Wasteland, Eurocentrism, and a petition for an expansion focusing on Africa

[ZomgK3tchup]

What does Ming/Qing have in scientific/technology advances which is significant?

China was typically a few decades behind Western Europe in most meaningful advances, which is substantially more than you could say about most parts of the world, including parts of Europe.

Barring the last century or so of the game.

In a game about modelling history where the actors are nations, importance is not necessarily measured by population but more diplomatic influence and military exploits. China's success in staying alive should not be undervalued, but it was not that active in foreign affairs.

China maintained a diplomatic network that spanned the entirety of East Asia, Indochina, and Indonesia. The Chinese Emperor arbitrated conflicts between Chinese tributaries. If we go by your definition of importance, China is still incredibly relevant.

East Asia alone is 15% larger than Europe in land area, never mind Indochina and relevant parts of Indonesia. China alone was larger than every contemporary empire bar the Spanish Empire, and its sphere dwarfed that of every other state.

Just because China did not maintain diplomatic contact with Europeans (which is only partially true), doesn't mean that it didn't exert diplomatic influence.

As far as military exploits go, it's notable that China continuously fielded armies whose size were not seen in Europe until the Napoleonic Wars. Also, are we aware that China did defeat the Dutch and the Portuguese in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as they tried to exert themselves in East Asia? The Sino-Dutch Wars ended with the Dutch abandoning Taiwan.

The concept that China was isolationist and backwards is overblown and certainly wasn't true for the majority of the time period.

Are you comparing China to some minor German states?

What would be a more appropriate comparison?

Of course it was globally more important than quite a few countries, but it was surpassed by a handful of others.

Portugal, Spain, and the Dutch Republic were really the only European states that exerted this "global influence" that you describe prior to the eighteenth century.

China's influence was not global, however, and that makes it a regional power. Even though it utterly dominated a large region.

England and France did not exert that kind of influence until the eighteenth century, and Austria never did. Your definition for what constitutes important is so specific that it discounts several prominent European states.

The posts immediately above and below your own put it more succinctly than I could.

What exactly is the point of this post? The posts you're referencing to, while I disagree with them, contribute to the discussion, but this post is the forum equivalent of a redirect page.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

So, somehow this entire third of the population was less important? How are you defining importance because, again, commanding that many people, regardless of how many others you interact with, sounds pretty important to me.

"Yeah, you can't really argue for the importance of China beyond a regional level aside from serving as a source of goods."

That was my original point. That China had little to no importance outside of her immediate region. I made no claims about the importance of China to China, or that the population of China don't matter at all.

Yes, 1/3 of the human population is important because every human life has value, but in terms of a game like EUIV, the personal experiences of individuals are of literally of no importance whatsoever, so sheer population isn't an argument for importance. At game start, China is one country, with a few powers readily able to expand into her. Literally one tag, and so in many ways literally no more important than the average HRE minor.

Sure, China can fragment, but the player almost never plays with one of those, and from an outside perspective in a campaign, those fragments have the following significance:

1. Either they will be even less relevant to the outside world than a united China.
2. One of them reunites China, i.e. 1444 Ming 2.0

Now, what arguments are there for Chinablob as an externally important power?

I rarely see it go on wide conquering sprees, even if it survives. If China is united, it won't even bleed a lot of trade wealth out (because it can pull Canton trade to Beijing). So how is it important? As something to be eaten? I rarely see foreign powers conquering China, and then using all that development to blob outside the region.

So how, exactly, is China important on more than a regional level?

 

[anomanderus]

I wanted Africa to be fleshed out, but I can't support anyone who goes "U EUROCENTRIC GIB DLC".

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Sure, China can fragment, but the player almost never plays with one of those [...]

This argument is a negative feedback loop of "People don't play China because the developers don't expand China because people don't play China."

Which is wrong too because I doubt many people played as Kongo or Somalia states before Paradox expanded Central Africa.

Now, what arguments are there for Chinablob as an externally important power?

Why does every nation need to blob? If you give China engaging internal mechanics (governors and tributaries, just to name a few...), you could have an engaging game where China doesn't need to expand beyond East Asia.

Evident by the fact that development was added specifically to allow tall growth, blobbing isn't the only intended way to expand in this game.

Also, I assume you've never played multiplayer based on the questions that you're asking. Ming being controlled by the AI and Ming being controlled by another player are two different beasts entirely.

So how is it important? As something to be eaten? I rarely see foreign powers conquering China, and then using all that development to blob outside the region.

Non-European states don't exist to be conquered.

So how, exactly, is China important on more than a regional level?

The region that you are describing is 15% larger than Europe, and Southeast Asia (where China exerted heavy influence) is about half the size.

You keep saying regional level but are ignoring that "region" is so broadly defined that it encompasses everything from a collection of islands in the Caribbean to the Indian Subcontinent.

 

[Chronicler]

I have said it a thousand times before, but yeah, the African states (and other tribal states such as in the Americas), westernize far too quickly.

