Paradox, please real Westernization

[Afinati]

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.

Isn't there one out there calling for a "Westernized" tech group that's different than "Western?" Or was that just some comments I saw/posted?

 

[frolix42]

Victoria II is the next door on the left.

 

[WeissRaben]

 

[frolix42]

I'm not completely sure how this relates to westernization. Napolean's Empire was militarily defeated and dismantled in 1814. The British Raj lasted until 1948.

In fact during the Napoleonic Wars, the Maratha Empire, an Indian State on the rise, had some success against the British in large part became they were careful to only fight the British while the British were fighting the French and Americans at the same time. Immediately after the Napoleonic Wars were over the British very quickly moved to crush Maratha, which gave them virtually hegemonic control over the subcontinent by 1818. FYI that was during EU4's time, not Vic2 time.

I'm going to stress, as diplomatically as I can, Western nations being temporarily technologically ahead has nothing to do with Western people being better in any meaningful way. This is 19th century thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assaye

Case in point, most of the victories by the almost always outnumbered British troops were achieved with majority sepoy armies.

 

[WeissRaben]

I'm not completely sure how this relates to westernization. Napolean's Empire was militarily defeated and dismantled in 1814. The British Raj lasted until 1948.

In fact during the Napoleonic Wars, the Maratha Empire, an Indian State on the rise, had some success against the British in large part became they were careful to only fight the British while the British were fighting the French and Americans at the same time. Immediately after the Napoleonic Wars were over the British very quickly moved to crush Maratha, which gave them virtually hegemonic control over the subcontinent by 1818. FYI that was during EU4's time, not Vic2 time.

I'm going to stress, as diplomatically as I can, Western nations being technologically ahead has nothing to do with Western people being better in any meaningful way. This is 19th century thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assaye

Case in point, most of the victories by the almost always outnumbered British troops were achieved with majority sepoy armies.

The Marathas were in civil war at the end of the century - the British didn't take on a monolithic empire, they picked up the pieces of the collapsing nation. And they were exceptionally able in doing so: I'll never say conquering India wasn't a great feat. But it wasn't a feat of technological superiority: the very battle you linked to was five minutes from going very badly for Wellington because of the massed and effective fire of the Maratha cannons, to the point that the only way he found to win was to hard-nose the artillery fire, march right through it, and take the cannons via point-blank musket shots and bayonet charge. In fact, the Marathas could have well annihilated the British there, if they had been determined enough, but they had lost most of their artillery in that frontal charge, and so they retreated.

 

[zsImmortal]

I'm not completely sure how this relates to westernization. Napolean's Empire was militarily defeated and dismantled in 1814. The British Raj lasted until 1948.

In fact during the Napoleonic Wars, the Maratha Empire, an Indian State on the rise, had some success against the British in large part became they were careful to only fight the British while the British were fighting the French and Americans at the same time. Immediately after the Napoleonic Wars were over the British very quickly moved to crush Maratha, which gave them virtually hegemonic control over the subcontinent by 1818. FYI that was during EU4's time, not Vic2 time.

That's actually not true at all. The British were defeated by the Maratha whilst they were completely free (had wrapped up their war with Mysore before). The hostilities would resume during the American civil war, but it is of doubtful consequence since the vast majority of the Company's army was locally recruited.

As a sidenote, to think the success of the British conquest was based in technological superiority is quite absurd. The collapse of the Mughal authority in the early 18th century (from civil war, along with foreign invasion) led to the sundering of the realm. The first part that was conquered by the British, Bengal, was one such separated realm. The British basically won by not even fighting the Bengal army (which was overwhelming in numbers), but by buying the loyalty of the Bengal generals. The Maratha, by the time the British made their big push in the 19th century, had completely splintered and were in the midst of a civil war.

Read what you will into it, but saying the British conquered India because of sheer technological superiority is akin to saying the Romans were overwhelmed by the technological superiority of the Germanic tribes. It completely ignores context.

 

[frolix42]

That's actually not true at all. The British were defeated by the Maratha whilst they were completely free (had wrapped up their war with Mysore before). The hostilities would resume during the American civil war, but it is of doubtful consequence since the vast majority of the Company's army was locally recruited.

This is not accurate. The First Anglo Maratha War took place from 1775-82. The Company's army may have been locally recruited, but British Leadership, supplies and logistics at that time were concentrated on the North American conflict, which also began in 1775.

