That would allow larger cities and make it too powerful.
That's more along the line of what I was thinking of.
Current (SVN) development discussion thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Chep
Emperor
I don't really understand, either you limit the number of cities (few highly populated ones) or the the amound of population (many poorly populated ones).
especially with stability being also independent of the number of cities owned it just seemed that it was intentional.
---
Warrior code so far has been my civic of choice for the last column until reaching standing army, so adding another nice bonus to it is really nice
But I am still annoyed that you lose cities to civ-rebirths when you're solid and even if you reconquer them within a few turns all infrastructure is gone. (also in the 1700+ AD times...that a city you conquer usually has no infrastructure at all, while a freshly founded one has at least a handful of buildings seems weird and counterintuitive)
Did all the new cities of this resurrected civ belong to you?
Chep
Emperor
no, then there wouldn't have been a rebirth of a "has-never-before-existed-civ" (Byzantium) 
still it took all the fun out of that game and made me stop playing this mod for a while. I'll watch the direction of the development before I decide whether or not to give it another try.
still it took all the fun out of that game and made me stop playing this mod for a while. I'll watch the direction of the development before I decide whether or not to give it another try.
Well yeah, that's a direct consequence of the mechanism that makes sure a new civ respawns with all cities it has a claim on once it has gained a critical mass. This is for situations like a Chinese respawn where it should get European possessions in its respawn area even if they are not unstable.
Love the mod - 1 suggestion:
First, I must add my voice to those calling out for more activity in China. I see the counterarguments presented here (that it was 'one civilization' and such). They seem to be overestimating the degree of cultural continuity and uniformity within China (one might as well argue that all of europe should be a single civilization, represented by the Greeks, going from 1400BC to the modern age), but the more important point is that the current setup allows a continuous, peaceful unifed China, and this is nothing like the historical China, which has spent almost as much time broken up in internal wars or conquored by foreign entitites as it has spent unified.
One solid gameplay fix for at least the early modern era would be to more fully implement the 'conquest dynasties', rather than only implementing the Mongols (and their Yuan dynasty). Specifically, the Manchus (Qing dynasty) should be a separate civilization, spawning in the 1600s, and given enough units to stand a good chance of taking over China. They can be very similar to the Chinese civ in gameplay, but given core areas in the Northern Steppe and a stronger military rating (with reduced culture). Then, the Chinese can be set to respawn when they get unstable, targeted around the early 1900s, simulating the rebellions that would lead to the republic of China.
In addition to causing China to operate as they historically did (war torn through much of the modern era), this likewise matches the history of the region well. It should be remembered that the Manchus were regarded by contemporary people as foreign conquerors (for example, this was the reason they censored perjorative terms traditionally applied to norther barbarians in their various persecutions against the literati and such). Further, most of the early great figures of the republican revolution that overthrew the Qing dynasty painted their political movement as throwing out the Manchu foreigners and reinstating Chinese native rule (and they often blamed the troubles of China on this 'foreign rule by Manchu barbarians'). The contrast between home-rule by Han dynasties and foreign conquers was very present in the Chinese mind throughout this period - it is only in modern re imaginings of history that the Chinese people of today look to the Manchu Qing dynasty as being a Chinese dynasty of the same order as the Ming or Song (Qing, like the Mongol Yuan, was considered foreign rule in the past). Second, the idea that the Manchus 'became Chinese' after their conquest is an overstatement - see the work of historians like Mark Elliott ("The Manchu Way") that have relied on documents written in Manchu (rather than just on Chinese sources) and it becomes clear there was a very unique composite cultural identity that came into existence.
But the main point is the improvement this will give to gameplay. With such a change, China will become a very interesting area from 1600 on - a Manchu invasion, slow conquest of the south, and then hopefully instability partially caused by european imperialistic advances ends with a rebellion/respawn of the original Chinese civilization founding the Republic of China. I would also suggest making the Manchu civilization significantly weaker than the original Chinese civ in production, stability, etc - enough to allow it to weaken and be a victim of europe and Japan, and eventually collapse.
