Rhye's and Fall RAND: Preview #2

[onedreamer]

I'd remove it from the chinese list since AFAIK Macau wasn't an important center in China before the Portuguese, and it's not like China lacks of cities to add

 

[dc82]

I'd remove it from the chinese list since AFAIK Macau wasn't an important center in China before the Portuguese, and it's not like China lacks of cities to add

Well, Rhye has the feature where if conquered, the name would change respectively.

Even though Macau wasn't much of a city until the Portuguese took over, the same could be said with several modern cities, including Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taipei (in varying degrees). I wouldn't put it on the top of the list, but given it's prominence in modern day China (it's bigger than Vegas now), I'd recommend that it stay on the Chinese list.

 

[say1988]

IMO Hong Kong and Macau should be British and Portuguese (respectively). for most of modern history they have been European held, and from what I know, were relatively less important cities prior to that. And even today, are often seen as not being more independent than Chinese. Shanghai on the other hand has been Chinese for a much longer period, and is seen as an integral Chinese city.
And we still have plenty of important Chinese cities to fill the lists.

 

[dc82]

IMO Hong Kong and Macau should be British and Portuguese (respectively). for most of modern history they have been European held, and from what I know, were relatively less important cities prior to that. And even today, are often seen as not being more independent than Chinese. Shanghai on the other hand has been Chinese for a much longer period, and is seen as an integral Chinese city.
And we still have plenty of important Chinese cities to fill the lists.

While it is true that Hong Kong and Macau grew in prominence in the past century - these cities would've have grown in importance regardless of actual European occupation. Due to increased trading in the West, these cities were opened up to as ports to the west.

Besides, by that standard, many modern cities would fall under the British due to the far reaching stretch of the British Empire (and other colonial powers).

Though distinct in its own ways from mainland China, culturally, demographically, Hong Kong and Macau remain much closer to China than it does the English/Portugal.

For the purposes of the game (and aligning with history), it would probably work more closer to have the game start the cities out as Chinese, but given them a high value to England/Portugal (with the name change if the city is captured).

 

[innonimatu]

I understand the argument against including colonial cities, that would be problematic with England/India, for example.

But regarding Macau and Honk Kong, these were new cities, and colonial possessions for almost all their history. So I'd place them on the portuguese and english lists.

Perhaps Rhye could use as a criteria who founded which city (I don't know what he's using), but even that can lead to some strange situations - Paris was founded by the romans, probably...

 

[dc82]

But regarding Macau and Hong Kong, these were new cities, and colonial possessions for almost all their history. So I'd place them on the portuguese and english lists.

Again, these cities aren't new - they existed since ancient history, especially as trading ports through several dynasties. (History of Hong Kong)

Even if the territories were to not have been ceded after the Opium Wars, these port cities would have probably experienced major growth due to the expansion of European trade.

In addition, since their return to China, their importance as Chinese city has continued to grow. I think it's very easy to look purely at the European colonization/occupation of the city (which no doubt was significant) and overlook its earlier history and future.

I still think it would make more sense to have it founded by the Chinese (as it was in history), attractive for conquering by England/Portugal (as it was in history), and maybe even have it traded back to China(since it's a possible option in the game).

 

[The Turk]

I think that Macau and Hong Kong should stay as Chinese cities, since they were built as chinese cities and their still MAJOR cities in China

 

[jkp1187]

I disagree, only insofar as that for cities such as Macau or Hong Kong, the major growth of those cities in importance took place under Portuguese and British rule, respectively, not Chinese. Those cities are only important today at all because of, in part, the events that took place during the colonial era.

At least, for Hong Kong I believe that this is true. For Macau, it's arguable whether it should belong on any list at all. (There are certainly better Portuguese colonial cities, whether from Brazil, Angola, or Mozambique, that fit the bill far better.)

 

[dc82]

I disagree, only insofar as that for cities such as Macau or Hong Kong, the major growth of those cities in importance took place under Portuguese and British rule, respectively, not Chinese. Those cities are only important today at all because of, in part, the events that took place during the colonial era.

There's no disagreement that a bulk of development took place under the British occupation of Hong Kong. But then again, many of the major cities in China didn't grow or develop until recently. Again, with cities like Hong Kong, they did have important and strategic value since long before the English came - if anything, it's what made them so attractive to the British. There's no telling that these cities wouldn't have grown (obviously not in the same way), but in prominence, regardless of the British.

Not only that, but the bulk of the population of Hong Kong is Chinese. It's development was still built upon the Chinese, especially after the Chinese Civil War when refugees fled to Hong Kong. The British ruled during the time but, culturally, demographically... sure, Hong Kong drives on the left, has "lifts," and enjoy afternoon tea, but, it's still closer to Shanghai than London.

