Southeast Asia

[Incompetent]

In vanilla, the region south of China is a bit of a backwater - it's not very rich, its religion is not the state religion of any major power, and whatever the locals do is little more than a futile struggle for independence from the Chinese.

But it need not be this way. Instead of breaking it up like China, we can have SE Asia more united than it was historically - by this I don't mean we have one country covering the lot, but that the SE corner of Asia is the power base of one or two major powers rather than a number of minor ones.

I don't know a great deal about the history of the area, but one obvious candidate which would be in the Aberrated spirit is the Khmer Empire.

Historically, the Khmer Empire dominated the region for centuries, but by 1419 their power had mostly been worn away due to repeated wars with the Annamese, Chams and Thais. Their capital, Angkor, was captured by the Thais in 1434, and the Khmer Empire never returned to prominence.

But what if the Khmers had successfully fought off their many enemies? What if they'd expanded rather than contracted in the 15th century, to become more than just a regional power? How would they have interacted with India, China or Indonesia, for example?

I'll draw a map later to show what I mean, and people who know more about this area than I do can tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree.

 

[unmerged(26209)]

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Cambodia article, in 1353 the Thai occupied Angkor, which seems to have brought the Khmer to their knees. Let's instead say this:
The Thai in 1353 arrived at Angkor with conquest in mind, but met an unexpected amount of Khmer warriors standing outside the gate, stretching from, as a buddhist monk who witnessed the battle later wrote, "from horizon to horizon". The Thai sounded retreat, but were unable to flee before getting caught up by the Khmer. A bloodbath followed as the Thai hordes were stomped by war elephants, slashed by khmer swords and those few who survived, driven to escape into the jungle.
The khmer empire was strong once again, and with the Thai amry crushed, they set out to conquer the Thai, taking large parts of their land by force, and forcing the Thai into submission (vassalship in-game).

When the game begin, the Khmer have large problems with internal religious conflicts, as the people are theravada buddhists, while the royal family traditionally are part of a hindu cult. Also, the largest outside threat is possibly the Chinese city-states, though these should not be any danger until later in the game, and the Annamese, as they prolly are stronger withou Chinese occupation (I assume). The Khmer could begin the game with these borders:

As for Burma, I am no expert, but the Bagan kingdom collapsed during the 1300s. We could say it didn't collapse due to an especially violent/wise king and have it in.

Also, Angkor, not having been destroyed, looted and invaded by Thai, would prolly be one of the biggest cities in Asia at the beginning of the game, and also quite possibly a CoT.

 

[unmerged(33565)]

SE asia was always an area of contention in the early days when we were discussing what to do with asia in general. The basic idea that was tossed around was this, that the area was going to be backword and non united until pressure from a united India in the west and china in the north eventually saw the creation of a Prussian like military state that was formed from a collection of serviving smaller states to maintain their independance from these two very large and rich countries.

Once their independance was garnteed, then they would go on the offencive and try to secure a true state for themselves. Obvously, a much more difficult country to play, but one that would be alot of fun in the mold of the current brandenburg.

Also, Indonesia was going to be a battle ground for coloninal powers, one from china, and Celyon from India. Tossed in there would maybe be a minor state or two playing an important role in deciding who ends up controlling the islands.

 

[unmerged(30761)]

Indonesia / malasia would seem like a proper place for united oceania, hansa like polenisia based traders with strong navy and cultural contact to inca ferrying spices to inca and through them ica could have wheel, horses and be more advanced, maybe even with ortodox culture

 

[Incompetent]

...

Possibly. But I don't know if we really want 'united' India or China in the sense of nation-states. Large parts of India might well be ruled by one power, but that power would be an empire rather than a nation, and couldn't really claim to represent the will of all its inhabitants. China is a vanilla power, and if it does unite it will go berserk, because it'll be like vanilla China with most of the downsides removed. Similarly for SE Asia - Khmer may come to rule or dominate the lot, but this wouldn't be too popular with the Viet or the Burmese.

...

