I don't get it. Western Europe is western, hence the word. Unless I'm missing something?
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.
I don't get it. Western Europe is western, hence the word. Unless I'm missing something?
I took away the implication that Western Europe, too, should have reactionaries to deal with whose presence can impair and disrupt innovation.
- 2
Not far off. As far as I'm concerned, Western Europe, with the possible exception of Northern Italy and the Netherlands (as the Renaissance was well underway in those regions by 1444), should not start with the current "Western" tech group. Instead, it should be something they have to undergo a process of reform and innovation to acquire.
- 13
Agreed. I doubt that Wiz & colleagues view westernization as a cool mechanic that closely models actual history in a way that makes the game more fun to play (i.e. the way they probably view, say, the Reformation and 3 christian religions). So stopgap it is, which does crudely what it is supposed to, but at least it's simple. Anything talked about here is more complicated, therefore more liable to fail or at least trip up the AI, therefore a bigger project that won't be done prematurely or anytime soon. I think that's fair enough, but I also hope it won't be v1.23 till we see westernization replaced.
Paradox is just about the most differentially tailored strategy game out there - it has the least amount of "universal" rules one can realistically expect, given the amount of programming time that went into it.
I see. That makes sense, actually. Especially given the upheaval that the reformation entails. People tend to think about other things than "why does the moon appear at night" during times like these.
- 2
Say, remove the Eastern tech group and replace it with European for the same tech cost, while also replacing Western with it.
Then those areas could be the Age of Reason/Enlightened (or something) tech group with +0%. Or have an event which changes the tech group of the nations in the region to the Age of Reason/Enlightened.
I could definitely get behind this. Europe doesn't get as strong as quickly, giving North Africa and friends a bit more of a chance.
- 5
While I agree with you that trying to implement a more realistic westernization process may not be the best for gameplay, I also agree with the OP that the Westernization mechanic in EU IV isn't very good and leaves a lot to be desired. Are there any plans on changing this mechanic later down the road?
- 2
Technically, most of the 'fun' in EU4 is diplomacy and warfare, and you don't need to westernise to do that. Earlier in EU4's lifecycle, when either westernising was harder (I think) or the AI didn't westernise like it was going out of fashion, I played a ROTW and didn't westernise and had plenty to do, because no-one around me had westernised either. On the other hand, my recent Zazzau game had Dahomey westernised by 1504 or something like that, and it was like 'well, better follow suit or I'll be squished'.
However, you can only properly protectorate block it if you're playing a blobbing (and probably european) power. What if you're playing as another ROTW country in the area? You can't stop it westernising, and it will westernise, and early, nine times out of ten. I've played a number of ROTW games where I'm westernising because the ROTW is westernising around me, rather than because I've gone and captured a trade company region, or colonised North America (although I've gone that route as well in the past). There's no question that the rate of westernisation, without player intervention, is so far off now that it's fantasy.
But that's not inconsistent with the mechanic. The idea that westernisation is 'no advancing for years, then 'bam' - super advancing after that' is also fantasy, and not particularly enjoyable gameplay. I think the general mechanics of westernisation in-game are 'so far gone' that it really will take a 'rip it out and replace it with something that works' to get something that's fun and, if we're lucky historically plausible - but at the moment it's neither fun (westernising is, after all, one of those artificial mostly 'no gameplay' periods you're so fond of) nor historically plausible.
- 5
Dahomey westernizing by 1504? Seems...exaggerated. That's very unusual, claiming it happens with any real frequency would be *grossly* misleading, but I don't believe you even in a single case. Portugal drops a colony in West Africa ~1480, typically in Sierra Leone. How does Dahomey westernize in 1504? That's an excellent *player* finish time, if you let Portugal's colony finish and then immediately conquer it. Dahomey conquered a province off Portugal and insta-slammed the westernize button as an AI?
