• 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.
When something is much more likely to happen some way than the another you can call it luck when it happens but its really just turning out the most likely way. In sports a stronger team beating the weaker is usually not described as luck - its just how it was supposed to be. Even if the weaker could have won also.

Also describing as luck that you have alternate way to India is... Geography is not luck. If Europe had the climate to grew spices they would never have developed the navy to travel to India. Because they wouldnt have needed to. If Arabia was water they wouldnt need to travel around Africa and again they wouldnt need to develope better ships and sailing methods. But thats not luck according to you. Its only luck if the europeans come out on top. Thus you can conclude that the europeans were extremly lucky. In reality they had just much better motivation to explore and develope their navies than the rest of the world. And when as a result they found they had naval dominance they used that to get as much money (mostly through trade) as possible. In the process they ended up conquering most of the world.

And if the result of something (Europe vs locals) is consistently the same its not luck. No one is that lucky.

Also you can continue to repeat your points - that doesnt make them less ridicolous. Blaming everything on European luck from geography to the biology of the natives... And the cherry on top is the "Christianity existing to unite Europe" part - which of course is agan luck according to you. Its not like the christianosation of europe was a centuries long process with a thousand causes - but here its simple luck. Also of its supposed unity: 30 years war? Just to mention the most devastating war thanks to christian infighting. If thats your definition of unity I dont want any of it.

I want to point just to the central idea of 1st paragraph.

Saying that something more likely to happen cannot be based on luck, but on cause-and-effect is obviously right.

But how can we tell the world as we know is the most probable outcome of all possible outcomes of events many centuries ago?

In statistics, to make an inference about the probabilities of different outcomes of some event we need a sample of hundreds. In History we have a sample of just one event: our actual World History.

Surely when we see European armies usually defeating native ones so many times we can call it a good sample and make the statement: "when the Europeans fight the natives an European victory is the most likely outcome".

But it is due to technological and tactical advantages. The true question is: "what is the probability Europe will have tech advantage"? Or: "what is the probability Europe will pursue trade routes to East Asia" (instead of Chinese and Indian countries pursuing themselves maritine routes for their ships selling directly in Europe).

This kind of questions cannot be answered at all. Because we can only see our actual World and not a multiverse of different parallel Worlds as in some sci-fi books.

Many people here seem to have a Jared Diamond-like thinking. No problem with it, but taking that not as an explanation for actual World, but as an explanation of the most probable outcomes of different alternate Worlds is a step from biological and geographical determinism.
 
EU4 used to do what you say you think it shouldn't with the mechanic of tech groups. On the other hand, the current institutions mechanic, while theoretically more dynamic, is inadequate in that it leads to the same alt-history in almost every game: global technological equality by 1821. Ideally, EU5 would use a non-hardcoded mechanic that allows for the historical divergence to occur some/most of the time.

Seems like technological divergence isn't really guaranteed if you assume something besides Europeans wreaking havoc in both the East and the Americas. If something prevents them from doing that, like a conquest of Iberia by the Moroccans before 1490 AD, and England managing to keep its Norman territory, I expect that the technology would've diffused eastward, and, while the gun designs would improve dramatically, it wouldn't happen at the same time as a conquest of the entire world, and it would take longer, since there would be less motivation to test these designs, and less actual wealth to promote the construction of universities and scientific institutions in the West. If the weapons tech reaches the East before any would-be conquerors, there's no telling who'll be able to do what.

Big question: How do you control things like nations being able to reverse-engineer weaponry, like the Japanese did during this time? Do you tie it to technological institutions? Religious connections? Ships of nations with higher tech crashing on the rocks?

Also, as a side question, would it be possible for the Songhai to swipe gunpowder tech from Kanem Bornu? There was apparently a cannon they were studying by the time of Tondibi, and that involved a 60-year Civil War. Basically, what would control the spread of gunpowder weaponry in one region over another?

Come on now, don't be pedantic. You might be justified in complaining that I exaggerated your remarks to ridicule them, but the main point remains: your denial of the lack of societal sophistication of some examples of population groups accross the globe is unsupported and clearly incorrect.

Fair. However, I'm maintaining my case for the Niger-Congo people. They had some cool cities and societies.
 
Last edited:
Seems like technological divergence isn't really guaranteed if you assume something besides Europeans wreaking havoc in both the East and the Americas. If something prevents them from doing that, like a conquest of Iberia by the Moroccans before 1490 AD, and England managing to keep its Norman territory, I expect that the technology would've diffused eastward, and, while the gun designs would improve dramatically, it wouldn't happen at the same time as a conquest of the entire world, and it would take longer, since there would be less motivation to test these designs, and less actual wealth to promote the construction of universities and scientific institutions in the West. If the weapons tech reaches the East before any would-be conquerors, there's no telling who'll be able to do what.
If it's not guaranteed it should not have a 100% chance of being the case in the game. However the current chance is nearer 0%, and that is a problem.
Fair. However, I'm maintaining my case for the Niger-Congo people. They had some cool cities and societies.
I know little about their history, so that's not something I'll contest.
 
