Paradox, please real Westernization

[Sarmatian]

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.

Well, there have been attempts at exactly that in the Suggestions subforum, but they haven't received any love from the devs:

1) This one argues for a need for sort of western "patron" to influence Westernization.

2) This one argues for varying tech costs for different tech groups (for instance, Chinese tech group would have a 20% penalty on ADM tech, 30% on DIP and 70% on MIL) which could be lessened and eventually completely removed gradually through decisions which cost MP and bring high revolt risk.

3) This one argues for special research and idea groups which need to be done in order to westernize.

4) This one argues for a more dynamic westernization, by implementing a special factor called "Westernization Awareness" which is influenced by internal and external factors, representing how aware you country is of the need to westernize. Westernization is then easier or harder depending on that, with the goal of making westernization more dynamic from game to game and influenced by what is happening in the game.

None received attention from the devs so far, even the acknowledgement of being read.

 

[Leninade]

I for one wouldn't mind in the slightest were Westernization completely removed from the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I for one wouldn't mind in the slightest were Westernization completely removed from the game.

What would you put in its place?

 

[LinusLinothorax]

What would you put in its place?

A"modernization" system like in Victoria would make sense: You have sliders which will have effects on your eceonomy, modernity of your army etc. Also a more complex trade-system is required, with which you can for example specialize how many and what types of guns you want to import (As a non-western civ).

 

[LinusLinothorax]

Double Post.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

There are far older threads on this same subject, actually. This is one of mine from before the game even came out: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-technology-group-mechanics.649294/

Since history isn't really the process we're looking at, but gameplay instead, let me go over what I'd like to see:

• Reduce the ahead of time penalty so this doesn't act as such a hard limit on tech development and nations that might start ahead of the curve aren't completely unable to advance until the rest of the world catches up. This will be very useful when the random new world is added if it contains more advanced states than the European explorers.
• Increase the rate that the penalty of buying higher level techs increases, so that low level techs are cheep and high level techs are not. This way modernizing is essential to keeping up a consistent rate of tech development.
• Use tech groups for map sharing, not tech rates. Each nation has their own tech rate which might be different from group to group. However, being in a tech group with another nation that has a higher rate of tech development does make it easier to modernize that part of your country.
• Use major events to increase tech rates, such as the league wars or contact between old world settlers and native americans. You can even have flavor text for each explaining what the historical significance of this is and why that has affected your tech rate the way it has.
• Instead of Westernizing, you can modernize a specific part of your technology to 'force' that tech to improve rather than wait for events to do it for you. Doing this will cause a lot of reactionary tendencies in your country, but also brings your tech close to parity with the top nation you're in contact with. Failure is entirely possible, but each attempt is easier than the last and you gain some benefits when you fail.
• Everyone will need to modernize as the game progresses. This allows parts of the world to slowly emerge as technological leaders depending on what happens where and why and doesn't start with one area being in an undisputed and pre-determined lead. It also means that there is no early game drive to modernize since most parts of the world are on relatively even ground.

 

[Axe99]

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.

I don't think there's a question about whether it's a fun gameplay mechanic. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say they want to keep westernisation as it is - the most favourable thing I can recall is people saying "it'll do until they come up with something better". Further, from a gameplay perspective, if we don't care about historical plausibility (which I think would be a mistake, from a gameplay perspective, but that's a whole 'nother issue altogether), I'd just get rid of it. If EU4 is trying to become Risk-in-detail, then a historically implausible and not particularly fun (in that it basically means more waiting around, with very little in the way of interesting gameplay or choice) mechanic has no place. If EU4 is shooting at historical plausibility, then the current westernisation mechanic doesn't hit that mark either.

There have been a bunch of suggestions, ranging from simple tweeks to rates of change for westernisation, to complete overhauls of the tech/westernisation system. I can't imagine that the devs aren't looking into it, but we'll just have to wait and see I guess.

