Low-entropy structures are not all advantages: high-entropy structures are suitable for rapid deployment and adaptation in expansion games where resources have not yet been divided, while low-entropy structures are suitable for establishing efficiency advantages and strong control in systems where resource boundaries are already established and entering stock competition.

Taking the history of the East and West as an example: The expansion history of the Han people was basically completed in the Zhou Dynasty, which is a typical high-entropy disordered structure, where each feudal lord acted according to their own interests.

The expansion of the British Empire is actually very similar to that of the Zhou Dynasty, where charter companies (such as the East India Company, Hudson's Bay Company), pirates, adventurers, missionaries, merchants, and scientists all played important roles in the expansion history, but the Royal Navy/British unified currency provided a bonding role similar to 'Zhou Li'. Similar examples include Russia's expansion in Siberia, which was not conducted by regular troops, but by merchants, adventurers, Cossacks, and other decentralized high-entropy expansions.

In contrast, why was Zheng He’s voyages to the West terminated? I think it was because he used a low-entropy structure to carry out expansion. Suppose Judy was a bit smarter, she could simply issue licenses, appoint kings/governors, would the British still have the opportunity to play the colonial game?

However, the premise of high-entropy expansion is that you are making incremental gains. What is incremental gain? It is a technological gap; for the Zhou kings and lords who mastered agriculture and bronze technology, the border minorities were considered 'blank areas'. For the British, who mastered modern technology, the whole world was a 'blank area'.

But when all the colonies have been divided and entered into stock competition, it is clear that low-entropy countries have more advantages, such as after the end of the Spring and Autumn period entering the Warring States (stock competition), but the low-entropy structure (county system) obviously had the upper hand, defeating the high-entropy structure (Chu State, with many nobles). Similarly, Germany had a significant advantage over France and even Britain; if it were not for the United States entering the war, the outcome would be uncertain.

The question arises: Is the current US-China competition a stock game or an incremental game? How about China-India?

I see it more like a stock game, with no such thing as 'one trick that can conquer all'.

So, what is the conclusion?