AGEOD Forums

I assume these events will be special events as well but do they have any relation to how much Opium you grow in those Indian fields? Can you in fact use this warfare against other nations if you wish?

The Boxing rebellion is quite interesting in the light of the Japan discussion.

Look at the coalition.
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
France France
United States
Germany
Austria-Hungary
Italy

So basically ALL players vs China , wonder how the game handles that?

Actually this must be a very unusual alliance in history, even counting modern UN operations.

I also find it somewhat amusing with the whole world fighting a bunch of basically Kung-Fu fighters, I wonder why not more cheesy Hong Kong movies were made about this conflict?

marcusjm wrote:
I also find it somewhat amusing with the whole world fighting a bunch of basically Kung-Fu fighters, I wonder why not more cheesy Hong Kong movies were made about this conflict?

Because it's not as romantic when they bring their fists to a gun fight?

NefariousKoel wrote:Because it's not as romantic when they bring their fists to a gun fight?

Well if you have the bullet stopping hands of Bruce Lee perhaps .

marcusjm wrote:I assume these events will be special events as well but do they have any relation to how much Opium you grow in those Indian fields? Can you in fact use this warfare against other nations if you wish?

The Boxing rebellion is quite interesting in the light of the Japan discussion.

Look at the coalition.
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
France France
United States
Germany
Austria-Hungary
Italy

So basically ALL players vs China , wonder how the game handles that?

Actually this must be a very unusual alliance in history, even counting modern UN operations.

I also find it somewhat amusing with the whole world fighting a bunch of basically Kung-Fu fighters, I wonder why not more cheesy Hong Kong movies were made about this conflict?

A good move is Nicholas Ray's "55 Days at Peking"

At the moment, I have the Boxer rebellion event, but I am still wondering how to handle the 'coalition' reaction...will need to see that with POcus

I remember that movie. Hopefully a more balanced movie ca nbe made. The future though.

PhilThib wrote:A good move is Nicholas Ray's "55 Days at Peking"

At the moment, I have the Boxer rebellion event, but I am still wondering how to handle the 'coalition' reaction...will need to see that with POcus

How to represent the Boxer rebellion and the 8 power intervention?
This won’t be easy, because
-semi- and hypo-colonized China feel victim to nearly all Great Powers at once, thus creating a multinational colonial situation (multinational treaty ports like Shanghai, the internationalization of Chinese custom service, different foreign rail concessions)
-ambivalent acting on the “Chinese” side (a ambivalent unambiguous Manchu court, totally mixed up policies by the regional Chinese-Manchurian viceroys, ranging from friendly neutrality to resistance against the foreign powers, and heated local-level quarrels those most numeruous victims and targets were not the foreigners but Chinese Christians)


The Boxer rebellion itself could be modelled with the following triggers:
1. Surely, a certain level of foreign CP in Chinese costal and major river provinces
2. The prominent escalating impact of colonial decision types “missionaries” and “rail concessions”
3. The escalating impact of foreign protectorates or colonies nearby
4. A possible positive or negative impact of economical structures owned by different Great Powers in one Chinese province
5. The possibility of being only a regional (North-Eastern as opposite to a “national” all Chinese) “rebellion”

The Eight Power intervention could be modelled around the following triggers, rules and results:
6. A rebellion in the Tianjin province, blocking the costal access to the capital Peking with its foreigen legation quarter
7. A rebellion in Peking itself (historically then quite a low CP there as Peking until 1901 legally was not an open city to foreigners, apart from the legations)
8. Those rebellions should be by unorganized warbands, only fighting foreign units or structures
9. Arguably most or even all regular Chinese units should only defend and not attack against the coalition troops.
10. Every Great Power military unit stationed from the beginning of the rebellion +2-3 years in the contested North Chinese provinces, esp in Peking/Baoding (the latter should be named Zhili “direct ruled [by the court]”, Baoding is the name of the provincial capital), generates an decreasing ammount of prestige, possibly with special modifiers for Japan.
11. For the peace treaty huge reperations (982 Mio Taels to be payed over 39 years, distributed by size of foreign national expedition troops), the internationalization of Tianjin and Peking/Baoding province (garrison rights for every coalition member).
12. The chance of increased CP resulting in protectorates by coalition nations, arguably, esp. for Russia in Manchuria.
13. The possibility for the coalition nations, esp. The USA, to transform Boxer reperations into colonial schools, raising CP or improving diplomatic relations with China (Boxer indemnity), its part of the game anyway.
14. A considerably devastated and de-populated North China
15. When China itself will be playable: a big impetus for reforms, declining moral.

