Honestly, we don't need EU5

[LAVA7171]

Strongly disagree.

Eu4, by its core mechanics is Eurocentric and has to massively underpower the countries outside of Europe in order to ensure Europe’s dominance by the end of the game, which in my opinion teaches a harmful and incorrect message of history. It should correctly portray Europe’s slow rise from the old world’s poorest continent to the richest in 1821 where a single European power was on par with China in strength, a country that in 1444 was more powerful than the whole continent combined.

And that’s just the biggest problem. There are countless smaller problems with the game, such as the horribly balanced map that has certain regions more power based on when they were updated last. Mission trees suck. Monarch power sucks. We have no even half decent population system. The power creep is out of control. Administration of a country is still too easy.

There are plenty of ways to improve the game that requires a new game entirely. I just hope paradox does not choose to rush the next game out or simplify it in hopes of it going more mainstream like hoi4.

 

[Lehnaru]

If a movie tanks, the sequel usually doesn't get written.

Where is the Titanic sequel?!

 

[Pellucid]

Strongly disagree.

Eu4, by its core mechanics is Eurocentric and has to massively underpower the countries outside of Europe in order to ensure Europe’s dominance by the end of the game, which in my opinion teaches a harmful and incorrect message of history. It should correctly portray Europe’s slow rise from the old world’s poorest continent to the richest in 1821 where a single European power was on par with China in strength, a country that in 1444 was more powerful than the whole continent combined.

This is a pretty extreme exaggeration. China had a great deal of wealth and power in 1444, but it was already beginning the slide into corruption that ultimately fractured them by 1450. If Ming were adjacent to the Ottoman Empire or Spain in 1450, I don't think they would have been able to beat either of them. Their population was huge, but most of their peasantry was off the books and the Emperor had no access to them in terms of taxes or conscription. If anything, Ming was saved for another hundred years by the arrival of Europeans and their demand for Chinese goods.

So while I'd say that if the game started in, say 1390 your assessment of Ming would be still exaggerated but reasonable, your analysis does not hold true for the time period in question. 1400 is when Europe started to pull away from the rest of the world in terms of science and culture, and it's not "Eurocentric" to have EU focus on European nations any more than it would be "NATOcentric" for a game based in the current era to have a focus on NATO nations. It's just the reality of the era.

I think trying to avoid being "Eurocentric" is the biggest thing holding Europa Universalis IV back. Europe dominated the world between 1500 until around 1950, and even if people view that as a net negative for the world, it should be represented in a game that's purportedly based on history.

 

[Testerian2]

Imperator tanked, and they pulled the plug.

Vic3 is currently doing well enough to merit continued investment.

But nobody is excited about the franchise anymore.

 

[Testerian2]

What makes you think I wasn't talking about the game?

EU4 majors are comically easy and, IMO, impossible to have fun with, and you think playing as even a minor in CK3 is too easy for you to have fun, but CAN have fun with majors in EU4. That means CK3 must be way, way too easy.

You may not know, but You can start as a minor and then play Russia or Ottos. And it was in a post trying to show that different places on the map played very differently then.

 

[Testerian2]

Where is the Titanic sequel?!

Corporations tend to treat art as potatoes but it never works in the long run.

 

[Testerian2]

Strongly disagree.

Eu4, by its core mechanics is Eurocentric and has to massively underpower the countries outside of Europe in order to ensure Europe’s dominance by the end of the game, which in my opinion teaches a harmful and incorrect message of history. It should correctly portray Europe’s slow rise from the old world’s poorest continent to the richest in 1821 where a single European power was on par with China in strength, a country that in 1444 was more powerful than the whole continent combined.

And that’s just the biggest problem. There are countless smaller problems with the game, such as the horribly balanced map that has certain regions more power based on when they were updated last. Mission trees suck. Monarch power sucks. We have no even half decent population system. The power creep is out of control. Administration of a country is still too easy.

There are plenty of ways to improve the game that requires a new game entirely. I just hope paradox does not choose to rush the next game out or simplify it in hopes of it going more mainstream like hoi4.

I had no faith in PDX after the "Fate of Iberia" and I stopped buying anything they produce. But I do have faith in Johan and if PDX allows him to do what he wants to do, I'm sure we will see a great game. In my book, Imperator proves it really well.

