China DLC Faction Balancing
The existing Chinese civ will be labelled “Chinese-Classic in the Scenario selection.
Removing the “other buildings” button from both Villager options, and maybe even the cancel button (to cancel hit Esc or just reselect the villager) to free up more UI slots is urgently needed.
But before we begin on factions, first I need to cover the early-period common units that many of them will tap into.
Early-Period Common Units
The following units are significantly enough different from existing units that they warrant separate inclusion.
Galley line could possibly (not required) be renamed variations of Doujian 斗舰 (literally “Fighting Ship”) for localization. This is not to be confused with “doujiang” for bean sauce or Japanese “doujin” for other purposes.
Fire Ship Substitute: Mengchong 艨艟
Mengchong were usually-leather-covered assault ship, which can fire arrows from superstructure firing ports but, considering the name, presumably also used a ram at the bow or some sort of boarding bridge. Therefore, modelled as a fire ship replacement with primary weapon being ramming (attack animation is probably rowing back off and then slamming forward again, cue jokes), and maybe some secondary arrows from the superstructure. You can determine the tech level of the Mengchong on sight by it having one, two, or three floors in its superstructure (oar count also increases but that’s less visible), which contributes an extra arrow per floor, and also increases damage per ramming attack. The ranks are “Simple Mengchong简易蒙冲”, “Mengchong 蒙冲” and “Elite Mengchong 精锐艨艟”. Depending on source, you can see the name written either way, with 艨艟 more formal and having 舟 boat on the left side, while 蒙冲 is literally “covered charger/ram”.
I need to work out some unit stats first so I know what I’m thinking about when balancing. Let’s start with the Mengchong. One of the benefits of being a ramming warship is that while extreme agility is not required (as would be the case for flamethrower ships to avoid crashing and damaging themselves, or setting themselves on fire by ramming a burning opponent), high speed is, so for AOE2 terms that’s a higher speed than Fire Ship line. However, the ship is small enough it shouldn’t be able to sustain speed as well as Galley line, based on the “enemy micro allows galley to beat fire galley” reasoning in AOE2.
Galley (Feudal Age): 90W/30G/60 seconds, 120 HP, 6+1 pierce attack, +8 vs ship, fishing ship, +6 building, +3 ram. Reload 3, Range 5, 0/6 armor, 1.43 speed.
Fire Galley: 75W/45G/65 seconds, 100 HP, 0/1 melee/pierce attack, +3 vs ship, +1 vs heavy ship, building, and fishing ship. Reload 0.25, Range 2.49, 0/4 armor +6 ship armor, 1.3 speed
Simple Mengchong 简易蒙冲: 80W/40G/50 seconds, 90 HP, 25 melee attack, reload 5 (collision radius, while normal for a ship, is relatively large compared to small hull look, because it has to back up before slamming forward again), range 0.1 (if calculated from edge of collision radius), 0/4 armor, +1 ship armor, 1.4 speed (can escape fire ships in theory but cannot catch Galley line)
Secondary attack: Shoots one arrow from the small superstructure, doing 4 pierce damage (upgradable) +2 vs ship, reload 2, range 5. Does not need to point ship at enemy to shoot.
In Feudal, the Simple Mengchong will soundly beat Galley (6 DPS reliable outgoing once contact is made, vs 3.33 DPS incoming) if it can catch them (same idea as Fire Galley vs Galley), but will lose to Fire Galley without micro and a lot of time, fortunately the arrow it can shoot helps with that (so same idea as Galley vs Fire Galley). Seems reasonable for a Fire Galley substitute. Also, it can ram enemy units on shore or on amphibious terrain for a relatively reasonable effect (unlike Fire Ship Line whose flamethrowers scratch an itch for ground units at best).
War Galley (Castle Age): 90W/30G/36 seconds, 135 HP, 7+2 pierce attack, +9 vs ship, fishing ship, +7 building, +4 ram. Reload 3, Range 6, 0/6 armor, 1.43 speed.