I don't believe you, and I have very good reason not to believe you, as I've been practicing that area extensively in 1.13.1. Squished if you don't follow suit, by Dahomey? The lack of credibility is absurd. You really typed that!
And no, you're missing my point. You lose out on the late game stuff unless you do nothing to get the points or westernize for the neighbor bonus and tech discount. That only became the case after mechanics were reworked to only offer stuff in the tech 20+ ranges. ROTW gets less ideas, less tech per time, and less expansion unless they westernize, preferably in time for admin efficiency. Some of them also get built-in dead periods.
For warfare to be viable, you have to keep up in military tech. For expansion or military to match a European, you have to westernize or you won't have ideas. In SP, this just means expanding somewhat slower. In MP, it's denial of access to ideas/policies that drop 10% discipline, morale, and manpower per area. The game is built around having a way to lower the tech costs sufficiently.
BS. I'm playing a westernized Kazan. It's 1750 and Haasa is westernizing. Not westernized, westernizing. One of the two Indian blobs is westernized, the other isn't. Ming still can't. Oirat, Buryatia? Not western. Persian nations never had the chance. SEA? Nope.
Some of Africa is westernized, but none are completely caught up and not all of them yet. In 1750. What if I'm playing a westernized ROTW? What if. It's amusing to be told what can't be done, having done it already :/.
The fantasy is that these superfast westernizations are happening on a consistent basis. It's a dishonest assertion used as an argument against something that doesn't actually happen. While I certainly think westernization can be replaced with something better, the actively misleading assertions about chain westernization speed propagated by multiple posters here is concerning.
Here is THE MOST ADVANCED nation in the world that was Muslim or lower, not including me, followed by a slew of other images putting evidence on my words, evidence those alleging superfast westernizations absent players directly taking provinces off them as western powers always seem to fail to cough up:
Western Europe is still ahead in tech, and ~15 ideas in front of this. In 1745. Now, look and tremble in fear at the crushing sight of chain westernization!!!!!!!!
Know that nation near Goa with the 1600 Westernization? NOPE, just finished, will never catch up:
Look how fast those chains are! The AI should definitely be made worse at this!
Or, we can leave it as is until we get a better model for tech throughout the world. It's one thing to not like the mechanic, but I find the common misrepresentation of how it functions here to be distasteful.
- 2
- 1
It wasn't just Dahomey - there were a couple of others on the way. Obviously Dahomey wasn't a great risk, but a westernised Mali (they were westernising) and Songhai (likely to go after Mali) are another story altogether. I apologise for not spelling it out for you. Now, I don't document my games like you do, but here's the post where I refer to it, and I'd have to be quite the master of anticipation to have lied in posting this a couple of months ago so I'd have something to argue with now:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-nation-discovery.872127/page-6#post-19753750
In my current game, it's 1550 and Mali has westernised (although also been somewhat spanked by Portugal). In my previous La Na game, Bengal started westernising in the early 1700s, prompting me to rush a colony to California so I could westernise from bordering a colonial nation in North America. In a previous Ayutthaya game India was pretty much fully westernised by the mid-1700s and, again, the reason why I got cracking on my westernisation run. Now, it may have been changed in the final 1.13 patch (all three of those games were the 1.13 beta), but if it hasn't, then that's three games, with substantial non-player driven westernisation (I've had colonial games where I've conquered India so they've westernised off shared cores - I'm not arguing that's an issue, although potentially that argument could be made). That's three from three. Now, your example below gives us n=4, and clearly has very limited westernisation, but unless I'm way out on the end of the bell curve (as is everyone else commenting in this thread), it looks more likely that your experience is further out on the edge of the probability curve than mine is.