As a sidenote, to think the success of the British conquest was based in technological superiority is quite absurd. The collapse of the Mughal authority in the early 18th century (from civil war, along with foreign invasion) led to the sundering of the realm. The first part that was conquered by the British, Bengal, was one such separated realm. The British basically won by not even fighting the Bengal army (which was overwhelming in numbers), but by buying the loyalty of the Bengal generals. The Maratha, by the time the British made their big push in the 19th century, had completely splintered and were in the midst of a civil war.

This is also not accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

During the Second Anglo-Maratha War the British supported a pretender who had no chance without them. As I mentioned, the Battle of Assaye the British + Allies were severely outnumbered.

Read what you will into it, but saying the British conquered India because of sheer technological superiority is akin to saying the Romans were overwhelmed by the technological superiority of the Germanic tribes. It completely ignores context.

At what point did the British overwhelm India as the Roman Empire was overwhelmed over a century by multiple different migratory tribes?

 

[WeissRaben]

This is also not accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

During the Second Anglo-Maratha War the British supported a pretender who had no chance without them. As I mentioned, the Battle of Assaye the British + Allies were severely outnumbered

I like when people quote battles without reading them! No, wait, I don't.
Plassey was won via bribing the Bengali generals and making taking the defensible position too costly for the Indian (and French) forces - the number of actual losses was ridiculously low, especially considering the general dying and almost all the other officials defecting.

 

[zsImmortal]

This is not accurate. The First Anglo Maratha War took place from 1775-82. The Company's army may have been locally recruited, but British Leadership, supplies and logistics at that time were concentrated on the North American conflict, which also began in 1775.

No it is completely accurate. They had just wrapped up a war on the continent and were about 2 decades from taking over Bengal. They were well supplied and geared for war. They also knew full well what they were getting into.

This is also not accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

During the Second Anglo-Maratha War the British supported a pretender who had no chance without them. As I mentioned, the Battle of Assaye the British + Allies were severely outnumbered

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The only soldiers who fought the British were the personal troops of the Nawab. All his other generals and their troops watched because they had been paid off by the British. The link you posted actually mentions this, so I have no idea where you're going with this.

They also were outnumbered at Delhi, but they didn't win because of technological superiority. By all accounts, the army of Gwalior was just as well-equipped and trained, even led by French generals. The French won many times while being outnumbered in the Naopleonic wars (look up Auerstedt). Same for the Swedes during the Great Northern war. What does that prove?

At what point did the British overwhelm India as the Roman Empire was overwhelmed over a century by multiple different migratory tribes?

It wasn't meant to be taken literally. Just that the Romans were defeated and partially conquered due to many things, namely the internal collapse during the crisis of the third century. It wasn't because the Germanic tribes were significantly better fighters. To ignore the context leads to completely ridiculous claims. Like the one about Europe being so much more advanced militarily that they could just walk over Empires all over the world. It's simply not true.

 

[frolix42]

No it is completely accurate. They had just wrapped up a war on the continent and were about 2 decades from taking over Bengal. They were well supplied and geared for war. They also knew full well what they were getting into.

I don't think the British knew what they were getting into. The Maratha Empire temporarily checked British expansion, and they were helped by the fact that the main military focus of Britain was the American War of Independence.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The only soldiers who fought the British were the personal troops of the Nawab.

This has changed from your earlier claim.

The British basically won by not even fighting the Bengal army (which was overwhelming in numbers), but by buying the loyalty of the Bengal generals.

There was still a battle, the British faced much larger numbers in the field, and the Bengalis proved not able to put up significant resistance. I don't think it makes much sense that you're closing your eyes to the repeated failures of the Indian states and instead focus rabidly on the one time the Maratha checked the British while they were simultaneously fighting American Revolutionaries. It's more rational to interpret these repeated failures, such as at Plassey, as the British being better organized and more advanced institutionally, having better Diplomatic or Administrative Tech.

But please provide a counter example. There must be an example the Bengali or Maratha bribing British Generals leading to a British defeat. A battle where 60,000 British troops were decisively defeated by 4.500 Bengali troops.

They also were outnumbered at Delhi, but they didn't win because of technological superiority. By all accounts, the army of Gwalior was just as well-equipped and trained, even led by French generals. The French won many times while being outnumbered in the Naopleonic wars (look up Auerstedt). Same for the Swedes during the Great Northern war. What does that prove?

Again here 4,500 British soldiers and sepoys defeat 17,000 Maratha troops. If you could provide one example of 4,500 Maratha troops defeating 17,000 British troops I would believe that the Maratha were just as well-equipped, trained and led as the British. Until then, I don't believe it.

