Paradox, please real Westernization

[SantoshKashyap]

The Maratha also split into rival kingdoms. The game has no succession mechanics, so it is pointless to try to emulate it. Instead we just get nationalist revolts, which make no real sense.

The breaking had most of the time led by rising discontent (as Maratha got support from Hindu Masses against intolerant Auranjeb and they could built empire) or by rising of particular cultural group (nationalist sentiments/revolution) when they don't get represented well or not given due respect (Maratha-Rajputana strife, Maratha-Punjabi Strife, Maratha nobles in Maratahwara vs Maratha nobles in Vidarbha or Vindhya or Gwalior). Its always discontent which should trigger. If nobility are made more demanding and some elaborate mechanism to break away...it can come a bit closer to historical events. for thats how they have been revolting. Hindu and Muslim nobles have remained a strong force in India shaping the map.

 

[zsImmortal]

The breaking had most of the time led by rising discontent (as Maratha got support from Hindu Masses against intolerant Auranjeb and they could built empire) or by rising of particular cultural group (nationalist sentiments/revolution) when they don't get represented well or not given due respect (Maratha-Rajputana strife, Maratha-Punjabi Strife, Maratha nobles in Maratahwara vs Maratha nobles in Vidarbha or Vindhya or Gwalior). Its always discontent which should trigger. If nobility are made more demanding and some elaborate mechanism to break away...it can come a bit closer to historical events. for thats how they have been revolting. Hindu and Muslim nobles have remained a strong force in India shaping the map.

It didn't have much to do with what you said. It's just the typical ambitious nobles, which had a certain autonomy within both the Mughal empire and Maratha empire (as, iirc, they both employed the same administrative system). The Mughal empire was plagued by princes revolting because they had acquired enough of a following from local nobility or had no chance at power without revolting (I believe one of Aurangzeb's son did as such). While Aurangzeb's turn to Muslim orthodoxy did alienate some communities, the Maratha movement under his reign has largely been squashed. What happened was that after his death (and about 8 emperors in 12 years, including 4 in 1719 alone), the central authority had eroded so much from inner turmoil that many regions splintered off, which also gave enough breathing space for the Maratha to rise. But the Maratha, despite being classified as such by Hindu nationalists, were not a Hindu movement against the Muslim oppressors. Many Muslisms fought for the Maratha, like many Hindus fought for the Mughals. It's just a typical civil war where people (i.e. aristocracy) align themselves with whomever fits their personal objectives best.

But that's kind of besides the point. The issue is that between the Ottomans, the Safavids (also Aq Qoyunlu), the Timurids (and Mughals) and the Bahmanis (and other Indian kingdoms), there's a significant lack of succession mechanics to shake the foundations of their rule, namely princes fighting succession wars frequently.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

It didn't have much to do with what you said. It's just the typical ambitious nobles, which had a certain autonomy within both the Mughal empire and Maratha empire (as, iirc, they both employed the same administrative system). The Mughal empire was plagued by princes revolting because they had acquired enough of a following from local nobility or had no chance at power without revolting (I believe one of Aurangzeb's son did as such). While Aurangzeb's turn to Muslim orthodoxy did alienate some communities, the Maratha movement under his reign has largely been squashed. What happened was that after his death (and about 8 emperors in 12 years, including 4 in 1719 alone), the central authority had eroded so much from inner turmoil that many regions splintered off, which also gave enough breathing space for the Maratha to rise. But the Maratha, despite being classified as such by Hindu nationalists, were not a Hindu movement against the Muslim oppressors. Many Muslisms fought for the Maratha, like many Hindus fought for the Mughals. It's just a typical civil war where people (i.e. aristocracy) align themselves with whomever fits their personal objectives best.

But that's kind of besides the point. The issue is that between the Ottomans, the Safavids (also Aq Qoyunlu), the Timurids (and Mughals) and the Bahmanis (and other Indian kingdoms), there's a significant lack of succession mechanics to shake the foundations of their rule, namely princes fighting succession wars frequently.

I agree. Even Sultanates have had frequent succession wars and is not represented. And nobility would align one or the other fitting their personal ambition sometime even winning the throne. It needs a new mechanism altogether.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Europe doesn't get India because Europe doesn't attack India in the game. It's easy for an experienced player to crush India, but the AI rarely does much without the help of events, missions, or a 6+ miltech lead like you see in the new world.

The game's level of abstraction doesn't fit history in the general sense, but it's biased to the point of insulting to only point this out when one region of the world or one mechanic happens not to play out how you'd like, then dump the argument when it stops being convenient to one's cause. It isn't just India that had succession trouble for example, and India could have played out very different with different rulers or a Hindu majority winning out and stabilizing early. That kind of stuff is virtually impossible to predict implications.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysorean_rockets

 

[Arciel]

My take on this is that different cultures spent their "monarch points" in different ways. Eu started to emphasize military and technology, and continued their religious emphasis. China, on the other hand (as an example) would probably have seen technology as a poorer use of power than development. Tech groups are a decent way to represent this (much more benefit from development than technology if you spend 60% more on techs) but it represents the wrong factor.
To me, tech groups should be much less of a factor in research cost (when I first opened the game and saw them it made me feel like it was far too EU centric) than your neighbors/region. Research cost should be influenced just as much by your NEIGHBORS as anything else. Westernizing represents changing your way of thinking and structure to a more EU style, and yes this is historical in some ways but it's far too simplistic

 

[frolix42]

In 1700, the situation was quite different, though. Mind you, even with the current system, the Euro AI rarely conquers India, anyway.

If the game ended at 1700, there would be a reasonable argument that a Technological hierarchy should not be in the game.

The same would apply if the game started at 4000 BC.

 

[WeissRaben]

If the game ended at 1700, there would be a reasonable argument that a Technological hierarchy should not be in the game.

The same would apply if the game started at 4000 BC.

As the (undeniable) technological advantage in European economics had no practical effects until Victoria times, I disagree. Oh, it was there, don't get me wrong - it's just that it really threw the table out of the window with full industrialization. In 1750, you could look at India and see that it was too late, but the snowball rolling down the mountainside wouldn't become huge until 1840 came or so. Before that, there could be some advantages - but for 90% of the timeframe, no.

 

[frolix42]

In 1750, you could look at India and see that it was too late, but the snowball rolling down the mountainside wouldn't become huge until 1840 came or so.

In 1819 Great Britain had control of around 90% of India, only Sindh and Sikh in the north-west were outside their control. There is no reasonable person who could believe that European dominance was not ascendant over India before then. Should I post another political map of India after the Third Maratha War? I'd rather not beat this dead horse. I can only leave it to the reader to conclude whether or not Britain, moderately-sized and 12,500 nautical miles away, had a decisive advantage over a hugely populated sub-continent they had almost completely conquered.

This feels like it is way off topic guys, historical justification for westernization has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER in changing how the game mechanics work. So I don't really feel how we accomplish anything by continuing to discuss it.

I mostly agree, but for me personally a lot of the fun of this game comes from it's historical setting. The fact that during the course of a normal EU4 game, the majority of non-Western Tech nations have "Westernized" arguably renders this whole debate moot. For me personally, I enjoy the challenge, flavor and immersion of playing in Asia and dealing with an abstraction of the challenges non-Europeans faced during this period. Widespread and ahistorically early westernization is a tricky issue; most people equate fun in this game to how much they can succeed. Allowing all nations, western and non-western, the ability to dominate is something virtually all players want to varying degrees.

But if an individual player cannot dominate the world as Byzantium or Cochin, EU4 isn't broken. Byzantium and Cochin don't deserve a buff merely because they are more difficult to play than the Ottomans or Castile. The game is supposed to have asymmetric difficulty, I don't want to weep because there are no more worlds to conquer.

 

[LWE]

If the game ended at 1700, there would be a reasonable argument that a Technological hierarchy should not be in the game.

The same would apply if the game started at 4000 BC.

Yeah, I agree that the West should generally overtake anyone else in the end, it's just I don't think that England should be usually conquering India by 1650. Of course, like I said, the AI has problems doing it at all.

 

[PhroX]

In 1819 Great Britain had control of around 90% of India, only Sindh and Sikh in the north-west were outside their control. There is no reasonable person who could believe that European dominance was not ascendant over India before then. Should I post another political map of India after the Third Maratha War? I'd rather not beat this dead horse. I can only leave it to the reader to conclude whether or not Britain, moderately-sized and 12,500 nautical miles away, had a decisive advantage over a hugely populated sub-continent they had almost completely conquered.

I agree that Britain dominated India by that time, but I would lean towards the line of thought that suggests that dominance wasn't completely secured until further into the 19th Century. Had Britain, and Europe as a whole, continued that century the way it had begun it, in a state of continent wide warfare, then I feel there was a distinct possibility of subjugated Indian powers being able to take advantage and contest British dominance. As it was, the 19th century was, after Napoleon, relatively peaceful, especially for Britain, which prevented any opportunity for local uprisings to seriously threaten British India, and thus they were able to turn their dominance into long term control.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In 1819 Great Britain had control of around 90% of India, only Sindh and Sikh in the north-west were outside their control. There is no reasonable person who could believe that European dominance was not ascendant over India before then.

