Manchus

[Leoreth]

A thing I'd worry about with a South China core variant would be creating a similar situation to what happens in the Middle East with conquerors. More often than not, I've seen the Greeks for example, just take two or three cities (often spatially disconnected from each other) from the Persians and then peace out (with or without capitulation). China's propensity to collapse when invaded from Manchuria or the steppes seems helpful for guiding AI invaders to be less half-hearted. But I saw one of the recent commits involved AI diplomacy when there are expansion targets, so maybe that already addressed the underlying thing, here?

That's a fair point, but the transition could be conditional on a peace treaty. Recent AI changes should help with that, including other half finished conquests like Greece's. Please let me know if the impact is noticeable.

 

[Apple111111]

Super cool that this is now implemented. I think it’s one of the civs players we’re looking forward to the most and really makes the Far East much more active.

Since Manchuria and China are fairly similar colours, and the light yellow of China was presumably chosen partially due to the Qing Dynasty’s name literally meaning “gold”, I do think there’s a good argument to change default China’s colours.

I think a colour that doesn’t look too garish on the map (like the current China colour), like a light red-brown would be good. It could be a suitable colour to represent Bronze Age pottery, (ancient), the Terracotta Army (classical), Ming Dynasty (Medieval/Renaissance), and red-brown would be good for Communist China since it could represent the association of Communism and red without copying Russia’s red.

 

[AOS9001]

Super cool that this is now implemented. I think it’s one of the civs players we’re looking forward to the most and really makes the Far East much more active.

Since Manchuria and China are fairly similar colours, and the light yellow of China was presumably chosen partially due to the Qing Dynasty’s name literally meaning “gold”, I do think there’s a good argument to change default China’s colours.

I think a colour that doesn’t look too garish on the map (like the current China colour), like a light red-brown would be good. It could be a suitable colour to represent Bronze Age pottery, (ancient), the Terracotta Army (classical), Ming Dynasty (Medieval/Renaissance), and red-brown would be good for Communist China since it could represent the association of Communism and red without copying Russia’s red.

I fully support this, a terracotta red would be perfect (and red as a color has had positive associations in China since forever). I’ve never liked the pale yellow, not even in base game for the Zulus.

 

[a pen-dragon]

I played two games of the Manchus over the past few days. Both 3000BC Monarch/Normal.

The following contains a rather detailed description, along with my strategy, so for those that want to strategize themselves I put it in Spoilers.

Overall I think this is a great civ, and I would say it feels very much like a much shorter Japan game.

Spoiler :

The first one was more to get a feeling for the situation and goals, and the second one to actually get the goals. I did cheat during the first attempt, as I was going to miss UHV#2, but wanted to get a feeling for #3 without redoing the beginning.

The starting situations overall were rather similar, with Mukden being a well-established city, China controlling its historical territory, Dzungaria being five cities, and Mongolia one. Korea was similar in both games as well, and as would be apparent later, France was the major European player and rival for tech lead. In the first game, China was relatively weak, not having built any shrines, and a worse city placement. In the second game, China had both Shrines. In both it did not manage to get Porcelain Tower (maybe it should?) and the Forbidden Palace (It probably should not.). In the first game Korea had Himeji Castle, and in the second one China had it.

Silver Tree Fountain was built in Turfan in both cases. I did not use it, but that is my fault, as it definitely should be used. 3-4 great generals can reasonably be expected during the conquests.

Regarding Civics, in the first game I went with Despotism - Caste - Syncretism - Bureaucracy - Regulated Trade - Hegemony. (I captured a few workers from Korea before switching out of Slavery.)

The rationale is that Hegemony is greatly helpful during the conquest, and around 30 cities will be captured. Syncretism and helps with culture and food, Caste is great as always due to all these plantations and the production boost to Weavers and Jewelers. I kept Despotism because the alternatives were not any better, and at least it can be used to get a few units, and whip fresh conquests, to use the population that would otherwise starve. I did not use this enough in this first game. I went Bureau + Reg Trade to maximize my capital. Now this was a lapse on my part, as obviously they would scale badly in a 30 city empire. Bureau is defensible, as the alternatives are not that good, but Reg Trade is definitely a mistake, as that comes at the cost of merchant trade, which offers ~ 90 /turn from trade routes, vs. ~45 /turn from Reg Trade, resulting in a relevant economic benefit, and much more importantly doubles production on markets, which are important for UHV #2.

