|
|
Post by Leopold the Great on Nov 26, 2016 15:03:07 GMT
I don't think the Han was that powerful in real life definitely not equal with the Romans
|
|
lan
First Lieutenant
Posts: 17 
|
Post by lan on Nov 26, 2016 16:20:33 GMT
I think its because Easytech is Chinese Cmpany. Its similar to op lan in Ew4 napolean
|
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Nov 26, 2016 16:20:45 GMT
I don't think the Han was that powerful in real life definitely not equal with the Romans The Han was actually really powerful back in the classical era... according to EasyTech's PE teacher, that is. Well, you can't really expect the game to be historically accurate since (I believe that) Easytech is more concerned about the game play than historical accuracy, and they just want to put many nations with a lot of historical figures together in one map so that we can enjoy seeing them fight each other. Imagine if they made the game historically correct then you would see a lot of blank space in classical era. |
|
|
|
Post by wintercastle on Nov 27, 2016 3:37:26 GMT
Han had a really large landmass back in those days and was very powerful in that area, especially in terms of economic wealth and power. However, since there aren't many countries in that era able to rival Han in the Asian area compare to Rome , they didn't develop as sophisticated a military force. The Romans had a built up a very well trained professional army and strategy after years of war against Gaul, Greece, Persian, Carthilage and Egypt forces. Han had a relatively developed army after years of Chinese infighting but should not compare to Roman forces. However, the manpower, production ability, economic and social development are quite a lot more better than their Roman counterparts. They had quite developed cultural and philosophical thinking too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Nov 27, 2016 5:21:19 GMT
I don't think the Han was that powerful in real life definitely not equal with the Romans I wonder which country were the first to wrought iron? I wonder where stirrups were invented? Wonder where crossbows were invented? Yes, all in China. Han was certainly the most powerful in asia at the time. I think most people would agree asian civilisation was way ahead of the west at the time. (Not trying to be racist or anything.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 17:39:56 GMT
I think its because Easytech is Chinese Cmpany. Its similar to op lan in Ew4 napolean WC3 communist China was op during 1950 and 60 but it's the way they make the game. They want to make their country OP |
|
|
|
Post by Der Kaiserreich on Dec 2, 2016 11:05:06 GMT
Actually, Chinese were very powerful. If they wanted to conquer the world like Romans they could.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Dec 12, 2016 19:41:26 GMT
I don't think the Han was that powerful in real life definitely not equal with the Romans I wonder which country were the first to wrought iron? I wonder where stirrups were invented? Wonder where crossbows were invented? Yes, all in China. Han was certainly the most powerful in asia at the time. I think most people would agree asian civilisation was way ahead of the west at the time. (Not trying to be racist or anything.) Asia is known for being well ahead, but note that was specifically after Rome fell. (The famous dark ages) The Romans were also good with Metal. It was not their main force but they certainly knew Cavalry. And the Romans were also masters of the specialist crossbow, Inventing a repeating crossbow shortly before it became popular in China (though the chinese started first, and used a one-man version while the roman version was a team weapon with regular but small usage) also note that the Romans invented stuff too, with the famous roman concrete for example. I found no evidence on Wikipedia that the chinese used it, simply stating that concrete fell out of usage after Rome for Hundreds of years. Therefore I am not convinced Rome was weaker, plus its infrastructure was famous and possibly better, along with logistics. HOWEVER, Han China was strongest in Asia, and since Easy Tech makes every country bloodthirsty, no doubt it would expand and eventually fight whoever owns Europe. Thus despite my refusal to let this slide, I do think China deserves its power level in the classical conquest. BTW, during the Roman Empire, this guy wrote a list of the strongest countries, including Ethiopia, Rome, and I think Persia and China. So the ancients knew that both were Badass  (Note that I can't find a quote for the 4 powers list, so take with a grain of salt) |
|
|
|
Post by Der Kaiserreich on Dec 14, 2016 12:44:13 GMT
