Why cannon warships developed differently in East Asia

Why was there less emphasis on cannon-armed warships in parts of East Asia before the early modern European model spread?

Different wars, industrial resources, and state priorities favored land forces, boarding, and amphibious operations rather than the European pattern of heavily gunned fleets.

Different military problems and industrial resources are offered as the explanation for divergent warship development. European states faced repeated naval wars, while major Asian empires directed more resources toward land armies and amphibious or boarding operations. Korean turtle ships are discussed in relation to opponents without comparable gun foundries, with their protection judged inadequate against the weight of cannon carried by Western European fleets. Command also mattered: Korean naval infrastructure could work effectively under competent leadership and suffer when court politics replaced commanders. Military development is therefore explained through local threats, institutions and the resources governments chose to support.