To ignore the context leads to completely ridiculous claims. Like the one about Europe being so much more advanced militarily that they could just walk over Empires all over the world. It's simply not true.

At some point, a long time ago, your position become untenable. The fact is that, for good or for ill, Europe did walk over Empires all over the world. It's simply true that they were more advanced militarily and administratively. Attributing European dominance during the colonial era to everything except technology and doctrine is what is ridiculous.

 

[zsImmortal]

I don't think the British knew what they were getting into. The Maratha Empire temporarily checked British expansion, and they were helped by the fact that the main military focus of Britain was the American War of Independence.

You don't think is irrelevant. They signed a treaty to support a faction and were thoroughly defeated. They later fought again and were defeated. Seems like they knew what they were doing, like when they tried to fight the Mughals and were forced to pay an indemnity along with their surrender.

This has changed from your earlier claim.

No it didn't.

There was still a battle, the British faced much larger numbers in the field, and the Bengalis proved not able to put up significant resistance. I don't think it makes much sense that you're closing your eyes to the repeated failures of the Indian states and instead focus rabidly on the one time the Maratha checked the British while they were simultaneously fighting American Revolutionaries. It's more rational to interpret these repeated failures, such as at Plassey, as the British being better organized and more advanced institutionally, having better Diplomatic or Administrative Tech.

Oh man, what a disgrace.

But please provide a counter example. There must be an example the Bengali or Maratha bribing British Generals leading to a British defeat. A battle where 60,000 British troops were decisively defeated by 4.500 Bengali troops.

There isn't. Bengal was surrounded by enemies and the Maratha, by the time they fought the British, was a group of rival kingdoms in civil war. Who do you think will be bribing people to work for them?

Again here 4,500 British soldiers and sepoys defeat 17,000 Maratha troops. If you could provide one example of 4,500 Maratha troops defeating 17,000 British troops I would believe that the Maratha were just as well-equipped, trained and led as the British. Until then, I don't believe it.

You don't believe it? Surely, not reading about the subject will give you a great, enlightened vision of the situation.

At some point, a long time ago, your position become untenable. The fact is that, for good or for ill, Europe did walk over Empires all over the world. It's simply true that they were more advanced militarily and administratively. Attributing European dominance during the colonial era to everything except technology and doctrine is what is ridiculous.

My position is fairly simple. The British were defeated by the Mughals, shared victories and losses against the Maratha and the same for the Afghans (after the EU4 period). The Ming defeated the Dutch and the Portuguese. There is not a single example, outside of the Maratha defeat, of a major Eastern power (aka an Empire) losing to the Europeans during the EU4 timeline. That means that the ONLY such defeat happened in the early 19th century. But even then, the Maratha empire at this point had collapsed into rivals and were in civil war, not a united entity. So factually, an Eastern empire was never defeated during the EU4 timeline by European powers. Were they necessarily as military, socially, infrastructurally, etc. advanced? Not necessarily, and they certainly were lagging behind during the Victorian era. If we're discussing tech penalties, Eastern empires being defeated (which, as per my opinion, never happened) could never justify penalties for tech advancement.

You're entitled to think what you want about the subject, but you seem to lack a lot of knowledge with regards to the history of India, so I feel your opinion is highly tainted by ignorance.

 

[frolix42]

Virtually everything you have said is totally inaccurate. All you're doing is stating your opinion, which is unsupported by citations or logic.

They also were outnumbered at Delhi, but they didn't win because of technological superiority. By all accounts, the army of Gwalior was just as well-equipped and trained, even led by French generals. The French won many times while being outnumbered in the Naopleonic wars (look up Auerstedt). Same for the Swedes during the Great Northern war. What does that prove?

Swedes often fought and won while outnumbered. So did the French. The French helped train and support the Maratha, therefore Maratha was just as advanced as the British.
This is a very silly use of the transitive property, which totally ignores empirical facts.

3,000 British sepoys beat 17,000 Maratha troops at Delhi in 1803. You say not because of superior MIL Tech, but you don't account at all for this Maratha failure.

I will say that when a smaller army defeats a larger army regularly, it usually indicates a superior level of training, technology or doctrine. This translates, in game, to a higher MIL Tech. I would consider that Sweden had a higher MIL Tech than Russia around 1700.

Not to mention you are factually wrong in many instances.

