Chinese Dynasty uniques

Phantagonist

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
17
As there are quite a number of Chinese leaders now, either by Firaxis or modders (like myself). I think it is time to jump out from the frame of "Dynastic Cycle, Crouching Tiger, Great Wall", and grant interesting abilities specific to dynasties. I suppose this concept is not limited to China, any civilization with distinctive dynasties or clans, like Egyptian dynasties (Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom, Ptolemaic Dynasties, etc.) and Japanese clans (clans of the Sengoku period).

Each Chinese dynasty will have its own colour code, UA, UU and UI. Regional factions may have individual abilities or packed as a dynasty group. (The Three Kingdoms: Wei, Shu and Wu would have individual abilities, that is for sure.)

I have been refining the basic coding for a number of dynasties, here are some previews (icons and assets are not online yet, will complete that after finalizing the coding)
DynastyUniques_Qin.jpg

Qin Dynasty
- Focus:
Military and hydraulic engineering
- Colour tone: black/deep grey
- Unique Ability: Legalist Reforms
+100% Production towards Encampments and hydraulic districts (aqueducts, canals and dams); these districts grant a Builder trigger a Culture Bomb when built, claiming adjacent tiles. Canals and Dams are unlocked at the Engineering technology.
- Unique Unit: Ruishi
The Qin Dynasty unique Classical Era ranged unit (does not replace anything). While it cannot be upgraded from Slingers or Archers, it receives bonus if trained in cities with Encampments (better attack) or hydraulic districts (heal after action).
- Unique Infrastructure: Great Wall
The Great Wall is not exclusive to leaders from the Qin Dynasty and its predecessor, the State of Qin. Its adjacency bonus is nerfed, but receives additional Production if the city has an Encampment and/or hydraulic districts. (The Great Wall is maintained by military supervision and infrastructure network to provide supplies)

So if you have some ideas/designs about Chinese dynasties or other civs, please feel free to share. Any idea or help is appreciated.
 
China -
Tang Empire: Are you keeping it under Wu Zetian or changing it to Tang Taizong? Because both would be lit!
Ming Empire: UU could be a junk ship (Zheng He's fleet). This would work well with Yongle, as Zheng He personally worked for the Yongle Emperor. Trading bonus.
Han Empire: Make it related to the Silk Road, and under either Liu Bang or Han Wudi.
Add in Song, Qing.
 
China -
Tang Empire: Are you keeping it under Wu Zetian or changing it to Tang Taizong? Because both would be lit!
Ming Empire: UU could be a junk ship (Zheng He's fleet). This would work well with Yongle, as Zheng He personally worked for the Yongle Emperor. Trading bonus.
Han Empire: Make it related to the Silk Road, and under either Liu Bang or Han Wudi.
Add in Song, Qing.
Well, I have published quite a number of Chinese leader mods like Tang Taizong, Han Wudi and even Zhu Di the Yongle Emperor (he now acts as a persona of Firaxis Yongle), so they will fit into these dynasties. You may check my Steam Workshop if you are interested in more Chinese leaders.
Wu Zetian would likely have her own dynasty, Wu Zhou, focuses on meritocracy and espionage.
Do you have any idea for Song and Qing? Any help is appreciated.
 
Well, I have published quite a number of Chinese leader mods like Tang Taizong, Han Wudi and even Zhu Di the Yongle Emperor (he now acts as a persona of Firaxis Yongle), so they will fit into these dynasties. You may check my Steam Workshop if you are interested in more Chinese leaders.
Wu Zetian would likely have her own dynasty, Wu Zhou, focuses on meritocracy and espionage.
Do you have any idea for Song and Qing? Any help is appreciated.
Sadly, I am one without Steam (I play on Nintendo Switch).

I'd love it though if you said "Empire" instead of "Dynasty". Nowhere else do you here people talking about dynasties than family houses.

No ideas yet for Song and Qing.
 
Sadly, I am one without Steam (I play on Nintendo Switch).

I'd love it though if you said "Empire" instead of "Dynasty". Nowhere else do you here people talking about dynasties than family houses.

No ideas yet for Song and Qing.
I believe I have seen guides to allow Switch players to install PC mods. Maybe I could upload my mods to a dropbox or something like that so that non-Steam users could use.
I am afraid I have to stick with dynasties in this case, or else people may get it mixed up with other civs.
Any idea is okay, even if you can't connect it with any dynasty or faction. You can even post something about your civ idea, and I may get some inspirations.
 
I believe I have seen guides to allow Switch players to install PC mods. Maybe I could upload my mods to a dropbox or something like that so that non-Steam users could use.
I am afraid I have to stick with dynasties in this case, or else people may get it mixed up with other civs.
Any idea is okay, even if you can't connect it with any dynasty or faction. You can even post something about your civ idea, and I may get some inspirations.
I have an idea about how France can be split up into historical eras.

