Paradox, please real Westernization

[TheMeInTeam]

I still like tech groups that are close with triggered reductive modifiers for bringing nations to current tech cost for western, and not excepting Europeans from those requirements. Northern Italy, Livonian Order territory, and Ireland were not the same thing. Strong economies in regions that didn't happen historical should turn tech around there. Consistent conflict with a group should show some spillover in both directions too.

New world gets the same stuff post-reform.

 

[frolix42]

A fleet was sunk because they thought they were safe? It sure points at technological inferiority!
Now, it's time to give primitive tech to the United States in HoI4, because surely Pearl Harbor is proof of their technological inferiority!

This analogy is off-base for many reasons. If this analogy were to fit:

• The United States copied Japanese ship designs and built a fleet of 150 ships with the express purpose of destroying nine Japanese ships.
• These nine Japanese ships, which the US fleet was built to destroy, sail into Pearl Harbor and destroy the much larger fleet in it's totality. The Japanese are even able to disembark and destroy the American ships by hand.
• With the entire American fleet destroyed, these nine Japanese ships proceed to wreak havoc on the US West Coast. Raiding with impunity.
• The United States builds another fleet of 150 ships. The Japanese hire 50 Mexican ships to back them up.
• The American admiral, astutely recognizing that the Japanese have superior gunnery, maneuverability and seamanship in general, cleverly uses his superior numbers to pack his ships full of explosives and send them at the Japanese ships, literally overwhelming them with numbers.
• The Japanese lose 3 ships and withdraw back to Japan. The Mexican ships also withdraw. However American retaliation against Japan is unthinkable.
• @WeissRaben declares that because the US won (with overwhelming force, but don't tell him that), the US must therefore have technical parity with the Japanese. No reforms are necessary.
• The United States is conquered by Canada over the next two decades.

Come on, really? Will you ignore that those ships were European-style ships as well, maybe? I think you will - it would run counter to your thesis, after all.

If only it were as simply as building "European-style" ships, and this would be the same as having a European navy. The fact that nine Dutch ships were able to destroy a much larger fleet by simply sailing up to it shows a systematic and definite decline. Surprise attack it was, the Pearl Harbor attack was not a stackwipe.

Let's also ignore that Liaoluo Bay was a Ming victory, too, shall we?

Why would you want to do that? What makes this statement ironic is that Admiral Zheng won by doing what you're refusing to do. He recognized that his fleet was at a definate technical disadvantage and played to his own strength in numbers. Ming lost 150 ships and were able to build another 150 ships to replace them within a year. Then the Dutch lost three (3) ships and had to return to the VOC. It is not surprising to me that Ming won the conflict.

But your conclusion, that Ming roughly had Technological parity with the Dutch, is not rational.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

Honestly, we won't get a realistic westernization process until we have detailed internal administration and politics. Once there is a system for that, then we can start to simulate actual challenges westernization faced.

 

[Wizzington]

I feel like every time this discussion comes up it just gets the exact same response regardless of the suggestions and problems that people have with it. Can we at least admit that the current tech and modernization system could be improved and that it is worth discussing? At least consider the discussion rather than just saying, 'no' and ignoring it. That isn't really helpful.

Of course it could be improved and is worth discussion, but trying to make Westernization more 'real' while the tech system remains heavily abstracted really just amounts to nerfing ROTW, so try to discuss from a gameplay angle if you want your suggestions considered.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

Wiz, what about adding internal politics and such in a future update? That could tie into new westernization.

Other than adding that and having something to say....uhhh....I can complain about that AI?

 

[Fennek11]

Split it into diplomatic/administrative/military westernization. Require countries to actually own the western core. Make the core require minimum development. Just naming a few things.

 

[echolot]

A succesfull westernization was extremely rare during the time-frame of EUIV. So also in the game there should be only few countries which are able to manage this. But, exactly this is a problem IMO. In all my games I continiously see a large amount of countries throughout the world westernize succesfully. No matter if you're looking to Eastern Europe, Equatorial or Eastern Afrika, India or East Asia. There are plenty of large and small countries which managed westernization without any problems. The worst situation is in the Americas. In nearly all games I see there native nations holding large areas until the end of the game and succesfully westernized. Having in 90% of all games a large Aztek Empire, occuping all Central America, catholic and westernized is just silly.

 

[nestorius]

I think there are two problems one countries even non western ones are too far ahead in tech. This sometimes means that even non western countries are high tech. Westernisation is a little bit too easy maybe increase the costs or increase the tech behind that is required? I would suggest that at the end of the game most countries should stay un westernised and should generally be a little more behind in tech.

