Rant on unreal westernization...

[Beagá]

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).

Sigh not this again... Seriously monarch points are abstraction of administrative capabilities at the top level of the country... stop trying to abstract it to something it isn´t.

That´s why IMO advisors give MP - they ar exactly supposed to be superior to the other guys in your cabinet.

No I don´t think it´s 100% ok, but until Paradox puts a model where you have ministers and mini-dinasty, it´s good enough. I also so far very seldom read suggestions to make the model better. Complaining you car uses too much fuel is easy - true proof of intelect is designing something BETTER.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Sigh not this again... Seriously monarch points are abstraction of administrative capabilities at the top level of the country... stop trying to abstract it to something it isn´t.

That´s why IMO advisors give MP - they ar exactly supposed to be superior to the other guys in your cabinet.

No I don´t think it´s 100% ok, but until Paradox puts a model where you have ministers and mini-dinasty, it´s good enough. I also so far very seldom read suggestions to make the model better. Complaining you car uses too much fuel is easy - true proof of intelect is designing something BETTER.

Context is important when discerning the meaning of text. I like the MP system.

 

[Kwami]

With decent rulers + advisors, it isn't hard to keep up in military because of ahead of time penalty.

Yeah. Unless you get a string of poor rulers, a western nation seems to almost always be 15+ years ahead of time on tech after the first few. That lets the others catch up rather easily, I think.

 

[Kamiran]

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?

How many kings and empereror have you seen that invent technological advantages? Does a king have invented the Improved Drainage, Metallurgy, Cathedrals, The Galleon, Arquebus?
Can a ruler decide: "MY SOLDIERS HAVE NOW 5% MORE DISCIPLINE!" cause he waited 3 years to have enough monarch power?

The most results of using monarch power cant be returned to the ruler. How in gods name do a king core a former conquered province?

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.

I fully agree with you. No single power in europe were ever able to conquer whole india without any support.

"The East India Company's control of the seas, greater resources, and more advanced military training and technology led it to increasingly flex its military muscle and caused it to become attractive to a portion of the Indian elite; both these factors were crucial in allowing the Company to gain control over the Bengal region by 1765 and sideline the other European companies. Its further access to the riches of Bengal and the subsequent increased strength and size of its army enabled it to annex or subdue most of India by the 1820s."

Like in many other cases, the europeans used their diplomacy and a lot of promises to rivals and the elite of a land to gain what they want.
If you are stupid enough and try to conquer a land with same or greater size on an other continent without any support or help from native nations then its simply your fault, when you lose the war. Sending an army over 2 oceans to a hostile coast and then whine cause you lost is like whining the americans lost many soldiers in normandy 1944.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My point is that in the game, you *can* conquer India, as anybody. The OP is complaining about Indian tech nations westernizing and how hard that supposedly makes them to conquer, but that position isn't consistent with observed reality of difficulty in the game. Conquering India with England in EU IV is *easy* relative to other conquests in the game, even now, even if Bahmanis or Vijay try to westernize, even if they succeed in doing so (which the player can prevent, but might deliberately allow so they get a vassal to feed depending on goals).

As a result, I assert that western tech advantage is already more than enough, even with westernization as it is in the game. For players in the OP shoes, they would be better served getting a stronger base understanding of the game's mechanics, rather than calling for functional nerfs (without a rationally consistent basis) to nations that are at a large disadvantage relative to their own starting position.

 

[TheAtreides84]

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.

Because in the boardgame (and in the first PC Europa Universalis, IIRC) you could play only major european nations. But at this point it's called EU just like TW Rome is called Rome: yeah, that is the main actor, but there are many supporting roles as well.

 

[TheAtreides84]

The invention of book printing came from gutenberg, not from the ruler, the support came from private merchants, not from government. (Only one example)

True, but governments which gave ample freedom to the new printers (like Venice) jumped ahead in the industry, while the ones that put in place a strict system of privileges lagged behind. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but this MP thing isn't totally absurd, either.

 

[zbyrne]

Europeans only asserted meaningful supremacy over India at the beginning of the 19th century in the context of massive upheaval there as the Mughals continued their death-spiral. China was not done over by Westerners in any meaningful way until the 19th century. The dominant power in the Middle East and the Balkans for most of the period was a Sunni Turkish empire which was pretty dramatically at variance with Europe on all sorts of matters. Goodness knows what would have happened had the Ming dynasty not decided on a more isolationist approach. The Mesoamerican and Andean civilisations were only crushed in the 16th century due to a frankly ridiculous degree of luck and ballsiness/guile on the part of the conquistadors. Europeans did not meaningfully penetrate into the heart of West and Central Africa within the game's time period.

