Sub-Saharan African and Native American tech groups Westernize/Modernize too quickly?

[Chronicler]

Hi!

I've noticed in many of my recent games (might have been this way for a long time, haven't been paying attention until now, I run game+all DLCs/expansions) that sub-saharan africans and native americans westernize much too quickly.

With much too quickly I mean they westernize so quick that the CBs given by expansion and exploration becomes useless
quite fast, and this is long before you get the Imperialism CB, so you got no CB to use against these tribes almost.

For example, I'm looking at a world map in my current game as Spain (1729), eastern Europe is still eastern tech, everything east of this is muslim tech, chinese tech or whatever (not western tech), North Africa is muslim tech. I also see all the tech levels etc. Ottomans has not westernized either.

Then we come to such places as Kongo, Mali, Timbuktu, Ethiopia etc, all these are western tech, and range around 25 - 25 - 25 (while other countries more modern historically range around 20 - 20 - 20 or lower).

Native americans that were non-coastal modernized very quickly just when I got a neighbour next to them, for example Foxe (right spelling?) became an administrative monarchy and westernized long before I got Imperialism CB.

Take notice that Foxe, Mali and Timbuktu for example did not border anyone else or where ever established as protectorates, (Kongo was I think by France in this game).

I just think it's a bit silly how quickly the CBs from expansion/exploration becomes useless, this should be fixed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Those CBs are over-powerful already. They don't need to be made stronger, and Africa given a very different historical scenario could have been an entirely different place.

NA tribes insta-teching is from their government form. A nation that westernizes needs over 100 years to catch up in terms of both tech and ideas already, unless you pull off a 1400's finish (the AI will never manage that, and it's difficult for most nations in human hands).

- Timbuktu rarely westernizes before 1570-1600, because Morocco won't border them until it gets its NDNHE.
- Mali is a crapshoot on when it westernizes.
- After any nation westernizes, it will be a few decades until others around it 1) fall behind enough in tech and 2) go through the process themselves.

If you're seeing this you're leaving them alone a long time. A lull period from 1600-1670s (when imperialism is online) is nothing serious. Any alteration to westernization to make the AI less likely to do it is a complete and utter farce while you can still ship tens of thousands of soldiers to them. At the game's current level of abstraction and with the limitations of the tech system in general, westernization is fine.

 

[Denkt]

These nations did westernize pretty quickly atleast they did not have the problems using musket like they do in the game.

 

[Mauer]

You can't draw any conclusions from a single game, I see different nations westernizing all the time, sometimes the Ottomans do and then some nations in the Middle East do it, sometimes Russia will westernize early and other times not at all; even after they westernize these nations take a long time to catch up in tech and never do in number of ideas. Placing more restrictions on westernization is silly and unfun.

1729 is very late game, you should use your casus bellis sooner if you didn't.

 

[Chronicler]

You can't draw any conclusions from a single game, I see different nations westernizing all the time, sometimes the Ottomans do and then some nations in the Middle East do it, sometimes Russia will westernize early and other times not at all; even after they westernize these nations take a long time to catch up in tech and never do in number of ideas. Placing more restrictions on westernization is silly and unfun.

1729 is very late game, you should use your casus bellis sooner if you didn't.

I thought I made it clear from my post that the actual westernizing was made much earlier (hundreds of years), but that in the current date (1729) only sub-saharan africans have westernized, and not even eastern has done so yet either.

 

[Chronicler]

These nations did westernize pretty quickly atleast they did not have the problems using musket like they do in the game.

Can you offer any source on this? Most I have read on Africas history tells me that most westernization and modernization was due to colonization. When the armies colonizing invaded Sub-saharan Africa they faced armies with spears/shields.

Though I am aware that the african natives would steal guns from fallen enemies, and also that they sometimes were supplied by the enemy of whoever colonized.

Early shows of Christianity was more often just shows, considering how native beliefs still control these countries today, such as in the Kongo for example.

From what I have read of African history it does not seem they were very modernized during the scramble for Africa, considering how quickly it was done and how ineffective african defenses were (considering). Though they did pull off some nice victories sure, mostly due to numbers.

 

[Freudia]

So long as westernization is required in the hands of Sub-Saharan/New World natives to survive, I cannot support any change that would make that harder, especially when they can get cross-map ganked through the fog by broken Euro-centric CBs. Especially when natives are arbitrarily unable to build boats in this build.

 

[elpibeuruguayo]

So long as westernization is required in the hands of Sub-Saharan/New World natives to survive, I cannot support any change that would make that harder, especially when they can get cross-map ganked through the fog by broken Euro-centric CBs. Especially when natives are arbitrarily unable to build boats in this build.

The Aztecs saw the Spanish ships and told they were "mountains rubbed over the sea", obviously that natives had boats, but for a boat is in EUIV therms a native canoe cant be an equivalent of a ship in the game, there will be an error in canoes can win agains another european/muslim/chinese ships.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Aztecs saw the Spanish ships and told they were "mountains rubbed over the sea", obviously that natives had boats, but for a boat is in EUIV therms a native canoe cant be an equivalent of a ship in the game, there will be an error in canoes can win agains another european/muslim/chinese ships.

