Rant on unreal westernization...

[Gball]

You're right, the tech system is deeply unrealistic. To make it more realistic we'll start by putting Europe on tech 2 and a 50% penalty until they 'Renaissanceize', which requires bordering Italy. Also China starts at tech 12. Sound good?

Well....yes, kinda does actually.

 

[PeterCorless]

No. That's a myth. The Renaissance has its roots in the Umanesimo (Humanism) movement of late 13th-early 14th century, with Petrarch, Dante and other coeval poets, plus Giotto for art; while the Fall of Constantinople brought material to Italy, the Renaissance had been going on for some half a century, at least, and - as said - the first hints were over a century and half in the past.

I also thought it had something to do with the University movement across Europe. Bologna (1088), Oxford (1091), Salamanca (1134), Paris (1150), Cambridge (1209), Padua (1222), Naples (1224), Sienna (1240), Valladolid (1241), Macerata and Coimbra (1290), on through Sapienza in Rome (1303), Florence (1321), Pisa (1343), Prague (1348) and Pavia (1361). Likewise, someone in the Poland thread mentioned Jagiellionian in Krakow (1364). Vienna, Heidelberg, Ferrara, Turin, Leipzig, etc.

It is this flourishing of university systems, which was also simultaneous with and deeply connected to the rise of the monastic orders (and thus, the production of a literate class of clergy) that sparked the capacity to have an entire class or caste devoted to reading and writing and 'rithmetic.

This caste/class was only enabled by the wide land ownership of the religious orders and church itself, as well as the sponsorship/patronage of the royalty and nobility. Only by being capable to support this as a professional avocation did you have a critical mass of educated individuals. After a while, the "supply" of education exceeded the "demand" for clergy by itself. Soon the university system was also supported by the admission of purely secular noble scions, as well as, eventually, the sons of the plutocrats and mercantile classes.

Once this occurs, and the teachings of the Classical era were secularlized, you get the Renaissance we know of today.

So, yeah, the Fall of Constantinople creates a greater surplus of educated elites in the West, and brings additional texts to the Latin world, but it didn't start the Renaissance.

 

[Beagá]

Well august is almost here - so let´s ask for a decent change for this when Pdox returns.

The beta was released quite a long time ago already - what are the most absurd westernization patterns you guys saw?

 

[Savoyer]

The Technology system should be Vicky-ish Style using a extended MP system for divided groups, also following the Crusader Kings-kinda building system. Also, Westernization should be change to a "Eras" and "Schools of though" mechanic, here tech bonuses and some other decisions, events and a Idea Group (working as the invetions in Vicky) are unlocked each time, from Renaissance to Revolutions, thus everyone "suffers" changes slowly. The "Era" would be tied to reforms and events, together with how your monarch is capable and invest in science, culture and others things (Yes, Money is tied to development as is the Extend MP system) that would allow people to advanced technologically, eventually reaching neighborns. The complexity in making each culture it's own tech is absurd, but creting Era and cultural tied IDEAS would be very interesting. At least, that's how I would see the Tech and Modernization thing. This is just short brainstorming though...

 

[Salje]

Well, did observer run yesterday, mostly to test out which provinces develop the most(it was Rhodes with whopping 63 development owned by The Knights through the whole game), but I observed also the westernization and the tech levels.

I agree there is a legitimate problem, the only countries that were NOT westernized at the end of the game were Assam and Chu and some small minors that were released by rebels during the last 40 years if the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, did observer run yesterday, mostly to test out which provinces develop the most(it was Rhodes with whopping 63 development owned by The Knights through the whole game), but I observed also the westernization and the tech levels.

I agree there is a legitimate problem, the only countries that were NOT westernized at the end of the game were Assam and Chu and some small minors that were released by rebels during the last 40 years if the game.

A legit problem you say? Please select a basis for "legit problem" that does not, if applied to other mechanics/situations, simultaneously call out numerous important game systems and ultimately a rework over multiple other in-game systems?

I bet you can't do it. But if you can't, then you haven't demonstrated a meaningful reason to single out westernization. Maybe you can. We'll see.

 

[Axe99]

The beta was released quite a long time ago already - what are the most absurd westernization patterns you guys saw?

I saw Manchu westernise when they were fully surrounded by Ming (which wasn't westernised). I have no idea how they did it, perhaps earlier in the game they were bordering a steppe horde that had westernised?

 

[Agnitio Ex Mach]

I think it's too easy for the AI to westernize. It needs to get some AI-only modifiers that make it far more likely that they will fail at westernizing and an AI tweak so that it is more hesitant to westernize, such as ignoring the temptation until they have 3 stability and at least half of their monarch points filled.

