Conquest of China shouldn't be possible in 1600s!

[keynes2.0]

The China above is never the China we'll see in game. We'll never see the China that in the 16th century could muster hundreds of thousands of men to march against Hideyoshi in Korea (okay, ruining itself in the process but hey...)..

China was able to put about a quarter million soldiers in Korea through a mostly land route throughout the course of the entire war. However they never achieved battlefield strength above 80 thousand troops, if that. This was a war fought around 1600 the same time frame that the Spanish Armada was sailing to it's doom. The Spanish Armada was part of an invasion force of 50 thousand sailors and soldiers. China had at this time a population of around 150 million, Spain had a population of around 8 million. Spain concurrently with the Spanish Armada was fighting on other fronts worldwide. After the disaster of the Spanish Armada, Spain was able to bounce back and overwhelm the English retaliatory invasions and show itself to still be a major naval power, albeit clearly not the overwhelming force it had previously seemed. China faced a relatively easy campaign in Korea given the amazing effectiveness of the Korean navy after the command shakeup but ended up indebted and losing internal control due to the strain of supporting the expedition.

The point I'm getting at here is that China's involvement in the Japanese invasion of Korea doesn't highlight the power that China projected, it shows us just how little China was able to project beyond it's borders. This should not be surprising because China had such immense difficulty projecting within it's borders as well, it's not easy to rule a country with so many powerful internal forces around.

I would agree strongly with the thesis that China is way to easy to invade by a European. Such an invasion would be all but unthinkable until the last few years of the game. But I'd also object to the idea as China as some sort of population and scientific juggernaut. China was a giant on feet of clay and ended up fighting way below it's weight. The latter reason is why China comes across as too weak. The game engine isn't set up to portray a situation like China with it's vast internal power but weak projection. The result is that the difference is split and China is too strong outside its borders but too easy to invade. So if you think that China needs a buff you are wrong. They don't need a buff, they'd need an overhaul to reflect their internal situation.

 

[Novacat]

We all know the West came out ahead by the end of this time frame.

The west had an advantage, however, they hardly had hegemony, China was still a regional powerhouse during this time period, and the few skirmishes Europeans did have with the Chinese ended very badly for the Europeans. Even in those places the Europeans did come to dominate, they hardly did it with brute force by sending 30K Tercios at them.

We are playing a game in the end. If a player is skillful enough, he or she should be able to conquer China.

Except it requires no skill to conquer China. Its absurdly easy to do it.

The point I'm getting at here is that China's involvement in the Japanese invasion of Korea doesn't highlight the power that China projected, it shows us just how little China was able to project beyond it's borders. This should not be surprising because China had such immense difficulty projecting within it's borders as well, it's not easy to rule a country with so many powerful internal forces around.

Except your forgetting that there were two dynasties during this period, Ming and Qing. Your assumptions are correct for the Ming Dynasty, and Ming were the ones whom fought the Japanese. But you also have the Manchu dynasty, but regardless of whos in charge of China its very easy for Europeans to just walk all over the Chinese.

 

[LapuLapu]

The west had an advantage, however, they hardly had hegemony, China was still a regional powerhouse during this time period, and the few skirmishes Europeans did have with the Chinese ended very badly for the Europeans. Even in those places the Europeans did come to dominate, they hardly did it with brute force by sending 30K Tercios at them.

I said, by the end of the game 1822. The west did come out ahead by then. Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion and all that. Okay, a few skirmishes between Russians and the Qing held the Russians off, I'm just saying, by the time at the end of the game, the west comes out ahead. As someone already mentioned, Chinese dynasties had problems holding everything together within their borders, they weren't able to go beyond them. The Vietnamese held them back, so did the Burmese. Why do you think outsiders were able to take over: Qing/Manchu. If China was such a badass like everyone wants to believe; why couldn't they hold to the their Asian neighbors? They were beat back "very badly" as you say. I'll agree that Ming is in a weak position at game start, and I never understood why Chinese tech is so disabled. I always assumed this was the best possible way to simulate European conquests of Asian powers. Which did occur.