Regards

If China was playable I'd suggest giving the player a choice between supporting the boxers and declaring war on the western powers as well as Japan, or trying to suppress the boxer movement. The latter should lead to destabilization, and possibly civil war, since the boxers were initially as opposed to the Qing as to westeners in general, and it can be argued that the reason why Cixi chose to effectively declare war on the entire world, rather than deal with the boxers, was the fear of a repetition of the mid-century rebellions.

Flop wrote:If China was playable I'd suggest giving the player a choice between supporting the boxers and declaring war on the western powers as well as Japan, or trying to suppress the boxer movement. The latter should lead to destabilization, and possibly civil war, since the boxers were initially as opposed to the Qing as to westeners in general, and it can be argued that the reason why Cixi chose to effectively declare war on the entire world, rather than deal with the boxers, was the fear of a repetition of the mid-century rebellions.

Well, parts of the Han-Chinese imperial troops (like those under Nie Shicheng) did both, fighting the Boxer and fighting the 8 powers. Support'em or kill'em weren't the only options. Very ... Chinese.

Practically the whole of South China informally was neutral in the "Boxer rebellion". Same with the the first Sino-Japanese war 1894/95. This one more aptly should be named North-Chinese-Japanese war. And all those regionalism only grew worse after 1911.

You'd need a whole bunch of restrictions to model being Ruler of China...

Excellent lines and suggestion....the only thing I don't master really right now is how to create/allow multinational coalition forces.... I need to think it over a bit more...

PhilThib wrote:Excellent lines and suggestion....the only thing I don't master really right now is how to create/allow multinational coalition forces.... I need to think it over a bit more...

You’d need multinational coalition forces for WW1 as well, won’t you?

Ideas:
-special combat or HQ unit types and, for Gaselee and Waldersee, leader attributes coalition-capable (partly, like in ROP), IRL, those were the nominal command structures.
-model the anti-boxer forces as co-existing non-allied stacks, IRL those were the de facto command structures: ad hoc multinational punitive expeditions, multinational urban occupation administrations, but still very much national units.
-modify the crisis creator engine for some nice coalition poker: Prestige, expedition force size, and some gambling determine the coalition or expedition leader.

Apart from the Boxer issue, I’m not sure how internationalized provinces, like those of Peking, Tianjin and Shanghai will be represented, each with CP, units, and installations of several Great Powers. Plus in China, Custom Service very much was an multinational hybrid and rail concessions were contested and realized in several ways, on a chinese, great power and international level.

As for the post 1911 situation: Giving the international recognition, and, arguably, the main access to foreign loans, only to the Chinese faction controlling Peking would be a good idea.

Regards

PhilThib wrote:Excellent lines and suggestion....the only thing I don't master really right now is how to create/allow multinational coalition forces.... I need to think it over a bit more...

I agree wosung - a major power should be designated "Coalition Leader" and will lead all the troops of the coalition - whatever their nationality. Those troops will have the "Chinese Intervention Force" trait, which would make it auto-dissolve if it engages a non-Chinese force or enter in a land region not in China.

Who lead the coalition could be played with cards, like the international crisis. Basically, you are trying to have YOUR leader be the head of the coalition, but at the same time you need the expedition, and you will lose prestige (and the Boxer will gain strengths) as long as the expedition is not sent. The more you (individually) obstruct over who should lead, the more prestige you lose, so nations who really cannot claim to lead the coalition (say : Italy) will probably stop haggling very quickly, while those who think they have a chance will carry on. More prestige is lost if the expedition is done without you.
This actually gives China a chance to survive the rebellion - if the Great Powers cannot agree on who to send for instance, and if some of them actually decide not to participate.