During the Scramble for Africa it was spears vs guns (I know guns were stolen etc). And today these states are still lagging behind, so why are they even allowed to reach western tech? It's just unrealistic.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

This argument is a negative feedback loop of "People don't play China because the developers don't expand China because people don't play China."

No matter how much flavor they give China, it's still one tag, still one gameplay experience. I could see arguments for more China flavor based on the effect it will have on neighbors (which I would like a lot, actually, especially mechanics revolving around the conquest of China). But China itself will only ever be one tag, which provides a low upper limit for replayability and variability.

Which is wrong too because I doubt many people played as Kongo or Somalia states before Paradox expanded Central Africa.

Because they had almost no other local tags to provide early competition, or variability in starting position. China has a different problem.

Why does every nation need to blob? If you give China engaging internal mechanics (governors and tributaries, just to name a few...), you could have an engaging game where China doesn't need to expand beyond East Asia.

Because this is a game about blobbing. You can't make enough internal mechanics to keep a country interesting without any blobbing at all, and still have it be EUIV. I'm sure you could find some remotely plausible mixture (that would still lean heavily towards expansion) that would be fun to play as, but again, this is one tag, one starting position, that we're talking about.

Evident by the fact that development was added specifically to allow tall growth, blobbing isn't the only intended way to expand in this game.

Yeah, no. It's always, always, always, ALWAYS cheaper and quicker to get more development via conquest, colonization, and integration. Development is inefficient but, more importantly, completely boring. Development increase is literally just sitting around waiting to get monarch points, and then clicking on a button.

Also, I assume you've never played multiplayer based on the questions that you're asking. Ming being controlled by the AI and Ming being controlled by another player are two different beasts entirely.

I play in a huge MP game every weak, actually, this time next to a player Ming. But MP is not a valid argument for a single-player focused game (and for that matter, ANY nation is significantly different under a player than under an AI).

Non-European states don't exist to be conquered.

Yes, and...? I'm not saying give China 200% tech penalty and one pip units, in fact I wish it was harder to fully conquer Asian minors. That doesn't have to do with allocating flavor development, though.

The region that you are describing is 15% larger than Europe, and Southeast Asia (where China exerted heavy influence) is about half the size.

You keep saying regional level but are ignoring that "region" is so broadly defined that it encompasses everything from a collection of islands in the Caribbean to the Indian Subcontinent.

Back to the size argument again, huh? In EUIV terms, East Asia is several times smaller than Europe. In terms of interesting situations possible (defined by tags and significantly different start positions), it's extremely limited compared to Europe, and it would be even if each region got as much flavor attention as comparable regions of Europe.

Eventually, you're just gonna have Indochina, Indonesia, China (which in game terms is just one tag), steppe hordes (already got flavor), Korea (yawnfest), and Japan.

 

[joe9594]

Why does every nation need to blob? If you give China engaging internal mechanics (governors and tributaries, just to name a few...), you could have an engaging game where China doesn't need to expand beyond East Asia.

Personally I would love to see a bunch of gameplay mechanics for ROTW nations which gave them goals where they didn't westernize and blob (which is really just playing a western nation with a disadvantage at the start). This would be a massive amount of work though, definitely not worth it just for china and most ROTW nations are ok as is.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Personally I would love to see a bunch of gameplay mechanics for ROTW nations which gave them goals where they didn't westernize and blob (which is really just playing a western nation with a disadvantage at the start). This would be a massive amount of work though, definitely not worth it just for china and most ROTW nations are ok as is.

A tributary system would affect China, Mngolia, Manchuria, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Indochina and Indonesia

 

[joe9594]

A tributary system would affect China, Mngolia, Manchuria, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Indochina and Indonesia

Yeah but most of those nations are already reasonably fun to play. The only one that really suffers from the way the ROTW plays is china. The others would be a bit better with a new system but not enough to justify it when the only nation really benefiting a lot is Ming.

 

[anomanderus]

I have said it a thousand times before, but yeah, the African states (and other tribal states such as in the Americas), westernize far too quickly.

During the Scramble for Africa it was spears vs guns (I know guns were stolen etc). And today these states are still lagging behind, so why are they even allowed to reach western tech? It's just unrealistic.

Even when they Westernize, aren't Europeans still lightyears ahead in terms of technologies already researched?

 

[Chronicler]

Even when they Westernize, aren't Europeans still lightyears ahead in terms of technologies already researched?

That's also something quickly caught up in.

But anyhow, at start of game, I was surprised when the African tribal states had gunboats and engaged me in naval battles. You show me the historical counterpart for that.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

This isn't really going anywhere productive, agree to disagree.

That said:

Even when they Westernize, aren't Europeans still lightyears ahead in terms of technologies already researched?

I assume that in-game Westernization is some combination of Peter's reforms and the Meiji Restoration.

It works for countries that really just need to modernize institutions and integrate technology that they may or may not already have access to. The problem occurs when countries that don't have these institutions attempt to modernize, e.g. they have to build them from the ground up rather than renovate something they already have.

 

[rujikin]

Then make Africa have higher attrition rates for non-African nations and make interior African provinces harder to colonize.