 

[zsImmortal]

I think it's too easy for the AI to westernize. It needs to get some AI-only modifiers that make it far more likely that they will fail at westernizing and an AI tweak so that it is more hesitant to westernize, such as ignoring the temptation until they have 3 stability and at least half of their monarch points filled.

For what reason other than punishing nations that are already arbitrarily penalized for tech? If the argument is 'but historically...', let's just start with stuff that doesn't remedy gameplay-wise an already historically dubious situation.

 

[bbqftw]

the funny part is that a country that westernizes in 1700 will probably end up worse in tech than if it never westernized at all.

 

[Beagá]

I think it's too easy for the AI to westernize. It needs to get some AI-only modifiers that make it far more likely that they will fail at westernizing and an AI tweak so that it is more hesitant to westernize, such as ignoring the temptation until they have 3 stability and at least half of their monarch points filled.

You are being optimistic, my friend. The truth is that the system itself is rotten.

I still think the westernization process should be broken in 5, maybe even 10 steps, instead of one. And it would be Ok if by game´s end... not even some european countries had done said 10 steps.

Obviously cost and way of doing said steps is open to discussion.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

If you really want a historical westernization process, you would have to rework internal management and add politics to nations. ROTW fell behind in this era, not because of tech, but because they didn't have the dynamism, political will, power projection, and sheer luck of Europe.

EDIT: This is also known as adding more Vicky 2 goodness to EU4. Mmmmmmm.

 

[Axe99]

I'd go one step further and remove the westernisation system altogether, and put in a far deeper technological and cultural development system that could be applied across all nations, so that they have sensible starting positions, and then can focus on reforming their societies, but at the cost of effort elsewhere (conquest). Would add a far more interesting set of choices for players. Have this system inter-relate with the ideas system better (or a combined system replace the tech/ideas system) and it'd be even better. Westernisation in the game at the moment is a really odd thing, given it no longer changes the unit types. It's basically 'wait until you're significantly under-teched, then spend a lot of tech points to get cheaper techs in the future'. From a gameplay perspective it makes little sense, and from a historical perspective it makes no sense at all.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Okay, I know these are old posts, but I hadn't seen this thread before, and I needed to respond to this:

I will take Japan as an example since Japan was the first ROTW nation that could bully other ROTW nations (Korea, Qing) and won a war against Russia in WW1 period. Japan started to introduce western firearms and religion in middle 16th centry, and the Boshin War, which resulted the decisive victory of modernized part of Japan over traditional part of Japan, happened in 1868-1869.

BUT, HERE IS THE ACTUAL HISTORY:
Japan closed almost all trade ports, but just almost. Some minor ports, like Nagasaki, Satsuma, and Choshu, were left open, and it was exactly the local rulers in these "minor ports" that fought the Boshin Sensou with the traditional Japan in 1868-1869. Japan is absolutely a good example of westernization.

[. . .]

I am considering Restoration of Emperor to be the completion of westernization so the 37 years have nothing to do with westernization. Japan won the war against China and Korea before Japan defeat Russian, which would be ridiculous if Japan were still "unwesternized".

37 years, in this case, is the time needed to become more advanced than western nations after complete westernization.

I am regarding the firearm introduction from Europe in 16th centry as the start of westernization, and the end of Boshin Sensou as the complete of westernization. It is about 300 years in history, but there should be some flexibility in game so I said 200 years.

This doesn't make any sense. Taking the introduction of firearms as the start of Japan's westernization process and the Boshin War as the end of it, and saying that because it took them three hundred years it should be a similar length in-game, makes it seem as though you believe they were spending all that time westernizing. As though Oda Nobunaga clicked the "Westernize" button, the Tokugawa spent the entirety of their tenure working on it, and it was finally completed during Meiji's reign. This, of course, is not remotely what happened. Oda (who was a daimyo, not the ruler of Japan itself) implemented some modernization of his military. After he was assassinated and Japan unified by others, the Tokugawa Shogunate, having come into power over Japan itself, abandoned all attempts at a modernization program. The 250-odd years of relative stagnation under them were not because westernization is hard; it was because they weren't even attempting it then. The Tokugawa closed off trade with outsiders apart from a few select ports for a few select trading partners, and what knowledge leaked in from those ports was certainly no more than any other non-westernizing power would have been receiving merely from trading with Europe. It was not a sign of a continuing westernization program. Japan made no further attempts to westernize until the Meiji Emperor came to power, and once they did, it only took a few decades.