On the topic of how widespread it was, that was raised in the OP, so I'm not sure that's besides the point. @TheMeInTeam, @josh127 and I were debating how widespread historically implausible westernisation is. He'd been claiming the AI didn't westernise a whole lot, so I looked into it. Run four tests so far, and we get India mostly westernising I think three times out of four, China two out of four, at least one of the major sub-saharan African states and usually both four times out of four, and around a third to half of the north american natives each time. South american natives struggle, with only one or two, in two times out of four. South east Asia gets significant westernisation two times out of four. In every instance, there's far, far more westernisation than historically occurred - am happy to provide screenies of any examples as required if we want the convo to go on, I've got saves at 1815 for all four tests.

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.

Fully, fully agree. Nations in the actual period had to make hard choices about this kind of thing, and there were benefits in holding back, something that westernisation doesn't make players do now beyond some very basic stability issues, that are pretty trivial to overcome. Part of the issue is the tech/social ladders - in EU4, every society, other than idea groups and national ideas, is the same. It's all the same flavour. With the ideologies in late-game Civ, there's arguably more variety in nations in Civ V than there is in EU4, and easily as much. Imagine a situation where tech improvements involved choices that stuck with the nation through history, such that the unique combinations of tech and ideas meant each nation was meaningfully different, and that it was plausible to stay non-western (in the time period) and do semi-reasonably, and that modernisation wasn't all the same, but rather different nations modernised in different ways, with different consequences?

What would you put in its place?

Currently, if we're not worried about historical plausibility, I'd just rip it out. It's better than nothing if there is an interest in historical plausibility, but if historical plausibility is the goal of the system, it's got a long way to go.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Currently, if we're not worried about historical plausibility, I'd just rip it out. It's better than nothing if there is an interest in historical plausibility, but if historical plausibility is the goal of the system, it's got a long way to go.

So ROTW will just be stuck hopelessly behind Europe forever? Great idea. I'm sure ROTW totally needed a huge nerf compared to those weak, underpowered Europeans, with their PU mechanics and their lack of tech penalty and their Curia mechanics and all those nice events...

 

[TheDarkMaster]

So ROTW will just be stuck hopelessly behind Europe forever? Great idea. I'm sure ROTW totally needed a huge nerf compared to those weak, underpowered Europeans, with their PU mechanics and their lack of tech penalty and their Curia mechanics and all those nice events...

No, if it's removed all of the tech group penalties would also go.

 

[Ungerargh]

I think the decisions to jump tech groups in general need to be more dynamic, and there should be multiple avenues of westernization (or muslimization, or what have you) for changing groups. Two examples of this are the American requirements, and horde requirements. Eg for subsaharans, being a protectorate of a western nation for x years and bordering y dev worth of trade companies should unlock it, as well as owning the current method of owning a western core. The process should have different costs depending on how you achieve it; eg for thensubsaharans again, there should be far less upheaval and MP spent if you have been a protectorate for say 25 years.

Possibly certain triggered modifiers could apply as well depending on how you did it.

 

[Axe99]

So ROTW will just be stuck hopelessly behind Europe forever? Great idea. I'm sure ROTW totally needed a huge nerf compared to those weak, underpowered Europeans, with their PU mechanics and their lack of tech penalty and their Curia mechanics and all those nice events...

Sorry, as @TheDarkMaster said, I mean remove the idea of different tech groups altogether, rather than give ROTW a permanent nerf. Sorry for not being clear. Removing westernisation without the tech groups would be almost as historically implausible and terrible for gameplay, deffo not suggesting that!

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Sorry, as @TheDarkMaster said, I mean remove the idea of different tech groups altogether, rather than give ROTW a permanent nerf. Sorry for not being clear. Removing westernisation without the tech groups would be almost as historically implausible and terrible for gameplay, deffo not suggesting that!

My bad. That would certainly make the game more interesting, I'll give you that.

 

[Leninade]

It's a time period during which ROTW was hopelessly outmatched by Europe. Asia can't be underpowered if it's represented accurately.

 

[BoomKidneyShot]

It's a time period during which ROTW was hopelessly outmatched by Europe. Asia can't be underpowered if it's represented accurately.

You should read up on your history. Europe was not special in any way, really. Coming up on top by 1821 (ish) was not guaranteed at all. Hopelessly outmatched? Hardly. Just a lot of luck (and disease outbreaks shaking societal stability and population size, of course, at least in the New World) made that happen.