I'm not arguing westernisation isn't important for MP - MP is the only sensible excuse why the mechanic is in the game as it stands (and IIRC is the reason given for making westernisation as easy as it is, although my memory's pretty hazy, so could well be off on that). For SP, though, you can have a perfectly enjoyable game without westernising. Sure, you can't have a successful 'blob over half the world' game, but that's not the only way to play EU4. An argument could be made that if people wanted to be able to blob over half the world, then there's a case to be made that only a limited number of starts would make this possible. Of course, if Paradox's goal is to make a game where literally anyone can blob, be it Lan Na or Castile, then westernisation, as it is, is important. But even then, if that is their goal, there are better ways to do it (for example, by not having westernisation in the first place).
As for 'missing out on stuff', beyond the Imperialism CB (which pops up well before the end of the game, so is very much achievable without westernising) you don't get 'new things to do' through late game tech, you just get new modifiers that make the dynamics of the late game different. They are interesting dynamics, sure, and I very much enjoy the late game with a westernised nation, but you're still 'doing' the same thing - you're just doing it with different modifiers.
Did you protectorate-block the westernising path though? That was the only thing I said you couldn't do. If you did, power to you, and apologies, and congratulations on holding back the tide of westernisation
. If you didn't, then congratulations at having a game where westernisation didn't naturally take off.If I were the only one in this thread that noted the issue, I'd put it down to me being crazy unlucky, apologise for my narrow perspective and keep playing until the probabilities set themselves straight. However, I'm far from the only one noting this issue. I haven't counted, but from reading this thread, it's your experiences that seem to be statistically less likely, rather than the other way around. On the by (and not in a nasty way, just mentioning it
), asserting that someone is not telling the truth ("I don't believe you, and I have very good reason not to believe you, as I've been practicing that area extensively in 1.13.1"), just because their experiences don't match your own, isn't a particularly effective form of argument (particularly when, in this case, I was telling the truth - not believing me only makes it harder for you to form a coherent counter-argument).This whole thread is about improving it. If you look at my suggestion in this thread, you'll see it explicitly links improving westernisation with tech. I'm fully in agreement with you on this point. I'm not trying to have a go at you (anything but, you're a good player and a valuable member of the community
), but there's clearly something up with westernisation as it stands. For a start, if your case was the norm, I'd be the lone nutter ranting away in this thread, which I'm anything but (the thread had hit three pages before I'd even seen it, and I log on daily). I agree that your own experiences don't gel with this, but the aggregate collection of experiences suggest that at least a large enough proportion of the community to support an active thread seem to be having suggest that this is at least far from always the case. Rather than claim that other people's experiences are a fantasy, it might be better to recognise that there's quite a wide range of possible outcomes in a game of EU4, and that you've clearly ended up on the lower end when it comes to AI westernisation*.* On this note, do you often play non-blobbing games? It may be that your playstyle reduces the rate of AI westernisation as well. I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but we do have quite different playstyles, which may explain our different experiences.
- 9
- 1
Mali westernizing in 1550 is plausible. Dahomey westernizing in 1504, which you posted in this thread earlier, is not plausible. I can't help it if you're changing your story.
Mali being an existential threat to a sub-Saharan player because it westernizes in 1550, however, is nevertheless outlandish, despite being not so impossible as the previous claim you made on this thread. If nothing else, they're a sitting duck while doing it.
A nation beginning westernization in 1700 becoming a threat in a meaningful timeframe is a farce. For this one, there doesn't even need to be picture evidence. Basic math demonstrates that reality, but if you were to post picture evidence of either of your two Asian games, it would be similar to the stuff I put in spoilers, only twisted differently, as if the poor player is compelled to westernize just to beat that stuff...an assertion that doesn't mesh with reality. The primary upside to westernization is point efficiency, something the AI westernizing after 1600, to say nothing of 1700, will never, ever attain. I believe the Tunis picture I showed demonstrates that quite nicely; they were a pre-1600 westernization, and they're still behind now.
Players can westernize w/o exploration starting around 1600 anywhere in the world w/o special effort, and sooner if they're experienced. The AI though? A nation completing westernization in 1700 is utterly meaningless, aside from the loss of the CB you might have from expansion ideas. But if you have that? Use it in time.