I think the big difference is that, Hong Kong wasn't "founded" by the British - it existed as a city for thousands of years beforehand. It's not comparable in that way to cities like Jamestown or Sydney that for the most part started "brand new" as a new colony of English settlers. Hong Kong was an existing territory given over to a different nation as a settlement to defeat, as was India, Egypt, Iraq, etc.

Back to the representation for the game, which was the original point of the post, it parallels most closely to history, again, having a port city built by the Chinese, taken over by the British (but heavily cultured Chinese, with 95% Chinese citizens), and either traded or sold back to the Chinese.

Again, there's no debating that a HUGE part of Hong Kong's growth to what we see today was during the control of Britain, but, I think looking at what this list is supposed to represent, it's worth rethinking how much it falls under England, instead of China.

 

[The Turk]

I used to live in Hong Kong before I moved to Ankara, and believe me a HUGE part of construction came after Hong Kong came back to the mainland, only during the past couple of years (when Hong Kong was part of China) that Hong Kong started becoming the banking star of SE Asia, so actually most development (worlds highest hotel, IFC) were built during the Chinese period same with Macau where they made it into the Los Vegas of Asia.

The British pretty much only made a public transportation system.

 

[jkp1187]

There's no disagreement that a bulk of development took place under the British occupation of Hong Kong. But then again, many of the major cities in China didn't grow or develop until recently. Again, with cities like Hong Kong, they did have important and strategic value since long before the English came - if anything, it's what made them so attractive to the British. There's no telling that these cities wouldn't have grown (obviously not in the same way), but in prominence, regardless of the British.

Not only that, but the bulk of the population of Hong Kong is Chinese. It's development was still built upon the Chinese, especially after the Chinese Civil War when refugees fled to Hong Kong. The British ruled during the time but, culturally, demographically... sure, Hong Kong drives on the left, has "lifts," and enjoy afternoon tea, but, it's still closer to Shanghai than London.

I think the big difference is that, Hong Kong wasn't "founded" by the British - it existed as a city for thousands of years beforehand. It's not comparable in that way to cities like Jamestown or Sydney that for the most part started "brand new" as a new colony of English settlers. Hong Kong was an existing territory given over to a different nation as a settlement to defeat, as was India, Egypt, Iraq, etc.

Back to the representation for the game, which was the original point of the post, it parallels most closely to history, again, having a port city built by the Chinese, taken over by the British (but heavily cultured Chinese, with 95% Chinese citizens), and either traded or sold back to the Chinese.

Again, there's no debating that a HUGE part of Hong Kong's growth to what we see today was during the control of Britain, but, I think looking at what this list is supposed to represent, it's worth rethinking how much it falls under England, instead of China.

If we're going to hew strictly to the "founded" rule, then many cities important to one civilization or another fall off the list. Indeed, many important American cities, such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, would have to be crossed off the American list. I think the founding civilization is important, but so is the influence of that civilization during its period of rule.

Hong Kong's importance as an international financial and commercial center pre-dates PRC rule there. It does not pre-date British rule. British influence is still felt in the city (and the English language is still spoken there). Hong Kong's governmental structure is also distinct because of that rule.

Consider it more of a case of a single city founded on a distant continent that gets crowded out by a foreign civ's culture (remember an entirely new island had to be constructed to build the new airport because the city didn't have any land left), and is traded away to reduce expenses and eliminate the hassle of impending revolt.

And again, as for Macau, I'm still very skeptical about whether or not it should be included at all. It's due more to the historical quirk that Portuguese rule continued until 1999 that people know about the city at all....

 

[dc82]

If we're going to hew strictly to the "founded" rule, then many cities important to one civilization or another fall off the list. Indeed, many important American cities, such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, would have to be crossed off the American list. I think the founding civilization is important, but so is the influence of that civilization during its period of rule.

Well that's how this MOD worked in the first place - you have cities founded by its original civ, only to change hands (based upon history). So, the English will build cities such as Jamestown, Boston - which started off English, only to be taken over by America (as it spawns).

So again, it makes total sense that the city is founded by the Chinese, but made attractive to the British.

Hong Kong's importance as an international financial and commercial center pre-dates PRC rule there. It does not pre-date British rule. British influence is still felt in the city (and the English language is still spoken there). Hong Kong's governmental structure is also distinct because of that rule.

Again, I don't disagree with Hong Kong's rise in importance under British rule. I think that's well established and agreed on - but I think again it can overshadow HK's history and current/future position. The city was becoming a very important trading city, before the city was ceded away. Based on the growth that was developing, we would most likely have seen a similiar growth pattern to what we see in cities such as Shanghai and Shenzhen. Hong Kong would not be exactly what we see it today, but it would still be a very significant Chinese city.