Learning from this, in the second game I went with Despotism - Caste - Syncretism - Theocracy - Merchant Trade - Hegemony.

I replaced Bureaucracy by Theocracy, as an experiment, because Caste already boosts Priests, and the additional happiness could be helpful, especially when whipping my initial cities. The additional production does not hurt either.

In both games I settled my two cities 2E of the deer and 1NE of the northern millet.

In the first game, I conquered Korea first, then China in its entirety, capped Vietnam and Burma, the Tibet and finally finished with Dzungaria, finishing up on the deadline. Finishing with Dzungaria meant that I could not profit from STF.

In the second I went after China first, capturing what would become my Core, taking the first turn to get espionage to check if Korea was indeed weaker than me. Then I signed peace as Korea foolishly attacked, easily conquered them, went after Dzungaria, capped Tibet, which had controlled a city in Dzungaria, then went for Mongolia and most of Southern China (now independent as China had collapsed without its core), and then captured Vietnam from France and capped Burma on the last turn. Not having experience with it, I did accidentally obsolete STF before getting any great person from it by trading for Geography.

Note that while China is not significantly behind in power one should whip before attacking, as reduced population means reduced military strength. Also fights should be picked in an order such that useful units are obtained first (heavy cav > bombards > firelancers > anything else).

In the first game I was generally unfocused, doing a bit of research initially, not whipping and just building generally useful buildings in my new conquests. These were all huge mistakes. This caused my shortfall on UHV#1 in the first game.

From the beginning anything that is not focused on UHV#1, i.e. building units, should be focused on UHV#2. This means no research, no science buildings, and a focus on cultural multiplier buildings (theatres, (maybe Estates and Civic Squares, but these are quite expensive, i.e. for cities that have nothing better to do.), and if you got Himeji Castle, Walls and Castles). If applicable, Walls and Castles should be built first of these, as they are rather cheap and come with double production from Stone and Hegemony. The UB is good, but expensive and should probably come after these buildings. Then science infrastructure (universities, lighthouses, post offices).

While (not) researching I did try to get a few techs to boost my economy. Key techs are civil rights for Individualism, which I wanted to adopt rather sooner than later, Optics for ocean trade routes and geography for the additional trade route. While I would say that these are not critical for UHV#2, they do speed it up. Achieving UHV#2 earlier means more research into UHV#3, so it is a significant bonus. If not researching, the only option on how to get these is obviously trading, as there is no reasonable method to get enough espionage points for stealing.

That said, espionage points should be concentrated on good techers, as even one stolen tech can make the difference for UHV#3. This concentration should happen rather early, to get the points without running the espionage slider.

Anyway, I got UHV#1 on deadline in both games, now on to focusing #2. Note that this is a "by" goal.

I discussed the buildings above, so what remains to be done is the population goal. First, the Vietnamese capital does count as China for the purpose of this goal.

Then there are a few locations that should be settled in my opinion. Basically Taiwan, as it has a few resources and is a solid spot, and the Shandong peninsula, as it can use the Korean pigs and Fish.

Hainan and 2W of Vladivostok are fillers to get over the line.

Other cities can grow as they want, if more population in China is needed, the cities outside China can always be whipped.

Regarding civics, Individualism is good even when working on UHV#2, as it does greatly increase the generated commerce at the cost of about 10 pop in China and Manchuria (~20 plantations). This 10 pop can be found elsewhere, especially new cities, should the need arise. Free enterprise clearly wins over free speech when it becomes available, and constitution is clearly better than theocracy. In my second game I did switch to Individualism as soon as it was available. In my first game I neglected adapting my civics, in a further error.