It's impossible to know how far Oda Nobunaga would have taken things if he had survived and become shogun, but if Japan had a systematic attempt at westernization under him it would not have taken anything like three centuries to complete. Japan in the 1500s was simply not that far behind. If you want to put it that way, Nobunaga clicked "Westernize" as daimyo of Oda, his efforts were erased when Oda got absorbed, and Japan under the Tokugawa dynasty never clicked "Westernize". It wasn't until Meiji clicked it as ruler of Japan itself that the process got started, after which it happened pretty quickly. So to say, "Oh, Japan imported European firearms in the 1500s, but they didn't become fully westernized until the 1800s, so it took them 300 years, so it should take centuries to complete in-game as well" completely ignores the realities of what was going on in Japan in the interim. You can't take a country that abandoned all efforts at westernization for two and a half centuries and argue that a country in-game that is actively trying to westernize should have to take as long as they did, or even two-thirds as long, because their experience shows how slow westernization is. For nearly the entire period you're talking about, they weren't even trying to westernize, so you absolutely cannot count that era as part of how long westernization took them.

 

[WindKing]

People actually think giving China a 10 tech level advantage is a good idea... I don't even... There's so many things wrong with it that I fail to see how anyone could think that it's a good idea.

 

[Axe99]

It's impossible to know how far Oda Nobunaga would have taken things if he had survived and become shogun, but if Japan had a systematic attempt at westernization under him it would not have taken anything like three centuries to complete. Japan in the 1500s was simply not that far behind. If you want to put it that way, Nobunaga clicked "Westernize" as daimyo of Oda, his efforts were erased when Oda got absorbed, and Japan under the Tokugawa dynasty never clicked "Westernize". It wasn't until Meiji clicked it as ruler of Japan itself that the process got started, after which it happened pretty quickly. So to say, "Oh, Japan imported European firearms in the 1500s, but they didn't become fully westernized until the 1800s, so it took them 300 years, so it should take centuries to complete in-game as well" completely ignores the realities of what was going on in Japan in the interim. You can't take a country that abandoned all efforts at westernization for two and a half centuries and argue that a country in-game that is actively trying to westernize should have to take as long as they did, or even two-thirds as long, because their experience shows how slow westernization is. For nearly the entire period you're talking about, they weren't even trying to westernize, so you absolutely cannot count that era as part of how long westernization took them.

This is yet another element of the game that struggles because of the lack of internal factions. If the process of westernisation destabilised internal power structures (which it did almost everywhere it was undertaken, and which the game has a crack at simulating, in a very, very shallow way, through various events during the westernisation process) then there would be pros and cons to it, and early westernisation would be particularly risky - while later westernisation, when it was clearer that the European methods of whatever westernisation is supposed to represent in-game were worth following - should be a good deal easier (as opposed to the 'one cost in all situations, almost no-gameplay, push button and wait' method at the moment). If players had to manage internal factions while westernising, then it would be interesting, there would be costs and benefits, and the possibility of a complete shutting down of the process a la Japan (or the possibility of civil wars, or new internal factions coming to the fore, or a host of other potential gameplay factors that are a good deal more interesting than sitting on an MP timer while semi-random, fairly colourless events pop).

 

[volseraph]

You're right, the tech system is deeply unrealistic. To make it more realistic we'll start by putting Europe on tech 2 and a 50% penalty until they 'Renaissanceize', which requires bordering Italy. Also China starts at tech 12. Sound good?

Please can we? This (or a less sarcastic version of it) would be really cool.

 

[Osman Pasha]

I understand that the game is trying to create a more competitive landscape for the player, as well as increase difficulty if the player is European, but I find it utterly stupid that non-western nations can westernize so fast and with such ease. I find it annoying that the developers decide to make the game historic in some aspects (historical events, historical enemies modifiers (that makes it utterly complicated to integrate Sweden as Denmark btw)), and then utterly unreal in other aspects, such as the westernization.

Playing as an early imperial nation such as Portugal or Spain, the key to expanding across Asia initially is taking bases in each trade node, important centers of trade to establish a presence in the region. Later, in the 1700s, with the Admin efficiency, etc. it becomes much easier to core foreign territory and seize more territory in these nodes, but early on, its not very easy coring foreign territory. And this trend actually makes sense, because in actual history, empires such as Portugal began their expansion with the seizure of small footholds and ports from which they could export goods to their homeland.

In real life, however, nations bordering these trade nodes did not westernize simply because of this presence. They didn't say "oh look a western nation let's westernize now so we can survive." This is one of the reasons why the Europeans dominated the world so substantially. Indian states didn't automatically westernize when Portugal conquered Goa, etc. I think that westernization isn't just about technology, but was also about tradition, culture, and religion. The bot nations so readily and easily ignore centuries of religion and culture and change their entire society in a matter of a few years. This is absolutely outrageous. And as you conquer more and more bases, you trigger a wave of westernization of nations that have no business westernizing from a historical standpoint.