 

[Universalis_]

This is a pretty extreme exaggeration. China had a great deal of wealth and power in 1444, but it was already beginning the slide into corruption that ultimately fractured them by 1450. If Ming were adjacent to the Ottoman Empire or Spain in 1450, I don't think they would have been able to beat either of them. Their population was huge, but most of their peasantry was off the books and the Emperor had no access to them in terms of taxes or conscription. If anything, Ming was saved for another hundred years by the arrival of Europeans and their demand for Chinese goods.

So while I'd say that if the game started in, say 1390 your assessment of Ming would be still exaggerated but reasonable, your analysis does not hold true for the time period in question. 1400 is when Europe started to pull away from the rest of the world in terms of science and culture, and it's not "Eurocentric" to have EU focus on European nations any more than it would be "NATOcentric" for a game based in the current era to have a focus on NATO nations. It's just the reality of the era.

I think trying to avoid being "Eurocentric" is the biggest thing holding Europa Universalis IV back. Europe dominated the world between 1500 until around 1950, and even if people view that as a net negative for the world, it should be represented in a game that's purportedly based on history.

Your rhetoric is full of Eurocentric and Atlanticist bias.

"Being able to beat x" is too much of a gamey term to debate and reduces the discussion, treating it as if it were a power-level discussion or so.
However, for the sake of comparison, Chinese war junks defeated Portuguese carracks in the 16th century. Funnily enough, the Spanish planned a conquest and evangelization of China in the same century, using the Philippines as a staging point. It never advanced the talking stage, and I doubt it'd succeed.
Other than that, a general of a rump Chinese state during the Manchu Conquest was able to siege a European fort and kick their presence in Taiwan in the late 17th century. One hundred years after the supposed start of European domination.

If anything, it's in Victoria's timeframe that you actually have an uncontestable European domination. In other words, solely in the setting stage of the Europa Universalis games their hegemony becomes a thing.

The employment of "pulling away from the rest of the world in terms of culture" is problematic, as you are defining one side as getting better, superior, since you paired it with science. At least, that's what you seem to imply. I apologize if I misunderstood it.

If anything, the notion of absolute European superiority falls short in the Americas. Western polities only cemented their control and ruthlessly crushed the remaining indigenous resistance during Victoria's timeframe, including in Mexico and the Andes. The story of a handful of awesome white guys with guns, steel, horses, and germs toppling empires with ease isn't true. It's a much more complicated affair, lasting several decades and sometimes centuries.

Their population was huge, but most of their peasantry was off the books and the Emperor had no access to them in terms of taxes or conscription. If anything, Ming was saved for another hundred years by the arrival of Europeans and their demand for Chinese goods.

So while I'd say that if the game started in, say 1390 your assessment of Ming would be still exaggerated but reasonable, your analysis does not hold true for the time period in question.

The Chinese dynasties could field and maintain armies larger than any European state, and employed a complex system of census, bookeeping and records that put 16th/15th European ones to shame. The bureaucratic and State apparatus of the Chinese dynasties, with their imperial examinations, Ministeries, legions of officers and bureaucrats, weren't a joke.
In fact, the growth of the capacity of European monarchs to field and maintain larger armies is related with the refinement of their bureaucratic and administrative capacity and centralization.

Ming wasn't saved for another hundred years because the Europeans arrived. That's completely false. While you may eventually corelate the sudden collapse of their silver supply with a drastic reduction of American silver, you have climatical changes (the Little Ice Age, messing with the peasants crops), higher tax rates directed at the peasants, legacy of recent Emperors, and the Manchu. If anything, the collapse of the Ming and their conquest by the Manchus/Qing went through several decades.

1400 is when Europe started to pull away from the rest of the world in terms of science and culture, and it's not "Eurocentric" to have EU focus on European nations any more than it would be "NATOcentric" for a game based in the current era to have a focus on NATO nations. It's just the reality of the era.