No realism arguments for boats are valid in any capacity so long as Castile can send 20k to Mexico without devastating, gets-slaughtered consequences for it at home. Doesn't work.

Incidentally, they didn't have to deny *all* ships to natives, they could have left them transports and made naval combat non-viable while allowing coastal travel. Nope. Can't have too much realism like natives reaching Caribbean. Herp.

This one-way bias is used on westernization too. It's weak and meaningless.

 

[elpibeuruguayo]

No realism arguments for boats are valid in any capacity so long as Castile can send 20k to Mexico without devastating, gets-slaughtered consequences for it at home. Doesn't work.

Incidentally, they didn't have to deny *all* ships to natives, they could have left them transports and made naval combat non-viable while allowing coastal travel. Nope. Can't have too much realism like natives reaching Caribbean. Herp.

This one-way bias is used on westernization too. It's weak and meaningless.

My point of view is, if the natives considered a normal ship "mountains rubbed over the sea", why a native ship should be an equivalent to a normal one if a galley/trade boat/transport boat for they were "mountains rubbed over the sea?
And there is a difference between transport an army on this:

That transport an army in this:

If you considered absurd that Castille can send 20k to Mexico without devastating (that you have a point there) is more absurd that the Aztec could send an army in campaing by canoes from México to Cádiz for example.
I Would left to the americans a trade ship.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Natives made it to the Caribbean.

Historically.

 

[Freudia]

-snip because I don't want to stretch the page by quoting images-

You are asserting that the removal of boats for Native gameplay is fine on the basis that Natives considered the European boats as mountains moving on the sea while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Natives migrated to the Caribbean before the game's time period even began. Do you think Natives just forgot how to build boats or something, or do you think they just swam the distance necessary to populate those islands?

Furthermore, even putting aside the historical lack of validity for the removal of Native boat gameplay, is removing gameplay options for natives, a group that already wasn't even remotely close to being overpowered, especially outside of player hands something that makes sense from a balance perspective? Is allowing natives no means of defending themselves from being cross-map ganked by broken Euro-centric CBs good design for a strategy game? Where's the strategy in that when the only real option is 'bend over and die' when Europe shows up?

 

[Frakel]

I voted "agree" to the OP, but that was based on my experience as playing a native power. Allthough surviving as such a nation can be really tough, I find that specifically westernization feels too fast/easy. So you reform your entire society and worldview in less than a generation? That is just off.

Broken and overpowered CB´s is however another matter.

 

[elpibeuruguayo]

Natives made it to the Caribbean.

Historically.

You are asserting that the removal of boats for Native gameplay is fine on the basis that Natives considered the European boats as mountains moving on the sea while simultatneously ignoring the fact that Natives migrated to the Caribbean before the game's time period even began. Do you think Natives just forgot how to build boats or something, or do you think they just swam the distance necessary to populate those islands?

Furthermore, even putting aside the historical lack of validity for the removal of Native boat gameplay, is removing gameplay options for natives, a group that already wasn't even remotely close to being overpowered, especially outside of player hands something that makes sense from a balance perspective? Is allowing natives no means of defending themselves from being cross-map ganked by broken Euro-centric CBs good design for a strategy game? Where's the strategy in that when the only real option is 'bend over and die' when Europe shows up?

I know that natives use ships and make migrations, (Polynesians were a great sailors and colonise a lot of pacific islandas) but is not the same transport 20 people to colonise something that transport armies to conquer something. For example you have migrations to the caribbean, but there isnt any historical examples of natives using ships to transport armies (if you know one, please let me know.) Also I think that the removal of the ships was from avoid for example a aztec invasion of a native tribe in North America by sea.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I voted "agree" to the OP, but that was based on my experience as playing a native power. Allthough surviving as such a nation can be really tough, I find that specifically westernization feels too fast/easy. So you reform your entire society and worldview in less than a generation? That is just off.

Broken and overpowered CB´s is however another matter.

It takes 100+ years to catch up in both technology and ideas when westernizing in the game right now. Arguments that do not factor the reality that from a balance perspective westernization leaves you in a position of disadvantage for around 1/3 of the game minimum while arguing for realism only in select instances (and ignoring the unrealistic things that give these nations problems) don't carry serious weight. For proof of this point, look at my Tarascan perspective in the LP I'm doing with Mad/Paradogs/Josh. I westernized 1531, which most players don't even know how to do, and despite a top world income I didn't catch up in both tech + ideas until after 1650. Because I know what I'm doing, I could keep expanding in that timeframe, but from 1444-1650, a full 200 years (more actually) and over half the game, these positions are already guaranteed to be behind even in the hands of good players. OP is calling to nerf these nations, but not to simultaneously nerf the heck out of Europe. That's comical, but not in a good way.

Also I think that the removal of the ships was from avoid for example a aztec invasion of a native tribe in North America by sea.