First, I must add my voice to those calling out for more activity in China. I see the counterarguments presented here (that it was 'one civilization' and such). They seem to be overestimating the degree of cultural continuity and uniformity within China (one might as well argue that all of europe should be a single civilization, represented by the Greeks, going from 1400BC to the modern age), but the more important point is that the current setup allows a continuous, peaceful unifed China, and this is nothing like the historical China, which has spent almost as much time broken up in internal wars or conquored by foreign entitites as it has spent unified.
One solid gameplay fix for at least the early modern era would be to more fully implement the 'conquest dynasties', rather than only implementing the Mongols (and their Yuan dynasty). Specifically, the Manchus (Qing dynasty) should be a separate civilization, spawning in the 1600s, and given enough units to stand a good chance of taking over China. They can be very similar to the Chinese civ in gameplay, but given core areas in the Northern Steppe and a stronger military rating (with reduced culture). Then, the Chinese can be set to respawn when they get unstable, targeted around the early 1900s, simulating the rebellions that would lead to the republic of China.
In addition to causing China to operate as they historically did (war torn through much of the modern era), this likewise matches the history of the region well. It should be remembered that the Manchus were regarded by contemporary people as foreign conquerors (for example, this was the reason they censored perjorative terms traditionally applied to norther barbarians in their various persecutions against the literati and such). Further, most of the early great figures of the republican revolution that overthrew the Qing dynasty painted their political movement as throwing out the Manchu foreigners and reinstating Chinese native rule (and they often blamed the troubles of China on this 'foreign rule by Manchu barbarians'). The contrast between home-rule by Han dynasties and foreign conquers was very present in the Chinese mind throughout this period - it is only in modern re imaginings of history that the Chinese people of today look to the Manchu Qing dynasty as being a Chinese dynasty of the same order as the Ming or Song (Qing, like the Mongol Yuan, was considered foreign rule in the past). Second, the idea that the Manchus 'became Chinese' after their conquest is an overstatement - see the work of historians like Mark Elliott ("The Manchu Way") that have relied on documents written in Manchu (rather than just on Chinese sources) and it becomes clear there was a very unique composite cultural identity that came into existence.
But the main point is the improvement this will give to gameplay. With such a change, China will become a very interesting area from 1600 on - a Manchu invasion, slow conquest of the south, and then hopefully instability partially caused by european imperialistic advances ends with a rebellion/respawn of the original Chinese civilization founding the Republic of China. I would also suggest making the Manchu civilization significantly weaker than the original Chinese civ in production, stability, etc - enough to allow it to weaken and be a victim of europe and Japan, and eventually collapse.
Yup, if Jurchens were ever to be added, I'd like to see them represent the Liao, and then respawn as Manchus in 1600s. Chinese second respawns should be coded after 1300s as MING then 1900s as the PRC, not in 1600s as QING. On the ancient era, perhaps we could see independents Panyu (Guangzhou) and some southern cities? Iirc not all cities in the south developed from Xi'an.
mrrandomplayer
Hopeless Situation Warrior
^
I wholeheartedly agree.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Some rebuttals for Tim:
1. This does not address the way civilizations are structured within the game at all.
If you want a China continually broken up into independent states throughout the course of gameplay,
then that must be the case for every other civilization that experienced this prior to the Westphalian nation-state concept.
It will not and should not break up every 5 turns or so just because of a concept that fits poorly on how the time in the mod is scaled,
especially when you realize that tens or hundreds of years pass in 1 turn in the Ancient Era alone.
By your logic, Rome should be fracturing every 3 or so turns with its civil wars in that instance, if we were to take your suggestion.
Greece would not be allowed to spawn until the advent of Alexander the Great, and then subsequently collapse into independent states again.
Also, speaking of which, do you similarly dislike how you cannot achieve Alexander's conquests in the historical time frame with the turns you have allotted?
You realize there are only 2-3 turns to do it historically, right?
Whatever polity changes you experience in your nation are better represented via civic changes and era changes, and in one of the few times I would ever advocate this;
better off role-played.
2. Jurchens are on the way, they're going to be amazing.
But they're going to be minors in the same vein of Seljuks.
I am of the opinion currently that the nerf to the Chinese UP represents the decay of the Qing just fine though.
