Slitherine

Will there be plans to extend as far as the Boshin War?

Any plans to include other Asian nations (ones contained in the Empire of Dragon PDF for example) or actual and what-if scenarios/campaigns in the future?

Lastly, any chance there is a Shimabara rebellion scenario/army list in the game? (I haven't dug in to campaign and scenarios since I only fire up random skirmish generator ever since getting the game).

I am more or less in your same situation because I've been playing only the campaign, only the tenka fubu (only once the HojovsMongol) and nothing else except the 3 tutorials.
I think the last in timeline is the SJ which ends with Sekigahara, therefore Shimabara, being post-Sekigahara, is not there. I REALLY hope there will be a Boshin campaign too.

GShock112 wrote:I am more or less in your same situation because I've been playing only the campaign, only the tenka fubu (only once the HojovsMongol) and nothing else except the 3 tutorials.
I think the last in timeline is the SJ which ends with Sekigahara, therefore Shimabara, being post-Sekigahara, is not there. I REALLY hope there will be a Boshin campaign too.

Yeah, would be nice if it goes as far as Boshin and heck after finding this book last Friday titled "Christ's Samurai" and rewatching Rurouni Kenshin specifically on the Shougo Amakusa (loosely based on Shiro of the Shimabara rebellion) makes me wish for more what-if scenarios like what if Spain/Portugal and other European nations were more aggressive in converting Japan to Christianity or something like Japan trying to invade the whole of East Asia after a successful Korean Invasion. All in all would be nice to see Shimabara Rebellion and the Boshin War.

I hope you've already watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2Bz93DQ3Oo



http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthre ... st11019806

If I am pinned to the TV tonight it's all your fault now!

Oh man, this is pretty OT, but When the last sword is gone is a great movie. I think it may have been on hulu once.

I am also hoping for more inter nation DLCs. Japan versus Japan is not as interesting since the army lists somewhat similar, so I don't get the thrill of asymetric combat. Which is why West versus East is also something I hope can happen (Pike and shot versus sengoku Jidai).

Boshin war is quite stretch. Battles during the "age of rifles" may need new rules and POAs to make it interesting. That setting would be great for East vs West scenarios like Boxer Rebellion too. But of course any modder can just make the units within P&S rules simply by using musket+bayonet formations.

There are some plans for other regions. It just takes more time to do than Gempei.

East vs West proposition of the same era as SJ is interesting too.
I bet Kongxinga wants to play Koxinga's Chinese army vs the Dutch in Formosa.

jomni wrote:There are some plans for other regions. It just takes more time to do than Gempei.

India, I hope...

I hope we can have more I called 'master map' for campaign for players so they can find they interested area to make custom campaign. So far, we just have two, central Japan and Korea peninsular. I would like to see the master maps that have China, then we can have rebel vs Ming campaign or Ming vs Qing campaign or fictional Japan invading Ming campaign. Or the map of central Asia, so we can portray Qing-Dzungar war. Or southeast asia to see Burmese–Siamese War(Burma and Thai). Plus how about a whole Japan islands master map including Honshu and Kyushu and Hokaido?
My most expecting one is a big Eurasia continental map that like the one in Total War. Then we can play some diplomacy for real feeling, alliance and betrayal, that would be interesting. Also West vs East is quite possible to see then.

East vs West proposition of the same era as SJ is interesting too.
I bet Kongxinga wants to play Koxinga's Chinese army vs the Dutch in Formosa.

Yes, very much. I have to force myself to sit down and work through all the modding documentation and make it happen one of these weekends. Koxinga has so many interesting troops under him, plus reading the included FOG R rules have led me to want to add several new units in, such as the Ganshidui (Dare Death Squads in ASL if I recall correctly) which have impact foot and bombs I think.

@ Melm

Your idea is very similar to the idea I had which is based off a REALLY old simulation called Annals of Rome, along with the aging mechanic from Great invasions by Phillipe Thibault (AGEOD). In that you played as the guiding force of Rome (in Annals of Rome, and to some extent in GI as well), which had 20 or so Senators or nobles with varying military capability and loyalty. Rome would have to fight all her enemies through time, from the Etruscans, Gauls, Carthagians, to seriously scary foes like the Huns, the Arabs and finally gunpowder armed Spanish Empire. All the while Rome's army remain static, ie Legions, Limes and Auxiliary.