Fire Ship: 75W/45G/36 seconds, 120 HP, 1/2 melee/pierce attack, +3 vs ship, fishing ship, +2 vs heavy ship, building. Reload 0.25, Range 2.49, 0/6 armor +6 ship armor, 1.35 speed
Mengchong 蒙冲: 80W/40G/65 seconds, 105 HP, 30 melee attack, reload 5, range 0.1 (from edge of collision radius), 0/5 armor, +1 ship armor, 1.41 speed
Secondary attack: Shoots two arrows from the partial-double-level superstructure, doing 4 pierce damage each (upgradable) +2 vs ship, reload 2, range 5, doesn’t need to point at enemy to shoot.
Seems to calculate to the same dynamic of beating War Galley if the Mengchong can close (Dealing 8 DPS and taking 4 in return), and losing to fire ships that manage to close (12 DPS from fire ship with 1 melee + 2 ship damage every 0.25 seconds, and in return about 7 DPS, specifically 6 from ram, 1 from the completely-negated arrows). Now, to adjust stats for Imperial Age…
Galleon (Imperial Age): 90W/30G/36 seconds, 165 HP, 8 pierce attack, +11 vs ship, fishing ship, +8 building, +4 ram. Reload 3, Range 7, 0/8 armor, 1.43 speed.
Fast Fire Ship: 75W/45G/36 seconds, 140 HP, 1/3 melee/pierce attack, +4 vs ship, fishing ship, +3 vs heavy ship, building. Reload 0.25, Range 2.49, 0/8 armor +9 ship armor, 1.43 speed
Elite Mengchong 精锐艨艟: 80W/40G/65 seconds, 120 HP, 30 melee attack, reload 5, range 0.1 (from edge of collision radius), 0/6 armor, +2 ship armor, 1.45 speed
Secondary attack: Shoots three arrows from the full-double-level superstructure, still each 4 pierce damage (upgradable) +2 vs ship, reload 2, range 5, doesn’t need to point at enemy to shoot.
Elite Mengchong still eats 12 DPS from Fast Fire Ships, while dealing 6 with ram and 1.5 with arrows back, while Galleon deals 3.67 DPS and takes 6+3 = 9 DPS back. Seems to work out as intended.
Demolition Ship Replacement: Fire Boat 火船
Fire Boat: Not to be confused with Fire Ships, the Fire Boat is the pre-gunpowder counterpart to the demolition ship, self-destructing to damage and set nearby foes on fire for damage over time (no friendly fire here just like Demo Ships), and leaving a brief damage-over-time fire field in the area (this fire field does % friendly fire damage though). The three models are the Light Fire Boat, Fire Boat, Heavy Fire Boat and Thunderous Fire Boat (Late Imperial Age, only available to some later dynasties).
Now, there is one big problem with Chinese (and other high-productivity neighbours) Fire Boats, they were much cheaper than any boat with gunpowder would be. China was agriculturally rich enough to produce enough oil to douse the straw bales with as an accelerant, and later to use petroleum for the task. This wealth might not be quite true for, say, Japan, since for a lot of the IJA during the Second Sino-Japanese War, the first time they ate chicken was when they stole one from Chinese peasants, that’s how strapped Japan was for resources like edible oils.
The result? Area denial weapon that can be mostly mitigated by good micro, but is cheap enough, and also more resilient as it’s less volatile to being hit than gunpowder bunkers would be on a demo ship. What I have looks like so:
Demolition Raft (Feudal): 70W/50G/45 seconds, 45 HP, 90 melee +180 vs Building, radius 2.5 (radial fade), 0/2 armor +1 ship armor, speed 1.5 (was 1.6).
