Institutions are... yeah

[Gnomi]

Not this kind of thread again -- but oh well, I am not a learning animal.

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.

And this army effectively ceased to exist with the death of Nader Shah -- because there was no institution to support it without a strong leader. While a well-equipped army may win a war or two, it is institutions which make it possible to maintain a well-equipped army for the long run. Tokugawa-era Japan actually makes an opposite example. While their military technology stagnated between 1600 and 1800, Japanese society in 1800 is a whole different beast from its counterpart in 1600. It had sophisticated financial system, capital accumulation, rudimentary system of rule of law, and vibrant middle class culture (which also means that its rule by Samurai was becoming increasingly out of touch with the underlying reality) -- none of these things could be said for 1600 Japan (at least, nowhere to the same degree). This development somewhat parallels what happened in Western Europe in early modern period, albeit slower -- and it is what allowed for relatively smooth transition post Meiji restoration.

What's the take-away story from this? If you want to look at a society, you should look at its institutions, instead of at its soldiers as armchair generals at online forums often do. That is why I think Paradox had the right idea here -- they just need some tweaks.

 

[Drukaris]

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.

At first i got salty too - i played Prussia and hadn't even gotten Colonisation, sitting on a 50% penalty. I thought "Just wait until Printing Press pops in Saxony or Sweden and feel my wrath you filthy catholic scum" only to soon be confronted with The Papal States inventing it.

I raged first but then i just had to laugh - and after reflecting about all the things i did wrong in my life i realised "I am about to take the lead in military tech if i spend some points, despite all that" (while beeing incredibad behind in diplo tech) and it changed my whole approach on the szenario and what i would do next. It was actually kinda refreshing.

The point is, the Institution mechanic prevents you from laying down the "path to go" in the first 50-100 years and just working down the list after that.

Now for the "logic" behind your case - what if England just put 1 and 1 together first? They saw/knew about the few colonies the others had und thought "Maybe we should make this our thing..." and kinda invented Colonialism.
You may not like it and think it's far off, but it could explain why a nation without colonies had the Institution spawn in their land. If you're not too serious about it.

 

[GoffBall]

The institutions are a pain for Ming as well, I had to colonise South Africa instead of the Philippines and even then still took me a very long time before I get renaissance. The tech penalty made Ming miss most of the new world expect Alaska and most of the Philippines got colonise by Spain instead.

 

[Tufto]

Not this kind of thread again -- but oh well, I am not a learning animal.



And this army effectively ceased to exist with the death of Nader Shah -- because there was no institution to support it without a strong leader. While a well-equipped army may win a war or two, it is institutions which make it possible to maintain a well-equipped army for the long run. Tokugawa-era Japan actually makes an opposite example. While their military technology stagnated between 1600 and 1800, Japanese society in 1800 is a whole different beast from its counterpart in 1600. It had sophisticated financial system, capital accumulation, rudimentary system of rule of law, and vibrant middle class culture (which also means that its rule by Samurai was becoming increasingly out of touch with the underlying reality) -- none of these things could be said for 1600 Japan (at least, nowhere to the same degree). This development somewhat parallels what happened in Western Europe in early modern period, albeit slower -- and it is what allowed for relatively smooth transition post Meiji restoration.

What's the take-away story from this? If you want to look at a society, you should look at its institutions, instead of at its soldiers as armchair generals at online forums often do. That is why I think Paradox had the right idea here -- they just need some tweaks.

Yeah, that seems fair. I'm not saying that there should be parity the whole way through; I mostly threw the example of Nader out of irritation at Verenti's crap about how unremittingly backwards the non-Western world was (to which I'll respond further tonight).

Perhaps one solution would be to have more institutions in the 17th and 18th centuries locked to begin in high-development European provinces, with a slower spread-rate; but, I suppose, you then just run into the problem of railroading again.

 

[jPaolo]

Many people here tend to forget that their changes should also work without Common Sense DLC.