Did you protectorate-block the westernising path though? That was the only thing I said you couldn't do. If you did, power to you, and apologies, and congratulations on holding back the tide of westernisation
No, I just conquered everything while it was too weak from trying to westernize lol. I have protectorate blocked successfully with Songhai though.
I'm asking for evidence, not confirmation bias :/. People complain about the dice rolls in combat too. A lot. They also "note the issue". I'm asking for evidence because evidence of 1500's African westernization wildfire, 1600's India being westernized ETC (IE AI westernizing in a timeframe it can possible catch up outside of West/North Africa) is lacking. Every time I dig up a 1700's save, and I handed a good # pictures across threads, the evidence has gone against what you claim.
In response, you give stories of westernization without anything showing the reality of the situation. Repeatedly, just like complaints of the battle dice. But what happens when people actually test their dice rolls from combat?
The reason "I don't believe you" is that you made a claim that doesn't fit the numbers with Dahomey. I will put money against Dahomey westernizing even once by 1504 in 50 sims of an observer game as of present 1.13.1. Would you take such a bet, or is it time to claim that was a typo?
I will recognize the other possible outcomes given the exact threshold I have provided myself: evidence. I don't mean you personal disrespect; I'm prone to bias also just like any human being. But we have seen patterns of both confirmation bias and hindsight bias routinely on this forum from the same majority you're using to argue. Look carefully at your games when they hit 1700 next time. Take screenshots of the regions as I have, and see how many nations truly are both 1) westernized and 2) caught up in tech with no more than 10 ideas less than western majors. Next time you want to make a westernization claim, see if you can really show it.
You'll notice that in that Zazzau thread I finished just before 1550 after conquering the area. This is only possible if territory changes hands, and Portugal *can't reach Dahomey with a colony in time for them to hit 1504 westernization*. Even if they plant in Sierra Leone an are conquered by the player ASAP using ticking, 1504 is not something you reach easily. The reason I didn't believe you should be obvious; based on math alone, Dahomey only gets that time by attacking Portugal in the 1490's, or being attacked at impossible colony range. I didn't see a big blue West African blob in your screenshot
.- 1
I'm not changing my story. If I make a factual error on these forums (or anywhere else), I apologise and retract. If you've got the patience to scroll through my posting history you'll see some, but there aren't that many because I'm generally pretty careful about what I say. The comment about Dahomey is absolutely true. The example I gave of Mali was from a different game. I don't have evidence, however, because I don't make a record of most things that happen in-game. Even by the Zazzau game I'd seen some silly early westernisation (it was just a while ago, and I don't have an eidetic memory, so I can't give you examples, which is why all the examples I can remember are 1.13 games), so I just noted it and moved on. The only reason I noted it was because I was planning to deliberately not westernise as one of my goals for the game, but with the rest of sub-saharan Africa westernising around me, it was no longer sensible.
Also note that I'm not a blobber, so I wouldn't have been in the same situation you would have been at the same time. I generally don't prey on countries westernising, and only declare war if there's a sensible reason. I like some challenge with my EU4, so I often self-limit myself in some way or other so the game doesn't get too easy (in the Zazzau game, I converted to Catholic while westernising, then converted to protestant again for larks - clearly not good min-maxing play). My Zazzau would have been at significant risk had Songhai, Mali and friends westernised around me, so I joined in, hence I remember as I'd originally wanted not to.
Not just to beat, but to make sure they didn't get an edge. Again, I'm not playing like you do, I'm not a blobber and thus the circumstances I find myself in during my games are likely to be markedly different to those in your games. I would note that I successfully westernised Ayyuthaya in around 1730 I think, and with neighbour bonuses and whatnot was able to be top of the world in tech by the end (while also developing and with the odd war or two - I wasn't just going one-eyed for tech) - so a late-game westernisation can absolutely streak ahead. Add in the Liberte Egalitie etc; bonuses to the tech bonuses, and you can have some pretty hefty discounts on tech. I think my first admin and diplo techs post-westernisation cost 50 each, and while it rose quickly after that, I'd have got a bunch of techs for not very much at all. 3200 is only 8 techs at 400 (which is pretty cheap even for a western nation).
