Turtle Ship makes sense historically...

[WeneedmoreCivs]

People are complaining that Korea does not have Caravels and cannot explore the world early on. But why should the Korean society be able to do so anyway? The only real civilizations which used Caravels and their equivalents were European. Frankly, it should just be a unique unit for civs like Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Dutch (if we ever get them) and not just an overpowered unit which people rush to. Asians remained mainly isolated, and Korea is a country which has never really had aspirations of world domination. They merely remained on the peninsula and did not go on conquering other civilizations.

For a peaceful Civ player who doesn't like being invaded, Korea makes sense. If you want to explore and invade, use a civilization with a history of doing so, like Denmark, Rome or Japan.

 

[Morningcalm]

Gameplay wise though, it's incredibly underwhelming, which somewhat undermines its image in world history as a deadly ship that tore Japanese ships apart. It should be able to travel onto ocean, imo.

 

[awesome]

it makes sense historically, but this is one of those times when the "gameplay vs reality" argument actually works. the turtle ship replaces a unit with a pretty important advantage over previous units, but that advantage is sacrificed for something else. it's all subjective, like anything else in the game, but many people don't feel like that sacrifice is worth it.

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

it makes sense historically, but this is one of those times when the "gameplay vs reality" argument actually works. the turtle ship replaces a unit with a pretty important advantage over previous units, but that advantage is sacrificed for something else. it's all subjective, like anything else in the game, but many people don't feel like that sacrifice is worth it.

Yeah, I haven't even gotten to them on the tech tree yet, but I think that they will play well in a way, but are going to be relatively weak. I've never really built Ironclads, and the Turtles are the same basic idea. That being said, if you're playing on islands and you've got some Turtle ships, you'll never ever have to worry about being attacked.

 

[Roxlimn]

WeNeedmoreCivs:

I believe that China had influence on a far-reaching maritime trade network extending its indirect influence at the height of its power all the way to the Eastern side of Africa, and certainly within the Indian Ocean.

 

[Deggial]

WeneedmoreCivs:

This argument - as valid as it might be - can be brought for nearly every unit in Civilization. Did the Actecs have longswords? Really?

I think, awesom is right here: Gameplay over realism.

Therefore I think that an oceangoing, but slow turtleship with lowered vision range might be a better solution for CiV. It would be still capable for exploration, but far worse than the unit it replaces.

 

[ShahJahanII]

People are complaining that Korea does not have Caravels and cannot explore the world early on. But why should the Korean society be able to do so anyway? The only real civilizations which used Caravels and their equivalents were European. Frankly, it should just be a unique unit for civs like Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Dutch (if we ever get them) and not just an overpowered unit which people rush to. Asians remained mainly isolated, and Korea is a country which has never really had aspirations of world domination. They merely remained on the peninsula and did not go on conquering other civilizations.

For a peaceful Civ player who doesn't like being invaded, Korea makes sense. If you want to explore and invade, use a civilization with a history of doing so, like Denmark, Rome or Japan.

Your history is clearly Euro-centric.
The Cholas had a maritime Empire that dominated most of Indonesia at the height of their power. The Empire lasted form 300 B.C. to 1200 A.D. Roman coins were found as far as Indonesia. Most likely, the Romans traded with the Cholas.
China, as someone mentioned, did as much exploring of their surrounding land as much as Europeans did of America. They spent tons of money on navy. Korea wasn't called the hermit kingdom for nothing. Their isolationist policies might seem strange, but it kept them from being colonized by civilizations like Russia or China for quite some time.

 

[Roxlimn]

ShahJahanII:

Arguably, Japan's isolationist principles were meant to function along the same lines. Westerners tend to see China as a single monobloc of people, but the concept of China is more fluid than that. Certainly, to trade with China, however slight, means opening your doors to Chinese traders, and those guys can take over your economy pretty quick once they get going.

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

Your history is clearly Euro-centric.
The Cholas had a maritime Empire that dominated most of Indonesia at the height of their power. The Empire lasted form 300 B.C. to 1200 A.D. Roman coins were found as far as Indonesia. Most likely, the Romans traded with the Cholas.
China, as someone mentioned, did as much exploring of their surrounding land as much as Europeans did of America. They spent tons of money on navy. Korea wasn't called the hermit kingdom for nothing. Their isolationist policies might seem strange, but it kept them from being colonized by civilizations like Russia or China for quite some time.

