Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

HoD Turbo Westernized China

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
I think the biggest problem with the system is the huge variance in RP's you can get depending on the population and literacy of the target. Maxing out on RP's after taking Korea is a bit too good, while getting almost nothing when taking a little 20,000 population country in the Middle East or Africa sucks a bit too much. This is because the limiting mechanic is infamy, but infamy is tied to the number of states you conquer (if anything) rather than their population. It would be nice if they reworked the mechanic to provide RP that scales on the number of states or regions taken instead. It would tone down China and Japan while giving other uncivs have more rewarding paths to civilizing.
 
There's only a bad thing. Too early westernization + low literacy = become like a giant Russia. Full of troops but early obsolete.
I never tried to boost school-reforms before westernization...could help...
 
Getting any RP for conquering other uncivs doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, unless perhaps the other unciv is more advanced, i.e. has taken more military reforms.

I can see getting RP for fighting armies that are already westernized, e.g. if Japan decided to attack the Dutch, since it would reflect learning from campaigns against more advanced forces. But Japan fighting Korea or China and getting RP toward westernization really doesn't make sense if both of those countries are less advanced at the time of the fighting.
 
Stromgarde said:
Getting any RP for conquering other uncivs doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, unless perhaps the other unciv is more advanced, i.e. has taken more military reforms.

I can see getting RP for fighting armies that are already westernized, e.g. if Japan decided to attack the Dutch, since it would reflect learning from campaigns against more advanced forces. But Japan fighting Korea or China and getting RP toward westernization really doesn't make sense if both of those countries are less advanced at the time of the fighting.
Click to expand...

You only get the RP after enacting reforms, so it is simply a matter of putting into use the reforms. Still OP, though, should be toned down an order of magnitude.
 
Stromgarde said:
Getting any RP for conquering other uncivs doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, unless perhaps the other unciv is more advanced, i.e. has taken more military reforms.

I can see getting RP for fighting armies that are already westernized, e.g. if Japan decided to attack the Dutch, since it would reflect learning from campaigns against more advanced forces. But Japan fighting Korea or China and getting RP toward westernization really doesn't make sense if both of those countries are less advanced at the time of the fighting.
Click to expand...
The gameplay justification is that before this, there really wasn't much to do when playing uncivs and if you were playing a moderately large one, expanding would actually slow down your westernization (because of extra low-clergy states dragging down your research and literacy). The new system rewards expansion and makes unciv play much more strategic.

The historical justification is that most attempts at westernization started with military reforms, then broadened into economic and political reforms in order to sustain that army. The classic example is Japan, but the same could be said of Egypt, Panjab, and Qing (later KMT). In-game, winning wars with your reformed army lets you push extra reforms faster, so it's not that you're "learning" by defeating other uncivs so much as conquering them justifies westernization and gets important people on board with it.
 
Peter Kirby said:
I think the biggest problem with the system is the huge variance in RP's you can get depending on the population and literacy of the target. Maxing out on RP's after taking Korea is a bit too good, while getting almost nothing when taking a little 20,000 population country in the Middle East or Africa sucks a bit too much. This is because the limiting mechanic is infamy, but infamy is tied to the number of states you conquer (if anything) rather than their population. It would be nice if they reworked the mechanic to provide RP that scales on the number of states or regions taken instead. It would tone down China and Japan while giving other uncivs have more rewarding paths to civilizing.
Click to expand...

RP is scaled on number of provinces, over 300 for each (probably 360) regardless of literacy/population with every military reform of the 0.25 RP conquest bonus.
 
icedt729 said:
The gameplay justification is that before this, there really wasn't much to do when playing uncivs and if you were playing a moderately large one, expanding would actually slow down your westernization (because of extra low-clergy states dragging down your research and literacy). The new system rewards expansion and makes unciv play much more strategic.

The historical justification is that most attempts at westernization started with military reforms, then broadened into economic and political reforms in order to sustain that army. The classic example is Japan, but the same could be said of Egypt, Panjab, and Qing (later KMT). In-game, winning wars with your reformed army lets you push extra reforms faster, so it's not that you're "learning" by defeating other uncivs so much as conquering them justifies westernization and gets important people on board with it.
Click to expand...

Well, I can see the argument with respect to clergy/literacy from a game perspective, although at the same time how many of the "uncivs" in the Victoria II timeline actually went on these types of conquering sprees before you could say they were really westernized as defined by the game? In most cases I'd say they focused on getting their own internal house in order before looking externally to conquest.

As things stand right now the game is encouraging conquest as a means of quicker westernization. So, Japan benefits from annexing Korea decades earlier, whereas in the real world Japanese moves into Korea were more a reflection of its own "westernization" (and an effort to prevent Korea from falling into a European sphere) as opposed to a means to obtain "westernization".

Yes, I realize it's a game and there are a lot of things in the game that don't necessarily make historical sense but are there for balance or other reasons. It does still seem odd to me, but if the reason was to make playing uncivs more enjoyable I can accept that even if I still find it unrealistic.
 
Stromgarde said:
Well, I can see the argument with respect to clergy/literacy from a game perspective, although at the same time how many of the "uncivs" in the Victoria II timeline actually went on these types of conquering sprees before you could say they were really westernized as defined by the game? In most cases I'd say they focused on getting their own internal house in order before looking externally to conquest.

As things stand right now the game is encouraging conquest as a means of quicker westernization. So, Japan benefits from annexing Korea decades earlier, whereas in the real world Japanese moves into Korea were more a reflection of its own "westernization" (and an effort to prevent Korea from falling into a European sphere) as opposed to a means to obtain "westernization".

Yes, I realize it's a game and there are a lot of things in the game that don't necessarily make historical sense but are there for balance or other reasons. It does still seem odd to me, but if the reason was to make playing uncivs more enjoyable I can accept that even if I still find it unrealistic.
Click to expand...

I do agree that overall it's too rewarding and I predict a nerf at some point. I just made Persia a GP before 1860, when even Japan was only at around 50% westernization, and although I enjoyed it a lot there was a definite sense of wrongness.
 
colinljx said:
RP is scaled on number of provinces, over 300 for each (probably 360) regardless of literacy/population with every military reform of the 0.25 RP conquest bonus.
Click to expand...

Well if that doesn't just make me more confused about it. First I read one thing and then another. Is there a good source for this kind of information?
 
Peter Kirby said:
Well if that doesn't just make me more confused about it. First I read one thing and then another. Is there a good source for this kind of information?
Click to expand...

Playtesting is the easiest, but you can always look into the lines inside defines.txt under the "common" folder. Here it goes:

RESEARCH_POINTS_ON_CONQUER_MULT = 360, -- multiplier to RP got by conquering as unciv when got enacted military reforms
 
colinljx said:
Playtesting is the easiest, but you can always look into the lines inside defines.txt under the "common" folder. Here it goes:

RESEARCH_POINTS_ON_CONQUER_MULT = 360, -- multiplier to RP got by conquering as unciv when got enacted military reforms
Click to expand...
Lop off the "3" and one has a much more reasonable number.
 
Peter Kirby said:
I'm still not completely clear on what the multiplier is multiplying. I know that I've gotten much, much more than 360 RP from conquering single-province uncivs.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, for every single one of the 4 RP reforms you passed, you get 360 RP for conquering a province. (Province, not state, so 19 provinces for annexing Korea)

Do you ever play test yourself? Instead of saying "much more", just declare war, tag switch to the enemy to accept PO and switch back to see the difference. It only takes a few minutes to see it for yourself.
 
If I was playing China, I'd hold off on westernizing until I got all the reforms through, as getting research points through conquest is much faster than natural means. More reforms=more techs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back