How about an Oriental Game?

[unmerged(78037)]

Do you practice mind numbing stupidity, or does it just come naturally?

You are the last person here that should be speaking of ignorance.

But of course, The Truth. Because if your hippy History 101 professor said so, it must be The Truth.

at least I provided example for my argument...rather than just bashing people without even touching the subject.

therefore, touch the subject, or get lost.

 

[hildoceras]

I'd like people to have respect to each other. Harsh words never built correct arguments. So stop them at once !

 

[shasla6]

at least I provided example for my argument...rather than just bashing people without even touching the subject.

therefore, touch the subject, or get lost.

Touch the subject? There is no reasoning with a fanatic. You'll believe what you believe no matter what anyone here says, despite the fact that it has no basis in reality. I'll leave the pointless arguing to somebody with a more patient temperament.

 

[unmerged(78037)]

Touch the subject? There is no reasoning with a fanatic. You'll believe what you believe no matter what anyone here says, despite the fact that it has no basis in reality. I'll leave the pointless arguing to somebody with a more patient temperament.

ok,
what I said, I will repeat
Did the West (I am refering to the major Christian powers at the time in Western Europe) go on crusade?
Did the West colonize Africa and enslave a whole lot of people?
and the fact is that China did not do those things.

These are historical facts.
Alright, I supported my argument with facts, now it's your turn.

I will listen if you provide fact.

If you cannot do it, then just turn around and get lost.

let's see who is a fanatic.

 

[hildoceras]

there is no link with EU3-Roma, is there ? Back to the original topic

 

[unmerged(78037)]

there is no link with EU3-Roma, is there ? Back to the original topic

lol ya sir

 

[unmerged(60283)]

I am Asian and personally know more about Western history than about the history of any Asian region (unless it's an event that involves a Western power) and the feudal system in China was not much different from feudal systems anywhere else in the world really.

nah. after the warring states, "feudal system" in its classical sense fell out of favor. there were divisions between nations yes (period of north/south dynasties, five dynasties, song/khitan/jurchen), but that's not really "feudal" in nature, more like rival countries. whenever united, the emperor pretty much concentrated on centralizng his power. powerful feudal lords only existed during later tang dynasty.

 

[unmerged(60283)]

You say that as if "the West" is somehow uniquely ignorant, while "the East" appreciates both sides evenly. In reality, the East is just as focused on itself. China, for example, has almost always been one of the most arrogant and xenophobic nations on the planet.

While I don't deny that China was and is arrogant and to a certain extent xenophobic, it never really reached the scale it did in the West (then again, it's certainly not as progressive as modern Western world). True, it never had a chance to enslave an entire race, but that's beside the point. In fact, Chinese arrogance throughout history were often shown by "bestowing favors" upon the "Barbarians".

You're not educating much... Chinese expansion was often fuelled on the same kind of stuff that made the late medieval Frankish-Arab relations crap to begin with (besides the pope trying to save his back from the normans, that is).

Actually, I'm not sure what kind of "stuff that made the late medieval Frankish-Arab relations crap" fueled China. Most wars with the North were fought as self-defense, since the nomads were a persistent menace (need I name their raids, invasions, and massacres through the ages?). Chinese expansions were, in fact, mostly carried out during Mongolian and Manchurian rules.

The colonization to the South were rarely driven by imperial intent as well. Mass immigration often occurred as a result of displacement of Northern Chinese by the nomads.

China didn't crusade others just because of different religion, or colonize others and destroy other people's way of life, spread deadly disease, make a billion people slaves, etc. etc. etc.

Now China may not have committed the kind of atrocities the West did (it certainly didn't fight a war in the name of religion, or trade, not that I remember anyway), it's still done its share. The colonization to the South, for better or worse, wasn't always appreciated by the Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kadai populations in Southern China.

Okay, how did we get here again? I thought we were talking about an Oriental game...

 

[hildoceras]

nah. after the warring states, "feudal system" in its classic sense fell out of favor. there were divisions between nations yes (period of north/south dynasties, five dynasties, song/khitan/jurchen), but that's not really "feudal" in nature, more like rival countries. whenever united, the emperor pretty much concentrated on centralizng his power. powerful feudal lords only existed during later tang dynasty.

