Please strengthen the Asian countries

[seamoss]

Yes the Asians are comparatively weaker than Europeans in the timeline of EU, but historically the Iberians were not able to conquer Japan in mid-17th century; nor did the Russians advance to the spice isles before they advance to the Baltic. Now these weird things always happen.
The fact is, not only the Asian countries are victims, but the other colonization powers also suffer. Say, when a European country player begins the oversea expansion after spending 200 years effort shaping the continent by his will, only to find he has little to do to weaken the superior status of Spain/Portugal/Russia in Far East. In fact, I never saw the British or Dutch managed to undermine the Iberian empire in Asia, although historically they are the winners in India and spice isles.

 

[quoms]

On one hand the Asian (and all non-Western) countries do need to be strengthened; on the other hand Spain's free colonist desperately needs to be removed as, as has been noted time and time again on this forum, it leads to ridiculous outcomes particularly in the Pacific and Eastern Siberia.

As for the Dutch, the Netherlands don't always form and rarely prosper in 1044 games, but something extra might be done to make late-game colonization easier for them (both AI and players). France has an NI that reduces native aggression and I think the Dutch could use one to reduce the tropical climate penalty. Almost all the territory available by the time the Dutch get rolling is tropical, and certainly the Spice Islands are. The AI tends strongly away from tropical territory unless it's the absolute last thing left, and something to reduce that attitude for the Dutch might allow them to get the jump on the Iberians in certain regions.

You know, while Spain colonizes Australia and New Zealand. Just like history.

 

[Wudadi]

Yes the Asians are comparatively weaker than Europeans in the timeline of EU, but historically the Iberians were not able to conquer Japan in mid-17th century; nor did the Russians advance to the spice isles before they advance to the Baltic. Now these weird things always happen.
The fact is, not only the Asian countries are victims, but the other colonization powers also suffer. Say, when a European country player begins the oversea expansion after spending 200 years effort shaping the continent by his will, only to find he has little to do to weaken the superior status of Spain/Portugal/Russia in Far East. In fact, I never saw the British or Dutch managed to undermine the Iberian empire in Asia, although historically they are the winners in India and spice isles.

Did Ming weaker than Europeans in 1644? Which European country wanted to fight with Ming? Portugal？Netherlands？England？Who won the battle in history? They were defeated by Ming because they are far from Ming？How many troops in Europe？2000K? How many troops in Ming？I just know 2000K troops in Yong Le Emperor period. Also, Russa were defeated by Qing in 1686.
Waiting Asia DLC.

 

[Maximonium]

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll get a somewhat alright buff with whatever focused DLC they decide to do several months down the road, that and fixing the hordes after the last run with the incompetence stick.

 

[IZob]

I am tired of seeing this happen:

View attachment 105549

1 Russia attacks Ming.
2 Demands 3 (or more) key provinces.
3 Releases 3 nations as vassals from those provinces (Xi, Zhou and Shun).
4 Then Russia attacks Ming again, and demands a huge amount of cores back to those vassals for no aggressive expansion. And lets face it, they shouldn't really be cores to these nations. They are puppet states who should not have any cores over those provinces in Ming! (claims would be ok, but not cores!).
5 Ming is utterly crushed, and Russia is now Russia + China = OP (annexing those vassals gives immediate cores).

And take a good look at the date. Its 1560!!! South America isn't even fully colonise by then....


Now that^ would never happen in SP by the AI. But in multiplayer, it happens all the damn time and it is utterly ridiculous. Please paradox, change it.

 

[Wudadi]

Because a lot of provinces in Europe; A few provinces in Asia. Especially China. One Chinese province equal 10~15 Western European provinces, so I think one European province = a city of one Chinese province. As we know, more provinces more incomes, manpower and troops in this game. And technology weaker than Nomandic(barbarian )!!! That's why Europe stronger than Asia in the game.
How to fix those things? I think adding more provinces in Asia (especially China) and change the level of technology.

 

[Sky_WKing]

Did Ming weaker than Europeans in 1644? Which European country wanted to fight with Ming? Portugal？Netherlands？England？Who won the battle in history? They were defeated by Ming because they are far from Ming？How many troops in Europe？2000K? How many troops in Ming？I just know 2000K troops in Yong Le Emperor period. Also, Russa were defeated by Qing in 1686.
Waiting Asia DLC.

Wars in China were completely on a different scale compared to those in Europe. Doom stacks of 200K were pretty common even in BC era. We Chinese people simply laugh at the so-called "decisive grand battles" in Europe that involve perhaps 30k on each side. Any European invasion on China would be suicidal until post-napoleonic era: we had more troops than their population. The only reason Chinese emperors didn't stomp every single nation on the planet was that they didn't bother, but a player would always do that.

 

[IZob]

I think the number of provinces in Asia is ok. The base tax there is also fine. I think if more provinces were added, it would only make the high-tech invaders more powerful - the situation would become worse. Because the high tech invaders would still win and claim those provinces.

More resistance to these high-tech invaders is needed, and I think that should be done by adding special national modifiers to the Asian tech groups.

Specifically they should have something like +25% land force limits. +25% manpower. 10% discount on troops. More troops for the invaders to fight will increases the attrition of war and will make victory all the more harder.


And replacing Xi, Zhou and Shun cores with claims.

 

[oblio-]

Wars in China were completely on a different scale compared to those in Europe. Doom stacks of 200K were pretty common even in BC era. We Chinese people simply laugh at the so-called "decisive grand battles" in Europe that involve perhaps 30k on each side. Any European invasion on China would be suicidal until post-napoleonic era: we had more troops than their population. The only reason Chinese emperors didn't stomp every single nation on the planet was that they didn't bother, but a player would always do that.

