EEP China

[Lambert Simnel]

I am afraid it is not possible to de-explore provinces and the command that disbands fleets is seriously buggy (if you try to take away more ships than they have then the fleet size is set to some ridiculously huge value).

Sorry to rain on your parade.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

surprise to see this thread resurrected. Jinnai and I r working on Zheng He between ourselves at the moment. we have discussed about Menzies b4, i think not very far up from here, starting from the last page. read those discussions and see what u think.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Yep, I think Menzies' theory is pretty suspect.,

 

[unmerged(11730)]

Hi,

Sorry that a lot of what I'd said had already been discussed! I read the other posts, but I still think Menzies is probably right. If you like, you could look at his website:

http://www.1421.tv/

but there doesn't seem to be a right lot on there. I've got the book right here - but I don't like reading it as I've bought it as a Christmas present! However, when Gavin Menzies came and gave his talk, he gave us all a document that just listed rows upon rows of evidence. I've not got it with me at the moment - I leant it to my tutor (a world expert on Chinese astronomical records) because I thought he'd be interested. But off the top of my head, evidence included: Chinese place names in various places in America; 'American' peoples with Chinese DNA; European explorers' reports of sunken Chinese junks in the New World; European explorers' testimony that they had seen maps of where they were going - both Magellan and Columbus used this fact to fend off mutinies - by correctly predicting 'unknown' geographical features before they reached them; various European maps accurately charting various distant lands long before the Europeans ever got there (who charted the waters?); various inscriptions about the voyages in places across the world; Chinese astronomical obervatories dating from that time built across the world; Chinese artifacts from that time found across the world; Chinese written records (isn't that how we know history, anyway???); and others. Now unless this guy is inventing a huge fabrication, which nobody has unmasked yet, I can't really see how it can be untrue. Besides, there have been many other works on this subject published before. He also said that his work has been well recieved in the accedemic community - the greatest opposition coming from English accedemics who spent their lives writing about how Columbus was the first to discover America! But still, when I get the evidence booklet back, I'll post some more evidence up here.

Now back to the voyages themselves: I'm looking at the first map in the book, and it shows four "Voyages of the Treasure Fleets" (it's a bit difficult to follow all the arrows, but here's what I think it means):

1. "Hong Bao"
This one goes around SE asia, India, along the coast of Africa, around the Cape of Good Hope, up to West Africa, across to the eastern coast of South America, down past the Falklands and through the Straights of Magellan, turns around past the South Shetland islands and Antarctica, along to Heard Island, up to Australia, back up to SE Asia and back to China.

2. "Zhor Man"
This one goes the same way as the last, until it hits the Straight of Magellan, and goes up the western coast of South America. Then across the Pacific to the eastern coast of Australia, up past the Spice Islands, up near Japan, across the Pacific again to the USA's west coast, back across the pacific again, back to Australia, up through the Spice Islands, and back to China.

3. "Zhou Wen"
This seems to start at the Cape Verde Islands (off the west coast of Africa), goes across to the Caribean, up the east coast of the USA, up all the way around Greenland, past northern Iceland, and all the way across Russia's northern coast line. It then comes past Japan, and back to China.

4. "Yang Qing"
Boring compared with the others : Seems to start in SE Asia, goes to tip of India, then to Cape of Good Hope, then turns around up western African coast, past Arabia and back to India.

Well, I'm still inclinded to believe it, even if nobody else is! If it IS true, I really think we need to change how China is represented in the game...

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Well I'd just recall the reference to Cook discovering Australia.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

we will never have the right answer even if we start debating about whether it is true anyway. we r not the experts. so would it be right to stick with what is still generally believed by everyone, which is still what is said in school textbooks in China, that the furthest Zheng He had reached is East Africa? i guess we could make the Menziews theory as fantasy option though.

personally, i have many queries about the theory. first of all, motivation, which is elaborated above & i wont repeat it again. about the evidence: Chinese place names? very unreliable evidence. Chinese names could easily be coincided, given native language (which i know nothing about) use the same system of vowel consonant combination. This is because the Chinese language differentiate between tones, which may not be reflected in the native language. Chinese DNA? i think American indians are genetically related to the Chinese because they were descents who migrated from China, into Siberia, across the bering strait into America thousands of years ago. European reports of Chinese junks? i doubt even some of them have ever seen Chinese junks when they were still exploring in America. they have not even reached China (except the Portuguese). How could they be sure whether the wreckage is Chinese junk? Columus and Magellan knowing where they were going? all i can say is, there is always myths and gossip spread around which get exaggerated about heroes who did great things and how they did it. "wow! Columbus discovered a whole new world! he even knew where he was going right from the start!" that is not an unbelievable thing to have spread. besides, from what i recall to have read in World Book Encyclopaedia, Columbus still thought he had reached Asia when he died, i guess if u r saying that he had Zheng He's maps, u have to displace very basic stuff in history books which i guess would have a strong basis. thats all i would say for now.

 

[unmerged(11730)]

Hi Sun_Zi,

Well, you could be right. Perhaps I'm just being hoodwinked. But like I say, if/when I get that booklet of evidence back, I'll stick something up here. But like you said, it probably is better to stick with generally accepted history.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

we could probably make it a fantasy option if u want. Menzie's thoery is somewhat interesting...

