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.
Since you appear unfamiliar with the Great Northern War you might be interested that Russia's military performance improved drastically with the Peterine reforms. He got rid of the Strelksy (he hated them since childhood) and adopted a more western approach to military org. The Battle of Poltava was a kind of vindication for Peter and probably wouldn't have been possible without his reforms. And further, logistics, supplies, recruitment, all of these things you mention are related to Military Tech.
So since you've conceded the main argument, building a strawman isn't really productive. Superior MIL Tech shouldn't win all wars for you. In 1633 a fleet of Ming defeated a Dutch fleet at Liaoluo Bay. On that day the Chinese fleet had better leadership, and probably RNGesus was on their side. There are a lot of reasons why 150 ships can manage to defeat 9 ships, despite the fact that those Dutch ships were obviously more advanced than their opponents.
Likewise, the British conquest of India wasn't a straight path. There were setbacks like the First Anglo-Maratha War and the Seige of Bhurtpore. Places where the British overreached and made poor decisions. The Maratha weren't stupid, despite having a difference level of technological and administrative development, they had their own Liaoluo Bays. But once the British had defeated Napoleon and secured peace in Europe, they could focus their full attention on Maratha and India did not remain independant long.
Last edited:
- 1
This feels like it is way off topic guys, historical justification for westernization has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER in changing how the game mechanics work. So I don't really feel how we accomplish anything by continuing to discuss it.
- 1
for those that failed to understand my previous post, I mean knock it off. Any further flaming will result in VERY harsh infractions
- 2
Well Sir, no other outcome is more immersion breaking. Also wiz did listened to the criticism
of the new Development system that development ends up unrealistic and makes a change in the next patch so there might be hope he listens to this.
Lucky nations are there as a choice If you want to see HISTORICAL outcomes.
Really what's wrong with letting players customize their games more?
- 2
There's a few simple rules that could be implemented to prevent exploitation. For one, Westernization could grant a SEPARATE tech group ("Westernized") that, due to the way the rules are set up, would prevent states from Westernizing off of them. The big problem, right now, is that a North African state will Westernize, the Sahel will Westernize off of them, and then the coast off of them.
With that being the case, areas on the borders of Western civilization can become Westernized, but it won't spread like wildfire for no reason.
With that being the case, areas on the borders of Western civilization can become Westernized, but it won't spread like wildfire for no reason.
Not everyone gets their immersion replacing one arcade mechanic for another. All you are saying is "this mechanic bothers me more than other mechanics, that is literally the entire basis of the argument you just wrote.
That, despite that a large number of other unrealistic mechanics occur with even more consistency than westernization and impact every game. A large number of mostly still-behind-in-ideas nations having a different hat symbol in 1800 is not something you can rationally construe as uniquely immersion breaking.
- 4
I see many more differences with history and the game. Though off course gameplay is more important.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.
Read up on Benoit de Boigne.
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).
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.
In 1526 when Babur defeated Delhi Sultanate, his forces were far superior than Sultanate. In game Timurids are technologically weaker than sultanate.
In current setting Mughal empire seldom forms. Sultanate remains strong till end of game. It should become vassal states to Mughals except in Bengal.
After 1706, Mughals disintegrate and Marathas rise. In the game Marathas never rebel to take over. British/French seldom come to conquest India.
In context when British had come:
Mughals almost didn't exist. Their vassals were more powerful than them and never came to support in fight. Fall of Bengal is classic on similar lines.
Marathas & Rajputs had severe rivalry among them and they never united against British.
British used strong diplomacy to support one against the other and later betray them to acquire over them. A lot of kingdoms were acquired basis they had no legal heir.
Off Course generals were bought by the British (Divide & Rule). Military technology was not much inferior.
British forces were few, majority of forces were locals and were supplied by local (ambitious) pro-british generals.
French decline in war gave British stronger stronghold over India
India didn't exist as one country.
- 1
The fact that the Mughals never really form just shows how bad Paradox is at modelling historical conditions.
- 2
Why are you guys still talking about historical stuff here?! It's not important!
Tech groups are as much fantasy concept as westernization. In real life countries did not have tech groups or tech levels for that matter. Yes I can see why you wan't an harder westernization but I have to disagree because I think we all know how much more powerful western tech group is and countries who are gifted it for free should not become even more relative stronger then the rest of the world.
What really needs a nerf is the western tech group and after the nerf we could maybe start changing how westernization should work.
Maybe an expasion could be made to reform the westernization/tech group system.
What really needs a nerf is the western tech group and after the nerf we could maybe start changing how westernization should work.
Maybe an expasion could be made to reform the westernization/tech group system.
Last edited:
- 1
![EVEi0Dj.jpg[IMG]](http://i.imgur.com/EVEi0Dj.jpg[IMG])
In 1700, the situation was quite different, though. Mind you, even with the current system, the Euro AI rarely conquers India, anyway.
- 1
Oh please, not another necro again. Do people seriously don't look at the dates of the last post?
Go back a few decades and the situation was entirely different.
And that is when Mughal India of 1576-1723 is left out with their huge empire. Both Marathas after 1761, and Mughals in their rebuilt army of 1780s, heavily focused on modernizing their army by hiring Europeans and to a very good extent they succeeded. And this was then followed by others, like Tipu of Mysore.
Even Wellington remarked how Maratha soldiers were as effective and skilled at modern warfare, if not more, than European soldiers, and that when they lost that was almost always because of incompetent, pampered palace-dwelling asshole generals appointed by the Peshwa to lead the Maratha army.
Go back a few decades and the situation was entirely different.
And that is when Mughal India of 1576-1723 is left out with their huge empire. Both Marathas after 1761, and Mughals in their rebuilt army of 1780s, heavily focused on modernizing their army by hiring Europeans and to a very good extent they succeeded. And this was then followed by others, like Tipu of Mysore.
Even Wellington remarked how Maratha soldiers were as effective and skilled at modern warfare, if not more, than European soldiers, and that when they lost that was almost always because of incompetent, pampered palace-dwelling asshole generals appointed by the Peshwa to lead the Maratha army.
Last edited:
- 4
- 3
'Westernisation' is very abstract in game anyway. Had the Commonwealth or the Turk conquered their way to Paris, everyone would have been 'Easternising'.
- 3
I have yet to see a European nation take one single province from an enemy in Asia. If I don't, East Africa is completely untouched, India is even more untouched into some single huge unified blob by the time Europeans get there. Colonial gameplay is ruined honestly. It doesn't help that trade companies seem to have force limit bugs too. I sincerely hope you rehaul western colonization of Asia next expansion together with a complete rehaul of the naval system in EU4.
- 2
As far the case of India goes, they have given very heavy perks to Sultanate states making they too stable to break and they keep growing strong. Historically Sultanates kept on breaking and growing weaker with time due to their own inherent problems. (serious and frequent succession wars and low religious tolerance to Hindu Society). This mechanism is completely lacking and the game moves in other direction.
The Maratha also split into rival kingdoms. The game has no succession mechanics, so it is pointless to try to emulate it. Instead we just get nationalist revolts, which make no real sense.
- 1
I won't entirely agree as the Portugal does get Goa (usually) and the British/Spain Kotte. But most part of India is almost always unified under Bahamans and only Bahamanis always. Historically Bahamanis had disintegrated into 5 kingdoms as early as 1520s.
- 1