《文明7》中的汉朝：席德梅尔的设计与真实的汉朝相去甚远
Civ 7 Han: Firaxis' version bears zero resemblance to real life Han China.
译文简介
Firaxis 将汉朝描述为一个注重科技和“外交”的文明。
正文翻译
Civ 7 Han: Firaxis' version bears zero resemblance to real life Han China.
《文明7》中的汉朝：席德梅尔的设计与真实的汉朝相去甚远
《文明7》中的汉朝：席德梅尔的设计与真实的汉朝相去甚远
Firaxis' Han China is described as Scientific and *Diplomatic*.
In game, that's more or less how it is - with Han being built around big cities producing lots of specialists, and strong defensive capabilities with the Chu-Ko-Nu UU and the Great Wall UB. While that is I guess a part of Han China, especially Eastern Han, it doesn't at all encapsulate what made Han "its grandest".
Now let's turn our attention to Han China in real life. Following the reign of Emperor Wu of Han, diplomacy was never a serious option - other than capitulation.
Under the tenure of the Han Dynasty, China waged wars on literally every single neighbour it had, almost doubling China's territory from the Qin Dynasty. (1.7x at its maximum territorial extent) Look at this map from Wikipedia for reference, they didn't leave a *single* one of their neighbours alone.
https://preview.redd.it/b7sdj4vhimne1.png?width=1275&format=png&auto=webp&s=3073a0818d92d55097db7c504a85c002a002b39c
Their enemies/conquests included:
\\\\- Joseon (Korea)
\\\\- Nanyue, Minyue (Precursors of Vietnam)
\\\\- Dai Viet (Vietnam)
\\\\- xiongnu
\\\\- Greco Bactria
\\\\- Qiang
\\\\- xianbei
and more.
This was all built upon a system of universal male conscxtion, which the Han Chinese social fabric revolved around. If you've ever watched Mulan, you'll know what I'm talking about. Han Chinese men between the age of 23-56 were eligible for universal conscxtion, and thus the Han Chinese emperors were able to draw upon hundreds of thousands to \\\\~a million men for their campaigns and for the construction of the Great Wall.
Furthermore, this system of conscxtion was also behind the consolidation of the various fractured states, mixing and matching identities and cultures to build a unified Han Chinese identity that still persists today.
Making Han China a *diplomatic* civ is just dumb. It just isn't Han China. ~~Song or Ming~~ maybe, but not Han.
Edit: It has come to my attention, that Han China in game is pretty much the Zhou. Literally everything from ShiDafu, to Nine Provinces ability, to ChuKoNu would fit better with the Zhou.
Firaxis 将汉朝描述为一个注重科技和“外交”的文明。
在游戏中，汉朝的机制或多或少体现了这一点：它以拥有众多专家的大城市为核心，并通过特色单位“诸葛弩”和特色改良设施“长城”获得了强大的防御能力。 虽然这可能代表了汉朝的一部分，尤其是东汉，但这远不能概括汉朝“最伟大”之处。
让我们来看看历史上真实的汉朝。自汉武帝统治之后，对方除了投降，外交从来都不是一个可行的选项。
在汉朝统治时期，中国几乎对每一个邻国都发动了战争，使得中国的领土比秦朝几乎翻了一番（扩张最鼎盛时达到了秦朝的 1.7 倍）。可以参考维基百科上的这张地图（附图链接），他们没有放过任何一个邻国。
汉朝的敌人/征服对象包括：
-朝鲜 (韩国)
-南越、闽越 (越南的前身)
-越南 (大越)
-匈奴
-大夏-希腊王国 (巴克特里亚)
-羌
-鲜卑
-等等
这一切都建立在普遍的男性征兵制度之上，汉朝的社会结构也围绕着这一制度展开。如果你看过《花木兰》，你就会明白这一点。23 至 56 岁的汉族男子都有义务服兵役，因此汉朝皇帝能够征召数十万甚至上百万的士兵参与战争和长城建设。
此外，这种征兵制度也是各个分裂国家统一的背后推手，它融合了不同的身份和文化，最终形成了统一的、沿袭至今的汉族认同。
将汉朝塑造成一个“外交型”文明是愚蠢的。这根本就不是真正的汉朝。也许宋朝或明朝更符合，但绝不是汉朝。
编辑： 我现在才意识到，游戏中的汉朝实际上更像是周朝。从士大夫到九州，再到诸葛弩，几乎所有的设定都更符合周朝。
In game, that's more or less how it is - with Han being built around big cities producing lots of specialists, and strong defensive capabilities with the Chu-Ko-Nu UU and the Great Wall UB. While that is I guess a part of Han China, especially Eastern Han, it doesn't at all encapsulate what made Han "its grandest".
Now let's turn our attention to Han China in real life. Following the reign of Emperor Wu of Han, diplomacy was never a serious option - other than capitulation.
Under the tenure of the Han Dynasty, China waged wars on literally every single neighbour it had, almost doubling China's territory from the Qin Dynasty. (1.7x at its maximum territorial extent) Look at this map from Wikipedia for reference, they didn't leave a *single* one of their neighbours alone.
https://preview.redd.it/b7sdj4vhimne1.png?width=1275&format=png&auto=webp&s=3073a0818d92d55097db7c504a85c002a002b39c
Their enemies/conquests included:
\\\\- Joseon (Korea)
\\\\- Nanyue, Minyue (Precursors of Vietnam)
\\\\- Dai Viet (Vietnam)
\\\\- xiongnu
\\\\- Greco Bactria
\\\\- Qiang
\\\\- xianbei
and more.
This was all built upon a system of universal male conscxtion, which the Han Chinese social fabric revolved around. If you've ever watched Mulan, you'll know what I'm talking about. Han Chinese men between the age of 23-56 were eligible for universal conscxtion, and thus the Han Chinese emperors were able to draw upon hundreds of thousands to \\\\~a million men for their campaigns and for the construction of the Great Wall.
Furthermore, this system of conscxtion was also behind the consolidation of the various fractured states, mixing and matching identities and cultures to build a unified Han Chinese identity that still persists today.
Making Han China a *diplomatic* civ is just dumb. It just isn't Han China. ~~Song or Ming~~ maybe, but not Han.
Edit: It has come to my attention, that Han China in game is pretty much the Zhou. Literally everything from ShiDafu, to Nine Provinces ability, to ChuKoNu would fit better with the Zhou.
