Next Civ... The Chinese

[tniem]

Leader: Mao Tse Tung
UU: Rider
Capital: Beijing

[ixnay]

The Rider is an upgraded Knight (4-3-2) which gets a bonus to defense AND movement, making it a 4-4-3 unit. Also, it and the knight require iron and horses. Interesting

[Provost Harrison]

Oooh, don't mess with the rider, looks a vicious little git

[Tventano]

It seems that later units need more and more resources. So you do have to expand or keep friends with some other civs. This will have a huge effect on diplomacy and the wars tp\o be fought.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Tventano
It seems that later units need more and more resources. So you do have to expand or keep friends with some other civs. This will have a huge effect on diplomacy and the wars tp\o be fought.

Indeed it looks like while late civs might get "better" advantages like better GA's, they also face a harder game in units that are more difficult to build. If correct, I would assume that this is done to balance the game, and prevent late civs from "running away with the game".

[Fiera]

Looks like the Chinese have "stolen" the Mongol specific unit...

[tniem]

Another thing I have noticed is that all the pics of unique units have had the color blue in the dress of the unit. I hope this means that blue is a generic color and that each civ will have any color that you want to play with them.

This shouldn't be hard to do, after all most games have gone this route.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by tniem
Another thing I have noticed is that all the pics of unique units have had the color blue in the dress of the unit. I hope this means that blue is a generic color and that each civ will have any color that you want to play with them.

This shouldn't be hard to do, after all most games have gone this route.

That's the team color, and it is totally configurable. Beyond the default colors we provide, you can change them to be nearly any color you want using the editors. Glad someone noticed, though

Dan

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS

That's the team color, and it is totally configurable. Beyond the default colors we provide, you can change them to be nearly any color you want using the editors. Glad someone noticed, though

Dan, as I´m a fan of SMAC´s 'see-the-color-know-the-faction'-feature: Is it possible to change the colors so that each of the 16 civs will be assigned a different default color that won´t change in later games?

[YefeiPi]

The description of Chinese didn't sound particular insightful. I mean there is no mention of their inventions and contributions at all besides Great wall? I mean common, there are much more great achievements the Chinese are known for.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by YefeiPi
The description of Chinese didn't sound particular insightful. I mean there is no mention of their inventions and contributions at all besides Great wall? I mean common, there are much more great achievements the Chinese are known for.

So you want a massivly in-depth history on one of the oldest civilizations in human history, but all still fitting within the few paragraph limit?!?

Maybe if you want an insightful view on history, look up a site dedicated to that - the subject could fill vast amounts of cyberspace, instead of complaining that a summary on a game site isnt in-depth

[Leonidas]

If later units do require more resources then that means a civ will have to balance expansion with resources.

Whew. . . I hope this means the end of having to move hundreds of military units across the entire map. . .

[Swissy]

Originally posted by Fiera
Looks like the Chinese have "stolen" the Mongol specific unit...

Actually, no. The Chinese Rider should predate the knight. During the Han Dynasty, the Chinese attempted to make military contact with the Romans. The Parthians got in the way. The Chinese were impressed with the Parthian Cataphact cavalry which was basically an armoured rider on an armoured horse. The Chinese incorporated this into their army as the shock unit. The Chinese "knight" was no longer used in the Mongol period. The Sung Chinese put more reliance on the combination of artillery supported foot and a mixture of light and heavy cavalry, but no armoured horses.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Swissy


Actually, no. The Chinese Rider should predate the knight. During the Han Dynasty, the Chinese attempted to make military contact with the Romans. The Parthians got in the way. The Chinese were impressed with the Parthian Cataphact cavalry which was basically an armoured rider on an armoured horse. The Chinese incorporated this into their army as the shock unit. The Chinese "knight" was no longer used in the Mongol period. The Sung Chinese put more reliance on the combination of artillery supported foot and a mixture of light and heavy cavalry, but no armoured horses.

