On a side note, since when are countries able to westernize off of Trade Company provinces? I thought this was a thing mentioned when trade companies came out as not being possible.
Paradox, please real Westernization
- Thread starter Afinati
- 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.
The best example of EU IV westernization isn't Russia, it's north American natives. Russia's reforms didn't leave it a tattered, backwards mess that could then research quickly and maybe be caught up/modernized 50-80 years later, and the process itself didn't take an eternity.
Shortly after the US gained independence, some of the surviving natives shifted their governance and daily activities, creating a treaty with the US that the states promptly dishonored. They didn't have the manpower or industry to survive, but their attempt to adopt the successful aspects of the colonizers was visible. In a different world where the disease is less bad (IE EU IV) and the natives more unified prior to contact, it's not hard to envision such an outcome. It's not a perfect fit, but it's closer to what the game alleges with westernization than Russia or Japan.
They can't with just a border, but you can westernize off shared cores with western regardless of trade company.
- 7
- 2
It makes sense that smaller communities like the native Americans would be in a much better position to actually westernize. A country like China and Russia have too much invested in old institutions and they're too large, too repressive to embrace more liberal institutions without also imploding their whole empire in the process.
Let me take you up on that, Wiz. When you say "gameplay", I assume you mean that either a) improving the experience for somebody playing a ROTW nation or b) improving the experience for somebody playing a Western country by making ROTW turn out in a particular way (i.e., develop along broadly historical lines, or to provide more or less of a challenge at certain points in the game). So for
a) As a ROTW player, Westernization isn't a mechanic you really need as a leg-up against the AI.
b) As a Western player, Westernization makes interacting with ROTW less fun, not more. Diffusion of technology and skills after integration in the world economy is obviously a thing, but it's just weird to come across all these "Western" countries in places where historically nothing of that nature happened. And for roleplaying, it's even worse - am I to imagine that all these places had their Peter the Great moment just because I opened up a trading port in the area?
What I totally get is to keep things challenging for the player, and keep colonization at a certain pace throughout the game. But couldn't you do that by giving trade/gold/monarch point boni, idea + tech cost boni to ROTW countries interacting with the West? And beef up the climate and distance penalties for Western troops?
Mind, I don't think this is a huge deal - just one of those odd things.
- 6
ROTW sorely lacks any real way to utilize administrative efficiency late-game w/o westernization, making both early and late game stall out. Their idea progression is also awful, even as it is right now.
As a western player, it's trivial to beat down ROTW to limit westernization. When evidence actually turns up about westernization rather than claims of incredible chains, it turns out that only a few nations westernize kind-of fast (Mali, sometimes Songhai and Benin) with nations like Bahmanis still not being western in 1700, even with Portugal holding Goa in some cases. You get an eternity to make use of ez CBs, which is the only truly distinguishable disadvantage to an AI nation westernizing.
- 1
Wait, ROTW players don't need westernization for a leg-up on the AI but western players do need non-western nations to stay non-western? What frickin game are you playing?
- 2
- 1
Sorry but you don't really adress how to make the game more fun from a gameplay perspective.
- 1
- 1
@Xinkc - In this era, Europe was hegemony in the eighteenth century. For most of the duration of time EU4 Europe chasing of the Orient. Before the British conquest of the Indian "textile industry" (in subcontinent) outweighed the European "textile industry" in any field. Most of the time Ottoman state was a place, to which the European peasants fleeing. Administration of the Turks was great. etc. etc. etc. So "This is EUROPA universalis so only Europe need whatever" is nothing.
The name probably has no reference to the content. Just sounds nice.
The name probably has no reference to the content. Just sounds nice.
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Of course it is nothing. That is not the point I am making nor the post you originally quoted. There was obviously a reason to choose the name however. Considering the era is basically the rise of Europe and it's projection of power throughout the world and the fact the original game (not to mention the board game it's based upon) only allowed European powers to be played, it seems a likely candidate for the origin of the name.
But all of that is besides the point. I'm not saying it's a legitimate argument. The post you originally quoted before going off on a tangent about the philosophy universalism was obviously not making the point that the game shouldn't change because the name is Europa Universalis which can be translated as "Europe Everywhere". That is what I'm trying to say.