That's kind of what I was thinking, but we don't need to say they've already crushed their enemies; rather, they've achieved partial victories over them, and many great challenges and opportunities lie in Khmer's future as well as its past. So:

- Kwai can go back to the Thais, who can be a weak land power but with a decent navy. The Thai state can be a vassal, but a bit of a bothersome one, with the worry that it might switch sides and support the Khmer's enemies if given the opportunity.

- Da Lat, Mekong and maybe Da Nang can go to Champa, which could be a vassal (but not ally) of Khmer. The Cham should maybe have Malay culture, but they will at least be right-religion (Hindu) if Khmer annexes them early on. The Cham and the Viet don't get along very well, and will tend to fight each other, which will draw attention away from Khmer or give it an excuse for counterattacks, so the Cham may prove more useful as vassals than as provinces.

- Wasn't 'Annam' a rather disparaging name given to the region by the Chinese? It might be better to call them Dai Viet. But in any case, we can have a strong Viet state, perhaps extending a little into China. We can assume that earlier wars between the Viet and the Khmer ended in stalemate, and that now the Viet are more interested in spreading their influence in China and competing with Khmer traders. But that doesn't mean they won't fight each other some of the time.

- Apparently Bagan was destroyed by the Mongols; seeing as the Mongols are changing elsewhere, they might as well change here. So we can have Bagan surviving, and I'm thinking they'll be quite a warlike state, poorer than Khmer but with better generals so that the two sides are fairly evenly matched. The Thais would often hold the balance in wars between the two, especially if the war extends to Indonesia. However, one weakness of Bagan will be the tension between the Burmese and the Mon. Khmer will naturally support the Mon, and there may even be the prospect of the Mon taking over in Burma, resulting in a much more friendly and pro-Khmer state.

 

[unmerged(26209)]

- Kwai can go back to the Thais, who can be a weak land power but with a decent navy. The Thai state can be a vassal, but a bit of a bothersome one, with the worry that it might switch sides and support the Khmer's enemies if given the opportunity.

Good idea.

- Wasn't 'Annam' a rather disparaging name given to the region by the Chinese? It might be better to call them Dai Viet. But in any case, we can have a strong Viet state, perhaps extending a little into China. We can assume that earlier wars between the Viet and the Khmer ended in stalemate, and that now the Viet are more interested in spreading their influence in China and competing with Khmer traders. But that doesn't mean they won't fight each other some of the time.

Hmm... yes, Annam was a Chinese name. A small error of mine.
As for the Viet, I also imagined them having interests in China, so I have no problems with that.

 

[unmerged(33565)]

Possibly. But I don't know if we really want 'united' India or China in the sense of nation-states. Large parts of India might well be ruled by one power, but that power would be an empire rather than a nation, and couldn't really claim to represent the will of all its inhabitants. China is a vanilla power, and if it does unite it will go berserk, because it'll be like vanilla China with most of the downsides removed. Similarly for SE Asia - Khmer may come to rule or dominate the lot, but this wouldn't be too popular with the Viet or the Burmese.

The thing about china is that it always has had a very strong pull to unite. There have been periods in its history where it is seperated, but for most of time, it is united. In the oringal china thread, just about everyone agreed that it would be almost imposable to keep china completely apart for the entire game.

India will not be complete united. The North and northwest will be under one power, the northeast will be under a weak bengal state that can be picked apart slowly but surly. The south will be under a buddist state, either a collection of small powers or Celyon. Either way, there will be 4 or 5 cultures, and 2 religons in India and no power will have more then 3 (and that is only if I have 5) cultures. Try and control everything, and you will run into some MASSIVE problems.

I was more talking about trying to set up puppet states and slowly increase their influance in the area. Especially if the states are coming apart, or even fraying at the edges. Celyon, if it goes for a colonial empire in the area, would be especaily happy trying to grap up some extra profits from the area.

 

[Incompetent]

The thing about china is that it always has had a very strong pull to unite. There have been periods in its history where it is seperated, but for most of time, it is united. In the oringal china thread, just about everyone agreed that it would be almost imposable to keep china completely apart for the entire game.