There's no denying that the British has had a lasting influence on the city, but overall, again, if you look at the cities overall, demographically, by culture, even history (where adding it up, the British only make up a fraction), Hong Kong probably is much closer to Shanghai than it is London. Again, it's more sensible to be listing Hong Kong with Shanghai, Guangdong, Shenzhen, Nanjing, etc. than it is to be placing it with Jamestown, Sydney, Boston, etc.

Again, going back to the purposes of the list - this is a list of colonies/cities that are founded by a civ. The British didn't start the city of Hong Kong - it took it over, built it up, but the city existed for thousands of years before. Even in the game itself, it makes much more sense to have it conquered and developed than to have the British civ "build" the city on a random continent only to be flipped into an American city. What would make much more sense is to have it stay as a continental coastal Chinese city, with a high attractive rate for the British to lead to a natural war in which the British take Hong Kong and start developing on its own, which would then cause the city to keep its high Chinese culture, religion, population, etc., but begin to develop some British attributes (so 1% English population). Which would follow closer to how this city developed in real life - after all, that's the purpose of this MOD, no?

 

[Virdrago]

Hong Kong isn't a city, it's an island. Victoria is the main city on Hong Kong island. In RFC, using the name Hong Kong is like naming New York "Manhattan" instead.

The only major historical significance the islands had was that it was near Chinese trade routes, and that was where the Imperial family fled to when the Mongols showed up. Hong Kong island itself was known as the "barren rock" by the British. Landau Island, the largest island, has only 45,000 people living there now.

Until 1997, Hong Kong wasn't ever a major Chinese city/island/administrative area/economic hub. Many cities are more important to China's history, since Hong Kong (Victoria) has only been an important Chinese possession for 11 years out of the last 4000. I believe it should be British/English, if used at all.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Hong Kong was a tiny fishing village until the British took interest in it after the Opium Wars. In turn, Kowloon (the peninsula north of Hong Kong) and the "New Territories" (including the islands and the territory immediately north of Kowloon) were "leased" from the Chinese so that the most important asset that Hong Kong has, namely, the harbor, is under British control. Hong Kong was, and still is, one of the main banking and shipping centers of East Asia (together with Singapore). Macau was never even close to the importance of what Hong Kong was for the British (that's why it was nicknamed as a jewel of the British Crown before 1997).

So I think Hong Kong should be a British overseas colony, but the Chinese are free to found Xianggang or capture Hong Kong and rename it.

 

[dc82]

Hong Kong isn't a city, it's an island. Victoria is the main city on Hong Kong island. In RFC, using the name Hong Kong is like naming New York "Manhattan" instead.

Hong Kong is both the name of a island AND the general territory including HK Island, Kowloon and the New Territories. In fact, just like New York, it's closer to how New York is both representative of New York county (Manhattan), and New York City (of all five boroughs).

The only major historical significance the islands had was that it was near Chinese trade routes, and that was where the Imperial family fled to when the Mongols showed up. Hong Kong island itself was known as the "barren rock" by the British. Landau Island, the largest island, has only 45,000 people living there now.

Until 1997, Hong Kong wasn't ever a major Chinese city/island/administrative area/economic hub. Many cities are more important to China's history, since Hong Kong (Victoria) has only been an important Chinese possession for 11 years out of the last 4000. I believe it should be British/English, if used at all.

The area around Hong Kong had been occupied by Chinese since the Tang dyansty when salt and pearls were extracted from the region. Once Europeans arrived to China, Hong Kong became a major port and entry way for British to trade WITH China - so much so, that with the trade of opium, China eventually went into war with the British, ceding the territory to Britain as a concession with the Treaty of Nanjing.

The development of Hong Kong under the British is seemingly overshadowing the logical progression of the role of Hong Kong, both in historical understanding AND for the purposes of the game.

It's plain and simple.

Hong Kong founded as small port city by China. Begins to grow by pre-Industrial period. Taken over for Industrial Era by British and grown to large city until Modern Era where it's traded/bought back by China.

Listing Hong Kong as a "overseas English colony" will result in Hong Kong appearing as a 100% English culture city, appearing next to the cities of Jamestown and Boston in the New World in the game. A result far from both history and logic.

Keeping it as a Chinese city with a turnover to the British makes a lot more sense, both historically and for the purposes of the game.

 

[Verily]

Maybe the English could found "Victoria" (or "Queenstown"), the English name for the original city on Hong Kong Island, which would fit much better alongside Boston and Jamestown and be suitably anonymous. "Hong Kong", after all, has never been a city but rather a region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_City


Hong Kong was not "founded as a small city by the Chinese". There were at most very minor settlements in the area, not the sort that show up as anything more than a Cottage in Civ. The major port in the area was always Guangzhou--and to some extent Macau after the Portuguese secured it. But nothing at the site of modern Hong Kong until after the English took it over.