I said the Caravel...which was a European invention from the 1500s.

There were other civilizations which were seafaring and traveled the globe (like Polynesia), I just was writing a few examples.

China was not a major sea-faring civilization it was more land-based, but they were definitely stretched out along the world, unlike Korea. The Chola dynasty didn't exactly explore the world, they traded with China, who traded with Rome...there weren't Chola boats in Italy.

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

WeNeedmoreCivs:

I believe that China had influence on a far-reaching maritime trade network extending its indirect influence at the height of its power all the way to the Eastern side of Africa, and certainly within the Indian Ocean.

But that's not global, is it? That's not even really ocean-faring, they could have easily gone from China to Africa without leaving a "coast tile". They didn't make it to Australia, they didn't make it to America, they didn't even make it to Europe via the sea.

 

[ShahJahanII]

ShahJahanII:

Arguably, Japan's isolationist principles were meant to function along the same lines. Westerners tend to see China as a single monobloc of people, but the concept of China is more fluid than that. Certainly, to trade with China, however slight, means opening your doors to Chinese traders, and those guys can take over your economy pretty quick once they get going.

My point exactly. Compare the number of European ports in South Africa, or India, or many other colonies of Europe. The number will be high. But how many ports did Japan allow? A single Dutch port in the South. India, South Africa, and countless other places were quickly colonized due to this huge mistake. Even China allowed many European ports. The effect of this is clear, Japan remains a large, modern economy, while many other countries like India and China are still recovering from a history of domination by Europeans. Only at the beginning of this year did China's economy size overtake that of Japans, a country with less than 10% of China's population.
Sorry to be off-topic.
I think that the key to a fun, but factual game is to strike a balance between reality and gameplay. Civilization does this well. If you are not happy with it, there are tons of mods out there to alter this.

 

[ShahJahanII]

I said the Caravel...which was a European invention from the 1500s.

There were other civilizations which were seafaring and traveled the globe (like Polynesia), I just was writing a few examples.

China was not a major sea-faring civilization it was more land-based, but they were definitely stretched out along the world, unlike Korea. The Chola dynasty didn't exactly explore the world, they traded with China, who traded with Rome...there weren't Chola boats in Italy.

Rome didn't bring boats to far Asia either, It took a single Italian (one who wasn't even Roman) 900 years after the fall of the West Roman Empire to supposedly reach China. I speak of course of Marco Polo. There were tons of great sailing ships from Asia. If I slap the name "caravel" on one of these, we wouldn't be having the conversation as to where the best ships originated. There isn't much European about caravels other than the word itself.

I do appreciate that you know your history quite well before posting this though. Better than people who just post whatever they feel like to strike up an argument.

 

[Strategist83]

... and so the thread degenerated into a historical dickfight debacle.

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

Rome didn't bring boats to far Asia either, It took a single Italian (one who wasn't even Roman) 900 years after the fall of the West Roman Empire to supposedly reach China. I speak of course of Marco Polo. There were tons of great sailing ships from Asia. If I slap the name "caravel" on one of these, we wouldn't be having the conversation as to where the best ships originated. There isn't much European about caravels other than the word itself.

Hence why I didn't mention Rome as a seafaring civ. But ITALY had the Caravel (Columbus is Italian...though he obviously didn't sail with Italian flags since they didn't exist) and Italians are famous explorers. Marco Polo came before Caravels.

I do appreciate that you know your history quite well before posting this though. Better than people who just post whatever they feel like to strike up an argument.

I am definitely more up to task on European and African history than on Asian history, but I am not one to make a post out of ignorance. I love Civ V and haven't played Civ IV since #5 came out (though I've played some CTP2 games), and I think Korea is a good civ for the game and a pretty accurate representation of it.

That being said, I want more African civs and either Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Phoenicia, The Hebrews or Australia as new civs.

