Underevaluation of Asian Monarchs: Pyotr I of Russia(999) vs Gangxi of Manchu(557)

[highsis]

I'm not Chinese, but I will bring up Chinese monarchs for comparison because they can represent how unfairly Asian monarchs are evaluated.



Yongle of Ming is considered the second greatest emperor in Chinese history.

His stat: 4 adm 4 dip 5 mil.

Contemporaneous monarchs of ROTW:

Charles VI of France: A king who went insane, caused French civil war between several factions.

His stat: 8 adm 8 dip 8 mil ?!

Timur the Conqueror: 7 adm 7dip 8mil.








another example of contemporaneous monarchs of east and west.

Pyotr I of Russia: 9 - 9 - 9 monarch.

Gangxi of Manchu(greatest emperor in Chinese history): 5 - 5 - 7.

Pyotr the Great modernized Russia and he had subjugated Scandinavian countries, Sweden and Finland. Moved capital and established Russian empire, causing numerous deaths while building new capital.

Gangxi the Great had successfully brought integration of Manchu to Han race of China, he subjugated mongolia, Tibet, and northern Vietnam. He stopped Russia's expansion towards south. He had studied western culture and academics, and under his reign Manchu was so reach that he had removed poll tax for the first time in Chinese history and also did many tax reduction.

French missionaries reported back to Louis X IV(8-9-9) that Gangxi is the perfect emperor only except that he does not believe in Christianity.






My personal comments on listed monarchs:

Charles VI(8-8-8): mad man.
Timur(7-7-8): One of the Greatest conqueror, who rivals Gengkiskhan.
Yongle(4-4-5): One of the Greatest monarchs.
Louis X IV(8-9-9): War loving tyrant. It's not my opinion, but how other European scholars viewed him. Did you know that European scholars compared Qianlong, the grandchild of Gangxi, to Louis X IV, which was meant to be criticism? But in the game Louis X IV comes with perfect attribute.

Pyotr I & Gangxi: I personally believe that Gangxi was a better ruler than Pyotr, despite Pyotr the great being a great emperor himself too. Gangxi was called "千古一帝", an emperor who is barely born once in 1000 years."



and here is yet another weird monarch stat, this time an overvaluation.

Emperor Wanli Ming(3-6-7): one of the worst monarchs in Ming history. Wanli did never showed up to Royal court for over 30 years, meaning he absolutely did nothing of administration or ruling of country. Most courtiers, even the prime minister, forgot the face of the emperor, and since there was no emperor to give approval of any policies, Ming effectively stopped functioning. This guy received 3-6-7. The greatest emperor Gangxi is 5-5-7.







I hope I am not recklessly assuming that Paradox research team did not pay much attention to Asian history; but these attributes seem very odd from time to time.

History can be viewed from various perspectives, but one thing is certain. History does not change. If there is a research done on a subject, it will not need to be done again because the data can be used in other serious like EU4, EU5, and so on.

I hope I'm not angering Paradox dev team by saying this, but I feel that a bit more attention to Asian history can greatly boost player's experience as it provides a sense of realism.

Even if a proper research of all monarch is practically difficult, it would be nice of one or two representative monarch from each country are evaluated with closer examination.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

First of all, it's Kangxi not Gangxi, but I totally agree he should get a lot more than 557

In 50 years, 4 rulers turned some tribute-paying tribes with merely a few hundred thousand people into a khanate which could withstand Ming China and finally annexed them and expand even beyond Ming's border, their new empire can have Russia not to swallow their land but sign a proper border treaty, I wouldn't give any of these four a stat under 7

And there's a small thing, Wanli was once a reformer, but as his supporter died without anyone capable or willing to continue the reform, he ragequit his life and leave no one in charge, and when Japan attacked Korea the Chinese reinforcements were sent by the garrison commander in Liaodong and not approved by Wanli

 

[unmerged(205148)]

Yeah, some of the monarch ratings in history files are weird, Charles the Mad being the most prominent. Still, I'd rate Peter higher then Kangxi. The latter, however, deserves 8-8-8.

Anyway, most people don't start playing in dates which are so late.

 

[almoravid]

Peter I the Great
Diplomacy: great success. Through his Great Embassy, Russia became accepted in Europe; formed an alliance from Denmark through North Germany to Poland against Sweden, thereby completely outmaneuvring his enemies. Became the first emperor of Russia. Arguably the greatest success the otherwise rather isolated Russia ever had in this regard.

