Please, don't shoot the messenger - China confirmed?

[Konair0s]

Eurasiacentric (There's a mouthful...)? Yes, maybe. But in this era its true. IT was an interconnected world. We want to represent that. All variables that had an effect. Thus why America isn't needed. But China, Siam, etc are. They were all part of the 'then' network of the world. The Americas were separate, despite a few tiny colonies in Greenland and Canada that were fringe at best. They had no economic effect. Not military effect. Nothing but some adventure for a few people.

This isn't Sinocentric, this is arguing against anyone saying "But China didn't matter to Europe!" just as we always argue against "Europe didn't matter to China!" anytime someone tries to say it should be a different game.

So can you say how exactly did it matter?

 

[toroltao]

So can you say how exactly did it matter?

Western Liao destroyed the Seljuks which definitely affected Europe.

Proper representation of Mongols so they don't appear as a massive doomstack on the boarder. Not to mention it was the seat of the official Khagan of the Mongol empire.

Transmission of gunpowder.

Silk route during the early millennium and then porcelain route.

Just to name a few.

Your turn. How did Europe affect China in CK2's timeline?

 

[sreckom92]

Sengoku, anyone?

What is the point of such a DLC if they already have the ENTIRE DAMN GAME about Japan?

Sengoku has far less content than CK2.
In Sengoku you cannot interact with the rest of the world. Those interactions are, in my opinion, the main charm of CK2.
It's like I would ask: Why would you play EU4 with Napoleon, when there is a standalone game (March of the Eagles) centered around him?
I don't play Sengoku and March of the Eagles because their scope is very limited. Content that those 2 games provide is rather bland in my opinion.

 

[HREmperor]

No. Eurocentrism is the people who don't believe anything outside Europe mattered. The ones who try to say hypoerbolic stuff like if we have China, we need the Americas, or like those who have (in other threads) said adding China is as ahistorical as the Sunset Invasion! Seriously, that was said about ROI as well! The ones who don't care about anything outside of Europe to the point of denigrating any contributions. THAT is what Eurocentrism is.

Eurasiacentric (There's a mouthful...)? Yes, maybe. But in this era its true. IT was an interconnected world. We want to represent that. All variables that had an effect. Thus why America isn't needed. But China, Siam, etc are. They were all part of the 'then' network of the world. The Americas were separate, despite a few tiny colonies in Greenland and Canada that were fringe at best. They had no economic effect. Not military effect. Nothing but some adventure for a few people.

This isn't Sinocentric, this is arguing against anyone saying "But China didn't matter to Europe!" just as we always argue against "Europe didn't matter to China!" anytime someone tries to say it should be a different game.

China didn't affect the Crusades or the Crusader Kings. You don't need China to have the Silk Road, which is the only thing got to do with China that affected Europe. They already added Mongolia which did affect Europe.

 

[toroltao]

China didn't affect the Crusades or the Crusader Kings. You don't need China to have the Silk Road, which is the only thing got to do with China that affected Europe. They already added Mongolia which did affect Europe.

Yes it did, the displaced Western Liao dynasty defeated the Seljuks who were part of the crusades. Without the ripple effect of the Jurchen and Song invasions on the Liao, or the Liao conquest of China, there would be no displacement to Central Asia, no defeat of the Seljuks, or at least in the way it specifically happened, and the history of Eurasia as we know it would be completely different. Possibly no Rum, no Ottoman Empire, no conquest of Greece or Hungary. There, happy?

 

[dulahan]

So can you say how exactly did it matter?

I have in many places, I'm hardly quiet about it. But here we go again. This is brief since I'm at work, look up in many of the other massive China threads for more in depth summations of all these points and more.

Trade: The Silk road is a start here. But I'm not kidding. When there was a major crisis in China, like a famine, rebellion, whatever. Right around 2 years later, EVERY TIME there were economic reprecussions in England - that's almost irrefutable, a few times here and there is correlation, this is hard to deny causation . Why two years? We also know that's roughly how long it took for trade to cross that distance. Other nations along the trade routes had similar experiences in the time it took for the crisis to reach them. This is most prominent in Silver - the primary unit used for currency across Eurasia. And Europeans did seek it out, the Polos were hardly alone. They just had good marketting.

