Adding Rome or Venice for instant westernization?

[Necurok]

How about adding adding Rome and/or Venice for the decision to instant westernize?

Along with Vienna, Danzig or Praque.

I was playing with adding Madrid(Barcelona) Paris and London also but they are a bit far away from the east

But i think Rome and Venice would be still plausible

 

[Anatur]

I dont think rome or london are THAT much of a problem.

I mean if a player tries to play realistically he will stick to land expansion.

If anyone here is willing to launch medieval D-Day then no amount of location fixing is going to mean much to them anyways.

I dont know about the rest of you but i try to keep my expansion semi-plausible and wouldnt bother ganging up on rome without securing most of italy first.

As fuch here is a list of locations i suggest:

(btw russia gets it easy because they were realistically a european power)

Warsaw
Prague
Wiena
Roma
Paris
Madrid
London
Stockholm

That should cover all the important nations capitals during that period.

If muslims take over iberia they become european,if russia expands historically and swallows up poland it becomes european,if russia swallows all of northern europe it becomes european,if ottomans do better with the habsburgs they become european,if anyone takes italy they become european etc.....

 

[GiftGruen]

Warsaw is a problem since it is held by Eastern tech nation Poland(more accurately its vassal) in 1444 and of Polish culture, which should be counted as "Eastern tech culture".

Stockholm, while certainly capital of a major power, was remote and probably had more of its own culture than the more general "European court culture" that prospered in Paris, Vienna, ...

 

[moscal]

Common sense please...

What was a London for western civilisation? Only great economical center on British Isles (but no money meant that Western civilization was better in civilizatione conflict). For ALL western was a nothing. In British Isles only Oxford - one of the most important intellectual centers of Western Europe. Philosophy, science, culture, education ...
What was a Stockholm for western civilisation? Was a NOTHING. When Stockholm was founded university? 1878! Full lax 1960. How Russia can quickly civilize if gains the intellectual nothing?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It still bothers me that sub-Anatolian gets nothing at all from this mechanic. The idea of owning 100% identical land to another tag and matching its situation and then being denied the option is off-putting.

 

[Jomini]

But for eastern and ottoman grooup dont have good naval and land invasion force in early game...

Yes, so what?

You get MA from a non-adjacent state, build up your forces, then get MA from the adjacent state and move them across. For instance, one of the easiest ways to invade England is to declare war, land troops in Orkney, then get MA from Scotland, march in England and for fun if you ever route the English army in the north they have good odds of retreating to Meath; you can then cancel the Scottish MA and trap the army there for the duration.

England spawns free armies for anyone using the support rebels option. Rebels are the ultimate free resource and England is the easiest major to push over in the early game.

Look I've overrun the world a few times, I really do get how engine works to a very strong degree. When it comes to no holds barred early game warfare, Rome is trivially easy to take and hold. London is also very easy. Danzig, Vienna, and Prague are all an order of magnitude more difficult in general.

 

[moscal]

@Jomini - for human-player any province is easy. Vienna and Praha is a bit more difficult... because HRE. Only this. Ottomans-human can quickly get the army 100+k. Kaizer + Austria/Bohemia AI cannot have (parallel) great army like a Stambul.

For AI ottoman or russian conquest of Oxford is impossible in early game.

In MP game I've never seen anyone conquered isles province owned by Player-England in early game.

 

[Jomini]

@Jomini - for human-player any province is easy. Vienna and Praha is a bit more difficult... because HRE. Only this. Ottomans-human can quickly get the army 100+k. Kaizer + Austria/Bohemia AI cannot have (parallel) great army like a Stambul.

For AI ottoman or russian conquest of Oxford is impossible in early game.

In MP game I've never seen anyone conquered isles province owned by Player-England in early game.

The difference is that holding Oxford requires you to merely match the stacks of England, a state which is going to be distracted in France and have a hostile Scotland trapped on the same island. Allies, like Portugal, Austria, or Denmark are terrible at landing forces and you can off through them back into the sea pretty easily. Regardless of everything else, I have 15 years to consolidate Oxford, build out a navy, etc.

The mainland provinces, on the other hand, mean that powerful states and their allies will march large armies into your territory. It is virtually impossible to isolate the fight to just one decent sized state. Say I do punch out Vienna. At some point Austria will be restocked on armies and have allies (say something like Milan, Aragon, and Saxony); keeping Vienna until I had admin 10 requires that I find a way to deal with the allies as well. if I am particularly weak, anyone nearby (Poland, Bavaria, Hungary) may well go to war just to take over the place.