I think that it is in the Han dynasty that the formal centralized power takes its origin (emperor->ministers->prefects->judges) ( I don't know much about this period... o )

hmmm, there is a difference between the english wiki article about the Han dynasty and the french one. In the english one they talk about "feudal states" for the lands given to the princes by the emperor while in the french article they do not use this term and imply that the emperor was just adding a personal authority to the imperial administration still administrating the land (a sort of double authority that could only lead to the struggles betweens princes and emperors).
If I understand correctly, it is not truely a "feudal system" as it existed in the European Middle Age with the hierarchy of vassals owing the land to their respective lieges

 

[hildoceras]

Okay, how did we get here again? I thought we were talking about an Oriental game...

and the difficulty to represent the area, maybe too, with all its complexity.
You'd have a giant and more or less little states around and the episodic civil wars spliting the giant...

 

[unmerged(60283)]

If I understand correctly, it is not truely a "feudal system" as it existed in the European Middle Age with the hierarchy of vassals owing the land to their respective lieges

That's right. It's not for the lack of trying, eventually the emperors just didn't feel comfortable sharing his power.

and the difficulty to represent the area, maybe too, with all its complexity. You'd have a giant and more or less little states around and the episodic civil wars spliting the giant...

Hmm. Certain periods, such as North/South Dynasties, would make a great game, with rise and fall of some nation every decade or so. I think they were among the first to build a heavy cavalry... but I may be mistaken.

 

[unmerged(78037)]

I think that it is in the Han dynasty that the formal centralized power takes its origin (emperor->ministers->prefects->judges) ( I don't know much about this period... o )

If I understand correctly, it is not truely a "feudal system" as it existed in the European Middle Age with the hierarchy of vassals owing the land to their respective lieges

Dont worry my friend. what's most confusing is that even Chinese themselves called their own system "feudal" in history books, despite the fact that the power was often extremely concentrated in the hands of national government. There were generally six department in most of dynasties: Defense, Ceremony, Officials, Finance, Engineering, Justice.

Some traits of the Chinese centralized feudal system:

1. there were feudal lords. Generally they were the relatives of the Emperors. They were given relatively little lands. Most of them were made when the dynasty was first established. There weren't usually little trouble until a powerful Emperor died. Then these lords began to stir up trouble. Gradually the Emperor would strip or decrease the power of Lords using various tactics.

ex: The first Emperor of Han dynasty LiuBang named seven lords (his children mostly) in the province of Shandong. After LiuBang died, trouble began. That was the Rebellion of Seven Lords. Emperors of later generations generally learned the lesson. The title of lords were often made not to be hereditary, or the title had to be reduced every generation. ex: Qing Dynasty, there were only 8 hereditary Lords (the Iron Hat lords) who had little power and were not allowed to move outside of Manchuria.

2. The selection of local officials were generally in the hands of national government. The selection method changed over time. During Han Dynasty, I believe the method of local powerfuls or officials recommend suitable young men who were well-read in Confucius doctrines. Later it was changed to national examination of Confucius doctrines. The best of best were given posts in the royal court while the rest often become local officials. Their power were directly given by the emperor.

3. The army had always been in the firm control of the Emperor through the Defense department. Local armed force listened to the order from the Defense department. The command of troops were given by the emperor. Local officials could only control police or militia force.

 

[minority]

nah. after the warring states, "feudal system" in its classical sense fell out of favor. there were divisions between nations yes (period of north/south dynasties, five dynasties, song/khitan/jurchen), but that's not really "feudal" in nature, more like rival countries. whenever united, the emperor pretty much concentrated on centralizng his power. powerful feudal lords only existed during later tang dynasty.

Yeah you're right. With closer scrutiny, I find that it represents a whole different system.

The emperor could, in theory, revoke an administrative position as he likes or remove the hereditary nature of any title. Also, the whole vassal-liege mutual obligation thing is much less pronounced, where the emperor is less obliged to protect his governors.

cheers

 

[unmerged(25822)]

I think an Oriental game would be very interesting, i spent some time last week reading about the Thais , Angor , the rise of Burmanese kingdoms , merchants from Brunei , monks from Ceylon etc , fascinating staff .
I don't think Paradox is eurocentric , compare eastern Europe maps with India's to see what i mean ; as about "west don't care about east" i think this comment is fanny since all world's events are a chain and we are all connected in a way that ignoring the east will rise several unanswered questions about what really happened in the west.

 

[unmerged(31977)]

Dont worry my friend. what's most confusing is that even Chinese themselves called their own system "feudal" in history books, despite the fact that the power was often extremely concentrated in the hands of national government. There were generally six department in most of dynasties: Defense, Ceremony, Officials, Finance, Engineering, Justice.

