Avoiding Arbitrary Penalties and Euro-Centrism

[Comrade Chaos]

I will be glad if this game is indeed Euro-centric.
After all, whatever PC crowd will say, most of the technological advances at those times were made by Europeans.

Look at the facts of life- it's europeans whom colonized new world and not the other way around.

If you want equality - go play CIV5

Almost no one is arguing for the natives of the New World. However, they're talking about natives of the rest of the Old World.

 

[Colombo]

pirro: you remember it wrong. Read about it.

 

[Fishman786]

And nobody would deny that Europeans had an advantage throughout most of this time period. It's just that it wasn't the world-smashing, country-gobbling advantage that EU3 makes it out to be.


If you moan about 'political correctness' you are just depicting yourself as a politically-motivated person with a chip on their shoulder, rather than somebody who wants the game to be fun.

 

[Connor Mulhern]

I will be glad if this game is indeed Euro-centric.
After all, whatever PC crowd will say, most of the technological advances at those times were made by Europeans.

Look at the facts of life- it's europeans whom colonized new world and not the other way around.

If you want equality - go play CIV5

See, that is not what I am saying, or most people are saying, we are not asking for an equal shot to become a world power, we are asking for the abolishment of arbitrary penalties against them, they should be weak, but the current system really hurts eastern europe, while they easily could have reformed, and some did reform, rather quickly. The Ottomans were not doomed to grow weaker, but they were also not destined to be so powerful as they were during the early period. I specifically am asking for a model that does is more open and fluid rather than static and arbitrary

 

[Kyoumen]

Their elites did speak spanish, not just mayan. Also, the last big revolt* was around 1650 if I remember correctly. There were a few more, but in the XVII most of them were... well.. dead or speaking spanish

The Caste War of Yucatan lasted from 1847 to 1901. The Mayans did often speak Spanish (though not all - Mayan languages even today are spoken by give or take about a million people in the Yucatan area). They were pretty assuredly not all dead. They actually won the first phase and established an independent Mayan state (and were even recognised as de facto independant by the UK for a time).

I would therefore suggest that Mayans ought to still exist as an ethnic group in, say, the 1600s. That's highly unlikely in EUIII - it would be good if EUIV did better.

 

[Colombo]

I will be glad if this game is indeed Euro-centric.
After all, whatever PC crowd will say, most of the technological advances at those times were made by Europeans.

Look at the facts of life- it's europeans whom colonized new world and not the other way around.

If you want equality - go play CIV5

facepalm....

Go play with Lego or something.

Or can you foretell what would happen, if whole world would developed completly differently, than how it developed? If china wouldn't enclose itself? If mongols would pillage europe? If one ruler would die earlier, than he did and whole world would evolve in completly different fasion?

 

[Herr Doctor]

Or can you foretell what would happen, if whole world would developed completly differently, than how it developed? If china wouldn't enclose itself? If mongols would pillage europe? If one ruler would die earlier, than he did and whole would would evolve in completly different fasion?

Personally I would be ok if such game exists. The only reason I would not even bother to try play it at all.

 

[Captain Gars]

Boy, if I had a dime for every time somebody said "The game's name is Europa Universalis" to dismiss calls for better representation of places outside western Europe, I could just buy Paradox and have them make the games I want.

I've never used it in that sense but rather as a response to people who for some reason are baffled over the fact that the game gives more focus to Europe than the rest of the world.

 

[Me_]

The Caste War of Yucatan lasted from 1847 to 1901. The Mayans did often speak Spanish (though not all - Mayan languages even today are spoken by give or take about a million people in the Yucatan area). They were pretty assuredly not all dead. They actually won the first phase and established an independent Mayan state (and were even recognised as de facto independant by the UK for a time).

I would therefore suggest that Mayans ought to still exist as an ethnic group in, say, the 1600s. That's highly unlikely in EUIII - it would be good if EUIV did better.

The lack of Mayans as a culture in 1600s in most playthroughs is the direct result of the 'converted pagan provinces change culture' rule - drop that rule and the game will quickly improve in this regard.

 

[Mike S]

I will be glad if this game is indeed Euro-centric.
After all, whatever PC crowd will say, most of the technological advances at those times were made by Europeans.

Look at the facts of life- it's europeans whom colonized new world and not the other way around.

If you want equality - go play CIV5

Yes I kinda agree, at the begining of the time period europe was not the most advanced, they were behind China and the Ottoman Empire, but they're progress picks up, difference in the cultures, relegion, competition between nations resulted in the european nations taking the lead, catholic/protestan religion began to encourage scientific thinking, muslim and other religions often outlawed the search for enlightment through science.