In multiplayer, I doubt this matters too much at all. If the OE or Poland don't get free westernization, they will just be dropped a bit in threat estimation and everyone else will adjust their expectations a bit (e.g. strong, Westernized OE = Spanish/Austrian/French accord to cheaply carve up Italy into respected spheres of Influence with strong pressure from Spain/Russia/Austria to take back territory from the OE).

For SP, the only AIs likely to Westernize are Poland and maybe the odd Hungary or OE. This is quite reasonable. What other AIs need somewhere else to Westernize?

 

[PiriReis]

Rome

 

[Don_Munda]

I think this thread is starting to lose the point of the decision. The idea isn't that Prague, Danzig or Vienna held some vast stores of knowledge or bountiful fonts of culture that would instantly bring countries to the forefront of intellectual activity. The decision is there to represent potential, plausible alternate histories for the two countries around whom the westernization decisions are based. A Russia who, instead of focusing efforts east, instead looked west and conquered all the way to Danzig would have undeniably become a part of the western sphere, the same way that, had the Ottomans seized Vienna and not had their European ambitions thwarted, would have been far more Eurocentric, and therefore "Western."

 

[DerMaulwurf]

I think this thread is starting to lose the point of the decision. The idea isn't that Prague, Danzig or Vienna held some vast stores of knowledge or bountiful fonts of culture that would instantly bring countries to the forefront of intellectual activity. The decision is there to represent potential, plausible alternate histories for the two countries around whom the westernization decisions are based. A Russia who, instead of focusing efforts east, instead looked west and conquered all the way to Danzig would have undeniably become a part of the western sphere, the same way that, had the Ottomans seized Vienna and not had their European ambitions thwarted, would have been far more Eurocentric, and therefore "Western."

And there is of course the gameplay argument. Conventional westernizatization is less than attractive for eastern/anatolian tech countries, because the price is nowhere near the benefit (especially when you count the western arms trade modifier). Wealthy countries in these groups probably won't even fall behind in technology to get the option. Western focus through Vienna/Danzig/Prague gives prospective candidates the chance to westernize without unreasonable pricing in MP, while requiring at least some degree of effort. Both Rome and Venice are probably too easy to take (non-HRE, no major power themselves).

 

[Retherz]

I dont think rome or london are THAT much of a problem.

I mean if a player tries to play realistically he will stick to land expansion.

If anyone here is willing to launch medieval D-Day then no amount of location fixing is going to mean much to them anyways.

I dont know about the rest of you but i try to keep my expansion semi-plausible and wouldnt bother ganging up on rome without securing most of italy first.

As fuch here is a list of locations i suggest:

(btw russia gets it easy because they were realistically a european power)

Warsaw
Prague
Wiena
Roma
Paris
Madrid
London
Stockholm

That should cover all the important nations capitals during that period.

If muslims take over iberia they become european,if russia expands historically and swallows up poland it becomes european,if russia swallows all of northern europe it becomes european,if ottomans do better with the habsburgs they become european,if anyone takes italy they become european etc.....

russia was much weaker than poland during most of this games time and wasn

 

[Retherz]

It should be easier for eastern countries with a coast to westernize, maybe not theodoro, georgia and those countries but like Ragusa, byzantium, cyprus etc

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think this thread is starting to lose the point of the decision. The idea isn't that Prague, Danzig or Vienna held some vast stores of knowledge or bountiful fonts of culture that would instantly bring countries to the forefront of intellectual activity. The decision is there to represent potential, plausible alternate histories for the two countries around whom the westernization decisions are based. A Russia who, instead of focusing efforts east, instead looked west and conquered all the way to Danzig would have undeniably become a part of the western sphere, the same way that, had the Ottomans seized Vienna and not had their European ambitions thwarted, would have been far more Eurocentric, and therefore "Western."

And what logic could you then apply whereby an Aq Qoyunlu who conquered through the Ottomans into Vienna, or the mostly-settled Kazan holding Danzig (even forming Russia) can't do exactly the same thing, considering they hold *identical* land with *identical* rivals and even in some cases having *identical* technology?

Oh right, it's not possible for you to do that, because there is no logical reason that a different tag with identical land/population/tech/situation couldn't do the same thing.

And there is of course the gameplay argument.

