Paradox, please real Westernization

[Alyoshenka]

Just sharing my experience on the subject based on my current game as early westernized Ming.

I completed my westernization in 1501. The hardest part was to reach Genoa's colony in Azov while sustaining Oirat DOWs. The rest was a piece of cake. I westernized in about 15 years without any real opposition.

It is now ~1590 and landlocked countries in Indochina have started westernizing too, one succeeded in ~1580.

So I would tend to agree, westernization is a bit too easy once you have the requirements. Easily westernizing the largest country in the world in 15 years shouldn't be possible.

 

[zorkman]

Westernising is one of the most stupid events in the game, & has nothing to do with reality for that time.

 

[PhroX]

Just sharing my experience on the subject based on my current game as early westernized Ming.

I completed my westernization in 1501. The hardest part was to reach Genoa's colony in Azov while sustaining Oirat DOWs. The rest was a piece of cake. I westernized in about 15 years without any real opposition.

It is now ~1590 and landlocked countries in Indochina have started westernizing too, one succeeded in ~1580.

So I would tend to agree, westernization is a bit too easy once you have the requirements. Easily westernizing the largest country in the world in 15 years shouldn't be possible.

Westernising in 1501 should indeed be impossible. Because in 1501 there was nothing special about the west that Ming would want to copy. "The West" should not have a better tech group than the Muslim, Indian or Chinese states at that point in the game.

 

[Will Steel]

In 1501 historically, Ming and Asia in general was far ahead of Europe, why should they try to copy the technology of someone who has yet to catch up?

 

[TheDungen]

Perhaps the mechanic should be modernising, at it simply allows you to cath up tech to any neighbour who are a certain number of techs ahead of you. At the expense of risking reactionary rebels. It shouldn't cost monarch points though because non westerners waste loads of those anyway on their more expensive technologies. The penatlies should be diffrent.

 

[zsImmortal]

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.

Your point was that there wasn't any local uprisings that threatened British rule in India. I'm pretty sure this threatened British rule critically since they radically changed everything in their presence in India to prevent it from happening again by dissolving the company and having it tied to the crown.

 

[Beagá]

Perhaps the mechanic should be modernising, at it simply allows you to cath up tech to any neighbour who are a certain number of techs ahead of you. At the expense of risking reactionary rebels. It shouldn't cost monarch points though because non westerners waste loads of those anyway on their more expensive technologies. The penatlies should be diffrent.

It was already discussed dozens of times to change the mechanic name to be Modernization rather than Westernization (thus removing the inherent bias of the name itself) and make it multi-step -that all countries, including europeans, should have to take.

It´s up to Paradox to implement it.

 

[PhroX]

Your point was that there wasn't any local uprisings that threatened British rule in India. I'm pretty sure this threatened British rule critically since they radically changed everything in their presence in India to prevent it from happening again by dissolving the company and having it tied to the crown.

No, my point was there weren't any local uprisings when Britain wasn't in a position to suppress them and thus Britain was able to turn the dominance it had into long term control.

 

[zsImmortal]

No, my point was there weren't any local uprisings when Britain wasn't in a position to suppress them and thus Britain was able to turn the dominance it had into long term control.

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.

That's not the thesis this post is pushing at all. Them being able to respond to the situation despite dire circumstances does not suggest it wasn't a threat to British rule, they had to integrate the region in the crown to avoid this happening again and dissolve the company which ruled the subcontinent. It was a process done in response to an uprising that threatened their very presence in India.

 

[Beagá]

No, my point was there weren't any local uprisings when Britain wasn't in a position to suppress them and thus Britain was able to turn the dominance it had into long term control.

The point still remains that India was dominated by divide and conquer policy and a local level, rather than placing everything under direct control by 1800. In other words local garrisons did a LOT of the heavy lifting, campaign weren´t done as in EU 4 (put a pure british army to destroy the local armies).