Firaxis 将汉朝描述为一个注重科技和“外交”的文明。
在游戏中，汉朝的机制或多或少体现了这一点：它以拥有众多专家的大城市为核心，并通过特色单位“诸葛弩”和特色改良设施“长城”获得了强大的防御能力。 虽然这可能代表了汉朝的一部分，尤其是东汉，但这远不能概括汉朝“最伟大”之处。
让我们来看看历史上真实的汉朝。自汉武帝统治之后，对方除了投降，外交从来都不是一个可行的选项。
在汉朝统治时期，中国几乎对每一个邻国都发动了战争，使得中国的领土比秦朝几乎翻了一番（扩张最鼎盛时达到了秦朝的 1.7 倍）。可以参考维基百科上的这张地图（附图链接），他们没有放过任何一个邻国。
汉朝的敌人/征服对象包括：
-朝鲜 (韩国)
-南越、闽越 (越南的前身)
-越南 (大越)
-匈奴
-大夏-希腊王国 (巴克特里亚)
-羌
-鲜卑
-等等
这一切都建立在普遍的男性征兵制度之上，汉朝的社会结构也围绕着这一制度展开。如果你看过《花木兰》，你就会明白这一点。23 至 56 岁的汉族男子都有义务服兵役，因此汉朝皇帝能够征召数十万甚至上百万的士兵参与战争和长城建设。
此外，这种征兵制度也是各个分裂国家统一的背后推手，它融合了不同的身份和文化，最终形成了统一的、沿袭至今的汉族认同。
将汉朝塑造成一个“外交型”文明是愚蠢的。这根本就不是真正的汉朝。也许宋朝或明朝更符合，但绝不是汉朝。
编辑： 我现在才意识到，游戏中的汉朝实际上更像是周朝。从士大夫到九州，再到诸葛弩，几乎所有的设定都更符合周朝。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 9 )
收藏
likes: 804
Diplomatic doesn't necessarily mean peaceful in Civ 7. It means it is easier to bring your diplomatic relationship where you want: that can be to worsen it in order to declare war without a war support bonus for your enemy. And it is also about being able to vassalize and integrate city-states.
在《文明7》中，外交并不一定意味着和平。它指的是更容易将外交关系引导至你期望的方向：这可能是为了恶化关系，以便在不给敌人带来战争支持加成的情况下宣战。外交也包括能够征服和整合城邦。
likes: 276
This. Diplomacy trait means more power to engage with other relationships in a good or bad way.
没错。外交特质意味着拥有更多权力，以积极或消极的方式与其他文明互动。
likes: 14
Machiavelli as a diplomatic leader shows this idea quite well. His main tool is undoubtedly in the diplomacy system of this game, but does it mean that his playstyle is nice and peaceful? Hell no. His main idea is to bully and coerce others for your own benefit.
There are terms like gunboat diplomacy and big stick diplomacy for a reason.
马基雅维利作为外交领袖很好地诠释了这一理念。他的主要手段无疑是游戏中的外交系统，但这是否意味着他的玩法是友好和平的呢？当然不是。他的核心思想是为了自身利益而欺凌和胁迫他人。
“炮舰外交”和“大棒外交”这些术语的存在是有原因的。
likes: 5
Machiavelli is weird. He's famous for championing a pragmatic, calculated form of politics - yet in the game his strategy is to outwardly piss everyone off so they hate him
He said it's best for leaders to be feared rather than loved - but never go so far as to be hated
马基雅维利很奇怪。他以倡导务实、精明的政治手段而闻名，但在游戏中，他的策略却是公开激怒所有人，让他们憎恨他。
他说过，领导者最好让人畏惧而不是爱戴，但绝不能做到让人憎恨。
likes: 3
Yeah, true.
I mean I get what the intention of the ability is, kinda that his pragmatic and calculated practices result in an advantage for him in diplomatic efforts.
But the actual effect of his ability is that you just spam endeavors that you know your angry opponent won't accept, because you get gold for free.
是的, 没错。
我理解这个能力的意图, 大概是他的务实和精明的做法使他在外交活动中占有优势.
但是他的能力的实际效果是你只发送那些你知道愤怒的对手不会接受的提议，因为你可以白白获得金币.
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 29
When Napoleon's Emperor persona (being hated by everyone and having sanctions that make other people hate you even more) and Prussia (also being hated by everyone and having bonuses while being at war) are labelled at "diplomatic", it becomes clear that the Diplomatic attribute is not necessarily about just waging war, indeed.
当拿破仑的“皇帝”特性（被所有人憎恨，且其制裁会招致更多憎恨）和普鲁士（同样被所有人憎恨，但在战争中能获得加成）都被归类为“外交”时，很明显，“外交”属性实际上并不一定只关乎发动战争。
likes: 72
Yeah this is the most "well actually" post I've seen here in a while. Like hate it for the bad stuff, not every minor little nitpick.
是啊，这是我最近在这里看到的最“杠精”的帖子了。那些糟糕的部分是该吐槽，但也没必要对每个细枝末节都吹毛求疵。
likes: -202
" And it is also about being able to vassalize and integrate city-states"
Exactly what Han didn't do.
“外交也包括能够征服和整合城邦。”
这恰恰是汉朝没有做的。
likes: 106
What ? Han did have tributaries and vassals , it’s not because an empire is focused on conquest that it does not have vassals or cities states in its sphere of influence , quite the contrary in fact.
什么？汉朝确实有朝贡国和附庸国。一个帝国专注于征服，并不代表它的势力范围内就没有附庸国或城邦，事实上恰恰相反。
likes: -34
No it didn’t.
It had one of each, the rest were directly under han china with some degree of regional autonomy.
不，它没有。
它各自只有一个，其余的都直接受汉朝统治，并享有一定程度的区域自治。
likes: 33
>directly under han china with some degree of regional autonomy.
You might need to revisit what a vassal means.
“直接隶属于汉朝，但有一定程度的地区自治。”
你可能需要重新理解一下“附庸”的含义。
likes: -21
A vassal, and a commandery are very different concepts. Han China was very centralised.
附庸和郡县是截然不同的概念。汉朝是高度中央集权的。
likes: 25
Yeah and colonies weren't full of the enslaved (especially the Hispanic colonies). Not to mention modern capitalism is totally not a mutation of the aristocracy with extra steps. Totally different!
是啊，殖民地里也不是到处都是奴隶（尤其是西班牙殖民地）。更不用说现代资本主义完全不是贵族制度的变种，只是多了几步而已。完全不一样！ (讽刺)
likes: 34
That’s like saying a production Civ “bears zero resemblance to history” because the player builds different things than the historical leaders did
这就像说一个注重生产力的文明“与历史毫无相似之处”，因为玩家建造的东西与历史上的领袖所建造的不同。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 124
Yeah? So? Han isn't focused on being suzerains, it's just focused on getting influence. It can be used freely from then.