 

[dc82]

Hong Kong was not "founded as a small city by the Chinese". There were at most very minor settlements in the area, not the sort that show up as anything more than a Cottage in Civ. The major port in the area was always Guangzhou--and to some extent Macau after the Portuguese secured it. But nothing at the site of modern Hong Kong until after the English took it over.

"Hong Kong began as a coastal island geographically located in southern China. While pockets of settlements had taken place in the region with archaeological findings dating back thousands of years, regularly written records were not made until the engagement of Imperial China and the British Colony in the territory. Starting out as a fishing village, salt production site and trading ground, it would evolve into a military port of strategic importance and eventually an international financial centre that enjoys the world's 14th highest GDP (PPP) per capita, supporting 33% of the foreign capital flows into China." [History of Hong Kong]

"The geography of Hong Kong primarily consists of three main territories: Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsula, and the New Territories. The geography of Hong Kong is varied and is home to various physical geographical features."

Hong Kong is used to refer to the entire region, which is moreorless a city-state. Definitely in Chinese, Hong Kong (香&#28207 is used. I'd be shocked to find anyone use "Victoria City" over Hong Kong. It's similiar to how "Tokyo" refers to what is actually a collection of several "cities" (or wards). Unless you're recommending we change that city name to "Chiyoda" or "Shinjuku."

 

[lumpthing]

Although there are strong arguments for Hong Kong being on the British list, it was just be weird for it to be founded anywhere that didn't neighbour China, as it almost always would be in RAND. I think Verily's suggestion of 'Victoria' or 'Queenstown' would be better choices because cities with those names could have been built by the British anywhere.

 

[Verily]

"Hong Kong began as a coastal island geographically located in southern China. While pockets of settlements had taken place in the region with archaeological findings dating back thousands of years, regularly written records were not made until the engagement of Imperial China and the British Colony in the territory. Starting out as a fishing village, salt production site and trading ground, it would evolve into a military port of strategic importance and eventually an international financial centre that enjoys the world's 14th highest GDP (PPP) per capita, supporting 33% of the foreign capital flows into China." [History of Hong Kong]

Ummm... that just proves my point. There were small fishing villages in the area that became part of imperial China around the Tang dynasty. Guangzhou, to the north, was the major city in the area, but pearl diving and salt mining happened. Yes, there were people living there, but there was no city, not even a town of considerable size. But, when the area was leased to the British, it quickly became a major trading port as the primary port of entry into southern China for British goods.

In other words, Hong Kong was irrelevant until the British came along.

Hong Kong is used to refer to the entire region, which is moreorless a city-state. Definitely in Chinese, Hong Kong (香&#28207 is used. I'd be shocked to find anyone use "Victoria City" over Hong Kong. It's similiar to how "Tokyo" refers to what is actually a collection of several "cities" (or wards). Unless you're recommending we change that city name to "Chiyoda" or "Shinjuku."

Not today, but Victoria was the original city (note city, not fishing village) in Hong Kong, which was always considered to be a territory rather than a city in and of itself until the conurbation became so developed in the late 20th century that making distinctions between Victoria, Kowloon, and the smaller cities became pedantic. (Although there are still very "rural" areas of Hong Kong covered entirely by rice paddies.)

 

[dc82]

Ummm... that just proves my point. There were small fishing villages in the area that became part of imperial China around the Tang dynasty. Guangzhou, to the north, was the major city in the area, but pearl diving and salt mining happened. Yes, there were people living there, but there was no city, not even a town of considerable size. But, when the area was leased to the British, it quickly became a major trading port as the primary port of entry into southern China for British goods.

In other words, Hong Kong was irrelevant until the British came along.

Hong Kong's importance grew BEFORE the occupation, when trading with the British began, while still under Chinese control. Yes, obviously Hong Kong grew tremendously under the British occupation, but the point is, right beforehand and even if the occupation was not to have happened, because of its importance as an international port, Hong Kong would have grown to be a vital Chinese city. And as for now and the foreseeable future, Hong Kong will continue to serve as an incredibly important and vital Chinese city for the years to come, as it continues to grow and develop, again under Chinese control.

Not today, but Victoria was the original city (note city, not fishing village) in Hong Kong, which was always considered to be a territory rather than a city in and of itself until the conurbation became so developed in the late 20th century that making distinctions between Victoria, Kowloon, and the smaller cities became pedantic. (Although there are still very "rural" areas of Hong Kong covered entirely by rice paddies.)

Hey, if you want to book a ticket to "Victoria" and call it that the whole time, you're more than welcome to do so - I think you're just arguing semantics at this point. Hong Kong in its common usage refers to the metropolitan area surrounding Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and the new territories. For the purpose of both real life and the game, the name Hong Kong makes sense.

I think lumpthing calls to a good point. Names such as Victoria and Queenstown would make better names for a British overseas colony list, since these names were commonly used by the British during their empire.