One reason that Song Dynasty didn't employ cavalry on masses was that they were denied access to quality grazing land. The Norther Song was blocked by the Khitan Empire, and Southern Dynasty was even pushed farther south by the Jin Empire. Quality horses were rare in South China and the government simply couldn't afford massive cavalry forces.

Ming Empire started out strong, but ended in the most pathetic collapse of all Chinese dynasties due to mismanagement.

[Inverse Icarus]

hrm. "The People's Republic".

I always loved the bitter irony in that title, and now i get to laught at it from 4000 BC on

[fred]

I believe names change based upon government, do they not? or am i just putting the title feature of the leader....

if not the country name should change depending on government...

[Fiera]

Swissy, my comment was more referring to the fact that Chinese cavalry was mainly composed of Turkish and Mongol riders, I didn't mean that the Chinese didn't use it.

Harlan's posts on this thread provide excellent examples of what I'm saying:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...986#post446986

[Urban Ranger]

Armoured horses? Trying to make contact with the Romans?



What are you talking about?

[Urban Ranger]

BTW, Firaxis has gotten some Chinese histroy all wrong.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Fiera
Swissy, my comment was more referring to the fact that Chinese cavalry was mainly composed of Turkish and Mongol riders, I didn't mean that the Chinese didn't use it.

Harlan's posts on this thread provide excellent examples of what I'm saying:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...986#post446986

That's just a bias Harlan spewed out. I asked to verify the source. It's funny that Westerners are trying to diminsh the accomplishments and abilities of non-european civs all the time. To say Chinese cavalry were only made of Turks is the same as saying that Aliens built the Pyramid.

[YefeiPi]

That's just a bias Harlan spewed out. I asked to verify the source. It's funny that Westerners are trying to diminsh the accomplishments and abilities of non-european civs all the time. To say Chinese cavalry were only made of Turks is the same as saying that Aliens built the Pyramid.

Ignorance and lack of knowledge are the reasons. Besides, Chinese would never have trusted any turks for their armies anyway, much less the entire cavalry are turks! Looks like Harlan needs to read more books before he speaks his foolishness.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by YefeiPi


Ignorance and lack of knowledge are the reasons. Besides, Chinese would never have trusted any turks for their armies anyway, much less the entire cavalry are turks! Looks like Harlan needs to read more books before he speaks his foolishness.

Chinese always employed minorities, being a racially very tolerant nation and all. The assumption that MAJORITY of Chinese cavalry was made of minorities was a frivolous one.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by YefeiPi
Ignorance and lack of knowledge are the reasons.

No offense, but the only ignorance and lack of knowledge here seems to come from you. I've known Harlan a little longer and better than you have and I happen to think he's the best and most reliable historian I've ever talked to (and I've talked to quite a few). He knows an awful lot about history, esp. Chinese history, and as long as I can remember always has plenty of sources ready to back up his statements. Look at this (long) thread to see just some examples of why I think this (and take a look at the Civ2 scenario databases to see some more). That thread shows his contribution to the tech tree for the CtP2 MedMed, which - according to many CtP2 players (including me) - is, largly due to Harlan's contribution, THE best tech tree EVER made for ANY game. I'm not saying Harlan can't possibly be wrong about some things but by claiming that he 'needs to read more books before he speaks his foolishness' you are only embarrassing yourself.

BTW, that thread also shows that Harlan is one of last persons in the world to be biased towards China (or any other non-European civ for that matter). (BTW, the Turks originate from the same region as the Mongols so they just as non-Western as the Chinese or any other Far East Asian civ).

On the actual matter at hands, whoever claimed the Chinese cavalry consisted entirely of Turks? And why exactly are the Turkish so untrustworthy? Personally I whole-heartedly agree with Harlan and his statement that the choice for the Chinese UU is somewhat unusual to say the least and that Crossbowmen would be a good alternative.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Transcend

That's just a bias Harlan spewed out. I asked to verify the source. It's funny that Westerners are trying to diminsh the accomplishments and abilities of non-european civs all the time. To say Chinese cavalry were only made of Turks is the same as saying that Aliens built the Pyramid.

Transcend, I've read in the other thread that you apologize for claiming that Harlan's comments were based on prejudice. Well done.

Just wanted to point that out for any people not reading the thread "The Rider unit".

[Urban Ranger]

Locutus,

I strongly doubt that there were any significant number of Turks or Mongols in Imperial Chinese cavalry. Consider that Genghis Kahn had an army of 20,000 men when he created the biggest empire ever. That should give you a comparison in terms of manpower. As for Turks, Imperial China had few contacts.

"(BTW, the Turks originate from the same region as the Mongols so they just as non-Western as the Chinese or any other Far East Asian civ). "

Broadly speaking, the Turks were a lot closer to Europe than to China.

"And why exactly are the Turkish so untrustworthy?"

Same reason why the British Empire never had any significant number of non-whites in its armed forces until WWII. Quite a bit of it has something to do with Xenophobic sentiments. China was most tolerant during the Tang dynasty. Other than periods of foreign rule, it was all downhill from there.

"Personally I whole-heartedly agree with Harlan and his statement that the choice for the Chinese UU is somewhat unusual to say the least and that Crossbowmen would be a good alternative."
IIRC the Chinese never used crossbows in large numbers. They used a Chinese version of the bow.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Same reason why the British Empire never had any significant number of non-whites in its armed forces until WWII. Quite a bit of it has something to do with Xenophobic sentiments.

The Brits made extensive use of Indian troops in the 19th century. Hence the Indian mutinies. German mercenaries were used by the Brits during the American revolution. The Gurkas existed before WWII.

The use of non-native troops is quite common for most countries until the last century, although this doesn't mean we can assume that Chinese governments used Turks as their cavalry.

Urban Ranger: you mentioned that Firaxis had some incorrect information about Chinese history. What did they get wrong?

[Locutus]

UR,
On the issue of China employing foreign (Turks, Mongols, etc) troops in their army, I'd refer to the thread Feira already linked to a few posts above. There Harlan explains excellently and elaborately that this was a fairly normal practice (both in China and, as Tingkai pointed out, in pretty much any other pre-modern age country/empire), I have nothing to add to that.

As far as Turks go, perhaps you are only looking at Ottoman Turks? There are many other kinds of Turkic people though, just check out www.encyclopedia.com for a simple yet excellent desciption of Turks: http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13140.html. As you can read here (and better in more specialized and academic sources), they originated from the same plains as the Mongols and spread out over pretty much all of Asia from there. The European branch of the Turkic family was actually very small compared to the Asian one.

As far as the crossbow goes, you recall incorrectly. I once again refer to that other thread. Harlan explains: 'It was the main archery weapon in China from around 300 BC, while in Europe it didn't really catch on until 1000 AD! Being such old hands at it, they really honed it to a level of high expertise.'. Elsewhere in the thread someone also mentions that Age of Kings also features the Chinese with a Crossbowman unit, so it wouldn't even be unprecedented. What more could I add to that?

[Urban Ranger]

Tingkai,

" The Brits made extensive use of Indian troops in the 19th century. Hence the Indian mutinies. German mercenaries were used by the Brits during the American revolution. The Gurkas existed before WWII. "

Yes I have completely forgotten about the Indian mutinies. My post was quite specific about non-Whites since mercenaries were used extensively in Europe for a very long time.

"you mentioned that Firaxis had some incorrect information about Chinese history. What did they get wrong?"

For example:

"The Xia were followed by the Shang, who were first Chinese people to develop an alphabet."

The Chinese never used an alphabet.