是啊，那又怎样？汉朝的重点不是成为宗主国，而是获取影响力。然后就可以自由地使用这些影响力了。
likes: 47
It's an option that's there for all civs, it's not there just for Han, so if you want to play historically accurate, just don't do it.
这是所有文明都可以选择的一个选项，不仅仅是汉朝。所以，如果你想玩得符合历史，就不要这样做。
likes: 14
Can you point to some historical sources that show that the Han dynasty did NOT establish vassals and tributaries? That would go against my understanding of Chinese history.
您能否提供一些历史资料，证明汉朝 “没有 ”建立附庸国和朝贡国？这与我对中国历史的理解相悖。
likes: -5
Han China had vassals, - internal ones, under han Chinese rule. Khotan is a sorta exception, it wasn’t that under the yoke, although Han Chinese soldiers were still stationed
It only had one tributary, dayuan because it was too far to reach. That’s it.
Tributaries were a moreso tang and after thing - especially the ming had a ton of them.
汉朝有附庸国，是内部的，受汉朝统治。于阗算是个例外，它没有受到那么强的控制，尽管汉朝军队仍然驻扎在那里。
它只有一个朝贡国，大宛，因为它太远了，难以控制。仅此而已。
朝贡国更多的是唐朝及以后的事情，尤其是明朝有很多朝贡国。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 9
Diplomacy is about power projection. In-game, influence currency is used for war support and declaring wars. Even concepts like the mandate of heaven is a tool to uphold legitimacy and spread propaganda. The Han collapsed because the child emperor was a puppet to a tyrant, lost legitimacy (or popular support) and the directive to rule hence civil war.
Sometimes you need an army to even have the opportunity for diplomacy. So it makes sense for civs like the Normans to have both diplomacy and military. They don't have the opportunity to marry into the great noble families like the Capet or the Hohenstaufen without being great conquerors.
外交关乎力量投射。在游戏中，影响力货币用于支持战争和宣战。甚至“天命”这样的概念也是维护统治合法性和进行宣传的工具。汉朝之所以灭亡，是因为年幼的皇帝沦为了暴君的傀儡，失去了合法性（或者说民众的支持）以及统治权，从而导致了内战。
有时候，你甚至需要一支军队才能获得外交的机会。因此，像诺曼人这样的文明同时拥有外交和军事特质是合理的。如果他们不是伟大的征服者，就没有机会像卡佩家族或霍亨斯陶芬家族那样，通过联姻进入伟大的贵族家族。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 285
While I appreciate the effort of this post, i think you should consider the fact that no culture or time period can be boiled down to three game mechanics, let alone ones historians would agree upon.
I have my own bugbears with Civs in this game - in particular the Mughals - however something to keep in mind is that these are debates. The team at Firaxis no doubt have historians that would make a counter-argument as to why the civ was implemented the way it was, and what its referencing.
我很欣赏楼主为这篇帖子所做的努力，但我认为你应该考虑到一个事实，即没有任何一种文化或时期可以被简化为三种游戏机制，更不用说让历史学家们达成一致了。
我对这款游戏中的一些文明也有我自己的不满——尤其是莫卧儿文明——但需要记住的是，这些都是存在争议的。毫无疑问，席德梅尔的团队中有历史学家会就为何以这种方式设计这个文明，以及它所参考的内容提出反驳的观点。
likes: -57
I know exactly what it's referencing.
They did encapsulate a time period extremely well with all of these abilities. Remarkably well even.
Problem is, it's the wrong dynasty.
This is as good as it gets for a representation of the *Zhou* dynasty. Shidafu, Chu Ko Nu, Nine Provinces.
That's why its so much of a mismatch.
我很清楚它指的是什么。
他们确实用这些能力很好地概括了一个时代。甚至可以说概括得非常好。
问题是，他们选错了朝代。
这是对 “周 ”朝最好的概括。士大夫、诸葛弩、九州。
这就是为什么如此不匹配。
likes: 48
The Chu Ko Nu sure isn’t anything Zhou though considering the namesake which it’s named after is Zhuge Liang who lived at the end of the Han Dynasty during the Three Kingdoms era.
考虑到诸葛弩是以三国时期汉朝末年的诸葛亮命名的，它肯定不是周朝的东西。
likes: 24
All zhuge did was improve it. We have archeological evidence that it came about during the warring states period. It was way before him, and during the time where the Zhou was still a thing.
诸葛亮所做的只是改进了它。我们有考古证据表明，它起源于战国时期。这比诸葛亮早得多，而且是在周朝仍然存在的时期。
likes: 69
Diplomats contributed a lot to Han’s conquests
The famous quotes like:
"The Han army is coming. Stay still, or your nation falls."
"Offend the mighty Han, and you will be punished, no matter how far."
"Where the sun and moon shine, and rivers flow, all belong to the Han."
are all from ambitious Han diplomats.
There’s a story of successful conquest behind each of them. The first one was even said by a diplomat who perished a whole country with a few other diplomats from Han.
Making Han a diplomatic civ is nothing wrong, and it’s kind of historical correct in my opinion. The problem is that you can do very little with diplomacy by the current system. Imagine you can make two allied civ declare war against each other (or just stop being ally) with a huge amount of influence, or you can use influence to transfer one city’s control to yourself.. There’re unlimited workable options here, but sadly the current diplomacy system in the game is little more than declaring war and making peace.
外交官对汉朝的征服贡献巨大。
著名的言论，如：
“汉军将至，勿动，动则灭国。”
“犯强汉者，虽远必诛。”
“凡日月所照，江河所至，皆为汉土。”
都出自雄心勃勃的汉朝外交官之口。
每一句话背后都有一个成功征服的故事。第一句话甚至是一位汉朝外交官说的，他和其他几位汉朝外交官一起灭亡了一个国家。
把汉朝塑造成一个外交文明并没有错，而且在我看来，这在某种程度上符合历史。问题在于，在当前的游戏系统中，你几乎无法通过外交手段做太多事情。想象一下，你可以用巨大的影响力让两个盟友文明相互宣战（或者不再结盟），或者你可以用影响力将一个城市的控制权转移给自己……这里有无限的可行选项，但遗憾的是，目前游戏中的外交系统只不过是宣战和媾和。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 3
Han envoys are sometimes used to literally annoy and provoke regimes to act hostile towards the Han (in the form of killing said envoy), which is then used as a CB to conquer/puppet said region.
