Europe VS the world

[Dafool]

I'd say it has something to do with the name of the game
Europe isn't OP at the start, they just have a better tech group. In fact all the arab states have higher tech at the start giving them an advantage. In the EU3 timeframe the only serious threat to Europe was Ottoman empire

It should be noted that the difference in tech at the start of the game, a mere two levels, will fade away in about two decades, meaning Europe's rise takes place between roughly 1430-50 in EU3. That's nearly a century too early if we're primarily looking at land technology. It doesn't matter whether the game is focused on Europe or not, it's still misrepresenting them.

 

[Fawr]

I'd just like to look at these two statements:

I don't understand why people resist OPness of Europe. Europe needs nerf at the initial stage of the game and a mechanism to ensure its rise of power. That is all.

2: A lot of the problems for non-western countries are caused by the unfair multiple penalties that are heaped against them, rather than solely the tech goups. The tech groups are a handicap themselves of course, but on top of that you have the unit groups. Meaning that a non-western country will almost always have poorer soldiers than a western one, even if they are matched in military tech.

The European troop types are Nerf at the start of the game (particually their lack of Cav, which is the most important unit for the first 100+ years) and an end of game buff (getting particually strong near the end of the game).

If you want an small initial gap, but one which is ever increasing then thats the sort of mechanic we need more of.

 

[WeissRaben]

I'd just like to look at these two statements:




The European troop types are Nerf at the start of the game (particually their lack of Cav, which is the most important unit for the first 100+ years) and an end of game buff (getting particually strong near the end of the game).

If you want an small initial gap, but one which is ever increasing then thats the sort of mechanic we need more of.

Of course, come LT18 they start not needing cav that much - infantry becomes head and shoulders above anything in the world.

 

[Fawr]

It should be noted that the difference in tech at the start of the game, a mere two levels, will fade away in about two decades, meaning Europe's rise takes place between roughly 1430-50 in EU3. That's nearly a century too early if we're primarily looking at land technology. It doesn't matter whether the game is focused on Europe or not, it's still misrepresenting them.

I think we posted at the same time. Didn't you and I do a test in another thread and find that the Ottomans were only 1 or 2 tech levels below Europeans (and the better Muslim units may may counter much/all of that) until 1520ish? The exception was cases where they end up in a downward spiral unable to earn any income (killing their tech rate). Which would make the Ottomans comparable to the Europeans until the 1500s.

 

[Killzerslaul]

I think we posted at the same time. Didn't you and I do a test in another thread and find that the Ottomans were only 1 or 2 tech levels below Europeans (and the better Muslim units may may counter much/all of that) until 1520ish? The exception was cases where they end up in a downward spiral unable to earn any income (killing their tech rate). Which would make the Ottomans comparable to the Europeans until the 1500s.

1520 still is a poor representation, considering in real life the Ottomans only really fell behind technologically after internal problems ruined them. They shouldn't have a tech group any worse than Western Europe.
Anyway, the Ottomans are only one nation, and the argument in this thread is about the whole world. I think there's a lot of people who'd argue that most Asian countries should at least be able to fend of a European invasion until well after 1500.

 

[WeissRaben]

1520 still is a poor representation, considering in real life the Ottomans only really fell behind technologically after internal problems ruined them. They shouldn't have a tech group any worse than Western Europe.
Anyway, the Ottomans are only one nation, and the argument in this thread is about the whole world. I think there's a lot of people who'd argue that most Asian countries should at least be able to fend of a European invasion until well after 1500.

I could argue that Japan was, at Sekigahara, not westernized but still pretty damn near, and it would have been closer and closer up until the Sakoku edict shut down the nation.

 

[Seli]

What's confusing alot of people (including Paradox staff) is that they are taking 19th occurrences (such as the Scramble for Africa and the Opium Wars) and applying them to the game's time frame. In EU, there's no such thing as "European dominance" or "Westernisation" and no steamships or machine guns either.

I don't think most people think that way, but that it is just an artefact of how the game works, and what people perceive makes the game fun.
Simplified, the province-based paint-the-map gameplay the series offers does not fit well with the political manoeuvring and local power that characterized the era. And moving armies around the map is a bit more intuitive, simple, and probably fun, than a pure bribing, influencing, diplomatic, trading, logistics, game.

 

[NapoleonComple]

Japan should have the potential to become a westernized powerhouse in the east, given the right events. If the country hadn't been closed off to the outside and Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea had gone through there is reason to believe the Japanese could have gone on to control a major empire with armies that wielded western weapons, confronting empires like Spain and Portugal spreading through the Americas on equal terms for control of the Pacific. Possibly even becoming part of the Christian world, just for that extra level of connection with Europe's political scene. Think a Meiji restoration only it happens 200 years early and is led by the Shogunate rather than the Emperor.

Of course one thing Japan did lack was a decent navy. Japan's isolation wasn't inevitable though.

 

[Dafool]

I think we posted at the same time. Didn't you and I do a test in another thread and find that the Ottomans were only 1 or 2 tech levels below Europeans (and the better Muslim units may may counter much/all of that) until 1520ish? The exception was cases where they end up in a downward spiral unable to earn any income (killing their tech rate). Which would make the Ottomans comparable to the Europeans until the 1500s.

First, that's the Ottomans, who have a higher research efficiency and richer provinces on the whole than most RotW nations. In any case, those tests did not show parity until the 1500's. The Ottomans, the best case scenario, managed to keep up until the late 1440's, at which point the Europeans begin to surpass them. By the 1520's, the earliest point it could be agreed upon that the Ottomans began to decline, they were already several levels behind. It actually proved fairly definitively that the Ottomans and Muslims get surpassed around the 1440-50 period, at which point thing only get worse.