The game gave a great feeling of history as a grand opera, and not being mired down in the tired and irrelevant details. The goal is to last as long as possible, which gets harder as enemies get stronger.

I think this can translate into an Annals of Ming game where the player plays as Ming Dynasty and tries to survive the Mongols, the Wokou, the Japanese, the Qing and finally Europeans with all their toys (Bayonets, Salvo Foot, Pikes, Impact Pistol Cavalry, and most importantly Range 4 Muskets) while the Ming does not advance past their 1624-1683 list. To make things worse, your Empire ages (representing Corruption, malaise) . As it ages, it becomes more and more likely rebellions will break out, and the player has to pay more honariums to their armies to keep the competent but disloyal generals happy (the Wu Sanguis of the world). Plus since you are an aging empire, it costs money to maintain and even more to move your armies, and this cost increases as you age while revenue drops. Obviously a good player, playing from 1560 would probably have super elite troops by 1683, but can he maintain them if every loss is pretty much permanent? Surviving past 1683 in any form, even if as only koxinga's heirs in Formosa nets you massive points until the Westerners come in from Indonesia to put you out of your misery, assuming the Qing Banners don't get you first.

Still gotta get cracking on that documentation though.

I agree with Jomni when he says.

jomni wrote:Boshin war is quite stretch. Battles during the "age of rifles" may need new rules and POAs to make it interesting. That setting would be great for East vs West scenarios like Boxer Rebellion too. But of course any modder can just make the units within P&S rules simply by using musket+bayonet formations.

Though part of this may be me looking sideways at- and trying to think of what an uphill battle it would be against- the grey eminence of wargames for the Age of Rifles....... creatively called "The Age of Rifles: 1846-1905." (Which I've been doing some custodianship for lately. Speaking of which, if anybody has scenarios of that old thing I'd appreciate you contacting me). If anything I'd almost say getting the "Right" feeling for the Victorian era would be something midway between the Pike and Shot engine and the old Battle(field) Academy one.

Though for what it's worth, I did just get finished playing through the modded Plassey in Pike and Shot and it did really feel very "Boxer Rebellion" ish.

But things like the Shimabara Rebellion or various other Renaissance wars in Asia would fit very nicely indeed. And I could imagine some kind of ... "Pseudo-Boshin War", with the same Domain/Clan alliances but a toned down tech level: The Shimazu and the Mori dust off their armor and decide to take a crack at the Shogunate. Maybe during the Sakoku before Perry (where tech level was basically Very static or even went downhill)? Or perhaps the revolt is to try and prevent Sakoku from coming into effect (if we want a bigger foreign component)?

*Shrug.*

jomni wrote:There are some plans for other regions. It just takes more time to do than Gempei.

I can imagine. Though I have gotten heartily sick of "That Map."

However, a couple things that DO come to mind which could also be hammered out quickly would be the Onin War (Hosokawa v. Yamana using tech that is three quarters of the way towards the main Sengoku stuff in game, with some Gempei inspirations) or the aforementioned Shimabara or "Pseudo/Medieval Boshin War" thing I mentioned above.

jomni wrote:East vs West proposition of the same era as SJ is interesting too.
I bet Kongxinga wants to play Koxinga's Chinese army vs the Dutch in Formosa.

Well, I can certainly say I would be interested to play as the Dutch and beat Koxinga's troops up!

Or play as Hideyoshi and descend upon Manila.

melm wrote:I hope we can have more I called 'master map' for campaign for players so they can find they interested area to make custom campaign. So far, we just have two, central Japan and Korea peninsular. I would like to see the master maps that have China, then we can have rebel vs Ming campaign or Ming vs Qing campaign or fictional Japan invading Ming campaign. Or the map of central Asia, so we can portray Qing-Dzungar war. Or southeast asia to see Burmese–Siamese War(Burma and Thai). Plus how about a whole Japan islands master map including Honshu and Kyushu and Hokaido?
My most expecting one is a big Eurasia continental map that like the one in Total War. Then we can play some diplomacy for real feeling, alliance and betrayal, that would be interesting. Also West vs East is quite possible to see then.

THIS. This is pretty much something I brought up way back during the beta, because I really felt this was something the game was sorely missing. Especially given how it outright mentioned "establish a pan-Asian empire". How do we do that though???? D: We can't.

Yet. And I do think it would require a hearty rejigging of the system as we know it, particularly as far as diplomacy and factions go. But I do think it would do So, SO much. And remove the false advertising...