Diplomacy: whether the border states in Central Asia who had to deal with various dynasties of the era as well as other neighbors. Or things as broad as Popes and Frank Kings seeking alliances with the Yuan via the Il-Khanate (Or religious conversion). There were interactions. Yes, the distance caused some issues in the latter case, which the current 'too distant' reasoning is probably a perfect representation. The fact is, they were aware, and did try. Marco Polo was, as I said, not the first. We have John of Plano Carpini, just to name one expample of another emmissary, who happened to write a travel log as well (a super good one at that, it's translated and more interesting to me than Polo). And that's just Europe, interactions with India definitely happened.


Military: Yes. Military. Whether it be helping drive out nomadic groups that in turn went to Europe or when we get to the Yuan the actual militaries. Yes, this is the Mongols, but a strong Chinese state might ahve done similar. Had the Tang won at Talas, or truly recovered from An Lushan, it's not unlikely they would have extended their hegemony. Exiles from a the Liao founded Kara Khitai in Central Asia. But again, Tang and Arab conflict. This is not a hard 'what if' to theorize, it could have happened again. Easily. And 'what if' is a huge part of this game.

 

[sreckom92]

China didn't affect the Crusades or the Crusader Kings. You don't need China to have the Silk Road, which is the only thing got to do with China that affected Europe. They already added Mongolia which did affect Europe.

What does it matter if China didn't affect the Crusades or the Crusader Kings?
If CK2 had Crusades as the main focus, I would agree with you. But they are not the main focus. Character interactions and dynasty building is pretty much the main focus of the game.
In those terms, China is very much eligible to join. In fact, it could greatly benefit the game. Of course, if the optimization would allow it.

 

[dulahan]

China didn't affect the Crusades or the Crusader Kings. You don't need China to have the Silk Road, which is the only thing got to do with China that affected Europe. They already added Mongolia which did affect Europe.

Wrong! Do not pass go, do not collect $200!

In addition to the 'ripple' of the above Seljuks example. There is a particularly interesting case I can make where events in China, at the time the Yuan, very likely caused one of the latter crusades to fail.

I'm forgetting the exact year, but in the late 13th century. The Frankish Kings and the Pope sought out an alliance with the Il-Khanate (Who were a nominal vassal of the Yuan) which was agreed to. A joint attack on the Mamluks to reconquer the Holy Lands. This would take the form of the Franks landing in Egypt and the Mongols advancing into modern Syria and Israel.

A power struggle back in China led to a massive war that forced the Il-Khanate to send troops in the other direction (Culminating in a massive battle in Afghanistan involving forces from all four Mongol successor states fighting each other, the Toluid Yuan and Ilkhanate forces vs the Chagataiids and Jochiid Golden Horde). This renegging on their agreement due to necessity of their nominal overlord lead to the Crusaders losing badly where before it might have had a chance with 100k Il-Khanate troops who were mustered and ready to join the attack, helping divide the Mamluks to two different fronts.

(Here I'll also sidenote: the two major battles the Mamluks defeated the Ilkhanate and Mongols? they had a significant numerical advantage. This would have meant being outnumbered, and fighting on two fronts. That typically is a bad thing!)

Of course you'll say "But Mongols! Already on Map."

No. This was a result of intrigues that started in China, but drew in all four Mongol Successor states in the end.

 

[Konair0s]

Your turn. How did Europe affect China in CK2's timeline?

Why is it my turn?

Trade: The Silk road is a start here. But I'm not kidding. When there was a major crisis in China, like a famine, rebellion, whatever. Right around 2 years later, EVERY TIME there were economic reprecussions in England - that's almost irrefutable, a few times here and there is correlation, this is hard to deny causation . Why two years? We also know that's roughly how long it took for trade to cross that distance. Other nations along the trade routes had similar experiences in the time it took for the crisis to reach them. This is most prominent in Silver - the primary unit used for currency across Eurasia. And Europeans did seek it out, the Polos were hardly alone. They just had good marketting.

There is no trade in CKII. Even no simple trade in Europe. Without a sophisticated trade system and good modelling of it and how places are interconnected, this silk road will be just a chain of semi-random events at best.