Now, back on topic, I agree that westernization and technology in general need to be looked at in game. Both should ideally be addressed at the same time with complementing fixes eventually. However, I cannot think of a method that would make the game more fun, not micromanagement hell, or cause weird chaos
Triggered modifiers, with different ones per tech group to reduce cost. Some examples of ones you can use:
- 2 or more centers of trade/estuaries
- borders with 2 or more tech groups
- infrastructure built (IE buildings)
- total development in the empire
- %income siphon (toggle switch with long cooldown/restrictions to avoid implement --> take --> cancel)
- constant warfare (military trigger)
- idea group investment
- alliances in same/other groups, tying in with transferred trade power and other stuff you'd often not bother using much
- government type
You could then make the triggered modifiers apply to one, two, or all three technology types, with it being harder to get to 100% cost as Indian than European (and capping the triggered modifier at 100%, with more options than needed to get there). Still want to use overseas expansion? Okay, good luck if they're strong though.
The only thing I think you'd need is a restoration of a way for Ming to lose celestial government w/o westernizing. Western focus would then be a less abrasive decision too while giving nations relevant to the regions to conquer a way to trade which modifiers they use based on where they conquer.
- 3
- 2
What game? Oh, I don't know... but it's very simple, really. ROTW players don't need westernization legup because they're facing the AI. Western players do need a challenge to overseas expansion, but westernization is not a good way to do that. Something like the triggered modifiers suggested by TheMeinTeam. Or, you know, the things that actually made it harder for Europe to knock over countries overseas.
Don't be sorry, but I am.
- 4
- 1
More doing nothing isn't fun. That's what higher pricetags in ROTW amount to. You get an experience like Europe, except with less tech, less ideas, and less action. Westernization is the current offset for that, but one of the advantages to a triggered modifier system is that you could immediately work for several of them in a region so that you're not incentivized to tank tech deliberately and take really strange conquest/colony paths to gain more efficient monarch point usage, that way you don't see someone colonizing Brazil or making a heavy offensive on a Portuguese colony in South Africa just to westernize as a nation like Bahmanis who otherwise has minimal interest in rushing there.
Without something better in its place, westernization serves a stopgap, but I'm not a fan of going ADM 5 or 7 then westernizing by mid-1550's to tech up on that either.
- 3
Either you conquered into the interior or you didn't form a trade company. Conquering into the interior is already not realistic, and not forming a trade company would be you being negligent.
If you conquer the province of Mali's, they can westernize because of the shared core, trade company or not. Of course, you could force them to release the tag they have on the border or protectorate them instead. If you protectorate Benin, Jolof, and Mali the only way West Africa westernizes is through a western Morocco. That's not a 1600-1650 prospect, but it might happen very late in the game, maybe...unless you hammer Morocco down so the Tuat mission can't fire in which case it'll never happen.
India, shielded by Ottomans --> Persia and more, will never westernize if you properly protectorate block it. Ottos westernized late 1600's (almost 1700) in my most recent game, Haasa got it going at like 1750, no way in most games that reaches India then.
The westernization comes as the result of conquering a province off a nation you leave alive. Kill the nation or just protectorate it.
- 2
- 1
Westernization is not a leg up it only pulls you level with the pace. Then you have to catch up. You're giving arguments about challenge for ROTW and at the same time talking about fun for Europe. When I have to deal with European problems in ROTW because the game likes to make rules universal, I deserve the chance to get on pace with them. And no, there is no fun in sitting around doing nothing so that I can save up MP because it all costs more. Paradox adds new features to the game for higher tech levels and higher developed countries then gives Europe a red carpet ride to get there. I like to earn my way toward it because it makes for a longer game. Getting to westernization is like playing the prelude to the period EU4 is supposedly about. Unfortunately the game doesn't give Europe a "climb out of the feudal era" period, or maybe I'd enjoy playing there as well.
- 3
Native American tribes Westernized too. The "Five Civilized Tribes" adopted many Western customs, and the was even a reactionary revolt led by Tecumseh. I do think that it could be cool if embracing reactionaries temporarily gave a buff to morale and discipline so you could choose between faster teaching and better troops for a while, to make quick Westernization less of an obvious choice.
- 1
All I have to say about Westernization is that it should be a LOT harder for everybody, and it should grant top-tier tech when you finish.
- 1
This has the unfortunate effect of making it player-only (because if it's "a LOT harder", the AI will fail), amplifying the player's advantage over the AI.
- 1
Kind of like locked movement, right
? I'm okay with the change if it's fun, but I don't know about going the route he suggests.- 1
Agreed. With "everyone" meaning everyone, thus including western Europe.
- 2
- 1