If you have an adm 3 king and +1 advisor as Sub-Saharan, it takes you 280 years to get to lvl 15 adm. You might aswell make Sub-Saharan and New World tech groups colonies then.
1.4 - Westernisation Changed
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- Start date
-
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.
If you have an adm 3 king and +1 advisor as Sub-Saharan, it takes you 280 years to get to lvl 15 adm. You might aswell make Sub-Saharan and New World tech groups colonies then.
.png){kind=avatar}
There is no way to overcome the obstacle you propose. It's mathematically impossible to keep up in tech unless you are Eastern or Ottoman tech, full stop. If you set a tech requirement at all, then you'll still run into the problem of not giving enough time to actually use your new tech rate to catch up before the game ends. I understand the sentiment about tech groups not being a historically satisfying representation, but the new system sounds reasonably balanced, and re-replacing it with a system as broken as the one you propose is a bad case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Yea, I'm sure you're right. Paradox probably is thinking a lot about what mechanics they implement, my 10 minute idea isn't going to be the best. It is pretty hard figuring out a way to make it fun, realistic, not too easy and not too hard at the same time. I guess the best is to see how things go with the new system.
A choice of pace would be nice, but every change of pace induced by the player should come at a cost (prestige, stability?). Also, a faster pace should multiply the occuring RR. Tough thing would be to teach the AI to choose its pace, i guess, and not change it frequentely, incuring the costs (or maybe just not apply that cost to the AI?).
How you play the game is your personal business, but you should not base criticism of existing (or announced) mechanics or suggestion of new ones on an exploit, that should be fixed in the first place. I think the quoted post and the one before that show quite clearly, that you yourself are aware of the exploty nature of ´storing´ MPs, as indicated by these: ´""´, around the word ´storing´ and: ´if you are not cheating...´. So, how about suggesting to fix that first, and then base anything else on what would come out of that?
This seems like misstep. I would prefer something a-historic then this which seems anti-fun.
um wow. I'll assume you learned that in high school. Americans were using guerrilla tactics from the very first battle. I guess you never heard of Trenton.
As much as I enjoy reading about DDRJakes esquapades with obscure nations, he is not, nor will he ever be, "most people".
And as I said, you play the game you wanna play. I don't care. But it's foolish of you to think that your tactics are the basis that most people play, or the tactics that are ment to steer the development of the game.
The easiest approach would be to remove the MP penalties and make the non-western units either slightly better or have more competitive (though still inferior) pips later in the game...IE give Ottos, Muslim, Chinese, Indian etc some level 30 type stuff.
Part of the problem is that, at any given tech level past 14, western infantry (curiously, CHINESE takes a long and commanding lead in cavalry at level 16 and keep it until level level 24 or 25) have more pips than anyone else's, often by far, which further exacerbates how far ahead they'll usually be in tech.
Yes, but that is only a minor part of the problem. The prime issue is the sheer #monarch points western nations can play with that others can't. When you can build and build and then get techs for less than 400 monarch points mid-game, you literally have the option of being tech leader or 1-2 techs behind that with enough manpower, ducat, and trade power multipliers to match what you can get from idea groups...and enough spare MP to still get those, too.
Western units really don't run away until after 26; at that level they lead 44, 40, 38, 37 (tech groups from western to muslim). That is, at level 26 western has a 7 pip infantry advantage over a tech group that is 3 places weaker, with no meaningful advantage in artillery or cavalry whatsoever. While that's a lead, at THAT point the big part of the lead is still that they got there first. It's only when they start fielding the true end-game stuff that they run away from Muslim and especially Eastern/Ottos...but in the interceding time they've run from (or started in front of by a wide margin) the other tech groups much earlier.
The other nations not only get higher costs, however, they also get the MP drain and that really hurts. Effectively techs are much more than just 50% more expensive at that point which is crazy because western already trashes them at equal tech. I think the game would be a lot more fun if other tech groups were more viable in some capacity...and not just by spamming three-deckers (Muslim hitting tech 25 can beat western at sea, simply by loading up on the heavies).
They used such tactics, yes, and had reasonable success at hampering the British with them, but the decisive battles of the war (Saratoga, Yorktown, and so on) were fought largely according to traditional European doctrine.
It's true that logistics and expense were among the largest factors though. That's a lot of land to cover and a lot of expense. Nobody wants pretender rebels back home...usually
.It's true that logistics and expense were among the largest factors though. That's a lot of land to cover and a lot of expense. Nobody wants pretender rebels back home...usually
They were not insignificant factors, I agree. Still, in other times and places, the Brits have proven themselves willing to put up with a great deal of annoying guerillas without cutting and running. Probably even more important were the other European powers coming in on the side of the Americans- a situation which, according to the dev diaries, the game should be nicely capable of modeling.
I agree they did use both. Yorktown would have never happened if it weren't for Nathanael Greene and Daniel Morgan's strategic retreat across the midwest. Cornwallis was all but defeated already by the time they engaged in Yorktown because of a long attritious march with indecisive battles - guerrilla warfare. Sure the final blows were dealt using European doctrine, but the war was won using guerilla tactics. Capturing Fort Saratogo, Trenton, the list goes on. Everything that led up to the point of those big battles was only possible because of unorthodox tactics.
Do we still have to border a western nation thats 8 techs ahead? Because Dai Viet or any other east Asian nation being forced to colonize Africa just to westernize sounds... you know... absurd.
You COULD wait for them to land near Majapahit or some such, too. IMO it's better to wall them off by taking most of the Indian Ocean islands if possible however. From a trade control perspective it makes things a lot more palatable.
I'm not sure I would characterize Greene and Morgan in particular as having primarily used guerilla warfare. The goal of their campaign was to wear down the opposing armies by attrition rather than defeating them straight up, it is true, but this wearing down consisted not merely of irregular harassment of the British, but also of a series of more or less traditional battles (Cowpens, Guilford Court House, and so on)- which they sometimes won, and sometimes lost, but were always in a far better position to recover from. Apart from that, I agree with you. Without the Americans' ability to harass the British by "guerilla warfare", the pitched battles would have been even more difficult for the Americans than they were; without gaining the ability to successfully face the Brits in pitched battle (and to bring foreign allies into the war on the American side), I find it hard to believe we would ever have convinced them to give the Colonies up for a lost cause.
Some militia used guerrilla like tactics, but they where small scale and nothing decisive. The tide of the war turned after we got some training from Friedrich and where able to decisively defeat British forces.
The battle of Trenton is not an example of guerrilla warfare. It was an organized night time ambush in European fashion. The battle started with 3 volleys from the Americans using line tactics fallowed by a bayonet charge. That is not woodland native American tactics, that's European tactics. Through out the battle most of Americans troop movements where using line tactics. Sure both sides employed light infantry, but most armies at the time did. The bulk of the army, and the bulk of the fighting was done with line tactics.
Last edited:
I do kind of like the idea of Westernization being tied to having a particularly exceptional ruler, much as everyone's gonna hate that because it's random luck.