汉朝使节有时会被故意用来激怒和挑衅其他政权，使其对汉朝采取敌对行动（例如杀害汉朝使节），然后这被汉朝用作征服/控制该地区的战争借口。
likes: 194
A Civ’s abilities don’t give an accurate picture of the totality of that civilization IRL? That’s shocking. Next you’re gonna tell me that Rome wasn’t the only city in the Roman Empire, and that they were also waging constant wars against all of their neighbors to expand their territory, which their in-game abilities don’t reflect at all
一个文明在游戏中的特质并不能准确反映该文明在现实世界中的全貌？这真是太令人震惊了。接下来你是不是要告诉我，罗马城并不是罗马帝国唯一的城市，而且他们还在不断地对所有邻国发动战争以扩张领土，而这些在游戏中的能力根本没有体现出来？（讽刺）
likes: 50
I actually think Rome is fairly well modeled. Their key abilities are using the military to settle towns and getting culture for producing infantry.
实际上，我认为罗马被呈现得相当不错。他们的关键能力是利用军事力量建立城镇，并通过生产步兵获得文化。
likes: 26
I think the point is that Rome in one form or another for antiquities sake lasted for like 1200 years if were not counting going into exploration, so you can't really boil down that much time absolutely perfectly.
我认为关键在于，如果不算入探索时代的话，罗马以这样或那样的形式，为了古典时代的缘故，存在了大约1200年，所以你不可能把这么长的时间完美地概括出来。
likes: 19
Ancient Egypt laughs at your puny 1200 years.
古埃及会嘲笑你们这微不足道的1200年。
likes: 5
They gotta have the record right? I mean at least for a nation that was still actually the same nation over time?
他们应该保持着存在时间最长的记录吧？我的意思是，至少对于一个随着时间推移，实际上仍然是同一个国家的国家而言？
likes: 16
What does “nation that was still actually the same nation” actually mean?
“实际上仍然是同一个国家”到底是什么意思？
likes: 7
It's honestly more philosophical then anything. It's like if you ask how long has France been around? Well the kingdom of France and modern France are two totally different things, do the franks before them count? I guess the question is were the Egyptian dynasties different enough to qualify as a different nation and if so when is the cut off exactly?
老实说，这更像是一个哲学问题。这就像你问法国存在了多久？法兰西王国和现代法国是两个完全不同的事物，他们之前的法兰克人算吗？我想问题是，埃及的各个王朝之间的差异是否足以让他们成为不同的国家，如果是的话，确切的分界线在哪里？
likes: 5
Egypt is split into:
- Old Kingdom (2663-2195)
- First Intermediate Period (2195-2066)
- Middle Kingdom (2066-1650)
- Second Intermediate Period (1650-1549)
- New Kingdom (1549-1069)
埃及被划分为：
- 古王国时期（公元前 2663-2195 年）
- 第一中间期（公元前 2195-2066 年）
- 中王国时期（公元前 2066-1650 年）
- 第二中期（公元前 1650-1549 年）
- 新王国时期（公元前 1549-1069 年）
likes: 2
Good lord I was wrong. I guess in my head I always saw it as one big blob. Thankyou very much. That does make me wonder though, after the american revolution would the US be consider one contigious government. We have not had a revolution since then but have had many massive changes that completely changed how our government worked. Things like abolition and womens suffrage, along with voting rights for all citizens rather then just land owners.
edit:as well as the massive shift from being much more federalized in the beggining to more centralized now. The federal government tends to be much more heavy handed with making de facto laws now(such as cutting federal spending for infrastructure if a state wont agree to certain terms).
天哪，我错了。我猜在我的印象中，我一直把古埃及看作一个整体。非常感谢。但这确实让我好奇，在美国独立战争之后，美国是否会被认为是一个连续的政府？自那以后，我们虽然没有再发生过革命，但经历了很多巨大的变化，彻底改变了我们政府的运作方式。比如废除奴隶制、妇女获得选举权，以及所有公民都拥有投票权，而不仅仅是土地所有者。
编辑补充： 以及从最初的高度联邦化到现在更加中央集权的巨大转变。现在，联邦政府在制定事实上的法律时往往更加强硬（例如，如果一个州不同意某些条款，联邦政府就会削减用于基础设施的开支）。
likes: 2
Nope. The longest lasting Egyptian Kingdom was the Old Kingdom for 500 years, and even it was ruled by 3-4 different dynasties.
不。存在时间最长的埃及王国是古王国，持续了500年，即便如此，它也由3-4个不同的王朝统治。
likes: -65
Rome is reflected quite well in civ 7.
Their abilities synergise towards an expansionist, militaristic civ - exactly what rome was in real life.
罗马在《文明7》中得到了很好的体现。
他们的特质协同作用，形成了一个扩张主义、军国主义的文明——这正是现实生活中罗马的样子。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 81
They’re not Expansionist. They’re cultural and militaristic
他们不是扩张主义。他们是文化和军国主义。
likes: -25
They're militaristic. Strongly so.
The Legatus, Legion all reflect a highly militaristic civ.
Culture makes plenty of sense, because roman culture is extremely influential even to this day.
他们是军国主义。非常强烈。
执政官、军团都反映了一个高度军国主义的文明。
文化也很重要，因为罗马文化直到今天都极具影响力。
likes: 64
But in game they're not expansionist
但在游戏中，他们不是扩张主义
likes: 37
They're incetivized to get as many towns as possible, you cant tell me they are not expansionist just because they dont have that word written in their tags.
他们被激励去获得尽可能多的城镇，你不能因为他们的标签上没有写“扩张主义”这个词就说他们不是扩张主义。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: -1
That’s the original point. The Han having the tag of “diplomatic” (that’s actually a resource in game that can be spent for expansion and war) and “scientific” is not that relevant.
这才是最初的观点。汉朝拥有“外交”（这实际上是游戏中可以用于扩张和战争的资源）和“科技”的标签并没有那么重要。
likes: 2
Their abilities are all scientific and diplomatic..
他们（汉朝）的能力都是科技和外交方面的……
likes: 1
Diplomatic in that they get lots of influence and scientific in that they get lots of science. You can use those resources to do whatever you want.
外交方面，他们获得了大量影响力；科技方面，他们获得了大量科研值。你可以利用这些资源做任何你想做的事情。
likes: 3
They are one of the few civs to have a settlement limit increase in their civic tree.
他们是少数几个在市政树中增加了定居点上限的文明之一。
likes: 10
Every single empire used violence to expand their borders, I am sooooo sorry that Han isn’t a militaristic civ - they can’t all be.
每个帝国都使用暴力来扩张其边界，我很遗憾汉朝没有被设定为一个军国主义文明——游戏里不能所有文明都是军国主义。
likes: 35
Han dynasty ruled China for 400 years or so. And you are complaining they did reflect a different period then the expansionist one? Honestly Hans legacy is more about different stuff then just expanding borders lol
汉朝统治中国大约400年。而你却抱怨他们反映的不是扩张主义时期？老实说，汉朝的遗产更多的是关于其他方面的东西，而不仅仅是扩张边界，哈哈。
likes: -14
"Honestly Hans legacy is more about different stuff then just expanding borders lol"
None of which they represented.
