Terrible historical inaccurate

[cold warpgates]

EU4 can't model every historical event for every country. It can't model every factor that affects technology and other aspects of society. Some things have to be cut or simplified in order to make an actual game.

The great thing is, if you disagree with the way the developers have done things, you can mod in what you want. You want Ming to have better tech? Reduce their tech penalty. You want that Ming intervention in dai nam? Create an event chain starting when dai nam has a weak heir (or something like that).

I believe there are already a few mods focused on giving china more depth; you can find them on the workshop.

 

[icedt729]

Hand guns were invented in China during the Yuan dynasty and Zhu Yuanzhang's forces used lots of them. But these guns were not matchlocks. A matchlock is a specific mechanism that was invented in Europe in the late-15th century, a century after the Yuan fell, and which wasn't used in China until the 16th century.

 

[Pornek]

Ming is effectively a bit better than Muslim tech. You get a permanent -10% tech/ -10% ideas event modifier on top of the -10% tech from government and -10% ideas from traditions.

 

[alexchau]

It's not like they ever had all 500,000 in one place, and even if they had, the Oirats were nomads and could avoid any battle they didn't think they had a good chance of winning. Conquering the steppe was little gain for tremendous cost so the Ming, like most dynasties, just didn't bother with it. The Qing ignored that lesson and spent decades fighting for control of Dzungaria (northern Xinjiang) for basically no strategic gain.

The Qing (Manchurians) are originally nomads. There are Uighur Muslim volunteers in Ming army.

 

[alexchau]

Hand guns were invented in China during the Yuan dynasty and Zhu Yuanzhang's forces used lots of them. But these guns were not matchlocks. A matchlock is a specific mechanism that was invented in Europe in the late-15th century, a century after the Yuan fell, and which wasn't used in China until the 16th century.

in this site, there is picture with a quote saying "Ming era matchlock (1368–1644 AD) featuring serpentine levers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiao_Yu

 

[aclover]

China is already fine being tech leader despite these penalties. Why not just let them be?

 

[Pornek]

I really wish they would change the government or at least remove the ability to get civil war disaster as Ming. Loss of Mandate of Heaven is basically a civil war anyways, but one is pretty much guaranteed a civil war disaster on top of the mandate loss when you get a weak claim heir as ruler.

 

[Random Member]

in this site, there is picture with a quote saying "Ming era matchlock (1368–1644 AD) featuring serpentine levers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiao_Yu

No, you're reading it the wrong way. It says "Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD) era matchlock firearms featuring serpentine levers".
And it's true, they used matchlocks during the Ming dynasty, which lasted from 1368 till 1644. After the Portuguese brought the technology in the 16th century.

 

[Esben_DRK]

in this site, there is picture with a quote saying "Ming era matchlock (1368–1644 AD) featuring serpentine levers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiao_Yu

Did you read it yourself? It doesn't say what you claim it does. You're trying to (In a blatant fashion, even!) misrepresent what the text is saying.
This, along with your list of Chinese "inventions" in your OP, makes you seem like someone for whom truth is not that relevant.

Is China poorly represented in many ways? Yes. Like every country in EU4 (And the EU series), China fails to simulate the historical complexities that were present, and in some ways fails to simulate why Chinese rulers and other notable figures did as they did. It oversimplifies why Asia fell behind in the tech race, and also often gets it a century or three wrong. That's because it's a game, and it needs to be both codable and playable, even though I really would like more complexity and historical plausibility.
Now, you could make a list of errors you've spotted and how to improve on it, but asking for 300 000 Ming musketeers, or two-stage rockets, or the like, is simply laughable. How about you come back when your history degree is from another university than Google?

 

[Pornek]

How about you come back when your history degree is from another university than Google?

lol.
Everyone here is free to participate in discussions regardless of graduating as history major, vet or never been enrolled at all.

 

[grumphie]

lol.
Everyone here is free to participate in discussions regardless of graduating as history major, vet or never been enrolled at all.

everyone is free to discuss things, but i gotta agreee that people either mindlessly linkign wikipedia without reading it or misrepresenting facts is not exactly good for any discussion.

i agree on the part where china is misrepresented and could use some tweaks, but to claim we should give them matchlocks and thus fire modifiers in 1444 is neither historical nor good for game balance.

i'm personally of the opnion that what we see with ming is not so much a problem but a symptom of several problems: the ability of nations project power is often unreasonably high, and expansion is almsot always unreasonably beneficial. is expansion wasnt as much of a no-brainer at all times and nations can't just put their entire army on a boat, sail to india, and go on a conquest spree, china could be modeled better without hugely unbalancing the game.

 

[alexchau]

Did you read it yourself? It doesn't say what you claim it does. You're trying to (In a blatant fashion, even!) misrepresent what the text is saying.
This, along with your list of Chinese "inventions" in your OP, makes you seem like someone for whom truth is not that relevant.

Is China poorly represented in many ways? Yes. Like every country in EU4 (And the EU series), China fails to simulate the historical complexities that were present, and in some ways fails to simulate why Chinese rulers and other notable figures did as they did. It oversimplifies why Asia fell behind in the tech race, and also often gets it a century or three wrong. That's because it's a game, and it needs to be both codable and playable, even though I really would like more complexity and historical plausibility.
Now, you could make a list of errors you've spotted and how to improve on it, but asking for 300 000 Ming musketeers, or two-stage rockets, or the like, is simply laughable. How about you come back when your history degree is from another university than Google?

