JigokuBosatsu wrote:Hell, there was a Water Margin RPG but IIRC it didn't have mass combat rules.
{I got the rules from the author an embarassing amount of time ago, and I may have them in an ancient ZIP file somewhere, but otherwise they seem to be unavailable online. There's a game ripe for an OSSR!)
Konami's Water Margin RPG tho' had mass battles as a selling point
----
Not particularly. Even the earliest matchlock muskets were a hard counter to them - that's why Mongol-descended nomads themselves tried to establish forces of riding musket infantry wherever their industrial base allowed, from Crimean Khanate to Mongolia itself. Ming were supposed to have firearms. Theirs being so shit that Japanese had no interest in them (while European ones flew out of their sellers' hands), was a bug, not a feature, and so was Chinese inability to properly copy European ones or their Japanese derivatives.
Yes, the Ming were impressed by Japan's teppo, and had this to say about them:
"The arquebus came from the (Europeans)...but it's cautioned against firing five or seven rounds, in fear of heat and fire and worry that it will break, we hence only adopt the Japanese arquebuses and nothing else."
-He Langchen's work "formation record"
阵纪·技用：“鸟铳出自外夷……但不敢连发五、七铳，恐内热起火，且虑其破（即膛炸），唯倭铳 不妨"
Imjin war commanders on the Korean side also remark that the Ming deployed the most field artillery "even though the Japanese have arquebuses, we have cannons, what is there to fear?"
Some 16th century Chinese sources also remark on how the quality of Chinese-made guns are of similar, or possibly quality to Portuguese:
《筹海图编·鸟咀铳》：“鸟铳之制，自西番流入中国，其来远矣，然造者未尽其妙。嘉靖二十七年，都御史朱纨 ，遣都指挥卢镗，破双屿，获番酋善铳者，命义士马宪制器，李槐制药，因得其传而造作，比西番犹 为精绝云。”
"The arquebus arrived in China from the westerners, from far away, but those who made it did not understand its secret. In the twentieth year of Jiajing (1541), the Duyu Shi Zhu Wan, sent the Du Zhihui Lu Tang, defeated them in the islands, acquired European chiefs who were adapt at making the arquebus, and ordered Ma Xian to make these weapons and Li Gui to make the powder. They attained this skill and made it as a result, which was more sophisticated than those of the westerners."
-Chou Hai Tubian, volume 13, written in 1558
While southern commanders adapted the arquebus, northern Ming commanders preferred a mix of three-barreled handgonnes ("Three eyed gun" used kind of like a 'shotgun' to ward off cavalry charges) and arquebus.
FatR, you seem like someone who's really proud of the history of your people, and quick to defend it. You've probably had your feelings hurt in the past by people who disparaged medieval european martial arts as crude and so on, maybe they were weaboos who picked weapon focus in masterwork bastard swords in RPG's you've played. But that's really no reason to be a westaboo yourself and reflexively malign everything that offends your worldview.
Say the Mongols, the Ming dynasty overthrew the Yuan nearly two centuries before the Golden Horde was overthrown in Europe, but that feat can be handwaved by an "anti-Asian" side with an excuse like "well, the Mongols only beat the BAD Europeans". The example of the Zhentong emperor being captured by Mongols can be brought up to go "see, these guys are weak because", but the example of the Yongle Emperor's successful campaigns against the Mongols is then conspicuously left out. Nevermind that the Mongols on either end of the steppes after Genghis Khan were under different rulers and developed pretty differently through the centuries.
With the capture of a leader, if I wanted to be abrasive I could say King John II being captured in the 1350's means the French super sucked throughout the whole 100 years war and bring that up any time somebody talks about the French military.
Or the threat of wokou "Japanese" pirates, we can also bring up how Ming commander Qi Jiguang lead 3,000 men in Xianyou and Wangchangping to defeat 10,000 wokou with minimal casualties on his own side and ended that threat.
If we want to talk about the quality of European troops I can be very selective and pick up on instances of poorly trained, cowardly, poorly managed troops too:
The king [Henry VII] was hiding from a rabble of ill-equipped, poorly trained commoners behind the walls of one of his most stout fortresses.
The prognostications of old Captain Edward Turnor seemed borne out: '... the sacred profession of perfect men of ware ys now by ill training growen to misorder and mischef'
The field generals were quick to cite their soldiers' lack of expertise for the failed assault in early May, which stalled 'by meanes of disorder and Cowardise of our menne except the small number of the bandes of barwick'. The English army was almost entirely 'rawe souldiors'. But, the officers complained not only of quality, but also of quantity.
Elizabeth's dislike of professional soldiers sometimes placed her at a disadvantage in plotting strategy....
....as for siege works, the diminutive French garrison successfully defended old-style fortifications against the artillery of the military revolution. Finally, the English high command performed badly. Grey's decision to proceed with the assault without ascertaining the strength of his forces at a muster, contrary to the advice of the officers who had inspected the breach, borders on criminal negligence. His quarrel with Lord General Norfolk after the assault's failure betrayed the pettiness, dishonesty and incompetence of both. Recriminations between Grey and Norfolk, and the scapegoating of Croft, made an ugly scene. The performance of her generals convinced Elizabeth that she would have to question their good jugement (or lack of it). The queen saw warfare swallow up enormous amounts of money. The logistical problems, the need for carriages, naval support, etc., underscored the precarious timetables involved in campaigning, with consequent ramifications for her freedom of manoevre in negotations and diplomacy. The soldiers themselves were found unsatisfactory, poorly trained (if at all), and insufficiently armed.
-Various quotations from English Warfare 1511, 1642, by Mark Charles Fissel
And in turn I can take some selective quote about the greatness of Ming dynasty troops, like...
"Those known as southern soldiers, are from the region of Zhejiang. These soldiers are unrivaled in bravery. They do not ride horses and all fights on foot. They are good at using fire arrows, cannons, and their swordsmanship and pike skills are all superior to the Japanese."
-Korean records of Imjin war
"these people's [Portugal's] only weapon is a soft sword, their naval combat ability is inferior to our soldiers, and on the ground, long spears would have subdued them."
-Ming admiral Yu Dayou (1503-1579), in a treatise on how to deal with Portuguese fleets and other hazards
"The Dutch have no other skills but in the use of firepower. Huang Zhao, you will lead 500 gunners with 200 repeating cannons split into three divisions to face them. Yang Xiang, you will lead 500 rattan soldiers to bypass Pedel from the right, and then charge out for the kill. Xiao Gong Chen, you will prepare twenty ships. When you see their ranks cross Baxemboy and engaged with ours, wave your flags yelling while setting sail, pretending to attack their fort. Their soldiers will naturally panic, without daring to engage, and will surely be broken.”
-account of Guo Xingye (1624-1662), giving directions to his troops to drive the Dutch out of Taiwan
But as you know, the quality of troops and leadership can vary in any given time, or region in that time.