The thing is that history is a process. It's not something set in stone through specific dates. It's a long process that involves several social and material forces moving it in a direction. The so-called Great Divergence happened over centuries, from the origin of mercantilism to the Industrial Revolution and the beginnings of capitalism, the eventual Scientific Revolution, and so on and so forth. Other than mercantilism, which is quite close to the start date and fruit of the Commercial Revolution, the other events occur later down the line.
From the 15th century to the 16th century, you do indeed have European advancements through naval technology, pioneered by Iberian powers, and the improvement of guns and canons.

Paradox isn't going to make a current-era game. Like, never.
Even if they did, I hope they ignore the NATOcentric a.k.a Atlanticist arguments of yours. It isn't the reality of the era. If anything, the "reality of the era" would be an eventual transition to a multipolar world again, but that's too much of a current political matter to delve into.

I think trying to avoid being "Eurocentric" is the biggest thing holding Europa Universalis IV back. Europe dominated the world between 1500 until around 1950, and even if people view that as a net negative for the world, it should be represented in a game that's purportedly based on history.

Paradox doesn't propose itself to make a historical simulation. It tries to develop strategy games with historical frames in mind, and that's all.
Besides, the notion of Europe dominating the world between 1500 to 1950 isn't even true. European domination is more of a thing by the time of Victoria. If you change the term European to Western (which includes the USSR and the US during the Cold War), you can have it from the 18th/19th century to today, maybe not 2024, as it's difficult to judge the present through a contemporary lens. You need some time to pass before actively analyzing what's going on.

 

[Pellucid]

Your rhetoric is full of Eurocentric and Atlanticist bias.

"Being able to beat x" is too much of a gamey term to debate and reduces the discussion, treating it as if it were a power-level discussion or so.
However, for the sake of comparison, Chinese war junks defeated Portuguese carracks in the 16th century. Funnily enough, the Spanish planned a conquest and evangelization of China in the same century, using the Philippines as a staging point. It never advanced the talking stage, and I doubt it'd succeed.
Other than that, a general of a rump Chinese state during the Manchu Conquest was able to siege a European fort and kick their presence in Taiwan in the late 17th century. One hundred years after the supposed start of European domination.

Yes, and oftentimes native Americans who hadn't even discovered the wheel were able to defeat European colonial garrisons as well. Shaka embarrassed the British Empire repeatedly. That doesn't mean they were on the same technological, social, or economic levels as the people they defeated. (Also, if you're talking about the Battle of Sincouwaan, that was 30 vs 6, and of those 6 ships only 2 were sunk.)

The employment of "pulling away from the rest of the world in terms of culture" is problematic, as you are defining one side as getting better, superior, since you paired it with science. At least, that's what you seem to imply. I apologize if I misunderstood it.

No, you're right. I would consider nations that banned institutions like serfdom, slavery, and treating women as a commodity to be superior to those that did not do those things.

If anything, the notion of absolute European superiority falls short in the Americas. Western polities only cemented their control and ruthlessly crushed the remaining indigenous resistance during Victoria's timeframe, including in Mexico and the Andes. The story of a handful of awesome white guys with guns, steel, horses, and germs toppling empires with ease isn't true. It's a much more complicated affair, lasting several decades and sometimes centuries.

Nobody said that. You're arguing with a phantom. It was indeed a challenge for small European forces to conquer large native tribes, and there was a lot more integration than subjugation. Mexico retains a unique individual culture from Spain because native traditions and power structures were often allowed to remain in place as long as they gave lip service to Spanish subjugation.

The Chinese dynasties could field and maintain armies larger than any European state, and employed a complex system of census, bookeeping and records that put 16th/15th European ones to shame. The bureaucratic and State apparatus of the Chinese dynasties, with their imperial examinations, Ministeries, legions of officers and bureaucrats, weren't a joke.

This is just nonsense. Needing "legions of officers and bureaucrats" is evidence of a Byzantine, overly-complex system that takes vastly too much time and effort to maintain properly. There's a reason why the founder of the Ming dynasty, the Hongwu Emperor, basically attempted to throw out the entire system and start over, and why that system turned on his heir the moment he died and installed an Emperor friendly to the old, corrupt bureaucracy.

Paradox doesn't propose itself to make a historical simulation. It tries to develop strategy games with historical frames in mind, and that's all.
Besides, the notion of Europe dominating the world between 1500 to 1950 isn't even true.