But suuuuuuuuuuure, Europe was the dominant region of the world throughout the period.

sorry mate, but it was. There's a reason why the western world has and continues to dominate even today. Now I'll admit that European focus was very much on the New World during this period interesting, pretty much every major "New World" country that exists even today, was discovered, settled, and then declared independence, all within out time frame. That's amazingly impressive, considering the relatively short time frame. The Dutch, followed by the English, went on to dominate and completely dominate the east indies (and thus world trade) all within a century. Europeans almost exclusively "discovered the world" and by this i mean created the global links that make such discoveries meaningful. Europeans have contributed, since the beginning of the period, to science and technology more so than any one else - including the fairly important industrial revolution. Whilst you might think that the pinnicle of european imperialism didn't happen until after eu4 time period, you are merely failing to recognise that european imperialism tended to operate in stages, within this time period we have the first, and in some cases second [european] empires. But it laid the foundations for subsequent empires.

Oh and don't bothering with that China argument, it's speculation and what if dribble. What if the Nazis had won WW2, well we'd all speak german and judaism would be dead - is a statement that can never be verified, and thus is pointless to make. Same for your China comment, what if China hadn't been so isolationist? Well who cares, because they were

Oh and on the subject of Africa - that was due to diseases, the europeans couldn't penetrate due to the diseases they encountered there. yeno, like if you've ever visited a tropical country, and need to get shots? yeah because of diseases. Same for the 19th century and before. And unlike the new world, the europeans couldn't use the secret weapons of old world diseases and guns to crush the natives (which is largely what did the natives of the americas in) because africans had been long exposed to such things, because it was part of the old world and all that. Of course despite this, the europeans did manage to gain control of much of africa's coast, and with the discovery of new world gold, effectively collapsed the african gold trade, thus leading to a new trade good - slaves. so even though they didn't manage to penetrate africa, they still had a profound effect on it, because they were the dominant force in the world!

 

[Kamiran]

Oh and don't bothering with that China argument, it's speculation and what if dribble. What if the Nazis had won WW2, well we'd all speak german and judaism would be dead - is a statement that can never be verified, and thus is pointless to make. Same for your China comment, what if China hadn't been so isolationist? Well who cares, because they were

Dude... thats the reason why you play the game. To solve the question "WHAT IF....."
Your the magic wizard behind the nations. YOU can say, iam the chinese nation, i dont fall into isolation and ignore development. YOU can say i want to explore the world and develop well in technology. THAT IS THE GAME.

Do you really want to play a Hearth of Iron game with germany, conquer half world, enemy have no chance to withstand and then get a message on 8. Mai 1945:

"Adolf Hitler is dead. Your nation have surrendered. GAME OVER!"
​

NO you wont, cause you can decide in which direction the history will go, arguing its pointless cause it doesnt happen is simply stupid in a giant open end sand box game.

 

[zbyrne]

Dude... thats the reason why you play the game. To solve the question "WHAT IF....."
Your the magic wizard behind the nations. YOU can say, iam the chinese nation, i dont fall into isolation and ignore development. YOU can say i want to explore the world and develop well in technology. THAT IS THE GAME.

Do you really want to play a Hearth of Iron game with germany, conquer half world, enemy have no chance to withstand and then get a message on 8. Mai 1945:

"Adolf Hitler is dead. Your nation have surrendered. GAME OVER!"
​

NO you wont, cause you can decide in which direction the history will go, arguing its pointless cause it doesnt happen is simply stupid in a giant open end sand box game.

won't deny one word of what you said - i was merely disputing the claim by Freesoc which suggested that europe was not the dominate force in the period - which is historically wrong, just wrong.

But I do enjoy playing the game and making things which shouldn't have happened happen. don't get me wrong. But I'm also a bit of a history stickler.

 

[Kamiran]

won't deny one word of what you said - i was merely disputing the claim by Freesoc which suggested that europe was not the dominate force in the period - which is historically wrong, just wrong.

But I do enjoy playing the game and making things which shouldn't have happened happen. don't get me wrong. But I'm also a bit of a history stickler.

Hmm, maybe I misunderstood you. Iam sry for this.
I like the sandbox like design of the game and i love books, movies, games where you can change history.
So iam a big friend of changing history. But iam not a friend by strange game mechanics. let france own hungary after only 60 years and make it o unpenetrable super power

 

[zbyrne]

Hmm, maybe I misunderstood you. Iam sry for this.
I like the sandbox like design of the game and i love books, movies, games where you can change history.
So iam a big friend of changing history. But iam not a friend by strange game mechanics. let france own hungary after only 60 years and make it o unpenetrable super power

haha no worries - ye my comments were less about what shape the game should be, and more me griping about someone else's ill-informed historical claims. When discussing history, what if's particularly annoy me.

