Europe VS the world

[icedt729]

To hit on my biggest problem with the tech system, even if we assume Murray's methodology is sound, we still don't see a significant divergence between European science and everybody else's science until 1600. That's almost halfway through the campaign, but in-game Europe is already a globe-stomping behemoth by then.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Uh, that graph suggests that Europe isn't suppose to be developing quickly at all until 1600. That's long after first contact with the Native Americans, and is long after when Europe typically gets way ahead of the rest of the world in EU3.

EDIT: Guess someone beat me too it. I should really get into the habit of refreshing the page before I post.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Oh Golly, are you guys still all tying yourselves up in knots about this?

Europe has had a good few centuries. Good.

It's over now, Europe is in gentle terminal decline.

Seriously, give it another 2 generations and all of these culturally relativist conversations won't seem quite so heated.

I for one welcome our new overlords...

 

[Red_warning]

Oh Golly, are you guys still all tying yourselves up in knots about this?

Europe has had a good few centuries. Good.

It's over now, Europe is in gentle terminal decline.

Seriously, give it another 2 generations and all of these culturally relativist conversations won't seem quite so heated.

I for one welcome our new overlords...

I remember before 2008 how there was a lot of talk about how a strong and unified Europe would retake its place as the dominant force in global politics... then came the eurocrisis, and now people are wailing about how Europe will be thrown back into the dark ages and doomed to irrelevancy, woe is us.

Balance is a rare commodity, the choice is always between one of two extremes it seems.

 

[Easy1]

Oh Golly, are you guys still all tying yourselves up in knots about this?

Europe has had a good few centuries. Good.

It's over now, Europe is in gentle terminal decline.

Seriously, give it another 2 generations and all of these culturally relativist conversations won't seem quite so heated.

I for one welcome our new overlords...

Are you even serious? That sounds pathetic.

Let's hope the last two generations of the Western civilization do not share your ridcicilous defeatism and decadence. I think they will not.

 

[Colombo]

Easy: "Read the book" isn't right response. Either post whole argument or don't post anything. The good full argument would probably be methodology and some short list of events.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Let's hope the last two generations of the Western civilization do not share your ridcicilous defeatism and decadence. I think they will not.

Europe's time has come and gone, what else is there to say? Once we accept that, we won't feel the need to beat ourselves up so much about the supposed achievements of this or that extinct nation.

I remember before 2008 how there was a lot of talk about how a strong and unified Europe would retake its place as the dominant force in global politics... then came the eurocrisis, and now people are wailing about how Europe will be thrown back into the dark ages and doomed to irrelevancy, woe is us.

The cracks were there to see for quite a bit before then. Europe won't be thrown back into the dark ages, it's just declining, a bit like the muslim nations at the beginning of EU3.

I'm not wailing at all. Who's feeling sad about anything, the present state is purely self inflicted, so no need to feel sorry for anything.

Europeans spread like a virulent plague over the world in what is in the long view, the mere blink of an eye, and now it's time for the rest of the world.

So let's not worry too much about the playability of other nations in this game, as in the real world, they're becoming more and more playable by the day.

 

[Ruwaard]

I remember before 2008 how there was a lot of talk about how a strong and unified Europe would retake its place as the dominant force in global politics... then came the eurocrisis, and now people are wailing about how Europe will be thrown back into the dark ages and doomed to irrelevancy, woe is us.

Balance is a rare commodity, the choice is always between one of two extremes it seems.

United Europe still has potential, but that certainly current also is its' weakness, many feel Europe is rushing integrating and aren't (currently) ready for further integrate, (BTW I'm and always have been an advocate of the European project, still I'm not blind for the current problems). The current crisis within the Eurozone makes this even clearer, there's few trust between 'North' and 'South' in Europe and they also have some different ideas about certain policies, which makes help and transfers even harder. Integration will mean both sides will have to accept unpopular things.