Gauls: You can stick with Ambrorix, but I would suggest Vercingitorix. That's my note.
Carologinians: Charlemagne's dynasty. Something related to religion.
Capetians: Phillip II Augustus. A military-based nation with medieval UU.
Early Modern France: Switch Catherine (who was a terrible villainess, I am a Huguenot so...) with Henry IV the Good, and make France commerce based.
French Republic: Georges Clemenceau could be the leader. Bonus based on defense that involves forests (enemy troops lose 1/2 of their health when crossing a forest owned by France)
There's that!
 
Last edited:
Instead of having multiple chinese civs and multiple french civs, can we maybe focus resources on having more different and diverse civs?

Adding a bunch of extra leaders for existing civs in an expansion pass that adds no units and no buildings (so it couldn't add a new civ) is one thing, but adding multiple Chinese civs and French or German civs based on different eras, when large areas of the world get only one or two civs is just historical myopia.

(And Gauls aren't a subdivision of French history. They're a celtic people largely culturally and linguistically unrelated to modern France that romantic nationalists seized on to write their "histories" (read nonsense)).
 
Last edited:
I'd love it though if you said "Empire" instead of "Dynasty". Nowhere else do you here people talking about dynasties than family houses.
From everything I've read, because of the Mandate of Heaven concept, they are not considered separate empires, but dynasties of the same empire, even if the dynasty is a foreign ethnicity (like Jurchen/Manchu or Mongol). I have not heard them referred to in any academic source, whether Western, Chinese, or other Asian, as being separate and distinct empires.

French Republic: Georges Clemenceau could be the leader. Bonus based on defense that involves forests (enemy troops lose 1/2 of their health when crossing a forest owned by France)
If you must have a French Republic, Charles de Galle seems much more like a leader one can get behind.
 
Instead of having multiple chinese civs and multiple french civs, can we maybe focus resources on having more different and diverse civs?

Adding a bunch of extra leaders for existing civs in an expansion pass that adds no units and no buildings (so it couldn't add a new civ) is one thing, but adding multiple Chinese civs and French or German civs based on different eras, when large areas of the world get only one or two civs is just historical myopia.

(And Gauls aren't a subdivision of French history. They're a celtic people largely culturally and linguistically unrelated to modern France that romantic nationalists seized on to write their "histories" (read nonsense)).
I'd like what you said more than different historical divisions.
Oh, sorry. Thank you for telling me that!
From everything I've read, because of the Mandate of Heaven concept, they are not considered separate empires, but dynasties of the same empire, even if the dynasty is a foreign ethnicity (like Jurchen/Manchu or Mongol). I have not heard them referred to in any academic source, whether Western, Chinese, or other Asian, as being separate and distinct empires.


If you must have a French Republic, Charles de Galle seems much more like a leader one can get behind.
I learned from my teacher in 6th grade that the whole "Tang/Ming/Qing/Song... dynasty" was only fitted to China by historians. Nowhere else would they call a nation the "X Dynasty", instead they use "Y Empire or X Empire"

I can see your reasoning. Clemenceau would be controversial to some Germans.
 
Honesty, I like the idea behind different dynasty abilities, at least for China, and it mostly works due to the Dynastic Cycles civ ability. It kind of falls flat with Qin Shi Huang and Wu because they are the sole leader of their dynasty, so it's basically like two leader abilities.
I don't know how I feel about different UUs though. If the Great Wall can stay as the UI I think surely the Crouching Tiger can stay.

I don't care about having this for every civ though. If we get multiple leaders again it would be cool if Firaxis officially took this approach with China.
 
Honesty, I like the idea behind different dynasty abilities, at least for China, and it mostly works due to the Dynastic Cycles civ ability. It kind of falls flat with Qin Shi Huang and Wu because they are the sole leader of their dynasty, so it's basically like two leader abilities.
I don't know how I feel about different UUs though. If the Great Wall can stay as the UI I think surely the Crouching Tiger can stay.

I don't care about having this for every civ though. If we get multiple leaders again it would be cool if Firaxis officially took this approach with China.
Yeah. I mean, that could work for a stand-alone Civ spinoff/ Civ mode (Historical Era Civ), but I would not expect it in the main game.
Also nice to see another person from Texas on the forum.
 
I learned from my teacher in 6th grade that the whole "Tang/Ming/Qing/Song... dynasty" was only fitted to China by historians. Nowhere else would they call a nation the "X Dynasty", instead they use "Y Empire or X Empire"
I've studied a very wide breadth of sources, and they all call them, "Dynasties," not, "Empires." It is not just remotely Chinese historiography. I'm not sure where your teacher got this from, especially to the point of saying ALL non-Chinese sources label things this way.
 
Honesty, I like the idea behind different dynasty abilities, at least for China, and it mostly works due to the Dynastic Cycles civ ability. It kind of falls flat with Qin Shi Huang and Wu because they are the sole leader of their dynasty, so it's basically like two leader abilities.
I don't know how I feel about different UUs though. If the Great Wall can stay as the UI I think surely the Crouching Tiger can stay.

