I think this is kinda meant to be represented by the fact that they get no extra autonomy drain per month
There is an arguement for the Article of confederation based government because it was a historically terrible government
Okay, small gripes thread. Here are my two small gripes, other free to gripe.
- Thread starter hashinshin
- 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.
I think this is kinda meant to be represented by the fact that they get no extra autonomy drain per month
There is an arguement for the Article of confederation based government because it was a historically terrible government
singling out colonies and going western in a sea of implausibility as if they're special.
I think the best solution would be giving Morocco Expansion ideas late game.
I'm not looking for a sandbox game experience. I'm looking for a game that models plausibly historical scenarios from 1444 to 1820. Do I mind if in some games an AI Morocco has the right mixture of circumstances to westernize? Not at all. Do I mind if in some games an AI new world state manages to westernize? Don't mind that either. However, I would prefer it if in most games events follow a course similar to history. Does that mean railroaded? Nope. Does that means most of the time Morocco wont gain a foothold in the new world and new world states will be unable to westernize? Yes.
I'm not breaking new ground here. This is how this series operates.
Edit: I should add, if a player wants to do any of these things I think the sky should be the limit.
I see you make this argument all the time and it's a really frustrating case of "what-aboutery" that would embarrass even the Soviets. Yes, Spain being able to hold in-land Mali was probably even more unlikely than a successful Moroccan colonization attempt, but pointing this out is meaningless. The people who want Morocco to colonize only in a very small subset of games where it gets very lucky probably also want Spain to hold in-land Mali in an even smaller subset of games as well. The reason you probably see more people complaining about the latter rather than the former is because most people in this forum come from European backgrounds, and frequently Anglo-Saxon ones, and usually only have in-depth knowledge on a small array of nations and only then from the perspective of the orthodoxies of that European background. If they were as well-informed about Mali as you were and possessed the same interest in Mali you did, they probably would point out how implausible it is for European nations to hold inland African provinces too. Saying "Spain can go into Mali, therefore let's allow all other implausibilities because w/e" is just such a terrible argument.
Definitely agree. The AI should use all the tricks it can.
If westernization is to be rare, it should be because the mechanics make it suboptimal under most circumstances.
I think the obvious implication of someone complaining that the AI is Westernizing too often is not that they want the AI to play badly but rather that Westernization is too easy. There's not really any need to explicitly point this out unless you're feeling particularly self-righteous.
I think it's preferable to have both a competent AI and historically plausible outcomes in a game framed around a specific period in history.
Am I against AI nations westernizing? No. Am I against a game that consistently diverges wildly from historical plausibility for the period 1444 to 1820? Yes.
The problem is not that westernization is too easy ; it's that westernization is too optimal.
Historically, it wasn't. Historially there were huge drawbacks to westernizing and significant benefits (BESIDES the difficulty of the process) to maintaining your secular culture.
These are absent from the game, and that's where the problem lies.
Historically, it wasn't. Historially there were huge drawbacks to westernizing and significant benefits (BESIDES the difficulty of the process) to maintaining your secular culture.
These are absent from the game, and that's where the problem lies.
From what I heard mass westernization is as much affected by the lower revolt risk as it is by the fact that there's a bug with the AI not turning its colonies into trade companies.
And by the way, hellooooo Paradox! It's about time to rename it to "modernization" and to change that ridiculous popup at the end, talking about the military (!).
Because of you gents we can't have nice things. Qara Qoyunlu colonizing 3 measly Indian Ocean islands: "muh immersion". Austria making a CN: "muh immersion".
Sure, let's have the standard set of ~10 colonizers, we all know it would have been physically impossible for other Europeans, let alone Asians, Africans, etc., to colonize.
And by the way, hellooooo Paradox! It's about time to rename it to "modernization" and to change that ridiculous popup at the end, talking about the military (!).
Because of you gents we can't have nice things. Qara Qoyunlu colonizing 3 measly Indian Ocean islands: "muh immersion". Austria making a CN: "muh immersion".
Sure, let's have the standard set of ~10 colonizers, we all know it would have been physically impossible for other Europeans, let alone Asians, Africans, etc., to colonize.
The people who want Morocco to stay Muslim and Spain out of Mali have also been spotted:
1. In support of 15 year truces.
2. In support of large coalitions of majors forming over small conquests by minor powers on a consistent basis.
3. Supporting fleet rights somehow not extending colonial range.
4. In support of the 25% autonomy, reform requirement, and most of the other double-digit horde nerfs, including them not getting new units.
5. In support of Timurids breaking to rebels (you see this all the freaking time, so much for realism).
6. Okay with starting TI and tech group balance in the first place (if it didn't exist the way it does, we wouldn't need the arbitrary westernization concept)
Speaking of westernization, what the heck is that supposed to represent? You can't even get a consensus on that question, and yet people are still arguing over who should be doing it and whether it's realistic in a game where you can't perform historic actions without ahistoric reactions...or in some cases you can't perform historic actions outright. Not just plausible...you can't do it at all. But when THESE issues get pointed out, poof goes plausibility in a cloud of smoke and suddenly it's all about gameplay again, with the sole criteria as to what's plausible and where you cut that off resting on the player's own knowledge, biases, and preferences for gameplay.
Now, this isn't all players, but generally it's an eyebrow raiser in the first place when a game stated to be "risk on crack" is touted as adhering to historical plausibility as patches have routinely and forcibly deviated the game from historical plausibility in the ostensible name of gameplay. If it makes you feel better you can always just pretend westernization just means that they improved their processes and tech better...after all, that's what's happening. It's not like Morocco can get Napoleonic square, neither can Bengal. Really, if you want to change anything about it, make the modernizing requirement fit into the game more sensibly...but don't advocate for the AI not to do that and only that (or a select few other things) while perfectly accepting 15 year truce timers, because that's asinine. Count it as my own biggest gripe with the game; even the devs fall prey to this trap, and it leads to absurdities like Wiz's "hordes should reform or die" statement when there's hard evidence of every horde that made it late into this time period (and several that didn't) actually getting new units (IE their infantry shot stuff with guns).
Without it, the AI becomes even more of an ahistorically easy walkover. I supposed you could just buff the heck out of the tech groups instead, to the point where Chinese is like 20-30% or something if you prefer that route :/.
In saying this, you are actively stating that you are against the core design of EU IV. With that being the case, it's nonsensical to target any one consistently ahistoric element, especially one that occurs much less frequently and has much less end impact on the player than others (such as truce length).
I'd say that it isn't only your argument. I'm often browsing forum topics and there are several patterns emerging here. One of them is quite closely related to your message, and I mostly summed it up above.
"My immersion"
First off, I'd ask you not to lump me in with any other group you might disagree with on a divisive element of game play.
Also, no, I'm not against the core design of EU IV. For instance, Tuscany withstanding other Italian competitors to go on and dominate the peninsula is historically plausible. Is it a divergence from history? Yes. Is it plausible that it could have happened. Sure. I would argue that this is more plausible than the meso-american country of Kiche withstanding European diseases and conquerors, and going on to westernize. Does this mean I never want to see the latter occur? Nope. Does this mean I'd rather see it less often than my Tuscan-type scenario? Yes.
I'd say that it isn't only your argument. I'm often browsing forum topics and there are several patterns emerging here. One of them is quite closely related to your message, and I mostly summed it up above.
"My immersion"
Yeah, my arguments are based on the quality of immersive historical gameplay in EUIV. But the hilarious and not at all over done internet trope of "muh immersion" somehow invalidates it.
This still misrepresents your argument. The issue was well summarized above:
You care about your immersion, which is based on your historical knowledge. Do you really have the depth of knowledge to argue that a modernized Berber state colonizing is less likely than Tuscany dominating the Italian peninsula?
Maybe you do. Or maybe you have vague notions about both of those regions that may not bear any relation to historical consensus on them, but because you feel one is more likely than the other it drives your sense of "immersion".
At the end of the day, this isn't even a game about immersion, and isn't really intended to be. Developer statements and many design decisions make that abundantly clear. So "breaks my immersion" isn't a particularly strong argument to affect change.
That said, things that "break immersion" like excess westernization may be an indication of issues with design. Too much westernization may mean, from a balance perspective, that it's too beneficial, too easy, or is neither of those but the AI is coded to do it if possible even when it's not advantageous.
I'd hate if the AI was ever coded to not use every tool available simply because the players didn't like it.
I want the AI to feel as close to a player as you can get. When I'm bogged down in one war I want another AI to rip apart my backside. When westernized christian Morocco becomes feasible I want that to be done.
At best it keeps the difficulty up, at worst it reveals bad balance in the game.
I want the AI to feel as close to a player as you can get. When I'm bogged down in one war I want another AI to rip apart my backside. When westernized christian Morocco becomes feasible I want that to be done.
At best it keeps the difficulty up, at worst it reveals bad balance in the game.
My two main gripes:
1. AI is able to have massive merc armies for a long time. In 1478 England has currently gone from 30 to 44 mercs for over 5 years and has had a long war before were they were using 24 mercs.
2. Fleet AI is more than stupid. Best example is Denmark - together with their Sweden and Norway they have a great fleet and could even smash England. But they never combine it. Never. 'Highlight' was when a stack of 35 Danish boats was attacked by 30 English boats and another 35 Danish boats were in the sea region directly next to it. The 35 boats did of course not help their brethren but sailes 3 zones, picked up 1000 men, returned and were slaughtered by the victories English fleet.
1. AI is able to have massive merc armies for a long time. In 1478 England has currently gone from 30 to 44 mercs for over 5 years and has had a long war before were they were using 24 mercs.
2. Fleet AI is more than stupid. Best example is Denmark - together with their Sweden and Norway they have a great fleet and could even smash England. But they never combine it. Never. 'Highlight' was when a stack of 35 Danish boats was attacked by 30 English boats and another 35 Danish boats were in the sea region directly next to it. The 35 boats did of course not help their brethren but sailes 3 zones, picked up 1000 men, returned and were slaughtered by the victories English fleet.