“老实说，汉朝的遗产更多的是关于其他方面的东西，而不仅仅是扩张边界，哈哈”
但这些其他方面他们也都没有体现出来。
likes: 24
I’m so confused about your posts. Han dynasty was known for significant scientific advancement, and for establishing vassals and tributaries as they conquered their neighbours and ruled through diplomacy for a significant period of time. I get how you could have the opinion that you wished they did the Han as a military/expansionist civ, but I really don’t see how the interpretation in game is that inaccurate.
我对你的帖子感到非常困惑。汉朝以其重大的科技进步而闻名，并且在征服邻国的过程中建立了附庸国和朝贡国，并在相当长的一段时间内通过外交手段进行统治。我理解你为什么会希望他们把汉朝设计成一个军事/扩张主义文明，但我真的不明白游戏中的这种解读有什么不准确之处。
likes: 3
I hope they bring “flavors” to civs the way they did to leaders.
That way you can play all eras within a CIV’s history, or at least choose.
我希望他们能像对待领袖那样，给文明带来“风味”（即不同的特性侧重）。
这样你就可以体验一个文明历史上的所有时代，或者至少可以选择（不同的侧重）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: -1
That isn't what they were known for, aside from pop history outside of China.
They were known first and foremost for carving out China, and a Chinese identity. They finished the job that the Qin started and by the end of their reign, they conquered through force, (not diplomacy) what we now consider Chinese heartland and consolidated that through force.
Diplomacy really wasn't a main thing for the han, and decentralised government or straight up vassals was one of the things that the Han got rid of.
Science too, the Han in general aren't famed for their scientific achievements. Sure, there was a lot during the Han dynasty, but that's simply a virtue of being a massive prosperous empire rather than a culture tailored towards science and learning.
Much of the philosophical, or scientific stuff they tried to encapsulate would once again fit better with the Zhou. The one hundred schools, Confucius etc were all relics of the Zhou Dynasty.
然而在中国以外的通俗历史中，汉朝并非以此（科技与外交）闻名。
他们首先是以开创中国和中华认同而闻名。他们完成了秦朝开始的事业，并且在他们统治的末期，通过武力（而不是外交）征服了我们现在认为是中华核心地区的区域，并通过武力巩固了这一区域。
对于汉朝来说，外交真的不是一件主要的事情，而地方分权或者说直接的附庸是汉朝所摒弃的东西之一。
在科学方面也是如此，总的来说，汉朝并不以其科学成就而闻名。当然，汉朝时期有很多科学成就，但这仅仅是因为它是一个庞大而繁荣的帝国，而不是因为它有一种专门致力于科学和学习的文化。
他们试图涵盖的许多哲学或科学内容，再一次地，现在游戏中汉朝的特质更适合周朝。百家争鸣、孔子等都是周朝的遗物。
likes: 95
Wait, Harriet Tubman didn’t lead the Han empire? I’m fucking SHOCKED.
等等，哈莉特·塔布曼没有领导汉帝国？我太震惊了。（讽刺）
likes: 36
Of course she didn't. She was an Egyptian pharaoh.
她当然没有。她是埃及法老。
likes: 2
I have to read my history books, Jesus.
Hey wait, where the HELL is Jesus Christ? That’s my president.
我得去读读历史书了，天哪。
等等，耶稣基督到底在哪里？那是我的总统。（继续讽刺）
likes: 11
There's a difference between ahistorical and having a civ be completely different from what they were in real life.
Would you be happy if they made mongols sailors?
不符合史实和让一个文明与真实历史上的情况完全不同是有区别的。
如果他们让蒙古人成为航海家，你会高兴吗？
likes: 6
If the Mongols were ever significantly exposed to sea or ocean, they might have. In history, they were not. But in Civ, they can be.
Your original post cites *behaviors* as inconsistent with history. These arguments are immediately invalidated because the game lets you choose the behaviors as well as conditions for a civilizations existence.
If you want Han China to attack everyone around them, then feel free to play that way.
如果蒙古人曾经大量接触过海洋，他们 “可能 ”会成为航海家。在历史上，他们没有。但在《文明》中，他们可以。
你最初的帖子引用了汉朝的“行为” 与历史不符。这些论点立即失效，因为游戏允许你选择文明的行为以及文明存在的条件。
如果你想让汉朝攻击周围的每一个人，那么请随意按照这种方式玩。
likes: 11
Fine.
If they gave the mongols abilities entirely catered to sea faring?
好吧。
如果他们给蒙古人完全适合航海的特质呢？
likes: 7
Napoleon Emperor is described as diplomatic, and his ability is that he gets gold for having people pissed at him. The diplomatic trait is not about having good relations, and much of the diplomacy system describes how two peoples feel about each other. You leverage your influence to try to guide external relations to where you want, either a good or bad place. It seems they could be describing Han China as a big bully.
拿破仑的“皇帝”特性也被描述为外交，他的能力是让别人对他生气就能获得金币。外交特性与拥有良好关系无关，外交系统的很大一部分描述的是两个民族之间的相互感受。你利用你的影响力来引导对外关系，使其朝着你想要的方向发展，无论是好的还是坏的。看起来他们可能将汉朝描述成了一个恃强凌弱的大恶霸。
likes: 0
If you read the Han China abilities, you would realise that's not the case.
如果你看过汉朝在《文明》中的能力，你会发现事实并非如此。
likes: 5
I just did. I didn’t see anything about good relations. I’m not trying to be disingenuous (I’ve seen people derailing the conversation here and I really praise your patience in answering them), I just think there’s lots of posts were people misunderstand what diplomacy is in the game. I don’t know barely anything about Chinese history, so I believe you when you say that many civics represent the Zhou dynasty better, and it’s a shame they didn’t focus on representing Han better.
My point is exclusively about diplomacy; in game, it’s also a tool for war, directly related to war support. You can’t have every civilization have the tag militaristic, they were going for some balance, but most of the great civilizations in real world history could be described as militaristic.
我刚看过了。我没有看到任何关于“外交特质=建立良好关系”的内容。我并不是想耍滑头（我看到这里有人在扰乱讨论，我真的很佩服你回答他们的耐心），我只是认为有很多评论误解了游戏中的“外交”是什么。我对中国历史几乎一无所知，所以我相信你说的，文明中的特质更好地代表了周朝，很遗憾他们没有专注于更好地表现汉朝。
我的观点只针对外交；在游戏中，它也是战争的工具，直接关系到战争支持。你不可能让每个文明都有“军国主义”的标签，席德梅尔想要实现某种平衡，但现实世界历史上大多数伟大的文明都可以被描述为军国主义。
likes: 2
There's nothing about *relations* in general either. That's the point. Aside from weiyang palace, but yeah. Han China is entirely built around isolationist and defensive. The Chu Ko Nu and great wall are all defensive, when they were the complete opposite in real life.