Though at least starting out I think sorting out a better "free For All"/not one v one campaign for Japan (and maybe invading or defending Korea) would be a good start.

@Koxinga

Impressive... also, what happens if you get past the Spanish (in Annals of Rome)?

But yeah, suffice it to say your idea does sound swell. Depending on how we could play it, it might be wise to start out with the young future-Hongwu Emperor, and war against both the crumbling Yuan and other Han Chinese rebels as you scramble forward for power. While the Russians might be an intermediate threat (if you can somehow survive the Manchu spam) between the Manchu and the late game, final West (Britain, Netherlands, France, US(?), Spain, Portugal, etc).

That said, it also came to mind that while it may not be quite as flattering for your faction, the general conceit would also work for an "Annals of QIng" thing (sequel?). Only perhaps with the added caveat that you have to first conquer the Empire in order to lose it, invading a decayed Ming that mirrors your late game state and the various rebels, while deciding how to consolidate and whether or not to give territories to your Generals (especially Han ones). Then you have a careful balancing act of trying to control your vast, angry population and decide how to approach assimilating (or not), with some of your more disloyal Han vassals or generals might revolt.

But once you get that, you have the possibility of expanding in a BIG Way, as you get into the era of Great Campaigns, conquests, foreign intervention in other peoples' business, silver flowing in from the West, and tributary states...... but how long can you last? Especially with your tech largely ending at 1700 (though with three different army lists.. perhaps you have some room to work with even as you see them decay)?

Then things just slowly start building up until the attack of the West comes (which coincidentally would tie in to the Opium Wars etc. bringing the dynasty towards the abyss).

Another nice bit is how the Chinese dynasties did keep their history in "Annals" - usually for Emperors-, which then got compiled by the next one after the end. Perhaps that might be a way of logging the gameplay or as a final "Game Over" analysis?

In any event, I imagine we could come up with some house rules or the like...

@ Turtler,

Wow those are some very good observations and suggestions. Thanks for such a detailed write-up on one of the ideas I have been musing over for a while.

I've always been a fan of games that show history as the grand opera, with broad, recognizable and repeatable strokes. There are very few representations of that. One that I would mention that was good would be the Mod Empires of Faith by Njis who hangs around here too. Needless to say, I am a proponent of the cyclical view of history.

One of the strongest evidence of the cyclical view of history is the pattern of dynasties and kingdoms. They start off aggressive and willing to make sacrifices. Sooner or later their focus changes from conquest to money to defensiveness to inward fighting and decline.

This has been the story of pretty much every dynasty in China, and to most other empires elsewhere, so your observation that one could also easily make an Annals of Qing is very valid. My only note, apart from the fact that we might need an Age of Rifles engine (great game, and thanks for the custodianship of that.) because using renaissance rules is going to stretch it a bit too much. Age of Rifles already feels to melee-ey to me (as Zulu I can assault and route most British forces (AI), same as Qing in the Boxer Rebellion Scenario, where I use regulars and artillery to button up the Alliance, then use my Tigermen and such to assault).

The other note is that Qing had a long, long period (150+ years) of pretty much the most peaceful period in Chinese modern history, that was broken by the opium war. A Qing player may have not much to do then. As a Roman in Annals of Rome, you score massive points for conquering and holding Europe, but that does not last long with the non stop possibilities of revolts and civil war. Qing just has it too good during the 1700-1830 period.

On Annals of Rome, I may have misremembered the Spanish, (or perhaps they were in the later versions). A manual for an Amiga version only lists enemies up to the Turks, so I may have conflated that with some other game. I believe the game goes on forever if you can keep surviving the enemies. The enemies keep respawning as rebellions until their historic end date, and some of the later enemies probably don't have end dates, so they keep coming back. Presumably, some great player can play to the 21st century or until memory overflows.

This is why I believe there should be a Great Invasions like mechanic of aging, where armies become more and more difficult to maintain as your dynasty loses their previous vigorous and aggressive attitude to a inward, defensive, narrow minded focus. With aging, your collapse is only a matter of how soon.

