My one problem with EU4

[DCyDe]

Europe in 1444 wasn't more technologically and socially advanced then the middle-east or china and the un-dynamic tech-gap that results in the following years is extremely unrealistic, yet EU4 displays it that way.
So what led to the fast advancement in Europe?

Discovery of America?
Inventions?
Rational thinking?
Protestant reformation and thereby a loss of the strict catholic principles where science=whichcraft?
Other factors?

Couldn't other regions in the world have had the same advancements in an alternative scenario if these or similar factors benefited them?

I think the tech-groups in EU4 are very unrealistic and undynamic.

Here are my suggestions how it could be done better:

A slider like in EU2, narrowminded vs innovative, the more innovative, the less technologies cost
A tech-spread similar to CK2, where the nation that develops a technology has this tech at 100% in all their provinces, from there on it would spread to neighbouring provinces and vassals on other continents, once a province reaches 100% in another nation, the nation controlling that province could get a discount on that technology.
Events/Missions/Triggers that define how much technologies cost for a nation, for example discovery of America -20% tech-cost, decition to separate the church form the state -30% tech cost, long time at peace -tech cost on dip and admin, long time at war -tech cost on mil,...

 

[unmerged(773066)]

Other regions could but they didn't, to get some resemblance of history in a historical game Paradox has set the appropriate mechanics in place. And for the love of god I never want to see sliders ever again.

 

[oblio-]

Redoing the tech tree basically means making a new game.

 

[Mikalos]

It's true that the ming could have about faced a second time and actually used their power for something besides decadence, or korea could have westernized like japan; or that the muslims could have not hardlined themselves into colonial states, but they didnt, and there's only so much paradox can work with in the "what ifs". Different tech levels exist because that's the easiest way to keep a somewhat historical situation; and there's only so much alt history you can expect them to make up

 

[itsuart]

Other factors?

Trade as facilitator of ideas exchange. From your description, both CK2 and UE2 models appear closer to reality. Curbing church influence most likely a factor too. And of course, discoveries.

 

[DCyDe]

Of course its most realistic that Europe gets more advanced then the rest but the possibility for something else to happen should be there.

 

[Florryworry]

It is tho, if a Sunni country westernizes and goes for -100 piety they tech faster than Europeans

 

[clockworkBabbag]

It's true that the ming could have about faced a second time and actually used their power for something besides decadence, or korea could have westernized like japan; or that the muslims could have not hardlined themselves into colonial states, but they didnt, and there's only so much paradox can work with in the "what ifs". Different tech levels exist because that's the easiest way to keep a somewhat historical situation; and there's only so much alt history you can expect them to make up

Yes, but, why should the game care so much about ensuring historical outcomes? If I wanted that to see that, I'd read a history textbook.

I'm fine with the game being set up so that it's more likely for, say, Europe to do well based on more dynamic mechanics. But as it is now, either the ROTW westernizes or they get walked all over by Europe. And this isn't because of choices made in-game that a player (or the AI) have control over, it's just historical railroading that doesn't make much sense in a game where historicity goes out the window as soon as you press unpause. The fact that it's easier to use hard-coded tech groups and a linear tech tree to model Europe winning isn't any excuse. It's definitely easier to make a "simulation" that only gives one possible outcome, but I don't think I'd call that a good simulation.

Paradox obviously doesn't have to "make up" alt history either in order to make this work. More dynamic mechanics would make different outcomes possible without having to think up dumb, railroaded things that didn't happen in history.

 

[Ranjid]

Of course its most realistic that Europe gets more advanced then the rest but the possibility for something else to happen should be there.

Those possibilities exist. I westernized my Majapahit Empire and became world leader in technology. Nowadays most AI nations westernize as well, which is fine with me, actually. I'd just remove the Neighbour Bonus for them, just so they won't close the gap too fast.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

Those possibilities exist. I westernized my Majapahit Empire and became world leader in technology. Nowadays most AI nations westernize as well, which is fine with me, actually. I'd just remove the Neighbour Bonus for them, just so they won't close the gap too fast.

Why should it only be possible through westernization, i.e. "becoming more like Europe?"

That's the complaint here: Europe wins, every time. ROTW either becomes more like Europe or loses.

 

[Ranjid]

Why should it only be possible through westernization, i.e. "becoming more like Europe?"

That's the complaint here: Europe wins, every time. ROTW either becomes more like Europe or loses.

That's a stupid complaint, then. Westernization is just a word. It doesn't really include adopting Parisan fashion or Sicilian work ethics. Just rename it to Modernization, if you're so opposed to it.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

That's a stupid complain, then. Westernization is just a word. It doesn't really include adapting Parisan fashion or Sicilian work ethics. Just rename it to Modernization, if you're so opposed to it.

I'm not complaining about the word. It's the concept that's the problem.

Why should one area of the world start out objectively better than the others when there really is no reason why things had to happen that way, especially in a simulation, alt-history game? Why should the game itself go out of its way to ensure a historical outcome when the game is, for most players, about achieving ahistorical outcomes?

Westernization and tech groups are a railroad-y, uninteresting mechanic that only gives you really one option: if you're in certain tech groups you westernize or die. If you're in other tech groups (the ones from Europe), you don't have any trouble. I don't think anybody is arguing that the game shouldn't model the fact that Western Europe had an advantage. But it should be handled a lot more dynamically, so that Europe isn't always ridiculously ahead of the ROTW without player intervention.

 

[Ranjid]

I'm not complaining about the word. It's the concept that's the problem.

Why should one area of the world start out objectively better than the others when there really is no reason why things had to happen that way, especially in a simulation, alt-history game? Why should the game itself go out of its way to ensure a historical outcome when the game is, for most players, about achieving ahistorical outcomes?

Westernization and tech groups are a railroad-y, uninteresting mechanic that only gives you really one option: if you're in certain tech groups you westernize or die. If you're in other tech groups (the ones from Europe), you don't have any trouble. I don't think anybody is arguing that the game shouldn't model the fact that Western Europe had an advantage. But it should be handled a lot more dynamically, so that Europe isn't always ridiculously ahead of the ROTW without player intervention.

Just no. While it is indeed stupid for China to start with Tech Level 2 (they should rather start with 4), there's really no railroading here. Railroading would mean that the RotW had no way of catching up. But that's simply not true. In my Cherokee game, where I had NO influence on Asia and Europe at all I saw a westernized Qing Empire, which was ahead of Russia in technology.

How is that railroading?

 

[unmerged(48470)]

The problem is that the only nations that "modernize" where in Europa.
Nor China, nither islamic conutries evolve as much and as quick as Europa did, so i don't see the problem.
In effectm if yiu see, was Britain that conquiered the world and not Ming China.
EUIV offer you the possibilities to chose to advance chosing the right ideas.
Altrought i cuncur that may be islamic countries and China should have some more tech level at the stat of the game.

 

[AegonVLLI]

I don't think that you really need some new mechanic for the tech groups. If you implement some new mechanics like "Discovery of America" or "Secular State" which reduce the tech costs, you would still end up with the same results, because only in Europe many of the factors such a new mechanic should include could happen at the same time. The meaning of tech groups isn't that white europeans are smarter than asians, but instead that Europe had some advantages the game doesn't take into account on their own, because they have only minor influence and many of them don't change during the game (e.g. the position of Europe).
On a side note, science mostly profited from the catholic church until the late middle age and scientific advances significantly slowed down during the early renaissance, so science=witchcraft mostly became the principle during and after the reformation, not before.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Trade and various factors all effected development and implementation of technology, but any simulation is going to have to simplify things.

Protestant reformation and thereby a loss of the strict catholic principles where science=whichcraft?

Eh?

Witchhunts were a result of the reformation. The Catholic Church was never anti-science. These aren't hard facts to learn if you just step outside 'rationalist' propaganda.

It's true that the ming could have about faced a second time and actually used their power for something besides decadence

An artificial view basically created by unfair comparisons. Ming was never behind Europe in technology because Europe didn't pull ahead except in limited areas (which are easily counterbalanced by the many ways China remained ahead until the 19th century) until the Qing were already in power.

China wasn't that inward looking, China actually started cultivating imported new world crops before most European states and adopted Tobacco smoking very quickly. Its not like China didn't trade, they just had a sensible laissez faire approach that was in some way ahead of mercantalist Europe (but only if you apply nonsensical ideas about economic development which sadly you can't entirely avoid if you want to talk about the equally silly concept of cultural advancement).

or korea could have westernized like japan

They did, Japan just annexed them before they could finish because a westernised Korea would have fallen into the Russian sphere of influence.

or that the muslims could have not hardlined themselves into colonial states, but they didnt,

No idea what you even mean.

On a side note, science mostly profited from the catholic church until the late middle age and scientific advances significantly slowed down during the early renaissance, so science=witchcraft mostly became the principle during and after the reformation, not before.

Science never equalled witchcraft, not even in anti-technology Christian sects like the Amish. The religious crusade against science was a atheist myth until 50 years ago when it somehow became reality. Science attacked religion first if anything and won reasonably quickly and decisively (just not permanently).

If the reformation did anything for science it was the extra conflict driving competition, but outside of obvious examples like Galileo who specifically saw his work in such terms I'm not sure how literal I think that should be taken.

Nor China, nither islamic conutries evolve as much and as quick as Europa did, so i don't see the problem.
In effectm if yiu see, was Britain that conquiered the world and not Ming China.

Britain conquered the world in the 19th century, barely covered by the game period. The Ming kind of did conquer the world, they just had a limited view of the world, but not one must smaller than England had before the age of discovery.

The problem is that turning those European developments into abstract mechanical bonuses is never going to represent anything satisfactory. What does trade and production efficiency even mean anyway? Why do I still have to research longbows and cathedrals in 1444?

 

[Ranjid]

The problem is that the only nations that "modernize" where in Europa.
Nor China, nither islamic conutries evolve as much and as quick as Europa did, so i don't see the problem.
In effectm if yiu see, was Britain that conquiered the world and not Ming China.
EUIV offer you the possibilities to chose to advance chosing the right ideas.
Altrought i cuncur that may be islamic countries and China should have some more tech level at the stat of the game.

The reason why Muslim states had trouble keeping up in tech was because their major scientific centres had fallen or were under constant pressure. Cordoba was conquered by Castille, while Baghdad was disputed all the time. The Arabian Peninsula itself always was rather backwards compared to Mesopotamia, Andalusia and Egypt.