As for the game, yup, change history all you can, make ireland a global empire! but only if believable and sensible mechanics permit such things

 

[alqemist]

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)

You are correct. In the period the monarch (and the state generally) made very little contribution to science and technology. Moreover science and technology were not national enterprises or national characteristics. There were no firewalls at borders preventing the free flow of ideas. Different regions might be at different levels of technological development, but these had little to do with national boundaries. A given nation might have advanced and backward regions. This flaw is pretty much universal in strategy games.

 

[PhroX]

won't deny one word of what you said - i was merely disputing the claim by Freesoc which suggested that europe was not the dominate force in the period - which is historically wrong, just wrong.

Europe came to be the dominant force by the end of the period covered by EUIV. To say it was the dominant force of the time period is downright wrong. For most of the time covered by EUIV, it was empires like the Ottomans, the Mughals and the Ming that dominated the world. It's only in the last 1/3 of the game that Europe can really be considered to have begun surpassing the rest of the Eurasian continent, and only in the last 50-70 years that they can be said to be "dominant" - and even by the end of EUIV, their dominance over parts of the world that they would eventually control, such as India and Africa were not secure.

 

[zbyrne]

Europe came to be the dominant force by the end of the period covered by EUIV. To say it was the dominant force of the time period is downright wrong. For most of the time covered by EUIV, it was empires like the Ottomans, the Mughals and the Ming that dominated the world. It's only in the last 1/3 of the game that Europe can really be considered to have begun surpassing the rest of the Eurasian continent, and only in the last 50-70 years that they can be said to be "dominant" - and even by the end of EUIV, their dominance over parts of the world that they would eventually control, such as India and Africa were not secure.

personally i'd disagree - although now we're into the murky world of interpretation, what is dominant etc. but i cannot accept that you claim that the ottomans, mughals or chinese dominated the world - maybe their respestive regions, but only the europeans (and i'd argue from 1492 onwards - the beginnings of globalisation and a global history) were the only to have a truly global impact.

I'd also like to point out when I say dominant, I don't mean dominant in the sense that they wielded influence and power over nearly every corner of the globe, as it would be in the period after Eu4, but more that they were the most advanced, and the clear frontrunners in terms of exerting global power,

so that europe was the best at exerting global dominance, as opposed the only ones able or actually doing so

 

[VolitionNewlove]

You are correct. In the period the monarch (and the state generally) made very little contribution to science and technology. Moreover science and technology were not national enterprises or national characteristics. There were no firewalls at borders preventing the free flow of ideas. Different regions might be at different levels of technological development, but these had little to do with national boundaries. A given nation might have advanced and backward regions. This flaw is pretty much universal in strategy games.

I really appreciated how Crusader Kings II introduced a (flawed) system for technology spread, but it essentially gave up on the idea by having manual mana-ful technology points accumulate over time (as well as from council members) which would be used to manually assign into individual technology. Crusader Kings II's technology system didn't seem to be designed around the spread of technology around the world, but rather simply a method for spreading technology within the same realm. Still, it at least modelled the "advanced" and "backward" regions. (Of course, Crusader Kings II's allocation of technologies at different start-dates was rather odd.)

The thing is, while we should assume that technology accumulated in both games refers to technologies adopted, there remains the fact that that it's still possible to beyond the ahead-of-time penalty (if we take the year to refer to the one in which the technology is to be discovered) whereas the concept of a monarch or state actively researching these future technologies (which they should have no concept of, due to them not having been discovered) is beyond silly. Then there's the problems which come from defining a monarch or state adopting particular technologies by spending resources (monarch points,) as some cases refer to technologies which neither the monarch nor state had any hand in adopting, nor were they costly to do so.

 

[moorsonthecoast]

Europe came to be the dominant force by the end of the period covered by EUIV. To say it was the dominant force of the time period is downright wrong. For most of the time covered by EUIV, it was empires like the Ottomans, the Mughals and the Ming that dominated the world. It's only in the last 1/3 of the game that Europe can really be considered to have begun surpassing the rest of the Eurasian continent, and only in the last 50-70 years that they can be said to be "dominant" - and even by the end of EUIV, their dominance over parts of the world that they would eventually control, such as India and Africa were not secure.

Seems to me like the "coming to be" is the point of the game. European ascendancy after the collapse of European civilization and, just when it was getting on its feet again, the Black Death.

 

[PhroX]

personally i'd disagree - although now we're into the murky world of interpretation, what is dominant etc. but i cannot accept that you claim that the ottomans, mughals or chinese dominated the world - maybe their respestive regions, but only the europeans (and i'd argue from 1492 onwards - the beginnings of globalisation and a global history) were the only to have a truly global impact.

