Rant on unreal westernization...

[grisamentum]

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.

And what are some of the "many things wrong with it"?

If people don't think China was centuries ahead of Europe in creating centralized administration, legal systems, and general bureaucracy, they are woefully uninformed. So I'd easily say China had a 10 tech lead on most Europe - most of the tags in Europe in 1444 aren't even countries, they're glorified duchies, like Burgundy.

Obviously a 10 tech lead for Diplomatic and Military technology would be silly, but for Admin tech it would be quite appropriate. After all, tech 12 is "Early Modern Administration" which is relatively accurate when applied to Ming China.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the "tech tree" is written from the perspective of Europe, particularly with references to feudalism and pre-industrial European work systems.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

And what are some of the "many things wrong with it"?

If people don't think China was centuries ahead of Europe in creating centralized administration, legal systems, and general bureaucracy, they are woefully uninformed. So I'd easily say China had a 10 tech lead on most Europe - most of the tags in Europe in 1444 aren't even countries, they're glorified duchies, like Burgundy.

Obviously a 10 tech lead for Diplomatic and Military technology would be silly, but for Admin tech it would be quite appropriate. After all, tech 12 is "Early Modern Administration" which is relatively accurate when applied to Ming China.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the "tech tree" is written from the perspective of Europe, particularly with references to feudalism and pre-industrial European work systems.

Plus you also have the ahead of tech penalties that functionally make it impossible to gain technology more than ~8 years ahead of time without serious tech cost reductions.

 

[Axe99]

Just had Dahomey, a OPM that's a vassal of an ally and on my border, start westernising in 1501! As Zazzau, I can start westernising as of 1504 (I'm not going to for role-playing purposes, but that it's even possible at this stage is barmy). Hadn't realised exactly how silly the system was until I played an African minor. I'm not exactly sure how to fix it (although a good start would be to decide what westernisation actually is, and then build gameplay mechanics around that).

EU4's still a great game, don't get me wrong . Just has some kinks that could do with ironing out.

 

[JoeSteel]

The only time I ever see regions of the world begin to westernize en mass is when one major power of that region manages to westernize. In west africa it's usually Mali, or whatever later power shows up, in East Asia it's sometimes mallaca, but usually that never happens, and in India it never happens for me, mainly due to the trade post thing.

I'm not going to say westernization that we currently have is perfect, but it's still functionally working at least in my games.
Have you ever played much outside of the major european powers? It's actually much more fun and rewarding imo.

The issue I see it is that West Africa is just too likely to westernize, mainly because Europe sets up in Africa way earlier than they otherwise would have, I would simply suggest making Africa much harder to colonize until late game. Simulate the desieses and violent natives, let them know that if they set up shop in the African Coast in the 1500s that their colonists are forsaken.

 

[mursolini]

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?

Considering that 3 field crops rotation is something everone at tech 0 should have, and four field system is tech 32, it would be equally realistic to star China at tech -10, and allow it to get to tech 0 by 1750s.

And, while China should start at military tech 12, it should go down to tech 7 at the end of the game.

Why present an obvious ad hominem as an argument any way? The tech system is not realistic by arguing for it from such perspective is useless and unproductive.

 

[harvesarmy]

If China is put at tech ten, then there needs to be some kind of internal politics/social reform system to stop massive expansion. Of course there will be some that say the turn inwards was merely a choice, and I partially agree, but we need something to limit China. Some kind of era or social reform system as previously written about in this thread sounds good, as does attaching monarch points to buildings or institutions, development and a slider system, however I don't personally see much of this coming to light at least in the foreseeable future. We can hope for EUV!

 

[Beagá]

Nah, the real trouble is projecting power abroad. Something ALL countries had trouble with. If Europe couldn´t invade China in 1800, neither could Chinese invade Great Britain.

Limiting expansion by technology only sounds and feels stupid because it IS stupid. The limitations should be the ones that organically limited expansion. Long lines of communication, diseases, etc etc.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the "tech tree" is written from the perspective of Europe, particularly with references to feudalism and pre-industrial European work systems.

The issue is more that the game assumes all societies move forward.

That´s... a totally false premise. Societies DO stagnate and they DO move backwards.

