Potentially off of an instant-westernised Russia that's spread far enough east to border Ming spreading west?
- 2
Rant on unreal westernization...
- Thread starter randy47
- 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.
Potentially off of an instant-westernised Russia that's spread far enough east to border Ming spreading west?
It's weird, though. I thought westernizing made Ming lose Mandate of Heaven?
Bingo, through as usual it was balkanized Ming :3
Russia on the other hand doing pretty well, no thanks to me helping to spank the ottomans a bit.
Uh, westernization doesn't change your culture fundamentally, it's still a bunch of Chinese cultures.
What it does is change your administration and the system of thinking higher up in the ranks.
You only need the higher ranks to be able to have vision to lead a people to glory.
I also think someone wants Europe to have it even easier without realizing that in 1444 Muslim tech should still be better than Europe and Ming China had massive gunpowder-armed armies (Qing were terrified of guns as the Han Chinese knew how to use them while Manchus didn't, thus Qing got roflstomped in 1800s) that could have marched all the way to Spain if they had really wanted to put in the effort of such a vast empire.
Turn AI on Easy, Lucky Nations to None, and bonuses to Player, and even Granada can vassalize Papal State by 1550 (and go for westernization around that time too). How much easier do you want it for Europe?
Or, you can do this:
Edit the files for whatever nation you play to have as national traditions -1000% tech cost, -200% coring cost, +1200 army tradition per year, +13000 settlers per year, +100 colonists, +50 merchants, +1000 colonial range, +6 leader shock/fire/siege/maneuver.
Done, then maybe ROTW will bend over for you easier.
What it does is change your administration and the system of thinking higher up in the ranks.
You only need the higher ranks to be able to have vision to lead a people to glory.
I also think someone wants Europe to have it even easier without realizing that in 1444 Muslim tech should still be better than Europe and Ming China had massive gunpowder-armed armies (Qing were terrified of guns as the Han Chinese knew how to use them while Manchus didn't, thus Qing got roflstomped in 1800s) that could have marched all the way to Spain if they had really wanted to put in the effort of such a vast empire.
Turn AI on Easy, Lucky Nations to None, and bonuses to Player, and even Granada can vassalize Papal State by 1550 (and go for westernization around that time too). How much easier do you want it for Europe?
Or, you can do this:
Edit the files for whatever nation you play to have as national traditions -1000% tech cost, -200% coring cost, +1200 army tradition per year, +13000 settlers per year, +100 colonists, +50 merchants, +1000 colonial range, +6 leader shock/fire/siege/maneuver.
Done, then maybe ROTW will bend over for you easier.
- 3
Westernization just makes you tech faster. That's generally not an administrative function.
That seems an unlikely explanation. By the time of the First Opium War the Qing had had about 200 years to learn about guns from their Han subjects. They weren't completely stupid.
Has anyone wondered why Europa Universalis the board game was called Europa Universalis? It sure wasn't because it would spawn four iterations of a videogame adaptation.
Monarch points are the main problem. Imaginary currency from out of nowhere with no real base.
I cant imagine why the leader abilities of a ruler drive the technological development.
The invention of book printing came from gutenberg, not from the ruler, the support came from private merchants, not from government. (Only one example)
Maybe your right. But there is still the problem you cant represent the dangers of traveling with ships over the ocean. Or the limited numbers of ships to transport men, food and equipment.
The ships had the length of 30-35 meter. Set a maximum to 150 soldiers to one ship (accept the fact you have also transport horses, cannons, ammunition, etc.).
Then you need more then 330 ships for one trip. Not to mention the permanent need for transpot ships to support your troops in the new world.
THAT.... is ahistoric. It would be simply overwhelm the capacities of a portugal or spain.
- 2
So I'm reasonably good at going to the academies and picking out the best administrators/diplomats/military researchers/theorists. I'm a 4/4/4
My father wasn't as good at it. He was a 3/3/3.
...Does that sound about right?
I'm not sure what the difference between allowing and mandating in this case would be. I obviously understand that Paradox has a commercial interest in making ROTW fun if lots of people like that sort of thing. I don't think that is inconsistent with a game that follows the broad patterns of 15th-18th century world history, as it now does. It just means that silly mechanics like Westernization shouldn't be there just to give ROTW countries a leg-up.
Yes I'd very much be okay with limiting European expansion inside Europe - I'm all for that for exactly the reasons you outlined.
Okay, I guess?
ROTW countries don't have a "leg up". They have a 10000-15000 monarch point hole if they westernize by 1600, factoring in tech costs + westernization cost itself, and most of them have ideas and territory inferior to what you can get in Europe (though to be fair, stuff like generic German ideas blows chunks too).
