New Civ Game Guide: Ming China

[gdr_willter]

Tributary Trade was strictly state-sanctioned and could not be considered "private."

For instance, the foreign tributary delegation should file a report beforehand to the Ming government, listing their numbers and goods, then wait for the Ming side to approve and set up a price for the goods; if the Ming refused to trade, or decided to pay much less for the goods, the envoys cannot reject the deal normally. The first Mongol invasion I mentioned above was triggered by the Ming decision to strike down the horse payment to 1/5 of the original.

Most importantly, the Tributary Trades were more about the Suzerain-Tributary relationship than the trade. During such trades, Ming usually bought the tributary goods much higher than the market price - to show that they were "benevolent" suzerains - and sometimes, they just straightly handed out gold and silver to the delegations. For Ming officials, most of the Tributary Trades were too costly and only had marginal efforts for diplomacy. This is also why the Treasure Fleets were canceled after the Yongle; it was such a money sink that even Ming (then perhaps the richest country in the world) could not afford. Overall, we cannot really say these were market-oriented trades, which is why they require the modifier "tributary."

Yes I learned about it, but also there are some more private trades between Ming officials and Joseon envoys when they met for tributary event.

 

[bbbt]

If you are ever in Malacca (Malaysia), they have an awesome museum about Zheng He and the treasure fleet, complete with dioramas.

Tho they spell it as Cheng Ho, and I spent embarrassingly long time in the museum thinking this was a second Chinese admiral and giant treasure fleet before realizing it was actually the same one I was already familiar with.

Seems like they could've done something cool with it.

 

[AriochIV]

Reviewing the clip from the gameplay reveal that has the Xunleichong in it, I realized that both of the "versions" of the Great Wall I posted above are Ming. I reviewed the Han clips in the Confucius video, and as far as I can tell, the Han and Ming versions are visually identical.

 

[Inhalaattori]

So Ming Unique Ability is "Great Canon of Yongle: Increased Science in the Capital. Received reduced Science per turn for each Social Policy slotted."

I suppose this means that traditions dont reduce the science. If that is the case this ability is actually really interesting. It rewards continuity - staying true to your traditions.

When it comes to Great wall it makes a lot of sense that you can continue building it as Ming, but I wonder how they are going to implement it. Are they treated as the same improvement or how does it work?

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Firaxis: You now have to play 3 different Civs.
Fandom: We only want to play as 1 Civ all game.

Firaxis: I got you boo, meet Civ 7 China!
Fandom: These Civs are too similar! I want 3 unique Civs

 

[tedhebert]

Firaxis: You now have to play 3 different Civs.
Fandom: We only want to play as 1 Civ all game.

Firaxis: I got you boo, meet Civ 7 China!
Fandom: These Civs are too similar! I want 3 unique Civs

If there was any kind of way to double like a post, I would have for this one….

So true…

 

[pokiehl]

Firaxis: You now have to play 3 different Civs.
Fandom: We only want to play as 1 Civ all game.

Firaxis: I got you boo, meet Civ 7 China!
Fandom: These Civs are too similar! I want 3 unique Civs

I don't see any reason to assume that the 'fandom' is some monolith.

I'm pretty disappointed with the reuse of the Great Wall for Han and Ming (I can't get over the fact that it's the exact same model and everything), and I'm someone who is actually interested and engaged with the Civ-switching mechanic. Really, anyone who is interested in the age/Civ switching system ostensibly wants that system to be used to its full potential, meaning that we get interesting, distinct designs across the ages.

I imagine people who really dislike civ switching either don't care because they're unengaged with the game, or they're happy to see a straighter continuity.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

On the other hand, I am still glad that the devs did not cave in to the popular imagination of the Treasure Fleets to be part of the Ming toolbox. Zheng He's fleet is a unique campaign that only happened once in the entirety of Ming history, and it was more of an imperialist endeavor rather than an economic masterstroke (the Fleets were canceled after Yongle's reign precisely because they were such a money sink that Ming, the wealthiest empire on the planet at the time, could not afford it). Even if the developers decided to portray the Treasure Fleets, it would be better to portray them as unique to a Yongle or Zheng He leader, rather than tied to the Ming dynasty as a whole.

I could understand that. But considering the civ ability: Great Canon of Yongle, is also centered around him, I don't necessarily see the difference in thinking that's okay?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

If you are ever in Malacca (Malaysia), they have an awesome museum about Zheng He and the treasure fleet, complete with dioramas.