If it's not guaranteed it should not have a 100% chance of being the case in the game.

Agreed.

However the current chance is nearer 0%, and that is a problem.

Ultimately, in-game nations are all willing to tech up when they get the chance. From the examples I've seen IRL, the problem was a lack of access, organization, or political will. I don't know how you model all of that.
 
Ultimately, in-game nations are all willing to tech up when they get the chance. From the examples I've seen IRL, the problem was a lack of access, organization, or political will. I don't know how you model all of that.
The obstacles you mention aren't as simple as "x country leader decided his country should pursue an isolationist policy". Underlying factors can be sufficiently well modeled by soft penalties. For example, in the current institution system, the fact that some of them are programmed to spawn in Europe.
 
The obstacles you mention aren't as simple as "x country leader decided his country should pursue an isolationist policy".

I mean something more like a Civil War shutting down scientific institutions, resources and methods not being spread through trade, and Emperors burning books.

Underlying factors can be sufficiently well modeled by soft penalties. For example, in the current institution system, the fact that some of them are programmed to spawn in Europe.

The institution system is a series of penalties applied to nations (basically) for being outside of Europe. It's not exact and definite, but Europe definitely isn't going to be deeply affected by institutions not spawning there, as the spread conditions are tailor-made to benefit Europe. It'd make more sense for the rate of technological development to increase with wealth, exposure, and scientific institutions, but start off slowly and allow nations to piggy-back off of their neighbors.
 
I mean something more like a Civil War shutting down scientific institutions, resources and methods not being spread through trade,
The problem with this is that it rarely (if ever) actually happened. Passive penalties are therefore better in my opinion.
Europe definitely isn't going to be deeply affected by institutions not spawning there,
And neither is Asia. That is the flaw of institutions, they're inconsequential for a large part of the game.
It'd make more sense for the rate of technological development to increase with wealth, exposure, and scientific institutions, but start off slowly and allow nations to piggy-back off of their neighbors.
But that's not what historically happened. India and China had many of the biggest wealth concentrations in the world, yet they fall behind in the fields the EU series calls "technology". Regarding scientific institutions, these only really prospered in Europe after 1600, after its military, naval and political innovations had already surpassed those of most of the rest of the world. It's also hard to imagine how scientists would promote the development of "technologies" such as "Light infantry companies". The effect of science on warfare was limited during the EU4 time period, and European military advancements should not be attributed to the Scientific Revolution.
 
The problem with this is that it rarely (if ever) actually happened. Passive penalties are therefore better in my opinion.

Why not just tie the techs to their most direct causes?

And neither is Asia. That is the flaw of institutions, they're inconsequential for a large part of the game.

I have no idea how the Asian nations are always getting around that penalty.

But that's not what historically happened. India and China had many of the biggest wealth concentrations in the world, yet they fall behind in the fields the EU series calls "technology". Regarding scientific institutions, these only really prospered in Europe after 1600, after its military, naval and political innovations had already surpassed those of most of the rest of the world. It's also hard to imagine how scientists would promote the development of "technologies" such as "Light infantry companies". The effect of science on warfare was limited during the EU4 time period, and European military advancements should not be attributed to the Scientific Revolution.

Well, what caused their militaries to become so capable in this short amount of time, and what prevented other nations from using their methods?
 
Why not just tie the techs to their most direct causes?
Because you don't know what those are.
I have no idea how the Asian nations are always getting around that penalty.
The spread of half of them is trivially fast, for the rest, devspamming them into your land is so cheap it's a no-brainer. And Ming just demands monarch points from its tributaries and purchases level 5 advisors so it can take as many techs as it wants
Well, what caused their militaries to become so capable in this short amount of time, and what prevented other nations from using their methods?
I don't know, do you?
 
Because you don't know what those are.

I don't know, do you?

Well, my suggestion is for EU5 to be based on whatever causes Paradox finds. Even if I come up with a list of techs and the ways they each spread, the thread would die, and the system wouldn't change.

The spread of half of them is trivially fast,

I keep forgetting the game doesn't end in 1600.

for the rest, devspamming them into your land is so cheap it's a no-brainer.

I meant for AI nations.

And Ming just demands monarch points from its tributaries and purchases level 5 advisors so it can take as many techs as it wants

...And then the spy/neighbor bonus kicks in, and it cascades. Gotcha.
 