Were the Mongols much more technologically advanced than China or Europe in the 1200's?

Was Russia far greater technologically than Poland?

In the game, what is tech supposed to represent? England isn't walking around with tanks and bombers in these wars, it is still using rifles, and not automatic rifles. Both sides have artillery, how different is the range exactly, especially when considering that British troops met opposition that had European support too? Do they have some enormous range advantage, better explosives?

Industrialization and technological advantage would suggest that they could field markedly more troops and better/more numerous equipment, but in these battles it's consistently small amounts of European troops + local soldiers defeating larger numbers of enemy soldiers despite that both sides have guns, similar to how experienced pre-gunpowder armies were able to defeat numerically superior opposition despite a marginal-at-best difference in the quality of equipment.

This isn't a situation like WWII infantry trying to contend with an AC-130. But if the "tech" in the game isn't indicating a massive advantage in production capacity and quality of arms, then it's representing something that could be very different in alternative history.

 

[zsImmortal]

I agree that Britain dominated India by that time, but I would lean towards the line of thought that suggests that dominance wasn't completely secured until further into the 19th Century. Had Britain, and Europe as a whole, continued that century the way it had begun it, in a state of continent wide warfare, then I feel there was a distinct possibility of subjugated Indian powers being able to take advantage and contest British dominance. As it was, the 19th century was, after Napoleon, relatively peaceful, especially for Britain, which prevented any opportunity for local uprisings to seriously threaten British India, and thus they were able to turn their dominance into long term control.

Except, you know, the Sepoy rebellion which led to the dissolution of the BEIC and the direct control of India by the British crown.

 

[frolix42]

Were the Mongols much more technologically advanced than China or Europe in the 1200's?

Militarily, yes very much so. It may go against some people's pre-conceived notions of Steppe Hordes, but the organization and tactics used by the Mongols during the 13th century were centuries ahead of their opponents. The coordination required for Mongol maneuvers was masterful.

Was Russia far greater technologically than Poland?

You mean, during the Partition era? The Polish political structure was abysmal, so I might consider them behind in ADM Tech. They were surrounded by three enemies of equal or larger size while their ally France didn't go to war to stop them from being divided. And Poland didn't really lose a war against Prussia, Austria or Russia, it didn't fall militarily but their leadership was poor. I don't think that it's clear that Poland was behind Russia technologically, except in government where Poland was effectively stuck with some kind of pre-feudal aristocratic abomination which was less effective than the Absolutism they were surrounded by.

In the game, what is tech supposed to represent? England isn't walking around with tanks and bombers in these wars, it is still using rifles, and not automatic rifles. Both sides have artillery, how different is the range exactly, especially when considering that British troops met opposition that had European support too? Do they have some enormous range advantage, better explosives?

Industrialization and technological advantage would suggest that they could field markedly more troops and better/more numerous equipment, but in these battles it's consistently small amounts of European troops + local soldiers defeating larger numbers of enemy soldiers despite that both sides have guns, similar to how experienced pre-gunpowder armies were able to defeat numerically superior opposition despite a marginal-at-best difference in the quality of equipment.

I agree that Tech during EU4 is different. It's the ability to project power and establish bases 12,500 nautical miles from home. Imagine the Mughals establishing trading bases in Ireland. Or the Marathas sending material or manpower support to Jacobin Pretender rebels. Or the Bengalis bribing certain British generals not to participate in battles. This is DIP Tech abstracted.

At the end of three hours, there was no substantial progress and the positions of both sides had not changed. Clive called a meeting of his staff to discuss the way ahead. It was concluded that the present position would be maintained till after nightfall, and an attack on the Nawab’s camp should be attempted at midnight. Soon after the conference, a heavy rainstorm occurred. The British used tarpaulins to protect their ammunition, while the Nawab’s army took no such precautions. As a result, their gunpowder got drenched and their rate of fire slackened, while Clive’s artillery kept up a continuous fire. As the rain began to subside, Mir Madan Khan, assuming that the British guns were rendered ineffective by the rain, led his cavalry to a charge. However, the British countered the charge with heavy grape shot, mortally wounding Mir Madan Khan and driving back his men.

Military Technology in this period is in part the discipline, doctrine to develop standards which cause your NCOs to cover your gunpowder in case of rain.

