Institutions are... yeah

[Atlantians]

They did, east Asia went backwards a few decades after the Imjin war.

18th century Japan army would get wrecked by Imjin war army, same goes for China too.

Wow. That decision changed history radically. Japan (and China) would have easily been a match for European powers by the time of the Opium wars

 

[GoffBall]

Neo-Confucianism became very popular in East Asia at the time, good for stability after the wars in Japan and after Ming collapsed but did not embrace any new ideas like institutions as it is wrong.

 

[Atlantians]

Neo-Confucianism became very popular in East Asia at the time, good for stability after the wars in Japan and after Ming collapsed but did not embrace any new ideas like institutions as it is wrong.

How can this be represented in-game?

 

[SignedName]

I don't recall the Japanese banning guns. Maybe among the populace, but not the Military.

The Japanese made extensive use of firearms in their invasion of Korea in the 1500s.

They banned guns after that, when they became an isolationist nation (though the isolation is often exaggerated since they still traded with and learned from the Dutch). Personal firearms usage was heavily restricted during this time period, because there simply wasn't a use for them. They weren't fighting any more wars, and having a disarmed populace makes rebellion way less likely. The 1500s was when their gun-making was at its peak, but by the 1800s few Japanese probably ever had cause to see one, and even hunters had to rent them out from authorized procurers.

 

[zoislk]

Eurocentricity isn't racist. What a ridiculous notion. Everything needs to be centred somewhere and Europa Universalis?

This is a game representing the early modern era-- an era that is defined by (essentially) Europeans taking over the world. The very idea of modernisation or westernisation means to become like Europeans. It was a time where European flags and ideas spread to nearly every corner of the globe. If to be Eurocentric is to be racist, you are already racist for having selected this game to play, because by your own definition it is the insturment of racism.

Uhhhh, whut?

The idea of "modernization" does NOT mean "to become like Europeans". Modernization literally means the process of becoming modern, or to put it simply: modernize. The word "modernize", the root of which is "modern", has nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with time. The idea of modernization is that you become up-to-date. There was a period of time when it would have been appropriate to say that Europeans embraced modernization when they became more like Muslims. In fact, that WAS what the Renaissance was: Europe's rising out of it's Dark Age to begin to rival, and then surpass, the advancements that the rest of the world (primarily, the Islamic world) had already achieved. That was also modeled in EU at one point, although that might have been in EU3?, by the Western Europe tech group starting BEHIND the Muslim tech group. It is also modeled in other ways in the game by Western European units not being the best among peers in the world until late in the game.

The idea of modernization has NO connection with the idea of "becoming more like Europeans".

You are correct that Eurocentricism is not, by definition, racist: it is merely looking at world (history, in this case) through the accepted perspective of Europeans. And yes, the game of Europa Universalis will of course be Eurocentric in nature, as it is the story of Europe's rise from the ashes. However, the idea that people from around the world had to become more like Europeans, and that "modernization" or "westernisation" both mean "become technologically enlightened" (which is essentially what the old Tech Groups system was saying), was not only Eurocentric but also a bit racist in nature: it was like saying "You cannot progress in technology as fast as we will because we are from Western Europe and you are just Chinese/Indian/African/etc.", but the new system shifting the impetus from becoming "more like Western Europe" to instead "embrace global ideas that help to push forward technological progress (such as what happened in Western Europe during this time period)" gets rid of that whole idea that you HAVE to either be from Western Europe or become more like Western Europeans to keep up in tech. Now, the only remaining Eurocentric feature in the technology system is the Renaissance Institution (a huge step forward in Europe, but had no relevance elsewhere as it was essentially just the time that Europe finally started "waking up"). The rest of the institutions are all global in nature. However, this being a Eurocentric game and given the importance of the Renaissance in Europe, I don't have any problem with that being the name or the idea of the first in-game institution to be developed.

 

[SignedName]

How can this be represented in-game?

Neo-Confucianism is already in game, but it's really odd since it emphasizes Heretic Tolerance when arguably it did the opposite.

But Neo-Confucianism isn't necessarily moribund anyway. The famous King Sejong of Korea was well versed in Neo-Confucian literature but was also innovative in his own right, publishing farming treatises and establishing research institutions. Neo-Confucianism was developed in response to the power of the Buddhist clergy, and with its introduction in Korea, monks and shamans were now considered to be the lowest caste of society, along with the traditionally lowest class like butchers and courtesans. So it's not really fair to say Neo-Confucianism itself held back Korea, but that a dogmatic need to stick to tradition was the cause. Plus other stuff, like the gradual degradation of the peasant classes until something like a fifth of the Korean population were slaves, the influence of noble families on politics, the extremely vicious invasion by Japan, the fall of the Ming Dynasty and accompanying invasions by the Manchus, a series of weak kings, etc...

 

[Muki13]

I had a Japan game going just before RoM got released. I am now doing a new Japan run in RoM. RotW was better off in the last version. But it is now much more interesting. Most of Africa and half the American primitives were fully westernized by the 1600s in my previous run. Now they lag behind with every institution.

And the amount of downvotes "legit" people get is not because they are racist scumbags. But because most of them have stupid points and no real arguments.

 

[spinoza013]

I think the base idea of the spread of institutions is a great idea. It just needs the correct modifiers to control spread. Information is a commodity to be treasured, it is also challenging to control. Culture, religion, government type etc. should have an affect on the spread of ideas.
The main thing people seem to be worried about is the spread of Military tech. Most countries try and control the spread of tech they have discovered and try and learn tech they haven't. This is where espionage should come in to play. Also you may have the knowledge of tech or tactics but lack the infrastructure to manufacture weapons etc. so this is where development should come in to whether certain troop types are available.
I also think that if certain areas within a region are more developed than others then the other areas should get an unrest modifier.

I personally would add more institutions and ideas in the future and have some institutions compliment or conflict with others.

 

[Verenti]

Uhhhh, whut?

The idea of "modernization" does NOT mean "to become like Europeans". Modernization literally means the process of becoming modern, or to put it simply: modernize. The word "modernize", the root of which is "modern", has nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with time. The idea of modernization is that you become up-to-date. There was a period of time when it would have been appropriate to say that Europeans embraced modernization when they became more like Muslims. In fact, that WAS what the Renaissance was: Europe's rising out of it's Dark Age to begin to rival, and then surpass, the advancements that the rest of the world (primarily, the Islamic world) had already achieved. That was also modeled in EU at one point, although that might have been in EU3?, by the Western Europe tech group starting BEHIND the Muslim tech group. It is also modeled in other ways in the game by Western European units not being the best among peers in the world until late in the game.

The idea of modernization has NO connection with the idea of "becoming more like Europeans".

You are correct that Eurocentricism is not, by definition, racist: it is merely looking at world (history, in this case) through the accepted perspective of Europeans. And yes, the game of Europa Universalis will of course be Eurocentric in nature, as it is the story of Europe's rise from the ashes. However, the idea that people from around the world had to become more like Europeans, and that "modernization" or "westernisation" both mean "become technologically enlightened" (which is essentially what the old Tech Groups system was saying), was not only Eurocentric but also a bit racist in nature: it was like saying "You cannot progress in technology as fast as we will because we are from Western Europe and you are just Chinese/Indian/African/etc.", but the new system shifting the impetus from becoming "more like Western Europe" to instead "embrace global ideas that help to push forward technological progress (such as what happened in Western Europe during this time period)" gets rid of that whole idea that you HAVE to either be from Western Europe or become more like Western Europeans to keep up in tech. Now, the only remaining Eurocentric feature in the technology system is the Renaissance Institution (a huge step forward in Europe, but had no relevance elsewhere as it was essentially just the time that Europe finally started "waking up"). The rest of the institutions are all global in nature. However, this being a Eurocentric game and given the importance of the Renaissance in Europe, I don't have any problem with that being the name or the idea of the first in-game institution to be developed.

Yes, it means to become modern. Modern, is the adjective of modernity, which "modernity refers to a period marked by a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom and formal equality; faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress and human perfectibility; rationalization and professionalization; a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy; industrialization, urbanization and secularization; the development of the nation-state and its constituent institutions (e.g. representative democracy, public education, modern bureaucracy) and forms of surveillance (Foucault 1995, 170–77)." (via Wikipedia)

That's how we can have post-modern. It's the period of time that ran from the end of the medieval era to, roughly, the end of World War I. When people talk about post-modernist politics, they aren't talking about being after up-to-date.

 

[Xinkc]

My main source of frustration with institutions is with how Colonialism's birth place is chosen. In my current game, freakin'England got it despite only having two Exploration ideas and no colony. Meanwhile, my Savoy has the only colonial nation in the world by what I can see, has full Exploration, and is out pacing Portugal with colonizing.

I would at least understand Portugal and Castile getting it as they have actually colonized at least a couple provinces. But no, England's complete lack of colonization despite three nations having started it before them justifies them getting the "birthplace" of colonialism as an institution? It's currently 6 years after the institution was formed and they still don't have a colony.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

My main source of frustration with institutions is with how Colonialism's birth place is chosen. In my current game, freakin'England got it despite only having two Exploration ideas and no colony. Meanwhile, my Savoy has the only colonial nation in the world by what I can see, has full Exploration, and is out pacing Portugal with colonizing.

I would at least understand Portugal and Castile getting it as they have actually colonized at least a couple provinces. But no, England's complete lack of colonization despite three nations having started it before them justifies them getting the "birthplace" of colonialism as an institution? It's currently 6 years after the institution was formed and they still don't have a colony.

Ha, playing a new game as Castille/Spain and I'm glad that didn't happen to me. I got both the birthplace of colonialism and global trade (global trade, strangely in Galicia instead of Sevilla, but whatever...)
And yes, the thing that annoyed the most to me, was that I no longer had a CB against most of the native american nations because they had all become on par with tech and having a full exploration meant nothing. That's what annoyed me the most, so I pretty much had to wait for missions like "Cuzco has gold" to get a CB on them. Just change Exploration bonus to be having a CB against american groups and I'm ok with everything else.

PS: Ist it just me or it is incredibly easy to convert the religion of asian and african provinces now before giving the province to a trade company now? I don't even have religious idea and I'm spreading catholicism everywhere because of how easy it is now (20 months or less, average of 10)

 

[Drukaris]

Printing Press starting in Rome while The Papal States having Reformed, Catholic and Protestant Provinces? I like it very much.

@Topic

I think Institutions make the game a lot more interessting and add a ton of replay-value. I personally coudn't care less about "historical accuracy" in a video game.

 

[Tufto]

...Well, Europe didn't have "tech superiority" (insofar as that is a remotely valid concept) during most of the time-period. It was only in the late 17th century that you see the glimmering of European superiority, which was only fully realised in the 18th and 19th centuries. If this is how 1.18 is now, than it's an excellent step in the right direction, even if it isn't perfect.

I'm not sure a lot of people in this thread know much about non-European history in the Early Modern period. Yes, they developed in a different way to Europe, and yes, Europe "won" eventually, but they didn't suddenly become static powers and passive recievers of European wisdom at the same time that Europe started to rise. I'm fine with Europe getting tech-superiority after about 1650 or so, but there should more-or-less be parity before then. At least in Eurasia and North Africa- I'm not sure about the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa, but I wouldn't be surprised if the situation was similar there too.

 

[Tufto]

Examine the situation at the beginning of the 19th century.

That is utterly pointless. There was not a single straight-line of European scientific and social "progress" happening at a constant rate from 1500 to 1800. There was, broadly speaking, technological parity until round about the late 17th/18th centuries, and particularly in the military sphere after the 7 Years War. This doesn't have any bearing on most events during the EU4 timeline.

Samurai still ruled Japan.

The Samurai were a social class. That has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of Japan's technology.

The Zulu still used spears.

Ye-es, but they were rather peripheral to the world-trade system. They're not really an apt comparison for the world as a whole, especially given the very limited and formal systems of warfare in southern Africa pre-Shaka.

Even the in Egypt, we saw a massacre by Napoleon at the battle of the Pyramids, due a lack of understanding of the power of fire arms.

Oh, bullshit they did. I'm not well-versed in the Battle of the Nile, but no way was the loss due to "a lack of understanding of the power of firearms". They had firearms, they'd been using them for centuries! And they were hardly unfamiliar with modern flintlock weapons in that part of the world either.

On the great plains, we saw them still using archery.

Also small-scale and peripheral to the world-trade systems, and a society limited in that period by its nomadism, but it should be noted that they did also use firearms.

The battle of Plassey saw the about 3k British troops (2/3rds of which were Indian sepoys) fighting an army of nearly 50k of traditional Indian forces lost decisively.

You mean the battle that was won because of a large chunk of the Bengali army betraying the Nawab? Not the best example. There definitely were Indian victories over the British in that period.

Disunity and infighting in the subcontinent and British exploitation of the same was far more important to their victory than the technological aspect. Similar to Cortez, really.

Until the mid 19th century, the Chinese were also still fielding spearmen in silk robes. No where adopted European techniques in any great number before the 19th century.

Sure, because they could mobilise large numbers of them at short notice with little cost. It was hardly as if they were unaware of modern weaponry. Besides, the 19th century was not the 18th or the 17th centuries; there was no chance of something like the Opium Wars happening a century prior. Nor was there any chance of a European takeover of China in the 19th century.

The problem is that theROTW did not modernise. This is the reason that the Europeans did so well historically, because there became a massive gulf in military capacities. This is how a tiny little island nation like England came to dominate a quarter of the globe in the 19th century. To pretend like it doesn't exist because it is hard to win as an Eastern nation is utter nonsense. It should be hard to win as Ming or Africa or the Aztecs. That these countries suffered so much throughout this era is not an accident, but the culmination of many different factors.

In 1740, the most powerful and modern army in the world belonged to Persia. It was 300,000 strong, utilised a wide array of field guns, had flintlock weaponry and sophisticated logistics. It utlilised local variants on technology such as the zamburak and the long guns of the tofangchis. There was no massive gulf in military capacities here; and Nader Shah's army is only one of many examples of innovation and the adoption of superior technology which occurred in the Early Modern world.

Why did Europe win? Well, historians have been debating that for decades, and nobody has come to a decent answer. Some, like the Sinophile school, don't even accept that there was any European superiority before the 19th century. I'd argue that it was because of the European desire to access luxuries they did not possess, which led to a focus on worldwide exploitation of resources and their ability to utilise their position as outsiders; I'm likely wrong, since I'm hardly an expert, but I can say with some certainty that it's not as simple as "Europeans had better technology". Historians moved on from that years ago. An argument can be made for that towards the end of the period, and certainly it was the case in the 19th century, but not in 1685.

The need for modernisation in the late 19th century does not reflect on the 17th or even in many respects the 18th centuries; it certainly doesn't reflect the 16th or 15th centuries. The commenter elsewhere who argued about Japan's sophistication in the early 19th century was quite right; the need for modernisation in the late 19th century does not reflect a stagnant society languishing without advancement for centuries; it reflects the rapidly changing nature of a swiftly industrialising world.

If Paradox wants to rebalance the game to ensure a level playing field, that's fine. It however lowers the game to the level of titles like Civ or Total War.

It seems to me as if Paradox has actually had the balls to move away from the limiting and outdated conceptions of the period which dominate other games (for which the teleological, Eurocentric Civ is a prime example, much as I love it). It's a bold move to actually attempt historical accuracy in the face of contradicting popular beliefs, even if they have failed in many respects.

 

[Verenti]

That is utterly pointless. There was not a single straight-line of European scientific and social "progress" happening at a constant rate from 1500 to 1800. There was, broadly speaking, technological parity until round about the late 17th/18th centuries, and particularly in the military sphere after the 7 Years War. This doesn't have any bearing on most events during the EU4 timeline.

Actually, it is a single straight line. That's how the tech system is set up. That's why the tech tree is only measured in three categories. Those categories are the ones in which Europe excelled and the rest of the world, not so much, They're also the categories that were the engines of European progress. Broadly speaking, they are weaponry, seafaring and government administration. The EU series is ONLY interested in the areas of technology in which the Europeans were leading the world. And yes, there was technical parity until about the 17th century. That's why the period of European expansion really kicked off then. Therefore, European technological expansion should start to get pronounced at that time, which it was designed to. Mind you, you're talking about Asian technological parity, not global technological parity. The natives in North America never had technological parity (or not in the period where they had independence.)

The Samurai were a social class. That has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of Japan's technology.

Yes, and should we say that Knights were still running around with 10th century weapons until the 19th century, they'd still appear to be backwater. The Meiji Restoration happened and it was a triumph over the traditionalist factions in the country, namely the Samurai. Likewise, the reason why Oda Nobunaga is remembered in that country is because his willingness to break with the static traditionalist aristocracy, bringing in a meritocratic order that saw the a peasant rise from sandal bearer to be seen as a "great unifier of Japan". Ironically, that same peasant also re-entrenched the caste system and by the Tokugawa clan came to power, we saw the ejection of Western influences in an order to maintain an order that persisted to Admiral Perry shook up the country in the 19th century.

Ye-es, but they were rather peripheral to the world-trade system. They're not really an apt comparison for the world as a whole, especially given the very limited and formal systems of warfare in southern Africa pre-Shaka.

I included them to not leave out a region of the world. They did live on a major trade route, so if they weren't central in the world trade system, it is likely because they were too technologically primitive to contribute any meaningful amount. They lived on Indian trade route. It's not like they're Amazonian tribals.

Oh, bullshit they did. I'm not well-versed in the Battle of the Nile, but no way was the loss due to "a lack of understanding of the power of firearms". They had firearms, they'd been using them for centuries! And they were hardly unfamiliar with modern flintlock weapons in that part of the world either.

They might of had fire arms for centuries, but they fielded a primarily cavalry based army against Napoleon. Something you would never have seen a European army do in that era (or since) because the age of Cavalry as a central piece of the army had already passed by the 19th century. Again, it would be like fielding an army of Frankish knights. That isn't a legitimate tactic at that point in history, and if you were used to dealing with those sorts of weapons, you would absolutely know that.

Also small-scale and peripheral to the world-trade systems, and a society limited in that period by its nomadism, but it should be noted that they did also use firearms.

Again, I included them to show that Europe was the exception to the global trend and not the rule. If you want to cherry pick examples by throwing on conditions to skew the results until you have something that reflects your chosen world view, fine. I'm refusing to do that. I'm using examples from across the globe and a diversity of political, economic and social conditions to show that in the frame of the game, the only people who made any meaningful steps to modernisation were Eastern Europeans.

You mean the battle that was won because of a large chunk of the Bengali army betraying the Nawab? Not the best example. There definitely were Indian victories over the British in that period.

Disunity and infighting in the subcontinent and British exploitation of the same was far more important to their victory than the technological aspect. Similar to Cortez, really.

And yet at the end of the time frame, India was a British colony. The British still also won Plassey.

For the stats, Plassey had 3,100 on the British side and 62,000 on the opposing side. The British loses (killed) number 22. I mean, the British also lost at Isandlwana, which was much more dramatic and that's the only reason why Rorke's Drift was even significant. Mind you, Isandlwana had about 2k British soldiers fighting about 10-15k Zulu Impis. Then again, Rorke's Drift was about 150 British soldiers defending themselves against about 4,000 Zulus.

I can understand that someone might take a decolonist or postmodernist stance on history, but when it becomes revisionist for the purpose of discrediting someone you dislike, it crosses the border into propaganda and, more likely than not, dishonest.

(The arguments beyond this have not been addressed because they became mostly unquotable due to a formatting error. While I am sympathetic to the fallibility we all live with as human beings, I am not disposed to take my time to correct said error.)


Having Said All That:

I have been reflecting on this issue and I believe I have reached a solution to the problem. The ROTW should have tech penalties. However, the AI, especially in Asia, should be encouraged to spend their points on development of provinces, which more accurately represents the advancement undertaken in much of the world. The Asian countries should be able to field incredibly large armies and these provinces should be rich and produce a ton of goods. They should not be able to field modern armies or build European Stock Exchanges. They should be hard to convert, both religiously and culturally, and cost a lot to take single provinces out of a country like India or China, both in terms of warscore and overextension costs. Therefore, the Asian provinces should have huge discounts in terms of development, but penalties in terms of technological development.

 

[fatrat]

Yes, and to an analytical mind this mind be indicative of where the problem is localised, not evidence that there actually is no problem.

And a objective mind would understand that ones views and opinions are colored by ones own biases and world view.

However, a analytical mind would also understand that in order to prove ones case one must find evidence to support it with a large enough samples size. I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue for someone as analytical as you to test, observe and prove ones point that institutions are spending to fast to non-Europeans. Observer mode is a very useful tool after all.

 

[Verenti]

...Well, Europe didn't have "tech superiority" (insofar as that is a remotely valid concept) during most of the time-period. It was only in the late 17th century that you see the glimmering of European superiority, which was only fully realised in the 18th and 19th centuries. If this is how 1.18 is now, than it's an excellent step in the right direction, even if it isn't perfect.

I'm not sure a lot of people in this thread know much about non-European history in the Early Modern period. Yes, they developed in a different way to Europe, and yes, Europe "won" eventually, but they didn't suddenly become static powers and passive recievers of European wisdom at the same time that Europe started to rise. I'm fine with Europe getting tech-superiority after about 1650 or so, but there should more-or-less be parity before then. At least in Eurasia and North Africa- I'm not sure about the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa, but I wouldn't be surprised if the situation was similar there too.

You know that the "late 17th century" is half way through the game, right? To say that Europe didn't get tech Superiority until the late 17th century would be like saying that Hearts of Iron shouldn't be about World War II because for 1/3 of the time line, the Nazis weren't at war. The game runs from 1444 to 1820. The game is 376 years long. To say that for 200 of them there isn't a definitive tech advantage is missing the fact that, by that exclusive, for 176 of those years that they did.

 

[Verenti]

And a objective mind would understand that ones views and opinions are colored by ones own biases and world view.

However, a analytical mind would also understand that in order to prove ones case one must find evidence to support it with a large enough samples size. I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue for someone as analytical as you to test, observe and prove ones point that institutions are spending to fast to non-Europeans. Observer mode is a very useful tool after all.

Surely, but I'm not about to devote hours upon hours of my time to prove a point about a video game.

I would argue that those who say there isn't a problem because some people say it is in one direction and others say it lies in another, are just as much influenced by their inherent biases and assumptions as those claiming there is a problem. However, one might note that those who think Institutions spread too quickly and those who think it spread too slow indeed agree that there is a problem with institutions. Also, these two camps aren't necessarily saying mutually exclusive things. What they're saying is "(Under the conditions that I have observed) Institutions are flawed." One should not assume that conditions that lead to those observations are alike. It was never stated to be so, so assuming that it is so is carrying a priori assumptions to the data instead of reading the data objectively.

Beyond this, I think even if we embrace rationality and objectivity, we all must implicitly understand that all thought is inherently subjective in nature, yet being subjective, does not invalidate the observations. We have to simply proceed with the understanding that we may be wrong. It's alright to be wrong, as long as one doesn't cling to ones position in the face of persuasive sets of data. All hypotheses start from a subjective position.

My current position has changed based on the experiences of other people. My current position is that naval empires spread institutions too quickly. I suspect those who have different experiences are seeing them occur from less maritime oriented empires, which seems to be confirmed by both my current game and the fellow who was talking about the Colonialism finished being rather useless now. I've been very cautious to expand into a region if I can't wipe out all of the primitives quickly. However, I was establishing a colony in the Louisiana basin to allow to to expand and take out all of those natives (because the requirement of coring make that difficult). I first was dealing with the natives north of Florida, but in the 10 years for me to get a continuous land border with the natives in Louisiana, the entire chain had modernised. No-one else in North America has any institutions. They have all four. This is after a very brief period of interaction with Europeans.

 

[Xinkc]

Printing Press starting in Rome while The Papal States having Reformed, Catholic and Protestant Provinces? I like it very much.

@Topic

I think Institutions make the game a lot more interessting and add a ton of replay-value. I personally coudn't care less about "historical accuracy" in a video game.

I think the modifiers for the creation of birth places for the institutions could be worked on though. It's completely nonsensical that England with just the idea to colonize and knowledge of some of the New World should get the one for Colonialism when Castile/Spain, Portugal, and any other colonizer has actual colonies or colonial nations there. Then again maybe I'm just salty that I worked so hard to push for it to spawn in my nation as Savoy, out pacing Portugal and Castile on the colonization game, only to get the shaft.

 

[fatrat]

Surely, but I'm not about to devote hours upon hours of my time to prove a point about a video game.

I would argue that those who say there isn't a problem because some people say it is in one direction and others say it lies in another, are just as much influenced by their inherent biases and assumptions as those claiming there is a problem. However, one might note that those who think Institutions spread too quickly and those who think it spread too slow indeed agree that there is a problem with institutions. Also, these two camps aren't necessarily saying mutually exclusive things. What they're saying is "(Under the conditions that I have observed) Institutions are flawed." One should not assume that conditions that lead to those observations are alike. It was never stated to be so, so assuming that it is so is carrying a priori assumptions to the data instead of reading the data objectively.

Beyond this, I think even if we embrace rationality and objectivity, we all must implicitly understand that all thought is inherently subjective in nature, yet being subjective, does not invalidate the observations. We have to simply proceed with the understanding that we may be wrong. It's alright to be wrong, as long as one doesn't cling to ones position in the face of persuasive sets of data. All hypotheses start from a subjective position.

My current position has changed based on the experiences of other people. My current position is that naval empires spread institutions too quickly. I suspect those who have different experiences are seeing them occur from less maritime oriented empires, which seems to be confirmed by both my current game and the fellow who was talking about the Colonialism finished being rather useless now. I've been very cautious to expand into a region if I can't wipe out all of the primitives quickly. However, I was establishing a colony in the Louisiana basin to allow to to expand and take out all of those natives (because the requirement of coring make that difficult). I first was dealing with the natives north of Florida, but in the 10 years for me to get a continuous land border with the natives in Louisiana, the entire chain had modernised. No-one else in North America has any institutions. They have all four. This is after a very brief period of interaction with Europeans.

Ah, this is the only time i kinda agree with you in this thread. Humans can't really be unbiased due to confirmation bias. Along with confirmation bias many people tend to surround themselves in an eco chamber that reinforces their beliefs. We can be as objective as possible, however that still has to be taken with a grain of salt as it will always have some form of bias.

Now, when i said people were overreacting to institutions, i never said there isn't a problem. What i meant by this is people on both sides of the argument are jumping to far extremes far too quickly. I do not think there isn't a problem, there very may well be. However this would need more time and observation to find a sweet spot in how fast institutions spreed.