I don't know what you mean here. Large parts of China have indeed been united for very long periods, but that doesn't mean there's some magic force uniting it, like you press a button and every Han in the world is called to attention. Even if the concept of China as a single country is an ancient and powerful one, it doesn't mean it was inevitable that it would be put into practice. Consider the Muslim world, for example, and in particular the Arab world. For the entire history of Islam there have been universalist concepts of umma and the Caliphate, which resonate to this day. Indeed, there have been periods when much of the Arab world has been united under various Caliphs, the last one being the Ottoman one. But would you say it's inevitable nowadays that the Arab world will unite? If so, why wasn't the pan-Arab movement more successful?

I think there's a tendency to try to force Chinese history into a certain formula (and Chinese historians have been especially guilty of this) - the 'way of things' in China is you have a stable dynasty ruling over the whole of China, then a short period of turmoil before the new dynasty moves in, and life goes on much as before. But real history doesn't work like that. Similar events may happen repeatedly, but for different reasons each time. Dismissing the Warring States period, the Sixteen Kingdoms period, the Ten Kingdoms period, the long period of Ming collapse, the equally long period of Qing disintegration, and the 20th century civil war all as decades-long 'interregna' just isn't helpful.

 

[unmerged(33565)]

I don't know what you mean here. Large parts of China have indeed been united for very long periods, but that doesn't mean there's some magic force uniting it, like you press a button and every Han in the world is called to attention. Even if the concept of China as a single country is an ancient and powerful one, it doesn't mean it was inevitable that it would be put into practice. Consider the Muslim world, for example, and in particular the Arab world. For the entire history of Islam there have been universalist concepts of umma and the Caliphate, which resonate to this day. Indeed, there have been periods when much of the Arab world has been united under various Caliphs, the last one being the Ottoman one. But would you say it's inevitable nowadays that the Arab world will unite? If so, why wasn't the pan-Arab movement more successful?

Sure the Arab world has been unified by several nations, however most could only hold onto most areas 2 centuries at most. This is mostly due to the fact that most local areas are traditionally ruled by tribes and local rulers. Look at Afghanistan and Pakistan today; they have almost no control of their border areas. There is a long tradition of non centralized control, up until recently when nationalist ideas took over. I mean could you see Egypt give up its independence, I couldn’t.

I think there's a tendency to try to force Chinese history into a certain formula (and Chinese historians have been especially guilty of this) - the 'way of things' in China is you have a stable dynasty ruling over the whole of China, then a short period of turmoil before the new dynasty moves in, and life goes on much as before. But real history doesn't work like that. Similar events may happen repeatedly, but for different reasons each time. Dismissing the Warring States period, the Sixteen Kingdoms period, the Ten Kingdoms period, the long period of Ming collapse, the equally long period of Qing disintegration, and the 20th century civil war all as decades-long 'interregna' just isn't helpful.

Meanwhile China has a long tradition of very centralized, unified control. Sure, there are periods of instability and multiple kingdoms and warlords rule. However, most of these periods are short lived when compared to the total history of China. This is really true after the start of the Tang dynasty in about 600 AD, the longest period of disunity after this is right around 50 years.

Now we don't have to unite ALL of china under one ruler, I think that would be a mistake. But, if most of china ended up under a singular ruler, I would not be all that surprised, and maybe it is railroading, but history has shown that over the 1500 years China has come together again and again.

Also, Game play wise with a region of same religion and culture would you not end up with one state more then likely eating most of it.

 

[Incompetent]

Also, Game play wise with a region of same religion and culture would you not end up with one state more then likely eating most of it.

Certainly it's possible that one power will unite China, and with the religion and culture it'll be easier than uniting a similar-sized area elsewhere. I'm not saying we need to prevent China uniting at all costs. But we have to be careful about events which proclaim 'We are China!' and add cores everywhere, for the same reason we don't give anyone cores over every province in France. Most of China dominated by a single country will be scary enough for the rest of the world, without helping it along.

 

[unmerged(26209)]

I noticed that SE Asia was without an official modder-in-command, and since that seems to be the case, I would very much like to take that post, if no one minds.

 

[MattyG]

Incompetant and I have always left the door open for others to join us and take the lead on a project. Ensure you PM Incompetant so he can update the State of the 'rration thread to reflect this.

Many people are interested in the region and the mod won't be complete until Asia too has been well re-designed. Looking forward to continuing to read your ideas.

