• 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.

randy47

Corporal
4 Badges
Jul 11, 2012
27
241
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
I understand that the game is trying to create a more competitive landscape for the player, as well as increase difficulty if the player is European, but I find it utterly stupid that non-western nations can westernize so fast and with such ease. I find it annoying that the developers decide to make the game historic in some aspects (historical events, historical enemies modifiers (that makes it utterly complicated to integrate Sweden as Denmark btw)), and then utterly unreal in other aspects, such as the westernization.

Playing as an early imperial nation such as Portugal or Spain, the key to expanding across Asia initially is taking bases in each trade node, important centers of trade to establish a presence in the region. Later, in the 1700s, with the Admin efficiency, etc. it becomes much easier to core foreign territory and seize more territory in these nodes, but early on, its not very easy coring foreign territory. And this trend actually makes sense, because in actual history, empires such as Portugal began their expansion with the seizure of small footholds and ports from which they could export goods to their homeland.

In real life, however, nations bordering these trade nodes did not westernize simply because of this presence. They didn't say "oh look a western nation let's westernize now so we can survive." This is one of the reasons why the Europeans dominated the world so substantially. Indian states didn't automatically westernize when Portugal conquered Goa, etc. I think that westernization isn't just about technology, but was also about tradition, culture, and religion. The bot nations so readily and easily ignore centuries of religion and culture and change their entire society in a matter of a few years. This is absolutely outrageous. And as you conquer more and more bases, you trigger a wave of westernization of nations that have no business westernizing from a historical standpoint.

What you end up with is a bunch of Indian, African, and Chinese/Japanese westernized nations in the 1600s, 1700s. absolutely outrageous.

In most of the games the same thing happens - Portugal conquers Goa, Bahmanis consolidates power in India and reconquers Goa after westernizing, then allies Ming (which never collapses in the new patch, btw, while it always collapsed back then). This makes it utterly difficult to move into India, which is so ahistorical.

I understand that they need to make the game playable for people that like playing non-Europeans, but the very essence of this period of history was European dominance and preeminence, and the game is even called Europa Universalis for christ sake. They even make the game historical in the Americas, because it's absolutely easy to conquer American territory (and not easy enough, actually, because the Spanish were able to conquer the entirety of the Incas in a single stroke), but completely ignores history in the old world by making Africans and Asians so readily willing to westernize. If you want to make the game more "playable" by having nations like China westernizing (which is just starting to seriously westernize today!), then don't be hypocritical and have the American bots so realistically noncompetitive with the Europeans.

I think that there should be some sort of "traditions" value that restricts the ability to westernize for nations that are absolutely different from western nations. Nations like Lithuania would be able to westernize much faster and with less stress, and nations like China or India wouldn't be able to westernize easily at all. Also, the larger the nation (population, territorial size, etc.) the more expensive it should be to westernize. That's right, westernization should not only cost a great deal of money, but should also be very expensive, even if the nations are smaller. Also, the westernization should bring about a great deal of unrest and revolt for nations whose traditions are more and more distant from western society (differentiated by tech groups). Anything that can make it more holistically realistic when it comes to westernization. I just think that this period is all about European domination, and that the westernization trend completely defies history on multiple levels, and I find it very annoying to play amidst all this muck.

At least offer some players who would rather have non-westernization an option to play in a more realistic setting.
 
  • 107
  • 70
  • 1
Reactions:
They can't westernize off trade company provinces. DYEPTG?

Try playing one of those Indian nations. There's a reason people colony hop to South America.
 
  • 25
  • 5
Reactions:
I wish people could quit using this "argument"...

Its a perfectly valid argument.

I wish people would stop trying to see Nativia Universalis or ROTWia Univeralis - whichever one you prefer - in EU4.

After all it IS called Europa Universalis.
 
  • 99
  • 35
Reactions:
I often see people take it quite personal, people living outside Europe, that Europeans were ahead of everyone else quite heavily. It is a balance between not hurting peoples feelings and making it a nice game to play, I think.
Just look at the numbers on the first Opium war between England and the Quing dynasty --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

There's nothing to take personally, this was actually the case. And the game isn't very nice to play when Bahmanis establishes Ceylon as a protectorate, or when Bahmanis westernizes as a result of Portugal's instinct to conquer Goa, and then Delhi/Orissa westernize, and then it gets to China, who then deals such a great deal of damage to Russia that it gets completely wrecked by Uzbek, Korchin, Oirat, etc. to the point where it still has colonies in the Philippines from when it had Siberian territory, but is restricted to a few rebellious provinces north of Moskva. I should think that would hurt the Russian people's feelings, and it doesn't make the game nice to play because the map becomes so ugly that its nearly unplayable.
 