3. While it is true that the Manchus were initially seen as foreign conquerors, they rapidly Sinicized as they needed the support of the
majority Han in order to consolidate their holdings and administrate. This is a very strong factor as to why the Manchus were able to last,
while the Mongols were overthrown in less than a century. While the early Republican revolutionaries sought to
overthrow the Qing and painted them as foreign Manchus, you did not take into account that:
a) This was specifically pointed towards the ruling class who was demonized with that label.
b) The Nationalists in their revolution, were themselves supported by Manchu officers and officials with a shared goal in bolstering the Chinese nation,
suggesting that they similarly believed themselves to be of the same national identity and subsequently paving the way for my next point.
c) When speaking of modern day validation of the Qing Dynasty, that has its roots in the Five Races Under One Union principle,
that stemmed FROM the Republic of China which was brought on with Manchu assistance.
Dismissing the PoV of the Chinese sources while giving sole credence to Mark Elliott also I don't believe, helps your case.
The way you've worded your post, it appears you're making him the sole authority.
There are other Chinese authors such as Pei Huang, who also use Manchu sources and documents to prove the opposite point.
4. Allowing European possessions in China, in actual practice, especially if you've seen it the screenshots,
would equate to something like France or Portugual owning everything south of the Yangtze because of the way the map is distorted and the lack of space on the mainland.
Something not too historical when I believe what you want to represent are the foreign concessions in individual cities.
This is the most important thing and I'm going to paraphrase Leoreth
(the topic of conversation was whether China should be allowed to have stability in Indonesia to represent the existence of the Lanfang Republic):
DoC is very inertia-dependent. If you give Europeans concessions in China, then that means they are going to be there for a large portion of the game.
Meaning that when they get it, it's not going to be lost in 5 turns.
They're going to basically have it forever in most circumstances
(see Spanish Manila or Portuguese Muscat, etc. etc.)
Case in point, I rarely see India in the modern age, unless the factors are just right, meaning, I'm playing Prussia, and England has all of India.
I collapse England myself, and then and only then India comes up.
5. My overall problem with this suggestion is that it's too deterministic and railroaded.
At least in the case of India, you see powerful Mughals, French owned India, Chinese Huazicheng or even something crazier from time to time.
The system in place for India does not mean British India is in every game 100% of the time.
Your suggestion leaves no room for the oddities and variety you sometimes see in some of the threads like the Mongol owned China (albeit getting hit with the nerfbat right now),
or sometimes Thai owned China. It also does not take into account the actual game mechanics of the mod.
The Jurchens can not have a slow conquest of the south.
Under the mechanics, it's either they conquer it all immediately thanks to collapsing China, or they don't conquer it all and collapse themselves.
The only way you can have one is if you are playing them yourself, and even then the former still has a greater chance of occurring.
The mop up will never be slow unless you are an unskilled player.
1. This does not address the way civilizations are structured within the game at all.
If you want a China continually broken up into independent states throughout the course of gameplay,
then that must be the case for every other civilization that experienced this prior to the Westphalian nation-state concept.
It will not and should not break up every 5 turns or so just because of a concept that fits poorly on how the time in the mod is scaled,
especially when you realize that tens or hundreds of years pass in 1 turn in the Ancient Era alone.
By your logic, Rome should be fracturing every 3 or so turns with its civil wars in that instance, if we were to take your suggestion.
Greece would not be allowed to spawn until the advent of Alexander the Great, and then subsequently collapse into independent states again.
Also, speaking of which, do you similarly dislike how you cannot achieve Alexander's conquests in the historical time frame with the turns you have allotted?
You realize there are only 2-3 turns to do it historically, right?
Whatever polity changes you experience in your nation are better represented via civic changes and era changes, and in one of the few times I would ever advocate this;
better off role-played.
2. Jurchens are on the way, they're going to be amazing.
But they're going to be minors in the same vein of Seljuks.
I am of the opinion currently that the nerf to the Chinese UP represents the decay of the Qing just fine though.
