One thing that should be gone is national/holy spirits that give you pretty big bonuses, especially military-wise. Especially military bonuses.
-
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.
I want to agree but tbh that is what i most like about EU4, makes all factions feel more unique.
Skirmishes and full-blown wars tend to be very different things, especially when you don't have to worry about land invasions. Your point here seems to be extremely simplistic.
Even that would be sort of extreme. I mean, look at Europe's territories for most of the game. A few ports in the Indian Ocean, and plenty of land in the Americas. Even later on in the game, you have the EIC, but that was more the result of a company gaining too much power in a state, seizing control of key portions of the state, and using it to gain power in other nations.
If it was just a matter of military might, you'd have to factor in Britain's inability to militarily enforce their decrees. It's why India was able to get away with refusing to pay taxes, and why the British Empire became insolvent, heading towards a natural decline.
To be entirely honest, if the Mughals hadn't been so despised, both by their subjects and their neighbors, Britain might not have managed to bring India under its control at all.
And you forgot the important thing, that most European states was conquered, in the end of EUIV timeframe there was basically just a few large empires left, everyone else had been conquered including previously powerful states such as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, so the european states themself was not equal to each other by any means. India basically faced the opposite with the collapse of Mughal Empire, so instead of a powerful state you have alot of small ones that fight one Another when the European states have mostly stabilized the home front.
Also alot of important conquest by the Europeans was during the Victoria II timeframe and by early 1900s US had eclipsed the European great Powers. By HOI timeframe US was far ahead of Europé, for example European industry was still mostly hand crafted when US had stuff like this:
So European dominance maybe lasted from 1750 (start of Indian conquest) to early 1900s when US surpassed them. So most of the time Europé was dominant was during the Victoria timeframe, not EUIV timeframe and also it was some European states, not europé in general that was dominant.
If you look at stuff you can say the same thing happened to Europé in WW1 to what happened to India with the collapse of Mughal Empire and that allowed more united states like US to surpass them by far.
Also I did not Count in Americas here because it is quite tricky subject and it is not a part of the "old World" so I don't see it as a good example of European dominance in 1500s,.
Why do you assume European are simply the best, the France conscript armies basically annexed much of europé in a few years, how is that different from the conquest of India? Yes France lost eventually but that had much to do with UK and Russia, both great Powers in their own rights.
A good example is they never managed to completely annex China, even given how outdated China's military was.
Last edited:
That wasn't inevitable. From 1492, Europe isn't magically predestined to colonize and dominate the world. I mean even in real life, Japan managed to modernize and defeat a European great power in 1905.
Hell, even in the 18th century, where colonization of the Americas had massively increased European wealth (if only for the upper classes), there were still some areas in Asia - like Bengal and the Yangtze River Delta, that had higher average incomes and standards of living than London or Paris or Amsterdam. Europe would only surpass Asia in wealth and technological advancement by the onset of the Industrial Revolution, which is only present for about the last 60 years or so of EU4's timeframe.
Most of the players here don't even reach that period...
It is absolutely true that Europeans did not fight many full blown wars with non-Europeans. But against each other full blown wars with land invasions were a common thing.
Hmm, i think you are quoting wrong message because that reply makes no sense.
It is true that European military might was limited and was not only thing that conquered their colonies. In Americas Spanish forces gained military victories against inferior forces they faced, allowing them to gain native allies which surely were surely important to their success. But that kind of allies are not really present in EU4, so they have to be abstracted into European militaries or create new system. Would be really nice to get a new system to represent local allies, would make rebellions completely different. Sometimes you wanted foreigners to be your loyal troops against your own revolting people, other times you wanted your own people to crush native rebellions.
I pressume he means national ideas. That is how i read it in my head actually.
What about that? Its not like i have said European states are all as strong as each others. In EU4 you don't see all European states being equally strong, you see some of them rise and some of them fall. Sorry but i don't understand what your point is. Can you please tell me some examples from EU4 where you think something is wrong or needs to be improved.