That this is a "by" goal means that it can be completed at any time when all three conditions are met. Since here we want to tech as much as possible, it is beneficiary to complete this goal as soon as possible. This requires balancing the culture and gold generation, as well as keeping an eye on population and possibly a settler or two in hand. Note that the 19th century plague can hit just before the deadline on this UHV, but that should not be too impactful, as the population will roughly decrease the same amount everywhere, even increasing the effect of new cities. In my second game it hit a few turns before I got the goal, but it was no problem. In my first it only struck after the deadline. In my second game I completed this goal 4 turns early, with lagging a turn behind and population being fulfilled by a long time and around 0.3 percentage-points margin. I did run artists in my first game, but not in the second.

In both games I did trigger my first golden age as soon as it was available and the conquest was done. This GA gets buildings done and helps generating .

At around this time the most significant event that was out of my hands happened: France collapsed to core in the first game. This greatly weakened the major competitor.

In my first game I made a major civics swap into Individualism, Free Enterprise and Colonialism after getting UHV#2. The first two are explained above, and I did the third, because it cost no additional anarchy, reduced maintenance slightly (there are colonies!) and better options were not available at the time.

In my second game, I did a triple switch into Constitution, Free Enterprise and Secularism when I could. Secularism easily beats Syncretism for research.

In both games I did get a second GA from great people on top of the GA from UHV, but with STF another one is in the cards, and maybe even without it with a bit of planning.

Note that from the UHV#2 deadline to the #3 deadline are 25 turns and for #2 25000 will be in the treasury, allowing 25 turns of research at -1000 /turn. In my first game I had around -900, and had spare cash. In the second game I had around -800, but completed the goal 4 turns early, meaning I had little spare cash. Anyway from then on, it was 100% all the way.

The research strategy is simple: trade as much as you can, but not with the ones that lead. 2 for 1 trades are no problem, as the competition is not with the civ in fifth place in tech, but only with the first placed one.

For the techs to be researched, the usual applies: The AIs love the top of the tree, so go for the bottom. Priorities are: Physics for observatories, and whatever gets the civics. Later on Electricity for permanent contact and a slight bonus.

At this point cities should only build buildings that increase the total science output when compared to building science. Every bit counts!

In my second game Mali collapsed around 15 turns before the deadline, cutting of a trade for ballistics.

These events out of my control, and my better playing in the second game, lead to the first game being significantly behind in tech. At the turn after the deadline I had only 116000 tech points in the first game, but 138000 in the second. In both cases this was right at the top. In the first one, I formally go tthe goal, passing France the very same turn, but Germany passed me in the interturn and was 1000 points ahead. In the second game France was at 136000 points and I only passed them with the tech I researched in the interturn and thus did not actually get the UHV (as some of you probably guessed).

As closing comments I waant to state that this clearly deomstartes the viability of the goals at normal speed and Monarch difficulty, implying viability for the Standard Normal/Regent settings.

As there was a bit of discussion on the strength of China, I want to say that I would prefer a stronger China, bith militarily and economically. Economically, because that is more buildings to capture and militarily because that is more units to capture. That is, unless China has better military techs. Especially Musketeers would make conquest of China much more difficult. Cuirs would be annoying but no big problem.

 

[karuruna]

Since Manchuria and China are fairly similar colours, and the light yellow of China was presumably chosen partially due to the Qing Dynasty’s name literally meaning “gold”, I do think there’s a good argument to change default China’s colours.

While I don’t disagree with the red colour proposal, I’d like to note that Qing (清) does not translate to ‘gold’; there was another, earlier dynasty, Jin (金) which does translate to ‘gold’, funnily enough also run by the Jurchens, i.e. the predecessors to the Manchus.

The yellow colour, if I were to guess, was chosen for China because traditionally it’s been associated with ‘center’ and related concepts in Chinese cosmovision; think of the Yellow Emperor and such. I do think it is one of, if not the best colours to represent China as a whole, but as I said, I don’t necessarily think red would be bad, and I don’t love the China–Manchu colour situation as it is now.

On another note, I second the not-loving the choice of 漢 (Han) for the symbol of China; while indeed it is almost universally understood as something that can indeed refer to China as a whole, it has not been the case historically – this term’s prominence, afaik, stems from the Chu–Han Contention of the 2nd c. BC and the ensuing establishment of the Han dynasty and the cultural flourishing it brought about. Afaik it’s only in Later Tang, or even Song times, that Han has really started being used as something that can designate ‘all of China’, chiefly with the rise of the Three Kingdoms’ national myth, which used Liu Bei’s descendancy from the Han rulers as an important source of his legitimacy.

So, my point is, it’s more like excluding the first two millenia of the Chinese history, of sorts, which is not ideal. If we’re looking into characters that can represent all of China, I’d rather lean towards 華 (hua), or even 夏 (xia). The former, I think, hardly needs justification; the latter has also seen significant usage throughout different periods of Chinese history (think chiefly of the Tangut Xia polities), and I think it’s an even earlier one than 華.

Though do take all this with a grain of salt or even two, I’m after all no specialist in Chinese history.

 

[AOS9001]

Re: names
I read somewhere that the Ming was associated with fire, and that Qing was associated with water, and such a name was deliberately chosen by the Manchus for the image of water extinguishing fire. Maybe the Ming and Qing should have orange and blue culture borders!

華 (hua)

I am partial to this character simply because it's got nice symmetry.
Regards, a foreign barbarian.

 

[Steb]

Not sure how it feels in game, but there definitely are a lot of yellow civilizations in the "Asia-Pacific region" now with Australia, the Manchus, Vietnam, and China.

Even though I don't think it's particularly symbolic, it could be cool to restore the original pink Chinese color from OG Civ 4.

 

[lethrgy]

don't forget about the spanish philippines! china/manchu yellow and spanish yellow are really the only conflicting colored civs that exist next to each other in this region (assuming the manchus take over china and wipe them from existence); i feel that the viet yellow is distinct enough that there's a rather clear distinction between it and the neighboring civs.

that being said, +1 from me for terracotta being the chinese civ color. terracotta for its obvious connection to ancient china; it's close enough to red to signify the typical good fortune that red is associated with in chinese culture as well as the current china; and it's close enough to yellow for what is probably the original reason for the chinese civ DOC color being yellow before the manchus release as well as its yellow river connection.

personally i'd like to have seen green be australia's main color with gold as its secondary for three reasons. first, i just like green. second, green is kind of an underused color in this longitude as the closest green neighbors are the malays (usually dont exist by this period), the burmese (kind of a bluish-green shade) and the mughals (kinda far away and a different shade of green.) the typical australian shade of green is also kind of unique in DOC. and third, green is the color i (personally) subconsciously associate with australia for whatever reasons there might be, in the same way i associate blue with france and red with england.

 

[karuruna]

I read somewhere that the Ming was associated with fire, and that Qing was associated with water, and such a name was deliberately chosen by the Manchus for the image of water extinguishing fire. Maybe the Ming and Qing should have orange and blue culture borders!

Oh yeah, that’s a fun one! Chinese culture (and by extension, the whole Sinosphere) often can extract deeply-intertwined symbolism from basically anything – and that’s hardly surprising if you consider that it has a continuous written continuity of more than 2500 years! (counting from roughly Confucius to today)

There is a whole array of traditions tying together the five cardinal directions (usual ones plus the centre), colours, elements (water, wood, fire, metal, and earth) – here’s an infographic of sorts, sorry for it being in Japanese, illustrating the ten Heavenly Branches (十天干).

Yellow being associated with centrality naturally makes it a huge thing for any government claiming the legitimacy to rule over the Middle Kingdom; so that’s chiefly why it’s so often extremely prominent when we talk of dynastic colours and such, think Ming~Qing banners etc. So, I really like China as a whole being yellow; however, if another colour is considered, something reddish seems to fit it best.

This being the case, it could be argued that using yellow to represent the Manchus is a bit off… not sure I want to make this point myself, though. What I would like to point out, is that using only the Sinic colour symbolism seems rather insufficient when choosing a colour for the Manchus. However, as another alternative to consider, something grey-blackish could be had in mind too (and also to be different from Korea). Though I’m definitely not a fan of a grey-blackish late-game China.