 

[Pwyll]

What if there was a tiered limit for maintaining armies off of the home continent ajusted by perhaps certain advancements in naval and/or land technology. For example at tech level 20 you could maintain around 15000 men beyond your continental borders. Level 25 could be 20000 etc. You could also limit a nations fighting effectiveness fighting away from its own continent by having a negative value applied which could also be adjusted through certain tech advancements decreasing the penalty. I would also restrict the regiments that can be raised overseas. You will never raise British line regiments in India but sepoys or native troops...lots of them...and yes there is always the risk of rebellion. Reinforcements of regiments abroad I would have as negligible...more easily to ship the regiment back home to reorganise or simply disband and reform again at home.
Just some thoughts.

 

[Fishman786]

I'd just like to look at these two statements:




The European troop types are Nerf at the start of the game (particually their lack of Cav, which is the most important unit for the first 100+ years) and an end of game buff (getting particually strong near the end of the game).

If you want an small initial gap, but one which is ever increasing then thats the sort of mechanic we need more of.

I disagree. Unit groups should be removed completely in favour of a fairer mechanic, or at least altered to such a degree that tech 30 African infantry are just as effective as tech 30 European infantry. The difference in quality between western and RotW troops of the same tech level in EU3 was ridiculous. Sure, Muslims had a slight advantage at the start, but it quickly disappeared. Tech groups alone do a decent job of creating a divergence of military technological progress, a second level of penalisation is overkill.

The unit groups system seems like a throwback from the more deterministic past of EU to be honest, what with the specific historical unit names and the long descriptions for each one. The files that set up the unit types in each group are very messy and thrown together for RotW countries as well.

 

[Plasma Doctor]

The thing I always thought that would make it work better was "Modernization" over westernization. The idea of innovation as opposed to sticking to old ideas. I mean, the Japanese took muskets and put iron sights on them so Samurai could use them and feel more important as well as a tad bit more accurate. So advancing at the same tech rate is a lot easier than the old game presents. Though I've read in the dev diaries that westernization and tech is going to work differently.

 

[icedt729]

The thing I always thought that would make it work better was "Modernization" over westernization. The idea of innovation as opposed to sticking to old ideas. I mean, the Japanese took muskets and put iron sights on them so Samurai could use them and feel more important as well as a tad bit more accurate. So advancing at the same tech rate is a lot easier than the old game presents. Though I've read in the dev diaries that westernization and tech is going to work differently.

This is exactly why I don't like the tech group and unit group systems- real innovation happened in fits and starts. Even European countries would alternate between periods of rapid progress of periods of stability or even decline. What I'd like to see is a set of modifiers that influence tech rates and are dependent on each country's social, political and economic situation, so that countries will rise or fall in technological predominance based on their environment and their performance instead of at a steady, arbitrary rate. A system like that could accurately show both Japan's rapid advances during the Momoyama period and its stagnation under Sakoku (and, although this is out of the game's timeframe, its exceedingly rapid modernization after the Meiji Restoration). Or, Spain's rapid progress during its struggle with the Moors and the brain drain brought on by its later oppressive policies, or the initial development and later decline of the Muslim gunpowder empires. We would naturally expect more European countries to meet the requirements of rapid technological development, and for those advances to spread fairly quickly among other European states, but we shouldn't expect the technological leaders in Europe to be the same every time any more than we should always expect India to develop faster than Asia and Asia to develop faster than Africa. I just want a system that's more nuanced and more flexible.

 

[aaronlaw97]

I think there should be a boost to your military tech research rate when you are at war. The development of weapons and tatics is usually trial and error, without trial there cannot be error. Of course, the research rate for other techs would be lowered during war.

 

[Vishaing]

I've always thought it might be interesting to make it so positive stability made technology cost more, representing that nations that are large and stable tend to stagnate. Alternatively, every time you advance in your tech you lose one stability point.

Either, or both, would be interesting...

 

[icedt729]

I've always thought it might be interesting to make it so positive stability made technology cost more, representing that nations that are large and stable tend to stagnate. Alternatively, every time you advance in your tech you lose one stability point.

Either, or both, would be interesting...

I like this idea a lot. It's a pretty elegant way to make a tradeoff between stability and progress.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

I like this idea a lot. It's a pretty elegant way to make a tradeoff between stability and progress.

Yet the Industrial Revolution didn't do that, and progress doesn't work that way; that would be essentially applying the example of China to the entire world without seeing what actually happened when new tech came.

The Luddites were anti-technology and over represented by the reactionary uprisings.

 

[WeissRaben]

The problem is, stability by itself doesn't equate stagnation. Stagnation means easier stability, though, and vice versa. Raising stability, by means of monarch points, should and DOES slow down technology, though. You are defending the status quo, and is is reflected in using points, to raise stability or suppressing rebellions or lowering revolt risk, that do not go in technology.

 

[unmerged(353072)]

The one thing that I 100% believe needs to go is the slow in the other tech groups. There is no reason Indian nations should get a 50% tech speed penalty and a slow penalty at level 6. Why don't they make the slow or a tech speed penalty a event or modifier in when if you have a high revolt risk in your country you get a tech speed deduction for thing like trade or production to show more diversity between all countries and also have the same effect of bigger empires have more tech problems.

 

[Gooner]

In an ideal simulator, all the variables that helped Europe get ahead, and the rest of the world fall behind would be in the game. However, this is a game, and some simplification needs to happen, so I think the tech groups will still. I don't like it either, but since some determinism needs to be in the game to reflect Europe's rise to dominance, something has to give.