MattyG

 

[Incompetent]

I noticed that SE Asia was without an official modder-in-command, and since that seems to be the case, I would very much like to take that post, if no one minds.

Sure. I've put you on the list.

 

[unmerged(26209)]

First of all, I was thinking that early in the game, perhaps 1420, the Khmer empire gets unrest among the thai of Ayuthayya (Bangkok). Facing the threat of a large scale rebellion in a cultural center of the thai, one that would ceraintly spread, the emperor gets three choices: a) burn the city, scatter the people, b) kill the troulbemakers nad c) leave it be.

Also, around 1500, Angkor, now the largest city in southeast asia, gets overcrowded, resulting in plague and famine. The emperor moves the court somewhere else (yet to decide where) and Angkor slowly withers.

I was also thinking about having an emperor in around 1550 who has ambitions in Indonesia, and yet another around 1600 who reforms the navy and sets about the make Khmer a colonial power, and a rival to the Chinese cities to the north. Around 1700 the Khmer could, with the right evnets choices, be ready for America.

More idea to come.

 

[unmerged(33565)]

I guess this is as good a place as any to bing up the discussion on what to do about Indonesia. Personaly I would like to see it as a colonial battle ground between a Chinese colonial power, my Celyon Naval power in India, and a SW Asian power. Maybe one or two minor powers that get fought over who they will be allies of, and give helpful advanges to anyone of these power. By the late 1500s, it could lead to a massive war in the area in which one only one power would end up dominate, leaving the others to wonder what went wrong.

I also think that if a europeon country has gotten into the area by then, it could lend support to one power or another.

PS- Once I get some info on this I can push forword in India a little bit. Been stalling till Europe is a little bit more polished, my new video card got here and work cut me down from 7 hours or what ever it was. I should have some time next week to dig up the tread and work/rework the current events.

 

[unmerged(26209)]

Add a native power that has the ability to, with difficulty, defeat the invaders and unite the islands (or perhaps three natives, one in Sumatra and one in Java/thatotherisland and one in Cele-whateverthenameis)?

 

[unmerged(23409)]

Then I shall direct thee to the Majapahit Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majapahit_Empire

 

[Incompetent]

Then I shall direct thee to the Majapahit Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majapahit_Empire

Indeed. I'll start a new thread for Indonesia, as it deserves one by itself.

 

[unmerged(26209)]

An event:

event = {
id = xxxxxx
trigger = = { province = 670 data = -1 } #Khmer must own the city
random = no
country = KHM
name = "The Ayuthaya Question"
desc = "The recently captured city of Ayuthaya, once a center of Thai culture, was a major problem for the Khmer. The inhabitants of the city refused to be ruled by their new Khmer rulers and rebellions and uprisings were part of everyday life in the city. By 1423, the Khmer had enough and the regional administrators presented a proposition to the emperor, of either burning the city to the ground or brutally supressing the Thai with the army."
date = { year = 1423 }
deathdate = { year = 1424 }
offset = 10
action_a = {
name = "Burn it to the ground!"
command = { type = stability value = -2 } #you don't go around burning major cities without causing instability
command = { type = treasury value = +400 } #Loot
command = { type = population which = 670 value = -7000 } #People will move to the Thai
command = { type = provinetax which = 670 value = -5 } #No city, no money
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = -5 }
command = { type = trigger which = xxxx } #Thai immigration event

}
action_b = {
name = "Supress the Thai"
command = { type = stability value = +1 }
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 670 value = +5 }
command = { type = treasury value = -100 }
command = { type = population which = 670 value = -2500 }
command = { type = trigger which = xxxx } #Thai uprising
}
action_c = {
name = "Leave it be."
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 670 value = +10 } #Should be harsch
command = { type = trigger which = xxxx } #Thai revolt
}
}

This might be a little extreme, but I want the Khmer to be crippled early on, and to possibly re-emerge later on as a powerful force.

 

[Nikolai II]

command = { type = provinetax which = 670 value = -5 } #No city, no money

Actually provincetax is about farming and the countryside - production (and trade) is what is being produced in the city.

I could see -1 or -2 for an event such as this, just to show widespread devastation, but not even that if the destruction is confided to the city..