And somehow... for some reason... british control was far from complete, when the game ends. Anyone can compare their typical british game by 1822 and the historical one by 1822 and realize that, well, the game is REALLY nice already. Yet somehow when people make threads saying rebels are too big/are too much, it get lots of agrees. Go figure.

 

[PhroX]

That's not the thesis this post is pushing at all. Them being able to respond to the situation despite dire circumstances does not suggest it wasn't a threat to British rule, they had to integrate the region in the crown to avoid this happening again and dissolve the company which ruled the subcontinent. It was a process done in response to an uprising that threatened their very presence in India.

Not really. While it was significant, the Sepoy Rebellion was well within Britain's capabilities to contain. It did a lot of damage, and the threat of future such events lead to the reorganisation of British India, but it wasn't really a threat to overall control of India. Had such a rebellion occurred when they weren't in a position to contain it then it would've been a threat to India. That's the point I've been making all along.

(and seriously, if you don't understand my posts, ask, but don't claim to tell me what I'm saying)

 

[zsImmortal]

Not really. While it was significant, the Sepoy Rebellion was well within Britain's capabilities to contain. It did a lot of damage, and the threat of future such events lead to the reorganisation of British India, but it wasn't really a threat to overall control of India. Had such a rebellion occurred when they weren't in a position to contain it then it would've been a threat to India. That's the point I've been making all along.

(and seriously, if you don't understand my posts, ask, but don't claim to tell me what I'm saying)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You argue it wasn't a threat to their control of India, yet it lasted over a year and forced various changes to their administration of the territory. They effectively lost control over much territory, which had to be retaken. If the sole fact that a rebellion is put down makes it not a threat to a political entity, it creates a very short list of threatening rebellions.

In fact armed revolt was endemic in all parts of early colonial India. What distinguished the events of 1857 was their scale and the fact that for a short time they posed a military threat to British dominance in the Ganges plain.

Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire

The main downfall of the rebellion is its own disorganization. Still, a year of combat, a huge bill to swallow and sweeping changes hardly suggest it was anything short of a considerable danger to the Company and the British presence.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

East India Company's dominance in India had little to do with their Military Superiority. It was their cunning Diplomacy which paved their way into building the Empire. (India came under British Crown in 1858). And please there was no India. Just a bunch of sprouting Hindu Kingdoms and Muslim Nawab's vying to remain alive from being eaten by larger kingdoms. There were differences among Marathas, their alliance with Rajputana & Punjab had tuned bitter and there never was a single battle, East India Company fought on their own. Getting alliance and bribing generals was easy. After battle if they ensured a very luxurious privy purse to some prince/peshwa who have already lost, then it was not because their heart had grown as large as that of Alexander the Great but they had reason to do it. To secure their dominance.

Sepoy Rebellion was not a battle, it was a rebellion, sporadic, which spread like a wild fire, unorganised, without any leadership. There were a few small kingdoms which took advantage of the situation but they all fought separately and never came together. The Larger and stronger kingdoms were with the East India Company.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

The Current Westernisation mechanism is lame in a way that every country near Ivory Coast gets Westernised very easily by 1550 or so. Also it is far very easy to westernise as East African Country than those in Indian Sub-Continent. The deduction of 9 points against 5 makes the westernisation process shorter and less painful.

 

[Will Steel]

And please there was no India. Just a bunch of sprouting Hindu Kingdoms and Muslim Nawab's vying to remain alive from being eaten by larger kingdoms. There were differences among Marathas, their alliance with Rajputana & Punjab had tuned bitter and there never was a single battle, East India Company fought on their own. Getting alliance and bribing generals was easy.

Wrong. Mughal Empire was considered the legitimate "Empire of India" and the Mughal Emperor symbolic Emperor of India from north to south. Both Marathas (until their end in 1818) and EIC (until the middle of the reign of Emperor Akbar II) issued orders, coins and documents in the name of the Mughal Empire. That "Emperor of India" title was snatched away by the Britons in 1857 after they brutally massacred the imperial family and burned Delhi until it was dust.