 

[unmerged(12179)]

Some Info

My first Post!! Can't spell check, execise my bad English
Here is an Article on the fall of the Ming and the the whole Wu San Gui deal. Some of you might have already read this.
Note: the 10-20 said on page 4 should be 10-20 thousand men.

http://www.china-defense.com/history/1644/1644-1.html

In the beginning you talked about it possible for China in EU to establish colonies in Carribans. I tried to do in the Grand Compagn, but each time I have to turn back due to attrition. (To solve this problem, I have to bride every nation I meet to establish military Access. Which actually reflect diplomatic nature of the trips.) Since AI have no attrition, it might go that far, but it there any way to limited AI's exploration tenencies?

As for Chinese Land Tech. It is surpior or equal to Eurpean Tech until the early 1600s. But thing like muskets and Cannon are limited to a handful of units because of cost and over-all conservativeness of the Army. Muskets are pretty much limited to Shen Ji Yin, after Qing's take over Musket arms are pretty much out of the Chinese military Forces. (Though, it was restore in 1870's by Li Hong Zhang's efforts.)
Note: Shen Ji Yin by definition is battalion level Unit, so it was never greater than 6000 troops, but it is a full firearm unit.

On the artlilery front, China did take the lead in the beginning, but reverse-engineering Western Cannon (Hong Yi Da Pao) in 1622 shows by that time(1600) European Tech is higher.


Now on Zheng He, as I said before I can't get him to discover America with out spending tons of money. Though AI don't have this penity. So somehow change the AI if possible. Also it hard for China to get another explorer after ZhengHe, so It's impossble to play China as colonial power (even after I choose to go all naval, I have to wait 40yr for another explorer.)

On Colonists: China doesn't get nearly as many colonists as European Countries even if the player choose to go Naval on ZhengHe event, and Open trade on closure(sp?) event. Still, if possible make Colonist placement more expensive for China to prevent over agressive colonization.

I like the breakup of China opinion. Name of the state are in first Article.

Also in the game, Manchu is portrayed as unified and pretty powerful state in 1418. But in fact they are not much of an treat until formation of Hou Jin in the late 1500's (late Jin, the first one got Northern China from Liao in 11th Century) Before Rise of Jin/Manchu/Qing Mongols are the greatest treat. (Mongols are worked as close ally of Qing. They are finially annexed by the time of Kang Xi when they rebel)

I major part of EUII's inaccuracies should be Population (and Manpower too). Europe is has pretty small sized province and it have pop. of >10,000 while much bigger non-european provinces has pop. ~50,000. Sichuan pendi has only 8000 people, what up with that. (I haven't play EEP, so I don't know if you guys fixed it or not.)

Here is some data from official census.

Ming Hong Wu year 26 (1393)
Population 60,545,812
Source: Yuanshi-DiliZi( History of Yuan/mongol-Geography section)
(other one I'll use millions since Census back then aren't acurrate an
yways)
Ming Wanli year 6 (1578)
Pop. 60.69 Million
Source: Mingshi-Sihuozi (history of Ming-Food and Goods (don't ask me why this weird name)
(No recorded official Census, but it was note by the time qing entered China(1644) pop is about 100 million)
Qing Qianlong year 29 (1764)
pop. 205.59 Million (Agucultural revolution. But unlike Europe, this did not trigger industrial revolution)
Source Qingsihao-Sihouzi (history of qing draft?, same weird section)
Qing Jiaqing year 24 (1819)
pop. 301.26 million
source same
Comparison growth
note pop. stablized at 1819, rapid growth re-started in the 50's and 60's.
1393-60 mil
1578-60.6mil
1644~100 mil
1795-296 mil
1819-301.26 mil
1901-426.5 mil
1912-405.8 mil
1928-471.7 mil
1949-548.9 mil
1957-656.6 mil
1978-975.2 mil
1982-1.03 B
Now >1.2B

I don't know if EU can represent China at 300 mil pop at 1819, since the upperlimit for provinces apears to be 1 mil. but it shows the 1418 model has to be reworked. Since manpower is directly related to population, so put Chinese manpower at 400 is not unreasonable.

 

[unmerged(12179)]

Serval Chinese Language sources plus article on Chinese Firearm during Ming and Qing

Here is an article in Big5 Chinese on Hong Yi Da Pao(The reverse engineered Cannon)
http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/digi.museum/exhibitions/cannon/index.html
And Song Yuan Hua (Catholic offical in Ming court avocate weaponry reform)
http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/digi.museum/exhibitions/old.syh/pages/start.html
Specs on all unearthed Chinese Cannons
http://vm.rdb.nthu.edu.tw/asp/project/gun/time.asp
An Essay on Opium war(in GB code, so if you don't read Chinese or your computer don't process the code Ignore this)
162年前爆发的鸦片战争，打破了中国人“天朝上国”的美梦，中国人被西洋的蛮夷拖进了近代，如蒋廷黻先生所说：“在鸦片战争以前，我们不肯给外国平等待遇；在以后，他们不肯给我们平等待遇。”（《中国近代史》第一章：“剿夷与抚夷”）。在这场战争中，大清朝被新兴的英国打败了，关于失败的原因49年以后给出了一种相当固定和主流的解释，“满清王朝统治集团腐败无能，尽管广大爱国官兵英勇奋战，但由于统治集团的妥协出卖，中国才战败了。”尽管许多史家也提到中国的落后，但把失败的原因归咎于奸臣或卖国贼似乎是一种更方便也更安全的解释，然而历史是无情的，落后就要挨打，并不因为落后的一方掌握着正义就有所厚待，鸦片战争的失败，首先是双方军事力量较量的结果。本文的论述也就着重于此。