Name a non-European nation that had the reach, influence, and autonomy of Spain, France, or Britain in the 1600's. There isn't one. They certainly dominated MORE in the Victoria era (owning literally the majority of all land on the entire planet), but even before that era there was no non-European power that represented a significant threat to any major European power at the time, unless you don't count the Ottoman Empire as European.

 

[LAVA7171]

This is a pretty extreme exaggeration. China had a great deal of wealth and power in 1444, but it was already beginning the slide into corruption that ultimately fractured them by 1450. If Ming were adjacent to the Ottoman Empire or Spain in 1450, I don't think they would have been able to beat either of them. Their population was huge, but most of their peasantry was off the books and the Emperor had no access to them in terms of taxes or conscription. If anything, Ming was saved for another hundred years by the arrival of Europeans and their demand for Chinese goods.

So while I'd say that if the game started in, say 1390 your assessment of Ming would be still exaggerated but reasonable, your analysis does not hold true for the time period in question. 1400 is when Europe started to pull away from the rest of the world in terms of science and culture, and it's not "Eurocentric" to have EU focus on European nations any more than it would be "NATOcentric" for a game based in the current era to have a focus on NATO nations. It's just the reality of the era.

I think trying to avoid being "Eurocentric" is the biggest thing holding Europa Universalis IV back. Europe dominated the world between 1500 until around 1950, and even if people view that as a net negative for the world, it should be represented in a game that's purportedly based on history.

There is more to power than military strength.
Ming had a population of 51-100 million and a gdp per capita on par with England in 1500, which was only lower than Italy and the Netherlands, the richest parts of Europe in 1500.

A History of the Global Economy

Why are some parts of the world poor today, while others are rich? At which point in time did they diverge, and what were the reasons? These core questions are addressed in a concise and accessible introduction to global economic development since 1500. Leading economic historians from across...

books.google.com

With Europe having a population of about 60 million, even if we assume China to have 50 million people and Europe’s gdp per capita to be equal to England witch it was almost certainly lower, China nearly keeps up with Europe in economic output, and that is giving Europe all of the benefit of the doubt. If we give ming 100 million people and all of Europe Spain gdp per capita China completely runs away.

So no, I am not exaggerating. But yeah, I will concede China’s military is garbage and China (particularly Qing, which for some reason has strong National ideas?) committed suicide in the second half of EU4’s timeline. Europe slowly began to dominate the world during eu4’s timeline and it was uncontestedly dominate by the end of the timeline. This should be reflected in the game and the details should be fluid. (Ie. China that does not commit suicide should still economically dominate the world even without expanding its boarders)

I would argue that the bias education system is responsible, but eu4 just serves as confirmation for these incorrect views of history when it has the potential to smash these incorrect stereotypes and outdated history viewpoints.

It’s fine to have a bias game, but to claim to be a history game without making it directly clear this game is bias towards Europe and by even worse, painting the early modern era as a time of uncontested European dominance is wrong and risks spreading historical narratives that can prove as conformation of chauvinistic or downright racist belief systems is wrong. So for eu4 to be a “good” bias game, it needs to cut out China from the game nearly entirely, and only make it a place to trade with or maybe support a certain side in the event of a civil war for more trade benefits, but nothing super direct. India and the East Indies are a little trickier, as they were colonized towards the end of the timeline, but maybe this could be handled by setting up companies not directly controlled by the player but had to be managed by them.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

I frequently see every nation in the world with the same green colour on the technology map mode so...

 

[Universalis_]

Yes, and oftentimes native Americans who hadn't even discovered the wheel were able to defeat European colonial garrisons as well. Shaka embarrassed the British Empire repeatedly. That doesn't mean they were on the same technological, social, or economic levels as the people they defeated. (Also, if you're talking about the Battle of Sincouwaan, that was 30 vs 6, and of those 6 ships only 2 were sunk.)

During the Sino-Portuguese (under the Ming) and the Sino-Dutch (under Ming loyalists) conflicts, the Chinese defeated the Europeans, including during sea battles.
Technology isn't a tree. You don't "discover" the wheel, you invent if if your environment makes it useful. The Native Americans lacked beasts of burden to the point of making large-scale use of wheels useful. European victories often happened due to native allies, be it in India, the Americas, whatever.