  • 24
  • 6
Reactions:
They can't westernize off trade company provinces. DYEPTG?

Try playing one of those Indian nations. There's a reason people colony hop to South America.

I understand that, but I'm not the only European nation conquering foreign territory. Portugal always conquers Goa, and Indian nations always westernize on this, so they must not be establishing trade company. Point is that it ends up happening every time in my games.

I just really hate it because it's not impossible to conquer these westernized countries, because they always remain relatively behind Europe (no point generation I guess) and their armies always lag in ideas/army + navy tradition, but it just makes it more annoying (more manpower cost, more troop diversion away from Europe, etc.)
 
  • 12
Reactions:
While too many nations westernise and sometimes cause trouble late game, the tech discrepancy is so outrageously large early game that it's honestly much more ahistorical. The fact that I don't see more treads about that makes me suspect that these kinds of threads are mostly unintentional European chauvinism.

EDIT. Not to talk about how you are able to send hundreds of thousands of men over to India in the first place!
 
  • 45
  • 7
Reactions:
There is an event with gives Goa a portuguese core. So they wont conquor it always, but there is a core. So India can westernize. It isn't like the whole world except Europe was an idiot. Even with westernizing they still lack behind on tech. So European nations will still be better. There armies will be still the same. Westernizing gives you no western army. So even if they are at the same tech level, your army has more pips, and thus is better. So even after westernizing, European nations will still be better.
 
  • 15
  • 3
Reactions:
There's nothing to take personally, this was actually the case. And the game isn't very nice to play when Bahmanis establishes Ceylon as a protectorate, or when Bahmanis westernizes as a result of Portugal's instinct to conquer Goa, and then Delhi/Orissa westernize, and then it gets to China, who then deals such a great deal of damage to Russia that it gets completely wrecked by Uzbek, Korchin, Oirat, etc. to the point where it still has colonies in the Philippines from when it had Siberian territory, but is restricted to a few rebellious provinces north of Moskva. I should think that would hurt the Russian people's feelings, and it doesn't make the game nice to play because the map becomes so ugly that its nearly unplayable.
I am not saying it wasn't the case. But if europeans were to be as superior as the numbers show in the opium war link I gave.. England only losing a handful soldiers to an absurdly bigger Quing army, it might be a quite silly game to play, outside Europe.
I am already getting the downvotes from people who, likely, have a hard time accepting that England could win a war with ~19000 men versus more than 200000 quing soldiers, only losing a handful. =/
This being at an even later date than the years the game runs in.
 
  • 9
  • 9
Reactions:
While too many nations westernise and sometimes cause trouble late game, the tech discrepancy is so outrageously large early game that it's honestly much more ahistorical. The fact that I don't see more treads about that makes me suspect that these kinds of threads are mostly unintentional European chauvinism.

EDIT. Not to talk about how you are able to send hundreds of thousands of men over to India in the first place!

Tech discrepancy early on leads to a realistic outcome... I agree that it is a bit too easy for European nations to win wars against Asians early on, but it is also very hard to conquer territory in bulk early on, because of higher coring costs and a more severe impact of overextension on European realm early on. So, in the end, you end up conquering a couple of provinces (main trading ports). This is exactly what the Portuguese did, as their trading ports extended all the way to Japan by 1600.

And I am not European at all, or white, and have no relation to Europeans at all. I don't have any sense of European chauvinism. I simply love history, and do not wish to see it ravaged by such wild and chaotic westernizing behavior.
 
  • 24
  • 3
Reactions:
Regardless of its name, it's a strategy game set between the years 1444-1821. Europe dominated the world in this period. Absolute domination. I don't think other nations should be able to westernize at all. I think they should be given other ways of defeating Europe, though it should still be challenging for them.
 
  • 46
  • 14
Reactions:
Western nations weren't that ahead of Asian and African countries during most of Europa's time frame, most Asian countries didn't fall behind until the 1700s or 1800s. But before this most of Asia was still just as strong or stronger than European countries, otherwise you'd see large amounts of Asia conquered by Europeans or under indirect control of them, which simply did not happen during the early renaissance era. Europe really started dominating the world during the 1700s. But yeah I don't think that ROTW countries should be able to westernize that easily.
 