About the fire-water symbolism particularly, it’s a very fun one! it’s the first time I hear this, but I can indeed see it, the character for Qing 清 (lit. meaning ‘pure, clean’) having the ⺡‘water’ radical, while Ming 明 meaning ‘bright, clear’ (like the sun, a day, or so). Reminds of when the Japanese chose 露 ‘dew’ to represent Russia with a very similar allegory, having the Russo–Japanese war in sight.

I also do like the green for Australia; I’ve not seen in game yet, but generally it does look representative.

 

[AOS9001]

This isn't the right thread for this topic, but it is relevant: I've posted my ideas for a revamping of Tibet and Qinghai in the suggestions thread. A Tibet with more going on it could be of interest to the Manchu game, I think.

 

[Tigranes]

This isn't the right thread for this topic, but it is relevant: I've posted my ideas for a revamping of Tibet and Qinghai in the suggestions thread. A Tibet with more going on it could be of interest to the Manchu game, I think.

Yes, a simple fresh water lake in Western Tibet was my long time request. It was thoroughly playtested in *unofficial* modmod, showing a better looking map, mildly stronger Tibet, less prone to vassalizing, and no extra burden on performance. And now with Manchuria things can get even more interesting. No downsides, really!

 

[AOS9001]

Yes, a simple fresh water lake in Western Tibet was my long time request. It was thoroughly playtested in *unofficial* modmod, showing a better looking map, mildly stronger Tibet, less prone to vassalizing, and no extra burden on performance. And now with Manchuria things can get even more interesting. No downsides, really!

There's certainly a case to be made for a freshwater lake in the west, there's no shortage of them IRL. In my suggestion, I did saltwater lake + camel, but a freshwater lake without the camel would probably work out to be the same amount of . There are many options on the table!

 

[AOS9001]

I was doing a test game on monarch difficulty and kept playing after failing the third goal (Spain snatched the lead in the last turn). China respawned in 1911 and took a big chunk of my core with it. I ragequit but really should have gotten a screenshot, because it was perfect timing.

 

[Logoncal]

Havent tested yet, but i wonder how would Manchu work if it to get hit by 'barbarian' boxers?

Sounds like great addition, the new civ.

 

[Maggy_domain]

How to best utilize the Bannermen on normal speed? I began two 600 AD runs where in both of them after defeating a couple of chinese units I was immediately the stronger of the two, thus rendering the capture units ability useless. Is China maybe too weak on the 600 AD/normal?

 

[AOS9001]

How to best utilize the Bannermen on normal speed? I began two 600 AD runs where in both of them after defeating a couple of chinese units I was immediately the stronger of the two, thus rendering the capture units ability useless. Is China maybe too weak on the 600 AD/normal?

I too have found Bannerman not that helpful at capturing Chinese units, given how quickly China loses its power over you (even on monarch). However, they're exceedingly useful in dealing with the Europeans. When attacked by Russia, I'm able to soften them up with longbowmen and bombards, then send in the bannermen to capture musketeers and even more bombards en masse. Very useful for keeping your defenses somewhat modern while running that 100% gold phantom slider.

 

[Zalfos]

Havent tested yet, but i wonder how would Manchu work if it to get hit by 'barbarian' boxers?

Sounds like great addition, the new civ.

The ol' reliable "throw a barbarian stack at them".

But the Boxer Rebellion was a short-lived affair, and they were supportive of (and eventually supported by) the imperial court. The Taiping Rebellion had a much bigger hand in the decline of the Empire, and that's adequately bundled up in the 1860 fall date, along with the European encroachment and Cixi taking power (she might not have been playing a winnable game, but she did not play it very well either).
If in a few months it's clear that the Qing tend to be too stable on the long-term, I'd rather argue for a small malus to their Core Stability, similar as China's. Not as bad considering they do have a fall date, but even a 10-20% could be enough to make them collapse more consistently. That's a matter for latter, though.

 

[Logoncal]

The ol' reliable "throw a barbarian stack at them".

