why China in EU3 is so weak?

[caesarinchn]

I mean the Ming Dynasty.in real history 1:China has many client states like korea,tibet, manchu and vietnam etc,but is this game many of them are independent country.2:and at least the technology development is better than muslims、india and the western countries before 17century.in fact most of the time india is just a geographic concept like arabs but not an united country.3:the provinces of China is so little,we should know that China's population is more than the entire Europe about over 100 millions with high efficient goverment management system .during ming dynasty about half of the world's total at that time

[Lembley42]

China indeed had some client states which arent accuratelly porrtrayed.
The whole deal with technology and weakening was to make sure that China wouldnt become a super huge blob that just infests everything. The point of the game is mainly focused on the European Exploration & Colonialism, as well as the shapeup of stable and strong powers in Europe (hence the name "Europa Universalis". China historically was not very focused on outwards expansion as much (as they already had a huge deal to administrate) and was not big on trading and exploring either. So to easily represent this and make sure that China wouldnt every game ahistorically ruin the fun of any other nation, they got artifically nerfed.
China had afaik quite some trouble throughout its history and was constantly busy with things that the game does not reprsent well though, so some other kind of easier-to-program hindrance needed to get in.

The provinces of China are little, because the more people live in a place, the smaller the provinces are modelled in Paradox games. That is why Siberian provinces are as huge as entire countries. Makes alot of sense to me to not be able to conquer all the chinese people with just one hyper-province.

China wasnt 50+% of the world population 1400, the estimate is ~65 Million with a world population of around 350-400 million.
(Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates & http://www.onthisday.com/asia/china_economy.php)

AFAIK (but I am not sure on this), China wasnt a very strong concept before the rise of Nationalism either - instead being splittered up in dozens of dialects, regions and so forth. There was some continuity in the empires, but aside from the "core" coastline, the borders relatievly often switched.

Not sure how any region being a concept or not is relevant to the technology group anyway - it is merely a term to describe how the technological progress from 1400-1836 was of a region. It uses modern terms, because "modern" people play the game.
Moslems were somewhat ahead early of that time to Europe, while China was also not that lacking behind for a good part. However, the game tries to simulate the way from 1400-1836 and tries to get a close-historical result at the end of this. Thus, it needs to downplay the continous technological advance of some to reach that result.
In EU IV Paradox instead implented the "Institutions", where everybody is equal but new Concepts mostly begin in Europe and spread away, giving Tech penalties to anyone who isnt aware of them yet (e.g. the Enlightment)

[caesarinchn]

Originally posted by Lembley42:

China indeed had some client states which arent accuratelly porrtrayed.
The whole deal with technology and weakening was to make sure that China wouldnt become a super huge blob that just infests everything. The point of the game is mainly focused on the European Exploration & Colonialism, as well as the shapeup of stable and strong powers in Europe (hence the name "Europa Universalis". China historically was not very focused on outwards expansion as much (as they already had a huge deal to administrate) and was not big on trading and exploring either. So to easily represent this and make sure that China wouldnt every game ahistorically ruin the fun of any other nation, they got artifically nerfed.
China had afaik quite some trouble throughout its history and was constantly busy with things that the game does not reprsent well though, so some other kind of easier-to-program hindrance needed to get in.

The provinces of China are little, because the more people live in a place, the smaller the provinces are modelled in Paradox games. That is why Siberian provinces are as huge as entire countries. Makes alot of sense to me to not be able to conquer all the chinese people with just one hyper-province.

China wasnt 50+% of the world population 1400, the estimate is ~65 Million with a world population of around 350-400 million.
(Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates & http://www.onthisday.com/asia/china_economy.php)

AFAIK (but I am not sure on this), China wasnt a very strong concept before the rise of Nationalism either - instead being splittered up in dozens of dialects, regions and so forth. There was some continuity in the empires, but aside from the "core" coastline, the borders relatievly often switched.

Not sure how any region being a concept or not is relevant to the technology group anyway - it is merely a term to describe how the technological progress from 1400-1836 was of a region. It uses modern terms, because "modern" people play the game.
Moslems were somewhat ahead early of that time to Europe, while China was also not that lacking behind for a good part. However, the game tries to simulate the way from 1400-1836 and tries to get a close-historical result at the end of this. Thus, it needs to downplay the continous technological advance of some to reach that result.
In EU IV Paradox instead implented the "Institutions", where everybody is equal but new Concepts mostly begin in Europe and spread away, giving Tech penalties to anyone who isnt aware of them yet (e.g. the Enlightment)

thank you for your detailed explanation,mister.i made a mistake for the population data,the number of Chinese people's maximum ratio maybe happened in 11~12 century include song dynasty(mainly)liao dynasty(Khitan)
and xixia dynasty in the west together.all inherit from the legacy of Tang dynasty. i agree that China's politic system is much different from western country.it's more centralization for rule so vast land as big as the whole Europe.I admire that

[caesarinchn]

Originally posted by Lembley42:

China indeed had some client states which arent accuratelly porrtrayed.
The whole deal with technology and weakening was to make sure that China wouldnt become a super huge blob that just infests everything. The point of the game is mainly focused on the European Exploration & Colonialism, as well as the shapeup of stable and strong powers in Europe (hence the name "Europa Universalis". China historically was not very focused on outwards expansion as much (as they already had a huge deal to administrate) and was not big on trading and exploring either. So to easily represent this and make sure that China wouldnt every game ahistorically ruin the fun of any other nation, they got artifically nerfed.
China had afaik quite some trouble throughout its history and was constantly busy with things that the game does not reprsent well though, so some other kind of easier-to-program hindrance needed to get in.