The British were defeated by the Mughals

When? In 1764, 40,000 Mughals were decisively defeated by 7,000 British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buxar
Please cite a conflict between the Mughal Empire and the British Empire where the Mughals were triumphant. And most relevantly, shows that the Mughals had a qualitative military parity with Europeans.

The British were defeated by the Maratha whilst they were completely free (had wrapped up their war with Mysore before).

False. The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775 - 1783) was fought concurrent with the American Revolutionary war. And the British placed higher priority on fighting the American Revolutionaries at the time.

The British basically won by not even fighting the Bengal army (which was overwhelming in numbers), but by buying the loyalty of the Bengal generals.

This is false. Your bias causes you to ignore the fact that 18,000 of the most elite Bengal troops (which were not bribed) attempted to engage 3,000 British troops and through superior doctrine, organization and administration, were routed.

The inverse, Mughals or Bengali buying the loyalty of British Generals, is absurd and highlights that the professionalism of the British Army was far above that of their contemporary Indian opponents.

you seem to lack a lot of knowledge with regards to the history of India, so I feel your opinion is highly tainted by ignorance.

Physican, heal thyself.

 

[moscal]

@frolix42 - Child's War 1686-1690. Mughals Win.

 

[frolix42]

@frolix42 - Child's War 1686-1690. Mughals Win.

That's true, but that was a relatively small conflict where at no point British forces numbered more than 1,000.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As an observation, this seems even more tangential than the previous argument over how widespread/fast westernization is, which at least stuck to direct EU IV gameplay considerations .

The reality of EU IV is that westernization exists as an iffy stopgap in an iffy tech model. Considering that it's not the most engaging mechanic in the world, if something that afforded ROTW reasonable competitiveness/better pacing were introduced the loss of westernization wouldn't be missed very much by most posters.

One thing you're *not* seeing a great deal is how *fun* it is to westernize as a player. At best, you get extra rebels and have to tamp down expansion to a degree during the process. What do you get in gameplay in return? Pulse events where unless it's really crippling, you pick whatever isn't "slower westernization" and maybe curse a little at the stabhit or -30 legitimacy one.

But unless the mechanics surrounding it are improved, it fills in a gap and so here it is :/.

 

[zsImmortal]

Swedes often fought and won while outnumbered. So did the French. The French helped train and support the Maratha, therefore Maratha was just as advanced as the British.
This is a very silly use of the transitive property, which totally ignores empirical facts.

Once again, you're arguing against something I never said. The argument was that winning battles outnumbered did not indicate being significantly more technologically advanced. Weather conditions, leadership, decisions, etc. all make up what happens in a battle. The tactically sound move of Pompeii flanking Caesar with his cavalry was countered by shifting infantry beforehand by the latter and Pompeii's cavalry routed despite being largely more numerous and led to the collapse of his army. Pompeii had many more troops than Caesar did and was winning the war of attrition beforehand. Surely the Pompeii legions weren't significantly lower military tech? Battles aren't numbers thrown together, that's just an absurd statement.

3,000 British sepoys beat 17,000 Maratha troops at Delhi in 1803. You say not because of superior MIL Tech, but you don't account at all for this Maratha failure.

I did. I even mentionned it long before you did. Gwalior was pretty much just like any European army, using typical line tactics and using the best cannons available. They had European generals. They lost because the British outmaneuvered them. Good on the British. Nothing to do with bad equipment, obsolete troops or whatever.

When? In 1764, 40,000 Mughals were decisively defeated by 7,000 British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buxar
Please cite a conflict between the Mughal Empire and the British Empire where the Mughals were triumphant. And most relevantly, shows that the Mughals had a qualitative military parity with Europeans.

The Mughals existed in name only at that period. Now, if you even read what happened in that battle, you'd clearly see it started with the combined Indian forces at each others' throats. But hey, military tech, amirite?

False. The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775 - 1783) was fought concurrent with the American Revolutionary war. And the British placed higher priority on fighting the American Revolutionaries at the time.

The first part was already done before the American revolution got anywhere near the climax. The British had already been defeated once. The Company eventually went back to fighting and lost again (this, in fact, was during the Revolutionary war). I'm not sure what you're trying to point out since by your argument, the fact that the Maratha were in civil war each time, or at war with other nations (Bengal was also in conflict with its neighbours), should indicate the British shouldn't have much merit. It's a silly argument.

This is false. Your bias causes you to ignore the fact that 18,000 of the most elite Bengal troops (which were not bribed) attempted to engage 3,000 British troops and through superior doctrine, organization and administration, were routed.