 

[keynes2.0]

Except your forgetting that there were two dynasties during this period, Ming and Qing. Your assumptions are correct for the Ming Dynasty, and Ming were the ones whom fought the Japanese. But you also have the Manchu dynasty, but regardless of whos in charge of China its very easy for Europeans to just walk all over the Chinese.

I wouldn't say that I am forgetting that so much as not seeing why you consider it relevant. The new dynasty didn't lead to China suddenly doing away with internal divisions and projecting massive amounts of power. If anything, the Qing projected power even less then the Ming.

I would agree that the Qing eventually stabilized their rule while the Ming obviously were unstable towards the end. But I wasn't really talking about that.

 

[Novacat]

It wasn't that bad. Besides I said, by the end of the game 1822. The west did come out ahead by then. Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion and all that.

Except that was not until the mid and late 1800s... beyond the game's time frame

why couldn't they hold to the their Asian neighbors? They were beat back "very badly" as you say.

Ming was slowly falling apart at the seams.

If anything, the Qing projected power even less then the Ming.

This is wrong. Aside from fighting off the Russians, the Qing did have a rather successful period of fighting its neighbors, up until the Opium wars in the mid 1800s

 

[fordisbunk]

Historical arguments to a side (and I think there are good points on both sides of the debate) maybe the more important question is how fun is it? I'm playing Muscovy>Russia right now and have basically conquered all Manchu and China by mid-1600s ... problem is, it's not much of a struggle and basically I've done it cause that's what I set out to do but it's kind of a boring slog. I've decided to deal with Europe and ignore Persia, Ottos, and India for the rest of the game just because they aren't a challenge (and I'm not that great a player) even though historically, for example, Russia always coveted the land south of the Caspian and, we're it more difficult, it would certainly be neat to create a Russia with substantial warm water ports.

That is, I think the game would still allow for significant alterations to history even if the Chinese, Indians, Muslims and heck, even Hordes were made tougher opponents.

 

[LapuLapu]

Except that was not until the mid and late 1800s... beyond the game's time frame

Exactly, and I said by 1822, the west comes out ahead. Which is true. It sets the stage for intervention by European powers. Hell, even in 1776 Adam Smith alludes to Chinese weakness in the Wealth of Nations. Ming was slowly falling apart at the seams, along with every other Chinese dynasty, besides I was talking of the Qing invasions of Burma and Vietnam.

 

[InnocentIII]

I'm sure no one of us wants to see something as ridiculous as an European power(even if player controlled) conquering whole China in 1600s.

Really, not one? We really should ask around, just to be safe.

Me, I think maybe they should make it impossible for Saxe Lauenberg to culture shift to Pommeranian and become a European power. I'm sure there's a Wikipedia link showing Saxe Lauenberg not pommeranian and not an important power.

 

[LapuLapu]

That is, I think the game would still allow for significant alterations to history even if the Chinese, Indians, Muslims and heck, even Hordes were made tougher opponents.

I always felt the devs somehow wanted to see your typical game follow the course of time that actually occurs, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the whole thing here and what everyone really is talking about: attrition.

 

[keynes2.0]

This is wrong. Aside from fighting off the Russians, the Qing did have a rather successful period of fighting its neighbors, up until the Opium wars in the mid 1800s

Most of those foreign wars would have been small campaigns by western hemisphere standards, let alone European ones. If China beating 2000 Russian troops shows them to be a contender then Haiti must have been a superpower for beating 30 times that many Frenchmen. The only decent fight in that list is against Vietnam... oh and the Qing lost that. What am I supposed to be impressed by here, them conquering a Taiwanese "kingdom" with a population of 200k? Did they follow it up by sending Zapp Branagin to defeat the retirees of the assisted living nebula?

 

[FearTheAmish]

Points that turn out to be completely wrong.