Marathas were considering taking the title of Empire of India from the Mughals back when they were the sole huge empire in 1760, but then catastrophe at Panipat happened and their plans never came to fruition. In the end Mughals retained the title.

The concept of Bharatvarsha or 'India' has existed since at least 1200 BC and both Mughals and Marathas considered themselves a part of the unified Indian identity. This is what prompted the Marathas to start their rebellion and expand their empire in 1730s the first place - they wanted Hindus rulers to replace Muslim rulers within the territory of India. Eventually their goal became the unification of all India through whatever means

They usually bribed generals not through money but through threats - postimperial Maratha states were too small to resist.

After battle if they ensured a very luxurious privy purse to some prince/peshwa who have already lost, then it was not because their heart had grown as large as that of Alexander the Great but they had reason to do it. To secure their dominance.

Your lack of knowledge is appalling.

Firstly, Alexander did not have a large heart and simply retreated out of kindness - his troops simply refused to cross the Indus and tributaries after having seen the turmoil in the thick of the fighting against Porus, who was just a small king with a small army. The real treat was the far larger Nanda Empire who was already alert and aware of Alexander's invasion, and had planted almost all of their giant, well equipped army (at least 300,000-400,000 strong by estimates, with at least 4-5,000 war elephants) on the other side of the river and along the western Ganges for the very same reason. Alexander's men didn't want to fight more bloody and tedious battles like that of the Indus River against Porus, certainly not a series of them against a far larger, stronger and more prepared enemy, among other factors. This caused them to disobey his orders to march...and eventually Alexander angrily gave in and started the journey back westwards.

Similarly, EIC had no big heart. They openly massacred nobles' families like Nazis or IJA would in their respective genocide campaigns. The privy purses were not luxurious gifts, they were barely adequate funds needed by the former Maratha Emperor to maintain his remaining palace now that his empire was gone. In a lot of cases, the Britons simply snatched the palaces that couldn't be maintained and destroyed them (like in Jhansi).

What else propaganda have you been smoking?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Current Westernisation mechanism is lame in a way that every country near Ivory Coast gets Westernised very easily by 1550 or so. Also it is far very easy to westernise as East African Country than those in Indian Sub-Continent. The deduction of 9 points against 5 makes the westernisation process shorter and less painful.

Let's not be making false claims. At most, the nations bordering the west cost of Africa *might* westernize by 1550, if and only if Portugal or Spain conquers inland provinces. Otherwise, you'll go to 1600 or later and see no westernization.

As it stands these nations are backwards almost all game even if they manage to westernize, which you'd expect when you look at the numbers. Good players can westernize in Africa by 1490-1510, and even then you're doing well to be fully caught up by 1600. The AI is nowhere near that.

 

[josh127]

Westernising in 1501 should indeed be impossible. Because in 1501 there was nothing special about the west that Ming would want to copy. "The West" should not have a better tech group than the Muslim, Indian or Chinese states at that point in the game.

So instead of having flat tech group penalties, the "increase over time" penalty would go up faster for other tech groups? A few groups might need other special rules (America, Hordes) since they don't really follow the "falling behind" flow in such a linear fashion, but it would create some interesting situations.

1) ROTW gameplay would be greatly improved since you could get to an early idea and pick a path for your nation.
2) Westernization would be delayed since the game wouldn't be based on ROTW falls way behind then comes roaring back.
3) As a non-western nation you'd have to work out a bit better what point you want to westernize or if you want to westernize at all (currently it's ASAP).
4) The fringe countries would have a better chance surviving at the start.

Obviously something like that would need more balancing, but it does sound like an interesting start.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Wrong. Mughal Empire was considered the legitimate "Empire of India" and the Mughal Emperor symbolic Emperor of India from north to south. Both Marathas (until their end in 1818) and EIC (until the middle of the reign of Emperor Akbar II) issued orders, coins and documents in the name of the Mughal Empire. That "Emperor of India" title was snatched away by the Britons in 1857 after they brutally massacred the imperial family and burned Delhi until it was dust.