No, you're right. I would consider nations that banned institutions like serfdom, slavery, and treating women as a commodity to be superior to those that did not do those things.

You better not be being sarcastic here.

Nobody said that. You're arguing with a phantom. It was indeed a challenge for small European forces to conquer large native tribes, and there was a lot more integration than subjugation. Mexico retains a unique individual culture from Spain because native traditions and power structures were often allowed to remain in place as long as they gave lip service to Spanish subjugation.

I wasn't arguing with a phantom. I pointed out that European total domination during the timeframe is delusional, giving examples that even in the Americas, European "superiority" was constantly contested.

This is just nonsense. Needing "legions of officers and bureaucrats" is evidence of a Byzantine, overly-complex system that takes vastly too much time and effort to maintain properly. There's a reason why the founder of the Ming dynasty, the Hongwu Emperor, basically attempted to throw out the entire system and start over, and why that system turned on his heir the moment he died and installed an Emperor friendly to the old, corrupt bureaucracy.

It's not "nonsense". It's a consequence of a more sophisticated bureaucratic system. Nor is it evidence of being "overtly complex" it's merely a consequence of the size of China and the efforts to establish a functional government. The Hongwu Emperor tried to abolish the civil service system but restored it anyway, and he brought back the importance of the Confucian scholar-bureaucrats.

Name a non-European nation that had the reach, influence, and autonomy of Spain, France, or Britain in the 1600's. There isn't one. They certainly dominated MORE in the Victoria era (owning literally the majority of all land on the entire planet), but even before that era there was no non-European power that represented a significant threat to any major European power at the time, unless you don't count the Ottoman Empire as European.

Not even the French or British had the reach of the Spanish in the 1600s. The Ottoman Empire is more of a Muslim empire than European.
The European powers didn't represent a threat to China in the 1600s. Heck, not even to the Gunpowder Empires, even the British conquest of India happened during the latter stages of the game, which I did point out as being a period of European dominance by linking it closer with the timeframe of Victoria (where European domination did exist), and even in that context, the Mughal Empire was collapsing by the point of the company rule.

 

[Pellucid]

During the Sino-Portuguese (under the Ming) and the Sino-Dutch (under Ming loyalists) conflicts, the Chinese defeated the Europeans, including during sea battles.
Technology isn't a tree. You don't "discover" the wheel, you invent if if your environment makes it useful. The Native Americans lacked beasts of burden to the point of making large-scale use of wheels useful. European victories often happened due to native allies, be it in India, the Americas, whatever.

Again you're arguing with phantoms. Nobody ever said anything about Europeans being invincible, although your example is terrible because the Chinese PLUS PORTUGAL defeated the Dutch, not "the Europeans." So again, yes, China, American native tribes, the Zulu kingdoms, and even non-state pirates could and did defeat the limited presence of Europe outside of the European continent. But unless Ming started landing troops in Amsterdam or even had the theoretical capacity to (as the Dutch did with Chinese land), there was no meaningful threat posed by Ming against the Netherlands.

You better not be being sarcastic here.

Why's that?

I wasn't arguing with a phantom. I pointed out that European total domination during the timeframe is delusional, giving examples that even in the Americas, European "superiority" was constantly contested.

You continue to argue with a phantom. I never said anything about "European TOTAL DOMINATION." I said that Europe dominated the world over the time period. Not in a complete and total manner where no European power was ever defeated by anyone. The Ottomans dominated the Balkans over the same period but they still suffered defeats, even to minor powers like Albania. That doesn't alter their dominance.

It's not "nonsense". It's a consequence of a more sophisticated bureaucratic system. Nor is it evidence of being "overtly complex" it's merely a consequence of the size of China and the efforts to establish a functional government. The Hongwu Emperor tried to abolish the civil service system but restored it anyway, and he brought back the importance of the Confucian scholar-bureaucrats.

Are you saying the Hongwu Emperor was wrong to try to reform the bureaucracy? That he was attempting to solve a problem that didn't exist?