3. While it is true that the Manchus were initially seen as foreign conquerors, they rapidly Sinicized as they needed the support of the
majority Han in order to consolidate their holdings and administrate. This is a very strong factor as to why the Manchus were able to last,
while the Mongols were overthrown in less than a century. While the early Republican revolutionaries sought to
overthrow the Qing and painted them as foreign Manchus, you did not take into account that:
a) This was specifically pointed towards the ruling class who was demonized with that label.
b) The Nationalists in their revolution, were themselves supported by Manchu officers and officials with a shared goal in bolstering the Chinese nation,
suggesting that they similarly believed themselves to be of the same national identity and subsequently paving the way for my next point.
c) When speaking of modern day validation of the Qing Dynasty, that has its roots in the Five Races Under One Union principle,
that stemmed FROM the Republic of China which was brought on with Manchu assistance.
Dismissing the PoV of the Chinese sources while giving sole credence to Mark Elliott also I don't believe, helps your case.
The way you've worded your post, it appears you're making him the sole authority.
There are other Chinese authors such as Pei Huang, who also use Manchu sources and documents to prove the opposite point.
4. Allowing European possessions in China, in actual practice, especially if you've seen it the screenshots,
would equate to something like France or Portugual owning everything south of the Yangtze because of the way the map is distorted and the lack of space on the mainland.
Something not too historical when I believe what you want to represent are the foreign concessions in individual cities.
This is the most important thing and I'm going to paraphrase Leoreth
(the topic of conversation was whether China should be allowed to have stability in Indonesia to represent the existence of the Lanfang Republic):
DoC is very inertia-dependent. If you give Europeans concessions in China, then that means they are going to be there for a large portion of the game.
Meaning that when they get it, it's not going to be lost in 5 turns.
They're going to basically have it forever in most circumstances
(see Spanish Manila or Portuguese Muscat, etc. etc.)
Case in point, I rarely see India in the modern age, unless the factors are just right, meaning, I'm playing Prussia, and England has all of India.
I collapse England myself, and then and only then India comes up.
5. My overall problem with this suggestion is that it's too deterministic and railroaded.
At least in the case of India, you see powerful Mughals, French owned India, Chinese Huazicheng or even something crazier from time to time.
The system in place for India does not mean British India is in every game 100% of the time.
Your suggestion leaves no room for the oddities and variety you sometimes see in some of the threads like the Mongol owned China (albeit getting hit with the nerfbat right now),
or sometimes Thai owned China. It also does not take into account the actual game mechanics of the mod.
The Jurchens can not have a slow conquest of the south.
Under the mechanics, it's either they conquer it all immediately thanks to collapsing China, or they don't conquer it all and collapse themselves.
The only way you can have one is if you are playing them yourself, and even then the former still has a greater chance of occurring.
The mop up will never be slow unless you are an unskilled player.
Chep
Emperor
I think the "techcost-increase via population" should be modified.
it currently allows for very big empires in the ancient->medieval era and only medium sized ones later.
Something like 0-20 pop + 30-40 per Era seems better.
(0 if ancient era = 1 era)
even better might be something along the lines of base +20 for classical era, +30 for medieval, +40 for renaissance, +50 for industrial, +60 for modern
and another thing:
Prussia, UHV2
I see no reason why it should be "controll in 1940" and not by. This made sense when there was only 1 German civ instead of 2 (HRE, Prussia) but now when Prussia starts all civs for these areas have already spawned and are developed.
(also: does controll mean own or own/vasallize? a "controll directly" might make it clearer if it is the former)
it currently allows for very big empires in the ancient->medieval era and only medium sized ones later.
Something like 0-20 pop + 30-40 per Era seems better.
(0 if ancient era = 1 era)
even better might be something along the lines of base +20 for classical era, +30 for medieval, +40 for renaissance, +50 for industrial, +60 for modern
and another thing:
Prussia, UHV2
I see no reason why it should be "controll in 1940" and not by. This made sense when there was only 1 German civ instead of 2 (HRE, Prussia) but now when Prussia starts all civs for these areas have already spawned and are developed.
(also: does controll mean own or own/vasallize? a "controll directly" might make it clearer if it is the former)
I agree with TD on most things regarding China, and the inertia argument is a very good one (go past me). However maybe the Machu/Jurchen could work in some way, that remains to be seen. But don't expect me to try something there very soon.
