It occupies a dip relations slot and requires you to fight for puny Livonians in their wars against Kalmar and PLC, which is a huge drag on the economy/manpower.That´s because the modifier is as stupid as giving the -10% tech cost.
It´s so stupid, that despite being a TRADE, it comes for free.
Enough said
How about an event chain to westernise Russia?
- Thread starter Casus_Belli
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
One of the main issues of Westernization is because the Eastern tech group penalty is only +20%, there is no reason to spend 2400 MP for what essentially amounts to a -10% reduction in tech cost. On top of this Russia loses its ability to vassalize Indian and Chinese tech group countries which hurts expansion. The only time westernization makes sense is if you conquer India and China and want to take advantage of Trade Companies.
what i actually *SAID* was
sputnik is one of the things taht SPARKED the cold war into serious being and created a huge sense of competitive anti-communist nature in american propaganda...
notice the full quote
without the drop off of the part that you want to ignore...
neat how that happens. context... too bad you are trying to tell me what i said when i'm the one who typed it, so i obviously won't fall for this silly tactic...
and its not? when the russian army had more men than the entire coalition, (by a long shot) and the coalition lost less men in percents, to war, than the russian army did? >_> what is a good indicator then?
The bad relations between the US and Soviet Union is much, much older than Sputnik. It is even older than World War 2. A lot of it was US butthurt over Communist confiscation of American property during the revolution.
It would make sense for WC because you could protectorate Asia and India but I don't think WCs are fun and Muscovy is best suited for this job.
"And created a huge sense of competitive anti-communist nature in american propaganda..." is not relevant to my point, which is that Sputnik was not a major cause of the Cold War "sparking into being", which is why I ignored it, because it works neither for nor against my argument.
That's not something I could entirely agree with. The relations were tender and sweet at times when these were about USSR's internal development and war assistance. Land-lease, GAZ plant, electrification and HEPs, Mikoyan's visit and adoption of burgers for Soviet cuisine, Stalin's architecture (7 sisters). Just to name a few.
it wasn't a RESPONSE to your argument
it was IRONICALLY a RESPONSE to the guy saying russia launched a man into space before the cold war began
NOT about how the cold war began, but how the cold war propaganda was ALREADY THERE AND FUELED BY THIS TO CREATE AN MORE INTENSE ARMS RACE?
i don't know if it is my english, or a collective sense of comphrenesion issues or interpretation walls here, but
most frustratingly misunderstood thread ever.
This was a breif period of warming relations during World War 2 when Hitler and the Nazis were seen as the bigger threat. As soon as the war ended the USSR and US returned to eachother's throats.
sometimes i think russia isint really even westernised to this day, they still seem to feel the opposite of western culture/thinking besides maybe technology
the major point i was trying to make is so eloquently put in english for you here.
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/kritika/v013/13.4.kozelsky.html
and the link to this image's source page is here again: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/kritika/v013/13.4.kozelsky.html
in case someone magically accuses me of not providing it
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/kritika/v013/13.4.kozelsky.html
and the link to this image's source page is here again: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/kritika/v013/13.4.kozelsky.html
in case someone magically accuses me of not providing it
Do you feel comfortable throwing generalizations like this? Are you a great expert in the field? Why does your lack of grammar suggest the other way around?
westernization IS technology in this game, not culture. that is why if you westernize your culture stays the same lol
clausewitz could respond on this forum and you would ask him to cite the sources of his statements, proceed to blatantly ignore them all, and then claim a fortuitous victory...
(do you need a CITATION for that IMAGE?)
Finally, something we could agree upon. Neither culture nor social development are not represented in the game (EU4 admin tech is no good abstraction for this), Vic2 is the place.
I'm glad you are coming to your senses but the debate is over. Get well soon, come back with a strong case. I propose to end the flame. You must have better things to do with your time. Cheers!
maybe you should take my PM serious and read it. and then explain to me how you were ever once taking anything serious.
and then when you have that explanation, come back to ME with a strong case and try to make me believe you.
Because i am asking for evidence that you were not baiting for trolling purposes, and in fact, genuinely tried to understand my point of view, instead of derailing it, by asking for citations, and then consistantly ignoring them while asking for more, and pretending none were given....
here are some citations on the image btw. because I just have this feeling that without a plethora of 'redundant' links you won't recognize it's silly little me.
(original source of exact image: http://showbizgeek.com/shes-got-your-eyes/tina-fey-eye-roll/ )
Directory Image Search (webcrawler i think) of image and all its copies that are known of by said crawler
Containing 34 matching results, though I am sure there are undocumented cases throughout the net!
http://tineye.com/search/12a5ff02053664f705a27e6fcdeb49c492ad85c9/
and then when you have that explanation, come back to ME with a strong case and try to make me believe you.
Because i am asking for evidence that you were not baiting for trolling purposes, and in fact, genuinely tried to understand my point of view, instead of derailing it, by asking for citations, and then consistantly ignoring them while asking for more, and pretending none were given....
here are some citations on the image btw. because I just have this feeling that without a plethora of 'redundant' links you won't recognize it's silly little me.
(original source of exact image: http://showbizgeek.com/shes-got-your-eyes/tina-fey-eye-roll/ )
Directory Image Search (webcrawler i think) of image and all its copies that are known of by said crawler
Containing 34 matching results, though I am sure there are undocumented cases throughout the net!
http://tineye.com/search/12a5ff02053664f705a27e6fcdeb49c492ad85c9/
Wow and fighting people you would have to fight anyway is bad.
Oh PLEASE.
Also it costs the diplo slot from time to time. In my 1.7 game I simply allied Denmark and allowed it to integrate Sweden. There, one flank secure and the Western trade bonus.
You seem to lost your point, and I can't really blame you, because it was quite murky from the start. No-one is arguing that Russia didn't lose Crimean War, moreover everyone agrees with you that it can be largely attributed to technological and social stagnation Russia experienced during the reign of Nicholas I, (although it's quite hard to see how Russia (and principality of Mingrelia) could win the war against the coalition of GB, France, Sardinia-Piedmont and Ottoman Empire (and Austria-Hungary and Prussia looking to join in) even had it been on par technologically
However, it doesn't mean that Russia was not "westernized", whatever the hell it means. It was westernized enough to beat Napoleon and his satellites 40 years prior, was westernized enough to become the staple of Concert of Europe, and was westernized enough to achieve certain degree of success on Danubian and Caucasian fronts of the same war)