Europe's time has come and gone, what else is there to say? Once we accept that, we won't feel the need to beat ourselves up so much about the supposed achievements of this or that extinct nation.



The cracks were there to see for quite a bit before then. Europe won't be thrown back into the dark ages, it's just declining, a bit like the muslim nations at the beginning of EU3.

I'm not wailing at all. Who's feeling sad about anything, the present state is purely self inflicted, so no need to feel sorry for anything.

Europeans spread like a virulent plague over the world in what is in the long view, the mere blink of an eye, and now it's time for the rest of the world.

So let's not worry too much about the playability of other nations in this game, as in the real world, they're becoming more and more playable by the day.

Those achievements shouldn't be forgotten, but we should remember both sides of the medal; European nations were great, but that also had a price.

Declining is a bit harsh, but unlike 100 years ago Europe doesn't alone determine, what happens in the world. Something, which is hardest for the last European world powers the UK and France. Still a united Europe can still play an important role in the world, disunited and our role won't improve or get worse.

Luckily in EU4 a European can experience an European 'Belle Époque'.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Those achievements shouldn't be forgotten, but we should remember both sides of the medal; European nations were great, but that also had a price.

Very true! It's both sides of the coin in English, by the way.

Ok, given the events over the past 10 years or so, how would you place the EU's current slider positions and national ideas?

 

[Easy1]

Europe's time has come and gone, what else is there to say? Once we accept that, we won't feel the need to beat ourselves up so much about the supposed achievements of this or that extinct nation.

History is not over. There will be revolutions, reactions, blood and iron in Eruope within the next fifty years.

The cracks were there to see for quite a bit before then. Europe won't be thrown back into the dark ages, it's just declining, a bit like the muslim nations at the beginning of EU3.

I'm not wailing at all. Who's feeling sad about anything, the present state is purely self inflicted, so no need to feel sorry for anything.

Europeans spread like a virulent plague over the world in what is in the long view, the mere blink of an eye, and now it's time for the rest of the world.

Lol. Self inflicted on your part maybe. You seem pretty much anti-European - the archetype of a leftist self-hating white male. It's you guys or the West, one of you will survive and I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

There will be revolutions, reactions, blood and iron in Eruope within the next fifty years.

I agree.

Self inflicted on your part maybe. You seem pretty much anti-European - the archetype of a leftist self-hating white male.

An inaccurate ad hominem. Try again.

 

[Ruwaard]

Very true! It's both sides of the coin in English, by the way.

Ok, given the events over the past 10 years or so, how would you place the EU's current slider positions and national ideas?

I'm sorry, but IMHO a medal seems more noble than a coin, so you're right, but my mistake might be better in this particular case.

I thought EU4 (and Vicky 2) was about the European 'Belle Époque' and not current events; still they're only united minimally.

History is not over. There will be revolutions, reactions, blood and iron in Eruope within the next fifty years.



Lol. Self inflicted on your part maybe. You seem pretty much anti-European - the archetype of a leftist self-hating white male. It's you guys or the West, one of you will survive and I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

I agree.



An inaccurate ad hominem. Try again.

Well I can understand he or she gets the impression you're a left wing self-hating white male; IMHO Europe was great (even greater for Europeans maybe?) with a (small?) negative side of that coin. Still the offers Europeans nations made, makes them just like their other countries, which were put in such a position.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Oh Golly, are you guys still all tying yourselves up in knots about this?

Europe has had a good few centuries. Good.

It's over now, Europe is in gentle terminal decline.

Seriously, give it another 2 generations and all of these culturally relativist conversations won't seem quite so heated.

I for one welcome our new overlords...

And what the hell does that have to do with the 1400s? Don't go sticking your PC where it doesn't belong, we don't care about it and don't need it mucking up serious discussion.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

And what the hell does that have to do with the 1400s? Don't go sticking your PC where it doesn't belong, we don't care about it and don't need it mucking up serious discussion.

It has everything to do with how forumites perceive the implementation of new world et al nations in an Europa Universalis game. The person who threw the angsty guilt-ridden lefty stereotype at me was wrong in his target, but spot-on with regards to the flavour of some of the earlier discussions. As I said:

Oh Golly, are you guys still all tying yourselves up in knots about this?

Some of us feel so guilty about Europe's success that it blinds us to the actual events.

don't need it mucking up serious discussion

Serious discussion? Serious? Seriously?

What papers are going to be published based on these discussions? What policy influenced? What lives changed?

If this forum were a physical location where would it be? Parliament? A town hall? A classroom? Or judging by your attitude a dilapadated room in the back of some run-down near abandoned pub.

And considering that your opinions are even more extreme than mine:

Well, my personal opinions are that Muslims are going to overrun Europe, and then everything is going to collapse in both Europe and the Middle East. America will plunge into a dark decline and bring China and Japan, giving Latin America and Southern Asia a chance to rise.

In the end we'll become dominated by Latin America and Southern Asia, Europe and the Middle East will be chaotic, and Africa will be like it has been since the beginning of time.

I wonder what the purpose of your serious discussion is to achieve? Control the Muslims perhaps, I don't know.

Europe really was at the top of its game for quite a while. Let's not try and make allowances for other countries who no matter who noble ttheir civilization might have been, were not.

As the Chinese say, you really are chopping wood outside Master Ban's door.

 

[WeissRaben]

Europe was on top, but to reach the levels of OTL 1850 is enough to research LT 18. 1530. That's the problem, not eventual dominance.

 

[Colombo]

yabba: Could you please shut up and go back to topic?

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Europe was on top, but to reach the levels of OTL 1850 is enough to research LT 18. 1530. That's the problem, not eventual dominance.

If it is a given that European warfare in 1550 had advanced significantly beyond that at the game's start, this needs to be represented properly, so that we are rightly scared of a more advanced neighbour.

If we hobble European advances it will have 2 effects:

1. It will inaccurately represent military tech and equipment differentials in Europe at the time.
2. The game will lose a lot of its edge for those who play European countries. This means a boring game, and likely fewer sales.

I imagine the vast majority of people who buy the game play a few times with their own nation, or maybe one that they feel affinity with, say Venice, rarely visit the forum and probably don't play past the first couple of hundred years.

So slowing down advances has another effect: 90% of players will never get to experience either huge power differentials or the colonial game. So most will never get to try mega conquests, and all in all will think that the game is a bit... dull.

EU3+ seems to do a good job of restraining the player and the AI as far as I can tell, partly by raising the cost of conquest, partly by lowering the AI's infamy cap, but also, partly by completely hobbling the economy.

I don't think it gets it quite right, but with its speed of recruitment and quick manpower replenishment, wars are still good, just still not as long and fun as in vanilla.

There are other ways to deal with ahistorical rapid European expansion outside the continent without upsetting the game balance within Europe and worsening the kind of game that is experienced by the vast majority of players.

I have little to say to those that try to argue that the Aztecs with their obsidian printing presses and stone guns were on a par in any level with any civ since the time of Hammurabi. Though those Gavin Menzies type acolytes who try to argue similar points about India, China and Japan, I have more sympathy for, though still limited. The Indians and Chinese viewed Europeans as barbarians for good reason, but Europe was still stronger than them, for quite a long time.

yabba: Could you please shut up and go back to topic?

What are you trying to achieve in this thread?

 

[WeissRaben]

If it is a given that European warfare in 1550 had advanced significantly beyond that at the game's start, this needs to be represented properly, so that we are rightly scared of a more advanced neighbour.

If we hobble European advances it will have 2 effects:

1. It will inaccurately represent military tech and equipment differentials in Europe at the time.
2. The game will lose a lot of its edge for those who play European countries. This means a boring game, and likely fewer sales.

I imagine the vast majority of people who buy the game play a few times with their own nation, or maybe one that they feel affinity with, say Venice, rarely visit the forum and probably don't play past the first couple of hundred years.