1.军队数量对比：当时清军的总兵力大约在80万左右（包括八旗、绿营兵），在鸦片战争中调集并先后投入战争的大约在10万左右，而英军最初派出大约海陆军7000多人，后来增至最高达2万人，简单由数字上看，中方占绝对优势，但在具体的战役中，这种兵力上的优势却为未能显现。英方船坚炮利的优势使其牢牢的掌握着制海权，也使其掌握着进攻的主动权，为了防御英军可能的入侵，清政府在从盛京到广东的七个省，几十个海口都得设防，分到每个重镇上驻守的部队也就在4000-10000不等，如此分兵，自然在每一处都难以集合优势兵力，中英间的多次战役，中方能投入的部队往往与英军相当甚至还处于劣势。交通不便，调兵速度的缓慢更加重了中方的困境。《天朝的崩溃》举了两个例子说明双方在这一方面的巨大差距。“一、1841年10月26日，道光帝调四川建昌、松潘两镇中精兵两千名，前往浙江征剿。一直到1842年2月，该部援军风尘仆仆，历经四千余里赶至前线。3月10日参加进攻宁波的战斗。而英军于1841年10月10日攻占宁波后，此时已休整近半年。比较中英双方，谁劳谁逸？二、1841年4月16日，浙东反攻失败后，道光帝根据前方主帅奕经的请求，调广西兵1000名增援浙江。6月29日，该部头起、二起550人到达，后两起450名尚在途中。而英军此时已放弃宁波，攻陷乍浦、吴淞，正浩浩荡荡驶进长江！奕经连忙将该部再派往江苏，一直到战争结束，该部未参加任何战斗”。（茅海建：《天朝的崩溃》第59-60页）。

2.军队质量对比：中英方都实行招募制度，但英国陆军以小而精见称，薪给优厚，训练良好，而皇家海军作为世界海上霸主，更吸引了许多有为之士。英军军官出生贵族者甚众（这也是长期奉行重文轻武的中国官员很难理解的），而且大抵经过军官学校培训，士兵的招募、军官（包括士官）的选拔、退役都有一套完整的制度。而这些恰恰是中国军队十分缺乏的，清军士兵缺乏良好的裁补淘汰制度，许多人年事已高还留在军中，还往往父子相继，大大降低了军队素质，清军的训练也很成问题，承平日久，训练废弛，而且由于军饷二百年不变，物价上涨，当兵所得不足以养活一家老小，于是大家纷纷从事第二职业，如茅海建在《天朝的崩溃》一书中提到浙江定海的绿营兵从事修脚业务，湖南抚标兵开茶室等等。清承明制，官员俸禄标准很低，《钦定大清事典》规定的一品武官的年俸和诸种杂费不过600余两银子。七品武官的年俸和诸种杂费仅70多两，雍正年间耗羡归公，除年俸杂费之外，文武官员还得到一笔养廉银，不过文官和武官的差异甚大，正一品的直隶总督的养廉银有15000两，而一品的提督只有2000两。而且武官较之文官，可供搜刮的渠道也少得多，但这不仅不能抑制，反而更令他们贪婪，除了传统的吃空额，克扣军饷之外，各路军爷们各显神通，贪赃枉法，广东绿营开赌场，福建水师出租船只给私人，甚至兵匪一家，走私贩私。在鸦片贸易中，各海口水师参与这种活动的大有人在。这种活动的猖獗，连刚强如林则徐都感棘手，据载。当时任福建汀漳龙道员的张集馨向他询问如何改变福建水师“兵匪一家”的局面时，林表示：“虽诸葛武侯来，亦只是束手无策”，后来的曾国藩更称：“自守备以上，无不丧尽天良”。清军内部的腐败，以致于茅海建先生不得不发出这样的感叹：“其实。我为了研究结论的公允，曾千百度的寻找光明，但光明始终远我而去，我不能不得出这样的结论：鸦片战争时期的清军，本是一个难得见到光明的黑暗世界。”（茅海建：《天朝的崩溃》第71-72页）。