Light Fire Boat (轻火船): 70W/10G/30 seconds, 70 HP, 10 melee +40 vs Building, radius 2. +20 DoT burn (2 per 0.2 second for 10 ticks) on all affected targets (who have been lit on fire, borrow the fire model from damaged warships in AOE1:DE or Return of Rome, big fire for bigger targets, small fire for ground units), fire field radius 2, dealing 1 damage per tile per 0.5 seconds for 4 seconds (most ships occupy about 4 tiles for 32 damage if they don’t move out of the fire field). 0/3 armor +1 ship armor, speed 1.5.
Demolition Ship (Castle): 70W/50G/31 seconds, 60 HP, 110 melee +220 vs Building, radius 3 (radial fade), 0/3 armor +3 ship armor, speed 1.6.
Fire Boat (火船): 70W/10G/28 seconds, 80 HP, 15 melee +50 vs Building, radius 3. Same +20 DoT burn on affected targets within radius 3, same fire field effect but radius 3. 0/4 armor +2 ship armor, speed 1.55.
Heavy Demolition Ship (Imperial): 70W/50G/31 seconds, 70 HP, 140 melee +280 vs Building, radius 3.5 (radial fade), 0/5 armor +5 ship armor, speed 1.6.
Heavy Fire Boat (重火船): 70W/10G/25 seconds, 90 HP, 20 melee +60 vs Building, radius 4. Same +20 DoT burn on affected targets, fire field radius 4. 0/5 armor +3 ship armor, speed 1.6.
Thunderous Fire Boat (霹雳火船): 70W/10G/25 seconds, same HP/armor/speed, 60 melee +60 vs Building, radius 5. +30 DoT burn on affected targets, fire field radius 5. Though this model includes gunpowder charges within the hull to scatter the burning oiled straw bales, Chinese gunpowder production during the Imjin War for example was quantified in units of “10,000 catties” when Japanese production was counting catties, so it doesn’t cost any more after economies of scale. Unfortunately, durability and speed could not be increased further.
Elite/Imperial Skirmisher Substitute: Repeating Crossbow 连弩手
I need to make something clear here: I don’t grasp how giving a villager a shield and javelin LOWERS HIS HEALTH from 40 to 35 for Skirmisher line. It’s completely ridiculous. You won’t see me making sub-40 HP military units often.
Castle/Imperial Age trash unit meant for defending positions (hope the garrison arrows calculation can be updated to include average DPM calculation) and damaging enemy formations, as this device may be safely fired while mostly hidden behind a shield, even safer than throwing javelins which requires larger bodily motions. Whenever mass-production of these machines is possible, they are greatly preferred over other skirmishing tactics. This unit line will not benefit from Bracer as that is not a relevant technology to them, but they do get +1 from Herbal Medicine for poisons, and +1 from Chemistry for augmenting said poisons. In other words, a more generalist skirmisher, with a range penalty.
Elite Skirmisher: 25F/35W/22 seconds, 35 HP, 3 pierce, +4 Archer/Spearman, +2 Cav Archer, reload 3, range 5, 90% base accuracy, 0/4 armor, 0.96 speed.
Conscripted Repeater 临征连弩手: upgraded from Skirmisher, 40 HP (I don’t understand why a villager with shield has less HP than one without), each arrow 3 pierce, +1 Archer, +1 Cav Archer, interval 0.2 seconds within burst of 2 (representing 6 shots in real life), then 3.8 second reload (total 4 seconds), range 4, 60% base accuracy, -1/3 armor (yes, that’s -1 base melee armor you see there), 0.98 speed. Does not get benefit from Thumb Ring, but gets +1 damage from Herbal Medicine instead (i.e. poison). The reason we gave this conscript a shield is to embolden him a bit so he doesn’t soil himself and try to desert at the first sign of battle, which could start a rout even if we cut him down for it.
Imperial Skirmisher: 25F/35W/22 seconds, 35 HP, 4 pierce, +5 Archer, +4 Spearman, +3 Cav Archer, reload 3, range 5, 95% base accuracy, 0/5 armor, 0.96 speed.