I wonder which country were the first to wrought iron? I wonder where stirrups were invented? Wonder where crossbows were invented? Yes, all in China. Han was certainly the most powerful in asia at the time. I think most people would agree asian civilisation was way ahead of the west at the time. (Not trying to be racist or anything.) Asia is known for being well ahead, but note that was specifically after Rome fell. (The famous dark ages) The Romans were also good with Metal. It was not their main force but they certainly knew Cavalry. And the Romans were also masters of the specialist crossbow, Inventing a repeating crossbow shortly before it became popular in China (though the chinese started first, and used a one-man version while the roman version was a team weapon with regular but small usage) also note that the Romans invented stuff too, with the famous roman concrete for example. I found no evidence on Wikipedia that the chinese used it, simply stating that concrete fell out of usage after Rome for Hundreds of years. Therefore I am not convinced Rome was weaker, plus its infrastructure was famous and possibly better, along with logistics. HOWEVER, Han China was strongest in Asia, and since Easy Tech makes every country bloodthirsty, no doubt it would expand and eventually fight whoever owns Europe. Thus despite my refusal to let this slide, I do think China deserves its power level in the classical conquest. BTW, during the Roman Empire, this guy wrote a list of the strongest countries, including Ethiopia, Rome, and I think Persia and China. So the ancients knew that both were Badass (Note that I can't find a quote for the 4 powers list, so take with a grain of salt) For the Roman crossbows, don't you mean Ballista and Scorpions? Well one thing for sure, if Han China and Romans had a war (and they had no one else they needed to fight), it would result in heavy losses on both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Dec 14, 2016 18:31:03 GMT
Der Kaiserreich , you refer to the Scorpio, right? Both used ballistas, while the Scorpio was a snipers early crossbow. I said team but it was a one man Weapon. It was standardized as 60 per legion, which speaks to the prowess of the romans if you ask me. Its firing rate was the same as a American civil war rifle, with similar range. While a legion would only fire 240 bolts per minute, they could go through Shields. Contrast that with the Chinese repeating crossbow, which was used as a mass infantry weapon but had weaker power and range. I am more and more convinced that the romans have the upper hand, but of course logistics, even Roman quality, would not support a war with China. Or vice versa. You are correct though, there is a very good chance the Chinese would massacre the Romans. But that's what the romans did at their height. Lose battles, and adapt. Also Yi Sun Sin , I thank you for saying you had no racism against Europeans, which is more than some would. I also mean no offence with my counterarguement, even though I doubt the Chinese would blow Rome out of the water. Neighbouring barbarians, on the other hand.... BTW, the real issue is that the Mongols show up in medieval era, yet the Huns are still there, and bigger than them, the mongols just taking part of their region. Come on, the mongols were badass, give most or all of the Huns to them (since Huns didnt outlive the romans which aren't in medieval) and if the mongols kick my butt I will thank you for being realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by wintercastle on Dec 15, 2016 15:44:30 GMT
I think we should emphasize on the fact that we are discussing a war between them, not a single battle. With that in mind, I'm not too concerned with a particular aspect like crossbowmen. In general, I don't think there is any doubt Romans would have won battles against the Chinese at the height of their power. China at that time had mostly a structured society and large army but not a structured and professional army like the Roman's legions.
However, the economic capabilities of China was impressive and could probably support a war better than Romans, especially in the long term. We should also factor in the fact that Chinese battles relied a lot on castle usage. China was scattered with castles and there would be a lot of siege battles that are drawn out which would mean economic factors are important.
Also, the Roman empire was not exactly populous. I believe their army was stretched thin and had some trouble defending all the borders. I have no idea how they could have spared an expeditionary force large enough to threaten China and even less idea how they could have defended or governed the vast population that was probably even larger than the entire Roman empire including their allies. Are they going to stretch the defending force twice as thin? On the other hand, China had a larger population and could have likely been able to field a large expeditionary army. They also seem to have more control over their conquered land.