To send troops to the coalition, units should be put in your country main port, maybe under the command of a specific leader called "Tonkin Expedition Group", and then an option is selected somehow "Send the force" This would increase of course your chance to lead the expedition. All those troops will disappear when the coalition starts, and the leader of the expedition will find the exact same number under his command. The opposite is true at the end of the expedition.

wosung wrote:Well, parts of the Han-Chinese imperial troops (like those under Nie Shicheng) did both, fighting the Boxer and fighting the 8 powers. Support'em or kill'em weren't the only options. Very ... Chinese.

Practically the whole of South China informally was neutral in the "Boxer rebellion". Same with the the first Sino-Japanese war 1894/95. This one more aptly should be named North-Chinese-Japanese war. And all those regionalism only grew worse after 1911.

You'd need a whole bunch of restrictions to model being Ruler of China...

Sure, neither Cixi nor anyone else, really, liked the boxers, and they were certainly put to death by the tens of thousands after the war, by both imperial and foreign troops. It seems that the government was actually trying to play both sides, or at least trying to appear neutral, almost up to the point where it declared war.

And yeah, some governors of southern China actually sent telegrams to the western powers, promising to protect foreign nationals if only they would stay out of their provines militarily. Zhang Zhidong actually refused to send his crack troops (who were by some reports as good as any western troops, although lacking in leadership) to Beijing. Even Yuan Shikai, who was much closer to Beijing, withheld his best troops to avoid their destruction.

I don't really know how to model this increasing independence of regional governors, but one point that a lot of scholars have made, is that the Taiping rebellion and the resulting regionally funded and controlled militias were of great importance in that development.

Flop wrote:I don't really know how to model this increasing independence of regional governors, but one point that a lot of scholars have made, is that the Taiping rebellion and the resulting regionally funded and controlled militias were of great importance in that development.

What about considerably cutting down the player's, aka central government's power, by eventually denying him the economical, political and military access to some provinces. Let's say every Central or South Chinese province would have a certain probability of being unaccessible for China's or in later PON for Chinese player's actions. It would only minimally contribute to central budget, ressources, etc?
Han-Chinese leaders and (Han-Chinese) Green Banner troops ... at best ... would get locked.

So, if/when in PON China will be a playable country thus region and ethnicity could play a role. You as a player just would play the central governement, no matter if Manchurian, Northern Warlord or later on Southern "Constitutional" forces. You'll never be sure how much of China will support your course of action. Then, if you totally f** up representing one of those central factions you'd be struggling with another one, arguably less powerful in rising chaos. Deal with it.

Regards

PhilThib wrote:A good move is Nicholas Ray's "55 Days at Peking"

At the moment, I have the Boxer rebellion event, but I am still wondering how to handle the 'coalition' reaction...will need to see that with POcus

The coalition sent only small forces. In total, probably less than 100,000 men,probably a lot less. Perhaps they could send only brigade or expedition size forces, because that was what they did in reality?

This thread has forgotten the second event in the title .

How to handle the Opium War? The event that started the humiliation of the Middle Empire in the first place.

Will it somehow be tied to the Opium fields you have in India?

Btw. I realise that the first Opium war is outside the scope but not the second of course.

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

Then we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
Makes US Civil War seem like a stroll in the Park. Actually it makes most wars pale in comparison. 20 million dead is an almost unimaginable number when you think of it. No wonder China has other considerations than Empire building this period.