Your mechanic of switching players (from Ming to Qing) also exists in some form in Annals of Rome. When Rome in Italy falls, you can move your capital to say Constantinople and continue playing as the Eastern Empire. In fact you get a period where the super enemies of the 5th century die out for weaker enemies, and as Byzantines you reconquer and try to hold on to the West. A mechanic like that would be interesting. Some sort of super enemy (Turks in Rome, or Industrial Age Westerners for Ming/Qing ) or an aging mechanic needs to exist to prevent the game from going on forever, provide a dynamic challenge, and to force correct to show the cyclical nature of history.

I can already here the proponents of the progressive view of history (history inevitably progresses towards some point, be it Marxism/ Enlightened Democracy etc) calling foul on the mechanics though.

kongxinga wrote:@ Turtler,

Wow those are some very good observations and suggestions. Thanks for such a detailed write-up on one of the ideas I have been musing over for a while.

Thank you kindly.

kongxinga wrote:I've always been a fan of games that show history as the grand opera, with broad, recognizable and repeatable strokes. There are very few representations of that.

Agreed indeed; to be fair I do think a lot of games can show a lot of different takes on history well. But I agree that I do like the grand, epic sprawl. Especially when you have a truly epic scope. To be honest almost think very few games attempt that any more; even fewer than did before.

kongxinga wrote:One that I would mention that was good would be the Mod Empires of Faith by Njis who hangs around here too.

Interesting, and good for him. Though while I do like M&B, I am not a big multiplayer so it might be a bit off for me.

kongxinga wrote: Needless to say, I am a proponent of the cyclical view of history.

One of the strongest evidence of the cyclical view of history is the pattern of dynasties and kingdoms. They start off aggressive and willing to make sacrifices. Sooner or later their focus changes from conquest to money to defensiveness to inward fighting and decline. This has been the story of pretty much every dynasty in China, and to most other empires elsewhere

Fair enough. Though to be honest, I personally am deeply skeptical of "views of history" persee, including cyclical (but also this "great progression", of history as just one continuous ramp of progress, like Whig History or Marxism*). Certainly the model can be interesting to study and inform us of a lot (and it does fit quite well for some things like the Chinese dynasties and French governments). But even then even with things like the Chinese dynasties I think a lot of it boils down to people trying to file down the square peg of history so it fits in the round hole of a narrative. And I do think some of the best historians on China have pointed out some of the details where the facts seem to have been "massaged" to fit that.

But it can certainly make a compelling game and story. And that is what is important.

kongxinga wrote: so your observation that one could also easily make an Annals of Qing is very valid.

I think we could honestly do that with most Chinese dynasties, to some extent. Probably much more readily than we could with a lot of other dynasties or Empries elsewhere (like the great mess that is Europe; Crusader Kings does what it does well and other things like L'Empereur do a good job chronicling a dynasty, but it's harder to do otherwise). Korea, Indonesia, the HRE, and maaaybe France and Russia strike me as fitting for it.

kongxinga wrote: My only note, apart from the fact that we might need an Age of Rifles engine (great game, and thanks for the custodianship of that.) because using renaissance rules is going to stretch it a bit too much.

Thanks. And agreed, I do think AoR is a true classic, but I also think it is really the only thing that covers a pretty broad and important period of history on the tactical level (besides some American Civil War specific games, and some very cumbersome HPS Sims).

Speaking of which, you still have it or any scenarios/campaigns? I am here to try and make it accessible for a new generation and managed to find most of them. And on the other side I am also trying to hunt down the few I know are still missing. The enjoyment I can help people get is great, and any help people can give me in compiling would be good.

kongxinga wrote: Age of Rifles already feels to melee-ey to me (as Zulu I can assault and route most British forces (AI), same as Qing in the Boxer Rebellion Scenario, where I use regulars and artillery to button up the Alliance, then use my Tigermen and such to assault).

Fair enough. Though to be honest I think that is how it should be; melee should be an incredible challenge in all but the most overwhelming of odds (like Little Sphinx....grrrrrrrrrr), but it should be possible. And I do find it really, really, really easy to counter melee only swarms (especially since in that game it leaves melee only units with some very basic strategies left to them). But the AI being the AI is unlikely to be able to game on that level; it's QUITE good by game standards, but I really don't think it has the kind of expert maneuvering or knowledge a good player can have.

It certainly doesn't practice one of my favorite strategies: ENTRENCH ENTRENCH ENTRENCH/Fortified Position abuse (which I almost think counts as a cheat code sometimes).