Or if, say, someone was playing a role-playing game and not blobbing. In that context, the rest of the world westernising the in the 1700s is ridiculous, and that ridiculousness is anything but meaningless. As an aside, that late-game westernisation is meaningless from a min-max perspective only highlights the issues with the mechanic, not the other way around.
Nice work with Songhai and apologies for underestimating you
. I would argue the vast majority of players would need a western major to protectorate block though, I think you'll be happy with me saying you're well above average when it comes to player capability.Dice rolls are irrelevant. I never mentioned them (and never have - they're dice rolls, and I've no reason to think PDS has weighted them). I'm also not talking confirmation bias, and in the dice roll case the confirmation bias comes from many, many observations and only noticing the ones you don't like. I'm providing concrete examples from actual games that happened, and from a small number of recent games. In three out of my last four games (the fourth game being a Great Britain playthrough where my conquering of India resulted in them westernising early, so it wasn't good evidence, so I didn't mention it as evidence in this case). For confirmation bias to be an issue we'd need to be talking about multiple tens of games, and my memory just isn't that good. I can only give you recent history, and the evidence from my recent playing history (no mods, generally ironman, in case that helps) is evidence. Note I have no reason to lie at all. What's the benefit in me making things up? I've got better things to do with my time than present suggestions for problems that don't exist
.Rather, tt's not the case that the evidence has gone against what I claim. It's that there is a wide distribution of outcomes, and you're focussing solely on your own experience. These are real games I and others have played, and it's simply not possible for anyone who is anywhere near a 'normal' EU player to have clocked up enough games in a short enough time to develop any kind of confirmation bias.
Because I haven't had time to run some observer games, and other than you, don't see a need to (I don't see a lot of people supporting your position here). I will, however, run some observer games and see what happens, and post the results here.
Ideas are irrelevant - the argument I'm making is that fast westernisation is immersion breaking - ideas are neither here nor there with that, as is the tech level.
You'll notice that in that Zazzau thread I finished just before 1550 after conquering the area. This is only possible if territory changes hands, and Portugal *can't reach Dahomey with a colony in time for them to hit 1504 westernization*. Even if they plant in Sierra Leone an are conquered by the player ASAP using ticking, 1504 is not something you reach easily. The reason I didn't believe you should be obvious; based on math alone, Dahomey only gets that time by attacking Portugal in the 1490's, or being attacked at impossible colony range. I didn't see a big blue West African blob in your screenshot
As I said, I'm afraid I don't document everything enough to give you a specific date - the best I have is the screenshot below, from 1549. Note that I've just finished westernisation, and in this game I haven't attacked Portugal yet. I could have westernised from bordering Kumasi, but I didn't own Atakora and Dagbon at the time. I westernised 'off' Dahomey while Mali westernised from areas to the west. I distinctly remember Dahomey westernising in 1504. It could have been a brain-fail and it was 1501 or 1509, but it was 150*, and it was because Portugal had settled Kumasi by that point (Portugal was a colonising monster in this game).
- 1
- 1
Here's my recent Mughals game. Note there is a player Mamluks who has been busy with the Ottomans.
http://imgur.com/a/oirmX
It's 1598, no one in west africa has Westernized. I'm the Mughals and no one else in India is western, but that's biased by the player presence there (Mamluks haven't moved on West Africa, so no bias there).
Here's my recent Ajuuran game in 1638. Let's check out India and West Africa again.
http://imgur.com/a/uijXG
Nope, no one is Western even with those immersion breaking European inroads in West Africa.