1/ or did you read it yourself? The guy was a general and military adviser in mid 14th century and he wrote a book that described weapon of fire arrow, fire lance, grenade, firearm, cannons, exploding cannonballs, landmine matchlocks, naval mine, rocket, rocket launcher. Then how did he described matchlock in his book and where did he get it from? From his imaginary?

2/ I am not asking for 300000 Ming musketeers or two-stage rockets. What I am saying here is there are no firearm units at disposal at the beginning of Ming when obviously historically, early Ming army used firearms.

Did you party hard yesterday? BTW, happy new year

 

[Krajzen]

Personally I am still wondering how the hell in game Ming often manages to reach Western tech levels without westernization while still having 50% tech cost malus

 

[tobias.mb]

I really wish they would change the government or at least remove the ability to get civil war disaster as Ming. Loss of Mandate of Heaven is basically a civil war anyways, but one is pretty much guaranteed a civil war disaster on top of the mandate loss when you get a weak claim heir as ruler.

In the game this actually helps you, since the civil war disaster restores your legitimacy. Better one civil war event chain than seperatist rebels everywhere!

On topic of this thread:
Tech penalties in Asia in general are not historically accurate at all. No one denies this. The Chinese didn't significantly fall behind Europe technologically before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century. "Colonization" of China (as in Europeans take significant territory from them) only started after the first Oppium War (1839-42). Even the British conquest of India only happened in the 18th century.

However this is a game and sometimes game-mechanics are just more important than accurate historical representation.

 

[I'm gaming]

Did you hear about 紅夷砲 or 佛郞機砲? Though China fell behind hundreds of years at military technolohy(and technology in EU4 is mainly meaningful at war) compared with Europe, it can catch up technology level of European countries in EU4. If you want to talk about historical inaccuracy at technology difference of China and Europe in EU4, you should say 'China in the game catches up European technology level too easily', not 'China in the game has too much penalty at technology'.

 

[Zelius]

1/ or did you read it yourself? The guy was a general and military adviser in mid 14th century and he wrote a book that described weapon of fire arrow, fire lance, grenade, firearm, cannons, exploding cannonballs, landmine matchlocks, naval mine, rocket, rocket launcher. Then how did he described matchlock in his book and where did he get it from? From his imaginary?

2/ I am not asking for 300000 Ming musketeers or two-stage rockets. What I am saying here is there are no firearm units at disposal at the beginning of Ming when obviously historically, early Ming army used firearms.

Did you party hard yesterday? BTW, happy new year

1) Ok, that wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiao_Yu) says this.... that does not mean it's true. The entire article references one single volume of a series of books. Matchlocks are mentioned briefly: "Descriptions of handgun with possible serpentines used as components in matchlocks." What does that mean? Did they really have a matchlock firing mechanism, is it Needham's speculation, or the wikiepdia article author's speculation? Was the overall weapon comparable to later European firearms?

2) What do you propose be done? Give Ming overpowered Matchlock Infantry units to destroy all their neighbours? Give them and their neighbours OP units at the same time? Just change the name of the unit? If I were you I'd just imagine that gunpowder weapons composed some small part of their armies, to so-so effect; I consider the Longbow unit to not be composed of 100% longbowmen, so just do the reverse and think of your Asian Offensive Infantry (can't remember the tech 1 variant...) to have some firearms...

 

[Freudia]

the ability of nations project power is often unreasonably high, and expansion is almsot always unreasonably beneficial.

It's the name of the game. EU4 is an empire-building expansion game at its heart and making expansion not as beneficial or in some cases strictly detrimental results in scenarios where players have to make the choice between being penalized for playing the game and sitting on their hands doing nothing despite that being the correct play.

 

[Red_warning]

Realistically there was no technological difference between western Europe and other Old World civilizations that should yield multiple "+10% production efficiency" or "+10% trade efficiency" multipliers, for example. For that matter, besides a few key innovations like matchlocks or rifled cannons (most of which were quickly copied in India and East Asia) I think European military advantages were more about "high army tradition" than linear technological advances.

There was a time when Europeans could just stroll into a country and take the place over, but that's in Victoria's timeline, not EU's. From 1444-1820 Europe conquered weak, disorderly states through discipline and persistence; I think social and political factors had much more to do with it than technology.

When reading about the Portuguese exploits in Africa, Asia and the Americas I can't but help to think that they probably had some more advantages than mere drill and moral. We're talking a few hundred men at times defeating enemy forces that number in the thousands (Battle of Chochin 1504).

 

[LoyalistRedcoat]

Chinas Ideas, Traditions, Events, and Decisions all give them special bonuses that allow them to stay far ahead of anyone else in the "Chinese (East Asian)" tech group. They don't need any more help to represent how "advanced" you clearly feel they should be.

 

[ashbery76]

The game is not a historical simulation,never was.In my games I need to send WW2 size armies to conquer peoples that were beaten and conquered by less than 500 men.