If OP is struggling to conquer India with a western tech colonial superpower, the conclusion is not "India is too strong". The conclusion is that OP is making mistakes. My evidence for saying so is that large number of players can trivially bash India with minors from Europe or even elsewhere in the world. It's harder to conquer Bahmanis or Vijaynagar with Naguar or Tibet than it is to do it with England, but if you know what you're doing in this game, both are comparatively easy against some of the harder achievements.
Too often, players are using westernization complaints as a scapegoat for their misplays. Struggling against nations that lose points similar to what you need to gain territory of more than double France's starting size just on tech group, the rational approach is to evaluate one's own play, not claim that the nation with a 2-France disadvantage has access to an option that makes it too strong.
- 6
Maybe he meant leg up compared to actual history, which is true but even then so is every game mechanic that allows player to deviate from history for the better.
Nations westernizing off Russia which can westernize off magic city route is kinda wonky as heck though, in every sense.
Problem is that current tech design is mix of two idea...
1) western advantage is pre-ordained in this era from combination of stuff that cannot be modeled into the game so let's give western powers flat out bonus
and
2) EU4 is all about doing what you want in this 380 years time period (which is freaking long and lot of historical upsets can/should happen in game terms) so let's give everyone (from France to Ryuku) tools to combat history
To those who are arguing for 1) in all fronts of the game, well we just want different game so that's that.
But for those who are going on about complaining how AE is too high, coring cost is too high, blobbing is too hard etc. only to chime in about how non western powers can be too strong, well stop with the pretense.
Nations westernizing off Russia which can westernize off magic city route is kinda wonky as heck though, in every sense.
Problem is that current tech design is mix of two idea...
1) western advantage is pre-ordained in this era from combination of stuff that cannot be modeled into the game so let's give western powers flat out bonus
and
2) EU4 is all about doing what you want in this 380 years time period (which is freaking long and lot of historical upsets can/should happen in game terms) so let's give everyone (from France to Ryuku) tools to combat history
To those who are arguing for 1) in all fronts of the game, well we just want different game so that's that.
But for those who are going on about complaining how AE is too high, coring cost is too high, blobbing is too hard etc. only to chime in about how non western powers can be too strong, well stop with the pretense.
This thread has sparked a desire in me to mod the tech group maluses, decreasing them substantially for most groups.
Since every tech group has (& keeps) its own unit types, and idea groups are already set (preventing, for example, West African nations from colonizing South America outside the hands of the player or an intentionally randomized game), I'm not sure these tech penalties are even important.
These are the current penalties:
Western (+ High American): 0%
Eastern: 20%
Anatolian: 25%
Muslim: 40%
Indian: 50%
Chinese: 60%
Sub-Saharan: 60%
Nomad: 75%
Mesoamerican / Andean: 150%
North / South American: 250%
Those bottom two are also Primitives, which means no boats, reduced gold income, and trivial annexation.
I'm thinking something more like this:
Western (+ High American): 0%
Eastern: 5%
Anatolian: 10%
Muslim: 15%
Indian: 25%
Chinese: 25%
Sub-Saharan: 30%
Nomad: 50%
Mesoamerican / Andean: 100%
North / South American: 200%
Western Arms Trade drops to -5% (from -10%). Protectorate drops to -10% (from -20%). Notably, a Muslim nation with Western Arms Trade and minimum piety would now receive no tech penalty whatsoever.
With these changes, American states will still be trivially conquered by colonizers, but piercing deep into Africa would be substantially more challenging as the nations there would be much better able to offer resistance. I keep the 5% difference between Eastern and Anatolian so that the Ottomans don't get completely out of hand. I wanted to give Nomads even more of a break, especially for the Manchu, but I'm concerned about Muscovy. The PLC is technically buffed, but it Westernized trivially anyway so I'm not too worried about that. Morocco should be able to fend off the Iberians much better in the mid-game. The Ottomans do lose much of their tech advantage over the Mamlukes, which might create more divergent mid-games in that region. Persia will be much more important. Fewer nations in general will Westernize because fewer will be more than 7 techs behind, especially early.
I want to run a few observer games under this paradigm and see what happens.
Since every tech group has (& keeps) its own unit types, and idea groups are already set (preventing, for example, West African nations from colonizing South America outside the hands of the player or an intentionally randomized game), I'm not sure these tech penalties are even important.
These are the current penalties:
Western (+ High American): 0%
Eastern: 20%
Anatolian: 25%
Muslim: 40%
Indian: 50%
Chinese: 60%
Sub-Saharan: 60%
Nomad: 75%
Mesoamerican / Andean: 150%
North / South American: 250%
Those bottom two are also Primitives, which means no boats, reduced gold income, and trivial annexation.