 

[gall]

I think there are two problems one countries even non western ones are too far ahead in tech. This sometimes means that even non western countries are high tech. Westernisation is a little bit too easy maybe increase the costs or increase the tech behind that is required? I would suggest that at the end of the game most countries should stay un westernised and should generally be a little more behind in tech.

What? Men, ROTW small and medium sized countries are lagging in tech significantly. Ming super tech issue (if they are alive) is a consequence of "bigger is always better" game design philosophy. +3 advisors and not much MP sink holes for big country (no WE, all revolts are manageable if existent, Ming have rather peaceful AI any other way they would wreck every one and their mother before Europeans arrival) are good mix for good tech.
Ming was slow bureaucratic machine, which was kicked by peasant revolt a while ago, but ridiculously low taxes stay for a longer while (you know, populists are tops in breaking countries quickly and efficiently). Any way who would want to pay high takes, fight in wars with some "backward foreigners" if you could stay as you were, not risk any experiment (failures are inevitable), don't have obligation to fight somewhere and pay high taxes at the top of that?
I would like to see some event/decision to decrease/increase tech cost (reform administration, government/diplomacy/navy or military) at expense of higher build and maintenance cost and build time for army/navy (CA, morale nerf?), stab and coring cost, revolt, tax/trade/production efficiency (it's all about collecting taxes during rapid changes). Until monarch's death with some chance to prolong effects if heir is good enough. That would eliminate need to westernise at least in some cases. Perhaps make westernisation easier giving, but give non western neighbours CB "Pacify militaristic neighbour" (prestige, perhaps chance to get some invention by themselves) or uprising if next monarchs are not good enough (+tech cost +unrest as demands or lower tech group if they manage to enforce).

 

[victimizer]

There was no westernization during eu4 period simply because A. Non westerners didn't know what gave Europeans such an advantage. B. Non westerners didn't realize how significant the European advantages were until it was too late. C. Europeans themselves were just as ignorant of both.

I would argue that no country actually successfully mimicked European institutions at the time, unless they already hailed from that tradition. Russia probably didn't either, except in some of its cities. The European institutions required very effective governance, which large empires almost universally failed to provide. In fact, I'd say any European country that blobs uncontrollably should easily lose its western tech group.

 

[echolot]

There was no westernization during eu4 period simply because A. Non westerners didn't know what gave Europeans such an advantage. B. Non westerners didn't realize how significant the European advantages were until it was too late. C. Europeans themselves were just as ignorant of both.

I would argue that no country actually successfully mimicked European institutions at the time, unless they already hailed from that tradition. Russia probably didn't either, except in some of its cities. The European institutions required very effective governance, which large empires almost universally failed to provide. In fact, I'd say any European country that blobs uncontrollably should easily lose its western tech group.

Don't agree with you. What are exactly the european institutions during this time-frame? And which criteria should be met to define if such institutions exist or not. If you're arguing about "European institutions" which didn't exist anywhere except of some definite countries, then in the final stage you would come up that GB and NL where the only two countries with western technologies.

 

[victimizer]

Don't agree with you. What are exactly the european institutions during this time-frame? And which criteria should be met to define if such institutions exist or not. If you're arguing about "European institutions" which didn't exist anywhere except of some definite countries, then in the final stage you would come up that GB and NL where the only two countries with western technologies.

Joint stock companies, perpetual commercial institutions, vast amounts of book keeping developments, local government and municipalities, etc.

All of the Asian empires failed -- I mean catastrophically failed -- to mimic European developments in these areas. Their attempts to westernize usually involved more centralization and weaker institutions. The qing, mughals, ottomans and even Russians were mired in corruption, waste, weak property rights and ineffective economic outputs.

 

[Sarmatian]

Why would I do that?

Because that is what it sounded like.

China does not equal ROTW, nor are Ming's isolationist policies representative of entire Asia. On the other hand, the West couldn't match some China's engineering projects until the 20th century.

The scale was shifting in the favour of the West, but you're confusing the moment it started shifting with the actual effect. Until 17th century, Asia was ahead in many areas.

Only in the 18th and 19th century is western dominance total, while in EU, it is total from cca 1500.

 

[echolot]

Joint stock companies, perpetual commercial institutions, vast amounts of book keeping developments, local government and municipalities, etc.

All of it applies to Russia in 18th and 19th. It is btw one of the reasons why Russia is probably the best (however one of the very few) example for successful westernization.

mired in corruption, waste, weak property rights and ineffective economic outputs.

Exactly this does apply to all German states during the major part of the EU IV timeframe. Does this mean "Germany" shouldn't be Western tech anymore? Or what about Spain? By this definition it should start -probably- Western but than change into another tech group. And France? Oh poor le blob. It should loose the Western tech at least three times by such a definition. Even England should not start Western.