What we have in reality: in reality CKII is not a great simulator of things. It is a sandbox history-ish RPG. Maximum what all these subtle interactions you described would be - set of scripted events. 3.5 events in 700 years. And for the most cases it would be - sitting in the different corners of the map, doings things which do not affect each other in any really meaningful way unless a player goes WC.

 

[Konair0s]

Okay, I will not argue about it anymore. In the end I as a player just don't want to have a half-baked giant region with very marginal connectivity to the other for the sake of just 'being here'.

I would not care about it at all if the developers included the ability to disable such a thing (along with India. And Japan/Indochina/Philippines/Indonesia) entirely in the game setup.

 

[dulahan]

There is no trade in CKII. Even no simple trade in Europe. Without a sophisticated trade system and good modelling of it and how places are interconnected, this silk road will be just a chain of semi-random events at best.

What we have in reality: in reality CKII is not a great simulator of things. It is a sandbox history-ish RPG. Maximum what all these subtle interactions you described would be - set of scripted events. 3.5 events in 700 years. And for the most cases it would be - sitting in the different corners of the map, doings things which do not affect each other in any really meaningful way unless a player goes WC.

Actually, read the Dev Diary about the Silk Road in Horse Lords. Things like "War" along one branch is going to have an effect on the amount of money made along the entire branch. So we're getting closer.

China being in would allow that to effect both branches when things get bad.

 

[Grafvitnir]

It is a sandbox history-ish RPG.

And a bigger, more diverse sandbox is something I'm very excited about.

 

[Carmilla]

And by the way, there are people who already requested Indochina, Japan, Philippines and Indonesia.

That kinda goes without saying as people want all of Eurasia.

 

[HREmperor]

What does it matter if China didn't affect the Crusades or the Crusader Kings?
If CK2 had Crusades as the main focus, I would agree with you. But they are not the main focus. Character interactions and dynasty building is pretty much the main focus of the game.
In those terms, China is very much eligible to join. In fact, it could greatly benefit the game. Of course, if the optimization would allow it.

China didn't affect Europe historically = it won't affect Europe in the game = it might as well be it's own map, just like India = meaning it's an unnecessary strain on resources when playing in Europe.

 

[HREmperor]

How did Europe affect China in CK2's timeline?

What sort of response is this? This might make sense if China was the base map, but it isn't. Europe is. That's like asking what affect Europe had on America in CK2's timeline.

 

[sreckom92]

China didn't affect Europe historically = it won't affect Europe in the game = it might as well be it's own map, just like India = meaning it's an unnecessary strain on resources when playing in Europe.

But what does it matter if it didn't directly affect Europe? It affected the eastern part of the map. It affected India and to an extent Persia and the eastern steppes.
Not everyone is playing in Europe. With China opened, game-play in Central & West Asia would become exponentially more interesting.

 

[Lisbon39]

China didn't affect Europe historically = it won't affect Europe in the game = it might as well be it's own map, just like India = meaning it's an unnecessary strain on resources when playing in Europe.

"China didn't affect Europe historically"

I don't want to sound rude, but have you read any of the numerous posts in this thread that presents evidence clearly contradicting that statement? There's a lot of them and all of them are providing valid, historically accurate responses. I'd recommend taking the time to read the other people's arguments before instantly dismissing them as being incorrect if I were you.

 

[HREmperor]

"China didn't affect Europe historically"

I don't want to sound rude, but have you read any of the numerous posts in this thread that presents evidence clearly contradicting that statement? There's a lot of them and all of them are providing valid, historically accurate responses. I'd recommend taking the time to read the other people's arguments before instantly dismissing them as being incorrect if I were you.

He asked why would it matter if China had no impact and I explained why it would. And while historically it may have had an impact due to the butterfly effect, in game it won't. Just like India.

 

[DesNibelungen]

just hanging on its side of the continent and draining resources from the Europe play.

That is probably the most Eurocentric description of China I have ever read. My hat is off to you, sir. The world's most advanced superpower of the era was just hanging out on the side!

 

[Konair0s]

That is probably the most Eurocentric description of China I have ever read. My hat is off to you, sir. The world's most advanced superpower of the era was just hanging out on the side!