Peace I did not know.
I guess I'm happy with their state now, just beat the ottomans on the second try.
A True Purple Pheonix
- Thread starter Maver1ck
- 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.
Peace I did not know.
I guess I'm happy with their state now, just beat the ottomans on the second try.
I think Byzantium should get Ottoman tech. Since the Ottomans pretty much replaced them geopolitically, I think the technological stagnation of the Ottoman Empire gives a good approximation of what would happen to the Byzantine Empire if it had survived past the 1400's. It's certainly more realistic than the naive wishful thinking of "The Byzantine Empire was more advanced than Western Europe in 1444 so they should keep that advantage even though all the other places more advanced than Western Europe, and all the nations in the same geographical area as Byzantium, eventually fell behind in technology; because otherwise you won't fulfill my power fantasies!".
You know there's something that frustrates me about the people who say RotW falling behind Europe is just some people's fantasies.
1. The game is called Europa Universalis. It's not called Terra Universalis.
2. It's not a fantasy, it's what happened. All the anecdotal evidence of "oh hey these people HERE somewhat held off the Europeans for a time" means very little because it still happens in game. All the time you think you need less troops than you actually do a little conquest war against some American tribe ends up being an annoying affair. They even have fantasty things like Native Americans not just being able to usurp European weapons but being able to get their administrative and diplomatic technology as well. In addition RotW is outperforming their historical selves already so there's already favoritism being shown to them.
3. It's a very small development studio and I'd rather what little time to work they have be done on what the majority of the people buy the game to play. Sure, the Manchu were more important and need some work but there's a hundred reasons why Europe ended up the way they did. Maybe tech costs aren't the best way to show that but it's a lot simpler than a hundred scripted events.
1. The game is called Europa Universalis. It's not called Terra Universalis.
2. It's not a fantasy, it's what happened. All the anecdotal evidence of "oh hey these people HERE somewhat held off the Europeans for a time" means very little because it still happens in game. All the time you think you need less troops than you actually do a little conquest war against some American tribe ends up being an annoying affair. They even have fantasty things like Native Americans not just being able to usurp European weapons but being able to get their administrative and diplomatic technology as well. In addition RotW is outperforming their historical selves already so there's already favoritism being shown to them.
3. It's a very small development studio and I'd rather what little time to work they have be done on what the majority of the people buy the game to play. Sure, the Manchu were more important and need some work but there's a hundred reasons why Europe ended up the way they did. Maybe tech costs aren't the best way to show that but it's a lot simpler than a hundred scripted events.
It's an odd requirement, to be sure. I'm not sure why being at peace should matter for a mission to appear. (Given that you'll be required to wage war to obtain most of the mission objectives anyway.)
That and aside from war, there isn't much for BYZ to do once you removed kebab.
I'm pretty sure nobody is (seriously) disagreeing about actual history. What people dislike about EU4's tech in general is that the different tech speeds are hard-coded regardless of what's going on in-game (not counting the rather arbitrary "westernization"), rather than being an emergent result of in-game circumstances.
It IS a fantasy more that a history.
You can form fantastic kingdoms like Scandinavia, Kingdoms of God/of Jerusalem, you can WC with Ryuku or Theodoro! You can form Germany, Italy or Russia in early 1600's, you can restore Rus' (Ruthenia). In this game Paris with 15 BT is only 10 times more rich than Okhotsk (Polar tundra\mountains province) you can move your armies through Alps without losing any single soldier.
So please, if you prefer playing BBB, EN/GB or Brandenburg/Prussia and think that only Europe should be fun to play, I have bad news for you.
1) It's called Europa Universalis because it's a brand name, and ever since EU2 the game has been expanding in scope of available nations to play. If only Europe should be played, then the rest of the world shouldn't even have been added back in EU3 or whenever they were added. As is, though, the game is clearly not just "Europe-only", and hasn't been "Europe-only" for at least an entire game iteration. Really wish people would stop acting like the name being Europa Universalis means that only Europe should be playable.
2) It's what happened due to things that happened in history. If things transpired differently, then who's to say certain areas of the world would not be as backwards as Europe was at the end of the time period? Who's to say that Europe had to come out on top, if hypothetically Ming became an amazing powerhouse with great administration? If India wasn't in political turmoil when Europe arrived? If disease didn't destroy most of the New World population?
As is, the tech speed ingame is designed to replicate history without the game replicating history and replicating the causes that led to the effects. Westernization is a bandaid to this, because currently tech speeds are hard-coded regardless of whether nations outperform their historical counterparts or not.
3) Europe is fine. The only problem Europe has is that playing the game becomes an absolute bore after 1600 because they have no difficulty. This is more because Europe is too priviledged and doesn't have to work to attain their geopolitical dominant status that Europe achieved at the end of the era. This is both due to internal problems (or the lack thereof) and the fact that Europe gets to ahistorically walk over nations well before their end date (Muscovy does this to hordes quite often if it actually feels compelled to attack them).
Besides, a large reason of why a majority of player starts picked being in Europe (and European great powers at that) is because they're the ones with the most fleshed out areas. I'm not saying that Aachen needs to have as much detail as Great Britain does, but Europe as a whole has a lot more flavor than playing a Native American. This is getting better over time, but we're still not quite there yet.
Okay, so which region do you feel the developers should spend the next year pulling up to Europe standards? China? North Africa? Sub Saharan Africa? The Persian region? General hordes?
Culminating their efforts in Europe allows the developers to have at least one well developed and fun region. They're a what, 9 man team? If they had 150 members they could do AAA quality, but they're 9 dudes and they can do very little.
Culminating their efforts in Europe allows the developers to have at least one well developed and fun region. They're a what, 9 man team? If they had 150 members they could do AAA quality, but they're 9 dudes and they can do very little.
Are you implying that Europe isn't well-developed and fun to play? Given that a majority of starts are done in the European region, I'd be inclined to disagree just on the grounds of numbers. Honestly Europe's problem isn't even Europe's problem but a problem with the game as a whole. Focusing on Europe in that regard doesn't make the game better.
I agree about the Native American fantasies, but ROTW is not just talking about the Aztecs, but also the Ming/Qing, which for much of the first half of the time frame was historically ahead militarily, economically, and administratively than Europe. Ming in the 1500's was one most of the most technologically advanced nations. In game it has less tech than naked African tribes, because the African tribes all westernize! Qing in the 1700's, while clearly behind Europe in Mil tech at this point, should still be able to make it up with numbers; 1700's Qing would have had no trouble fighting off European invasions. In game Portugal or any second rate European power could defeat and partition Ming/Qing if it so chose to in the 1700's. Even the world power Great Britain 100 years later could only get away with annexing a village. The game treats East Asia like Africa (the uncivilized, naked tribe parts. The civilized parts are Muslim tech), which is disappointing.
You should separate Western Europe with it's 5*5 mm provinces and Eastern Europe with huge square-like provinces and wrong terrain type.
If you want to play fun games as European, just try not to overblob yourself, just focus on feeding vassals and breaking apart large blobs.