  • 37
  • 7
Reactions:
Its a perfectly valid argument.

I wish people would stop trying to see Nativia Universalis or ROTWia Univeralis - whichever one you prefer - in EU4.

After all it IS called Europa Universalis.
Just thought I'd throw this out there but it's called Europa Universalis because it was originally based on the board game of the same name.
 
  • 52
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
I am not saying it wasn't the case. But if europeans were to be as superior as the numbers show in the opium war link I gave.. England only losing a handful soldiers to an absurdly bigger Quing army, it might be a quite silly game to play, outside Europe.
I am already getting the downvotes from people who, likely, have a hard time accepting that England could win a war with ~19000 men versus more than 200000 quing soldiers, only losing a handful. =/
This being at an even later date than the years the game runs in.

I understand where you're coming from, and I understand why other players probably complained about this also. I personally only play non-European nations 1 out of 11 times (maybe), and so I realize that having a realistically weakened Africa/Asia would make those nations frustratingly unplayable. This is why I would want (ideally) a separate game style (in the settings) where westernization had realistic limits. You could counter unrealistic European supremacy by adding in more realistic difficulties for logistics, European diplomacy, etc. For instance, if you move your entire army and fleet to Asia to fight the Asians (which I have admittedly done as a European nation), than rival nations should pick up on this and make pre-emptive strikes. Also, in this game, there is no possibility of any nation (European or non-European) losing their fleet to a storm. There were times when I had 200-400 ships amassed all throughout the ocean to land 50-150k troops in Asia. I did this because I knew there was no threat of me losing my navy to random storm (only attrition losses).
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Regardless of its name, it's a strategy game set between the years 1444-1821. Europe dominated the world in this period. Absolute domination. I don't think other nations should be able to westernize at all. I think they should be given other ways of defeating Europe, though it should still be challenging for them.

Europeans only asserted meaningful supremacy over India at the beginning of the 19th century in the context of massive upheaval there as the Mughals continued their death-spiral. China was not done over by Westerners in any meaningful way until the 19th century. The dominant power in the Middle East and the Balkans for most of the period was a Sunni Turkish empire which was pretty dramatically at variance with Europe on all sorts of matters. Goodness knows what would have happened had the Ming dynasty not decided on a more isolationist approach. The Mesoamerican and Andean civilisations were only crushed in the 16th century due to a frankly ridiculous degree of luck and ballsiness/guile on the part of the conquistadors. Europeans did not meaningfully penetrate into the heart of West and Central Africa within the game's time period.

But suuuuuuuuuuure, Europe was the dominant region of the world throughout the period.
 
  • 68
  • 15
  • 1
Reactions:
Western nations weren't that ahead of Asian and African countries during most of Europa's time frame, most Asian countries didn't fall behind until the 1700s or 1800s. But before this most of Asia was still just as strong or stronger than European countries, otherwise you'd see large amounts of Asia conquered by Europeans or under indirect control of them, which simply did not happen during the early renaissance era. Europe really started dominating the world during the 1700s. But yeah I don't think that ROTW countries should be able to westernize that easily.

You're absolutely right. I'm not saying that Asian and African nations should be sapped to the point where they are like the native American ones. I'm saying that the reason they were as powerful as they were, the reason they began to stagnate, and the reason why Europeans managed to establish a foothold in India (and continue to consolidate their position with Indian soldiers (sepoys) was because of the traditions, culture, and ways of India, which were to inevitably lead them to be subjugated by the Europeans (as is demonstrated by history), as well as to completely contradict their behavior to westernize.

Why should a nation like China, with such a historically inward focus, westernize so readily, and with only the western exposure of a few bordering provinces to nations that haven't even been so exposed to the west themselves... they just happened to be bordering one province that was bordering a western-cored country. And even this is too much, as coring overseas territory would not entail bringing such a vast scale of European life to that province that neighboring provinces automatically know all they need to know to westernize (there weren't any cameras or computers/wikipedia back then to expose nations more holistically). I don't know... maybe I'm just ranting, but it makes no logical sense!
 
  • 16
  • 6
Reactions:
I see many posts here about European supremacy and historical outcomes, and it seems we still haven't left all colonialist propaganda behind us.

LOL... I'm not under any colonial rubbish, I simply know the history. India did not westernize 1444-1821. Period. Neither did China. And I do know that India and China were significantly weaker than the west around 1821 (although I agree with the opponents that Europeans didn't really have a complete dominance until the late 1700s, 1800s.
 
  • 34
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions: