Everybody and their mom have westernized by 1675

[delpiero1234]

Everybody and their mom have westernized - including Morocco, Tunisia, Mali, Tripoli, Kilwa (an Aftican nobody), Poland, Lithuania and Iroquois (Iroquois even own a bunch of protectors in Native America)

This is ridiculous. Westernization is too easy and provides almost no downside.

 

[StatikShocker]

I see it being very prevalent in asia, you didn't mention any asian countries. In my two 1.5 games, japan, china, southeast asia, indonesia, india, and persia are 100% westernized. whoever does it first murders its neighbors.

bully brunei got it first and has eaten all of indonesia and southeast asia, colonizing everything and is beating up dumb iberians who keep declaring war on them for "get into spice islands". very fun to watch

 

[quoms]

I really don't understand this reaction, which seems to be very common since they made westernisation easier. Westernisation in EU4 is clearly supposed to represent a different phenomenon from what it does in Victoria and is more about a basic reorganisation of your government and military along Western lines than some revolutionary tumultuous overhaul. 'Western' countries simply weren't that much more advanced in this time period and the huge benefits that are afforded them over nearly every other tech group tend toward the immersion-breaking and unrealistic.

Arguably, the Iroquois really did westernise (in this sense) in real life. They certainly stomped every neighboring tribe in the Beaver Wars in a way that resembles what a westernised Iroquois do in-game.

 

[krauser13]

In my game I done westernized japan about 1575

and my korea game before 1550 :X

the way to done this is to annex aztec and go on colonize.

 

[jii]

Did any nations actually westernize in the EU4 definition during this period other than Russia? I think the whole concept needs an overhaul.

edit: I see the Iroquois cited above, that makes two.

 

[Pugman]

I think switching to westernized units should be removed. Just remove the huge tech penalty once western countries are encountered, still use a smaller penalty and use neighbor bonus. This way they'll catch up to an extent, still use their native units, but still always be somewhat behind (20-30% penalty).

 

[quoms]

Did any nations actually westernize in the EU4 definition during this period other than Russia? I think the whole concept needs an overhaul.

edit: I see the Iroquois cited above, that makes two.

If we're just talking Native Americans then I would also count the Five Civilised Tribes, all of whom took up settled agriculture, slavery, and quasi-Western government forms before they were driven from their territories by Indian Removal. This isn't the classic image people have of American natives, but EU4 shouldn't be a game that just validates people's preconceptions.

I just think it's funny to complain specifically about the Iroquois becoming too powerful post-contact with Europeans when in the real world their dominance over the Northeast and Great Lakes was even more one-sided.

 

[jii]

Well, remember that westernization in EU4 has nothing to do with culture and government, just technology and military

 

[maxirage]

Did any nations actually westernize in the EU4 definition during this period other than Russia? I think the whole concept needs an overhaul.

It's arguable whether Russia "westernized" at all. Russia always remained behind Western Europe, well into the days of the Soviet Union. Sure, some rulers were quite western-philic and introduced some changes to imitate them, but that doesn't mean they changed the structure of Russian society.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think switching to westernized units should be removed. Just remove the huge tech penalty once western countries are encountered, still use a smaller penalty and use neighbor bonus. This way they'll catch up to an extent, still use their native units, but still always be somewhat behind (20-30% penalty).

Europe does not need to be buffed further in this game. The disparity is trashy already.

Late game Western units have almost double the pips of say Chinese. It's pathetic.

If you want to leave other tech groups at a disadvantage, but give them comparable troops at a given tech level as western, then I would agree with you.

 

[pkderek]

Westernization shouldn't even be in the game at all, since nobody did Westernize. For Russia you can just give them a decision they can take that decreases tech costs for revolt risk (just like missionary strength). And the Iroquois and other Native American examples already have their own mechanism of "reforming" their government, ala CoP. Do you people not understand that it is a serious problem when the only viable way for a non-Western nation to survive is to Westernize? I'm talking just survive, not even compete.

