Has anyone tried "China: Total War" yet?

[Jacque Schtrapp]

The new issue of PC Gamer makes special mention of the "China: Total War" mod that takes the three Parthian provinces and gives them to the Chinese as part of the Ts'in Empire's invasion of Asia Minor. Apparently there are a good mix of new (and re-done) units available to the Chinese including "morale sapping suicide squads." The mod is 46MB and requires patch 1.1. I was curious if anyone else has played this mod or knows anything else about it. The Stratcommander website is very well done and worth a look for thos who appreciate strategy titles even if you aren't interested in mods. This site is new to me, athough I am certain many of you fine folks already know all about it. Enjoy.

stratcommandcenter

[hung41584]

chinese people suck. they never win any wars. how the hell did they even get into asia minor

[The Stranger]

yes i did, but it sucked, cause of poor spelling and their units were way to strong.

[Brysk]

Being Chinese, I could take offense to that, but the fact is that China was an incredibly strong military power 2000 years ago, and a lot more advanced. (China was using gun powder for military purposes during that time.), not to mention that China could amass 2 huge armies incredibly quickly, the first being a highly trained and well armed professional army, the second being a gargantuan auxilia force (Not to mention that rice had much more nutritional value than wheat, the amount of wheat required to support one person could support 7 people with the same amount of rice).

The Chinese aren't simple minded, after all, all those Sun Tzu quote's and the Art of War were all Chinese weren't they? Not to mention the fact that the Chinese still exist, the Roman Empire doesn't. (And they've had to face barbarian invasions as well as dynasty transitions). Though, because the Romans and Chinese haven't actually fought, this arguement is all moot.

[RollingWave]

Errr no gunpowder was indeed invented and used in China first but it was not over 2000 years ago during the Qin... it was invented more like somehwere in the later part of the Tang
(which went from 618-907 a.d) and wide spread military use probably only came until the Northern Song dynasty which was around 900-1100 a.d

However with that said the Qin's at it's height would have wooped the Roman quiet easily (as the Romans were just starting their empire at this time... in late Repbulic it might be a more interesting comparason with the Han dynasty)

No need to take offense in other people's pure ignorace Byrsk. he knows abosalutely 0 about Chinese history anyway. like it was said in the intro of the Carthage campaign " they do not understand so they lie"

As for the mod though, have not tried it yet but i don't like the looks of it. for one thing the Qin probably didn't use phalanx that big (then again the greek phalanx is also bigger in game than historical evidance seem to suggest.. the Macedonian pikes were over twice as long as the greek once.. u certainly can't feel that in game.. Qin polearms should be around the length of Greek onces... usually 2m or so.

Then again, historical inaccuratcy is a lot less in RTW relatively compare to most other so called historical games... but it's still not hard to spot .

[Zharakov]

China has good food

Where do the infamous Cho-ku-us *sp* from Age of Empires come in? Or are they a made up unit?

[tai4ji2x]

"Chu-ko-nu" or zhuge nu in pinyin, was the name for the chinese repeating crossbow, attributed to the famous three kingdoms era general, zhuge liang (early 200's AD). although evidence suggests it has been around since at least the qin (200bc) period.

[HarunTaiwan]

I was just watching some historical drama of Zhuge Liang and they have a lot of generals fighting generals before battles.

(I think I read the book as well where the same thing happened.)

Is this historically accurate?

I'm not sure I'd take Chinese armies over Roman...those Romans steamrolled through armies 10 times their size. See Lucullus vs. Armenians. 100,000 dead Armenians and 5 dad Romans.

ZhGeLiang would be an exception...he's pretty clever indeed!

[lars573]

I was just watching some historical drama of Zhuge Liang and they have a lot of generals fighting generals before battles.

(I think I read the book as well where the same thing happened.)

Is this historically accurate?

I'm not sure I'd take Chinese armies over Roman...those Romans steamrolled through armies 10 times their size. See Lucullus vs. Armenians. 100,000 dead Armenians and 5 dad Romans.

ZhGeLiang would be an exception...he's pretty clever indeed!

Romance of the 3 kingdoms is probably what you were watching. And no that wasn't accurate as far as I know. Also consider that Chinese armies were not only large but well trained and well equipped, for the most part. I'd take 100,000 warriors of Wei, Wu, or Shu over 100,000 Armenians any day.

[HarunTaiwan]

KATAPHRACTOI!

How could you not love those?

[AquaLurker]

I am not so sure if a chinese army is better than a roman one, but I have read some books about chinese military developments and status along these periods of history.

I think that how good is the chinese armies depend alot on how rich and powerful is the chinese dynasty at that period of time. Apparently, china usually become weak and vunelrable after a long period of peace, where the officials become corrupted, her armies will not be properly maintained and so goes the quality. Chinese armies quality really varies depending on the period I guess.

Some historian thinks that chinese golden age of military thoughts was during the 'Chun Qui Zhan Guo era' (Spring and autumn and warring states) due to the competitive political scenario where peasent were allowed to study and hold important officail appointments according to their abilities and merits.

[Ginger]

Cant say that I know much about chinese armies in this period, but I have the image of immense armies of conscripts in my head. I imagine that, if this is the case, the proffesional Roman armies might have the edge.

Im interested in knowing whether the immense chinese armies had a knight/warrior core with the bulk being peasant conscripts as I imagine or whether the armies were equipped and trained to a good standard across the board. Assuming a rich dynasty that is. If the latter were true I imagine they would have been unbeatable were it not for the ideological isues leading to China restricting its own expansion. Any ideas?

[AquaLurker]

I don't think that because the chinese armies are mostly conscripts, the roman may have and edge over them. During the spring and autumn period and Warring states era, ll the states had to constantly train and maintain an army because conflict occurs oftenly, those states that failed to upkeep their armies are eventually conquered.

I remember reading about rome's legions which implies that the legionnaires are also recruited in a conscripts like system. Doesn't that make rome legionnaire some what like the chinese conscription system? If not then how did rome manage to mobilize their legions so quickly and numerously after a series of defeats losing many of their legions.

A quality of an army is based on the good organization, proper trainings(including some sort of 'military education') and qualified leaders. Strong economy and stable political condition of a state ensures that all these requirements can be meet. I am not well informed about things like warrior code in the chinese armies but it would be great if someone could refer me to a source regarding this. Military intellectuals of the period always emphised on the importance of the soldiers' moral, fighting spirit and discipline of the army. I guess this is in some way a kind of 'warrior/chivarly' code to the chinese armies at that time. Maybe in the form of the idea 'rightousness'.

But if you think of it this way, during the era, most of the civilian or peasant of this period were not indifferent to the politiacal situation of the 'world' and a lot of them are literate and more educated then. They study and train themselves in hopes of being hired by the 'lords' for their talents, most of them travel from one state to the other to show their works to the lords in hope of attaining an official position.

[RollingWave]

I think that how good is the chinese armies depend alot on how rich and powerful is the chinese dynasty at that period of time. Apparently, china usually become weak and vunelrable after a long period of peace, where the officials become corrupted, her armies will not be properly maintained and so goes the quality. Chinese armies quality really varies depending on the period I guess.

this holds true pretty much for everyone, Roman army at 500 a.d was certainly not as good (relatively speaking) as Roman army of Ceaser's time.

I was just watching some historical drama of Zhuge Liang and they have a lot of generals fighting generals before battles.

(I think I read the book as well where the same thing happened.)

Is this historically accurate?

I'm not sure I'd take Chinese armies over Roman...those Romans steamrolled through armies 10 times their size. See Lucullus vs. Armenians. 100,000 dead Armenians and 5 dad Romans.

ZhGeLiang would be an exception...he's pretty clever indeed

Romance of the 3 kingdom is a complied story over 1000 year after the actural period. it's historical accuratcy espcially in terms of military details was abosalutely horrible (the story tellers were neither soliders nor military historians so this wasn't surprising). it meantioned many weapons that were not invented at that period, and the only tactics they discribed were either quoted off offical scriptures or totally made up.

ZhuGe Lian was a very good strategiest and administrator, but the book still overglorify he's ability to the level of godhood in the book. so that book should certainly never be used as a reliable history source in military dissucsions unless u can tell which parts came from real documents and which parts were made up.

Cant say that I know much about chinese armies in this period, but I have the image of immense armies of conscripts in my head. I imagine that, if this is the case, the proffesional Roman armies might have the edge.

Im interested in knowing whether the immense chinese armies had a knight/warrior core with the bulk being peasant conscripts as I imagine or whether the armies were equipped and trained to a good standard across the board. Assuming a rich dynasty that is. If the latter were true I imagine they would have been unbeatable were it not for the ideological isues leading to China restricting its own expansion. Any ideas?

most periods didn't use conscripts... except when they can't help it. in some of the more notable periods that did use conscripts as a norm their level is certainly far higher than what you would normally associate with conscripts.

The famous terracotta soliders of Qin, the Qin army that united China was in essence, a conscript army, most army by the late warring states were conscript armies due to the life and death situation over the results of each battle (there were records where every avalible healthy male were called up, forming armies over 400 thousand + on both sides, and that was just 2 of the 7 major kingdoms), however because of the very high frequency of war and thus call ups, these conscripts were well trained and well armed, they were basically just professional soliders that stayed home in abesense of war.

The Han dynasty which overlapped the height of the Roman era (late republic early empire) had mixed army make up, they had standing professional armies, and they had conscripts, their ratio and uses varied throughout the dynasty though, but the Han's biggest enemy was the Hsiung Nu (some claim they are the Huns that later hit Rome. or at least related to them) so their army really began to evolve towards dealing with nomadic armies that relied almost completely on light horse archer hit and runs in the vast open plains and semi-deserts of modern day Mongolia and northern China. during their most famous campaigns against Hsiung Nu, the Han army was mostly professional army along with auxilaries from near by nations and conscripts with the needed backgrounds (such as good horsemens, they weren't pulling ppl out of the fields into war... they were calling up experts for help) these armies ranged from 100-200 thousand men strong, but more importantly they were operating for years in the vast nothingness of the mongolian plains, so the logistic feat in making these army happen was truely amazing.

The Han's main strategy against the Hsiung Nu were either fight fire with fire (match their horse archery but with superiour number/equipment/organization) or a moving fort tactic that would involve forming the army caravan into a makeshift fort that can keep moving and provide excellent cover for crossbowmens and would be almost impossible for the Huns to storm, obviously a strategy completely built towards their intended enemy and would be completely useless vs the Romans. on the other hand, the Romans at this time also have very little if any experience in fighting real horse archery based army (Pathia was more heavy calvary based)

Armor wise the Armor of Han was somewhat like the Persian/Pathians/Sumartian in the sense that it was lamellar armor, iron preferablly but sometimes leather. the Han did not have calvary that was as heavily armored as the Cataphracts as far as I know (though soon after their fall and the end of the 3 kingdoms era there were many) however in general Han infantries would be armored with iron lamellar (along with helmet, though i know less of how the helmet was like for sure)

The most common melee weapon at this time were spears and Ji, Ji is a polearm who's head was originally L shaped, it was originailly designed for chariot warfare where it could hook people off chariots and also double as a spear, but as chariot warfare faded by the Han dynasty the hook function really started to give way and it became more focused on the thrust, so it became more spear like but still retained some hooking/disarming capabilties. for close ups there were also shortswords and Dao which was basically a big manchet (one edge blade, predecessor of most eastern blades including Katana) shields were also used though i do not know of the exact manner detail.

For ranged weapon it was mixed of various composite bows and crossbows, there were quiet a few different type of crossbows, for horsemen, for infantry, for seige, for long range etc... both were used in conjunction ususally.

so comparason of Han with Rome would be difficult indeed, their army was geared towards completely different purpose, and comparing them would surely be like comparing tanks to artilleries... yes they are both weapons, but their purpose and use is so completely different comparason is simply stupid.

In terms of technological advancements, both side had it's ups and downs in different fields (this really remained true until 400 years ago) but most western historians think that overall China had a lead.

China population durnig the Han was around 10 million early on and by it's full hight (in terms of population) 30-40 million.

[AquaLurker]

Thanks for the lesson on chinese armies rolling waves. It was real difficult for me to find sources regarding chinese armies of these periods.

[HarunTaiwan]

The Qin dynasty had a saying (paraphrased) "Make peace time so hard, the people re-joice when we go to war."

Sounds like Sparta.

[RollingWave]

Aqua, well first off it's Chinese history obviously, you would be equally hard pressed to find ancient history soruce of most non greeko/roman based stuff (with exception to maybe Egypt)

And as i have meantioned, in terms of archelogy China is still in a realtively early stage espically with the huge and complex history that can run up anywhere and pretty much everywhere holds some sort of historical significance in chinese history, we still know far less about Chinese history in detail during this time than we know of Roman history, and with the continuous nature of Chinese history it also makes sorting out into some kind of recognization organization a nightmare.