I definitely don't think that the civil war periods in Chinese history need to be specifically modeled.
It always says vassalize in the goals where vassalization is sufficient, so I guess that makes it clear that wherever it is omitted you need outright control.
I definitely don't think that the civil war periods in Chinese history need to be specifically modeled.
It's "in" because that also requires you to remain stable until that point, or pull off all conquests on a tight timeline.
It always says vassalize in the goals where vassalization is sufficient, so I guess that makes it clear that wherever it is omitted you need outright control.
Tomorrow's Dawn:
Responses to your points:
1) Disagree - to use your example, the changes in Rome across these civil wars are nothing like the differences that China experienced across these thousands of years. But we aren't even talking about the very real differences between Han and, say, Tang - we are talking about the much more dramatic differences between the Manchu Qing and the Ming.
Further, I never proposed every Chinese dynasty should have their own civ. Agreed that that would be unworkable, especially in the ancient era. Probably a bit more division and struggle is needed (barbarian spawns? collapse into independants?), but that is a more difficult question, especially given the vast number of years per turn in the ancient era.
But by the 1600s there is a reasonable relation of years to turns, and a HUGE upheaval (the chaos of the end of the Ming and the conquest of the Qing) that just can't be glossed over as a turn of anarchy in changing civics, and really needs a fullout invasion to represent.
The same is even more true by the early 1900s, where the year to turn ratio becomes even better - do we really propose to gloss over decades of civil war and anarchy as some civil change or, to use your suggestion, roleplaying?
Besides, there is an implicit assumption underlying your argument - that the conquest of the Ming dynasty by a northern 'barbarian' people, the Manchus, was somehow equivalent to a change of regime within the roman civil wars. In fact, to quote your opening line, it would be exactly "the way civilizations are structured" within the mod to model the Manchu Qing dynasty as a seperate force - because that is the way the Mongol Yuan dynasty is treated.
2) I agree with Ben - Manchus would work fine as a Jurchen respawn. Might currently be planned as minor, but that plan could be changed. However, maybe there are reasons why a full Jurchen civ would be too shortlived with the Mongols on their heels, and in that case leaving them minor and incorperating the Manchus wouldn't be too problematic (for example, india first appears as a minor and then has a full civ spawn).
3) Your account is very much in line with standard historical accounts in China - but remember, these serve a political purpose. Qing and the Manchus MUST be described as Chinese, because the current political line is that China's current borders and ethnic makeup stretch back into history as some kind of essential truth, when in reality things are much more complex. Please remember that the standard politically correct historical interpretation in China is that Genghis Khan was a Chinese general who unifed the country.
Yes, the Manchus adopted many Chinese institutions, but they preserved just as many aspects of their own culture and governance. No, I cited Elliott as representative - I don't think there is any implication that mentioning one person means one's argument is limited exclusively to the work of a single author. Yes, there are all kinds of historical debates going on, but the idea that the Qing instantly became just as 'Chinese' as the Ming or Song is somewhat a relic of a politically motivated conception of history. Please remember that Qing history is still a VERY politically sensitive topic, and scholars are not free to write whatever they wish. Even tv shows have their scripts heavily censored to eliminate any suggestion that these conquest dynasties were not fully Chinese, as well as to eliminate any pejorative terms describing northern nomadic peoples.
As for your other points on the republican revolution - I think you are overestimating the importance of the facts you state. Yes, some manchu people cooperated with the rebels, this would be seen in any revolution. But no, your argument about this being an attack on the 'ruling class' is drifting way too close to the politically correct marxist class conflict interpretations. Sure, that element was present - but the ethnic dimensions of this revolution cannot be underestimated. To go to just one story - Mao Zedong shaved his hair, and forced his friends to do the same (upon their conquest the Manchus required all Chinese to adopt their traditional manchu hairstyle, and many revolutionaries used shaving this 'foreign' hairstyle as the symbol of their resistance). But more prominently, any reading of the writings of this time shows that this was an anti-Manchu revolution, blaming the Manchus for Chinese stragnation, and desiring homerule - the language is quite clear on this point. You can't just reimagine this as a codeword for 'ruling class'.
