Terrible historical inaccurate

[Random Member]

I suggest you do some research about Ming army. Why not start from Wikipedia?

I suggest you read a book. This one for example.
https://books.google.be/books?id=24Wxr5vL1YcC&pg=PA4&dq=chinese matchlocks&hl=en&ei=q2FdTraDB6mHsgLgiIQl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=chinese matchlocks&f=true
From page 4: "When the Portuguese arrived in China they were armed with matchlocks. These were new to the Chinese and, no doubt recognising the effectiveness of them, they were keen to obtain the technology for their own use."

 

[Sun_Wu]

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.

God forbid the player should have to think about their actions other than "me want, hulk smash". Perhaps the player should think about things like holding territory after it has been conquered and garrison restive areas of the empire.

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).

Excellent tactics and a disease outbreak in the siege camp was what won the battle.

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.

Except for the part where the Spanish had a WW2 sized army when you count their native allies.

 

[Freudia]

God forbid the player should have to think about their actions other than "me want, hulk smash". Perhaps the player should think about things like holding territory after it has been conquered and garrison restive areas of the empire.

When the game starts having actual mechanics for that, then sure. Then you'll have a point. As it is right now, though? There's nothing to think about because the mechanics don't exist.

 

[Sun_Wu]

When the game starts having actual mechanics for that, then sure. Then you'll have a point. As it is right now, though? There's nothing to think about because the mechanics don't exist.

That's what MEIOU and Taxes is for ;-)

 

[Closet Skeleton]

The English have to invent Longbows around the time they were starting to be obsolete in real life. Just ignoring the unit names that are left over from a decade ago is for the best.

 

[frolix42]

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.

These myths have been thoroughly punctured by now. Angus Madison's research on historical development is stellar about this: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

The difference between Indian, Chinese and European technology was real, and it existed long before 1820 (Victoria's start).

Of course the fact that Europeans began developing a global trade apparatus didn't give them, all by itself, the ability to dominate the world. But the fact that China opted out of these innovations set it on the path to stagnation. The bureaucracy that dominated China had some competitive advantages:

Not everything about Ming's development was bad, it was extraordinarily good at population growth. It had to be given how extremely labor intensive Chinese agriculture was. But the priorities of the Han Ming/Qing bureaucracy were self-interested in stability, which lead them to be resistant to change:

Relative technological stagnation was a characteristic of 17th century India as well. It is somewhat insulting to Indians to refer to the entire subcontinent subjugated by the British by 1819 as "weak and disorderly". They did however have the same kind of trouble the Chinese did replicating European advances:

All of this is very unhelpful for player of an Indian or Chinese Tech nation in EU4. And the relative historical development of China vs Western Europe bears this out:

Truly no one rational would dispute that the West's relative development skyrocketed after 1820, but this should not blind anyone to the western advances in development before 1820 which made that possible. The catalyst being the global trade network that China and Japan neglected:

By far the most repeated myth I encounter on the EU4 forums is how China and India retained technological parity with Western Europe long after they started to fall behind.

 

[Guru VII]

I suggest you do some research about Ming army. Why not start from Wikipedia?

And where exactly do you think I've found this information? Firstly I went to wikipedia, then I expanded my search, trying to find any mention of Ming matchlock handguns, then I went and dug up a book or two I have on weapons to triple-check... not surprisingly I found zero mention of matchlocks in China prior to the Portuguese arriving.
The closest thing I've found is indeed from Huolongjing, but what we get there is described" as possibly a serpentine matchlock", but we don't actually know because there is no illustration and no physical evidence of its existence. There is also the fact that the text talks about a fire-lance.

 

[qwertzuiop]

I think people should stop regarding any kind of secondary sources as facts. Be it wikipedia or books written by professional historians. Else everything comes down to the typical sectarian wars described by some as "academical discussions": "Mimimi, my source is better than your source!"

I mean everyone will believe the statement he or she thinks makes the most sense and is most likely the truth. But it's not about facts. I mean just think about it: how arrogant is it to treat a general statement about a time period 500 years ago as a fact? "In the xth century the so and so generally did this and that." These kinds of statements are useful to shortly describe a certain time period and to get an overview without looking at all the details, but they can never be realistically treated as facts. They are much too vague for that and the time period they describe is way too much in the past for that.

 

[Sunbro BigBoss]

If anything, I think that Ming should have a steeper technological penalty since right now it usually ends up more advanced than western europe.
Not only that but a big chunk of the rest of the world ends up being western, whereas it's debatable if even europe itself was western by the last century of the game.

I think people should stop regarding any kind of secondary sources as facts. Be it wikipedia or books written by professional historians. Else everything comes down to the typical sectarian wars described by some as "academical discussions": "Mimimi, my source is better than your source!"

I mean everyone will believe the statement he or she thinks makes the most sense and is most likely the truth. But it's not about facts. I mean just think about it: how arrogant is it to treat a general statement about a time period 500 years ago as a fact? "In the xth century the so and so generally did this and that." These kinds of statements are useful to shortly describe a certain time period and to get an overview without looking at all the details, but they can never be realistically treated as facts. They are much too vague for that and the time period they describe is way too much in the past for that.

Well you have you rely on something to discuss anything, Otherwise it's just speculation.

 

[highsis]

 

[Red_warning]

Excellent tactics and a disease outbreak in the siege camp was what won the battle.

Without devastatingly effective ranged weaponry I don't think superior tactics would have gotten them very far.

 

[qwertzuiop]

Well you have you rely on something to discuss anything, Otherwise it's just speculation.