Marathas were considering taking the title of Empire of India from the Mughals back when they were the sole huge empire in 1760, but then catastrophe at Panipat happened and their plans never came to fruition. In the end Mughals retained the title.

The concept of Bharatvarsha or 'India' has existed since at least 1200 BC and both Mughals and Marathas considered themselves a part of the unified Indian identity. This is what prompted the Marathas to start their rebellion and expand their empire in 1730s the first place - they wanted Hindus rulers to replace Muslim rulers within the territory of India. Eventually their goal became the unification of all India through whatever means

They usually bribed generals not through money but through threats - postimperial Maratha states were too small to resist.



Your lack of knowledge is appalling.

Firstly, Alexander did not have a large heart and simply retreated out of kindness - his troops simply refused to cross the Indus and tributaries after having seen the turmoil in the thick of the fighting against Porus, who was just a small king with a small army. The real treat was the far larger Nanda Empire who was already alert and aware of Alexander's invasion, and had planted almost all of their giant, well equipped army (at least 300,000-400,000 strong by estimates, with at least 4-5,000 war elephants) on the other side of the river and along the western Ganges for the very same reason. Alexander's men didn't want to fight more bloody and tedious battles like that of the Indus River against Porus, certainly not a series of them against a far larger, stronger and more prepared enemy, among other factors. This caused them to disobey his orders to march...and eventually Alexander angrily gave in and started the journey back westwards.

Similarly, EIC had no big heart. They openly massacred nobles' families like Nazis or IJA would in their respective genocide campaigns. The privy purses were not luxurious gifts, they were barely adequate funds needed by the former Maratha Emperor to maintain his remaining palace now that his empire was gone. In a lot of cases, the Britons simply snatched the palaces that couldn't be maintained and destroyed them (like in Jhansi).

What else propaganda have you been smoking?

Of course my knowledge is limited to the subject matter could be even appalling. The concept of Bharatvarsha existed since Mahabharata days and Chandragupta Maurya under auspices of Chanakya even did so, the numerous kingdoms during 1800s were more concerned with their own freedom than even coming closer to forming India. It was a Balkanised India and in 1857 (In fact from 1780s when Alam Shah II - father of Akbar II was sent to Exile) Mughals ruled only in the Red Forte, not even Delhi. After Auranjeb's death in 1707, virtually the empire was dead and Emperor title was mockingly titular. India as one hand never fought the British they fought on their own mostly in order to save their own kingdom. Jhansi was a victim of Dalhousie's infamous Doctrine of Lapse.
If you are saying that actual might doesn't matter and only the titles matter no matter how impotent and powerless the title holder be then EIC didn't even had to fight on battlefield and prove militaristic superiority.

Regards Alexander, it was only a live remark that he was kind enough to reinstated Porus on his throne even after defeating him badly. And this can't be expected from EIC. I know of naughty Nandas.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Let's not be making false claims. At most, the nations bordering the west cost of Africa *might* westernize by 1550, if and only if Portugal or Spain conquers inland provinces. Otherwise, you'll go to 1600 or later and see no westernization.

As it stands these nations are backwards almost all game even if they manage to westernize, which you'd expect when you look at the numbers. Good players can westernize in Africa by 1490-1510, and even then you're doing well to be fully caught up by 1600. The AI is nowhere near that.

In over 70% of my games I find Portugal eating into Mali by 1540s, by then she would have almost colonise ivory coast, If not she then Spain. Benin ends up a protectorate of either these two or conquered by 1560-70. Unless Portugal has been reduced by Castile in some rare cases. (In fact i love that when happens, it means more of Africa to colonise as Indian Tech Group).
I have found westernising as Kongo or Songhai far easier than Vijayanagar, Bahamanis or Ayunthya.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Sometimes, It feels worse that after managing to put a colony in Africa right beside Portugal, (keep fearing if I loose it to colonial CB before westernising) have to wait sometimes even 100 years or more to get the Westernisation trigger. Its not that it happens rarely. At such a later stage in the game it becomes difficult to decide whether to go for it.