 

[awesome]

Asians remained mainly isolated

mainly isolated. there are tons of examples of times when east asians weren't isolationists, but try comparing those to the examples of when they were. you'll get a lot more isolationism examples.

 

[ShahJahanII]

mainly isolated. most of east asian history involves east asia and i think that was his point. there are tons of examples of times when asians weren't isolationists, but try comparing those to the examples of when they were. you'll get a lot more isolationism examples.

Consider this, China's population is currently larger than Europe's, you can often think of it as a continent itself.

 

[awesome]

Consider this, China's population is currently larger than Europe's, you can often think of it as a continent itself.

nobody said that china's not a big country and nobody said that china didn't have to deal with other cultures to get that big. china has a history of expansion, but they also have a history of shutting themselves off from the rest of the world. a lot of asian countries are generally more closed off than western ones throughout history and even still today. that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing.

 

[Thormodr]

Gameplay wise though, it's incredibly underwhelming, which somewhat undermines its image in world history as a deadly ship that tore Japanese ships apart. It should be able to travel onto ocean, imo.

I think historically they've got it right, unless you can provide concrete examples that state otherwise. Turtle ships stayed very close to shore and didn't venture out into the ocean. They were defensive vessels used to fight pirates more than anything.

It's a good tradeoff in my opinion and something Civilization 5 actually got right. Korea never was never very interested in exploration historically and this helps simulate that fairly well by not allowing them to build caravels.

It encourages Korea to turtle and act more or less like a Hermit Kingdom which is accurate historically.

I will concede though that there is no definitive evidence that the turtle ships actually used iron at all so replacing the ironclad may be a stretch.

All in all though, I think it's a good compromise.

 

[Morningcalm]

Historically yes, it's sort of representative of the ships' strong defense. BUT they are so useless in combat really, unable to strike the enemy all that quickly or well (because they can't move into the ocean). In reality, turtle ships were speedy ram ships primarily, and the cannons helped deal with ships from afar.

True, Korea wasn't interested in exploration. But the turtle ship didn't just fight pirates, it fought Toyotomi Hideyoshi's finest military minds, samurai generals battle-hardened. Thankfully, Japan's navy, while vast in number at the time, had ships greatly inferior to Korea's heavy-board panokson, and the plated (or not) turtle ships.

 

[Thormodr]

Rome didn't bring boats to far Asia either, It took a single Italian (one who wasn't even Roman) 900 years after the fall of the West Roman Empire to supposedly reach China. I speak of course of Marco Polo. There were tons of great sailing ships from Asia. If I slap the name "caravel" on one of these, we wouldn't be having the conversation as to where the best ships originated. There isn't much European about caravels other than the word itself.

I do appreciate that you know your history quite well before posting this though. Better than people who just post whatever they feel like to strike up an argument.

Roman traders were certainly in India, Sri Lanka and Chola and Roman coins have even been uncovered in modern day Thailand.

Spoiler :

Roman trade with India through the overland caravan routes via Anatolia and Persia, though at a relative trickle compared to later times, antedated the southern trade route via the Red Sea and monsoons which started around the beginning of the Common Era (CE) following the reign of Augustus and his conquest of Egypt in 30 BCE.[1]

The route so helped enhance trade between ancient states of India (present day) and Rome, that Roman politicians are on record decrying the loss of specie to pamper Roman wives, and the southern route grew to eclipse and then totally supplant the overland trade route.[2]

Roman trade diaspora frequented the ancient Tamil country (present day Southern India) and Sri Lanka, securing trade with the seafaring Tamil states of the Chola, Pandyan and Chera dynasties and establishing trading settlements which remained long after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.[3] They also outlasted Byzantium's loss of the Egypt and the Red Sea ports[4] (ca. 639-645 CE) under the pressure of Jihad and Islam, which had been used to secure trade with India by the Greco-Roman world since the time of the Ptolemaic dynasty[5] a few decades before the start of the Common Era. Sometime after the sundering of communications between the Axum and Eastern Roman Empire in the 7th century, the Christian kingdom of Axum fell into a slow decline and faded into obscurity in western culture, though it survived despite pressure from Islamic forces until the 11th century, when it was reconfigured in a dynastic squabble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_trade_and_relations

Romans and the Chinese also carried out trade by sea so the Romans certainly reached the Far East.