3.武器装备对比：明清之际，受战争的刺激，加上西学东渐，耶稣会士带来西方火炮的理论与知识，黄一农先生认为：“明末传入中国的操炮技术尚能与西方同步……直到十七世纪末，中国与西方在实用炮学上的差距其实并不特别显著。”(黄一农：红夷大炮与明清战争)而天下既定，对枪炮技术的改良便不再重视，“康熙五十四年，山西总兵金国正上言愿捐造新型的子母炮二十二位，分送各营操练，上谕大学士等曰：“子母炮系八旗火器，各省概造，断乎不可！前师懿德、马见伯曾经奏请，朕俱不许”，竟然禁止地方官自行研制新炮以充实武备。雍正间，清廷还将盛京、吉林和黑龙江以外各省的子母炮尽行解部。康熙末年以后的禁教，更令原先在引进西方火炮新知上扮演重要媒介的耶稣会士，较少机会和兴趣继续这方面的工作。”(黄一农：红夷大炮与明清战争)，而西方的火炮技术却是与日俱进。至鸦片战争前夕，双方的差距已相当巨大。以兵丁所用枪支相较，英军主要使用伯克式前装滑膛燧发枪和布伦威克式前装滑膛击发枪，射程分别为200和300米，射速为2/3发/分钟和3/4发/分种，清军所使用为兵丁鸟枪，射程100米，射速为1/2发/分钟，双方差距可见一斑，而且自18世纪以来，西方军队所用步枪均使用刺刀，而兵丁鸟枪由于枪身太长（2米左右）而无法装配刺刀，在制造工艺上，西方日益精密且规格化，而中国的制造技术在闭关锁国中不仅未见长进而且还有后退，“嘉庆四年(1799)曾改造一百六十门前朝的“神机炮”，并改名为“得胜炮”，惟经试放后发现其射程竟然还不如旧炮。”(黄一农：红夷大炮与明清战争)火炮的差距也与枪支相仿，中国的火炮铸造技术全面落后，不仅制造工艺差，而且使用的主要原料铁在质量上也远逊于完成了工业革命的英国，由于铁质太差，铸造出来的火炮十分粗糙，威力也小，往往数千斤大炮不如英军的小炮。双方当时使用的炮弹都装填黑色火药，但欧洲的化学家已找到了黑色火药的最佳配方，而清军使用的黑色火药的硝、硫、炭比例中含硝量过高，大大影响了火药的爆炸威力。炮架和瞄准器具方面，中英也存在着很大差距（火炮瞄准器具的重要性，可参见黄一农先生的《红夷大炮与明清战争》，此处不赘）。清军许多火炮连起码的瞄准器具都没有，其简陋程甚至超过刚刚引入西方火炮的明军。而且清军还处于冷热兵器混用的时代，兵丁鸟枪并不普及，使用冷兵器的部队至少占到一半，而鸟枪的质量也不容乐观，有的一用几十年，甚至上百年，火炮中也有不少前明遗物。海军的差距更大，天朝的水师较之皇家海军，其差别可谓天上地下，甚至到中法战争中，还有不少封疆大吏献火攻破法舰之法，大概他们还生活在“火烧赤壁”的三国时代。

如此巨大的差距决定了战争中中方的惨败，这里仅举几个简单的例子：大角，沙角之战，清军奋勇抵抗（考虑到这场战争中清军更多的是一触即溃，望风而逃，此战清军的表现可谓难能可贵），战死277人，伤重而死5人，受伤462人，而英军受伤38人，无人死亡。虎门之战，清军250人阵亡（包括关天培），受伤和被俘达千余人，英军仅有5人受轻伤。不用多说了，“战争的现实就是这么冷酷，丝毫也不照顾正义的一方。”（茅海建：《天朝的崩溃》第227页）

Interesting part in this is that When Qing tries to restore older Cannon designs in 1799, the performance is lower than the orginal. (in EU terms Land tech is going backwards!! Though, it is possible since the know how to concentrated in the few artisans, if they die off, the tech is lost)
Also it shows the production of Musket and Cannon is very slow, since it is noted some of cannon used were very very old (some are built in Mind Danesty!! and that is 1840). It is a major factor on why English had such a Easy time in 1840. This also means by 1820 Chinese Land Tech shouldn't extremly far behind Europeans, but it is a situation of too few modern weapons deploy. (Funny thing is this is almost the same situation PLA is in) Since one can't upgrade weapons in EU(it automaticly upgrade), there is no way to simulate it.(If some western country decides attach China in 1819) So it might be an answer to situation "1820 vs 1840, China is too advanced" Also Since industrial revolution did not happen in China, but it did happen in European piece from 1790 to mid 1800's.

 

[unmerged(12179)]

Infomation on Development of Firearms in China. Again in GB code (bear with me) Though it does have a "people back then are so dumb" bias as well as a "Qing/Manchu mess up the country" Bias. But Cold weapons (swords etc.) emphasis of Qing military policy did play a part in the backwardness of the situation in 1840.