Fine, since 1638 has no one western, let's check that 1724 save.
http://imgur.com/a/n1OQ7
India hasn't westernized even though I've been kind enough to provide them western cores. In West Africa, what do you know Fulo and Dagbon finally westernized, although no one else has. And then when you compare them to GB, in 1724 Fulo is still 11 techs behind and Dagbon is 13 techs behind (not to mention 25 ideas behind).
- 2
- 1
I specifically cited this example because the confirmation bias can just as easily be applied to "early westernization". It's important to note the real dates, rather than a rough memory of what happened that you can recall. Without doing this, it's pretty tough to avoid bias, especially regarding a mechanic that conceptually bothers you in the first place.
I'm not very familiar with the role play aspects of course but the AI doesn't field advisors or take innovative event decisions etc that lets it tech vault. A 1700's westernization AI is something I have a very large personal sampling of since in my games it's the most common outcome. I haven't seen a 32/32/32 finish on such an AI with even 7 completed groups worth of ideas, ever, though only a few western from 1444 starts manage that.
So far, I have provided the only picture/directly visible evidence available in these threads (edit: ooooor Josh can ninja me
). It doesn't have to remain that way, and the evidence will obviously become a lot stronger if that stops being true. But the last time someone posted an AI western African in the 1700's as a counter example, it was "western" with 10 techs and 20 ideas behind France :/. Even my Tunis example is closer than that, but Tunis/Morocco have the most consistent AI westernization positions in the game, generally only failing if they get killed.FWIW I don't think you're making things up on purpose, rather that your memory is not serving you perfectly and that you're overestimating how short of perfect it is. I've caught myself in the same mistakes, which is exactly why I loaded up a save of the late game and took a look at the positions. Of the nations I didn't picture, only Timbuktu was close to Tunis.
Please stop the "argument from majority fallacy", especially with something that has testable consequences.
People source their immersion differently. For example, some like to have more meaningful choices per time spent playing, something positions that constrain monarch points or force player waiting denies. To me, nothing is more immersion breaking than having to do nothing and looking at the screen for 5, 10, or more minutes with only minimal decisions in between. However, constant long truces and more minimal late-game gains on pain of putting 1000's of more monarch points into tech is behind that. To me, westernization is nothing more than one abstraction stacked on top of many more abstractions that are equally absurd, and I accept that the fundamental mechanics aren't likely to change. As a result, my focus shifts to practical implementations, but also to being realistic about what actually occurs game to game.
And if that perception isn't accurate, mechanics old and new are going to get feedback that isn't grounded in reality, which is the case with westernization right now.
On ADM 5 for ideas, the numbers don't work, sorry. They're not getting ideas before ~1470 - 1475, then they have to put a colony in Arguin or Cape Verde (let's say Cape, it's faster). Even then you don't have the range to reach Ashanti/Dahomey, so you need that colony in Sierra Leone. Then you need one more colony, to complete it, and have Portugal successfully conquer the inland nation. 1 non-tropical and 2 tropical colonies in 25 years plus a speed conquest and an AI starting westernization instantly isn't going to work.
If you're running a previous version, we're not talking about the same stuff unfortunately. It *is* possible, albeit still very unlikely, if Portugal gets a ~13 year head start on colonization relative to now by using ADM 4 for ideas rather than ADM 5. The rules change often in this game so I usually presume current versions from points made wrt discussion on a topic.
- 1
- 1
So far, I have provided the only picture/directly visible evidence available in these threads (edit: ooooor Josh can ninja me
Props to you and @josh127 for the screens
. As promised, I've started some observer games, and the first one has hit 1620, and we've got a westernised (and rather successful) Timbuktu, Commonwealth (by 1590), Muscovy (also by 1590), Crimea, Golden Horde and Mamluks. Nothing (that I could see, but I checked the obvious candidates) in the Americas yet (that isn't colonial or European of course, but that's not what we're looking for). I'll report back on the tech gap later in the game - Timbuktu is currently a good way behind Europe, but that's hardly surprising for a recently-westernised sub-saharan State. Give me an hour or so, and we'll see how the world looks in 1750. I'll do at least five of these, to get an idea of how it plays out, and we'll see what we'll see .(by the time I'd finished this post and uploaded the shots, Novgorod had also westernised, but that's actually not too bad for the whole Peter the Great thing, just mentioning it because it's what we're tracking.