China as such a big nation turned in on itself thinking it did not need the rest of the world and was safe in its size behind its defences, (japan also was a closed country), both these meant they had no outside competition so progress interms of industry and arms was slow

 

[1alexey]

And nobody would deny that Europeans had an advantage throughout most of this time period. It's just that it wasn't the world-smashing, country-gobbling advantage that EU3 makes it out to be.

Well, that advantage largely comes from the already mentioned Logistics, and the fact that player tend to blob in europe before coming to india.
If France-Germany could bring like half-milion soldiers to India, that it can do in EU3 around 1600-1650, the outcome would be really one-sided.

Problem is, in real life Europeans could not bring substantial amout of troops. It is not the failure of tech system, as much as it is a failure of logistics.

 

[Colombo]

Personally I would be ok if such game exists. The only reason I would not even bother to try play it at all.

But thats the difference between europe universalis 2 and 3.

EU 2 tried to copy history, but the fork of game reality and real history was too mutch to handle. And many events, that tried to foretell "whout would happen" failed completly, when they were put in completly different enviroment. Which would be right after you start playing.

EU3 tried to simulate decisions and enviroment that stood after those decisions. To simulate technological developement is just step futher into this direction. Well, EU3 tried to simulate tech developement, but with too mutch simplicity. And linearity.

 

[Colombo]

Captain Gars: yeah, you could react more than that and enlighten us how EU4 would simulate tech developement or ideas behind it
But, we have to wait till dev diaries, right?

 

[pirro]

The Caste War of Yucatan lasted from 1847 to 1901. The Mayans did often speak Spanish (though not all - Mayan languages even today are spoken by give or take about a million people in the Yucatan area). They were pretty assuredly not all dead. They actually won the first phase and established an independent Mayan state (and were even recognised as de facto independant by the UK for a time).

I would therefore suggest that Mayans ought to still exist as an ethnic group in, say, the 1600s. That's highly unlikely in EUIII - it would be good if EUIV did better.

AFAIK (and Latin-American history has never interested me so much because the biggest school is the one who defends that spaniards killed hundreds of millions of people for the hell of it) around 1550 a spanish conquistador went to maya's land and exterminate everyone who didn't recognise the spanish crown... that made them revolt against us, but they couldn't beat as in the long run. Diseases 8and not us, c'mon) did slaughter them, and they're tactics were... obsolet to say the least compared to the spanish tactics*
Also, I was speaking about the period under spanish domination, Maxico had several problems with natives and no natives in the XIX century



*And still we were defeated several times by different tribes... specially those who later were conquered by USA and Mexico in texas, California and such. We didn't rule that land, we just had some missions around and some forts

 

[Herr Doctor]

But thats the difference between europe universalis 2 and 3.

EU 2 tried to copy history, but the fork of game reality and real history was too mutch to handle. And many events, that tried to foretell "whout would happen" failed completly, when they were put in completly different enviroment. Which would be right after you start playing.

EU3 tried to simulate decisions and enviroment that stood after those decisions. To simulate technological developement is just step futher into this direction. Well, EU3 tried to simulate tech developement, but with too mutch simplicity. And linearity.

Yes, you are right here. And I still like EU2/FtG much more even it is very outdated game. It is much more balanced, logical and realistic than EU3 (with expansions) despite old poor engineer and features. Personally I found CK2 some middle ground between balance and historical accuracy of EU2 and the historical plausibility of CK1/EU3. Still there are a lot of thing in that regard to improve and balance in CK2.

EU3 concepts and features are very interesting but in my opinion (and with my EU3 experience) they rather produced ahistorical absurdities than historical plausible outcomes. Despite of bugs same was the problem with HOI3. I afraid that we can see the same sad things with EU4 again.

 

[Zlovie]

Haven´t read the entire thread here, but I have to agree with some of the people who want to see something like the magna mundi system. The tech speed was based on the following three things:

1: foreign contact: how isolated your country is.
which could be improved by colonization, trade, pushing for an open economy and neighbouring less isolated nations

2: socio economic structure: how much people live in cities, how much power the middle class has, how free the serfs/farmers are.
this could be improved by pushing your plutocracy and free subjects sliders, or having more advanced government types

3: diversity and change: how easily your people accept change: if the people feel like they are in a good position, they won't accept change in their nation.
This could be improved by accepting/tolerating other cultures or religions, or pushing the innovative slider

This system feels a lot less generic then the standard westernization of eu3 had, and you still had quite some influence in this system.

 

[Darkath]

Yes I kinda agree, at the begining of the time period europe was not the most advanced, they were behind China and the Ottoman Empire, but they're progress picks up, difference in the cultures, relegion, competition between nations resulted in the european nations taking the lead, catholic/protestan religion began to encourage scientific thinking, muslim and other religions often outlawed the search for enlightment through science.