"The Zhou were the first of many Chinese dynasties to suffer barbarian invasions, but they also produced some great minds, namely Confucius and Lao-zi, whom you might know better as the author of the ancient world's best-selling "Tao-te Ching". "

Zhou was not the first dynasty that faced barbarian intrusions. Also both Confucious and Lao-zi belonged to the "Spring and Autumn Peroid."

"In 1933, Chang Kai-shek led the famous "Northern Expedition", which ended in a massacre of Chinese Communists at Shanghai. Among those who managed to escape the massacre was a young communist named Mao Tse-Tung. Over the next year, Mao led the Communists on a brutal march to escape the Nationalists that ended in the northwest of China. "

This is all mixed up. Yes, there was a "Northern Expedition" but it wasn't aimed at the CCP. Yes, there was a massacre of Communists at Shanghai, but it wasn't a result of the "Northern Expedition," and Mao wasn't at Shanghai at the time. The Long March was a result of the fifth "Surround and Destroy" campaign initiated by the KMT against the CCP base in Jiangxi in October 1934.

"After Mao's death in 1976, Mao's former rival, Deng Xiaopeng"

Deng wasn't a former rival of Mao's. Rather, Mao's wife had a bone with Deng. After Mao's death in 1976 the so called "Gang of Four," including Mao's wife Jiang Ching was rounded up and thrown into prison.


Locutus,

I did looked at "The Rider" thread but didn't feel like belabouring my point once again over there.

Imperial China never had a great use for mercenaries. The reasons were complex but most of them have to do with the system in place.

"As far as the crossbow goes, you recall incorrectly. I once again refer to that other thread."

I don't think so. I read the other thread though there was insufficient evidence to establish this. I do not deny that crossbows were used, my contention was that they were not used in large numbers.

[Locutus]

UR,

That thread did indeed contain less information on barbarian troops than I thought it did, but that takes nothing away from the fact that it was certainly not unusual for Chinese emperors to rely on non-Chinese troops. There are numerous examples of this, I'll give a few:

As Harlan already mentioned in the Rider thread, the Hans found the employment of barbarian mercenaries quite useful:

It was during the reign of Emperor Wu Ti (beginning in 140 bc) that Han China stiffened its resistance to the barbarians. [...] Perhaps most important, Wu Ti transformed Chinese military tactics. He armed his new military with iron and steel swords, plate or scale mail and crossbows. Wu Ti's armies were also increasingly composed of highly skilled, experienced mercenaries, many on horseback, rather than the poorly trained conscripted footmen of earlier Han and Ch'in armies.

The Traditional Chinese too used barbarians whenever convenient:

Barbarians as a Force in Traditional Chinese History:[...]
4. Interaction and instability marked border relations; walled out but a threat to bordering sedentary populations only when organized and unified; often placated with "tribute" in material goods and wives; used as military allies by disaffected Chinese scholar-bureaucrats; bordering populations absorbed aspects of Chinese political and cultural organization; later successes in China proper assured when underlying sinification coupled with Chinese allies and Chinese administrative organization.

More specifically, the T'ang relied on non-Chinese troops throughout their reign:

In the west, by means of alliances with Central Asian tribes, the T'ang controlled the Tarim Basin and eventually made their influence felt as far as present-day Afghanistan.[...]
As a result of population growth, by the 8th century individual allotment holders inherited greatly reduced plots of land, but the annual per capita tax remained the same. Peasants fled their allotments, thereby reducing government income and depleting the armed forces. Frontier areas could no longer be protected by militia forces. A system of commanderies was established along the borders, and defense was entrusted to non-Chinese troops and commanders.

New peak of wealth, grandeur and cultural brilliance reached under Hsuan-tsung (712-756) but problems abounded: [...] and military [problems] (corvee decline affects militia; long term barbarian mercenaries replace peasant-soldiers; Regional Commanders, formerly Imperial Commissioners for military affairs, become civil / military governors in eight border regions in the north, Szechwan, Canton; many of foreign origin and not as interested in defense of the land.

