
So all it takes for a country to be a democracy would be that they call themselves that? I don't think so. For instance the United Kingdom had an empire, but never an emperor. Granted Victoria was empress of India, but not empress of the entire British empire. Rome was an empire before the first emperor.
 
Pellucid said:
An Empire that had absolutely no effect on the flow of time in general until World War 2.
Well perhaps because you fail to see that the most important role of the empire isn't to affect other systems of states, but rather to maintain as best possible peace within its own system of states.
 
Sute]{h said:
Well perhaps because you fail to see that the most important role of the empire isn't to affect other systems of states, but rather to maintain as best possible peace within its own system of states.
then both hre and japan failed miserably :D
 
Sute]{h said:
So all it takes for a country to be a democracy would be that they call themselves that? I don't think so. For instance the United Kingdom had an empire, but never an emperor. Granted Victoria was empress of India, but not empress of the entire British empire. Rome was an empire before the first emperor.
Alas, then I'd say that neither HRE nor Japan were empires. The empires like Rome or Britain are best characterized by the fact that they could excert power on places beyond their national/cultural area. Rome's center was Italy, yet it ruled over the entire mediterranean. Britain's center was England, yet it had it's possessions on every of the continents. Would the Holy Roman Empire (post 1419) or Japan qualify as such? Rather not. I'd say both were loose federations of states with a largely theoretic central authority, limited to their cultural/lingual/national circle, same as France of 12th century or Russia of 13th-15th centuries.

How many tags does such a region deserve? Enough to be represented with some accuracy, yet not an ammount needed to represent minor struggles, IMO. Even on a new map, I'd not necessarily include Salzburg, simply because this state didn't do much/ won't work correctly. Other places deserve more attention - Who would cut Cologne? Who would trash Hannover? Would anyone dare to remove Florence? Economic and cultural importance of these areas was strong enough to justify their existence without even looking at any wars they fought or played a role in. Are there any states in Japan which could be compared with Florence or Siena in this aspect? I'd rather say most of them are of the caliber of Julich or Mainz, where the local lord would build a castle and keep several thousand soldiers, yet be nothing more.

That said, I think the final proposal of 15 provinces for all of Japan can be reluctantly accepted - if we need tags, I'd rather cut some african/arabian desert tribes. Just make sure these 15 are absolutely needed, improving the game and being playable each.
 
I think a lot of you are asking a rather impossible thing of Japan, to be a world-affecting power in EU2 to justify its existance.

However I can count the number of states that actually WERE world affecting powers on the fingers of ONE HAND.

Let's see... UK, France, Spain, Netherlands and Portugal. Done.
 
almoravid said:
That said, I think the final proposal of 15 provinces for all of Japan can be reluctantly accepted - if we need tags, I'd rather cut some african/arabian desert tribes.

You'll have an interesting time cutting tribes, seeing as how we have almost none. ;)
 
I think Yodamaster and Eldin are on the right track here with something like an 8-tag solution.

While I'm all for modeling the period with a good degree of historical accuracy, it's important that we remember the limitations of the game engine. The consensus is that we're going to basically set things up by event, let the wars play out, and wrap things up by event. We will use leaders and the inherent strategic strength of each tag to make the historical result be the most likely one, but other than that, we let it play out.

With that in mind, I honestly do not see the point in 12 or 15 tags. I don't think it will give a player playing there a much better sense of the history of the period. I think it will lead to a lot of quick annexations (which will make it very hard to predict what will come out of the period), followed shortly by something like what you would get with 8 tags. Maybe that's realistic, but are a bunch of daimyos that gets annexed that quickly really a good use of 7 tags?

Except for the very small percentage of players who really know their Japanese history, I think 8 tags will give a good sense of the period. It is also enough tags to set up all the relevant alt-histories for the post-Sengoku period.

Back in the pre-MyMap days, Jinnai came up with a set of creative solutions for the area, with lots of flag changing and such, that allowed for the use of only, what, 5 extra tags? I'm not suggesting we should go that low, but some of those same creative approaches could be used even now that we have all these provinces to play with.

8 tags. NIP tag for Hokkaido and other irrelevant areas, which gets inherited by the winner.
 
Mad King James said:
I think a lot of you are asking a rather impossible thing of Japan, to be a world-affecting power in EU2 to justify its existance.

However I can count the number of states that actually WERE world affecting powers on the fingers of ONE HAND.

Let's see... UK, France, Spain, Netherlands and Portugal. Done.
I just don't want to see 20 tags sunk into a country that basically has no effect on the game is all. Most European countries had at least a little bit of a ripple effect...Japan invaded one miniscule country once, and that was almost the entirity of their interference in the world until World War I. The game wouldn't change much if Japan was permanent terra incognita. I'm not saying that they should be, but if the decision comes down to representing a country like, say, Ghazi, versus representing the Tokugawa era contenders properly, preference should go to Ghazi, since it had SLIGHTLY more effect on the world as a whole than the Takeda clan did.
 
Pellucid said:
So already we're kind of screwing over the region. :D

Eh? Not at all. Don't forget the vanilla map only had 2 provinces for this whole area. Trying to figure out which of the equally-large Ghazi states to give Smyrna to prompted everyone to throw up their hands and just make a state called "Ghazi" there.

Now sure we could NOW add in 5 of those states as one province minors (Saruhan and Aydin unfortunately would have to share) but Aydin, Mentese and Saruhan were extremely short lived Ottoman vassal states, so we're probably better off just giving their provinces to the Ottoman Empire. That leaves us with Tekke, Germiyan and Hamid. We already basically have Tekke, so that would be 2 new tags in Anatolia; Germiyan and Hamid.

However, Hamid was ruled by the same dynasty as Tekke, so it's sort of pointless to have both. Hell some maps don't even seperate the two. So really all we need as a new tag is Germiyan. 1 new tag then.

We could even remove Ramazan and Dulkadir, which were very weak Mameluke vassal states, not all that different from Medina and Mecca which we HAVE removed already, and even SAVE a tag.
 
YodaMaster said:
To doktarr: 8 tags + NIP, as I understand, or 8 tags including NIP?
8+NIP, as you understand. I'm not going to go on a killing spree if it ends up being 9+NIP, either. My point is simply that from a gameplay perspective, pretty massive diminishing returns kick in at that level of tags. From a perspective of perfectly faithful historical simulation, many more tags would be useful, but that should not be our goal, I think.