Ill be the first to say that i don't know a ton about Chinese History of this or any period. But i do recall that the country was split between many factions. I don't think its that hard to believe that if Cortez landed with 30k tercio's and worked magic similar to the Spainish campaigns in meso/south America with grabbing regional allies that it would not be possible to be victorious. I will always bet on the culture/Country with a legacy of warfare over one that had troubles fighting remnants of the Mongol hordes with 4x the numbers.

But to the real point here is Attrition in certain area's needs to be cracked to the 9's for foreigners. Especially Siberia and Sea crossings without multiple stops. Its ridiculous that i can ship 30k Tercios to China in the first place, and ridiculous that Russia can march 120k troops through Siberia.

 

[Novacat]

I will always bet on the culture/Country with a legacy of warfare over one that had troubles fighting remnants of the Mongol hordes with 4x the numbers.

Which is kind of amusing because the Russians had trouble with the hordes as well, and usually brought 6x their number and still managed to lose.

But to the real point here is Attrition in certain area's needs to be cracked to the 9's for foreigners. Especially Siberia and Sea crossings without multiple stops. Its ridiculous that i can ship 30k Tercios to China in the first place, and ridiculous that Russia can march 120k troops through Siberia.

Theres a reason why attrition is largely ignored in the game: The AI cant handle it. Observe the EU4 AI sometime, and you will realize that it tends to pile up all its forces into one big doomstack and then march around completely ignoring attrition.

But i do recall that the country was split between many factions.

This was during a short period of time between Ming's disintergration and Qing conquest of China. While it is entirely possible that a European power could have taken over at the time, it still would have been highly unlikely.

 

[FearTheAmish]

Which is kind of amusing because the Russians had trouble with the hordes as well, and usually brought 10x their number and still managed to lose.

This is an offensive not a Defensive war to begin with... but w/e ill break it down

1st one sounds like just bad logistics so not really HORDES STRONK!
2nd so the hordes got defeated in combat and once again scorched earth... so not a beating just a well we cant feed our horses better turn back...

Theres a reason why attrition is largely ignored in the game: The AI cant handle it. Observe the EU4 AI sometime, and you will realize that it tends to pile up all its forces into one big doomstack and then march around completely ignoring attrition.

I realize this and i am not asking for a change just pointing out the reason for the conquest isn't just tech differences



This was during a short period of time between Ming's disintergration and Qing conquest of China. While it is entirely possible that a European power could have taken over at the time, it still would have been highly unlikely.

Also this last part is the thing i have trouble with. We are playing a game which the second we start playing becomes ahistorical. So who's to say the Qing even get formed? or better yet History is made up on these crazy chances coming to fruition. Spain's conquest of Meso America, Gustave Adolphius death at Luetzen, Charles V being heir to 3 of Europes Leading Dynasties leading the formation of Uber Spain.

EDIT: also according to Wikipedia (i know not the best source) Qing Dynasty didn't complete its conquest of China until 1722 well out of the time frame listed as the issue in this thread. OOPS missread should be 1683 so way late in that period basically you have a window from 1500 - 1643 were it would have been easy against the Ming, and 1644 - 1660 were you have a fragmented country in the middle of a Peasant war and an external war were it would have been a walk over....

 

[fire_em]

You know the new system where tech cost more over time could one way to help fix the inbalance with eastern nations. Just make all none new world nation tech up at the same rate as the west at the start. As time goes by tech will cost way more for nations in india and china. Also maybe make land troops on ship suffer more attrition early on. 1% in europe and raise the to 10 % going to africa and 20% to india and so on. I'm in 1600 right now, castile, portugal and myself are having no problems taking over the world. America is taken and india is under massive assault from all 3 of us while they are having no way to stop us. Another way is maybe you will suffer a lot of rebellions in newly conqered land in the east even if cored early on, and will remain so until your adm tech is at a certain lv.Or add a logistics mechanic where new colony does not extend your range for your land troops.When you try to move your troops past this range they will suffer massvie attrition. You need develop your colony like higher forts and barraks before they can sustain large troops abroad.
Just some ideas on slowing the western nations down a bit.