A war is not won through sheer numbers alone.
I thought your northern neighbors taught you that lesson 2 times. Kind of cocky to think that the Chinese emperors could have stomped the entire world when they got stomped by regional minors twice.

Back to the topic:
I feel that the monarch point malus for every tech group above sub-Saharan is unwarranted. They have tech penalties, no need for -1 each month. This is regarding the tech.
The units are being overhauled and I hope/think that the Chinese are getting better units for the next DLC - at least that's what I understand from Paradox.

 

[moyang]

But seriously, Chinese tech starts with lv 2 techs when others start with 3 is nonsense.

 

[Alblaka]

Just jump into the tech defining file (locating in \common) and give Chinese 0 MP penality (so they gain 3 points instead of 2, base per month) and give them starting tech 4. Makes for a more realistic (Chinese technology/culture was a bit ahead of European around 1200, but fell behind later on) and definitely more gameplay-interesting scenario.

 

[oblio-]

And there goes my Ironman.

On a more serious note, Paradox should start 1000 games in observe mode and see what happens with Asia when Chinese tech gets these buffs.
After that, they should start some multiplayer games (about which many EU4 players don't care, but still), and see if Ming is really overpowered - which is their main concern.

 

[PeterCorless]

If they created greater attrition for carrying troops, or had some other form of attenuation of imperial control over distance that would stop some of the nonsense of Portugal conquering India in the 16th Century.

The Russian roflstomping of China is also out of control.

The biggest issue I see is one of way-too-rapid-and-successful colonization. Usually by 1700, the U.S., Africa and Asia looks like 1850, with nary a spot on the map for new colonies.

But the population of the New World should be infinitesimal compared to Europe and Asia.

Best change that could be made for the game would be to remove one colonist on the QFTNW track, leaving only one there, and one in Expansion idea. That would slow the rate down of global exploration by a third. This would also cut back on Russia rushing to the Pacific by the 16th Century. I mean, hell, Vladivostok was not founded until 1860. And what population and military reached that far east of the Urals was minor at best.

It is not until the railroad and the steamship that moving vast troops to Asia was really possible.

So that's my first and biggest suggestion -- nerf the colonization and expansion of the western powers. (Yes, take out Spain's extra colonist too.)

Secondly, I'd also push for more of a parity during the early years of the game between cultures. There's no reason Chinese armies would have been worse than the Europeans.

What I sort of wish was that "advanced technology/culture" was something that nations could unlock with various social developments. What if "westernization" had come from a Muslim nation? They invented algebra, chemistry, and were pioneers in astronomy.

It is only with hindsight that we can see that "Western" technical superiority was a foregone conclusion. For instance, if Byzantium had fended off the Turks (a fantasy commonly played out in the game), there would not have been a rush of scholars to western cities, which fueled the the Renaissance. What if the "Western" tech group actually lagged, say, an "Eastern" European tech group?

It's just something to think about, mm?

But that's probably too radical except for someone's awesome mod.

 

[petertel123]

Wars in China were completely on a different scale compared to those in Europe. Doom stacks of 200K were pretty common even in BC era. We Chinese people simply laugh at the so-called "decisive grand battles" in Europe that involve perhaps 30k on each side. Any European invasion on China would be suicidal until post-napoleonic era: we had more troops than their population. The only reason Chinese emperors didn't stomp every single nation on the planet was that they didn't bother, but a player would always do that.

China? you mean that country that got stomped by every nation on the planet?

 

[Nunn45]

The biggest issue i see is with Tech, its absurd how far behind they get and how absolutely useless their units are compared to western tech.
Europe shouldnt be able to launch a successful land based invasion of China or Japan with a few thousand troops and fend off huge amounts defenders as they constantly can.

 

[MarkS00N]

Isn't in stream they said the units have been rebalanced so units of similar tier but different tech will not be have too much difference in stats?

 

[oblio-]

They did, but there's not mention/detailed description so far for Ottoman tech or lower. The only hard info we have so far is this: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...nfo-on-the-new-units-in-Wealth-of-Nations-1.6

 

[PandaL]

I think Shun, Zhou, Xi cores within Ming should be removed (having Shun cores at 1400s and 1500s is quite ridiculous as well). This at least can prevent Ming from getting eaten up in two wars. Another way to simulate Ming's collapse might be needed, but at least one that is less exploitable. Also any countries breaking from Ming should have decision, mission or events about reuniting China.

 

[Bonafide]

As someone mentioned, China starting with tech level 2 is a bit odd considering how far ahead they were on most areas. I'm not suggesting a tech increase to like, 5, but at least on par with Muslim and European techs.

 

[Murmeldjuret]

The productive capacity in terms of goods produced and energy harnessed, China had more than entirety of Europe until the latter half of the 1700s. Which would mean the entire EUIV timeframe. China had more IC than the collected IC of Europe throughout the timeframe. Ming China had a tax of 2.5%, and still it was the richest country in the world. Compare that to the 10% tax owed to the catholic church alone.

What Europe did have was a more advanced navy and realpolitik thinking (diplo tech) and military theory (mil tech).
Even though Sun Tzu wrote a really solid theory on warfare, Europe had never lost its military supremacy.
The first thing Europe did when it came to new lands was to destabilize them politically and seize any bottlenecks it could. Thus, with smaller and poorer nations they could control trade and the seas. The seizures of the straights of Aden/Hormuz/Malacca show just how quickly and effectively the Europeans went from nobodies to trade leaders of Asia.
But on the administrative and industrial side, Europe was centuries behind china at the start of the timeframe. China should be on equal footing adm tech cost, but behind in the other techs. The notion that China starts behind Europe in adm tech is as wrong as it gets.