I'm thinking something more like this:
Western (+ High American): 0%
Eastern: 5%
Anatolian: 10%
Muslim: 15%
Indian: 25%
Chinese: 25%
Sub-Saharan: 30%
Nomad: 50%
Mesoamerican / Andean: 100%
North / South American: 200%
Western Arms Trade drops to -5% (from -10%). Protectorate drops to -10% (from -20%). Notably, a Muslim nation with Western Arms Trade and minimum piety would now receive no tech penalty whatsoever.
With these changes, American states will still be trivially conquered by colonizers, but piercing deep into Africa would be substantially more challenging as the nations there would be much better able to offer resistance. I keep the 5% difference between Eastern and Anatolian so that the Ottomans don't get completely out of hand. I wanted to give Nomads even more of a break, especially for the Manchu, but I'm concerned about Muscovy. The PLC is technically buffed, but it Westernized trivially anyway so I'm not too worried about that. Morocco should be able to fend off the Iberians much better in the mid-game. The Ottomans do lose much of their tech advantage over the Mamlukes, which might create more divergent mid-games in that region. Persia will be much more important. Fewer nations in general will Westernize because fewer will be more than 7 techs behind, especially early.
I want to run a few observer games under this paradigm and see what happens.
- 1
It's hard to claim the "leg up wrt actual history" is true, because history didn't exist in the scope of other game mechanics and it's hard to disambiguate historical success due to exceptional advantages vs exceptional choices/individuals/situations.
I'm not sure the tech group balancing is too off-kilter, other than maybe hordes (since everyone around them got carpet-buffed other than Muslim tech). Even the AI can kind-of keep up in military now as Indian/Chinese tech. I'm consistently seeing Bahmanis/Ming/Delhi types at western or western -1 or -2 in MIL, even in the tech 19 range.
- 1
In the early 1600s I'm seeing Muslim nations 3-4 mil techs behind Western nations, and that's just with the 40% malus (13-14 vs 17). African nations tend to fall way behind, which means Europeans completely run over their troops.
Ming does get a tech bonus so long as it's holding things together (which I guess it's doing more often now in 1.13?). But if it collapses into smaller states, or Qing comes along, it's going to fall way behind. Are the Indian nations getting some other bonuses to tech? At a +50% cost penalty it's hard to see how they're only 1 or 2 techs behind well into the mid-game.
Ming does get a tech bonus so long as it's holding things together (which I guess it's doing more often now in 1.13?). But if it collapses into smaller states, or Qing comes along, it's going to fall way behind. Are the Indian nations getting some other bonuses to tech? At a +50% cost penalty it's hard to see how they're only 1 or 2 techs behind well into the mid-game.
The larger nations are the ones holding up in tech from what I can see. This is for beta, where they all start 3/3/3, just to be clear. In my Mongolia game I hit tech 17 and next tech was ahead of years. I look down and notice Bahmanis is friendly so I check and they're also miltech 17, still Indian tech. Eventually they westernized and fell behind for a bit but are back in business now, they'll be a pain later if I want to turn on them due to the Shia morale.
Tech advantage seems less meaningful now than it used to be too. I fought Persia as a 75% piety Sunni Mongolia when I was tech 20 (not nomad tech either!) and they were tech 16...they attacked me with similar numbers and I lost the battle due to morale (I had higher prestige, but Persia has some NI help + Shia). A 4 tech lead used to be utterly massive, but in that case it was similar comp/size and I lost. Bahmanis was pretty useful in that war (I was fighting Bukhara as primary target + allies), after I realized Persia morale was ridiculous I ran my 2 stacks into their mountains and camped them out to peace them first, then won the war handily anyway.
It might be an advisors thing. In that game Bahmanis out-teched lucky Muscovy because the latter had problems with wars. At 50-60% tech malus you need 6 MIL/month to take a tech every 13 years. If you have 7 MIL/month you make around 1092 points/13 years, and with raising auto the AI doesn't harsh treat much now unless it's getting spanked. That means, on average, all tech groups above nomad will keep up if they can hold a +1 advisor. But nations like Bahmanis with MIL 5 starting ruler also get that initial leg up, with +1 advisor they're getting 9 MIL/month without focus.
I've seen Muslim tech Tunis and Mamluks stay current in miltech indefinitely, though in the latter case it was because I smacked Otto with BYZ. It was ridiculous though; the combined Mamluk + Tunis + minor ally stuff made it quite literally easier to hit PLC, despite that the latter was allied with France (or France was DotF), because France had to ship units by sea whereas Mamluks/Tunis could just march to me.