But the Tang Dynasty's prosperity lasted only about 125 years. Chinese history books blame the rapid spread of Buddhism -- they used block printing to flood the country with books and tracts -- and foreigners, especially the Turks. Though their loyalty was dubious at best, many Turks joined the army, giving the Tang military strength.

And then of course there was the An Lu-Shan rebellion, already mentioned by Harlan:

One of Yang's favorites was the able general An Lu-shan, who quarreled with Yang's brother over control of the government, precipitating a revolt in 755. Peace was not restored until 763 and then only by means of alliances that the T'ang formed with Central Asian tribes.

It was under these circumstances that the Uygurs were invited by Su-tsung (Suzong), the Hsuan-tsung's (Xuanzong) successor, to send armies to help the Chinese. In this event, the Uygur forces played a key role in the recapture of both Chang-An (Chang'an) and Lo-yang (Luoyang) in 757. The Uygurs did not hesitate to exploit the Tang Dynastic debt owed them, by acts of appalling pillage.

The Sung dynasty used barbarians to their advantage as well:

Chao K'uang-yin, Chinese general, usurped later Chou throne, named emperor by troops -- as T'ai-tsu, established Sung with capital at Kaifeng at the head of the Grand Canal system, reunited the majority of the empire and successfully resestablished civilian control of the political state: [...] resulting weak military leadership and ingrained pacifist sentiments leads to general military weakness, tribute missions to Khitan Liao and Hsi Hsia (Tangut) and the utilization of "barbarians to fight barbarians" (Jurched alliance).

Prompted by their own military and fiscal weakness, the Sung entered into an alliance, in the early 1120s, with the Chin dynasty (1122-1234) of northern Manchuria against the Liao. After the defeat of the Liao, the Chin turned on the Sung and marched into North China, taking the capital of Kaifeng in 1126. The Sung retreated and in 1135 reestablished their capital at Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province.

It should go without saying that the Yuan dynasty, in origin Mongols themselves, combined in their armies all sorts of nationalities:

The military system of the Yuan was an embodiment of traditional Mongol system and the military system of the Central Plains. The Yuan Imperial Army which amounted to over 10,000 men was directly controlled by the emperor himself or his minister. The garrison consisted of more than 30 wei. Each wei had a commander under the leadership of the Privy Council. Military forces stationed in other areas across the country were made up of Mongols, Han soldiers, and troops from newly conquered regions.

Even the Ming, so famous for expelling the Barbarians from China and restoring Chinese pride, had to resort to Manchu troops to crush a major rebellion, something which also meant their downfall:

The downfall of the Ming was brought about by a rebellion originating in Shaanxi Province as a result of the inability of the government to provide relief in a time of famine and unemployment. When the rebels reached Beijing in 1644, the best Ming troops were deployed at the Great Wall, guarding against invasion by the Manchus, a Tungusic tribe that had recently gained power in Manchuria. The Ming commander decided to accept Manchu aid to drive the rebels from the capital. Once this collaboration had been effected, the Manchus refused to leave Beijing, forcing the Ming to withdraw to South China, where they attempted, unsuccessfully, to reestablish their regime.

As with the Yuan, it goes without saying that the Manchu Qing dynasty relied on both Manchu and Chinese forces:

By the end of the 18th century, the economic status of the Chinese peasant had begun to decline. The financial resources of the government were gravely depleted by the costs of foreign expansion, and at the end of Ch'ien Lung's reign they were nearly exhausted by large-scale official corruption. Manchu troops stationed throughout China were a further drain on the economy and, enervated by generations of peacetime garrison duty, scarcely capable of bearing arms in their own defense.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to prove that the employment of barbarian troops by Chinese emperors was everyday practice, but to claim that 'Imperial China never had a great use for mercenaries' is an underestimation of the importance of these barbarians.