 

[Leninade]

Let's count the colonies. Better yet, here's an example:

300 Frenchmen vs 10,000 Indians

 

[TheMeInTeam]

On the topic of how widespread it was, that was raised in the OP, so I'm not sure that's besides the point. @TheMeInTeam, @josh127 and I were debating how widespread historically implausible westernisation is. He'd been claiming the AI didn't westernise a whole lot, so I looked into it. Run four tests so far, and we get India mostly westernising I think three times out of four, China two out of four, at least one of the major sub-saharan African states and usually both four times out of four, and around a third to half of the north american natives each time.

Pictures and dates for context please.

1620 African westernization is not 1550 African westernization. 1st westernization in India in 1650 or later is not "all of India is westernized by 1700". The pictures you showed earlier are consistent with the long delay before start, then westernization/catchup sufficient for the next one to go.

Also, because I like their color I picked Dahomey for a game today. With an opportunistic war to conquer through Mali, putting a claim on Portugal in Sierra Leone 6 months after it was physically possible to do it (had to annex Kaabu), and stalling conquest war score to take the province at first opportunity, I was able to complete westernization in November 1509 after starting in late 1400's (those stall wars take a little time).

That is so far removed from AI play that it's silly. I do have more stuff to show (partially because I encountered two bugs on this run so took pictures), but not this late.

 

[gall]

Let's count the colonies. Better yet, here's an example:

300 Frenchmen vs 10,000 Indians

Adyar is good proof for nerfing Indian morale not tech speed (they didn't inflict much damage, they attack from the rear, break enemy line). Good chunk of French forces were "westernised" locals (trained and supplied by France).
Not to mention English-Indians were led by unexpired Heir (to get some exp.). What is more English tactic - "provide few things to locals and use them in conflict" was superior to French "train and supply locals" on larger scale (from India to North America). Best was to use your professional troops (if you can afford that) not half merchant, half military leader with bunch of half peasant half warriors (America, China).
Currently allying locals is not viable (perhaps going over relation limit for 5 years to crush some local power could be considered a viable tactic by someone, as it requeire only dip point and few merc regiments to lead allied armies).

 

[Axe99]

Pictures and dates for context please.

1620 African westernization is not 1550 African westernization. 1st westernization in India in 1650 or later is not "all of India is westernized by 1700". The pictures you showed earlier are consistent with the long delay before start, then westernization/catchup sufficient for the next one to go.

Also, because I like their color I picked Dahomey for a game today. With an opportunistic war to conquer through Mali, putting a claim on Portugal in Sierra Leone 6 months after it was physically possible to do it (had to annex Kaabu), and stalling conquest war score to take the province at first opportunity, I was able to complete westernization in November 1509 after starting in late 1400's (those stall wars take a little time).

That is so far removed from AI play that it's silly. I do have more stuff to show (partially because I encountered two bugs on this run so took pictures), but not this late.

I agree, 1620 isn't 1550, but I did get 1544 for Benin and 1549 for Songhai in the second test - Africa were just slow starters for westernisation in that game. That said, rather than fill this thread up with screenshots, meander on over to https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ation-too-fast-too-slow-or-just-right.883140/ for all your evidence-ey goodness . I've just got test 1 up at the moment. Test 2 is nowhere near as detailed, and test 3 and 4 were just 'the world as it was in 1815'. I don't have the screengrabs for the ends of tests 2, 3 and 4, so will post them up one at a time. How about we carry on this discussion over there instead of filling this thread with maps?

As an aside - on the Dahomey thing, it popped into my head last night, it may have been that I saw them 'start westernising' in 1504 (and apologies if it was). 1504 is strongly in my head, and linked to westernisation, but there's a chance that it was the start, not the end. Still felt pretty early for them to be starting though. Nice work on your 1509 westernisation btw .

 

[PhroX]

It's a time period during which ROTW was hopelessly outmatched by Europe. Asia can't be underpowered if it's represented accurately.

It's a time period over which the ROTW came to be outmatched by Europe. In 1444 that was not by any means a certainty.

 

[WeissRaben]

It's a time period during which ROTW was hopelessly outmatched by Europe. Asia can't be underpowered if it's represented accurately.

Victoria II is the next door on the left.