Come to think of it. The Taiping Rebellion almost deserves its own battle scenario. This was after all one of the bloodiest conflicts in history.
wosung : Do you think there is enough background information for a battle scenario on this war?

wosung wrote:How to represent the Boxer rebellion and the 8 power intervention?
This won’t be easy, because
-semi- and hypo-colonized China feel victim to nearly all Great Powers at once, thus creating a multinational colonial situation (multinational treaty ports like Shanghai, the internationalization of Chinese custom service, different foreign rail concessions)
-ambivalent acting on the “Chinese” side (a ambivalent unambiguous Manchu court, totally mixed up policies by the regional Chinese-Manchurian viceroys, ranging from friendly neutrality to resistance against the foreign powers, and heated local-level quarrels those most numeruous victims and targets were not the foreigners but Chinese Christians)


The Boxer rebellion itself could be modelled with the following triggers:
1. Surely, a certain level of foreign CP in Chinese costal and major river provinces
2. The prominent escalating impact of colonial decision types “missionaries” and “rail concessions”
3. The escalating impact of foreign protectorates or colonies nearby
4. A possible positive or negative impact of economical structures owned by different Great Powers in one Chinese province
5. The possibility of being only a regional (North-Eastern as opposite to a “national” all Chinese) “rebellion”

The Eight Power intervention could be modelled around the following triggers, rules and results:
6. A rebellion in the Tianjin province, blocking the costal access to the capital Peking with its foreigen legation quarter
7. A rebellion in Peking itself (historically then quite a low CP there as Peking until 1901 legally was not an open city to foreigners, apart from the legations)
8. Those rebellions should be by unorganized warbands, only fighting foreign units or structures
9. Arguably most or even all regular Chinese units should only defend and not attack against the coalition troops.
10. Every Great Power military unit stationed from the beginning of the rebellion +2-3 years in the contested North Chinese provinces, esp in Peking/Baoding (the latter should be named Zhili “direct ruled [by the court]”, Baoding is the name of the provincial capital), generates an decreasing ammount of prestige, possibly with special modifiers for Japan.
11. For the peace treaty huge reperations (982 Mio Taels to be payed over 39 years, distributed by size of foreign national expedition troops), the internationalization of Tianjin and Peking/Baoding province (garrison rights for every coalition member).
12. The chance of increased CP resulting in protectorates by coalition nations, arguably, esp. for Russia in Manchuria.
13. The possibility for the coalition nations, esp. The USA, to transform Boxer reperations into colonial schools, raising CP or improving diplomatic relations with China (Boxer indemnity), its part of the game anyway.
14. A considerably devastated and de-populated North China
15. When China itself will be playable: a big impetus for reforms, declining moral.

Regards

Dear wosung, thanks for this explaination...Nowadays not many german people have anything learned about this conflict and how it influenced China in the following decades. One of it consequences was the success of chinese communism which has and had a very nationalist reason...The Chinese communists were the first since about 200 years which were and are able to regain on power and status for China equivalent to other international especially former colonial powers.

The only case we germans remember is the socalled famous "Hun speech" by Emperor William II. in front of the german expedition forces shortly before they were sent to China.

But enough for offtopic.

To create a special short scenario or campaign either related to the great Taiping Rebellion or the Boxer Rebellion there would be necessary to get more information as I would mention. I think that this would be easy for the OOBs related to the socalled 8 powers but not necessarily for the Chinese OOBs as I think thus it would be a kind of problem to recreate a good historical scenario.

I personally would be happy if it will be possible to create good researched scenarios or campaigns about that era which are very important to their specific region but somehow forgotten especially in Europe or the US.

I remember a little discussion about a decade ago shortly after 9/11 as I explained some collegues how European powers like the British and the Russians have still battled and struggled for influence in Afghanistan in the 19th century and how later on during WWII the Reich tried to get influence in the Middle East not only in Egypt or Iraq but also in Persia and Afghanistan and how nowadays Middle East conflicts has their reasons in the WWII era and even in some conflicts a century ago. And how even the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan was a recreation of the old "Great Game" to get influence in the Middle East and in the Indian subcontinental region.

Thus I am very interested to get more information about the 19th century and possible whatif scenarios. I hope that it will be possible not only to somehow recreate history but also to try an alternative approach in some frames ingame.

Thus I am very excited to see possible new campaigns about nearly forgotten conflicts from that era...

greetings

Hohenlohe

marcusjm wrote:Then we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
Makes US Civil War seem like a stroll in the Park. Actually it makes most wars pale in comparison. 20 million dead is an almost unimaginable number when you think of it. No wonder China has other considerations than Empire building this period.