As far as the crossbow goes, it was indeed used in great numbers. Again, a couple of quotes:

Once bronze crossbow mechanisms start to appear in the archaeological context from about 600BCE onward, findings are common. Moreover, literary records detailing the usage of the crossbow become frequent from about the same period, for example in the works of Sun Wu ('Sunzi') dating from around the fifth century BCE. There is prominent mention of the crossbow in military strategy during the fourth Century BCE (for example the Battle of Maling in 341BCE. See Selby: 'Chinese Archery', p. 170). By the Han Dynasty, in 206BCE, there is no doubt that the crossbow had become the military projectile weapon of choice among the Han Chinese, particularly for infantry engagements, and occasionally for cavalry engagements.

The earliest representations we have of the crossbow date from 400 BCE, in China. By 209 BCE the Chinese army had 50,000 crossbowmen who fought with mass-produced bronze weapons. These crossbows, which were an important weapon in war until rifles were invented, were usually mounted and could fire up to 650 feet.

Around 2,500 years ago, the crossbow, which had appeared in China in very early times, went through a major technological development. With the invention of a precision-engineered bronze crossbow mechanism by Clansman Qin of Chu, the crossbow became capable of delivering a heavy load, and for the first time it fired a heavy bolt with such force that an graduated sight reticule and artillery method could be developed. Although that didn’t end the military role of the bow and arrow, it did put archery into the hands of the ordinary infantryman, rather than the noble archer trained of years in natural, bare-bow shooting. This had a significant influence, de-mystifying and popularising the practice of archery in China. [...] From that time on, skill in horseback archery combined with high-powered crossbows for sieges (some requiring a ox and windlass to draw them!) and naval engagements formed the backbone of Chinese military archery practice. This basic tactical mix continued over the next thousand years during which China’s main strategic concern was with mounted horsemen (and women) on her land borders.

The crossbow, although known in Roman times, was not widely used in Europe until the Middle Ages. In China, however, where it developed at the same time, the crossbow revolutionized warfare. A crossbow is a bow set on a stock. It fires missiles propelled by mechanical energy and released by a trigger. It could be more powerful than the ordinary bow and could fire arrows, darts, or stones. It was, however, slower to fire than the longbow and almost as difficult to wield; even the arbalest, a later crossbow, was clumsy and slow. By the end of the 13th cent. use of the crossbow had declined.

However, the repeating crossbow (sort of a very primitive machine gun, probably invented in the 3rd century BC; the advanced types could fire an arrow once a second or so) still remained in use until the late 19th century - though it was to my knowlegde never used in great numbers:

The bolts are contained in a sliding box on top of the stock and moved by a lever pivoted to both. Throwing the lever forward and back draws the bow, places a bolt in position, and discharges the weapon. The Chinese used this weapon as late as the Chinese-Japanese War of 1894-5. It is a well made and practical weapon.

The crossbow as a weapon was important enough to deserve a place in Civ and since the Chinese used this weapon more extensively than any other civ I'd say that this weapon would be very appropriate as a Unique Unit for the Chinese (a hell of a lot better than the Rider anyway)...

[Harlan]

Locutus,
Thanks for saving me the trouble of answering the crossbow issue. There is evidence the Romans tinkered around with crossbows (some siege weapons were essentially large crossbows but they had trouble shrinking it down) but they never got very far, and by the Dark Ages it was forgotten. So the Chinese were the sole users of this for over 1000 years. Even in nearby places like India and Central Asia the Crossbow didn't catch on (in India because they used the Longbow, much like the English, and in Central Asia because it was too technologically complex for a nomadic way of life).

I'm afraid though that Urban Ranger is right and the Firaxis team doesn't seem to be that knowledgable about Chinese history, and if even Urban didn't know about crossbow use, then perhaps Firaxis didn't make this the special unit cos they just didn't know about its Chinese importance. It was an essential part of any Chinese army for over 1500 years.

And I have to agree with Locutus on the Turks: they originated near China, and over the course of hundreds of years expanded west, but there are still very large Turkish populations inside the borders of what is now China.