Regular Repeater 正兵连弩手: Same costs, 40 HP, each arrow 3 pierce, +1 Archer, +1 Cav Archer, interval 0.15 seconds within burst of 3 (representing 10 in real life), then 3.7 second reload (total 4 seconds). Range 5, 60% base accuracy (better at same range though), 0/3 armor, 0.98 speed. Does not benefit from Thumb Ring or Bracer, but instead gets its +1 damage from Herbal Medicine and another +1 from Chemistry. Please envision the flaming arrow as representing poison and caustic substances.
These are hard-countered by cavalry, and should lose to longer-ranged javelin troops, but perform much better than regular skirmishers against infantry, and will absolutely mow down unarmored targets. When massed they can easily kill siege engines (idea is to mow down the crew and then set the machine on fire).
Garrisoned towers need be scaled of course, as nominal DPM can be pretty damn high. When playing against a repeater-replaces-skirmisher civ, keeping up armor upgrades (especially on infantry) is key, or the percent increase in DPM will KILL…
Heavy Scorpion Replacement: Repeating Crossbow Wagon 连驽车
This is an Imperial Age Heavy Scorpion upgrade, the field artillery counterpart to Heavy Scorpions in the Sinosphere. I do have an important question though: Why does Scorpion line not get range increase from Fletching (fin stabilization), Bodkin Arrow (corresponding to changing arrowhead shape for more penetration and flight range) or Ballistics (ranged sieve in general should benefit from this tech)?
Heavy Scorpion: 75W/75G/30 seconds, 60 HP, 0/14 melee/pierce attack +10 Elephant, +4 Building, +2 Ram, +2 infantry, reload 3.6, 0.22 attack delay, range 2-7 (max 8, 9 for Khmer), 1/8 armor, 0.65 speed, pass-through damage.
Repeating Crossbow Wagon: Same cost, 60 HP, 0/10 melee/pierce attack, +5 Elephant, +2 Cavalry, +1 infantry, reload 2, range 0-6 (projectile can fly further) 1/3 armor and takes Siege, Archer and Cavalry bonus damage, because this is a wagon pulled by a not-so-armored horse (however, it does receive Barding upgrades), 0.8 speed, pass-through damage.
Onager line replacement: Traction Trebuchet Wagons 投石车
Probably just a reskin, called Stone Thrower, Heavy Stone Thrower and Reinforced Stone Thrower. If we decide to not reskin them, there can even be a joke in the flavour text “Sorry, milord, we couldn’t find any suitable tokens in the bin, so since they do about the same thing we’ll have to make do with using these torsion engine tokens we had lying around to model the encounter”. However, if modelled separately, these should be simpler and cheaper to construct than torsion engines (no expensive sinews), but with slower rate of fire and shorter range, which must be remedied (and powered up further) by garrisoning infantry or villagers to operate it faster, because it’s manpower-reliant.
Bombard Cannon Substitute: Double/Triple Bed Crossbow 双弓/三弓床弩
These are the earlier counterpart to Bombard Cannons, available only in Imperial Age. We have a Persian account that the heaviest ones could fire incendiary projectiles over 1000 meters during the Mongol conquest, and Song dynasty reports of firing up to 1500 m in bombardment roles. By the Yuan and Ming, these would be supplanted by bombard cannons, but Southern Song is debatable.
I estimate about 150 wood, 75 gold per unit.
Double Bed Crossbow: 60 HP, 0/40 melee/pierce attack, +60 Elephant and Building, -30 vs Stone Defences Reload 5, range 0-10, attack delay 0.5 seconds (has a longer setup/aiming time before firing than most siege units), 0/3 armor, speed 0.7. Can attack ground.
Triple Bed Crossbow (Upgrade available in Tang/Song dynasties): 60 HP, 10/50 melee/pierce attack, +80 vs Elephant and Building, -20 vs Stone Defences. Reload 5, range 0-12, attack delay 0.6 seconds, 0/3 armor, speed 0.7. Can attack ground. Linear splash within 1 tile before and after target (i.e. units struck). May be upgraded to carry explosive payloads to fit historical accounts?