If the AI gets into trouble it doesn't use advisors the same way and starts harsh treating so it falls behind. Morocco in particular has a crummy starting ruler (putting it in the hole compared to good rulers like Bahmanis has, by a ton) and gets a triple-Iberian pounding in its eye often with the asinine Portugal/Castile/Aragon/Naples tag team which the AI can't deal with.
Tech advantage seems less meaningful now than it used to be too. I fought Persia as a 75% piety Sunni Mongolia when I was tech 20 (not nomad tech either!) and they were tech 16...they attacked me with similar numbers and I lost the battle due to morale (I had higher prestige, but Persia has some NI help + Shia). A 4 tech lead used to be utterly massive, but in that case it was similar comp/size and I lost. Bahmanis was pretty useful in that war (I was fighting Bukhara as primary target + allies), after I realized Persia morale was ridiculous I ran my 2 stacks into their mountains and camped them out to peace them first, then won the war handily anyway.
It might be an advisors thing. In that game Bahmanis out-teched lucky Muscovy because the latter had problems with wars. At 50-60% tech malus you need 6 MIL/month to take a tech every 13 years. If you have 7 MIL/month you make around 1092 points/13 years, and with raising auto the AI doesn't harsh treat much now unless it's getting spanked. That means, on average, all tech groups above nomad will keep up if they can hold a +1 advisor. But nations like Bahmanis with MIL 5 starting ruler also get that initial leg up, with +1 advisor they're getting 9 MIL/month without focus.
I've seen Muslim tech Tunis and Mamluks stay current in miltech indefinitely, though in the latter case it was because I smacked Otto with BYZ. It was ridiculous though; the combined Mamluk + Tunis + minor ally stuff made it quite literally easier to hit PLC, despite that the latter was allied with France (or France was DotF), because France had to ship units by sea whereas Mamluks/Tunis could just march to me.
If the AI gets into trouble it doesn't use advisors the same way and starts harsh treating so it falls behind. Morocco in particular has a crummy starting ruler (putting it in the hole compared to good rulers like Bahmanis has, by a ton) and gets a triple-Iberian pounding in its eye often with the asinine Portugal/Castile/Aragon/Naples tag team which the AI can't deal with.
- 1
With decent rulers + advisors, it isn't hard to keep up in military because of ahead of time penalty.
Therefore, tech should be entirely out of the player's control, as historically the monarch had little to do with its advancement barring exceptional situations (usually military drill).
Just reporting what I'm seeing in my current game (custom tall Western nation based in the Nile delta; chopped up the rest of Mamlukes into 3 other custom states, 2 of which are now my vassals with one of them Westernized off me). I'm generally falling slightly behind on tech (I wait until -5% or -10% behind bonuses so I can pump more into development, and this is with a level 1 -tech cost NI). But I'm still way ahead of my neighbors. Oman, Ethiopia, Tunis, and Persia are all thriving states, but they're 3-4 military tech levels behind me. This is allowing me to obliterate their armies with inferior numbers and comparable generals (I do have Defensive completed, but no NIs that boost my troops). This is in the current beta with CS, no lucky nations.
Bad rulers probably had a lot to do with it, but it just takes one for a few decades to fall way behind in RotW while Western nations can get around it fairly well. It also means that RotW nations aren't going to be able to develop near as much as the Europeans unless they accept low tech as a consequence.
This thread's arguments suggest that large portions of the world shouldn't be behind in tech at all until the mid-late 1700s (Americas excluded). Africa's heart might have been behind, but without disease and logistics keeping Europeans out, they need to keep up in military power instead to prevent trivially becoming early protectorates & conquests. Since Western units already get a late-game pip advantage, piling a huge tech advantage on top of that seems fairly unnecessary to me in most cases.
Bad rulers probably had a lot to do with it, but it just takes one for a few decades to fall way behind in RotW while Western nations can get around it fairly well. It also means that RotW nations aren't going to be able to develop near as much as the Europeans unless they accept low tech as a consequence.
This thread's arguments suggest that large portions of the world shouldn't be behind in tech at all until the mid-late 1700s (Americas excluded). Africa's heart might have been behind, but without disease and logistics keeping Europeans out, they need to keep up in military power instead to prevent trivially becoming early protectorates & conquests. Since Western units already get a late-game pip advantage, piling a huge tech advantage on top of that seems fairly unnecessary to me in most cases.
I might be seeing different results from you because after trying the DLC in MP with friends who bought it, I concluded the upsides weren't worth the nerf to Buddhism and that development isn't engaging enough for me to bother with it.
If your AI are spending points on development while mine can't do so, a tech differential would not be surprising.
If your AI are spending points on development while mine can't do so, a tech differential would not be surprising.
- 1
- 1