China as such a big nation turned in on itself thinking it did not need the rest of the world and was safe in its size behind its defences, (japan also was a closed country), both these meant they had no outside competition so progress interms of industry and arms was slow

Japan was more of a perpetual battlefield than a country, i daresay. And clans were eager to use new weapons against one another. But tokugawa's dynasty definitely was isolationist, contrary to Nobunaga and Hideyoshi who were constantly trying to expand.

 

[Connor Mulhern]

I've never used it in that sense but rather as a response to people who for some reason are baffled over the fact that the game gives more focus to Europe than the rest of the world.

Well it should have more of a focus on Europe, because that is where the balance and realism of the game is dependent. However, to make it as real as possible, you should also try to pay attention to the rest of the world

 

[Me_]

Yes, you are right here. And I still like EU2/FtG much more even it is very outdated game. It is much more balanced, logical and realistic than EU3 (with expansions) despite old poor engineer and features. Personally I found CK2 some middle ground between balance and historical accuracy of EU2 and the historical plausibility of CK1/EU3. Still there are a lot of thing in that regard to improve and balance in CK2.

EU3 concepts and features are very interesting but in my opinion (and with my EU3 experience) they rather produced ahistorical absurdities than historical plausible outcomes. Despite of bugs same was the problem with HOI3. I afraid that we can see the same sad things with EU4 again.

Just because something happened in history doesnt mean that it's reallistic or logical. Since many people seem unable to understand this concept let me show you an example of what they claim to be "realistic" approach.

Mr Smith (a man whose skills are completely wasted in his current job) plays a lottery. He has 1 chance out of 60 milion of winning 10 milion dollars. He wins and uses those milions to buy a small company called Pseudorealism Inc. Being a smart and skilled men he then turns Pseudorealism Inc into a global media giant over the course of the next decade.
Now if those "realists" were to make a game about the times when Mr Smith lived they would conclude that Pseudorealism Inc should become a media giant in most playthroughs in order to generate a realistic gameplay experience.

That is a somewhat exaggerated example of the Brgundian argument. I already said it's exaggerated so don't bother pointing that out.

Now if you can't understand the problem presented here please refrain from posting here. This thread is doomed to being closed anyway.

 

[Kyoumen]

I've never used it in that sense but rather as a response to people who for some reason are baffled over the fact that the game gives more focus to Europe than the rest of the world.

I know. I wasn't referring to you, Cap'n, but to other people who'd used it in a more dismissive sense (here and elsewhere). My apologies for not being clear.

That being said, while I understand the rest of the world will not be as fleshed out as Europe, whether you follow my or anybody else's specific suggestion, I do hope some thought has/is/will be put into making the rest of the world exist at a somewhat more realistic level in relation to Europe than it was in EUIII.

To give two obvious examples, native polities did exist in North America and interact as enemies and allies that could project credible military force for centuries in reality. They also just didn't ethnically disappear upon colonisation or conversion to Catholicism. If that can't happen in the game you've fairly drastically changed the realities of colonisation - and that screws up gameplay as Europe (to name one extreme example, it's silly to have tiny European countries like Navarre end up owning a quarter of North America, somehow all Basque and Catholic and with no chance of revolting into native cultured states even though the only country that ever actually more or less removed natives from the ethnic makeup of its colonies was Great Britain).

Similarly, the Ottoman Empire fought and won wars against such potent coalitions as Venice, Spain, the Papal States, Genoa and the Knights, crushing them on land and sea, 150 years after game start, and even though their naval supremacy was eventually matched, they were still able to defeat Spain and capture Tunis from them three years after Lepanto. They remained a potent naval power and an unmatched land one well into the 1600s, and did not significantly fall behind Europe (i.e., still winning important land and naval battles against European countries like Spain, Venice and Russia) until the mid to late 1700s. It is no secret that only a skilled player is going to do that with the Ottomans in EUIII and the AI has no hope whatsoever. This fundamentally changes how Europe works. The Ottoman Empire is crucial to how and why Europe developed the way it did and it simply would not have happened if they were not such an incredibly potent military and economic power for the majority of game's timeframe. Sure, it's possible they would have collapsed early, but a surviving, territorially intact Ottoman Empire (that is to say, owning Anatolia and the southern Balkans, which should be both quite possible and a priority for the AI) should not be hopelessly behind Europe 100 years into the game when in reality there were significantly more powerful than any European state at that time.

The latter example also illustrates why it's really important for countries to be able to stagnate and fall behind, not just continue building on success after success. Japan may be a special example, but what happened to Spain and the Ottomans should be replicable.