 

[falcorosso]

Europe with 20% penality until event that spread Renaissance is fired in your country that required some adm point and money. Available in italian states in 1444, requires adm tec 4 for french, german and cezch culture, adm 5 to the remainder wester group tech.

 

[PeterCorless]

My feelings are that you should be able to control the "speed" and the "scope." If you are trying to drag, say, Mali into the current state-of-the-art in a decade, that will likely have far more risk than modernizing, say, trade first, then military, and finally, your administration, over two centuries.

However, the game currently shoe-horns all modernization into the same mold. Which then either is too severe, or too lenient, depending on the tweaks Paradox did for that patch. My own take is that most nations, especially larger countries, should be forced into longer-term, less-radical paths of modernization, though international crises or opportunities/partnerships should open more radical modernization. For instance, the advent of the firearm in Japan, or the belated attempts to introduce artillery into the Persian Army in the 18th-19th Century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Iran#Qajar_Era_.281794_to_1925.29).

 

[Axe99]

The only time I ever see regions of the world begin to westernize en mass is when one major power of that region manages to westernize. In west africa it's usually Mali, or whatever later power shows up, in East Asia it's sometimes mallaca, but usually that never happens, and in India it never happens for me, mainly due to the trade post thing.

I'm not going to say westernization that we currently have is perfect, but it's still functionally working at least in my games.
Have you ever played much outside of the major european powers? It's actually much more fun and rewarding imo.

The issue I see it is that West Africa is just too likely to westernize, mainly because Europe sets up in Africa way earlier than they otherwise would have, I would simply suggest making Africa much harder to colonize until late game. Simulate the desieses and violent natives, let them know that if they set up shop in the African Coast in the 1500s that their colonists are forsaken.

Not sure if you're replying to me or not, but in my post I noted I was playing Zazzau, which traditionally wasn't considered a major European power. Have also westernised as Ayuthayya. In both cases, because nearby neighbours were also westernising. When I play ROTW nations I don't westernise until my neighbours start for role-playing reasons, but when the neighbours start going on mass it's a case of which ludicrous situation to respond to, and I usually go with westernisation

The biggest issue, imo, is that the 'gameplay' for the system is shallow and unrewarding, and the gameplay drive for it is an odd one and no mistake (save up your MP instead of spending them so you fall behind in tech, then spend your MP on getting 'Westernisation' buff, then spend your MP on tech again). Make westernisation make sense and mean something beyond mathematical trade-offs, and it's likely to have more meaning in game.

As for the gameplay argument for having easy westernisation, if we're ignoring plausible historical situations and looking to make it easier for the ROTW (which it's not _that_ hard for in any case - prior to 'easy westernisation' ROTW countries were still fun and perfectly feasible places to play - they were, indeed, one of the better places one could find a real challenge in the game), then why have different tech groups in any event? I'd prefer no tech group differences (a pure 'gameplay' argument, although this is 'gameplay' in the sense of 'all nations are balanced', in which case there's a lot more work to do to make that work) or a sensible, historically plausible westernisation mechanics (or, even better, a generally deeper mechanic for technological, political and social development - but one step at a time ). At the moment we have something that's neither particularly great for gameplay and terrible for plausibility. It's not currently a trade off, but rather the neglected child of the tension between a game balanced for MP and a historical GSG.

 

[CNY10000]

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







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.

You are right. Absolutely, the Tokugawa shogunate was not attempting hard to westernize.
However, the point I am trying to make is that an ROTW nation needs to be influenced by a western nation for quite long before the ROTW nation can spend massive effort to westernize. Otherwise we get a ridiculous westernization like what we get now.

Being influenced by western nation(Introduction of firearms) --> Massive effort is spent on westerning(Meiji period) --> Fully westernized(Expand into mainland Asia)

So instead of that sharing a border or owning a western core instantly enables an ROTW nation to westernize, the ROTW nation gradually gains "western influence". The ROTW nation is allowed to westernize only if a certain amount of western influence is gained.

 

[Scottx105]

It should either have time locks on when a specific tech group can westernise, or it should be increasingly more expensive the more expensive your tech group is.