But the Boxer Rebellion was a short-lived affair, and they were supportive if (and eventually supported by) the imperial court. The Tianjin Rebellion had a much bigger hand in the decline of the Empire, and that's adequately bundled up in the 1860 fall date, along with the European encroachment and Cixi taking power (she might not have been playing a winnable game, but she did not play it very well either).
If in a few months it's clear that the Qing tend to be too stable on the long-term, I'd rather argue for a small malus to their Core Stability, similar as China's. Not as bad considering they do have a fall date, but even a 10-20% could be enough to make them collapse more consistently. That's a matter for latter, though.

Sorry, i got barbarianpilled by the new map. (theres too many help)

 

[AOS9001]

I've run quite a few regent/normal Manchu starts from the 600 AD scenario and played a few games through 1900, and there's some common trends I'm realizing:
-highly underdeveloped China (usually still recovering from the Mongol collapse deleting tons of improvements and the Mongols themselves pillaging everything and razing cities)
-wack AI city locations
-Korea and Vietnam are often collapsed
-strangely powerful Burma, especially if it got the Yunnan copper
-Porcelain Tower is never built by China or anyone else for that matter
-if Vietnam is dead, the Grand Canal is never built by China
-if Vietnam is alive, it almost always has the Grand Canal in Hanoi, despite it being a terrible city for that wonder
-I think the lack of medieval Chinese wonders is almost certainly due to the fact China usually spends a large chunk of the regent/normal 600 AD scenario under constant barbarian attack or dead by means of Mongols
-Russia is usually a complete disaster for reasons that are not yet clear to me, so there goes your northern rival (on monarch at least, Russia sometimes does well enough to seriously threaten you by the 1800s - none of the other Europeans are good enough at amphibious assaults to actually be threatening)
-Japan is not a threat for the same reason Britain is not a threat

Like the Dutch and Iranians, this civ has to endure strange and often inconsistent starting conditions due to its great distance from the scenario starting date. I'll shill again for a 1500 AD scenario. I think it'd make the Manchu game more fun/challenging to deal with living civs instead of indies and barbs (especially if you include a greatly-reduced Mongol civ kicking around as the Northern Yuan), plus have big-name cities like Nanjing and Chongqing reliably on the map, and Chinese wonders available for use.

 

[banzay13]

I've run quite a few regent/normal Manchu starts from the 600 AD scenario and played a few games through 1900, and there's some common trends I'm realizing:
-highly underdeveloped China (usually still recovering from the Mongol collapse deleting tons of improvements and the Mongols themselves pillaging everything and razing cities)
-wack AI city locations
-Korea and Vietnam are often collapsed
-strangely powerful Burma, especially if it got the Yunnan copper
-Porcelain Tower is never built by China or anyone else for that matter
-if Vietnam is dead, the Grand Canal is never built by China
-if Vietnam is alive, it almost always has the Grand Canal in Hanoi, despite it being a terrible city for that wonder
-I think the lack of medieval Chinese wonders is almost certainly due to the fact China usually spends a large chunk of the regent/normal 600 AD scenario under constant barbarian attack or dead by means of Mongols
-Russia is usually a complete disaster for reasons that are not yet clear to me, so there goes your northern rival (on monarch at least, Russia sometimes does well enough to seriously threaten you by the 1800s - none of the other Europeans are good enough at amphibious assaults to actually be threatening)
-Japan is not a threat for the same reason Britain is not a threat

Like the Dutch and Iranians, this civ has to endure strange and often inconsistent starting conditions due to its great distance from the scenario starting date. I'll shill again for a 1500 AD scenario. I think it'd make the Manchu game more fun/challenging to deal with living civs instead of indies and barbs (especially if you include a greatly-reduced Mongol civ kicking around as the Northern Yuan), plus have big-name cities like Nanjing and Chongqing reliably on the map, and Chinese wonders available for use.

Normal speed is non playable (too tight for many UHV, slow progress of some civs), imo
Epic (exept classic times, I feel it need a bit more turns here) quite good (marathon too unbalanced with fast tech, but its not so bad in 1700AD game, I could say in this scenario world falling behind compared normal way)