由来已久的说法，是中国人发明了火药，而西方人用火药反过来对付中国人。其实这种说法有
误。火药在中国军事上的实际应用，在宋朝已经出现。当时抗金的军民，用竹筒做成一端封闭的
枪管，里头混填火药与弹丸，点燃后发射，称之为突火枪，这大概是管射枪最早的雏形。
到了元朝，火器已经在军事上有一定的地位。元朝官方制造装备元式手铳，并逐渐开始广泛应
用。后来蒙古大军西征，一部份军队就配备了这种手铳。在大马士革，蒙军与埃及军队交战，打
了个败仗，其中一些掌握火器制造技术的士兵成为俘虏。后来阿拉伯人再把这种技术传入欧洲。
此后火器的制造术才得以在欧洲发展。因此确切地说，火器是先从东方打到西方的。
明代的火器在元式的基础上更进一步，而且式样更是五花八门。从明初的洪武手铳到以后的永乐
手铳，造工越来越精细。永乐手铳口径１４－１５毫米，误差不得超过１毫米；长度为３５－３
６厘米，误差不得超过１厘米。由现存火器上的出厂编号做最保守的估算，当时明铳至少也有十
六万四千多支。明军当中已经编成有专职使用火枪的部队，号称神机营。
十六世纪中叶，西方的火绳枪(Matchlock Musket)传入中国和日本。当时明朝官员发现这种长管西洋火器填药量与射
程比明制短管手铳更优越，马上交由军器兵仗局引进改良。明式的火绳枪叫鸟铳，有弧状把手和
准星，利于三点一线射击。到大明嘉靖三十七年（公元１５５８年），明军大致已经有了１万多
支鸟铳。嘉靖四十年（１５６１），明军又在鸟铳的基础上发明了子母铳。１支鸟铳带４支子
铳，可依次连续发射，射速大为提高。
到了１５９８年，明代火器研制者赵士桢，在土耳其火绳枪的基础上又改进出鲁密铳。这种火器
弹药装填量高，射程远，威力比同期欧洲火绳枪大，更比当时日本战国的火绳枪轻便，因此在明
军中大量装备。援朝战争中打垮日军，应该少不了子母铳跟鲁密铳的功勋。
戚继光在平倭时期，发明了一种虎蹲炮。底盘有铁钉，可抓牢地面，减少后座力，提高命中率。
１炮能打出百多弹丸，是实施高密度面积打击的利器。而且该炮体积轻巧，机动力强，对潜进山
区的倭寇作战成效显著。１５６８年，戚继光甚至把它装备到骑兵营，作为必备的骑兵炮。作用
跟现代的小型迫击炮相似。
更为闻名的红夷大炮，最初是明代天启年间从澳门葡萄牙人手上买来。红夷大炮就是长管加农
炮，广泛为英国跟荷兰人使用在战船上。澳门葡萄牙人的３０门炮也是从英国船上掠夺而来。明
廷得到这３０门炮，一部分用于军事仿制，（直到明朝灭亡，共造出大小红夷炮达５００余门）
一部分则用于实战，布置在关外。袁崇焕宁远大捷，就是靠这几门从葡萄牙人处买来的红夷大
炮，把自许平生百战无败迹的清太祖努尔哈赤炸得狼狈而逃，最后跟丰臣秀吉一样，愤懑成疾，
郁郁而终。
１６３５年，另一个明代火器研究家毕懋康更发明了燧发枪(Flint Musket)。燧发枪配有火石自动打火装置，不
怕风雨，不须事先火绳点火，发射速度与精确度大为提升。相对于火绳枪是一项意义重大的变
革。明代燧发枪的自行研制并不比欧洲人晚多少。但当时已经是明末崇祯年间，明室内有李闯农
民武装攻城掠地，外有满清鞑子侵扰，大势已去。燧发枪还没有机会配备到军队，明朝就已经灭
亡了。

凭心而论，即使在最黑暗最腐败的时期，明廷也从没有停止过军事武备研发。明朝的国防工业水
平，与同期被认为最强盛的欧洲相比，并不是遥不可及。而且直到灭亡之前，明朝跟西方的技术
交流态度，素来是积极上进的，西洋出了新产品，很快明人就会想方设法搞过来改良创新。正因
为如此，大航海时代的初期，欧洲人对于东方的庞大中央帝国，一直还存有敬畏羡慕甚至崇拜的
心态。纵有贪婪的念头也不敢轻易付诸尝试，事实上无论是侵朝的日本人还是霸占台湾的荷兰
人，都必然受到中土的强烈反击。

在满清入关之后，形势才逐渐改变。或许是出自对于汉文化的自卑感，满清统治者强调所谓的
“弓马立国”，以此来标榜自身的胜利。满清军队里用的火器，基本上还是陈旧落后的火绳枪
系。明末所研制的燧发枪，根本没有被满清统治者所采用。火枪营退出军事力量的主流，与明代
的军事发展方向背道而驰。火器在军事应用上开始受到冷落，军工研发不但没有进步，而且还逐
渐倒退。于是中土跟西方甚至日本的距离，从此日渐拉大。
于是在郑成功痛打“红毛鬼”二百多年后的鸦片战争里，面对金发碧眼的洋人，竟然还有满清将
领祈求用狗血鸡血来抵御枪弹，破其妖法。
还有不通兵法的武夫，妄想凭匹夫之勇，用骑兵的血肉之躯去冲击严阵以待的西洋火枪队。
天作孽，犹可活；自作孽，不可活。等待多年的八国联军自然乘虚而入，从梦想多年的黄金乡里
攫取一船船，数以百万两计的黄金白银－而且远比从非洲南美更为轻而易举。


The point is on normal terms Chinese Land tech should be superior to Europeans until the 1600's. (Though in Musket terms Mid 1500's Europeans are better, but Chinese Reverse Engineered it)
Note: When France and England Entered Beijing In 1860, They discover the caonnon given to the Chinese at Qianlong's reign(1760's) is still at the Palace on display like toys. Comprement this with the fact from 1700 onwards the best muskets and rifles are use by Aristicrats to hunt birds instread of arming the army (since it is viewed as waste of money. And this is why Chinese Flint Muskets are Call Liao Tong-Bird Musket).

This might mean a halt of Lang tech development from 1700 onwards.

It just come to me, I read somewhere that Haijin- Ming denesty ban on sea trade and Ship mast/tonnage limited was lifted in 1550's due to merchant pressue. But trade is not endorsed, so it never truly flurished.