Not even the French or British had the reach of the Spanish in the 1600s. The Ottoman Empire is more of a Muslim empire than European.
The European powers didn't represent a threat to China in the 1600s. Heck, not even to the Gunpowder Empires, even the British conquest of India happened during the latter stages of the game, which I did point out as being a period of European dominance by linking it closer with the timeframe of Victoria (where European domination did exist), and even in that context, the Mughal Empire was collapsing by the point of the company rule.

Are you implying that Europeans can't be Muslims? That sounds pretty racist. Their capital was in Europe. They contended in European affairs. They made alliances with and enemies of European powers. Just because they were Muslims doesn't mean they weren't European.

So if the European powers didn't represent a threat to China in the 1600's, how did Portugal manage to fortify Macau against their wishes? Why did they have to constantly fight with the Dutch? It's almost like they perceived the Dutch to be a threat to them. Were European nations going to come in and annex huge chunks of China? No, it was not logistically feasible. But European powers COULD threaten their trade lanes, their coastlines, and their relations with nearby powers, whereas China was utterly powerless to do to the same to Europe.

 

[LAVA7171]

So if the European powers didn't represent a threat to China in the 1600's, how did Portugal manage to fortify Macau against their wishes? Why did they have to constantly fight with the Dutch? It's almost like they perceived the Dutch to be a threat to them. Were European nations going to come in and annex huge chunks of China? No, it was not logistically feasible. But European powers COULD threaten their trade lanes, their coastlines, and their relations with nearby powers, whereas China was utterly powerless to do to the same to Europe.

History is all about money and that is pretty much it. Money controlled nearly everyone’s actions throughout all of history. The country that made the most money was the most powerful with few exceptions. Europe sailed to China in order to get the goods they produced which were worth more and more numerous. With China’s gdp being at worst near that of all of Europe’s in 1500(as stated by my earlier post) a European country would get rich harassing China, where as China would lose money from harassing holland. China got the most money by focusing on itself and stopping foreigners from interfering with their markets. Therefore, they had no reason to set up colonies or sail to Europe. That does not make it weaker.

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/1492/1492_zhenghe.cfm#:~:text=Zheng%20He's%20fleet%20included%2028%2C000,tankers%20to%20carry%20fresh%20water.

 

[Universalis_]

Again you're arguing with phantoms. Nobody ever said anything about Europeans being invincible, although your example is terrible because the Chinese PLUS PORTUGAL defeated the Dutch, not "the Europeans." So again, yes, China, American native tribes, the Zulu kingdoms, and even non-state pirates could and did defeat the limited presence of Europe outside of the European continent. But unless Ming started landing troops in Amsterdam or even had the theoretical capacity to (as the Dutch did with Chinese land), there was no meaningful threat posed by Ming against the Netherlands.

You're constantly implying a sense of inherent European supremacy ever since your comment of "I think trying to avoid being "Eurocentric" is the biggest thing holding Europa Universalis IV back", I'm pointing out it isn't true and just by using China as an example. Portugal wasn't involved during the process of the Chinese kicking the Dutch out of Taiwan.

Are you implying that Europeans can't be Muslims? That sounds pretty racist. Their capital was in Europe. They contended in European affairs. They made alliances with and enemies of European powers. Just because they were Muslims doesn't mean they weren't European.

Lol, what? You're just twisting my words. The Ottomans were an Islamic Caliphate ruled by a Sultan. Therefore Muslims. They drew more from Arab and Persian influences rather than Greek, Serbian, or so, belonging to a Middle Eastern tradition.

Why's that?

Because EUIV Europeans practiced unprecedented degrees of slavery in the Americas? Because serfdom still existed throughout Europe?

You continue to argue with a phantom. I never said anything about "European TOTAL DOMINATION." I said that Europe dominated the world over the time period. Not in a complete and total manner where no European power was ever defeated by anyone. The Ottomans dominated the Balkans over the same period but they still suffered defeats, even to minor powers like Albania. That doesn't alter their dominance.

Europeans only actually dominated the world by Victoria's period.

Are you saying the Hongwu Emperor was wrong to try to reform the bureaucracy? That he was attempting to solve a problem that didn't exist?