From my observation:

• Russia and other Eastern European blobs get Institutions too slow as they're big and little developped. They are too big and too poor to embrace it quickly and natural spread is too slow
• India and China embrace it fast thank to their rich provinces but until they get Renaissance or Printing Press they sit on 50-100% penalty for few decades if not centuries. There should be some kind of system modeling the Silk Route. Maybe Centres of Trade of Trade Nodes from Constantinople to Beijing/Nippon should get some passive spread
• Subsaharan Africa is sometimes more modern than Russia, Persia or India. I think the spread from Trade Companies should be lowered.
  
• I'm ok with New World though. Native Americans in Northern America getting tech is not ahistorical and Natives in South America or Mesoamerica don't reform their religions anyway.

To sum up: Silk Route and spread block from Trade Companies.

 

[Xinkc]

Many people here tend to forget that their changes should also work without Common Sense DLC.

From my observation:

• Russia and other Eastern European blobs get Institutions too slow as they're big and little developped. They are too big and too poor to embrace it quickly and natural spread is too slow
• India and China embrace it fast thank to their rich provinces but until they get Renaissance or Printing Press they sit on 50-100% penalty for few decades if not centuries. There should be some kind of system modeling the Silk Route. Maybe Centres of Trade of Trade Nodes from Constantinople to Beijing/Nippon should get some passive spread
• Subsaharan Africa is sometimes more modern than Russia, Persia or India. I think the spread from Trade Companies should be lowered.
  
• I'm ok with New World though. Native Americans in Northern America getting tech is not ahistorical and Natives in South America or Mesoamerica don't reform their religions anyway.

To sum up: Silk Route and spread block from Trade Companies.

Also to add to this, New World natives pretty much instantly gain all the institutions of an advanced neighboring province. No quick uptick, which would be a more acceptable method, but they'll instantly embrace all the institutions which then leads to institution spread faster than westernization could at its most ridiculous.

 

[Meleya]

I'm not a fan of the new tech system to be honest

 

[El_Cid_]

I had something happen to me last night which I thought was kinda nonsensical.

As Kongo, Portugal an ally with whom I had 100 trust turned domineering towards me because I fell 50% behind them in tech cost. The fact that I was the number 1 great power, had a bigger army than theirs and twice the FL didn't seem to matter to them.

It doesn't really matter to me on this run because I was always going to break off the alliance at some point but seemingly you run the risk of losing alliances if you don't keep up with institutions. So I had to buy Printing Press to avoid this happening.

 

[macd21]

Also to add to this, New World natives pretty much instantly gain all the institutions of an advanced neighboring province. No quick uptick, which would be a more acceptable method, but they'll instantly embrace all the institutions which then leads to institution spread faster than westernization could at its most ridiculous.

I think they should get the tech boost, but not the insta-institutions. The institutions will begin spreading from the colonies, so they'll get them eventually, but it should happen over the course of years.

 

[Lessing]

Maybe embracing an institution should incur something like a disaster, or turmoil, giving some unrest and lowering taxes, production and manpower for a few %. That way, you can't "level up" your institutions too fast.

 

[fatrat]

Maybe embracing an institution should incur something like a disaster, or turmoil, giving some unrest and lowering taxes, production and manpower for a few %. That way, you can't "level up" your institutions too fast.

That's an awful idea. Punising the player for playing the game like that is not good game design.

 

[CoolSpin]

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, but in my spain game, im the last in europe to get institutions, heck, even colonization which started in sevilla area(I ate portugal), I own iberia Naples, lots of CNs. Trade afford me to buy it, but are the AI also buying it?

 

[Xinkc]

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, but in my spain game, im the last in europe to get institutions, heck, even colonization which started in sevilla area(I ate portugal), I own iberia Naples, lots of CNs. Trade afford me to buy it, but are the AI also buying it?

The AI definitely pays buckets of ducets to embrace institutions when it can. As for getting spread higher you can take Innovative Ideas, raise development if you have Common Sense, or read what increases spread to a province and do it.

 

[Frogbait]

I think one of the big problem is that ... many of those countries resisted the spread of western technology and ideas. That's why the old idea groups did it better. Because the game doesn't have a reliable system to model east asia isolationism.

Similarly, many of the countries in the new world were stone age tribes when the europeans arrived. They were outright fearful and suspicious of the Europeans and their "magic".

I know this is a game, but without a model for traditional society that would not want many peoples around the world to abandon their ways of life and their understandings of the world , the game strays further and further from the realm of reasonably believable historical outcomes (long since been an objective of this game series) and further into the realm of sandbox.

The tech tree doesn't represent advancement in these games-- it represents advancement down Europe's path. It represents cultural and political developments that Europe exported to the whole world, but not necessarily developments they would have made themselves (ie. the enlightenment).

Some countries did embrace European ways: Patani comes to mind as a country that saw European arms as a way as resisting more powerful neighbours. But this is the exception, not the norm.

1) The Native Americans were not stone age tribes. It's rather dumb to claim that they were. The stone age had passed a long time before the discovery of the new world.

2) One thing you and others fail to keep in mind when talking about "muh historical accuracy" is that the game is ahistorical after 1444. Referencing events that happened 200 years after the game start doesn't give credibility for how they occur in game. Just think of it this way - in that particular game of eu4 the countries didn't rejected modernization and instead embraced it. Railroading isn't really all that fun. A huge appeal to Eu4 is how dynamic it is so you can play as any nation and change the course of history for it.

I'm going to stop you right there. First things first, this game has never been historical, ever. I've played this game since it was released and i have not once seen rev France or usa for example. So many odd and wacky things happen every game that as soon as you hit play day zero you've already got an ahistoric mess.So I'm glad this game is becoming more and more sandboxy over time. I know I'm probably in the minority on these forums because I've noticed this forum is were all the uber history nerds come. As much as i love history, i don't like replaying history. That gets old.

I think going out of your way to make parts of the world worse is counter initiative to the goal of the new tech system.

The forum isn't really full of uber history nerds. It's full of people who have limited historical knowledge on the period and then cry MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY because they can't trivially steamroll the AI.

Examine the situation at the beginning of the 19th century. Samurai still ruled Japan. The Zulu still used spears. 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. On the great plains, we saw them still using archery. 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. 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.

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.

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.

And per above, historically ROTW did not modernize as fast as the europeans. That doesn't mean that for Eu4 purposes the AI should be railroaded into history and nations should have penalties because historically they didn't modernize. In what way does it make sense for you to play as a ROTW nation that actively encourages modernization in your country but are hampered because in the real world they didn't? It's a game, not an interactive history book. In what way does it make Eu4 more fun?

There is a difference what we force upon the AI and what we force upon the player. The game exists to gratify the player and as such, there shouldn't be unnecessary restrictions on the player that would inhibit the player from having fun. However, the AI should strive to maintain the verisimilitude of the game by providing the player experiences that reflect history.



That the Meiji Restoration is universally lauded as Japan Modernising is a testament that Japan, prior, was not a modern country. That's simple logic.

After Tokugawa's final unification, the country, quite intentionally, threw out all western influences. They might have had the information how to produce firearms still but they culturally and technologically backslid after the Sengoku Jidai. When they did build the modern army and state, it was with considerable help from foreign advisors. They did it by wholesale copying the Europeans, down to building a brick-by-brick recreation of Dartmouth Naval College. They didn't just pull themselves out of the dark ages by their socks.

This is also a pedantic argument. My point was that at the beginining of the 19th century, the ROTW was primarily in a technological state which one of three categories: stone age, medieval or within a colony. That the Japanese maybe knew how to produce matchlock muskets isn't the issue, because the Europeans had rifles and artillery. That the Japanese samurai were "nothing like 14th century samurai" (which, mind you is not even something I was arguing and is talking about Samurai which are outside of the scope of even Europa Universalis.) doesn't detract from all of the other examples of how the world, largely didn't advance beyond the sword and spear in the time period that EU takes place, which is precisely why the Europeans, with a handful of troops were able to consistently defeat armies 10-20 times their number.

See above.

I do think that the new institution system works poorly, particularly in North America, but even in Europe. Admittedly based only off one game post-expansion. I was playing as England and due to all of the post-col insitutions spawning in Norway (who weren't doing very much) I was tending to go down to -25% tech a lot, that was probably my mistake.

However given that, I went for the new world and got my first colonies in Casco and Mass in 1533, getting a border with a few native groups, by 1554 several of those not even bordering me (I had invaded some of those that had) had adopted Feudalism and Renaissance, they subsequently adopted the Printing Press a couple of years after I did, Now, this isn't just a little ahistorical, it makes no sense. Firsty most of the Woodland Tribes of the North-East were at best Pastoralist (albiet irregularly nomadic) or at worst established on Nomadic principles. Furthermore many of those groups are recorded (albiet by Europeans and later Westernised Natives) as having treated European technology as magic (at least for the earliest period), even when they realised it was not many still outright rejected European cultural and political institutions for decades / centuries post-contact. All of this should mean it should be rare for first-contact to immediately jump natives groups up in tech. Bear in mind the status of many non-Western groups in 1821, they shouldn't just be a little behind, but centuries and it should be the role of a clever human player to overcome these near insurmountable historical handicaps.

Edit: Since people are clearly in disagreement with me, please see my second post down the page in which I try to clarify things and provide a little of my sourcing

You literally said that most non-western groups in 1821 were centuries behind the western countries. That is a whole new level of stupidity. No shit ROTW rejected European cultural and political institutions. That doesn't mean that they can't embrace european technology. Culture, Government, and Technology are completely different. Horses weren't native to the Americas. The natives embraced horses and firearms while not fully embracing the culture and government of the europeans. Yet they still managed to do well with the tools.

 

[LS22]

hmm, its because the RotW forum mongers whined and complained for 3 years to get this tech parity in the game.

Looks like us EuroCentric players will have to whine and complain that we want to play EUROPA universalis, not ROTW universalis.

You don't like it? Just revert to 1.17 and stop whining.

 

[LS22]

There is a difference what we force upon the AI and what we force upon the player. The game exists to gratify the player and as such, there shouldn't be unnecessary restrictions on the player that would inhibit the player from having fun. However, the AI should strive to maintain the verisimilitude of the game by providing the player experiences that reflect history.



That the Meiji Restoration is universally lauded as Japan Modernising is a testament that Japan, prior, was not a modern country. That's simple logic.

After Tokugawa's final unification, the country, quite intentionally, threw out all western influences. They might have had the information how to produce firearms still but they culturally and technologically backslid after the Sengoku Jidai. When they did build the modern army and state, it was with considerable help from foreign advisors. They did it by wholesale copying the Europeans, down to building a brick-by-brick recreation of Dartmouth Naval College. They didn't just pull themselves out of the dark ages by their socks.

This is also a pedantic argument. My point was that at the beginining of the 19th century, the ROTW was primarily in a technological state which one of three categories: stone age, medieval or within a colony. That the Japanese maybe knew how to produce matchlock muskets isn't the issue, because the Europeans had rifles and artillery. That the Japanese samurai were "nothing like 14th century samurai" (which, mind you is not even something I was arguing and is talking about Samurai which are outside of the scope of even Europa Universalis.) doesn't detract from all of the other examples of how the world, largely didn't advance beyond the sword and spear in the time period that EU takes place, which is precisely why the Europeans, with a handful of troops were able to consistently defeat armies 10-20 times their number.

 

[Verenti]

1) The Native Americans were not stone age tribes. It's rather dumb to claim that they were. The stone age had passed a long time before the discovery of the new world.

2) One thing you and others fail to keep in mind when talking about "muh historical accuracy" is that the game is ahistorical after 1444. Referencing events that happened 200 years after the game start doesn't give credibility for how they occur in game. Just think of it this way - in that particular game of eu4 the countries didn't rejected modernization and instead embraced it. Railroading isn't really all that fun. A huge appeal to Eu4 is how dynamic it is so you can play as any nation and change the course of history for it.

Many of the tribes in North America had not developed metal working. As "age" is really only indicative of the tools primarily used by a people, they were then stone age tribes.

On your second point, I would point out that even though the game is dynamic in nature, what you're tailing to notice is that the the game is designed to create plausible historic outcomes. Beyond that the systems are also designed to mimic the NARRATIVE of the modern era-- not the facts.

And per above, historically ROTW did not modernize as fast as the europeans. That doesn't mean that for Eu4 purposes the AI should be railroaded into history and nations should have penalties because historically they didn't modernize. In what way does it make sense for you to play as a ROTW nation that actively encourages modernization in your country but are hampered because in the real world they didn't? It's a game, not an interactive history book. In what way does it make Eu4 more fun?

As per my above point, yes, it is a good reason. This isn't a game that takes place on another planet. It's not a game that takes place 100 million years in the future. It's a game that starts from 1444 and ends in 1820, and no matter what you do, history at key points will unfold, with many of the key figures and events occuring under similar circumstances.

´This is the argument against complete ahistorical play. The game has the English Civil War. The game has the French Revolution. The game has the wars of religion. The game is littered with historical personalities like Mary Reed or Margaret D'Anjou. These figures will likely appear no matter what you do.

The idea of this game is that you're dropped in charge of a 15th century country and your actions ripple through the world. That's the high minded concept. When I get to China, I shouldn't find the Knights Templar, if I'm playing as a human. Things should unfold roughly as they did until I cause them to change. Maybe who does what is different, maybe Bohemia is the Saxony of the late game HRE, maybe the Italians should have the revolution. Those details do not matter. However, Siam shouldn't be the target of the revolution and it can't be. It is mechanically prevented from being the target. Why? Because that's not within the realm of historical possibility.

On might say, and there are arguments that through their work that Paradox agrees, that having events roughly conforming to the narrative we've designed for this time period is fun. Having them wildly deviate for no solid is frustrating. The principle difference between Civ and EU4 is that Civ is a complete sandbox, while EU4 is a relatively tightly controlled experience. That's the brand value. To loosen these controls is to make the game more generic, which plays against its strengths.[/QUOTE]

 

[Muki13]

People using the name of the game as an argument are quite funny. Besides, this game is called Europa Universalis and not "Only European Countries Allowed". I have played maybe a total of 300 in-game years outside of Europa yet I welcome any feature that makes RotW more interesting.

And people saying that the game should be this or that way because of history are forgetting that most of history happened through fluke chances. Sure, some underlying processes were more or less constant over longer periods of time but I am very sure that if some mystical power turned the clock back to 1444 then 500 years later the world would be a completely different place than it is now. It can only take a sneeze, a stray bullet in the battlefield, a schizophrenic turning left instead of right to kill a very influencial person that changes the course of an entire nation. Think how many single battles have decided the entire course of a war and then think how outcome of a battle can be affected by random weather. Fog at the wrong time and the enemy army escapes. It is especially random in countries under a rule of a monarch. How many great empires were destroyed because of actions or inactions of just a few critical individuals?

This game offers a unique historic setting without too much railroading. Some things are done with balance in mind and some things are done for flavour. The focus should not be too lopsided here, try to keep that in mind.

 

[bombo]

The main issue I see is that it causes the CB for american nations to disappear. In my last game I was unable to conquer natives because the moment I bordered one with my colonies I immediately lost the CB. That's annoys AF and seriously hampers the colonization game. I do like the idea of instituiond though.

 

[brifbates]

The main issue I see is that it causes the CB for american nations to disappear. In my last game I was unable to conquer natives because the moment I bordered one with my colonies I immediately lost the CB. That's annoys AF and seriously hampers the colonization game. I do like the idea of instituiond though.

Uhm, declare war before you finish colonizing the province adjacent to them. Just like the old westernization system, they require a core adjacent to a core to reform...