Conclusion
Land 4 or something at 1418 allow it is to be 21 or 26 depend on your taste by 1620-1650 Then stop at 30(If count in the fact though good weapons are avalible, but they are not deployed in number) or 40(if disregard the limited use of moderen equipment) by 1820
Navy 9 or 17 depend if you take ZhengHe's ships as exception or the norm. (Since no one in their right mind would think to build such expensive ship for regular navy, 9 make more sense. If Naval level is fixed at 17 then some make Navy alone grow at very slow rate, So 23 or so by 1820? (ZhengHe's junks is not that different than junks used in the Opium War.)

I can't think of a way to edit like this except to change the tech groups, so it there a way to achive this result in the hands of AI. (As human player should be able to the change history)

 

[unmerged(6159)]

In my opinion, military technology levels are as much a function of doctrine as they are of purely technological accomplishments. In the second China was generally quite good, in the latter not nearly as much. As I've said earlier, the Japanese development musket volley fire pretty much independently of the the Europeans (and at about the same time). The Chinese never even adopted volley fire, as far as I know. So I'd argue final land tech 26 is a tad too high for them. Still land tech 4 seems about right initially - from a pure gameplay point of view they can't get to assaults soo early or things will get messed up.

In naval tech I'd argue that the European innovations of the 16th century were the transition from warship as a troop carrier to warship as a gun platform. I don't see these tech levels as appropriate for Zheng He. Admittedly naval tech does cover attrition as well, but I believe the military aspect is more important. The game mechanisms mean the China is going to get a fair amount of naval tech advancements. So I think they ought to be ahead of the Europeans, but not too much. Realistically they could be running into each other in the early 16th century, and I'd expect the Portuguese and Chinese to be at about the same level then, with China lagging dramatically after that.

I don't think Zheng He should be able to discover America without spending tons of money. I'm entirely unconvinced that he ever did. He certainly should be able to discover Australia and the Cape of Good Hope (neither of which he did, but both of which seem sensible).

I think you make an excellent point about post-Zheng He China if the 'Naval' option is chosen. In that case it should be possible for China get explorers after Zheng He. I'd suggest a random event or two, triggered on the 'naval' choice. These would also give some colonists too. This wouldn't affect the AI too much, because they only take naval 5% of the time.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Re: Some Info

Originally posted by Huaxia
Now on Zheng He, as I said before I can't get him to discover America with out spending tons of money. Though AI don't have this penity. So somehow change the AI if possible. Also it hard for China to get another explorer after ZhengHe, so It's impossble to play China as colonial power (even after I choose to go all naval, I have to wait 40yr for another explorer.)

On Colonists: China doesn't get nearly as many colonists as European Countries even if the player choose to go Naval on ZhengHe event, and Open trade on closure(sp?) event. Still, if possible make Colonist placement more expensive for China to prevent over agressive colonization.

I like the breakup of China opinion. Name of the state are in first Article.

Also in the game, Manchu is portrayed as unified and pretty powerful state in 1418. But in fact they are not much of an treat until formation of Hou Jin in the late 1500's (late Jin, the first one got Northern China from Liao in 11th Century) Before Rise of Jin/Manchu/Qing Mongols are the greatest treat. (Mongols are worked as close ally of Qing. They are finially annexed by the time of Kang Xi when they rebel)

I major part of EUII's inaccuracies should be Population (and Manpower too). Europe is has pretty small sized province and it have pop. of >10,000 while much bigger non-european provinces has pop. ~50,000. Sichuan pendi has only 8000 people, what up with that. (I haven't play EEP, so I don't know if you guys fixed it or not.)

I don't know if EU can represent China at 300 mil pop at 1819, since the upperlimit for provinces apears to be 1 mil. but it shows the 1418 model has to be reworked. Since manpower is directly related to population, so put Chinese manpower at 400 is not unreasonable.

Land 4 or something at 1418 allow it is to be 21 or 26 depend on your taste by 1620-1650 Then stop at 30(If count in the fact though good weapons are avalible, but they are not deployed in number) or 40(if disregard the limited use of moderen equipment) by 1820
Navy 9 or 17 depend if you take ZhengHe's ships as exception or the norm. (Since no one in their right mind would think to build such expensive ship for regular navy, 9 make more sense. If Naval level is fixed at 17 then some make Navy alone grow at very slow rate, So 23 or so by 1820? (ZhengHe's junks is not that different than junks used in the Opium War.)

Hi, welcome to this forum.

first of all, i will answer the Zheng He question. Me and Jinnai r working on it. i think we might be able to prevent the AI from exploring America by putting pirates to block them.

what breakup of china event are you talking about? and r u refering to the artivle that u posted first? where in that article?

About the Manchu problem, i have discussed it in the AGC forum with someone. i dont think we could portray the Manchus in any way other than making it a vassal of China at the start of the game. this is because we do not have enough tags to represent the different tribes of Manchuria. However, Manchuria was not ruled directly by China so should not become part of China. Manchuria being one nation with a very low centralisation value is probably a good solution to this problem.

About the population and manpower, if you increase it by a great amount, it would have severe effects on the game, coz China would be strengthened by a lot and nothing would stop China from expansion. So any increase should be accompanied by changes that restrains China's expansion. on this issue, i m working on events of mongol raids into china and other Confucian strucutural events which could work towards restraining China. i should also add that Peter Ebbenson has also done a Far Eastern Manpower mod in the AGC. It would be not add manpower to any realistic level, but it does increase manpower to a level accpetable for the game.

