Europe VS the world

[maxirage]

I know it's a pretty ironic complaint considering the name of the game, but I feel EU3 suffered from being Eurocentric bias. Europe was portrayed as the most wealthy, populous, and powerful region in the world even in the 1400's. It got to absurd levels, where Castille could easily annex all of North Africa by 1450, and even the weakest of European nations could subdue the Americas single-handidly. Every region in the world, except for Europe and Japan, has very few provinces, poor base tax, and feels like an endless mountainous wasteland.

For an easy comparison you can look at France and Ming China in EU3, at the 1399 start date. A united France has a support limit of about 85 and an income of 46 per month. Ming has a force limit of 105, and an income of 51. This means that France alone is 80% as strong as China. That, frankly, is completely absurd. China at this period had more population than all of Europe combined! Europe as a whole is so powerful it makes the rest of the world look like a joke.

I don't mind Europe being strong, but it should be done gradually and to a realistic degree. That's what I hope to see in EUIV.

 

[unmerged(245940)]

+1

 

[unmerged(527274)]

+1 for accuracy and challenge.

 

[Wowwars]

+1 I want to have an actual challange and not have Middle East and North Africa Squashed by 1600s

 

[mchaza]

For nations such as China with high population, and focus on quantity,when you create a unit, it should not be a thousand block but instead 2-5 thousand instead. That could make them more repersent the power more realistic, all though I have seen Ming China reach Novogrod in Eu3, but thats a attrition thing which is broken in EU3

 

[Fede248]

+1

 

[Fawr]

Strangly enough there is a thread on China compared to Europe here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?658441-China-the-workshop-of-the-world. Take a read.

Some (ecomonic) historians think that China had already been significantly overtaken by Europe in 1500 in terms of average per person income. Also collecting taxes from cities is much easier than collecting them from rural areas which weights the tax comparison more in favour of Europe.

That said I'd also like to see what your example income between China and unified France would look like after 12 months of placing/killing merchants because if those numbers stay like that EU3 has gone over the top. Although the EU3 engine is limited because base tax numbers don't generally change over time and instead seem to aproximate the world in 1600 rather than showing the world in 1400, 1600 & 1800 (and census taxes are a large part of 1400 country incomes), which is part of the problem.

 

[maxirage]

Fawr, that's not really relevant, since things like tax efficiency are already represented separately in the game. Superior economic management should be represented by the economy technology branch and national ideas. Problem is, even when Europe doesn't have the perks that made it wealthy historically, they are still innately more powerful and rich than the rest of the world.

 

[Tufto]

Not this again.

 

[AndreasPhokas]

I definately agree. China and manchuria as well other regions are just plain horrible. Also aggrivating that western troops are ridiculously stronger. case in point eastern infantry compared to western infantry. while the west(generally) had better infantry, the eastern troops shouldnt be so horrible. Really you shouldnt see any gap between europe and the rest of the world until the 1600 or later atleast.

also buff asia minor. The region as a whole is alot poorer than it was during the era(not a definitive maybe im wrong) but a stronger asia minor means a stronger ottomans(or byzantium i suppose) which is good. i just want to see random landgrabs reduced IE castille invading scandinavia or england randomly holding dalmatia as their only mediterrean possession and they send armies to dalmatia rather than try to reclaim aquitania

 

[Andrew4250]

I think how it is, is fine.

At 1500 the average European produced 2.6 times the GDP as a individual living under the Ming dynasty.

So what happens in the game is that the taxes are roughly the same at the start (Though I think that the base tax in China should increase by 1-2 in most areas) and then as the production efficiency rapidly goes up in Europe the Europeans get much richer, which mirrored real life.

I don't see a problem of western troops being better, I just think that they shouldn't be able to ship stacks of infantry all over the globe. The attrition level should also decrease much more in the game and the lower the technology level the cheaper it is to equip your troops. This way when the Europeans try to land 12000 troops into shanghai their are 450,000 soldiers to oppose them. Which would make the game much more interesting.

 

[maxirage]

I think how it is, is fine.

At 1500 the average European produced 2.6 times the GDP as a individual living under the Ming dynasty.

Where the heck did you get this wacky figure from? There's a different thread discussing China's economy, and the common estimate there puts Ming's GDP per capita in 1500 around the same level as Portugal's.

Anyway, the issue is that the basic land value is NOT the same at the start, as you assume. Asia has less provinces + they are lower values than Europe. One alone is crippling enough, but together they are the reason why Europe outclasses everything from the get go. One of the worst problems is that combat was not designed around such large provinces -- meaning rebels become near-immortal demigods. It's like gameplay in Asia and elsewhere that isn't Europe was made specifically to be unfun and nonviable.

 

[Pellaken]

-10
Not realistic. In addition, the game is Europa Universalis, not Orient Universalis. Europe SHOULD be the focus on the game.

 

[Jagsman32]

Europe is (or is in the process of becoming) superior during this timeframe and it should be accurately represented. A centralized, well-ruled nation SHOULD be able to dominate the north African coast, or the Chinese for that matter.

However, that doesn't mean that the rest of the world should lack in quality depth and engaging gameplay. A well-ruled China should be able to defeat a poorly-ruled Portugal. I think this is where monarchial/ruler stats will come into play.

 

[Checco]

Not this again.

Simply put, but effective.

 

[Wallain]

They could certainly use a greater province density, that would help stop some silly conquest both by giving them more power and by making it slower for the Europeans to take all of Africa.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Due to the nature of this game, where power comes from provinces, Europe has to have all the unfair advantages, in order to have the world develop in at least a semi predictable way.

After all most game content is centered around European countries (colonization, reformation etc), if other parts of the world were to rise instead of Europe, then all that would be wasted.

Not to mention that only European countries are set to pick colonialism ideas (like QFTNW), unless they get to rise and dominate stuff around them, nobody would ever go colonizing Americas and stuff.

And then theres China, if they played by same rules, and had same density of provinces, they would own everything every time.

 

[Dafool]

After all most game content is centered around European countries (colonization, reformation etc), if other parts of the world were to rise instead of Europe, then all that would be wasted.

I've always been opposed to the idea of a zero sum game when it comes to content. While it's obvious that the game focuses on Europe and wants to promote historical European dominance, giving more features, scope, and options to non-European nations doesn't make Europeans weaker, less capable, or underdeveloped. Your argument about China is true, but also works in reverse. If we look at Europe, they're so bloated to promote their historical dominance that they overperform. Much like China, if their advantages are overrepresented, then there's no chance for balance.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Well Dafool it appears you want a game that simply isnt EU. EU is about Europeans raging around the world, its not like civilization where everyone plays by same rules, and most capable rises to rule. Good thing is, modding what you want is fairly simple.

 

[Derp]

It is zero-sum, though. Every dollar or man-hour spent on Feature A is one less that they can spend on Feature B, etc.
edit: That said, I do agree that non-European countries deserve more attention.
And please, drop this strawman about wanting every country to have the exact same chances, nobody is asking for that.