The Scramble for Africa didn't occur in 1880 because Europe was too busy to conquer Africa. It occurred when it did because advances in medicine, logistics, and warfare made it possible for Europeans to move armies into the African interior.

If a European army tries to march through Africa, it's going to get a nice, warm helping of malaria, something the game doesn't simulate.

The answer isn't to have as few provinces in Africa as possible. It's to simulate attrition in a way that discourages African expansion.

if attrition, supplies, and disease were made semi-historical most of the broken gamey tactics in this game would end right there. Back in these times moving supplies was a difficult task especially in areas with few roads. May be we should simulate road levels so supply trains can be simulated and if they get cut off the offender only has so many days worth of supplies till they starve or run out of artilery rounds. Africa would have no roads so getting supplies through would massacre any invading armies while the natives can live off the land. Simlate foreign disease spread and even if a native win the wars they might lose to the plague.

 

[Zelius]

This argument is a negative feedback loop of "People don't play China because the developers don't expand China because people don't play China."

Just wanted to nitpick and say that this is actually a positive feedback loop.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

if attrition, supplies, and disease were made semi-historical most of the broken gamey tactics in this game would end right there. Back in these times moving supplies was a difficult task especially in areas with few roads. May be we should simulate road levels so supply trains can be simulated and if they get cut off the offender only has so many days worth of supplies till they starve or run out of artilery rounds. Africa would have no roads so getting supplies through would massacre any invading armies while the natives can live off the land. Simlate foreign disease spread and even if a native win the wars they might lose to the plague.

Supply lines would be ahistorical for the first half of the game.

What we know as supply lines didn't exist for the first two centuries of the game. An army lived off the land, gathering food and other resources as it went, something that is already represented in-game by supply limits.

An army replenished losses by recruiting locals or camp followers.

Problematically, the game covers two entirely separate eras of warfare, one focused on sieges and with an absence of supply lines and another focused on battles with an emphasis on army professionalism and military logistics.

Just wanted to nitpick and say that this is actually a positive feedback loop.

Haha, good catch.

 

[GC13]

What we know as supply lines didn't exist for the first two centuries of the game. An army lived off the land, gathering food and other resources as it went, something that is already represented in-game by supply limits.

You still need roads to move your cannons through. That task, in much more built-up Europe, caused quite a bit of difficulty to many a general in the era.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

You still need roads to move your cannons through. That task, in much more built-up Europe, caused quite a bit of difficulty to many a general in the era.

I didn't say that roads wouldn't be a meaningful addition. I said that supply lines were ahistorical for much of the period.

 

[GC13]

Yeah, but you still have artillery trains. It may not cause attrition, but having to face natives without your artillery will hurt you all the same.

Especially if they were to change it so you couldn't trickle reinforcements in without them being picked off by native guerrillas.

 

[Jomini]

if attrition, supplies, and disease were made semi-historical most of the broken gamey tactics in this game would end right there. Back in these times moving supplies was a difficult task especially in areas with few roads. May be we should simulate road levels so supply trains can be simulated and if they get cut off the offender only has so many days worth of supplies till they starve or run out of artilery rounds. Africa would have no roads so getting supplies through would massacre any invading armies while the natives can live off the land. Simlate foreign disease spread and even if a native win the wars they might lose to the plague.

Supply trains were nothing like what we modernly think of. You could very easily move large distances as long as you had potable water and high densities of surplus calories ... neither of which is present in this area (or in the American Great Plains except along major rivers). Looting the peasantry allowed you to move very easily through any dense network of settlements.

Far beyond roads, the major issue for Africa was its lack of significant navigable water. If you look at period campaigns, roads were of minimal value. Rivers, those were important. Which is why the major civilizations of the era all came from places with long stretches of navigable river - China (with its massive canals) and Europe (with its natural blessing of many navigable rivers) formed powerful states. To this day, the Congo has significant trouble for navigation. It has major waterfalls, it has heavy seasonality near its sources (the river as whole is remarkedly steady thanks to spanning the equator), and has problems with vegetative growth. Putting in tow paths or getting decent wind is massive amounts of labor. Going past Mbandaka is very difficult even with modern engines; anything past Kisangani just isn't going to happen.

And the Congo is the super highway of west Africa. The Zambezi is worse on just about all counts. And the Great Lakes do not even have a riverine connection to the ocean.

Period logistics were ruled by the oceans - fighting anywhere near the coast was viable and easy (albeit sometimes expensive) then rivers (more expensive and could be checked by enemy forces/forts more easily) and then population density. Africa's geography is simply terrible for regimental scale warfare (which is why there is so little regimental scale warfare even after the steam engine opened up the place a lot).

Neither the Europeans or the coastal natives would be heading inland here. The place is a giant death trap for large scale unmechanized formations, which is why pretty much every large scale unmechanized force has faltered fighting in the area.

Seriously, when you look at the haplotypes or even genetic analysis of disease patterns the Africans on the coast did not go to the interior in large or regular numbers until the late 19th century (and even that likely overstates the case).

 

[mcmanusaur]

So, short of simulating caloric density or haplotypes in the game, how would you model Africa's supply limits in a better manner?