About the technology, i agree with the land proposal, but did you look at what each naval level represent? bcoz at the starting levels you suggest, it is supposed to represent ships that has some substantial kind of firepower. on the ocean going side, China might deserve the level you suggest, but on the military side, it should probably be lower, and i agree with Isaac that the military side is more important.

About the choice under the Zheng He event, i have no comment, since i dont even think the choice should exist. there is no historical basis for that choice of event to occur. we should make events that history suggests there is a feasible choice, and abolish ones that are ahistorical. China should not have many explorers or colonists because the historical philosophical and social structural basis of the society does not warrant a even significant chance for this path to be taken, let alone to adopt it right through an event. the choice of strategy generally given for china should disfavor expansion/colonisation, just like the choice of strategy for nations like portugal given for portugal should favour expansion/colonisation.

 

[unmerged(12179)]

musket volley fire is also used in Ming China (developed to counter Japanese??). I forget his name (I think its in the article) used it in ShenJiYin, and breaked it download to several steps to get a continuous Volley. But since the conventional army is conservative and they did really for any major change in Army tactics.(If it aren't broken don't it.) So very often those tactics and doctrine are policies of one or two reform minded general and never speard.

The breakup of China event is the possiblly for Sangouzhi type of situation after the fall of Ming.

On the naval side, though ships of early ming of limited firepower, it have size and can't in the water for long period of time. So level 5-9 will be reasonable. (Since very soon after 1500ish cannon armment is common place in Chinese Navy) In my opinion Ming Chinese did not slow significantly behind the west, only after Manchus invation, the quest for stability really kicks in. My idea for stoping reform after Qing took over is to create events that took away investiments, if one choose to continue reform (of the options) mass rebelions will occur. Since anyone who played China is pretty sick of rebelions so I don't know if it is a good idea. Back to the topic, by late ming, fire power is compareble to European Ships, but no improvement are made after that.
Here is magazine scan of ZhengChengGong's(Konxia or something) ships when he re-took Taiwan.

As you can see not much improvements from ZhengHe's time except fire power. (Note some of the ships have European Styled Hulls) Since those ship fights OK against the Dutch, so their are not too bad. (So Chinese Ship tech should be the same as Dutch as of Early 1600's, but little improvments after). If one looks at opium War, the best of Chinese ships carry 50 cannons(25 per broadside-European like hull), displace 300~500 tons at most. Those ships should be compareble to Western Ships of 18th century, 100+ years behind Europeans, thuse failed outterly. (If one look at Sino-Japanese war of 1894, it shows weapons alone aren't gonna cut it. It's the whole attitude.)

 

[unmerged(12179)]

To clearify Zhenghe and Discover America, I don't think he discovered America. Though there are tale of land of Redwood tree (tale of a Monk shipwrecked in a far-away-land. The decription of the place is very similay to California, but the description is likely to be conricidences. (This and land Fonglia could act as incitive to sail east) Also when story of the gold rush reached China. Some people in Guangdong and Fujian decided to sail to California with their homemade Junks (crazy people) and some of them made it. So Junks certainly have the ability to make to America. But in Zhenghe's situation it is very unlikely that he'll sail into the unkown east.
My story of ZhengHe reached America is strictly a EU game. I play the grand compagn with the sole goal of reaching America by Zhenghe. First I tried the Pacific route, but I failed to find and colonize Hawaii(Port stop to reduce Attrition), so I called it off. When I begun the Western route, I have to sent state gift to Malaca, East and western end of india, Oman, Zenbawe (sp) in south Africa, Benin in west Africa, Then i can reach the Carribans. By then there are European in there (Pre-1492!!) Anyways, money spent to get countries friendly enough to grant military access is draining my money packet, inflation is 20% and I nearly went bankrupt. So It is hard as it already is for the human player to reach America.(though opening Indian Ocean and more money will make it easier)

 

[unmerged(12179)]

With in Confusian philosiphy there are many schools of thought with Mongzi(pure Confusian), Legalist (not of Qin's policy, but policy of Han under Wudi, and of Tang under Taizhong), and Neo-Confusian(Who are those people anyways, I just think them as conservatives. If it's wrong tell me). And in Ming all three schools exist, unless more slots of Religon (pray for it in EU3) there is no way to represent this in EU.
Though, Neo-Confusianism dominated the Ming court, but there is an possiblity of Legalist take over or reform. Wang An Si's reform efforts(1069) atest to that. In the EU envirnment, if inovativeness is at maxium, such reforms should ocourr and (if possible) remove penilty of confusianism with penity to stablity (subfrequent event can to added so the reformers wants to reform further, and conservative treaten rebellion, mutiny, or "haijack the court". This way, if someone wants to play China differently, the possiblity is left open.
In my opinion effect of History more than confusianism itself sharped Chinese policy. Before Ming, the most open, expansionist, hugamonian, superpower like Chinese Empire is Tang. And it's openess and Use persians and turks in high office contributed to its demise. And after that demise, it is fallowed by almost 800 years of unrest, civil war and foriegn invation. When Ming is in place and pretty much whole of China has being restored (since Song only controlled 1/3 of the China under Tang). People are resistent to reforms or expansion. Thus any reforms are meet with great resistence. And reformer are scron at in History. If you read Zhizitonjia (a history book written in Ming, very famous) by Shi Ma Guang, everytime a reformer or reforms pop*up Guang always drop a nasty comment about him or it. (Especially the woman Ruler Wu Zhe Tian) This book is read by almost everyone in government, thus it influerence geneations of people.