Trebuchet Replacement: Heavy Traction Trebuchet
Probably should brace/deploy to fire (but would be very quick to deploy and undeploy compared to Counterweight Trebuchets, so maybe just a long firing delay after each change in orientation, with a certain firing arc), initially weaker and shorter-ranged, but higher rate of fire than later Counterweight Trebuchets. Built at Castle. I’m not a fan of the 3K implementation of this. I suggest garrisoning should increase range and rate of fire.
Buildable Terrain: Chinese City Wall
See separate thread here on this form of buildable terrain:
The Farming Question
There is, however, a critical problem for balancing. Medieval European yield per seed was usually around 4 (under 3 for some grains such as oats) due to inefficiency—understandable as these were largely descended from hunter-gatherer nomads who had only settled down to farm for a few centuries or less. This usually converts to 500-900 litres per hectare, assuming wheat with its bulk density of 0.8 g/mL, that’s 400-720 kg harvested per hectare.
This is reasonably consistent with basic farms costing 60 wood and yielding 175 food. Though the max 550 is another story.
Chinese agriculture in the Han dynasty was mainly millet, with some rice in the south and wheat in the north. Recorded average yields convert to around 130 kg per modern mu, irrigated lands reach about 170 modern kg/mu, and the yield that could reasonably be expected of good-quality irrigated land was 200 kg/mu, with a few particularly renowned record-breaking rich soils sometimes doubling that.
The modern mu is defined as 1/15 of a hectare.
That means about 2000 kg per hectare, due to more advanced plows, seed drills, fertilizer preparation and use, and irrigation systems, stepping up to 2500 or 3000 with irrigation and notable land quality.
Scholars also observed roughly 50% increased grain yields per area in the Tang dynasty compared to Han, so it quickly gets MORE deranged.
I’ve heard claims of around 10 yield-to-seed earlier on progressing to about 20 by the later dynasties (for traditional cereal grains, not counting potato, sweet potato or corn). These are reasonably consistent with the yield differences per hectare. However, Chinese farming tended to be more intensively cared for than European, so realistically food gained per labour hour would not be so vastly different.
How, then, can we reconcile the historical 3-5x yield difference per unit area on Chinese vs European farms? For about 2.25x yield per unit area, it’s pretty easy to represent… by compact 2x2 farms. We know this is doable because the online custom civ creator thing allows it. Now, assuming the more care costs more maintenance, the cost would not be proportionately smaller (i.e. under half that of a European farm).
And the rest of the difference? Medieval peasants typically paid 40-50% taxes, while Chinese agricultural taxes were usually in single-digit percentages under Han Chinese administrations whenever land was private property. Only when land was communal and granted would agricultural taxes be set above 10% under Han Chinese governance, and accumulation of surcharges was a common sign of dynastic decline.
Oh, that’s a problem. 3-5x the yield per farm area (growing to 5-8x by the Tang dynasty), but also about 1/5 or less in taxation means not exactly order-of-magnitude differences in government gain per area (accounting for feudal lords taking their own cuts and the church tithe in Europe). Wartime commandeering of resources can then be…. Whatever we like. Very well, we shall only use 2x2 farms for Southern Song and Ming dynasties, after the spread of Champa Rice which could be harvested twice a year in the south.
On a related topic, because of trophic levels in food webs, pastoralism is vastly less efficient than farming, and should be used only when you can’t farm. Pastures are even weaker than farms to being raided, because you can just rush in, kill the animals, and escape. To make them suitably difficult to guard by towers, they should realistically be at least about 8x8, matching a cathedral, with a central 2x2 hut representing a campsite. Also, pastoralists almost never kill their animals which are capital assets, surviving mostly on dairy products. So realistically, pastures should be a place where animals are garrisoned for slow food income via milk and eggs, and then slaughtered at the end of their life span for meat.