What you end up with is a bunch of Indian, African, and Chinese/Japanese westernized nations in the 1600s, 1700s. absolutely outrageous.

In most of the games the same thing happens - Portugal conquers Goa, Bahmanis consolidates power in India and reconquers Goa after westernizing, then allies Ming (which never collapses in the new patch, btw, while it always collapsed back then). This makes it utterly difficult to move into India, which is so ahistorical.

I understand that they need to make the game playable for people that like playing non-Europeans, but the very essence of this period of history was European dominance and preeminence, and the game is even called Europa Universalis for christ sake. They even make the game historical in the Americas, because it's absolutely easy to conquer American territory (and not easy enough, actually, because the Spanish were able to conquer the entirety of the Incas in a single stroke), but completely ignores history in the old world by making Africans and Asians so readily willing to westernize. If you want to make the game more "playable" by having nations like China westernizing (which is just starting to seriously westernize today!), then don't be hypocritical and have the American bots so realistically noncompetitive with the Europeans.

I think that there should be some sort of "traditions" value that restricts the ability to westernize for nations that are absolutely different from western nations. Nations like Lithuania would be able to westernize much faster and with less stress, and nations like China or India wouldn't be able to westernize easily at all. Also, the larger the nation (population, territorial size, etc.) the more expensive it should be to westernize. That's right, westernization should not only cost a great deal of money, but should also be very expensive, even if the nations are smaller. Also, the westernization should bring about a great deal of unrest and revolt for nations whose traditions are more and more distant from western society (differentiated by tech groups). Anything that can make it more holistically realistic when it comes to westernization. I just think that this period is all about European domination, and that the westernization trend completely defies history on multiple levels, and I find it very annoying to play amidst all this muck.

At least offer some players who would rather have non-westernization an option to play in a more realistic setting.

The process of westernization shouldn't be difficult, however the requirements to westernize can be harder to achieve.

 

[WeissRaben]

People actually think giving China a 10 tech level advantage is a good idea... I don't even... There's so many things wrong with it that I fail to see how anyone could think that it's a good idea.

The tech 12 part is excessive, yes, but the rest is good.

 

[Beagá]

This doesn't make any sense. Taking the introduction of firearms as the start of Japan's westernization process and the Boshin War as the end of it, and saying that because it took them three hundred years it should be a similar length in-game, makes it seem as though you believe they were spending all that time westernizing. As though Oda Nobunaga clicked the "Westernize" button, the Tokugawa spent the entirety of their tenure working on it, and it was finally completed during Meiji's reign. This, of course, is not remotely what happened. Oda (who was a daimyo, not the ruler of Japan itself) implemented some modernization of his military. After he was assassinated and Japan unified by others, the Tokugawa Shogunate, having come into power over Japan itself, abandoned all attempts at a modernization program. The 250-odd years of relative stagnation under them were not because westernization is hard; it was because they weren't even attempting it then. The Tokugawa closed off trade with outsiders apart from a few select ports for a few select trading partners, and what knowledge leaked in from those ports was certainly no more than any other non-westernizing power would have been receiving merely from trading with Europe. It was not a sign of a continuing westernization program. Japan made no further attempts to westernize until the Meiji Emperor came to power, and once they did, it only took a few decades.

It's impossible to know how far Oda Nobunaga would have taken things if he had survived and become shogun, but if Japan had a systematic attempt at westernization under him it would not have taken anything like three centuries to complete. Japan in the 1500s was simply not that far behind. If you want to put it that way, Nobunaga clicked "Westernize" as daimyo of Oda, his efforts were erased when Oda got absorbed, and Japan under the Tokugawa dynasty never clicked "Westernize". It wasn't until Meiji clicked it as ruler of Japan itself that the process got started, after which it happened pretty quickly. So to say, "Oh, Japan imported European firearms in the 1500s, but they didn't become fully westernized until the 1800s, so it took them 300 years, so it should take centuries to complete in-game as well" completely ignores the realities of what was going on in Japan in the interim. You can't take a country that abandoned all efforts at westernization for two and a half centuries and argue that a country in-game that is actively trying to westernize should have to take as long as they did, or even two-thirds as long, because their experience shows how slow westernization is. For nearly the entire period you're talking about, they weren't even trying to westernize, so you absolutely cannot count that era as part of how long westernization took them.

Great post, agree 100%.

Japan is a peculiar case because it was so geographically isolated, however. Can you see Japan doing that if it was, in say, Sicily? I doubt it.

One truth about human societies is that you don´t feel the need to innovate if there is no competition.