I'd also like to point out when I say dominant, I don't mean dominant in the sense that they wielded influence and power over nearly every corner of the globe, as it would be in the period after Eu4, but more that they were the most advanced, and the clear frontrunners in terms of exerting global power,

so that europe was the best at exerting global dominance, as opposed the only ones able or actually doing so

They dominated the world more than Europeans did for the bulk of the time period covered by EUIV. Barring Meso- and Andean-South American (where the Spanish had some of the most outrageous luck imaginable), prior to around the mid 17th century, European influence outside Europe was limited to some relatively small colonies and some merchants. Not to mention, in terms of what actually mattered, the world was the regions dominated by those Empires I mentioned. They were where population, wealth and knowledge was centered. In 1444, if you were to say where the important parts of the world where, you would point at the arc from Turkey to China, passing through Persian, Transoxania and India. Even 150 years later, you would say the same.

Seems to me like the "coming to be" is the point of the game. European ascendancy after the collapse of European civilization and, just when it was getting on its feet again, the Black Death.

Oh, certainly, that is one of the major themes of the era EUIV is set in - and the major theme of the second half of the period - and the one the devs are mainly interested in given how EUIV is set out.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

personally i'd disagree - although now we're into the murky world of interpretation, what is dominant etc. but i cannot accept that you claim that the ottomans, mughals or chinese dominated the world - maybe their respestive regions, but only the europeans (and i'd argue from 1492 onwards - the beginnings of globalisation and a global history) were the only to have a truly global impact.

I'd also like to point out when I say dominant, I don't mean dominant in the sense that they wielded influence and power over nearly every corner of the globe, as it would be in the period after Eu4, but more that they were the most advanced, and the clear frontrunners in terms of exerting global power,

so that europe was the best at exerting global dominance, as opposed the only ones able or actually doing so

Global impact is different from global dominance.

Before we continue, let's avoid an argument over definitions. Those aren't productive. State how you set "global dominance", what standards meet that terminology?

Realistically, it wasn't "Europe" that had global dominance in my eyes. It was specifically Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, and kind-of France with a few others having a presence. Russia to a lesser extent, but noting that it lost to Qing in the time period because there wasn't a well-established rail system to transport soldiers and goods across Siberia in the period, so their "dominance" by land in the eastern parts of their empire was limited during these years.

The other Europeans were mostly involved with affairs in Europe, not elsewhere. The biggest advantage to the colonials was naval. Armies in India could shoot you in 1700 no problem. GB won the area on turmoil, treachery, and politics...not on the strength of major force projection alone there. What kept them in control was their ability to ship goods to/from there and arm/train the populace on-site, plus incentives to local administrators in retaining them. This is consistently true for successful colonial conquests in the era; they required local turmoil and enough naval projection.

 

[moorsonthecoast]

prior to around the mid 17th century

What a qualification. It's hard for me to be outraged when the game gets so much closer to history than, well anything else ever. Sid Meier's Civ? Nope. Age of Renaissance the board game? Maybe. Sort of. Age of Empires? Not a chance. Earliest WC, and those only happen because the game gets gamed rather than RP'd, is 60+ years later than "the mid-17th century," and that is an unusual achievement even a century later.

Part of the difficulty, I think, is that we're looking at tech growth and seeing that as moral worth or whatever to the country rather than a simple and specific manner of being in the world. By European standards, the Far East may have had civilization, but it was the kind of civilization that:

• Did not fit easily into the West, not that it had to. And,
• Had no interest in far-flung global conquest or domination. The Far East had nothing to prove.
• Was past its prime or very quickly getting there.
• Did not innovate. As with the ancient Mediterranean, especially under the Romans, it was at its best an efficient bureaucracy sometimes lit by solitary geniuses. There was a system of thought, but not a system of continuous learning. Cram schools have a long pedigree, and cram schools are no universities.

It wasn't a horde, so it didn't rely on doomstacks, but I don't think China would have stood a chance in an engagement with equal footing. Contemporaneous conflicts for this period involved wildly-mismatched numbers, a few Europeans against a lot of men in a fortress. So, IMO, the real problem is with the supply line mechanics. The biggest obstacle to European world conquest was getting enough soldiers over there, especially when your footholds are so tenuous. Historically, therefore, the real cause of European footholds were particular diplomacy events which the game simply does not model.

Current practices re: the Far East are about as realistic as The Big Blue Blob or the hyper-aggressive DoWs all over the place, but hardly any worse, and I leave all of them up to game design. There has to be some room for player agency.