Han China can be considered exceptionally militaristic. Not every ancient civilization enacts general mobilisation, or has a whole bureaucratic arm to sustain an effort like such.
汉朝的文明设计中也没有任何关于“关系”的内容。这就是重点。除了未央宫。游戏中的汉朝完全是围绕着孤立主义和防御建立的。诸葛弩和长城都是防御性的，而他们在现实生活中的表现却恰恰相反。
汉朝可以被认为是极其军国主义的。并非每个古代文明都会实行全国总动员，或者拥有一个完整的官僚机构来维持这样的行动。
likes: 4
I think the problem is that while they wanted a civ to represent the pinnacle of China in antiquity, they also wanted a balance because they already had other militaristic civs, so while they are specifically naming the civilization “Han”, they got some characteristics from antiquity China in general. Chu Ko Nu is a recurring unit in the civilization series, they probably just wanted it in there somehow. The bureaucratic arm sustaining mobilization is most likely the inspiration behind the “diplomatic” attribute.
我认为问题在于，虽然他们（游戏设计师）希望有一个文明来代表古代中国的巅峰，但他们也希望保持游戏的平衡，因为他们已经有了其他的军国主义文明。所以，虽然他们明确地将这个文明命名为“汉朝”，但他们还是从广义的古代中国中提取了一些广泛的特征。“诸葛弩”是《文明》系列中反复出现的单位，他们可能不想抛弃。汉朝官僚机构对军事动员的支持，很可能是“外交”属性的灵感来源。
likes: 2
That's my point. It doesn't feel in anyway Han.
I think they actually went with Zhou in the beginning, but renamed it because of marketing or something.
The abilities and everything distinctly feel like the Zhou, rather than the Han.
For instance, the Shidafu are pretty much all philosophers from the Zhou rather than the Han. There's only one Han philosopher, which should tell you something.
If they literally just changed the name to Zhou, it would pretty much be a surprisingly good depiction.
The abilities are also all very Zhou concepts that happened to also slightly or moderately apply to Han.
这就是我的观点。它（游戏中的汉朝设计）没有任何汉朝的感觉。
我认为他们一开始实际上选择的是周朝，但可能是因为市场营销或其他原因而改名了。
这些能力和所有设定都明显地让人感觉像是周朝，而不是汉朝。
例如，“士大夫”几乎都是周朝的哲学家，而不是汉朝的。只有一位汉朝的哲学家（董仲舒），这应该能说明一些问题。
如果他们直接把名字改成周朝，那将是一个对中国文明出人意料的、相当好的描绘。
这些能力的概念也都非常“周朝”，只是恰好也稍微或适度地适用于汉朝。
likes: 4
Weiyang Palace isn't the only thing that gives them influence. Their unique civics contain social policies that add influence to science and happiness buildings. That influence could be used to play isolationist and deter wars, but you could also use it to to be aggressive and give yourself masses of war support to aid your expansion efforts. Being encouraged to build happiness buildings also helps with sustaining a war effort, or a wide empire.
The reason why they decided to go with this gameplay style I think, is mostly part of a marketing strategy - Confucius being the clear Geographic choice for China, they wanted there to be obvious synergy between Confucius's abilities and Han's. And while I'm not a big expert on Confucius, I have never seen anything that leads me to believe he had a power hungry ideology, so they went with this idea of a Confucius-led han being more of a peaceful, defensive, diplomatic hub for education. That's kinda the point of this entry - certain unique buildings, units and abilities are there as a small nod to the culture of a civ, but it's NOT supposed to be a historically accurate depiction, since the leader you pick will also have a big sway on how it plays. Friedrich leading Han would very likely be conquering lots of territory.
Now whether or not this would be better under the Zhou and not the Han, I have no stake in that conversation because I know very little of China's history. But I do understand why they went with this depiction for an antiquity era china, regardless of whether or not they used the right dynasty of china to represent it.
未央宫并不是唯一能给汉朝带来影响力的东西。他们独特的市政中包含的社会政策可以为科研建筑和宜居度建筑增加影响力。这种影响力可以用来奉行孤立主义和阻止战争，但你也可以用它来发动侵略，为自己提供大量的战争支持，以帮助你进行扩张。鼓励建造宜居度建筑也有助于维持战争，或者维持一个庞大的帝国。
我认为，他们决定采用这种游戏风格的原因，主要是出于营销策略的考虑——孔子显然是中国在地理区域上的选择，他们希望孔子的能力和汉朝的能力之间存在明显的协同作用。虽然我不是研究孔子的专家，但我从未见过任何东西让我相信他有一种渴求权力的意识形态，所以他们选择了这种想法，即由孔子领导的汉朝更像是一个和平的、防御性的、专注于外交的和一个教育中心。这正是这个条目的意义所在——某些独特的建筑、单位和能力是对一个文明文化的轻微致敬，但这不应该是一种历史上准确的描绘，因为你选择的领袖也会对游戏玩法产生很大的影响。弗里德里希领导的汉朝很可能会征服大量领土。
至于这在周朝而不是汉朝的背景下是否会更好，我对此没有任何立场，因为我对中国历史知之甚少。但我确实理解为什么他们要对古代中国进行这样的描绘，不管他们是否使用了正确的中国朝代来代表它。
likes: 3
The Mongols did raise large fleets for the attempted conquest of Japan, as well as Java.
(they were destroyed by typhoons/ultimate unsuccessful, but they did have large navies)
蒙古人的确组建了庞大的舰队，试图征服日本和爪哇。
（他们被台风摧毁了/最终失败了，但他们确实拥有庞大的海军。）
likes: 0
It’s an inaccurate video game. It’s a thing called suspension of disbelief. Some of those civs didn’t conquer the world with flaming arrow men but I can in the game. Some of those civs didn’t build the pyramids but I can in the game.
It’s a game. Read a book for accuracy.
这是一个不准确的电子游戏。这就是所谓的“搁置怀疑”。有些文明并没有用燃烧的弓箭手征服世界，但我在游戏中可以。有些文明没有建造金字塔，但我在游戏中可以。
这只是一个游戏。要想获得准确的信息，请读书。
likes: 35
Civ abilities are meant to be themed around their history
文明的能力应该是以他们的历史为主题的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: -23
Eh, that’s you deciding that and you making your own definition for diplomacy. some of the civ leaders nowadays are not even leaders and diplomacy isn’t really the opposite of war anyways for this game.