 

[Novacat]

Also this last part is the thing i have trouble with. We are playing a game which the second we start playing becomes ahistorical. So who's to say the Qing even get formed? or better yet History is made up on these crazy chances coming to fruition. Spain's conquest of Meso America, Gustave Adolphius death at Luetzen, Charles V being heir to 3 of Europes Leading Dynasties leading the formation of Uber Spain.

But the game is still mostly lean towards a historical direction. Given, it does not, with Mughals and Qing rarely, if ever, forming, Brandenburg never forming Prussia, etc, but its supposed to.

EDIT: also according to Wikipedia (i know not the best source) Qing Dynasty didn't complete its conquest of China until 1722 well out of the time frame listed as the issue in this thread. OOPS missread should be 1683 so way late in that period basically you have a window from 1500 - 1643 were it would have been easy against the Ming, and 1644 - 1660 were you have a fragmented country in the middle of a Peasant war and an external war were it would have been a walk over....

I imagine the only opening Europeans would have had was 1644-1660. Despite Ming coming apart at the seams, it was still a very strong country up until that point.

 

[FearTheAmish]

But the game is still mostly lean towards a historical direction. Given, it does not, with Mughals and Qing rarely, if ever, forming, Brandenburg never forming Prussia, etc, but its supposed to.



I imagine the only opening Europeans would have had was 1644-1660. Despite Ming coming apart at the seams, it was still a very strong country up until that point.

Eh China seems from the posts people keep dropping supposedly of them being awesome (mostly looks bad for China) i am starting to think a well drilled professional army numbering no more the 10k with a good leader skilled in diplomacy could have conquered them.

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

I find it annoying that people seem to somehow forget that conquering China is totally different from defeating it.

You are never going to conquer China with only ten thousand troops because forget defeating the Chinese armies, you'll be stretched so thin that maintaining your occupation becomes impossible.

 

[FearTheAmish]

I find it annoying that people seem to somehow forget that conquering China is totally different from defeating it.

You are never going to conquer China with only ten thousand troops because forget defeating the Chinese armies, you'll be stretched so thin that maintaining your occupation becomes impossible.

You only need a toehold to get started... Take a port province in the south in a peace treaty and guess what word spreads of the sick man in Asia. But yes that was a bad choice of words Defeat instead of conquer should have been used.

 

[Dabrowski]

Eh China seems from the posts people keep dropping supposedly of them being awesome (mostly looks bad for China) i am starting to think a well drilled professional army numbering no more the 10k with a good leader skilled in diplomacy could have conquered them.

The comparison to Mesoamerica, as you made earlier, is not quite apt. China had factions, like every country (even European countries!). Mesoamerica was a web of semi-independent city-state-esque altepetl paying (often forced) tribute to rulers of the Triple Alliance. It's not hard to see how the locals of the region would be keen on assisting anyone who might free them from their burdens. The notion that the Chinese, or really any non-Western country in EU4, losing as quickly and easily as they do now to Western tech nations in the game's time frame is ridiculous. In EU4, you don't have to ally with locals, you don't have to encourage potentially rebellious factions, or even look at the diplo screen except to declare war. You simply park your units anywhere and watch your enemies get slaughtered.

 

[Hystarea]

I also did something similar. I play as the Cherokee and destroyed Europe nations when they arrived. FIX THE GAME!!! In all seriousness when you hit that start button the game is no longer a historical game. It is now started onto it's own course and anything can happen. It's possible that before you invaded the country just went through a rebellion. There are many things that could have hindered it. Any player playing as any nation has the chance of destroying a European nation. Many people have played as the weakest nations and conquered most, if not the whole, world. The AI for these nations might be messed up, but that will more then likely be fixed in future patches to come.