I'm not so much talking about whether you can rely on sources or not. I'm just saying that general statements about a certain country in a certain century cannot be facts. An example of what I mean: "On 29 May 1453, the Ottomans captured Constantinople". That is a fact. It is a precise statement about a well-defined event so it qualifies as a fact. Maybe there is a chance that Constantinople was actually captured on another day (maybe depending on your timezone or on definitions of calendars) or that it wasn't captured at all. But that's not what I'm talking about.

"In the 16th century, the Chinese were technologically backwards." Even though there may be certain facts that make the historian formulate that statement, the statement itself is not a fact. If I read this sentence I immediately have the following questions: During what period of the 16th century? What qualifies as technology? What is technologically backwards? I even have the question: Who are the Chinese? (this may be seen as double standard as I used "the Ottomans" in the other example, but in that case it clearly refers to the Ottoman army capturing a city while "the Chinese" could mean anything, e.g. if there was a single person inventing advanced technology in the country, does that make the statement invalid?)

It is just not clearly defined enough to be a fact, and yes I know it's difficult and very time-consuming to check the actual facts which made the historian formulate that statement in the first place, but no I don't think we should act more clever than we really are and hide behind these sentences while sticking them into other peoples' faces.

 

[alexchau]

And where exactly do you think I've found this information? Firstly I went to wikipedia, then I expanded my search, trying to find any mention of Ming matchlock handguns, then I went and dug up a book or two I have on weapons to triple-check... not surprisingly I found zero mention of matchlocks in China prior to the Portuguese arriving.
The closest thing I've found is indeed from Huolongjing, but what we get there is described" as possibly a serpentine matchlock", but we don't actually know because there is no illustration and no physical evidence of its existence. There is also the fact that the text talks about a fire-lance.

Ok, if it is how you believe so be it but I am gonna stick with early Ming army had firearms and cannons. Even if according to you, matchlocks werent available before 16th century. Chinese Ming army still used cannons and various firearms, hand gun, hand grenade and smoke grenades. Unless you still disagreed with this fact.

 

[LoyalistRedcoat]

Ok, if it is how you believe so be it but I am gonna stick with early Ming army had firearms and cannons. Even if according to you, matchlocks werent available before 16th century. Chinese Ming army still used cannons and various firearms, hand gun, hand grenade and smoke grenades. Unless you still disagreed with this fact.

No matter what is true i think it's reasonable to assume that where there is conflict, the historical accuracy of a greater length of time is more important than a shorter one in most cases. If one or the other has to be chosen, i'd rather Technology be somewhat accurate 1500-1820, rather than 1450-1500.

 

[Sunbro BigBoss]

I'm not so much talking about whether you can rely on sources or not. I'm just saying that general statements about a certain country in a certain century cannot be facts. An example of what I mean: "On 29 May 1453, the Ottomans captured Constantinople". That is a fact. It is a precise statement about a well-defined event so it qualifies as a fact. Maybe there is a chance that Constantinople was actually captured on another day (maybe depending on your timezone or on definitions of calendars) or that it wasn't captured at all. But that's not what I'm talking about.

"In the 16th century, the Chinese were technologically backwards." Even though there may be certain facts that make the historian formulate that statement, the statement itself is not a fact. If I read this sentence I immediately have the following questions: During what period of the 16th century? What qualifies as technology? What is technologically backwards? I even have the question: Who are the Chinese? (this may be seen as double standard as I used "the Ottomans" in the other example, but in that case it clearly refers to the Ottoman army capturing a city while "the Chinese" could mean anything, e.g. if there was a single person inventing advanced technology in the country, does that make the statement invalid?)

It is just not clearly defined enough to be a fact, and yes I know it's difficult and very time-consuming to check the actual facts which made the historian formulate that statement in the first place, but no I don't think we should act more clever than we really are and hide behind these sentences while sticking them into other peoples' faces.

That is true but as you said it's hard and time-consuming to check facts, expecting everyone to do research instead of googling things is probably going to end up in disappointment.
It's a moot point anyway, since I have the suspicion that people have an emotional or cultural attatchment to their argument and there just isn't a way to talk them out of it.

 

[GlidingHamutaro]

By the OP's second proposition about Japan, surely everyone should know this is a troll post. Turned out to be quite a educating thread though, with sources being throw around like flying discs. Not sure if OP has tasted any of them though. I don't think it should be fed any longer...

 

[alexchau]

By the OP's second proposition about Japan, surely everyone should know this is a troll post. Turned out to be quite a educating thread though, with sources being throw around like flying discs. Not sure if OP has tasted any of them though. I don't think it should be fed any longer...

it appear that people are so believe in European highly technological advanced and get butthurt when someone point out Asian technologies werent behind.

 

[Sunbro BigBoss]

it appear that people are so believe in European highly technological advanced and get butthurt when someone point out Asian technologies werent behind.

You would be right if the game were set, say, 500 years earlier.
As it is though, the game covers the timeline in which europe stopped being a backward lump of warring kingdoms and turned into the home of the (arguably) most powerful and more technologically advanced empires. It wouldn't be until roughly the XXth century that China, Japan and generally the rest of the world started getting back on it's feet. And even today look at the GDP per capita, the gap between the west and the rotw is still closing.

 

[Zelius]

it appear that people are so believe in European highly technological advanced and get butthurt when someone point out Asian technologies werent behind.

I'd just like to point out that in the mid 15th century, when the game begins, Europeans also had cannons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople) and arquebuses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary), as well as having experimented with strange mechanisms of their own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribauldequin) though not in great numbers. Unless someone cites a source which says Ming China used gunpowder weapons in greater amounts, or they were of greater quality, there doesn't seem to be much to discuss...

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

China is fine. They are strong and able to keep up in science in EUIV.

Making them even stronger and their tech even more advanced would be insane unless you gave them a very strong penalty for expanding. As it is nothing prevents Ming from eating any part of Asia it fancies. Which is something that they never did historically.