 

[victimizer]

Al
l of it applies to Russia in 18th and 19th. It is btw one of the reasons why Russia is probably the best (however one of the very few) example for successful westernization.

It could apply to some Russian cities, but definitely not the country at large.

Exactly this does apply to all German states during the major part of the EU IV timeframe. Does this mean "Germany" shouldn't be Western tech anymore? Or what about Spain? By this definition it should start -probably- Western but than change into another tech group. And France? Oh poor le blob. It should loose the Western tech at least three times by such a definition. Even England should not start Western.

Nonsense. The German states were rich and well run, which is why they're part of the one the wealthiest countries in the world now. The larger Asian states could lose up to 2/3rds of their agricultural output to corruption, which is simply inconceivable in a small European principality, where the authorities were in a much better position to monitor their state.

In fact, it was the largest German state, Austria that ran into underdevelopment and corruption, although their problems weren't comparable to China's.

It should loose the Western tech at least three times by such a definition. Even England should not start Western.

If France conquers the whole of western Europe, they should lose their tech group. There is no reason to think such a massive Empire would be well governed.

 

[nestorius]

Tech group is always a little bit complicated it shouldnt be about how large you are.

If France conquers the whole of western Europe, they should lose their tech group. There is no reason to think such a massive Empire would be well governed.

France has to stay in the tech group no matter what. Yes of course it wont be as well governed as if it was smaller but this is represented by local autonomy over extension revolt risk and development not tech. tech wise it will likely be ahead of the rest as it is able to invest more into research in the form of better advisors. etc.

I think in many ways tech is done well just I think in earlier EUs like 2 and 3 westernisation may have been a little better now it seems too easy both for you and the ai to do.

 

[josh127]

Of course it could be improved and is worth discussion, but trying to make Westernization more 'real' while the tech system remains heavily abstracted really just amounts to nerfing ROTW, so try to discuss from a gameplay angle if you want your suggestions considered.

Thank you

 

[Darkath]

'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.

How about removing tech groups >

No, Victoria 2's westernization was pretty crap. The amount of time it ended up taking resulted in a lot of the game already being over by the time you finished, and there was hardly anything to do while westernizing. You basically either sat there and waited on incredibly long timers or you tossed dice and hoped to not get discovered on your conquer CB fabrication. It was incredibly boring and unfun to do and it took up a very notable amount of game time. At least in EU4 it only ends up taking around 10-15 years out of a game whose length is 376 years.

Problem with victoria is that Westernization took the same amount of time it needed in real life for a country like japan, ie 50 years. But with very little internal strife civil war and foreign meddling it involved. In PDM with the Boshin war and the daimyos, + the US that tries to invade if you chose to keep your ports closed, it was a bit more interesting to play as japan. But it would be hard to dynamically replicate in every possible countries.

Of course it could be improved and is worth discussion, but trying to make Westernization more 'real' while the tech system remains heavily abstracted really just amounts to nerfing ROTW, so try to discuss from a gameplay angle if you want your suggestions considered.

From a gameplay perspective in EU4 :

To me modernisation in EU4 should be a set of hard to achieve decisions (like nomads reforming their govt), with at least 3 part for each kind of technology. You'd have a choice to focus on reforming the military, improving the land or opening up to international trade. And possibly associated with a reactionary disaster. I wouldn't mind if the entire process took 50 years but it shouldn't completely lock your country down during that time, just making things a bit more shitty than usual with the risk of triggering a short disaster that could set you back a bit.

 

[misterbean]

First step about changing things should be coming to a consensus about one thing: why, in the real world, were we more advanced as they were? I suggest discovering the answer to that question is fundamental in finding a better way of dealing with it in-game.

For me, personally, I feel like the only benefit we had over ROTW, was a purely military one. The people in Central America had just as strong a state as the Europeans did. The only thing they didn't have, was a military that could counter a mere 500-1,000 Spanish conquistadores.

 

[victimizer]

Tech group is always a little bit complicated it shouldnt be about how large you are.

As I said, large empires typically failed at governance, and the institutions that created the rise of Europe required effective governance. Put the two together, and the answer is pretty obvious. Size matters a lot.

France has to stay in the tech group no matter what.
Yes of course it wont be as well governed as if it was smaller but this is represented by local autonomy over extension revolt risk and development not tech. tech wise it will likely be ahead of the rest as it is able to invest more into research in the form of better advisors. etc.

But i'm not talking about over-extension. I'm talking about effective governance.

The Qing Empire ruled over a massive territory with minimal revolts and no "over-extension", but they sucked at governance because the emperor could not prevent the abuses by its officials. The lack of communication and monitoring technology ensured that the bureaucracy could abuse its powers with impunity, and undermine the institutions necessary to have a European style civilization. There is no reason why this would not apply to Europe ruled by a single empire.