So Two event on this (informal):
One Use Reformer in Government, triggered before 1460, inovatiness at reasonable and possible level (assume each 20-year decision slide 1 plus inovativeness)
1. Use reformers
(cause later reforms that promte openess, explorers, investiment ect. But those reforms have plenty as well. Also re-turn to normal events later, it will have stability +5 and it will sleep further reforms)
(Slider bar move)
(Stability -6)
(very Strong rebillions, possible split-up if untented. To simulate mutiny by conservative Generals, lords, princes)
2. Stick to conservatives
(sleep later reforms)
(slider bar moves)
(stability +6)
(go on with your tech penities)

2. (can't think of a name) illurstrate the conservative weapons tech of Qing. 1644+ something
1. Horse Archers are fundation of Manchu Rule
(Stability +3)
(Land Tech investiments -xxxx amount)
(if possible make land tech REALLY slow afterwards)
2. Go with Ming's Fire arms
(Stablity -4) (Manchu's rebel for destroy their tradition, and Hans still wants to restory Ming)
(Strong Rebillion with Heavy Calvary in Machuria, somehow make them seize the city nomatter what and make them march towards Beijing)
rebel risk in Southern provinces (Manchus are busy with their own problem, lets restore the ming!!! If untended Southern ming created)
(Tech investiment +xxxx amount)
(Money -xxx amount)
(Artillery+Infrantry in Beijing)

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Very interesting about volley fire. I'd never heard that. It obviously raises fundamental questions about what tech level represents in the game - the Chinese had certainly worked out a lot of other technical issues, but never adopted them due to their worldview. Which to me says they didn't reach land tech 26, but is that because (in game terms) the money was spent elsewhere, or because of lack of progress? Obviously there is no striaght answer.

Cool pictures of the ships too. All the same I would not put late Ming naval tech on par with the Dutch. The VOC was unwilling to comit serious resources to defend Taiwan. I'd argue that China wasn't horribly behind Western Naval tech at this time (and the Dutch at that time were the best in Europe), but I still don't see them as having the doctrine and techniques that were available in Europe. I actually don't know as much about the early 16th century and the relative strength of the Portuguses (I know there wasn't any real fighting, but I'm sure they were each evaluating the others capabilities). The fact that the Portuguese behaved themselves in China (as opposed to the Indian Ocean and the East Indies) suggests that they had more respect for the Chinese navies, but it's also true that the Chinese trade wasn't as lucrative for them.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

hey did anyone see the "Hour Asia: Ancient Chinese Inventions 2" in discovery channel? i saw it just then and it's really good. it left me thinking that even someone like me might have underestimated the greatness of Chinese civilisation and technology. i also gained some new knowledge about the jesuits and how eastern and western technologies was exchanged after the jesuits arrived in China. the Jesuits bringing technologies and ideas back to europe had an enormous effect in fueling the renaissance and enlightenment that happened in Europe. On the other hand, the Chinese also benefitted from improvements to their own military inventions done by the europeans. Both of these needs to be simulated in EU2.

about the technologies, i think the newly suggested starting levels are actually very close to the ones that we decided earlier, ie land 4 naval 5 (actually even naval 17 matched my very first suggestions regarding Zheng He). i think there is room in terms of historical accuracy to increase the levels, especially for naval (to something like 9), as Huaxia suggested, but the problem is that too much increase may unbalance the game too much.

About Zheng He, i agree that it is already quite hard for a human to reach America. But the problem is that it is too easy for the computer to reach America. Pirates could be a good idea because the computer is stupid in path finding but humans might be able to avoid pirates more cleverly.

About Confucian philosophy, i agree that an opportunity for reform should be open, especially because there were historical opportunities for reform (that failed), the most famous in Ming times is the reforms by Zhang Ju Zheng, but the reforms should never have effects that r too extreme. In my opinion, the structure of absolute rule by the emperor established by Zhu Yuan Zhang really impeded progress. i think we should use Zhang Ju Zheng as a basis for our reform event.

I like the idea of taking away tech investments to slow down Chinese tech, but in my opinion, we should start slowing techs by mid/late Ming, because, in my opinion, even though it was in Qing that the europeans really overtook, China was already slowing down during Ming. the dynamic, energetic, efficient and progressive style of the Tang was nowhere to be seen in Ming. Anyhow, we have to have some historical happening to base our event on. We cannot just arbitrarily shove in an event for convenience. However, there should be many opportunities where we could take away tech investments, like failure of Zhang Ju Zheng's reforms, scrapping of Zheng He's navy, expulsion of Westerners, etc.

 

[unmerged(12179)]

Check you EU map, in my version (1.05) too lazy to update Name for Sichuan and Xinjiang are seemed to be reversed (ie. the name on the map says xinjiang, but province name in the status says Sichuan and geographical location is near Sichuan also) And the geographical location is swiched. It not a big deal effecting the game play, in fact I just discovered it today, but it is irritating never the less.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

yes that problem had been reported many times. they dont want to fix it coz they cant change the name on the map.