The inverse, Mughals or Bengali buying the loyalty of British Generals, is absurd and highlights that the professionalism of the British Army was far above that of their contemporary Indian opponents.

Removed- Had a dad There never was a major engagement. There was artillery fire traded, rain happened which put some if not all of the Bengal artillery out of commission. Thinking the same was true for the British (which had covered it in time), they charged, took some casualties because the British still had active cannons and pulled back. The generals that had been paid by the British (who had that point done nothing because they had been bribed) advised the Nawab to retreat. The Nawab, sensing treachery, rode off, his army disbanded without their ruler without any other battle. The Nawab was then murdered by his generals and then Mir Jafar (the main guy who was bribed by the British) mysteriously became the new Nawab.

 

[Had a dad]

ahem...

 

[frolix42]

The argument was that winning battles outnumbered did not indicate being significantly more technologically advanced.

Then you are unconvincing since this is literally the only way in which we can empirically tell how relatively advanced a nation's military was. In 1700 Russia (Eastern Tech) lags behind Sweden (Western Tech). Sweden regularly beats Russia with inferior numbers. Tsar Peter recognizes his country is behind in Tech, Westernizes in order to catch up in Tech. Wins the war.

I did. I even mentionned it long before you did. Gwalior was pretty much just like any European army, using typical line tactics and using the best cannons available. They had European generals. They lost because the British outmaneuvered them. Good on the British. Nothing to do with bad equipment, obsolete troops or whatever.

You mentioned it and it doesn't support your argument. You assert that it was "just like any European Army" and provide no evidence for this. I'm pointing out that it shattered like most Maratha Armies against a smaller British force.

The Mughals existed in name only at that period. Now, if you even read what happened in that battle, you'd clearly see it started with the combined Indian forces at each others' throats.

I suspect that they existed "in name only" because it's convienient for you to minimize yet another battle where 40,000 Indian Tech troops are routed by 7,000 British.

The Mughal camp was internally broken due to a quarrel between the Mughal EmperorShah Alam II and Shuja-ud-Daula the Nawab of Awadh; Mir Qasim was reluctant to engage the British and went off collecting tribute. The lack of basic co-ordination among the three desperate allies was responsible for their decisive debacle.

Why would anyone look at this and think that this isn't related to Military professionalism and organization? It seems obvious to me that the British had much higher Morale and Discipline.

But hey, military tech, amirite?

Finally you get something right.

 

[wulgman]

Since Westernization is spreading like spanish flu these days and we end up with worlds that could be drawn from the twilight zone I got a suggestion..

Paradox made it clear they are first and foremost wants to "discuss from a gameplay angle"
Meaning multiplayer perspective and reading this thread I believe players could be divided into two groups. First, those who primarily like a more flexible system where it does not matter what happened historically and then the other group who appreciate a more historical plausibility.

How about, before you start a new game. You get to choose (just as lucky nation) from the following.


Historical => If you want to see HISTORICAL outcomes!
Westernazation allowed => As of now.
Fantasy => for MP players.

Russia's westernization could be solved through events.

I would definately pay for such a solution to the problem.

 

[zsImmortal]

Then you are unconvincing since this is literally the only way in which we can empirically tell how relatively advanced a nation's military was. In 1700 Russia (Eastern Tech) lags behind Sweden (Western Tech). Sweden regularly beats Russia with inferior numbers. Tsar Peter recognizes his country is behind in Tech, Westernizes in order to catch up in Tech. Wins the war.

Had nothing to do with force marching his troops through winter, not having good supplies, no more troops to recruit from Sweden. Nope, all tech bonuses. This must be a joke.

You mentioned it and it doesn't support your argument. You assert that it was "just like any European Army" and provide no evidence for this. I'm pointing out that it shattered like most Maratha Armies against a smaller British force.

Read up on Benoit de Boigne.

I suspect that they existed "in name only" because it's convienient for you to minimize yet another battle where 40,000 Indian Tech troops are routed by 7,000 British.

The Mughal emperor pretty much existed in name only in that period. This is pretty much common knowledge to anyone who's read on early modern India that the Emperor had only nominal power during the Maratha period (and until the end of the Company).

Why would anyone look at this and think that this isn't related to Military professionalism and organization? It seems obvious to me that the British had much higher Morale and Discipline.

Or it's a bunch of ambitious people trying to further their agendas and not a professional and united organization (like the British military in this case), which will obviously not yield good results. Nothing to do with more advanced military technology.

Finally you get something right.