• 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.

Meldorian

First Lieutenant
39 Badges
Apr 26, 2004
216
11
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
Hi!

What always bugged me about EU2 was the ease with which the Europeans exceeded the rest of the world in terms of wealth and power. You could basically just conquere the entire land mass of India and China after you were relatively secure in Europe. Now this should not be out of the question in a game taking place during the industrial revolution, like Victory, but before? I would really like to see EU3 modelling the big countries like Mughal Empire (or whatever power gets to dominate India in a particular game), China, and Japan in a way that allows them to be as powerful as they should be until late in the game. Internal game balance should be achieved by recreating the problems these nations that kept them in check historically, e.g. lots of Mongols in case of Ming China, not the fact that you could fit 4-5 European or North American costal provinces into a single one of their provinces.
 
I will bet (and hope) that conquest anywhere shall be more difficult (and realistic). Being "secure" in Europe should not be so easy.
 
I'm split on the issue. What will keep Asia behind then? Huge techcosts? Didn't China have something like 1/4 of world production during the era? Or was the emperor unable to control even a decent amount of the wealth and power in China?
 
Stingray said:
I'm split on the issue. What will keep Asia behind then? Huge techcosts? Didn't China have something like 1/4 of world production during the era? Or was the emperor unable to control even a decent amount of the wealth and power in China?

Ideally China should have such big trouble with revolts, mongols and just generally running their empire that they can't *afford* to spend money on tech....
 
Arilou said:
Ideally China should have such big trouble with revolts, mongols and just generally running their empire that they can't *afford* to spend money on tech....
At some points yes. Definitely not all the time. More importantly, they should not want to go out and conquer Asia.
The Ming never showed the slightest inclination to do so within the EU timeframe (though i am not entirely sure their Vietnamese campaign was over by that time). The Qing were content to muck about in central Asia but that was about it.
On the other hand. They alsoe never developed their military to the extent that the Europeans did, so increased techcost hould definitely be in. Compensated by enormous manpower to keep the European player from running amok too easily.

the Qing were never bothered by Mongols BtW.
 
Last edited:
The Phoenix said:
The choice between outward and inward stances...
By the time EUIII starts China had made it's choice, it was unlikely to turn back on it. Obviously a player could do this, with some fantasy events added for spice perhaps, mainly to mode the resulting backlash among the elite.
The AI should only very, very, rarely turn outward.
 
Registered said:
By the time EUIII starts China had made it's choice, it was unlikely to turn back on it. Obviously a player could do this, with some fantasy events added for spice perhaps, mainly to mode the resulting backlash among the elite.
The AI should only very, very, rarely turn outward.
The last thing shouldn't be that hard to do is it? :)
 
HJ Tulp said:
The last thing shouldn't be that hard to do is it? :)
Don't know how hard it would be. I do know that i've seen China rampaging through South East Asia, and even as far west as the Arab peninsula, on many occasions. A couple of times it's fun, but it should not happen this often.
 
Registered said:
Don't know how hard it would be. I do know that i've seen China rampaging through South East Asia, and even as far west as the Arab peninsula, on many occasions. A couple of times it's fun, but it should not happen this often.
I had a great game as Portugal when that happened. I was on the ropes the whole time, trying to build an Indian Ocean Empire against the the Chinese juggernaut. Really, really, really fun--until Spain declared war and ate me. :eek:
 
Yakman said:
I had a great game as Portugal when that happened. I was on the ropes the whole time, trying to build an Indian Ocean Empire against the the Chinese juggernaut. Really, really, really fun--until Spain declared war and ate me. :eek:
I hope you gave them a stomach ache :)
 
I think China can be kept in check by only giving them one state culture... and provinces with over a dozen non-state cultures. I know how irritating it is to play England with the stabiltiy and production problems of a bunch of Celtic cultures (Ireland, Scotland). I'd usually vassalize them to eliminate the problem.

Playing China, even if it has 1/4 of the world's population, will be difficult if 80% of all provinces are non-state cultures. The Ottomans and Byzantines in EU II had this same issue (IIRC), but they (and the chinese I think) had too many state cultures. Best way to nerf China and Byzantine / Ottoman is to take away all but 1 state culture and give 'em a bunch of non state culture provinces, with the associated problems.

