This is because the Chinese character cultures (Korea, China, and Japan) classified and established their own social systems through separate ‘cooperation’. For your information, this was called the ‘Five Deungjak’, and each country’s names were not unified and different.
For example, Japan could not be awarded multiple titles, unlike Western titles, and China used 25 pieces (二十等爵) to decide the title. In addition, in Joseon, the concept of a fifth piece was introduced under the influence of Confucianism, but in Goryeo, the Song Dynasty established feudalism (封君制), but in the period of Yuan interference, feudalism (封爵制) was established as the concept of feudalism.
In other words, in the East, the ‘military man on horseback’ did not ‘transform’ into his status. The Western “feudal system” was already reorganized or not introduced at all in the East, and even if it was introduced, it is widely considered to be similar to China’s military international rather than a form of bilateral contract like in Europe.
I thought feudalism was just european.
And other than the name of the age I also don’t see anything of it being reflected in the game.
Also the collapse of the feudal sytem would already fall in the games timeframe and isn’t really refllected either.
Ofc it could be an idea to try implement something like these culutural differences in the game, i’m jsut not sure how. If european civ “trains” a knight it costs less but occupies a “squire” villager? And what would be the eatern alternative? Or you can give a villager land in feudal, he won’t give you any income from that but become a Knight some time later? Something like this?
At the same time this would be a massive change in the game… I could imagine this could become interesting mechanics, but at the same time it could also backfire if the implementation isn’t ideal. And if we have different culturs with different mechanics the balance could become a nightmare.
Confucianism influenced all of the titles commonly used in the East. However, one of the common characteristics of the class system of countries in the Chinese character culture is that there are many “one-child honorific expressions” that are used to refer to each other by raising each other as a public official, and if a person who is not paid in a king’s work was given a public title, the title is not combined with the official title, but is called a public title after the title, and there were also customary titles that were not present in the West. For reference, before the Meiji Restoration, Japan used the system of laws and regulations.
Yes, you did. But even they had quite a variety of titles for kings and knights. Some countries didn’t even have a chivalrous title. For example, a Malian monarch was called “Mansa,” and “Ghana,” which comes before “Ghana Empire,” was originally the title of a monarch in Ghana.
* The original name of the Ghanaian Empire was called the Wagadu Empire or the Kingdom of Ghana, the Kingdom of Kanata, and so on.
I think it’s a great idea.
Why should Huns waste useless time in anyways failed political structures they just skipped?
Let’s make them age up directly to Imp!
And in another topic was the idea to not give them Knights because this wasn’t what the little original horde resembled. So Remove all this useless stuff from them. Just Stable and Archery ranges where they can train Light Cav and Cav Archers for free! No vills, no TCs, no Houses! Just pure military joy!