How is WW1 comparable to collapse of Mughal Empire? How is any of that relevant to EU4 timeframe? WW1 was hardly the first major war Europe had. Sorry but it sounds like you are saying Europe was strong only because they did not have major wars with each other, which i am sure is not what you are saying.
Fair enough, it is true that most great empires from 'Old World' could have colonized Americas.
Again i don't understand what you are saying. How is what different from conquest of India? One big difference is that it was European power conquering Europe, so it hardly is good comparison of European powers vs non-European powers. European power being able to conquer much of Europe tells us nothing about how they would have done against non-Europeans.
Are you trying to say that Europeans were weak/as strong as Indians because Europeans were able to conquer Europe? It would insult your intelligence if i would think that so i just have to again say that sorry but i don't see what your point is.
Good example of what?
Basically, the methods and weapons that worked to defeat the minor Indian states worked just as well in Europe. Actual land dominance didn't begin until the Europeans managed to increase their rate of fire in the late 18th and early 19th century.
You miss a point that European powers had much better organization, diplomacy and planning which allowed them to essentially outsmart all Indian states.
While European weapons weren't indeed that much dominating over Indian, Europeans simply carried out their wars and dominance much better with quite limited resources.
Thus while technically Indians would be comparable, they weren't as good in organization of their army and it wasn't as experienced and seasoned. They mostly didn't have regular armies to compare to Europeans and so having similar weapons didn't mean an ability to use them and manpower in comparible way.
This was also a similar case for many other non-European powers. For Ottomans for example as well - their big armies lacked in organization even before XVIII century even and it was one of their vulnerabilities.
You miss a point that European powers had much better organization, diplomacy and planning which allowed them to essentially outsmart all Indian states.
While European weapons weren't indeed that much dominating over Indian, Europeans simply carried out their wars and dominance much better with quite limited resources.
Thus while technically Indians would be comparable, they weren't as good in organization of their army and it wasn't as experienced and seasoned. They mostly didn't have regular armies to compare to Europeans and so having similar weapons didn't mean an ability to use them and manpower in comparible way.
This was also a similar case for many other non-European powers. For Ottomans for example as well - their big armies lacked in organization even before XVIII century even and it was one of their vulnerabilities.
That makes sense, thank you.
So then, which things in EU4 are unfair/inaccurate atm? I believe technology groups no longer give penalties to Asian tech groups, i don't quite remember how insitutions work but they can spawn in Asia as well. Units specific to tech group only become stronger for Europeans until later in the game, and they actually start (as they should) weaker. Maybe change it so that all of them are available to all nations once specific conditions are met? Not sure what those could be, for Americans they ofc need to have access to horses to get cavalry, but i don't know why someone would get stronger infantry than others. Perhaps make it tied to how much army tradition you have?
I believe first time European infantry is on par with best is in tiers 19-22, and only in 28-32 they become the best. For cavalry Europeans are first strongest in 18-21 and with short expection of 22 remain strongest until end of the game.
Lot of problems in EU4 definetly come from how abstract the game is. Would be great if there would actually be some mechanic that explains why this and this nation gets this and this unit that is better than others.
Also i suppose i should reply to OP. I think sequel should be called Europa Universalis 5 because historically Europe rose to dominance. Name does not need better justification, Queen Victoria might become a weak puppet in Victoria games, but was important and famous figure irl hence the name.
During the period between Napoleonic war and WW1, warfare in Europé was pretty limited, even during the 1700s there was some wars but I don't think they was particular devastating for the major Powers atleast. This mean the great Powers of europé had alot of resources to spare to stuff like colonization of Africa. However WW1 and especially WW2 drained their resources and put them on a clear decline, so if they was so vulnerable, it mean if stuff had been different in Europé they may never have been able to do much colonization at all. It is not about if the wars are major or not but about how much damage they do, like thirty years war did enormous damage to germany and maybe put it behind 100-200 years but did not for example hit England at all. Also by ww1 US was already far ahead of the European states and avoided much of the damage the war caused.
India had a great power in terms of Mughal Empire but it collapsed and left it without any, meanwhile the Europeans failed to make large gains in places like China or Japan. In Europe the great powers avoided much damage during the EUIV time period and instead had time to stabilize the home front which was pretty important in order to do stuff like colonization. Afghanistan defeated British invasions several times.