But it is due to technological and tactical advantages. The true question is: "what is the probability Europe will have tech advantage"? Or: "what is the probability Europe will pursue trade routes to East Asia" (instead of Chinese and Indian countries pursuing themselves maritine routes for their ships selling directly in Europe).
Imho both are about social aspects and needs, consequences of such would be similar most often than not.
Sure enough seeking new routes would be delayed if prices of eastern products coming to Europe were reasonable.
 
Start of Indian conquest:
As can be seen there was several factors, diplomacy, instability of the indian states and that they fought each other which allowed their conquest by British east indian Company. Also UK atleast copied one technology from India and that was military rockets and also lost battles. I also think Wellington said that the indian armies was as good as the European ones and they had stuff like gunpowder and cannons.

And European armies doctrine was so outdated in late 1700 early 1800s that a conscript based army using a new mobile doctrine conquered much of Europé. The 20% EUIV discipline Prussia did not historically do as well as you may think.
 
Last edited:
The devs are Europeans. Most of the players are Europeans/Americans. Most people care primarily about Europe. The time period was a period of European rise.

Europe is always going to get most of the attention, and thst is a good thing. It is impossible to do full justice to all regions. In that regard, Europe should be prioritised.
 
Europe is always going to get most of the attention, and thst is a good thing.

If it results in us having all of the region-related problems EU4 has in EU5, it clearly isn't. If anything, they should focus on simulating the rise of Europe, and show just what sort of world it was that they were involved with. As things currently are, trying to get Asian trade is just a pointless bonus. Most of the trade value already exists in the European nodes. It just makes it seem like they decided to attack the rest of the world because they could, and for no other reason.
 
If it results in us having all of the region-related problems EU4 has in EU5, it clearly isn't. If anything, they should focus on simulating the rise of Europe, and show just what sort of world it was that they were involved with. As things currently are, trying to get Asian trade is just a pointless bonus. Most of the trade value already exists in the European nodes. It just makes it seem like they decided to attack the rest of the world because they could, and for no other reason.

Good point
 
Start of Indian conquest:

As can be seen there was several factors, diplomacy, instability of the indian states and that they fought each other which allowed their conquest by British east indian Company. Also UK atleast copied one technology from India and that was military rockets and also lost battles. I also think Wellington said that the indian armies was as good as the European ones and they had stuff like gunpowder and cannons.

And European armies doctrine was so outdated in late 1700 early 1800s that a conscript based army using a new mobile doctrine conquered much of Europé. The 20% EUIV discipline Prussia did not historically do as well as you may think.
Europeans had also been constantly fighting each other. Still they managed to conquer large parts of the world at the same time. French and British stable enough to colonize India despite also fighting each other, so that just shows that India was not on par with Europeans.
In EU4 when you recruit soldiers and land them on India, it does not differentiate if those troops are Sepoys or from Europe. Does not matter where they are from, British and French were able to land on India and conquer parts of it. So at least in EU4, it is correct to portray Europeans as stronger. It does not matter how strong soldiers are, or how advanced technology they have, or how advanced their tactics are. In grand strategy, both real life and Paradox games, all of that, and more, combined matters. Later during Napoleonic wars this is shown well, when Europeans (state, industries, armies etc) were capable of wielding conscript armies armed with modern weapons and capable of fighting anyone on earth, so i would have to say Europeans are stronger there as well.
And having gunpowder and cannons is one thing, what matters more is how it is used, and i don't see where Indians would have been superior at least on grand strategy level.


Can you explain in more detail what you mean, please. You make it sound like conscript armies=inferior rabble. European armies had definetly become obsolete (and Prussians had declined, they were less flexible force than under Frederick the Great) after French military reforms were complete. But is that obsolete by European standards or global standards? I am not aware of any force that would have been stronger. Regardless, for most of world history, conscripts have been good enough as soldiers, and it has been everything combined that has created strong or weak armies that won or lost wars.
 
If it results in us having all of the region-related problems EU4 has in EU5, it clearly isn't. If anything, they should focus on simulating the rise of Europe, and show just what sort of world it was that they were involved with. As things currently are, trying to get Asian trade is just a pointless bonus. Most of the trade value already exists in the European nodes. It just makes it seem like they decided to attack the rest of the world because they could, and for no other reason.
Absolutely, and would also make it far more interesting to play as... well, any nation. But it must be incredibly difficult to do without making everything too complex. Propably should add lot of "under the hood" or "semi-automatic" features. By that i mean things like complex supply lines which player does not have to manually create or handle, but which are there and are visible and have real impact on gameplay. Only instead of supply lines do that with something more relevant (altough supply lines are relevant too).