So i'd say that Roman would have won a short war and likely defeat Chinese on the field but could not defend or colonize it. China would have a better Chance at governing and defending the land but can't defeat the Romans at the first place
|
|
|
|
Post by Der Kaiserreich on Dec 17, 2016 2:54:16 GMT
I think we should emphasize on the fact that we are discussing a war between them, not a single battle. With that in mind, I'm not too concerned with a particular aspect like crossbowmen. In general, I don't think there is any doubt Romans would have won battles against the Chinese at the height of their power. China at that time had mostly a structured society and large army but not a structured and professional army like the Roman's legions. However, the economic capabilities of China was impressive and could probably support a war better than Romans, especially in the long term. We should also factor in the fact that Chinese battles relied a lot on castle usage. China was scattered with castles and there would be a lot of siege battles that are drawn out which would mean economic factors are important. Also, the Roman empire was not exactly populous. I believe their army was stretched thin and had some trouble defending all the borders. I have no idea how they could have spared an expeditionary force large enough to threaten China and even less idea how they could have defended or governed the vast population that was probably even larger than the entire Roman empire including their allies. Are they going to stretch the defending force twice as thin? On the other hand, China had a larger population and could have likely been able to field a large expeditionary army. They also seem to have more control over their conquered land. So i'd say that Roman would have won a short war and likely defeat Chinese on the field but could not defend or colonize it. China would have a better Chance at governing and defending the land but can't defeat the Romans at the first place Like I said, a war between them would result in many deaths on both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Dec 18, 2016 19:28:49 GMT
I think we should emphasize on the fact that we are discussing a war between them, not a single battle. With that in mind, I'm not too concerned with a particular aspect like crossbowmen. In general, I don't think there is any doubt Romans would have won battles against the Chinese at the height of their power. China at that time had mostly a structured society and large army but not a structured and professional army like the Roman's legions. However, the economic capabilities of China was impressive and could probably support a war better than Romans, especially in the long term. We should also factor in the fact that Chinese battles relied a lot on castle usage. China was scattered with castles and there would be a lot of siege battles that are drawn out which would mean economic factors are important. Also, the Roman empire was not exactly populous. I believe their army was stretched thin and had some trouble defending all the borders. I have no idea how they could have spared an expeditionary force large enough to threaten China and even less idea how they could have defended or governed the vast population that was probably even larger than the entire Roman empire including their allies. Are they going to stretch the defending force twice as thin? On the other hand, China had a larger population and could have likely been able to field a large expeditionary army. They also seem to have more control over their conquered land. So i'd say that Roman would have won a short war and likely defeat Chinese on the field but could not defend or colonize it. China would have a better Chance at governing and defending the land but can't defeat the Romans at the first place True, Ive already questioned the logistics. And the Roman Empire was defeated precisely because it could not defend its borders against all the threats. However since this is a hypothetical war, and tied with EW5, we could decide that neither sides borders are in danger. However your statement that China had superior population is apparently wrong. At least according to wikipedia, in 2 AD the Han had 50 million people. Around the same year Rome has 45-60 million people. Thus it was not really outmatched, though I'm not sure about mobilization, and the empire was certainly populated compared to everyone else. Also, I don't think castles are a major problem at least in fighting, as Roman were master siege-makers, and had experience with walls and forts. Have you read about the great siege of Jerusalem in AD70? Thus I disagree, execpt for logistics. Also, at least during the fall of The Han, they had a lot of trouble holding colonies, so While you are right they are in better shape, it's not perfect (compare to the roman colonies that stayed Roman for hundreds of years) haha, so much text no one will read this. (EDIT:doesn't look so bad I guess) |
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Dec 18, 2016 20:20:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Dec 18, 2016 21:31:42 GMT
Interesting. Note at the end of his story he states " Hey, someone had to win. Might as well have been my ancestors." he makes good points for either side, and I like the descriptive story. Even if the romans were finally beaten after a battle in which they performed well, my earlier point of the Romans adapting falls into place, since the meager survivors are retreating to the far-eastern border, and new armies of equal size will be called up. Many of the commenters still believe in Rome, and I count myself with them. Interesting point that the Romans would not tolerate a defeat, and might collapse into choosing the next emperor. However, if the Chinese kept coming Easy-Tech style they would probably unite against the invaders. Or so I Think, of course. i agree with the commented concept that it might result in hundreds of years of indecisive border war, like with Persia, but that is a evolved form of the logistic argument. |
|
(Note that I can't find a quote for the 4 powers list, so take with a grain of salt)