Ottomans was probably the most dominant power in Europé up into the 1600s which is about half the EUIV timeframe and it was still around in ww1 in a diminishing fashion even though it still managed to defeat british armies and such during ww1.
In EUIV you can do colonization of the old world in the 1500s without too much difficulty which is like 200 years before the actual colonization of India.
First of all, this game is not about Victorian time period.
Secondly, in EU4 time frame there were several wars that hurt European powers. French wars of religion for example. Or wars of three kingdoms (not to be confused with Chinese wars that sometimes are called the same). And seven years war. And eighty years war. And war of Spanish succession. During English civil war (part of wars of three kingdoms iirc) estimated 4 percent of English were killed, 6% of Scottish and 41% of Irish. And remember that European populations were smaller than Asian populations, so many of these wars hurt Europeans a lot.
And ofc there were other wars, and most of those wars hurt minor nations the most, sometimes that benefited larger ones but it could also hurt them depending on trade and military relations.
There is actually nice list on wikipedia that lists most wars during EU time frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1500–1799
And yes the Ottomans were possibly strongest power in Europe for a long time. Propably should make colonization of India and once China unifies, much harder, unless they fall sooner than historically. Or other ahistorical things like Europeans uniting under single empire. Mughal Empire fell (among other reasons) due to wars, some European great powers rose (among other reasons) despite wars (and some fell). I am sure there are multiple explanations for all of that, would love to see them portrayed in EU. I definetly agree that India could have become superpower. And here is the thing, had Europeans unified, it would have been immensely strong powerhouse. Fact that smaller invidual states in Europe were able to go and colonize the world tells a lot. It was not massive empire of Europe, just invidual states that constantly fought against each other, hampering their efforts. Which to me tells a lot about how strong European powers were. But, not at beginning of the game. Others should have opportunity to become as strong as Europeans would later become.
So your original point that Indian states fighting each other was reason why British colonized India - not entirely wrong, but Europeans fought each other just as much, but that did not stop them.
And how many wars did really affect for example UK during the period of 1750+ and most of the actual colonization was really done by a few European great Powers and at a time in which they did avoid much of the devastation of war. Fighting abroad is generally far less costly when if the war is waged in your lands.
Like how do you think US surpassed Europé in technology and economy during the early 1900s, because after civil war they had basically had no conflict on their soil while Europé was devastated by WW1 and WW2.
Last edited:
That was hardly them "outsmarting" the Indian states. It was them leveraging power they'd gained from getting control of shipping in parts of the Indian Ocean, and striking during a time of complete instability. It was an opportunity created by the Mughals, not Europeans. While professional armies were key in accomplishing things, that's not a matter of European dominance in particular. That's just how armies generally work once you have proper generals and academies.
If you mean things like colonization in the Americas, that's largely just about the fact that European diseases took out the natives. If they'd had their original numbers, they would've been able to bounce the settlers off the continent. If you mean the colonization of the Old World, smaller states generally didn't do much colonizing until the 19th century. Before that point, it was just Portugal and the Netherlands taking small ports and trying to defend them.
Also the Europeans took large advantage of the political situation and used natives to conquer other natives for them. This is however not really represented at all in EUIV. England had its Alliance with the Iroquois which even fought against the american colonies on the British side during the american revolution and France also had native allies.
In EUIV, especially the early version the europeans got really strong really early and could do stuff like conquer India in the 1500s, they can still do it in the current version. Also there are cases in which the Europeans suffered defeats such as Afghanistan which defeated the British empire several times.
Mughal Empire was powerful enough to size trade cities from Portugal which it did in reprisal for Portuguese privateering, Portugal was also crushed when it invaded Morocco which forced it into a personal union with Spain for about 100 years which put it on a decline.
Most European countries like Sweden was not really in a better shape than most of the asian countries during the whole EUIV timeframe. It was pretty poor and undeveloped. Countries especially in Eastern europé even more so I think.