Come to think of it. The Taiping Rebellion almost deserves its own battle scenario. This was after all one of the bloodiest conflicts in history.
wosung : Do you think there is enough background information for a battle scenario on this war?

There should be enough background information to make a battle scenario, but it's a very complex war. There were at least 7 other rebellions concurrently with the Taiping rebellion. While the death toll of the Taiping rebellion is usually estimated at 20-30 million, the combined death toll of the concurrent muslim rebellions has been estimated at about 30 million, although that seems less certain. Then there's the Nian rebellion, which took place in the north, although the Nian did occassionally fight alongside the Tapings. And then, of course, there's the Arrow War, which also overlapped with the rebellion.

Still, it would be a very interesting scenario. Although I'd rather see China added as a playable nation, in which case that scenario would take place during the first 20-30 years.

Speaking of forgotten. Are these conflicts even mentioned in PRC education? I have the picture that anything pre 47 is notvreally talked about. Still it seem hard to hide such epic event entirely.

Hohenlohe wrote:I remember a little discussion about a decade ago shortly after 9/11 as I explained some collegues how European powers like the British and the Russians have still battled and struggled for influence in Afghanistan in the 19th century and how later on during WWII the Reich tried to get influence in the Middle East not only in Egypt or Iraq but also in Persia and Afghanistan and how nowadays Middle East conflicts has their reasons in the WWII era and even in some conflicts a century ago.

For further addition to the out of topic :

AFAIK also as written here, especially Egypt and Iraq were indeed effected by ideological system of Reich even at the earlier times. From my knowledge and staying there for a while especially Egyptians(from top to bottom) tell King Faruk of Egypt as a very corrupt ruler. After Egyptian revolution, Nasser(come to power from military coup) tried to nationalize/save some "assets" of Egypt from foreign investors or colonial powers. Ideological system of Egypt were indeed national-socialism during 60's. During his reign he wanted to be neutral to both commnunists and the west, try to from balance between powers and he was very respected by his people and by other nations.

Although Egypt is somehow effected from ww2 politics , I think main reasons for "todays conflicts in middle east,including parts of balkans" goes way back to Ottoman times and related to cold war/power struggle and such etc.. of course. And very much related to USA aid to Egypt not to be "belligerent" to the "neighbour" even the outcome of this aid were supporting the corruption of the man ruling for 30 years.

I would love to see a battle scenario for the Taiping Rebellion. My impression is that it would be fairly easy, with a bit of digging, to create OOBs for Qing and Taiping forces (by the standards of rebels, they were well-organized militarily and kept fairly detailed records) - I imagine it would be slightly harder for the Nien Rebellion, a lot harder to accurately represent the other concurrent rebellions, but it's certainly doable.

Speaking of forgotten. Are these conflicts even mentioned in PRC education? I have the picture that anything pre 47 is not really talked about. Still it seem hard to hide such epic event entirely.

My wife would know a lot more about this than I, being a scholarly Sinophile, but from what I gather Chinese history cirriculum places a lot of emphasis on these conflicts. They may be presented in a way that highlights their successes rather than their failures, but I imagine it's no more skewed than, say, highly selective Japanese textbooks on WW2 (indeed, China and Korea got some beef with these). But my understanding is that Chinese history cirriculum is designed to inculcate a strong sense of victimization by foreign imperialists, at least at the high school level. At the university level it's a different story - since the education reforms of the mid 1990s, China's universities have opened up quite a bit, and they have some very good universities, and some... not so good. But I'm not really qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject.

Anyway, being an avid student not only of history but of historiography (i.e. methods and philosophy of history), I'd say it's no different than anywhere else - public education tends to focus on local and national as opposed to international history, in a way that supports local and national agendas and promotes a loyal citizenry. For example, try asking Americans and Canadians who won the War of 1812, and you'll see what I mean; for that matter, try asking a British person the same question and see if they care. My own feeling, by the way, is that the US, UK and Canada can all claim to have won that war by taking a giant collective dump on the heads of First Nations' peoples.