We don't know what they think since they never bothered to defend this absurd change, but it almost certainly wasn't to protect native nations from other native nations. The possibility of what you describe was remote. The possibility that, in any patch before 1.10, an *AI* nation could put up a navy that could sink the European fleets was remote (if you saw that one time where an even half-FL European fleet lost to an unwesternized native, show it here. I dare you).

No, this was a bad-natured gesture given to us without comment despite protest, to specifically nerf starts with some of the longest catch-up time in the game. They likely wanted to take away this:



Not some native vs native nonsense absurdity that human players could still do even now. But there's a serious, indefensible problem with nerfing Tarascan in this situation:

Native ships aren't the only unrealistic thing in this picture. The Portuguese navy itself has commissioned a 20 ship fleet with 10000 men (some of which die in transit lol) to cross the ****ing Atlantic Ocean over a colony before 1520. Between this and its follow up, Portugal committed more than half of its entire military forces across an ocean for years and saw precisely 0 repercussions for that idiocy in Europe. The 9 heavies, 10 cogs is an aberration, a spit in the face of reality. Portugal doing that without devastating repercussion at home is every bit as unrealistic as my ability to sink their fleet was. Why target the weaker nation only? Didn't Wiz say he wouldn't take realism arguments that don't factor balance and only use realism when convenient seriously?

I think you missed my point, which is that realism only tends to come up as an argument when people argue against features they don't like. It's fine not to like the large revolts, it's fine to argue against them, but demanding that the game should be highly specifically realistic in one particular area while ignoring for example your own ability to project massively unrealistic amounts of military force anywhere you can see means that I'm not going to take your argument seriously.

Is he not taking his own changes seriously? Or does someone want to argue the need for a nerf to natives from a BALANCE perspective ?

Did PI deign to nerf the **** out of Portugal's ability to send units across the ocean because it's ahistorically inexpensive and lacking in risk, when Portugual & co already were winning overseas battles too consistently easily? Nope. PI chose to only nerf one unrealistic thing in this case while leaving the consequences of that ignored: native boats...despite that ONLY human players could pull off the above screenshot. This one nerf axes any advantage reforming religion might have presented relative to 1.9.

 

[Frakel]

It takes 100+ years to catch up in both technology and ideas when westernizing in the game right now.

I was referring to the actual process of "Westernization", not the catch up in tech.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I was referring to the actual process of "Westernization", not the catch up in tech.

I would argue that due to the nature of westernization in the game, that "catching up" aspect is a crucial part of the westernization consideration, and makes in-game version resemble no effort made in real life ever. In real life, the nations that did something closest-resembling "westernizing" did not stagnate for a decade or more, then with their newfound practices gradually catch up (and suddenly without strife!). They went through heavy strife to emphatically improve their processes and technology and caught up much faster, in a way that would (if used in game) instantly tech you to western standards -2 or -1 once completing westernization. A lot of people on the forum talk as if that's what happens, too.

But in EU IV, that isn't what happens. The catch-up period is a real consideration and virtually always lengthier than the westernization drain process itself, generally many times longer. It's less painful, but such a nation is playing at a disadvantage that entire time.

"Reforming entire society and worldview in a decade" isn't exactly what's happening here. If it were, you'd get technologies, which supposedly at least partially model that (giving more efficient administration practices and more). At best, you're really looking at this process as an investment into the infrastructure (physical and people) that allow development along the path of more advanced nations...but even that's a big reach. There is NO real-life corollary for in-game westernization in ANY era, right up to now. Nations that went through modernization efforts just didn't badly stagnate for a decade then suddenly turn to a somehow enlightened method of thinking all while still being backwards for the next 80 years. It's a pure game abstraction intended to allow nations to be more competitive, but any nation westernizing in EU IV is already at a large disadvantage...nerfing westernization further is nonsense and that includes things that give silly Euro-centric CBs to ship 20k men even MORE time to use those things.

 

[Chronicler]

TheMeInTeam: You do remember the game is called Europa Universalis right?

Anyhow, what native nations in the Americas or sub-saharan Africas westernized/modernized so fast they could compete with european nations?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TheMeInTeam: You do remember the game is called Europa Universalis right?

Anyhow, what native nations in the Americas or sub-saharan Africas westernized/modernized so fast they could compete with european nations?

Make an actual argument and I'll give this post the time of day alongside it.

 

[Freudia]

TheMeInTeam: You do remember the game is called Europa Universalis right?

It's called Europa Universalis because it's a brand name. The game hasn't functionally been 'Europe is the center of the universe and as such only Europe is playable and allowed to succeed ever' since EU2. Try again with a more meaningful argument.

Anyhow, what native nations in the Americas or sub-saharan Africas westernized/modernized so fast they could compete with european nations?

What European nations could field 20k+ troops overseas in the Americas or Sub-Saharan Africa without exposing their European fronts at home and suffer no repercussion for it?

Fact: The current westernization system is required so long as Europe can unrealistically ship so many troops over without penalty or fear of invasion at home.