I don't care about having this for every civ though. If we get multiple leaders again it would be cool if Firaxis officially took this approach with China.
Modders like me have made multiple leaders from the same dynasty, like Liu Che (Han Wudi) and Liu Xiu (Han Guangwudi) from the Han Dynasty.
The Great Wall would be UI for the Qin Dynasty. Other dynasties would have their own UI or UD. The Yuan Dynasty led by Kublai Khan, for example, would have ǰamči/zhanchi, their extensive post station network as UI.
 
I'd like what you said more than different historical divisions.
Oh, sorry. Thank you for telling me that!

I learned from my teacher in 6th grade that the whole "Tang/Ming/Qing/Song... dynasty" was only fitted to China by historians. Nowhere else would they call a nation the "X Dynasty", instead they use "Y Empire or X Empire"

I can see your reasoning. Clemenceau would be controversial to some Germans.
The Chinese refer to both their civilization and country as "China", while using the term "dynasty (朝代)" to represent the ruling royal family of a time period, the reign of that ruling family, and sometimes the territory of that time period as well. Despite all dynasties consider themselves "China", their cultures and political philosophy can be totally different. That's why I would like to represent these cultural and philosophical differences with different UA.
 
I've studied a very wide breadth of sources, and they all call them, "Dynasties," not, "Empires." It is not just remotely Chinese historiography. I'm not sure where your teacher got this from, especially to the point of saying ALL non-Chinese sources label things this way.
She was an SJW, so
 
She was an SJW, so
That makes it even more inexplicable. Then again, quite a few Radical Social Progressives AND Hyper-Nationalists are BOTH producing a lot of bizarre, fantastical, historically-revisionist fairy tales that are obviously so. But I won't delve into the, "New Great Divide," by discussing specifics - they do that enough in the Swamp of OT. ;)
 
That makes it even more inexplicable. Then again, Radical Social Progressives and Hyper-Nationalists are BOTH producing a lot of bizarre, fantastical, historically-revisionist fairy tales that are obviously so. But I won't delve into the, "New Great Divide," by discussing specifics - they do that enough in the Swamp of OT. ;)
I see your opinion. In America, the far radicals have their own conspiracies (I'm a leftist so my opinion may be biased). The far-right conservatives usually talk about how it's been the X fault, like how in their timeline "HURR DURRR DURRR BIDEN STOLE THE ELECTION TRUMP IS RIGHTFUL PRESIDENT DURRR" and also sometimes spouting out Neo-Nazi comments (Kanye...) On the leftist side, we have the SJWs, who say "HURR DURRR DURRR IT WAS ALWAYS WHITE MAN FAULT CANCEL ALL STRAIGHT CIS-GENDER WHITE MALES DURRR" I nearly joined the SJWs, but they also had revisionism. So now I am here, a socialist that will probably join the only good politician: BERNIE SANDERS
And that's your lesson: American politics is dumpster fire.

Moderator Action: Reminder to please stay on the topic of China's uniques and keep the modern day politics out of the discussion. ~ LK
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see your opinion. In America, the far radicals have their own conspiracies (I'm a leftist so my opinion may be biased). The far-right conservatives usually talk about how it's been the X fault, like how in their timeline "HURR DURRR DURRR BIDEN STOLE THE ELECTION TRUMP IS RIGHTFUL PRESIDENT DURRR" and also sometimes spouting out Neo-Nazi comments (Kanye...) On the leftist side, we have the SJWs, who say "HURR DURRR DURRR IT WAS ALWAYS WHITE MAN FAULT CANCEL ALL STRAIGHT CIS-GENDER WHITE MALES DURRR" I nearly joined the SJWs, but they also had revisionism. So now I am here, a socialist that will probably join the only good politician: BERNIE SANDERS
And that's your lesson: American politics is dumpster fire.
That's starting to seep up here into, Canada, too. But, I suggest we clip this conversation, which I didn't intend to go this far, before the Viking's hammer comes down.
 
On topic, if we were to do this, we could implement the era idea for:
- America/Natives included?
- Brazil
- Maya
- Inca
- maybe some Native group, like the Mississippi or Pueblo
- England
- Spain
- France
- Germany
- Portugal
- Russia
- Poland
- Hungary
- Sweden
- Norse
- Turks
- Greece
- Rome
- Persia
- Israel
- Egypt
- Arabia
- Morocco
- Bantu
- Ethiopia
- Kongo (?)
- India
- Mongolia
- Siam
- Korea
- China (No duh)
- Japan
- Australia/Aboriginals included?
- New Zealand/Maoris included?
 
Which Bantus? I've known people from Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi, the DRC, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, and I can tell you there is NO, "lump," Bantu civ of any sort - they're all radically different from each other to the point of making a single civ - or even a civ with eras, prohibitive.
 
Top Bottom