4) Yah, it may be too difficult to plan to have europeans own colonies given the map. More I meant wars and unreasonable demands (gold, resources?) could add to the pressures on the Qing. But you are probably right that this is too hard to model, so the Qing civilization should be structured so as to go unstable mostly on its own (or with the help of japanese invasions)
5) I think the rise of the Qing and then a Chinese respawn only improves how intertesting and diverse the pre modern and modern periods become. But I respect we have a difference of opinion here. As far as the game mechanics, I think they will work quite well in this case - essentially another Mongol invasion, but with a greater chance of lasting longer before it faces a strong potential challange from a respawning China. I think this is very fun, and would make the 1600-modern era in east asia a great deal more dynamic. Particularly, I think this will make the early 1900s alot better, and we will see alot of interesting possibilities for East Asia.
Anyway, I think I will avoid drawing this thread even more into a historical debate, and make this my last reply in our debate. I think we have stated both sides of the issue pretty well.
Responses to your points:
1) Disagree - to use your example, the changes in Rome across these civil wars are nothing like the differences that China experienced across these thousands of years. But we aren't even talking about the very real differences between Han and, say, Tang - we are talking about the much more dramatic differences between the Manchu Qing and the Ming.
Further, I never proposed every Chinese dynasty should have their own civ. Agreed that that would be unworkable, especially in the ancient era. Probably a bit more division and struggle is needed (barbarian spawns? collapse into independants?), but that is a more difficult question, especially given the vast number of years per turn in the ancient era.
But by the 1600s there is a reasonable relation of years to turns, and a HUGE upheaval (the chaos of the end of the Ming and the conquest of the Qing) that just can't be glossed over as a turn of anarchy in changing civics, and really needs a fullout invasion to represent.
The same is even more true by the early 1900s, where the year to turn ratio becomes even better - do we really propose to gloss over decades of civil war and anarchy as some civil change or, to use your suggestion, roleplaying?
Besides, there is an implicit assumption underlying your argument - that the conquest of the Ming dynasty by a northern 'barbarian' people, the Manchus, was somehow equivalent to a change of regime within the roman civil wars. In fact, to quote your opening line, it would be exactly "the way civilizations are structured" within the mod to model the Manchu Qing dynasty as a seperate force - because that is the way the Mongol Yuan dynasty is treated.
2) I agree with Ben - Manchus would work fine as a Jurchen respawn. Might currently be planned as minor, but that plan could be changed. However, maybe there are reasons why a full Jurchen civ would be too shortlived with the Mongols on their heels, and in that case leaving them minor and incorperating the Manchus wouldn't be too problematic (for example, india first appears as a minor and then has a full civ spawn).
3) Your account is very much in line with standard historical accounts in China - but remember, these serve a political purpose. Qing and the Manchus MUST be described as Chinese, because the current political line is that China's current borders and ethnic makeup stretch back into history as some kind of essential truth, when in reality things are much more complex. Please remember that the standard politically correct historical interpretation in China is that Genghis Khan was a Chinese general who unifed the country.
Yes, the Manchus adopted many Chinese institutions, but they preserved just as many aspects of their own culture and governance. No, I cited Elliott as representative - I don't think there is any implication that mentioning one person means one's argument is limited exclusively to the work of a single author. Yes, there are all kinds of historical debates going on, but the idea that the Qing instantly became just as 'Chinese' as the Ming or Song is somewhat a relic of a politically motivated conception of history. Please remember that Qing history is still a VERY politically sensitive topic, and scholars are not free to write whatever they wish. Even tv shows have their scripts heavily censored to eliminate any suggestion that these conquest dynasties were not fully Chinese, as well as to eliminate any pejorative terms describing northern nomadic peoples.