I totally agree for this. My suggestion for changes to westernisation (and tech, and ideas) was based along providing more meaningful choices in all three (at the moment tech doesn't involve an awful lot of choice, nor do ideas beyond the groups - something a bit more free-form, but with consequences for which form was chosen, would give both more individuality to each playthrough, more interesting decisions to make, and ). It's also why I bang on about internal gameplay mechanics as well, as unless it's a WC run and you're in war mode all the time there are periods of quiet in-between. Speed 5 on my machine moves pretty quickly, but having something to do a la Vicky 2 would still make it better (and need not preclude WC/blobbing-style gameplay).[/QUOTE]
- 1
- 1
I think we're getting distracted. The point is not about wether westernization is too widespread among certain AI countries but wether it's a fun a mechanic to play with, and if not how to fix it.
Dahomey or whatever westernizing early in certain conditions is irrelevant. Because regardless of the frequency of such happenings, it doesn't tell us wether the mechanics is fun or not for the player.
Also we already established that immersion and realism (which are highly subjective anyways) were irrelevant for Wiz in this case. Gameplay comes first.
Dahomey or whatever westernizing early in certain conditions is irrelevant. Because regardless of the frequency of such happenings, it doesn't tell us wether the mechanics is fun or not for the player.
Also we already established that immersion and realism (which are highly subjective anyways) were irrelevant for Wiz in this case. Gameplay comes first.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
- 1
I'd probably got a bit further with the starting tech penalty for Europe - 10% basically makes "Westernisation" a waste of time, so I'd go for, 20-25%. Merge Western and Eastern, and maybe even Ottoman into this group, "seed" a few nations in Italy and the Netherlands with the current "Western" group, and watch the Rennaisance spread across Europe using the existing "Westernisation" mechanics, with some tweaks of course (for example I'd lower the "tech lag" required to, maybe, 3-4 techs in order to make this switch).
A complete overhaul of Westernisation would be great, but adjusting the initial state of the game to represent the fact the Europe in 1444 was not the centre of technological advancement, and that the fact that it became one over the course of the game was not without its struggles would be a good start.
The problem is that tech groups don't really work - Japan had top-notch armies up to the mid-17th Century, and by "top-notch" I mean "absolutely on Western level". Then it fell into backwardness with the Sakoku. Spain lasted a fair bit longer, but when the Industrial Revolution knocked, no one replied there, either. Milan replied; Sicily didn't. It's time to get back something with the same function as sliders (even if they're not sliders); let's represent how the society is going within our nation, let's make it harder to change the bigger you are, and tie technology to that.
- 7
- 1
Oh certainly, a complete overhaul of the entire technology/"modernising" system would be ideal. I was just coming more from a perspective of "what can we do to make it more historically accurate without completely ripping the system apart"
This won't happen until there are actually benefits to not being western. As long as it's better in every way, as it is now, and Paradox continues to balance the MP costs around Western tech nations, as they will most likely continue to do, then there is no meaningful choice. Raising the cost to westernize doesn't create choice, it just makes it more painful.
You are misinterpreting the threat here and worrying about immersion breaking when you should be worried about being dead. Dahomey is not a threat, nor are any of the other West African nations that are westernizing. A simple national focus change will be enough to hold them at bay. The threat is the source of their westernization. It's Portugal, Great Britain, France, or the Netherlands that will ruin a West Africa game where you don't get out and conquer and westernize.
- 2
- 1
- 1