View attachment 709251

Tho they spell it as Cheng Ho, and I spent embarrassingly long time in the museum thinking this was a second Chinese admiral and giant treasure fleet before realizing it was actually the same one I was already familiar with.

Seems like they could've done something cool with it.

Toooo bad. FXis DID NOT model Ming Carracks and Galleons properly. A roundship to the left should be localized carrack, while this capitol ship shown to the right should be galleon.

Where did this museum gets any details regarding to Zheng He's fleet?

 

[ehecatzin]

Zheng He strikes me as the kind of character who could be a leader for a naval and diplomatic playstyle.

 

[mitsho]

Or Zheng He could feature heavily in one of the story events they are doing. There are civ-specific ones after all and can have just as much an effect as the rest of the uniques do, at least flavour-wise.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I could understand that. But considering the civ ability: Great Canon of Yongle, is also centered around him, I don't necessarily see the difference in thinking that's okay?

Yes, personally, I would also put that as a Yongle unique rather than a Ming aspect (historically, the Great Canon became a lost work right after Yongle died because nobody wanted to read it).

I guess a Ming design will always be just about Yongle and Zheng He one way or another, as both are heavily overrepresented and myth-enshrouded in the popular media.

 

[Taizong4Civ7]

Yes, personally, I would also put that as a Yongle unique rather than a Ming aspect (historically, the Great Canon became a lost work right after Yongle died because nobody wanted to read it).

I guess a Ming design will always be just about Yongle and Zheng He one way or another, as both are heavily overrepresented and myth-enshrouded in the popular media.

What do you think a design focusing on post-Yongle Ming could look like?

 

[AriochIV]

Firaxis: You now have to play 3 different Civs.
Fandom: We only want to play as 1 Civ all game.

Firaxis: I got you boo, meet Civ 7 China!
Fandom: These Civs are too similar! I want 3 unique Civs

The fandom is not of one heart and one mind. It's a bit silly to expect that it should be.

 

[Zaarin]

Firaxis: You now have to play 3 different Civs.
Fandom: We only want to play as 1 Civ all game.

Firaxis: I got you boo, meet Civ 7 China!
Fandom: These Civs are too similar! I want 3 unique Civs

Given that the fandom is divided on the civ-switching issue, this isn't an issue where the fandom can't make up its mind; it's an issue where two different sides of the fandom want two different things. Like I said in an earlier post, it is extremely clear that Three-age China was designed to cushion the blow for the players who can't get behind civ-switching (far more so than Three-age India, which shares a name but not a continuous design like this). As part of the fandom that likes civ-switching, I'm okay with too-much-China if we can get some other dynasties that disrupt the continuity a little later on...Antiquity Tang and Exploration Song, perhaps.

 

[Leucarum]

Like I said in an earlier post, it is extremely clear that Three-age China was designed to cushion the blow for the players who can't get behind civ-switching

I don't know if it really fixes that. Most of the people who dearly want to play one civ only seem pretty committed to a specific civ. I imagine that most of these people would want to play Not-China rather than China...

Though to be fair China probably would have the single largest number of mono-civ afficionados, just based on numbers...

On another note - rather not liking civs because they're either too much of a continuation, or too different; I think I'm whelmed by a lot of the exploration age civs by them just seeming a little bland. There's multiple antiquity era civs I want to try, but the exploration age civs mostly feel like that awkward second album which isn't quite as rousing as the original...

 

[Zaarin]

I don't know if it really fixes that.

I'm sure it doesn't. It just feels like China shows a disproportionate continuity compared to other lines, down to keeping the exact same unique infrastructure. So to me China definitely feels like the, "Try it. You'll like it," civ line.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm sure it doesn't. It just feels like China shows a disproportionate continuity compared to other lines, down to keeping the exact same unique infrastructure. So to me China definitely feels like the, "Try it. You'll like it," civ line.

If it's the same infrastructure in the modern era I predict riots!

 

[Zaarin]

If it's the same infrastructure in the modern era I predict riots!

Yes, a Qing Great Wall would be very weird; at least the Han and Ming both made significant contributions to the Wall. The Qing made significant contributions to bypassing the Wall.

 

[Jeppetto]

Palaces too. Which Palace could Qing have as its Associated Wonder? Not well-versed about them but at this point Qing without Great Wall Improvement and Palace Wonder would be disappointment because of the assymtery