As for your other points on the republican revolution - I think you are overestimating the importance of the facts you state. Yes, some manchu people cooperated with the rebels, this would be seen in any revolution. But no, your argument about this being an attack on the 'ruling class' is drifting way too close to the politically correct marxist class conflict interpretations. Sure, that element was present - but the ethnic dimensions of this revolution cannot be underestimated. To go to just one story - Mao Zedong shaved his hair, and forced his friends to do the same (upon their conquest the Manchus required all Chinese to adopt their traditional manchu hairstyle, and many revolutionaries used shaving this 'foreign' hairstyle as the symbol of their resistance). But more prominently, any reading of the writings of this time shows that this was an anti-Manchu revolution, blaming the Manchus for Chinese stragnation, and desiring homerule - the language is quite clear on this point. You can't just reimagine this as a codeword for 'ruling class'.
4) Yah, it may be too difficult to plan to have europeans own colonies given the map. More I meant wars and unreasonable demands (gold, resources?) could add to the pressures on the Qing. But you are probably right that this is too hard to model, so the Qing civilization should be structured so as to go unstable mostly on its own (or with the help of japanese invasions)
5) I think the rise of the Qing and then a Chinese respawn only improves how intertesting and diverse the pre modern and modern periods become. But I respect we have a difference of opinion here. As far as the game mechanics, I think they will work quite well in this case - essentially another Mongol invasion, but with a greater chance of lasting longer before it faces a strong potential challange from a respawning China. I think this is very fun, and would make the 1600-modern era in east asia a great deal more dynamic. Particularly, I think this will make the early 1900s alot better, and we will see alot of interesting possibilities for East Asia.
Anyway, I think I will avoid drawing this thread even more into a historical debate, and make this my last reply in our debate. I think we have stated both sides of the issue pretty well.
Leoreth,
Just saw your reply - I agree the civil wars don't all need to be modeled. Rather, in this case we have enough of change (characterized by 50+ years of war at both the Qing rise and at their overthrow), deep enough in the modern era, to warrant modeling.
Just saw your reply - I agree the civil wars don't all need to be modeled. Rather, in this case we have enough of change (characterized by 50+ years of war at both the Qing rise and at their overthrow), deep enough in the modern era, to warrant modeling.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Okay, after this, I'll stop. It's only fair we both have the same amount of walls of text.
Firstly, your claim that it's taught (in modern China) that Genghis Khan was a Chinese general is simply put, unbelievable.
I can confirm this with both family living over in China and expats I know in real life.
Probably some of the Chinese nationals here on the forum like soul-breathing (you never answer when I call though) can confirm for you too.
No Chinese person believes that, except for the hardcore nationalists.
The hyperbole of that is stunning and to me, and as an American, roughly akin to someone from say Sweden, believing that all Americans standardize creationism in their schools, nation-wide.
The way civilizations are structured for this mod is the same as how you would interpret them in vanilla BtS.
They represent the continuity of the culture, not the nation-state concept, at least until the advent of Nationalism in the game.
Of course culture between the Han & Tang Dynasty is different; but it's still the same culture, evolving along a contiguous route.
You can't make that same distinction between say, Republican Rome and the Italian City States at all.
A ton of civilizations in this game would not make a shred of sense without adjusting your view like this,
and I'm especially looking at Greece here, all things considered and if there were usually more than Athens and Sparte in a typical DoC start.
Vikings or Mongols would probably be a better example.
About TV shows. 還珠格格 (Princess Pearl) especially comes to mind.
There is a reason why the Chinese studios pump out nearly a dozen or so period dramas on the Qing Dynasty and basically 0 on the Yuan Dynasty.
The Manchus you could say "bought into" the Chinese system, gradually, if need be, but it still got the job done and secured three centuries of their rule while the Mongols opted out,
didn't go all in as entire group and didn't even have a century to their name.
Which is reinforced by my previous statement about the respective longevity of each Dynasty and also my rebuttal to your rebuttal of my "how civilizations are structured" argument.
My (Marxist?) stance on the "ruling class" isn't invalid, because for one, I'm technically not wrong.
The Aisin Gioro house and its associates were pointedly the target of removal by the revolutionaries, and you know, they were the ruling class.
The Manchus themselves, even across political divisions (Qing loyalist or Republican) were heavily invested in the fate of China, in effect, they were nationalists.
I think it's profound to point out that by the late Qing Dynasty, the ruling Manchus regarded their own ancestral homeland as a border frontier against the Russians,
as opposed to the top priority most peoples would assign to that a land that held such significance.