I do think a bigger issue with AoR is that the melee isn't really fleshed out Well, and some of the things about positioning and the like are wonky. But I think it does what it does fairly well...though in part because there ain't nothing else for it.

kongxinga wrote:The other note is that Qing had a long, long period (150+ years) of pretty much the most peaceful period in Chinese modern history, that was broken by the opium war. A Qing player may have not much to do then. As a Roman in Annals of Rome, you score massive points for conquering and holding Europe, but that does not last long with the non stop possibilities of revolts and civil war. Qing just has it too good during the 1700-1830 period.

I'm not sure I would call hugely destructive conflicts like the "White Lotus" (airquotes for inaccuracy) rebellion or the Southwest/Miao conflicts On Top Of a bunch of large external conflicts That peaceful. I agree it might be relatively calm domestically, but only relatively; and I think during that period the game might focus more towards external conflicts (to conquer places like Inner Asia) and internal politics (like prestige projects). And conflicts like the Dzunghars, the Gurkhas, the Jinchuan (the last of which was noted to be exceptionally bloody), the Burmese, and fighting with the Tay Son would mean this is still plenty ugly.

Besides, I think however calm the period may be, it would be mooooreee than paid back with interest at the end, when you start getting the Westerners, bloody nightmares like the Taiping and Nian Rebellion, the Boxers, and a lot of other stuff plus maybe a struggle to modernize.

kongxinga wrote:On Annals of Rome, I may have misremembered the Spanish, (or perhaps they were in the later versions). A manual for an Amiga version only lists enemies up to the Turks, so I may have conflated that with some other game. I believe the game goes on forever if you can keep surviving the enemies. The enemies keep respawning as rebellions until their historic end date, and some of the later enemies probably don't have end dates, so they keep coming back. Presumably, some great player can play to the 21st century or until memory overflows.

Interesting. And yeah, I remember it listing enemies up to the Turks too. I was just wondering if there was a more comprehensive list somewhere.
This is why I believe there should be a Great Invasions like mechanic of aging, where armies become more and more difficult to maintain as your dynasty loses their previous vigorous and aggressive attitude to a inward, defensive, narrow minded focus. With aging, your collapse is only a matter of how soon.

kongxinga wrote:Your mechanic of switching players (from Ming to Qing) also exists in some form in Annals of Rome. When Rome in Italy falls, you can move your capital to say Constantinople and continue playing as the Eastern Empire. In fact you get a period where the super enemies of the 5th century die out for weaker enemies, and as Byzantines you reconquer and try to hold on to the West. A mechanic like that would be interesting.

I remember that too, Byzantium and all that. However, I don't think it would really fit well for the player to actually switch from Ming to Qing (unless we were doing some kind of great Dynasty based marathon from Zhou to say the collapse). There is just zero institutional or dynastic continuity between the two in the way there was between-say- the Later Roman Empire and Rome proper. So I figure in a Ming game the Qing taking over would be a "Game Over, Cash in your points, Do Not pass Go...." moment.

I figure if we did have this kind of transition or rebirth, it would have to be something different; a sort of outgrowth of the old order. Maybe something like a Southern Ming period only where it is more of an ordered rebasing and less of a desperate announcement mixed in with utter collapse (something like Southern Sung). And maybe Koxinga's remnants or some other group as an even further evolution/devolution from there.

Or for the Qing, maybe some form of evolution if you manage to thread the needle's eye of modernization.

kongxinga wrote:Some sort of super enemy (Turks in Rome, or Industrial Age Westerners for Ming/Qing ) or an aging mechanic needs to exist to prevent the game from going on forever, provide a dynamic challenge, and to force correct to show the cyclical nature of history.

Agreed, save with the caveats I mentioned before.

kongxinga wrote:I can already here the proponents of the progressive view of history (history inevitably progresses towards some point, be it Marxism/ Enlightened Democracy etc) calling foul on the mechanics though.

Eh, I'm not one of those exactly (or at most I would say I incorporate a little bit of A and a Little Bit of B as far as progression and cyclical goes) those and I am still calling it a bit. But ultimately it's important to remember it's ultimately Game Mechanics. So I don't think it matters if it is a fully accurate representation of how history "really" works ("works") or pushes some grandiose theory of it. So long as it's fun, it works in a game context, and it captures the subject matter to some degree I think it works. And I do think the cyclical approach works quite well with Rome and a lot of the Chinese dynasties.

*It may be somewhat ironic that I'm so leery about the "Progressing" view of history given my religious beliefs, but thereyougo.