So slowing down advances has another effect: 90% of players will never get to experience either huge power differentials or the colonial game. So most will never get to try mega conquests, and all in all will think that the game is a bit... dull.

EU3+ seems to do a good job of restraining the player and the AI as far as I can tell, partly by raising the cost of conquest, partly by lowering the AI's infamy cap, but also, partly by completely hobbling the economy.

I don't think it gets it quite right, but with its speed of recruitment and quick manpower replenishment, wars are still good, just still not as long and fun as in vanilla.

There are other ways to deal with ahistorical rapid European expansion outside the continent without upsetting the game balance within Europe and worsening the kind of game that is experienced by the vast majority of players.

I have little to say to those that try to argue that the Aztecs with their obsidian printing presses and stone guns were on a par in any level with any civ since the time of Hammurabi. Though those Gavin Menzies type acolytes who try to argue similar points about India, China and Japan, I have more sympathy for, though still limited. The Indians and Chinese viewed Europeans as barbarians for good reason, but Europe was still stronger than them, for quite a long time.



What are you trying to achieve in this thread?

I'm not speaking about an edge, Yabba. I'm talking about 7000 Mauricians, 3000 knights and 2000 artillery vaporizing Far Eastern armies double or triple their size, in 1530. This is 1850, not 1530.

 

[grommile]

If it is a given that European warfare in 1550 had advanced significantly beyond that at the game's start, this needs to be represented properly, so that we are rightly scared of a more advanced neighbour.

I'm not (directly) concerned about the New World.

My concern is that with Land Tech 18, the only barrier to European country with an LFL of 20 (or enough money to get away with blowing out the LFL for a year or two o hai holland didn't see you there) conquering India is the infamy and warscore cost of the provinces.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

I'm not speaking about an edge, Yabba. I'm talking about 7000 Mauricians, 3000 knights and 2000 artillery vaporizing Far Eastern armies double or triple their size, in 1530. This is 1850, not 1530.

The following two quotes are by Sid Meier on designing Civ1:

"It quickly became apparent that watching the civilization grow was like watching paint dry," recalls Meier. "The action was so [dull] that after a little bit of that, there might have been a game that intervened."

Meier and Shelley devoted most of the remaining development time trying to even out the technologies they did have as perfectly as possible. If they added new units or technology haphazardly, or took certain ones away, it would throw the game wildly off kilter. "We realized that the game was easy to break," says Meier. They tread carefully to ensure an authentic and "fair" feel to the game.

This thread is all about game balance when Europe interacts with the rest of the world. My point has always been, and I either commented in this thread a few hundred comments ago or an identical thread, is that Europe and its interactions with itself are the most vital aspects of the game that needs to be balanced.

If those proponents for slower tech growth in this thread are heard and their desires implemented, will that actually make EU4 the best that it can be, or will it make the game dull?

There seem to be several kinds of people in this thread:
1. Those that believe that the Native Americans were only a generation behind Europe in tech, and should be represented as such.

Some of the above are suffering from "western guilt", my first post was aimed at them. The West's dominance won't last forever, and is to a degree an interesting anomaly.

2. Those that believe that the EU series is and must be the most true and faithful model of human history during that time. These people care less about playability, and more about accuracy.

3. Those that care more about how changes will impact the game. These people are obviously the opposite of 2.

This is a game that must sell well if we are to get all the future expansions the effort will deserve.

Contrary to what some people believe, I have never left the topic, and have been attacked 3 times.

My question remains: are you discussing what will make the most playable, historical computer game, or what will make the most accurate simulation?

Elwood and Colombo have both pointed out that they believe that this discussion is deadly serious, and cannot take any interruptions, especially from those who take a different viewpoint to them.

So there is a further question: Given that this thread is at about 500 comments, is someone writing a report based on the findings and conclusions reached for submission to Johan & co?

If not, why is everyone so serious?