Offical Chinese history documents usually don't write much in terms of details, particularly military details (perhaps due to classification purpose or perhaps because the people writing them usually have 0 miltiary background), and it is also a tradition to write history in terms of individual biographies, which mean most historical documents that survived till today can only give you little pieces of what military was like here and there. it will still take quiet a while to see the full picture.

I will give one particular battle that had abit more description to figure out how it went . near the end of Han dynasty and the begining of the 3 kingdoms era, Gon Sun Zan's army faced off against Yuan Shao at the border bridge, Gon was a famous Han general that fought many border wars with nomads and also fought against the yellow turban rebellion, Yuan was from a very prestigious aristocratic family and also fougth against the yellow turban rebellion but was less famous of a general.

description translated from "late Han book: Yuan Shao biography"
"Zan infantry 30 thousand, in square formation calvary over 10 thousand, lined on the flanks, it's edge was sharp (referring to moral probably) Shao orders Ju Yi to lead elite of 800 forwards cocking thousand of crossbows in secert. Zan takes the small band lightly and ordered he's calvary to charge, upon approaching, Ju Yi ordered all he's men to kneel down, the crossbows all loose at the same time, Zan's army was horriblly defeated, Zan's governor of Ji province Yan Gung was killed, took over 1000 head and armors"

Gong Sun had 30 thousand infantry in a square (phalanx?) formation in the center, with 10 thousand + cavalrys on the wings along with he's elite white horse followers

Yuan send one of he's general leading 800 men to march out head of the rest of he's army, in he's main line thousands of crossbows were cocked (i would guess hidden from view)

Seeing the small headway army, Gong Sun took them lightly and ordered he's cavlary to charge, when they approached the crossbowmen suddenly pulled out their hidden weapons and fired while the 800 headway man kneeled down (that's quiet a bit of courage to go down on the grass when thousands of calvary is rushing at you... Ju Yi died in the fight that followed though IIRC), at close range and with surprise, all their shots found their mark and the front of the calvary charge collasped, sending chaos through their ranks, Yuan's main army siezed the moment and charged, in the confusion and cover of the routing calvaries Yuans army routed Gong Sun's army and killed over 10 thousand men including one of Gong Sun army's major general.

So this battle showed how deception worked, and also suggest that Chinese army at this time often hada 1:3 calvary to infantry ratio (compare much higher to the Romans.. of course this was around 200 a.d or so by this time the Romans were also using more calvary and were straying away from the old legions in general)

Gon Sun Zan's army is part of the very experienced elite Han forces in the northern border, he must have thought he could easily squash the 800 head way men and then follow through crushing Yuan's less experienced army in shock. but instead Yuan had secertly cocked thousands of crossbow in he's main line and probably most surpsing was their move to go down to the ground, thus allowing clear shots at close range (and anyone who knows anything about crossbows knows how scary that is.. espcially when the target is a big horse + a men on it)

But seeing how even in such a chain rout disastor Yuan's army only "took thousand head and armor" and that Gon Sun Zan would remain a force for quiet a few years to come, suggest that he's troops was well disciplined and dispited the surpsingly defeat was able to retreat with most of their forces still in tact.

[Watchman]

You'd think the Chinese had some serious trouble waging war as far west as even Iran. Why ? Four words - Look At The Map. Their damn supply lines would be stretching across pretty much the whole Eurasia, and to boot through territory either quite mountainous, inhabited by vicious nomads or tribesmen, or both.

When they were on a roll the Chinese could indeed achieve some quite stunning feats of logistics and conquest, but there's a limit to everything.

[octavian]

i think this is becoming slightly OT for this forum, maybe a mod should move this to the monastary.

peace...

[RollingWave]

During the Han and Tang's height Chinese army did reach near the Caspian Sea... however yes that was about the real limit for a non nomadic army (same for Alexander and the Romans really)

[pyrocryo]

I think China Total War would be very interesting. Sure the Romans may have first dip in military organization, but china is also excelled in others: deep penetration operations, multiple corps deployment and concentration, ambush tactics, etc.
Those who haven't studied chinese military history should do so. I think they have no equal until Napoleon was sent Italy.