From a gameplay perspective, the concept of giving the cost-effective method only to the nations with the least cost in the first place is ludicrous. There is no way that a Vijayanagar or even Persia conquering Vienna didn't pay through the nose for tech way more than Ottomans, Poland, or Byzantium, and yet for "gameplay" reasons these guys should, despite accomplishing something *markedly more challenging*, be punished with higher costs all the same?

That's not a gameplay argument whatsoever.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

And what logic could you then apply whereby an Aq Qoyunlu who conquered through the Ottomans into Vienna, or the mostly-settled Kazan holding Danzig (even forming Russia) can't do exactly the same thing, considering they hold *identical* land with *identical* rivals and even in some cases having *identical* technology?

Oh right, it's not possible for you to do that, because there is no logical reason that a different tag with identical land/population/tech/situation couldn't do the same thing.

Because there is no logical reason for Kazan to expand up to Danzig or for QQ to conquer Vienna.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because there is no logical reason for Kazan to expand up to Danzig or for QQ to conquer Vienna.

What "logical reason" would exist for the Ottomans, that would not exist for these nations that own Greece and Anatolia?

What's lacking in logic is the assertion that there is a material difference "because tech group railroad".

 

[Anatur]

Well the ottomans did have 1 quality everyone in their muslim comptetition lacked,they could easily assimilate people,represented by their high tolerance.

If any other muslim power tried to take the same land it would get bogged down in internal conflicts and rebelions and collapse or be forced to retreat.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well the ottomans did have 1 quality everyone in their muslim comptetition lacked,they could easily assimilate people,represented by their high tolerance.

If any other muslim power tried to take the same land it would get bogged down in internal conflicts and rebelions and collapse or be forced to retreat.

Oh? Putting "Ottomans" in your name makes you magically able to assimilate? So if I were to change my name to Ottoman, I could conquer Mexico and they would follow my rule? No?

No. I described a situation whereby the nation in question has *actively demonstrated it has assimilated people* already. It did, after all, just repeat the historical feat of the Ottomans, who similarly proved it. You ducked this reality with circular logic, and I'm not letting that fly. Your argument in essence is that "the Ottomans get a freebie because Ottomans, and this makes sense because they are the Ottomans". My argument is that nations that can replicate the situation and success of the Ottomans should, logically, be capable of taking decisions that are available to other nations in an identical context.

You have yet to even actually address that argument, let alone refute it.

 

[Anatur]

Ok,show me another muslim nation in anatolia during the ottomans existance that achieved the level of harmony and efficiency they did.

Now im not biased for the ottomans,i actually blame them for all the crap the balkans have been through but im not going to blindly say they werent special in their circumstances.

Their rule that lasted centuries is only proof of it,no other muslim nation of that period could have hoped to rule so many people at once so easily.

And their tolerance isnt just some gameplay mechanic,it streatched back to their first ruler Osman and his army.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ok,show me another muslim nation in anatolia during the ottomans existance that achieved the level of harmony and efficiency they did.

Hindsight bias is not an argument, any more than those anecdotal complaints over AI dice rolls.

You can obviously do it in the game. I gave an example where in the game's history, it happened.

Now im not biased for the ottomans

"Show me where it happened in history" is a picture perfect self-call-out of bias. Specifically, hindsight bias, every bit as strong and prevalent on the forums as confirmation bias. It's not helpful to claim you're unbiased in favor of the Ottomans in the same line where you're actively committing to hindsight bias repeatedly :/.

Their rule that lasted centuries is only proof of it,no other muslim nation of that period could have hoped

More hindsight bias.

And their tolerance isnt just some gameplay mechanic,it streatched back to their first ruler Osman and his army.

Theoretical reason another nation in the exact same scenario *necessarily* couldn't be similarly tolerant, which is debatable as a requirement for "western focus" (as if the west was tolerant):

Nothing aside hindsight bias so far.

 

[Anatur]

Have you even read ottoman history?

The sheer luck they had going for them is something that cant be replicated.

To claim someone could do the same is like claiming poland could take on the third reich and after launch an identical invasion of france in WW2.

It took a combination of good leaders,solid foundations,freak natural disasters and enemy incompetence for them to become what they did,they didnt win by sheer brute force all the time.

And there were chances for other muslim powers to beat them,the most clear being the timurids,they failed because the christian powers would rather cooperate with the ottomans and were willing to get them across the bosporus,and the ottoman powerbase in europe was content enough not to revolt.

How would Aq Qoyunlu possibly get into europe to begin with or keep it for that matter?