The provinces of China are little, because the more people live in a place, the smaller the provinces are modelled in Paradox games. That is why Siberian provinces are as huge as entire countries. Makes alot of sense to me to not be able to conquer all the chinese people with just one hyper-province.

China wasnt 50+% of the world population 1400, the estimate is ~65 Million with a world population of around 350-400 million.
(Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates & http://www.onthisday.com/asia/china_economy.php)

AFAIK (but I am not sure on this), China wasnt a very strong concept before the rise of Nationalism either - instead being splittered up in dozens of dialects, regions and so forth. There was some continuity in the empires, but aside from the "core" coastline, the borders relatievly often switched.

Not sure how any region being a concept or not is relevant to the technology group anyway - it is merely a term to describe how the technological progress from 1400-1836 was of a region. It uses modern terms, because "modern" people play the game.
Moslems were somewhat ahead early of that time to Europe, while China was also not that lacking behind for a good part. However, the game tries to simulate the way from 1400-1836 and tries to get a close-historical result at the end of this. Thus, it needs to downplay the continous technological advance of some to reach that result.
In EU IV Paradox instead implented the "Institutions", where everybody is equal but new Concepts mostly begin in Europe and spread away, giving Tech penalties to anyone who isnt aware of them yet (e.g. the Enlightment)

i admire and appreciate that european countries(especially uk,france and german)contributed
the foundation of modern world (philosophy,science,politic system medical etc).maybe all those countries's civilization origin from rome and ancient greek.China on the old days can compare with rome empire in military and culture. i really
curious what the world would be if China can lead the development of the world in an parallel world

[Lembley42]

China has the chance to lead the development of mankind in the future within our universe, no parallel world required. Takes some effort, but that was true for everybody everywhere at everytime.
It needs to however undergo the reformation of the Enlightment to some degree still and restructure some if its culture (like Europe had) in my opinion. But as the most popolous state, it has the most thereotical potential for new ideas, technology and progress (unless you're some hyper-racist that thinks specific people are smarter or less so based on their geography) - if only China would go down that road. With the corrupt, inhumanistic and inefficient One-Party Dictatorship I don't see that happening but history is never linear.

Who knows, maybe the next Tian’anmen the leadership have more problems with massacring its own unarmed civilian population.
Currently doesn't look like it though.

P.S. : On second thought, I should probably not bring Politics into the Steam Forums, but ohwell.

[MK Black]

China has huge problems that many chinese refuse to admit (mainly communism and refusal of granting basic human rights to its citizens).

[caesarinchn]

Originally posted by Magick Supreme:

China has huge problems that many chinese refuse to admit (mainly communism and refusal of granting basic human rights to its citizens).

i'm talking about China in history not communist China.don't be so politic ok?

[MK Black]

Originally posted by caesarinchn:

Originally posted by Magick Supreme:

China has huge problems that many chinese refuse to admit (mainly communism and refusal of granting basic human rights to its citizens).

i'm talking about China in history not communist China.don't be so politic ok?

I wasn't replying to you.

[Hat8]

Originally posted by Lembley42:

China has the chance to lead the development of mankind in the future within our universe, no parallel world required. Takes some effort, but that was true for everybody everywhere at everytime.

Corruption has plagued China for 4 millenia. I can't see that changing.

[Lembley42]

No, sadly me neither at this moment. But History is a funny thing. You cannot see further than just a few decades.
And corruption has plagued every civilization in all times - sometimes more, sometimes less.

[Fish]

You could also edit some of the files to make China OP, but I dont think that would be much fun

[Hat8]

Originally posted by Fish:

You could also edit some of the files to make China OP, but I dont think that would be much fun

Balancing China is a bit impossible. A country never conquered by Europeans but conquered by undeveloped Manchurian nomads.

Of course, Eu3 and Eu4 do a terrible job at representing the logistics, cultural attitudes towards conquest and the actual value of technology.

[Lembley42]

Quite a necro.

And the country was beaten with ease by the British in the two Opium Wars, but was not occupied due to the lack of interest (why go with all the hazzle of keeping all the chinese in order when you can just drain the country economically by unequal trade deals).

But it is certainly a bit difficult because a properly played China would be simply too strong.

To model their mindset ("China is enough for itself") and the problems with governing such a massive and not necessarily homgoenous territory and population can only be simulated in a way that simply throws stones in the way of the player. Which is what they did.

[Hat8]

Originally posted by Lembley42:

Quite a necro.

And the country was beaten with ease by the British in the two Opium Wars, but was not occupied due to the lack of interest (why go with all the hazzle of keeping all the chinese in order when you can just drain the country economically by unequal trade deals).

But it is certainly a bit difficult because a properly played China would be simply too strong.

To model their mindset ("China is enough for itself") and the problems with governing such a massive and not necessarily homgoenous territory and population can only be simulated in a way that simply throws stones in the way of the player. Which is what they did.

Modifiers that limit expansion for all countries and making minority religions/cultures more of an obstacle would be a good way of solving this but the player base likes to paint the map and ignore the difficulties of managing a vast empire.

[Lembley42]

Well, that's how they tried to do it even more so in EU IV - you need to core provinces and deal with rebels, especially if you have lots of minorities and other religions.
Although that's ofcourse also already a part in EU III.

[Hat8]

Originally posted by Lembley42:

Well, that's how they tried to do it even more so in EU IV - you need to core provinces and deal with rebels, especially if you have lots of minorities and other religions.
Although that's ofcourse also already a part in EU III.

No - they did the opposite with their mana system. Mana means painting the map without having to deal with diverse populations and long term planning.