You could argue that it had more to do with pragmatism, but I think it speaks volumes about how Sinicized they were.
Last point, I see a lot of requests to improve the Modern Era, but I think the reasons why most of these changes are not given as much consideration are:
1. The early and middle portions of the timeline comprise the meat of the gameplay and most decidedly influence the outcome of what the world looks like.
Therefore, since they are designated as having more import, most of the energy spent balancing and tweaking are spent on changes that affect these eras the most.
2. A fair portion of the players here have expressed that their computers cannot handle past a certain era.
So when you're asking for a lategame tweak, it's one that not everyone can experience.
Firstly, your claim that it's taught (in modern China) that Genghis Khan was a Chinese general is simply put, unbelievable.
I can confirm this with both family living over in China and expats I know in real life.
Probably some of the Chinese nationals here on the forum like soul-breathing (you never answer when I call though) can confirm for you too.
No Chinese person believes that, except for the hardcore nationalists.
The hyperbole of that is stunning and to me, and as an American, roughly akin to someone from say Sweden, believing that all Americans standardize creationism in their schools, nation-wide.
The way civilizations are structured for this mod is the same as how you would interpret them in vanilla BtS.
They represent the continuity of the culture, not the nation-state concept, at least until the advent of Nationalism in the game.
Of course culture between the Han & Tang Dynasty is different; but it's still the same culture, evolving along a contiguous route.
You can't make that same distinction between say, Republican Rome and the Italian City States at all.
A ton of civilizations in this game would not make a shred of sense without adjusting your view like this,
and I'm especially looking at Greece here, all things considered and if there were usually more than Athens and Sparte in a typical DoC start.
Vikings or Mongols would probably be a better example.
About TV shows. 還珠格格 (Princess Pearl) especially comes to mind.
There is a reason why the Chinese studios pump out nearly a dozen or so period dramas on the Qing Dynasty and basically 0 on the Yuan Dynasty.
The Manchus you could say "bought into" the Chinese system, gradually, if need be, but it still got the job done and secured three centuries of their rule while the Mongols opted out,
didn't go all in as entire group and didn't even have a century to their name.
Which is reinforced by my previous statement about the respective longevity of each Dynasty and also my rebuttal to your rebuttal of my "how civilizations are structured" argument.
My (Marxist?) stance on the "ruling class" isn't invalid, because for one, I'm technically not wrong.
The Aisin Gioro house and its associates were pointedly the target of removal by the revolutionaries, and you know, they were the ruling class.
The Manchus themselves, even across political divisions (Qing loyalist or Republican) were heavily invested in the fate of China, in effect, they were nationalists.
I think it's profound to point out that by the late Qing Dynasty, the ruling Manchus regarded their own ancestral homeland as a border frontier against the Russians,
as opposed to the top priority most peoples would assign to that a land that held such significance.
You could argue that it had more to do with pragmatism, but I think it speaks volumes about how Sinicized they were.
Last point, I see a lot of requests to improve the Modern Era, but I think the reasons why most of these changes are not given as much consideration are:
1. The early and middle portions of the timeline comprise the meat of the gameplay and most decidedly influence the outcome of what the world looks like.
Therefore, since they are designated as having more import, most of the energy spent balancing and tweaking are spent on changes that affect these eras the most.
2. A fair portion of the players here have expressed that their computers cannot handle past a certain era.
So when you're asking for a lategame tweak, it's one that not everyone can experience.
I skimmed through the thread and read the slavery discussion. Imo the problem could be easily solved by reinstating the -25% gpp to slavery and keep the whipping penalties harsh, but then buff Pantheon to counter these effects with for example only one 
from whipping and +25% gpp. This or something similar would limit slavery's usefullness to Classical era and tie these civics together
from whipping and +25% gpp. This or something similar would limit slavery's usefullness to Classical era and tie these civics togetherI skimmed through the thread and read the slavery discussion. Imo the problem could be easily solved by reinstating the -25% gpp to slavery and keep the whipping penalties harsh, but then buffing Pantheon to counter these effects with for example only one
-25% gpp could move to central planning.
