You're at minimum 8 techs behind, so westernizing is hardly "catching up". You still have to catch up in tech, which costs several thousand more monarch power.
1.4 - Westernisation Changed
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes. Some countries have better starting positions. If you start as France, you can finish much bigger than you would if you start as OPM. They have different starting position, and their final potential is different. So what?
You still save ~50-150% of what you would pay if you would not westernize, so it is worth it unless you want t westernize above tech 23 or something. And reaching tech 23 for Chinese or Indian tech group is quite hard, and next to impossible for Native Americans or Africans.
I take it you changed both sides of the events, not just the stability-hits? Because if 'bad stuff happens' still means losing 100 of some power alongside something else, that would be excessively annoying with this system.
But yeah, I'm not sure if this counts as more interesting. At least you can now prepare legitimately, at least with almost western groups. But for a new-world country saving up the max 3000 points isn't going to get you very far (assuming you still drop down to 999 if you're above when you 'spend' points on westernization).
But yeah, I'm not sure if this counts as more interesting. At least you can now prepare legitimately, at least with almost western groups. But for a new-world country saving up the max 3000 points isn't going to get you very far (assuming you still drop down to 999 if you're above when you 'spend' points on westernization).
The point is that by westernizing you will be so much behind that you simply won't catch up. With or without the neighbor bonus.
Should end more advanced in tech than western nations or...?
I don't get the point. You westernize, yes. But that does not mean that you suddenly have napoleonic squares and republican dictatorships. Westernization should be hard and costly.
One could argue that West Europe got broad access to Muslim technology and knowledge at the time of First Crusade, so from 1100, , it was catching up and eventually surpassed Muslims and East around 14xx or 15xx whatever you choose. That is 3 centuries of catching up, having the contact and having decent starting position.
But people complain that it takes them 30-40 years to westernize and probably another 50-100 years to catch up to west, and that it is SO unfair. I do not get it, at all.
But people complain that it takes them 30-40 years to westernize and probably another 50-100 years to catch up to west, and that it is SO unfair. I do not get it, at all.
Last edited:
Just because longer westernisation is more historically accurate, does not make it 'fair' in game for the player. As somebody who plays mostly non-European countries I am not excited for this change. That is mainly because IMO it will slow the game down massively and I could potentially spend 1/6 or 1/7 of my game time each save just trying to fill a bar up. That is before my tech has even caught up.
Obviously we all need to wait to see how the mechanic plays out because it may turn out to be the Holy Grail of changes but ATM on paper (or internet text
) it seems pretty annoying. .
Just because longer westernisation is more historically accurate, does not make it 'fair' in game for the player. As somebody who plays mostly non-European countries I am not excited for this change. That is mainly because IMO it will slow the game down massively and I could potentially spend 1/6 or 1/7 of my game time each save just trying to fill a bar up. That is before my tech has even caught up.
Obviously we all need to wait to see how the mechanic plays out because it may turn out to be the Holy Grail of changes but ATM on paper (or internet text
From my experiences in MP till now it totally breaks off balance after a nation like Ming westernizes in 5 to 10 years without problems.
If don't want westernization problems, don't westernize.
That makes it a lot less insane than the 5000-8000-10000+ numbers originally bandied about, and much better.
Despite having over 400 hours game time, I have actually never touched the MP side of the game. I can see how a 10 year early westernisation for Ming can be frustrating for other players but by the sounds of this update it will tip the scales completely the other way and make it grossly annoying for the westernising nations. Also, I would perhaps argue that if a relatively strong country in MP knows Ming is in the midst of westernising that said player should try to destabilise Ming, perhaps with the help of other players in true MP style xD Obviously, that may not always be possible and again with a huge lack of MP knowledge I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't possible.
My overall point though is that I think this may perhaps swing the pendulum too far on the opposite side of the westernisation scale, from being too fast and easy to becoming too slow and boring. Similar to when AE was changed, and now is being changed again to meet seemingly somewhere in the middle. I suspect that what has happened to AE may also happen to westernisation.
That sounds a lot less insane. At 2400 that's 80 months minimum instead of 200 months minimum.
Yay... instead of 20 years of watching the paint dry we only get 10... how... merciful.
No no, I do not complain about that. I complain that clicking Westernization could probably end up being "congratulation, you have finished playing for 20 years. Go have a walk or something, I guess?".
There's nothing stopping you from saving up 900 dip points and continuing to wage wars as normal, Honestly with these new numbers and no points lost westernization is probably going to be easier as it is laid out here in many scenarios.
My big worry is I think it might be too easy and the player will be incapable of stopping the whole world from doing it in no time.