Economy&Governance: Killed the influence of the yanissary-like streltsy, made the church subordinate to the state, replaced old boyar nobility with an office-based bureaucracy. Introduced poll tax. The new capital at the baltic allowed for russian exports of grain flowing into european markets, which crushed polish competition. The best russian administrator in EU timeframe, perhaps tied with Ivan III. His reforms made Russia's rise to one of the world's greatest powers in 18th and early 19th century possible.

Military: Created a new, modern, european military around his "fun" regiments to replace a useless asiatic streltsy pretorian force. He singlehandedly created the first real russian navy, if we discount varangian longboats of 9th-10th centuries. Again, the greatest military reformer Russia had, comparable to Meiji Tenno of Japan.

9-9-9 completely justified. It's also justified for Louis "l'etat c'est moi" XIV, the man of the epoch, although I can't write so much about him ad hoc.

Timur, on the other hand, while surely deserves a 9 in military, did not achieve much through diplomacy - and failed to unite his conquests into a country that would stand the test of time, while the European monarchs laid foundations for greatness. 100 years after Peter's death, Russia was the world's greatest military power, gendarme of Europe. 100 years after Louis XIV's death, France had just lost the wars it fought against all Europe, having reached Moscow mere three years before. Where was China 100 years after Kangxi's death? Where was Timur's empire in 1505? The former was a second-rate power waiting to be humiliated by the Europeans, the latter didn't exist, having fallen apart decades ago.

 

[highsis]

Peter I the Great
Diplomacy: great success. Through his Great Embassy, Russia became accepted in Europe; formed an alliance from Denmark through North Germany to Poland against Sweden, thereby completely outmaneuvring his enemies. Became the first emperor of Russia. Arguably the greatest success the otherwise rather isolated Russia ever had in this regard.

Economy&Governance: Killed the influence of the yanissary-like streltsy, made the church subordinate to the state, replaced old boyar nobility with an office-based bureaucracy. Introduced poll tax. The new capital at the baltic allowed for russian exports of grain flowing into european markets, which crushed polish competition. The best russian administrator in EU timeframe, perhaps tied with Ivan III. His reforms made Russia's rise to one of the world's greatest powers in 18th and early 19th century possible.

Military: Created a new, modern, european military around his "fun" regiments to replace a useless asiatic streltsy pretorian force. He singlehandedly created the first real russian navy, if we discount varangian longboats of 9th-10th centuries. Again, the greatest military reformer Russia had, comparable to Meiji Tenno of Japan.

9-9-9 completely justified. It's also justified for Louis "l'etat c'est moi" XIV, the man of the epoch, although I can't write so much about him ad hoc.

Timur, on the other hand, while surely deserves a 9 in military, did not achieve much through diplomacy - and failed to unite his conquests into a country that would stand the test of time, while the European monarchs laid foundations for greatness. 100 years after Peter's death, Russia was the world's greatest military power, gendarme of Europe. 100 years after Louis XIV's death, France had just lost the wars it fought against all Europe, having reached Moscow mere three years before. Where was China 100 years after Kangxi's death? Where was Timur's empire in 1505? The former was a second-rate power waiting to be humiliated by the Europeans, the latter didn't exist, having fallen apart decades ago.

I am not disregarding all of your contention(I agree with your evaluation of Pyotr I the Great) but one thing about Gangxi. During Gangxi's reign, Manchu had accumulated over 45 million silver coins 'without' traditional poll taxes, and in the following 80 years Manchu had occupied 1/3 of the world's wealth, which is extraordinary even with consideration of Chinese population. Even more, at the end of Ming dynaty Chinese population was barely over a hundred million. By the end of Gangxi's reign, it reached one hundred and fifty millions. This is almost ridicules result that shows how incredibly Gangxi ruled his country.

I wouldn't say Manchu's humiliation in Opium war after 100 years of Gangxi's death is his fault. His sucessor had haulted westernizing. And the reason Gangxi is revered among Chinese is not only because he had strengthened Manchu into states that even western missionaries called Manchu a nation where Plato's Utopia is actualized, but also he had great caring of his people, unlike Pyotr the Great who had sacrificed many lives to build the new capital. Achievementwise Pyotr the Great may match Gangxi, but in terms of respect his citizen payed to their emperor is uncomparable, and this should be implamented to the game as 9 administration skill at very least, IMHO.