Dunno if it will be enough, however. Perhaps if non state culture / non state religion provinces gave you a regular negative to your stab slider? You'd have to pay to main stability, or it would steadily decline, and that is money you can't spend on tech research or expansion, that will further cause inflation. Would also make those luxury manufactories more useful.

Of course, this is all EUII. We have no idea what EU III will have. But I'm pretty sure there is a Asian upgrade pack for EU II that P'dox released to address these complaints.

In the end, if you want good Asian setup, volunteer to do the historical research for these countries in the first beta.
 
ex-mudders on the right path.

If you start forcing actions you are immediately opening a can of worms that will never go away regardless of how many patches you release.

You have got to get the model right first.

Why did Chinese junks sail up the Thames?

What key reasons held back China?
I dont believe lack of ambition is going to get into top 30 list of reasons. Its those reasons you have to build into the model, not force as an arbitary mechanism, otherwise your model will fail.
 
Give someone playing China a reason to focus inwards beyond revolts. A concept that could be played around with would be something dealing with the concept of the Mandate. Considering the influence this had on dynasties rising and falling, I think that might be something worth looking into.

I have no idea how this could be impliemented though. :confused:
 
Mowers said:
What key reasons held back China?

They saw no gain from it all? China was already superior, there was no economic gain for China to travel across the globe invading places right and left.

They already had too much to chew? China was (and is) huge! With the technology of the time it must have been hard to control it all already.

More?
 
Meldorian said:
Hi!

What always bugged me about EU2 was the ease with which the Europeans exceeded the rest of the world in terms of wealth and power.


In real history the conquering only started after 1775. (some exceptions like North America) Even in India the Europeans could only get some small claims and trade posts. They where not the omny powerfull host we claim them to be in our nowadays history. It would make the game a lot more interesting if the colonial size would be a bigger challenge.
 
Stingray said:
They saw no gain from it all? China was already superior, there was no economic gain for China to travel across the globe invading places right and left.

They already had too much to chew? China was (and is) huge! With the technology of the time it must have been hard to control it all already.

More?

Sure. Go for it.

They did have too much to chew, they simply didnt have the capacity to control the already huge empire and didnt have the need to trade outside of it. Nor did they face any real compeition thus they stagnated. It all needs to be built into the model as opposed to forced arbitarily.
 
Mowers said:
Sure. Go for it.

They did have too much to chew, they simply didnt have the capacity to control the already huge empire and didnt have the need to trade outside of it. Nor did they face any real compeition thus they stagnated. It all needs to be built into the model as opposed to forced arbitarily.

So we punish nations with weak backward neighbors by raising their techcosts? So China would advance in tech, but slowly, due to noone else (that they know of) competing with them. And then they get the usual downgrading of their tech when the Manchu step in.

I suppose China had political problems as well (a relatively weak emperor IIRC, especially compared to the absolutist kings and centralised states of europe). But I really don't know much about China, not more than logic, eight grade and EUII taught me really ;).
 
Stingray said:
So we punish nations with weak backward neighbors by raising their techcosts? So China would advance in tech, but slowly, due to noone else (that they know of) competing with them. And then they get the usual downgrading of their tech when the Manchu step in.

I suppose China had political problems as well (a relatively weak emperor IIRC, especially compared to the absolutist kings and centralised states of europe). But I really don't know much about China, not more than logic, eight grade and EUII taught me really ;).

Thats exactly how I see it, but I cant claim to know alot about china myself so I'll back off as well ! :)
 
I think China, Korea and Japan should start out in 1450 with where Europeans would be in 1650, but should not advance at all really. They should however have a lot fewer musket technologies and more primitive cannons, but more advanced naval armor.

The biggest difference should be in what I've termed military achievement levels. China and Japan should rely on CK style irregular provincial levies, which they can certainly stave off aggression with considering their massive size, but smaller European countries' powerful builtup regular armies should be a lot stronger and more numerous.

While Europeans should have techgroup bonus pulling up their land and naval achievement levels, Asia should have a techgroup gravity that pulls them down levels. China should start with a relatively high naval achievement level, but unless they dump tons of money into it, it will devolve over the centuries to incapacity, and a veritable fortune to actually advance.