What? You're twisting my words again. I'm reporting his actions, not judging them.

So if the European powers didn't represent a threat to China in the 1600's, how did Portugal manage to fortify Macau against their wishes? Why did they have to constantly fight with the Dutch? It's almost like they perceived the Dutch to be a threat to them. Were European nations going to come in and annex huge chunks of China? No, it was not logistically feasible. But European powers COULD threaten their trade lanes, their coastlines, and their relations with nearby powers, whereas China was utterly powerless to do to the same to Europe.

The territory was lensed to the Portuguese, who had to pay an annual rent.
Constantly fight? The Dutch weren't a threat. They tried to make the Chinese consent to their trade demands and failed.
You're vastly exaggerating European activities there or mistaking them for Victoria-era events. Besides, that's a false equivalence as contrary to the Europeans, the Chinese stood at the center of a wealth trade network, that's what motivated the Age of Discovery and the attempt of Atlantic-based Europeans to reach it and bypass Ottoman interference. In other words, the Chinese didn't need to go to Europe to trade, much less to pillage them. The Europeans did most of the world themselves by going there to trade or try to, and accepted the Chinese demands of trading, limiting European presence.

edit: typo

 

[Pellucid]

You're constantly implying a sense of inherent European supremacy ever since your comment of "I think trying to avoid being "Eurocentric" is the biggest thing holding Europa Universalis IV back", I'm pointing out it isn't true and just by using China as an example. Portugal wasn't involved during the process of the Chinese kicking the Dutch out of Taiwan.

No, I'm blatantly saying that Europeans were more influential in the EU timeframe than other nations were. If you make a game about the world that starts in 1400, it's fundamentally going to be a game about Europe trying to dominate the world and the rest of the world trying, with varying levels of success, to resist them. If you make a game about the world that starts in 600 AD, it's fundamentally going to be a game about the collapse of Justinian's empire and the spread of Islam in the middle east and northern Africa, and European attempts to resist that expansion as it presses upon their borders in the west, and Chinese internal political conflict and its effect on nearby states in the east. If you make a game about the world that starts in 200 AD, it's going to be about Roman dominance in the west and the Three Kingdoms conflicts in the east. (I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I'm not very learned on Indian history so I'm sure there are important events there that I'm simply ignorant about which would be in these hypothetical games as well).

If you made a game based in 600 and had Europe be stronger than everyone else and dominating the world, that would be a ridiculous fantasy. Reality is reality though, and the period of 1400-1950 was an era of nearly unchecked European dominance of the world the likes of which hadn't been seen before. Again, NO non-European nation meaningfully threatened a European one during this era unless, as I said, you don't count the Ottomans as European. Then there is one non-European nation that threatened eastern Europe. And, as I said, I count the Ottomans as European just as much as the Hungarians or Russians are.

Lol, what? You're just twisting my words. The Ottomans were an Islamic Caliphate ruled by a Sultan. Therefore Muslims. They drew more from Arab and Persian influences rather than Greek, Serbian, or so, belonging to a Middle Eastern tradition.

Why would being Muslim disqualify them from being European, though? Also, if you don't think the Ottomans were particularly influenced by Greek culture and thought, you're just ignorant. Part of what made the Ottomans so culturally and scientifically dominant at the beginning of the EU timeframe was taboo-free access to both western and middle eastern thought, from which they could draw the best parts of each. Yes, they were very influenced by Arab and Persian thought; but they kept their own language and cultural elements, so saying they were "Arabic" or something just because they shared a religion would be culturally insensitive and simplistic.

Because EUIV Europeans practiced unprecedented degrees of slavery in the Americas? Because serfdom still existed throughout Europe?

It's weird how much you generalize Europe into one big clump and yet get mad when you perceive others doing the same of non-Europeans. Poland and France had both banned slavery before 1400, although France revived it (but only in colonial holdings) later. Sweden had minimal involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. Not all Europeans are the same nation with the same laws.

And the fact of the matter is that European nations were the first major nations in the world to completely ban slavery, and went to considerable expense to eradicate it from the world for no real gain once they came to the thankful conclusion that it was immoral.