Saying Han didn’t leave any of their neighbors alone would actually speak to having a diplomatic focus as far as what the game considers diplomacy (generating influence)
you need influence to declare war and increase war support.
嗯，这是你自己的决定，你对“外交”有你自己的定义。现在有些文明的领袖甚至都算不上领袖，而且在这款游戏中，外交并不一定是战争的对立面。
说汉朝没有放过任何一个邻国，实际上表明了他们注重外交，也就是游戏中所认为的“外交”（产生影响力）。
你需要影响力来宣战和增加战争支持。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 5
Small correction, Han didn't conquer Joseon, they existed alongside Ming China and had quite good relations with them. The one that Han conquered was Gojoseon.
小小地更正一下，汉朝并没有征服朝鲜，朝鲜与明朝并存，并且与明朝的关系相当好。汉朝征服的是高句丽。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 13
>Civ I-IV China was the ***
>In the Chinese version of III and IV, China was represented by Taizong of the Tang Dynasty
>Civ II, V-VI, Wu Zetian, also Tang Dynasty (technically)
> Qin Shi Huang (IV, VI), Qin Dynasty
>Kublai Khan (VI), Yuan Dynasty
> Yongle (VI), Ming Dynasty
It's a bit upsetting that in VII, the Han dynasty is finally in the game, considered by some to be the peak of Chinese culture, so who's going to be the Chinese leader on the game? Liu Bang, the peasant-turned-emperor that overcame impossible odds? Han Wudi, a great conqueror and reformer? Maybe even Liu Bei as a more "popular" choice... Nah, it's *Confucius*.
...Yes, I also wanted Lorenzo de' Medici instead of Machiavelli.
-《文明》1-4代的中国代表是中g；
- 在《文明3》和《文明4》的中文版中，中国的代表是唐太宗；
-《文明2》、《文明5》和《文明6》中，中国的代表是武则天，也算是唐朝（严格来说）；
- 秦始皇（《文明4》、《文明6》），秦朝；
- 忽必烈（《文明6》），元朝；
- 永乐帝（《文明6》），明朝。
有点令人沮丧的是，在《文明7》中，汉朝终于加入了游戏，有些人认为汉朝是中国文化的巅峰，那么谁会成为游戏中的中国领袖呢？是从农民到皇帝，克服了重重困难的刘邦？还是伟大的征服者和改革家汉武帝？或许甚至可以选择更“受欢迎”的刘备……然而都不是，是孔子。
……是的，我也更希望是洛伦佐·德·美第奇而不是马基雅维利。 (注: 洛伦佐·德·美第奇是文艺复兴时期佛罗伦萨的统治者和艺术赞助人)
likes: 4
Damn, they need to bring Taizong back, man was goated.
该死的，他们需要让唐太宗回归，这家伙太棒了
likes: 12
You’re trying to make the argument that the Han were a fundamentally militant or expansionist state, but most of the conquests you are citing date from a single emperor who himself is considered abnormal in his preoccupation with foreign conquests. The very map you use indicate all those major campaigns took place in a span of twenty-ish years in the last quarter of the 2nd century BCE, while the Han lasted for another 300. It would be like modeling the entire Rome civ on the reign of Commodus or something.
你试图论证汉朝本质上是一个军事化或扩张主义的国家，但你引用的大部分征服都发生在一位皇帝（汉武帝）统治时期，而这位皇帝本人对外国征服的专注被认为是反常的。你使用的地图也表明，所有这些重大的军事行动都发生在公元前2世纪最后一、二十年左右的一段时间内，而汉朝又持续了300年。这就像是把整个罗马文明都建立在康茂德皇帝统治时期的基础上一样。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 3
Han China was at war for almost 200 consecutive years. Its entire society for its earlier years was built around the maintenance of a bureaucratic corps and infrastructure like roads and the great wall to sustain conscxt armies of up to a million men. Han men went through mandatory military training.
What more do you want?
汉朝几乎连续打了200年的仗。在汉朝早期，整个社会都围绕着维持一个官僚机构和道路、长城等基础设施而建立，以支持多达一百万人的征兵军队。汉朝男子要接受强制性的军事训练。
你还想要什么？
likes: 9
“It’s entire society for its earlier years was built around the maintenance of a bureaucratic corps and infrastructure like roads and the great wall to sustain conscxt armies of up to a million men.”
Putting aside the numbers question, you’ve just described 95% of ancient empires and a vast majority of imperial states period. The fact that the Han state retained relatively static borders aside from the initial conquests speaks to an inability or unwillingness to expand their territory beyond a certain point, and external conquests were of secondary priority to internal state cohesion. In this context I don’t think Firaxis’ depiction of the Han is some major misrepresentation.
“在汉朝早期，整个社会都围绕着维持一个官僚机构和道路、长城等基础设施而建立，以支持多达一百万人的征兵军队。”
先不谈数字问题，你刚才描述的正是95%的古代帝国和绝大多数帝国时期的国家。除了最初的征服之外，汉朝保持了相对稳定的边界，这表明它没有能力或不愿意将领土扩张到某个特定点之外，而且对外征服相对于内部国家的凝聚力而言是次要的。在这种背景下，我不认为席德梅尔对汉朝的描绘有什么重大的失实之处。
likes: 19
To be honest calling it Han China is just wrong because it's basically a composite from Zhou until Han, and not just Han. It's especially egregigous in their unique unit case, Shi Dafu, who consist of Zhou and Spring and Autumn scholars too.
老实说，称之为“汉朝”是不准确的，因为它基本上是从周朝到汉朝的一个综合体，而不仅仅是汉朝。尤其是在他们的特色单位“士大夫”这一点上，尤其明显，其中也包括周朝和春秋时期的学者。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 19
Exactly. This isn't han china. This is Zhou China.
Nothing about this civ is han china.
没错。这不是汉朝。这是周朝。
这个文明没有任何地方是汉朝。
likes: 6
They did spend the first 70 years or so paying off the xiongnu until they were strong enough to conquer them. Also, the first 50 years had somewhere under 1/2 of their territory controlled by semi-autonomous princes.
汉朝确实花了大约70年的时间向匈奴进贡，直到他们强大到足以征服匈奴。此外，在最初的50年里，汉朝大约有一半的领土是由半自治的诸侯王控制的。
likes: 7
eh, I don't think Maya is also a production powerhouse or Hawaii being the beacon of culture at exploration age, it's just for gameplay purpose.
嗯，我不认为玛雅是一个生产强国，也不认为夏威夷是探索时代的文化灯塔，这只是为了游戏性。
likes: 4
There's probably some gameplay balance considerations going into these things, so I'm not that bothered by it.