 

[chatnoir17]

Keeping a large empire is not easier than creating a new one.
Sadly many people don't know that.

 

[Jazerus]

Louis XIV was viewed poorly after his death, but while he was alive he was seen (rightly or wrongly) as the person against which every other monarch in Europe should be measured against. An 8 in ADM is probably overstating his administrative skills, as most of his administrative triumphs were accomplished with (in EU3 terms) 6-star advisors like Colbert; but 6/9/9 would be perfectly justified for the Sun King. In fact, a 10 in diplomacy would be justified if it was possible.

Peter deserves the 9/9/9 - he did not earn "the Great" for no reason. In every way, his rule made Russia part of Europe rather than an essentially irrelevant horde-successor state which happened to have ports on the North Sea.

That being said, the great Asian monarchs are indeed probably underpowered for their historical successes. Asian nations not becoming dominant powers within the EU3 timeframe is no reason why their leaders should have bad stats.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

100 years after Kangxi's death Qing had even grown a bit, the population nearly tripled. And a person's ability =/= his descedents' ability a hundred years later

 

[MaybeNever]

Peter deserves the 9/9/9 - he did not earn "the Great" for no reason. In every way, his rule made Russia part of Europe rather than an essentially irrelevant horde-successor state which happened to have ports on the North Sea.

Russia had ports on the North Sea?

100 years after Kangxi's death Qing had even grown a bit, the population nearly tripled. And a person's ability =/= his descedents' ability a hundred years later

I think the point being made was that a truly great leader would have achievements that would stand the test of time, and last even a hundred years after he or she had died.

 

[chatnoir17]

I think the point being made was that a truly great leader would have achievements that would stand the test of time, and last even a hundred years after he or she had died.

So Alexander the Great was not a truly great leader because his empire was divided after his death?
(Some achievments like the city Alexandria still existed, but it had nothing to do with his ability, but with historical situations after his death.)

 

[Taylor]

Yeah Louis XIV was a very good king, EU3-wise. His only problem was that he went to war a bit too often, but going to war is the player's decision, so shouldn't be reflected in monarch's ratings.

But that TIMUR, one of the greatest generals ever, only has military 7 is ridiculous IMO.

 

[StephenT]

So Alexander the Great was not a truly great leader because his empire was divided after his death?

Sounds about right. Alexander should certainly be a 6-shock, 6-manoeuvre and 3-siege general; but as a king, he wasn't all that hot.

 

[Cenobite30]

One of the great limitations of the monarch ratings is the fact that they are static. Many great leaders were not consistently great. Many made their greatest accomplishments during a hot streak, or some sort of fluke, and we only call them great because they succeeded. If they had failed, we would be calling many of these men fools (or we might not know anything about them at all).

Incidentally, I think the only games that really model changing stats are sports games. Now we just need to figure out how to make EUIII more like Madden.

 

[Keinwyn]

I think the problem is that people (some devs included) think monarch stats = achievements. They really shouldn't - they should represent the abilities of the monarch AND/OR his government.
It is possible to be very good and fail. Or for that matter be mediocre and succeed.
That said, Paradox do consistently undervalue any ruler east of the Bosphorus/South of the Med.

 

[Razgovory]

Charles II of Spain has slightly better stats then Henry VI. Henry could at least dress himself.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

I think he need to be 1/1/1... or "Regency Council" throughout his life...

 

[unmerged(205148)]

I think the problem is that people (some devs included) think monarch stats = achievements. They really shouldn't - they should represent the abilities of the monarch AND/OR his government.
It is possible to be very good and fail. Or for that matter be mediocre and succeed.

Yeah, that's the interpretation problem of monarch stats. Such discussions are more actual in EU2, however, while in EU3 only your starting monarch and his heir are predefined.

 

[Taylor]

Yeah, that's the interpretation problem of monarch stats. Such discussions are more actual in EU2, however, while in EU3 only your starting monarch and his heir are predefined.

Except of course when you play with historical monarchs.

 

[unmerged(205148)]

Except of course when you play with historical monarchs.

Aren't they disabled in HTTT 4.1 and DW?

 

[Taylor]

Aren't they disabled in HTTT 4.1 and DW?

Oh. I wouldn't know, I never play with them anyway .