Some traits of the Chinese centralized feudal system:

1. there were feudal lords. Generally they were the relatives of the Emperors. They were given relatively little lands. Most of them were made when the dynasty was first established. There weren't usually little trouble until a powerful Emperor died. Then these lords began to stir up trouble. Gradually the Emperor would strip or decrease the power of Lords using various tactics.

ex: The first Emperor of Han dynasty LiuBang named seven lords (his children mostly) in the province of Shandong. After LiuBang died, trouble began. That was the Rebellion of Seven Lords. Emperors of later generations generally learned the lesson. The title of lords were often made not to be hereditary, or the title had to be reduced every generation. ex: Qing Dynasty, there were only 8 hereditary Lords (the Iron Hat lords) who had little power and were not allowed to move outside of Manchuria.

2. The selection of local officials were generally in the hands of national government. The selection method changed over time. During Han Dynasty, I believe the method of local powerfuls or officials recommend suitable young men who were well-read in Confucius doctrines. Later it was changed to national examination of Confucius doctrines. The best of best were given posts in the royal court while the rest often become local officials. Their power were directly given by the emperor.

3. The army had always been in the firm control of the Emperor through the Defense department. Local armed force listened to the order from the Defense department. The command of troops were given by the emperor. Local officials could only control police or militia force.

There are some error on the system of Han but generally right in the thousands-year-history. You can cherk the system of different dynasty in the offical history books, to Han, that is Book of Han and Book of Later Han (Records of the Three Kingdom did not talk about system). The true Feudal System of China was exist in name after the rule of Emperor Wu of Han. After his rule, the princes and princesses can only take the income from their little land as large as a County (to princesses, it's only a Hsien). They had their own count but the Prime Minister was as a county governor and placed by the central government (not the Emperor).

 

[unmerged(60283)]

Actually, I am under the impression that the whole "feudal" concept was derived from old European political philosophy that's since gone out of favor in the West. The only reason why it is still used in China is because the commies there have to adhere to their Marxist philosophy, even if it's in name only.

Karl Marx divided human society into various stages, namely primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, socialist society, then communist society, communist being the "highest form of society" (ha ha, right, I know). Why he did that I will never understand, since it's really counter-intuitive -- "feudal society" describes a political structure while "capitalist society" describes an economic structure...

 

[profxyz]

Personally I think feudalism went out of favor in China pretty much after the Han dynasty.
I mean the Zhou Dynasty sort of practiced feudalism and look what happened.
I would like to see a Eastern strategy game sometime but I think the main problem is about units. Most of the time wars were fought by mobilized peasants.

 

[unmerged(78037)]

Personally I think feudalism went out of favor in China pretty much after the Han dynasty.
I mean the Zhou Dynasty sort of practiced feudalism and look what happened.
I would like to see a Eastern strategy game sometime but I think the main problem is about units. Most of the time wars were fought by mobilized peasants.

actually, i tend to think imperial Chinese army was pretty badass most of time.

remember how they kicked Huns' butt all the way to the West of the deserts.

 

[Dspencer]

Karl Marx divided human society into various stages, namely primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, socialist society, then communist society, communist being the "highest form of society" (ha ha, right, I know). Why he did that I will never understand, since it's really counter-intuitive -- "feudal society" describes a political structure while "capitalist society" describes an economic structure...

AFAIK, marx was talking about "feudal labour." Capitalism was marked by the fact that the "peasants" had their land taken and were forced to sell their labour to industrialists.
It should be noted that he rejected every party/group that claimed to be communist/marxist in his time. Also, "communism" was meant to be a state where the economy was completely decentralized and mankind was working for the good of mankind, thus we would all be equal.
Then again, the problem i have with lines of thought like this, is the idea of "progress," and what the duty of humankind is. All systems are inherently oppressive. Marx seems to ignore that, while at the same time, using past oppression to make his argument for violent revolution.

Anyway, an eastern game would be great. I'm thinking something like romance of the three kingdoms, except NOT turn based, like the old games made by KOEI. Also, i'm shocked that in through all this historical talk about china, not one person has made mention of the eunuchs

 

[unmerged(44117)]

Gotta Agree, but how about a different idea

I agree with the original poster from Hong Kong. Rome (and IMHO CK) should not be so obsessively Eurocentric.

I obviously do not support the PRC's delusional revisionist history, but thankfully this communist fantasy afaik does not start until the 1890s (where they begin with very creative reinterpretations of Dr. Sun Yat Sen's philosophy to fit into their world view). So ancient history will not run into any censorship problems in the mainland.