Serfdom still existed in Europe in 1400 but had almost completely disappeared by the end of the game's timeframe, only holding on in places like Russia. Again, I'd consider this a positive evolution of culture which was superior to the previous culture which had serfs.

Europeans only actually dominated the world by Victoria's period.

Tell that to the Incas, Aztecs, Cherokee, Carib, and Indonesian natives.

Europe didn't CONQUER the entire world during that period, but they had a massive, one might even say dominant, influence on the local economies and politics of every nation that had a coastline in the world by 1600. The massive colonization of Africa and Asia didn't happen until Victoria's era, but North America, South America, and the East Indies were already under the thumb of Europe during EU's time.

The territory was lensed to the Portuguese, who had to pay an annual rent.

Under the condition that they not build forts. Which they did anyway. For which there was no reprisal.

Constantly fight? The Dutch weren't a threat. They tried to make the Chinese consent to their trade demands and failed.

They tried for decades. It's not like they showed up, got beaten, and never came back. They repeatedly fought with China for almost a century. I'd call that pretty constant fighting.

 

[Lug]

Europeans began to dominate the world in the 16th century, a domination which reached its peak in the 19th century. We didn't go from nothing to everything all at once.

What is greatly exaggerated in Europa Universalis is the territorial domination far too early. But telling us that the Europeans did not dominate because they also lost battles or wars does not make sense.

(MEIOU mod is far better to simulate this period.)

 

[Jarvin]

What is greatly exaggerated in Europa Universalis is the territorial domination far too early. But telling us that the Europeans did not dominate because they also lost battles or wars does not make sense.

I think it's moreso about presenting European domination as some inevitability~~

There's a good discussion to be had about how, for instance, China's lack of heavy territorial expansion across its long history can be traced to its culture, especially around the conviction that by the virtue of being the ruler of China, the Emperor already holds the mandate to claim "everything under the heaven".

Qing's China had larger GDP than North America and all of Western Europe combined even when the EU4's timeline was drawing to a close.
While this obviously didn't translate into the military prowess, nor internal stability necessary to repel European incursions, I think it's a rather tough claim to make that there was 0 chance of some events across history panning out slightly differently in a way that would enable China to embrace higher degree of technological progress & expansion across the Earth.


In a game where the huge part of the appeal is changing history, and so you - the player - can be Byzantium and defy odds in defeating the Ottomans, no matter how unlikely that was historically, it feels odd to me to frame the fate of every single country outside of Europe as by necessity being about facing an inevitable decline.

Sure, let's say that that was the "most likely" thing to have happened. But isn't that just also.. kind of extremely boring? And doesn't it still leave space for us seeing a different course of history, provided that different things aligned differently at different moments of history?

IMO a game where only the player gets to be the protagonist of the story, with their godly foresight and ability to alter the course of history in any way the want, while every other nation in the world gets the role of a blob-like NPC with no own agency is just boring.

 

[Pellucid]

What is greatly exaggerated in Europa Universalis is the territorial domination far too early. But telling us that the Europeans did not dominate because they also lost battles or wars does not make sense.

Exactly, but it's also the case that many non-European states are too powerful as well. The big problem in the current game is that colonization is too fast, but also that institutions spread too fast. The old "westernization" mechanic was better than the current institution mechanic, but I think some kind of new bureaucratic and military reform system would be best.

 

[Pellucid]

In a game where the huge part of the appeal is changing history, and so you - the player - can be Byzantium and defy odds in defeating the Ottomans, no matter how unlikely that was historically, it feels odd to me to frame the fate of every single country outside of Europe as by necessity being about facing an inevitable decline.

Sure, let's say that that was the "most likely" thing to have happened. But isn't that just also.. kind of extremely boring? And doesn't it still leave space for us seeing a different course of history, provided that different things aligned differently at different moments of history?

I'm not saying that, but it SHOULD be a huge challenge with a satisfying conclusion to save Byzantium from the Ottomans or resist Spain as the Aztecs. I played in the so-called "ROTW" all the time in EU2 and EU3 because it was such a unique challenge. I basically never play ROTW in EU4 because it feels almost identical to playing in Europe except that I have to dev institutions and have slightly different numerical bonuses.

Right now it doesn't matter where you play. It's all the same game.