Would be interesting to see if the Chinese players can come up with a full suite of interesting Chinese Dynasties for the Age of Antiquity via modding, seeing how there's a lot to choose from.
这其中可能有一些游戏平衡方面的考虑，所以我对此并不太在意。
如果中国玩家能够通过模组的方式为“古典时代”设计出一整套有趣的中国朝代，那将会很有趣，因为有很多可以选择。
likes: 1
Chinese players have already left by now.
Go to steam, sort by language -> simplified Chinese.
Every single review is bright red + a refund.
中国玩家现在已经离开了。
去Steam，按语言排序->简体中文。
每一条评论都是鲜红色的+退款。
likes: 14
I feel like people are missing the point about this post. There is a difference between 100% historical accuracy and what the leaders/civs represents. Sure, Harriet leading greece isn’t at all historically accurate, but for what Harriet represents as a leader and for what Greece represents as a civilization, I think it’s perfectly fine. Not everything has to be a 100% historically accurate… no one is saying that, but there should at least be some resemblance to what they’re trying to represent….
觉得人们没有抓住这个帖子的重点。100%的历史准确性和领袖/文明所代表的东西之间是有区别的。当然，哈莉特领导希腊完全不符合历史事实，但就哈莉特作为领袖所代表的意义和希腊作为文明所代表的意义而言，我认为这是完全可以的。并不是所有东西都必须100%符合历史……没有人这么说，但至少应该与他们试图代表的东西有一些相似之处……
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
likes: 3
My take is that the Han are more popular by name. Even people with passing knowledge of Chinese history know about the Han. The Chinese name for themselves, endonym, is Han Ren, or person of Han. The word Chinese is an exonym. for person of Qin. The end of the Han dynasty had become more popular literary-wise with the Three Kingdoms era by subsequent authors.
It's more a representation thing, than an accuracy one.
我的看法是，汉朝这个名字更广为人知。即使是对中国历史略知一二的人也知道汉朝。中国人对自己的称呼是“汉人”。“Chinese”这个词是一个外名，指的是秦人。汉朝末年，由于后世作家的创作，三国时期在文学上变得更加流行。
这更多的是一个代表性的问题，而不是一个准确性的问题。
likes: 5
Then why not represent the han?
It really isn't that hard.
那为什么不在游戏中好好地表现汉朝呢？
这真的不难。
likes: 2
They most likely chose the aspects to focus on based on what would balance out the roster with different playstyle focuses, so the question really should be: why not represent the Zhou?
他们很可能是根据能够平衡不同游戏风格的侧重点来选择要关注的方面，所以真正的问题应该是：为什么不代表周朝？
likes: 2
Honestly idk why they even went with such a specific dynastic period for the civ name when they've always just been China in the other games.
老实说，我不知道他们为什么会选择这样一个特定的朝代作为文明名称，因为在其他的游戏里，他们一直都只是“中国”。
likes: 2
Maybe to leave other dynasties for DLCs?
也许是为了把其他朝代留给 DLC？
likes: 1
There are at least 13 dynasties in China. One just happens to be the Mongolians. So that's 9 more possible DLCs.
中国至少有13个朝代。其中一个恰好是蒙古人建立的。所以还有9个可能的DLC。
likes: 1
Because the civ's name is *Han* China, not *Zhou* China.
因为这个文明的名字是汉朝，而不是周朝。
likes: 2
Yes, they could have picked Zhou instead since it matched their gameplay needs better.
是的，他们本可以选择周朝，因为这更符合他们的游戏性需求。
likes: 1
This whole "Han" China really would fit extremely well if it was just renamed Zhou.
如果把这个所谓的“汉朝”改名为周朝，那就真的非常合适了。
likes: 3
Sinophiles at it again, another strategy game another list of "grievances"
华语玩家又来了，又对着一款策略游戏发泄一堆“不满”。
likes: -7
ok incel.
好的，incel。（非自愿独身者，通常带有贬义和厌女倾向）。
likes: 2
Say hello to Spain. Money, ships WTF? Culture!!! XVII century was the golden age of Spain, but for the meme we always have the conquistadores stuff.
西班牙向你打招呼。金钱、船只，去你的吧？应该是文化！！！17世纪是西班牙的黄金时代，但出于玩梗，我们总是把西班牙征服者那一套拿出来说。
likes: 8
To be fair, how did that golden age come about..?
平心而论，你们那个黄金时代是怎么来的……？
likes: 1
Chu ko nu wouldn’t fit the Zhou but if doesn’t fit Han either
诸葛弩不适合周朝，但也不适合汉朝。
likes: 1
The actual Chu Ko Nu itself, fits han pretty well. It is the perfect representation of Han's philosophy of massed armies, and the crossbow was the centerpiece of Han's conscxt armies. Han China had upwards of 500,000 crossbows in supply for most of its history.
However the implementation of the unit, is not that. The Chu Ko Nu as a unit is very tailored towards defence.
诸葛弩本身非常适合汉朝。它是汉朝大规模军队理念的完美体现，而弩是汉朝征召军队的核心。在汉朝历史的大部分时间里，汉朝储备了多达50万把弩。
然而，游戏中诸葛弩的实现方式并非如此。诸葛弩作为一个单位，非常注重防御。
likes: 1
The chu ko nu was invented by Zhuge Liang after the end of the Han dynasty
诸葛弩是诸葛亮在汉朝灭亡后发明的
likes: 2
That's a misconception.
The Nugong, the crossbow was invented far before.
Zhuge Liang simply made a few modifications to it.
Zhuge Liang has the best PR game in all of Chinese history. One of the five classics is half spent on glazing his ass.
这是一种误解。
弩的发明要早得多。
诸葛亮只是对它做了一些改进。
诸葛亮在中国历史上拥有最好的公关能力。五大经典之一有一半的篇幅都在吹捧他。
likes: 1
Yeah and chu ke nu is specifically the model of crossbow that Zhuge Liang invented
是的，而诸葛弩特指诸葛亮发明的弩的型号。
likes: 1
It really isn't.
The name just stuck for some reason, especially outside of China.
It's highly doubted that he did half of the things that he was said to have done in the story.
并非如此。
只是由于某种原因，这个名字流传了下来，尤其是在中国以外的地区。
人们非常怀疑《三国演义》中说的他所做的事情有一半不符合史实。
likes: 1
Diplomatic just means your civ shits influence. And Han was nothing if not influential.
外交只是意味着你的文明产出影响力。如果说汉朝有什么的话，那就是影响力.
likes: 1
hey , Mulan is not han
嘿，花木兰不是汉朝的。