There are numerous historical sources, both Chinese and Roman, that detail the interactions between the two civilizations. Eventually, there was even a military clash (but during late roman Empire times only. Han won against the Roman mercs.)

So why limit it to just Europe again? In history, NOTHING happens in a vacuum (thus making studying regional or national history rather irrelevant imho). Since there historically were interactions between the two, why not include the whole old world?

Granted, gameplay wise this will cause a surreal experience of two parallel worlds if stuff like troop movement and logistics were modelled correctly. But this gives hotshot players the opportunity of creating really ahistorical endings, like Roman Legions in Xinjiang or a chinese funded insurrection against the romans. And who doesn't play Paradox games for the potential of ahistorical outcomes?

Rebuild the Second Rome? You can do that in EU 2. Kick the drug pushing British out of Asia? Vicky is for you. Conquer the world as a resurgent CSA ala "Bring on the Jubilee"? Try that in HOI. The bigger the scope the better.

Now unrealistic dreams aside, I find the idea of licensing the engine to do a EU: Rome and China a good idea. More importantly it has been done before for EU 2 by Hong Kong Based typhon games. Unfortunately, Asian Dynasties was so bugged to be unplayable (the moment I click the merchants tab it CTD) and patch policy is rather lacking. That was a big disappointment for me as I wanted to play as my namesake and retake the mainland from the Manchu. Checking the event files did uncover the hard work this company did to localize EU2, with numerous flavour events.

Why not give it another go though, perhaps with a Taiwanese company? The market for historical numerically oriented (AKA number crunchers) games is big in Asia. While Paradox games are viewed as rather niche in the west, number crunchers (ie gameplay over graphics) are very mainstream and span all genres. Koei's line of Empire games is a good example, and I am aware of some child/pet raising simulations which are a (frustrating) excercise at juggling numbers. The last time I checked the shelves, the big wargames was the "Strategic Warfare Simulation" (very nice) series that has only numbers and symbols, and the less said about the entirely stat determined RPGs the better (although the storylines are decent). As for historical interest, I once played a "Chinese Civilization" called China II: Everlasting Empires, of which the highlight was playing as Sun Yat Sen (instead of Sid Meier's default Mao) as leader of China and smacking Mao (he is still there), Elizebeth and Ceasar.

Currently on my hard drive is a real time tactics game called Han and Rome, which was modelled after S:TW. The time period is completely off from Eu Rome (late empire), but this matchup is one of the biggest and most interesting what ifs in history.

Paradox should at least consider expanding the scope to include the East, at least to just to keep in line with their EU brand name, with an emphasis on Universalis. Barring that, auction the rights to an asian localisation off and see a ton of new sales if this time the localisation is done right.

(P.S and OT) China was feudalistic for a relatively short time in the 5000+ years of history. The Zhou dynasty was the last dynasty where feudalism had a strong hold. After that it only briefly popped up during times of chaos. It is rather hard for lords and knights to cow the peasants when knight/general killing crossbows were widespread from a very early time. For an interesting excercise read the ROTK and count the number of general deaths (especially from bow and crossbow fire), and compare that to you favourite European martial romance. Even historical info supports this claim. I recall a group of 250 mounted sergeants (not even knights!) who went to a crusade. Only 3 died from combat wounds. Is medieval combat just a orderly affair of running down the other side's peasants?

I read some of the posts above and see many misconceptions. First is the misconception of "Oriential Despotism". While there technically was an emperor for most of China's history, the control he exerted is very limited. The Chinese proverb " the Sky is high and the Emperor is far away" is a reflection of this. The day to day existence was largely libertarian, and the emperor was at least useful when he crushed local wannabe warlords. In addition, peasants were comparatively well armed (to outshoot the nomads with crossbows), and if some local bad guy springs up and tries to control other people's lives there was always the Xia, which unlike the European Knight Errants were not limited to nobles.

A very hands off approach is the key to economic prosperity, which explains China's population.

Now some may point to the PRC and say "That's no libertarian place". The PRC is motivated by a foreign ideaology (communism) and largely exist today due to foreign intervention (I am looking at you Russia and to some extent Japan). In contrast, Libertarian thought can be seen extensively in Taoist thought.

(P.P.S and still OT). I am rather amused by the claims that China did not spread disease to kill lots of people. Have we forgotten about the black plague? That actually most probably originated in China and killed 1/3 of Europe. Now that gives me a surreal picture of a localised CK where my Chinese "conquistador" spreads disease to kill European "natives". :rofl: