Navajo Westernised in 1627!

[balmung60]

So long as non-western tech is automatically inferior to western tech both in tech progression and performance at a given tech level, I want to see more countries westernizing, not less.

If all tech group monarch point penalties are eliminated and other tech groups become competitive at the same tech level (no more "lol, i haz tercio, gonn' take over all Muslims nao") and maybe most of the tech rate penalties reduced, THEN you can complain about too many nations westernizing. As it stands, the penalties for being non-western are so harsh (Muslim? No new infantry for about 135 years, during which one of the biggest power jumps of any tech level happens to EVERYONE else's infantry. Sub-Saharan? Hope you like the harshest MP penalties in the game, crappy units, and having Spain and/or Portugal (or Yemen and/or the Mamluks) breathing down your neck in the first 50 years of the game. Mesoamerican and South American? Same thing, but maybe 100 years in. Anything but eastern or western? Doesn't matter if you keep your tech competitive into the late game, you're still not going to get new units while the Europeans units get exponentially more powerful).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've never said the game needed to nerf the westernization system, i said and think there shouldn't be one at all, it's simply out of the time frame of the game.

Now i don't want to see the entire world painted in red blue yellow and green, an different system was needed, because in many the European countries only control costal ports especially in Asia and did stomp in to china main land, but that as nothing to do with the fact that a westernization system shouldn't be in the game.

It's really a question of what it's meant to represent, as it is an abstraction. Just because a nation matches technological advancement and weaponry doesn't mean it's copied the rest of what another nation does. For example, China, Russia, much of Europe, much of the Western Hemisphere, India, Korea, Japan, and quite a few other nations are within a tech or two of each other today, if you abstract a "tech" as 10-15 years worth of advancement. The societal structures, values, and leadership in these places remain very different to this day.

So, does "westernization" mean that a country is copying Europe identically, or does it mean that it's embracing technological innovation as it perceives that led to the success of its new neighbor and picking up some guns/tactics? I would argue the game is abstracting the latter, but in practice it barely matters.

Until they get the game to the point where equal tech gives a relatively even footing (with some penalties outside of Europe), westernization is a sort-of fallback process.

Realistically, weapons development in backwards nations has been much more rapid than in other areas. That said, the leadership of each nation is in player hands, and that's one of the most ahistoric things of all. A unified Indian nation led by one guy who lives ~400+ years as a rule and whose only incentive is to grow and stabilize it, with future knowledge, would have made it the single largest threat in the world. You have to remember it's a game in that framework. While your ruler stats matter, ultimate control belongs to the player, which typically doesn't change. No nation in history has had that, and the strength of having a partially clairvoyant absolute ruler would be enormous.

 

[Peachrocks]

I've never said the game needed to nerf the westernization system, i said and think there shouldn't be one at all, it's simply out of the time frame of the game.

Now i don't want to see the entire world painted in red blue yellow and green, an different system is needed, because many of the European countries only control costal ports especially in Asia and did stomp in to china main land, but that as nothing to do with the fact that a westernization system shouldn't be in the game.

I actually somewhat agree with this despite liking playing natives and others specifically to compete with Europeans so I westernize ASAP, yuppers Incans completing westernization by 1530-40 is not uncommon . The thing is though that these other nations should have other ways of catching up and competing with the Western tech group units. They simply shouldn't autowin at the SAME tech level.

Sure Euros did sort of roflstomp every other tech group but that's because they weren't at equal tech . Nations kept up via other methods as so it wasn't a complete roflstomp. The Iroquois and Cherokee bordered a western nation for a very long time and did not westernize. It's true the current system is a touch ahistorical and odd regardless of whether Europeans reach Navajo or whoever well before they actually did but you can't just remove it outright and leave things as they are. It'd make the natives and Africans impossible to do anything significant with and as it is it can get pretty rough. These nations could have theoretically survived and prospered if things happened differently, so there needs to be some mechanic to make it still possible.

 

[Thrake]

Natives did loot and trade weapons with Europeans. They were not as disciplined as Europeans, and thus not as good in warfare, but I guess that westernization models it somehow (they lag behind in tech, but use similar weapons once Europeans show up). And then again, conquest of the new world took a lot of time, while ingame, you can just lend your doomstack, use the colonization CB on everybody and crush them in a glance.
As long as this is ahistorically possible, I think that ahistorical westernization helps for a more historical outcome by giving higher quality instead of higher quantity over Europeans.

 

[unmerged(807829)]

It's really a question of what it's meant to represent, as it is an abstraction. Just because a nation matches technological advancement and weaponry doesn't mean it's copied the rest of what another nation does. For example, China, Russia, much of Europe, much of the Western Hemisphere, India, Korea, Japan, and quite a few other nations are within a tech or two of each other today, if you abstract a "tech" as 10-15 years worth of advancement. The societal structures, values, and leadership in these places remain very different to this day.

So, does "westernization" mean that a country is copying Europe identically, or does it mean that it's embracing technological innovation as it perceives that led to the success of its new neighbor and picking up some guns/tactics? I would argue the game is abstracting the latter, but in practice it barely matters.

Until they get the game to the point where equal tech gives a relatively even footing (with some penalties outside of Europe), westernization is a sort-of fallback process.

Realistically, weapons development in backwards nations has been much more rapid than in other areas. That said, the leadership of each nation is in player hands, and that's one of the most ahistoric things of all. A unified Indian nation led by one guy who lives ~400+ years as a rule and whose only incentive is to grow and stabilize it, with future knowledge, would have made it the single largest threat in the world. You have to remember it's a game in that framework. While your ruler stats matter, ultimate control belongs to the player, which typically doesn't change. No nation in history has had that, and the strength of having a partially clairvoyant absolute ruler would be enormous.

Westernization and Globalization are two different things, Meiji Japan was a classic example of the first , japan embrace changes that affected its social structure, internal politics, economy, military, and foreign relations, even the way they dress, and was in mid 19 century, Globalization also happened in the past but in a MUCH slower rate that in this recent years.

Globalization is a by product of trade, these people traded gold silver etc for Euro tech, but this approximation of happened slowly. And even today there are countries that have not westernized, they have modern tech phones, PC, etc due globalization but still hold their values.

For me, westernization shouldn't be game and its simplistic view of process for me its just to gamey, i highly doubt that paradox will remove it but i wish it was a more balance process.

 

[witcher1701]

When nations have it too hard, people complain.
When nations have it too easy, people complain.
Nuff said

Umm, yeah? How about reaching a balance instead?

 

[Colossal_Elk]

When nations have it too hard, people complain.
When nations have it too easy, people complain.
Nuff said

If other tech groups besides Eastern actually had a decent chance, this problem wouldn't exist at all.