Spoiler :

China is thought to have initiated formal contact with the "Western Regions" in the 2nd century BC, with the embassy of Zhang Qian.

The Roman historian Florus describes the visit of numerous envoys, including Seres (Chinese, or, more probably Central Asians), to the first Roman Emperor Augustus, who reigned between 27 BC and 14:

"Even the rest of the nations of the world which were not subject to the imperial sway were sensible of its grandeur, and looked with reverence to the Roman people, the great conqueror of nations. Thus even Scythians and Sarmatians sent envoys to seek the friendship of Rome. Nay, the Seres came likewise, and the Indians who dwelt beneath the vertical sun, bringing presents of precious stones and pearls and elephants, but thinking all of less moment than the vastness of the journey which they had undertaken, and which they said had occupied four years. In truth it needed but to look at their complexion to see that they were people of another world than ours."[1]

In 97 AD, the Chinese general Ban Chao unsuccessfully tried to send an envoy to Rome.[2][3] Several alleged Roman emissaries to China were recorded by ancient Chinese historians. The first one on record, supposedly from either the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius or the later emperor Marcus Aurelius, arrived in 166.[4][5]The Hou Hanshu records the arrival of Roman envoys, by sea to Chinese territory in what is now North Vietnam in 166 AD, presumably from either the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius or the later emperor Marcus Aurelius. The text specifically states that it was the first time there had been direct contact between the two countries.[6]
The trade relations between Rome and the East, including China, were described in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea in the 1st century AD

The indirect exchange of goods on the land (the so-called Silk Road) and sea routes included Chinese silk, Roman glassware, high-quality cloth, spices, perfumes, gems, etc.[7]

The Liangshu records the arrival in 226 AD of a merchant from the Roman Empire (Da Qin) at Jiaozhi (near modern Hanoi). The Prefect of Jiaozhi sent him to Sun Quan [the Wu (kingdom) emperor], who asked him for a report on his native country and its people. An expedition was mounted to return the merchant to along with 10 female and 10 male "blackish coloured dwarfs" he had requested as a curiosity and a Chinese officer who, unfortunately, died enroute.[8]

In classical sources, the problem of identifying references to ancient China is exacerbated by the interpretation of the Latin term "Seres" whose meaning fluctuated and could refer to a number of Asian people in a wide arc from India over Central Asia to China.[9] In Chinese records, the Roman Empire came to be known as "Da Qin", Great Qin, apparently thought to be a sort of counter-China at the other end of the world.[10] According to Pulleyblank, the "point that needs to be stressed is that the Chinese conception of Da Qin was confused from the outset with ancient mythological notions about the far west".[11]

A maritime route opened up with the Chinese-controlled Jiaozhi (centred in modern Vietnam) and the Khmer kingdom of Funan by the 2nd century CE, if not earlier.[17] At the formerly coastal site of Óc Eo in the Mekong Delta, Roman coins were among the vestiges of long-distance trade discovered by the French archaeologist Louis Malleret in the 1940s.[18] Óc Eo may have been the port known to the geographer Ptolemy and the Romans as Kattigara or Cattigara, though most modern scholars place it at Jiaozhi, near modern Hanoi.[19][20] The trade connection extended, via ports on the coasts of India and Sri Lanka, all the way to Roman-controlled ports in Egypt and the Nabataean territories on the northeastern coast of the Red Sea.
[edit] Roman exports to China

High-quality glass from Roman manufactures in Alexandria and Syria were exported to many parts of Asia, including Han China. Further Roman luxury items which were greatly esteemed by the Chinese were gold-embroidered rugs and gold-coloured cloth, asbestos cloth and sea silk, a cloth made from the silk-like hairs of certain Mediterranean shell-fish, the Pinna nobilis.[21][22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romano-Chinese_relations

Detail of Asia in Ptolemy's world map. Gulf of the Ganges left, Southeast Asian peninsula in the center, China Sea right, with "Sinae" (China).