The outliners in Europé that had significant global influence would be UK and Netherlands both which made a fortune from trade and having strong navies. France had a large population while Spain, Portugal did do well early but fell behind by the 1700s and you also have Russia.
And to get an idea, at no time was the European countries, even the British empire at its height as powerful as US during the 1900s so the European countries was pretty limited in their Power.
Last edited:
But... it was? And it is not the coincidence that Europeans were able to leverage power over Mughals - it is an aspect of why the European organization was better.
Every since XV century, Europeans started their voyage into globalism. They discovered new trade routes, new places, they gained ability to be present throughout the whole world and, most importantly, they managed to catch opportunities through whole world. They were able to abuse Mughals collapse because they were present around and could simply catch the chance - something that no other state had.
This is why Europe got America, got India, managed to established global trade and power and so on. It could catch chances to increase influence through the whole world and maintain it. No one else could. It wasn't a "chance", such events would happen and Europe would abuse them. They would perhaps instead abuse Qin dynasty and partition China in alternative history or make Japan a colony and leave India alone, but the fact is that they would still be the ones able to catch other parts of the world in their weakest state and abuse it.
That's why European organization was superior. It was simply global. And even states that didn't participate in colonial sheneganians, like Germany, benefitted from the trade and resources flowing as it boosted market, demand, production and consumption, feeding European economy as a whole.
Nothing was a coincidence. Ever since Europe set on path of globalization it was getting ahead of others, even if other civilizations had better or similar basis (China, India, etc etc). At a smaller scope it was done by Vikings, who were, well, not the most developed part of Europe you know.
They were present during the downfall of an overstretched, unpopular empire. It's literally just opportunism. So long as a centralized power can spare the troops to take minor states in India, it'll be able to do what the Europeans did. This was a common thing in history.
Except for the rest of Asia. Most just weren't that interested in trying to govern over people that far away. The Chinese technically had the ability to manage it, but they were focused on internal management. Malacca technically could've managed to attack some of the Indian states, but they had little to gain. They were trading partners, and all they would need to do is wait for a new power to emerge, restore trading links, and continue on with things as they usually did.
The Europeans had a massive appetite for goods from other parts of the world, as they came into possession of massive amounts of wealth from the New World. That wealth is ultimately what gave them the will and the desire to form these foreign trading enterprises.
They got America because the natives went through a major de-population episode. India was a case of opportunism during a time of instability.
Trade in the Indian Ocean had existed long before the Europeans got involved there. The only places Old World trading links hadn't reached by then were the Americas.
Again, that has more to do with New World gold and political will. Do you really think a united Japan is going to suddenly stop, note the fact that India is fractured, and immediately decide that they want to try fighting a land war to gain control there? The Europeans were able to gain goods which sold for extremely high amounts of gold and silver back in Europe, further funding the companies and allowing them to expand. The goods existing in India weren't that rare if you frequently traded in them. The price wouldn't have been high enough to justify the effort, and there wouldn't have been enough of a monetary incentive.
You might want to check your reasoning. Having the ability to interfere isn't the same as having the will. Having the will doesn't make your organization superior. It just means you have more ambition.
Ever notice how everything only became a competition when it became possible for Europe to "win"?
Again, imagine what the world would look like if there hadn't been that sort of mineral wealth in the Americas. There wouldn't have been much of a motivation for the trading companies to return to Europe at all. They would've just traded in Asia and refused to pay taxes to European states. The British EIC wouldn't have been very British for very long.
Seriously, where did you get these strange ideas from? Are you just trying to find an explanation for historical events, or did someone come up to you and say that it all comes down to some innately European advantage?
Here's the advantage: Political will, and freely-flowing capital for investments in grand projects. First, they had money. They used it to get goods which they'd spend immense amounts for. The goods were just less expensive in general for people who lived in Asia. Basically, the price discrepancy between Europe and Asia created by the Ottoman interruption of trade is what created an opportunity for the Trade Companies to thrive, and the New World's mineral wealth realized the potential in this situation. If there had been great demand by a major Chinese Empire for European goods, they could've managed something similar. Heck, they wouldn't even have had to attack Europe. They could've just traded for the goods like normal people.