Unit pip disparity is enough (and even that needs balancing), you don't need to throw in a tech malus as well as monarch point reduction. -__________________-

Or am I crazy?

 

[quoms]

And the Iroquois and other Native American examples already have their own mechanism of "reforming" their government, ala CoP.

...which buys you a couple decades before the insane tech/MP malus puts you right back where you were, not to mention the pip disparity. There's no way to give New World nations a one-time decision that lets them compete. They need the Western tech group and that's reasonable.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Westernization shouldn't even be in the game at all, since nobody did Westernize. For Russia you can just give them a decision they can take that decreases tech costs for revolt risk (just like missionary strength). And the Iroquois and other Native American examples already have their own mechanism of "reforming" their government, ala CoP. Do you people not understand that it is a serious problem when the only viable way for a non-Western nation to survive is to Westernize? I'm talking just survive, not even compete.

Unit pip disparity is enough (and even that needs balancing), you don't need to throw in a tech malus as well as monarch point reduction. -__________________-

Or am I crazy?

If you don't have any tech cost disparity but leave units as they are, Indians could roll into Europe in the early-mid game and remain competitive pretty long, nomads would be pretty worthless, and the Ottomans would be utter god-mode until tech 26-29.

Some form of balancing of unit pip at tech equality and tech cost increase for non-western would probably be best.

 

[Dakilla TM]

I think switching to westernized units should be removed. Just remove the huge tech penalty once western countries are encountered, still use a smaller penalty and use neighbor bonus. This way they'll catch up to an extent, still use their native units, but still always be somewhat behind (20-30% penalty).

Why? Late Ottoman, Muslim, Indian, Chinese, New World, and Sub Saharan units suck. Even with the western tech bonus, their units will get stomped by the Napoleonic Square. If your idea is implemented, then there's no point to playing a non western/eastern nation. Because no matter what you do, you will lose to the Europeans at the end. And that is not fun. This game is about creating your OWN history, so who cares if Bengal westernizes and becomes a powerhouse in Asia? That makes for more challenging, unique, and fun games. This suggestion to me is ridiculous.

 

[Pugman]

If you want to leave other tech groups at a disadvantage, but give them comparable troops at a given tech level as western, then I would agree with you.

That's exactly what I'm proposing. I don't think they should have equal troops but they should have a chance to defend themselves. They should be able to inflict enough pain that they aren't just annexed willy nilly but they shouldn't be able to stand toe to toe.

 

[Roguedemon]

That's exactly what I'm proposing. I don't think they should have equal troops but they should have a chance to defend themselves. They should be able to inflict enough pain that they aren't just annexed willy nilly but they shouldn't be able to stand toe to toe.

I'm not sure I understand either. Are you saying that their units should be slightly weaker at comparable tech but not too much so, or are you saying that they should have equivalent units but shouldn't be able to stand toe to toe because they should usually be behind in tech?

 

[WanderV]

It's arguable whether Russia "westernized" at all. Russia always remained behind Western Europe, well into the days of the Soviet Union. Sure, some rulers were quite western-philic and introduced some changes to imitate them, but that doesn't mean they changed the structure of Russian society.

Actually Russian society changed very much. Peter I adopted absolutist monarchy, german-type serfdom and modern army structure. Also many (VERY MANY) more europeans were invited to Russia to become russian nobles. Much part of state elite was non-russian ethnically. If it's not westernized than 'Westernization' term just doesn't have sense.

 

[Pugman]

I'm not sure I understand either. Are you saying that their units should be slightly weaker at comparable tech but not too much so, or are you saying that they should have equivalent units but shouldn't be able to stand toe to toe because they should usually be behind in tech?

This...

their units should be slightly weaker at comparable tech but not too much so

 

[Roguedemon]

I suppose my question then would be why? If a nation does westernise and subsequently catch up in tech should it not get all the bonuses of doing so? If its happening too often, surely the better solution is to make it harder, or possibly less desirable to do for one reason or another, rather than just ensure that they always have worse troops than europeans no matter how well they do?

 

[PiriReis]

The tech gaps and unit pips between the tech groups should be smaller.