British troops engaged in the fighting numbered 7,072 comprising 857 British, 5,297 Indian sepoys and 918 Indian cavalry. The alliance army's numbers were estimated to be over 40,000. By other sources,the combined army of the Mughals, Awadh and Mir Qasim consisting of 40,000 men were defeated by British army consisting 10,000 men.

The Mughal camp was internally broken due to a quarrel between the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II and Shuja-ud-Daula the Nawab of Awadh; Mir Qasim was reluctant to engage the British and went off collecting tribute. The lack of basic co-ordination among the three desperate allies was responsible for their decisive debacle.

Military Tech is also developing a professional officer corp that won't do the above. A disciplined officer corp, that doesn't have it's own agenda, is a vital part of a modern military and we see that trend in Military modernzation of the 18th and 19th centuries. Sultan Mahmud II disbanded the Jannisaries. Tsar Peter I disbanded the Stelsky. The Meiji Emperor decimated the Ronin.

This isn't a situation like WWII infantry trying to contend with an AC-130. But if the "tech" in the game isn't indicating a massive advantage in production capacity and quality of arms, then it's representing something that could be very different in alternative history.

It's hard to articulate abstraction in every instance.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

but the organization and tactics used by the Mongols during the 13th century were centuries ahead of their opponents.

I'm referring raw technological know-how, not organization and tactics. If military technology in the game is correlating only to the latter (despite that breakthroughs in that regard are no small feat), then "westernization" in the scope of adopting to tactics isn't implausible in the heavy alterations to history the game allows when you unpause.

Basically, if anybody can control 8000 development or more, westernization's a drop in the bucket wrt plausibility. This isn't an era of hard differential in industrial base like Vicky or later, it's really pretty strongly hindsight-biased to even try to predict what a non-collapsed Ming or a 1600-unified-by-Hindus with no Mughals ever India might have resembled. Europe had some physical advantages, but not so drastic as to necessarily overshadow major differences in events.

It's hard to articulate abstraction in every instance.

On that we agree, but then points-screwing nations into playing more slowly (in contrast to being more challenging, which isn't the same thing) isn't the way to go about "realism", which is only being demonstrated in the abstract sense anyway. I'd rather see a completely different system rather than "westernization" (other than for new world, or maybe they just rely on their "reforms"). I don't think many people are happy with EXACTLY how it is now, it's awkward rush-conquering or colonizing west as if that somehow would help your military and systems adapt properly.

 

[zsImmortal]

On that we agree, but then points-screwing nations into playing more slowly (in contrast to being more challenging, which isn't the same thing) isn't the way to go about "realism", which is only being demonstrated in the abstract sense anyway. I'd rather see a completely different system rather than "westernization" (other than for new world, or maybe they just rely on their "reforms"). I don't think many people are happy with EXACTLY how it is now, it's awkward rush-conquering or colonizing west as if that somehow would help your military and systems adapt properly.

I'd rather they just allow for larger nations from muslim tech on pass various reforms to cut down tech penalties. Playing in the East and just snaking West every game as a first focus makes it bland and uninspiring. They're already cut out of the magic button, so a longer path with gradual progress and less specific requirements (than taking city A) seems a better way to allow wealthier and more powerful state to catch up instead of making them jump through ridiculous hoops (even by eu4 standards).

 

[TheDungen]

'Real' Westernization was mostly countries bankrupting themselves trying to reform their military and happened after the EU4 era, so 'real' Westernization would mean taking it out of the game.

So no.

Honestly westernisation is wierd to begin with, instead you should give the diffrent tech groups their own tech trees.

 

[gendalv]

"draft ships for war" action of merchant estate doesn't say that it gives you ships, it just says "merchant guilds estate loses 10 loyalty.." :/

 

[gendalv]

locking out nations making them not being able to somewhat pick up with westerners (while being almighty stable and rich nation of fantasy), would be silly imo, they're falling behind anyway..
imo there should just be options to change tech to any other bordering you, if you've met certain conditions.

 

[PhroX]

Except, you know, the Sepoy rebellion which led to the dissolution of the BEIC and the direct control of India by the British crown.

By the time of the Sepoy Rebellion, India was well and truly secured under British control, and while the uprising was dangerous, Britain was in a position to eventually suppress it and further tighten their grip on the subcontinent by, as you point out, bringing India under crown control.

Imagine if there had been an uprising on that scale in, say, 1830, and that Britain had been involved in wars on the Napoleonic scale for much of the previous 15 years. If that happens, British control over India might well have been broken. That was my point about their dominance not being secured. However, the way the first half of the 19th century played out meant that Britain was able to turn their dominance into long term control, and by the time a significant uprising did occur, they were in a position to suppress it.