Rant on unreal westernization...

[BBMorti]

I see many posts here about European supremacy and historical outcomes, and it seems we still haven't left all colonialist propaganda behind us.

Don't be absurd. It is called knowing history. I will never understand why people get so sensitive about facts they don't happen to like.. denying history accomplishes little.

 

[Cinigs]

It sounds like you don't understand how westernization works in eu4. Have you ever played a nation that westernized.

Westernization is a long and hard process. For a large native American country it takes a minimum of 28 years to westernized. Where as a small eastern nation it can take less than 7. While westernizing a nation gains +5 national unrest. It also makes advisory(one of the main expense of nations) cost 50% more, and you generally have to keep up your military upkeep(you other major expense) at max to defeat rebels. Additionally while westernizing you start getting westernization events. This are horrible. They all have 2 option one being -120 westernization progress(4-8 months worth), the other potion ranges from things like -100 adm points, to -30 legitimacy, or -1 stability. Once you are done westernizing you don't instantly go up to the tech level of western nations. You receive the standard neighbor bonus. Even if you do mange to catch up you military units are inferior (your units don't change tech group and western nations have +3 pips late game)

If you are having problems with nations westernizing, here are a few tips to deal with them.

-In you first war take more land. Increase administrative efficacy only makes conquest easier. You take multiple provinces in a war in Europe without it, so why don't you in Asia.
-Attack while they are westernizing. When a nation is westernizing they have +5 unrest, if you couple that with war exhaustion, their country will be quickly shatter them with rebels. Ending westernization, and removing all progress.
-If they do westernize and catch up on tech, you still have your standard not-being-a-dumb-AI bonus. Do what you do in any war against a strong, attack into plains for bonus moral, defend in mountains, bait them to attack you with smaller force, etc.

Finally for the historical accuracy of westernization.

There is not much technological difference between western and non-western nations in the 17-18 century. Things like the agricultural revolution start in Asia over a century before it spread to Europe. Native American would frequently raid and defeat European settlements. A major tech difference didn't develop until the 19th century. Where you had things like the Opium wars. However those aren't in the time frame of eu4. If you want one with a large tech difference play Vicky2. The only don't western nation that is powerful is Japan which they historically were (They won the Japo-Russain War).


Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I have less than 400 hrs in eu4, and I'm a freshmen(sophomore in the fall) in high-school.

 

[DukeDayve]

I see many posts here about European supremacy and historical outcomes, and it seems we still haven't left all colonialist propaganda behind us.

Stating facts isn't the same as approving of European imperialism. In fact I think most people here would tell you that the most of what Europe did in those times was regrettable. I certainly would. But it did happen. The fact is that Europe was in the driving seat for many centuries.

As for westernization being too easy - I agree. In my Mali game yesterday I westernized around 1700. I was huge. I had conquered everybody in the area and the only nation on the map that was bigger than me was Russia, which had colonized all of Siberia. I westernized in about 20-25 years. I simply left army maintenance on full and automatically hunted down all rebels. A couple of years after westernizing I had already caught up to Europe in technology.

 

[Freudia]

As for westernization being too easy - I agree. In my Mali game yesterday I westernized around 1700.

This is a late westernization. I would not consider this to be a sign that it is easy to westernize if you're doing it that late.

As for my actual opinion on the topic at hand: If westernization is 'too easy', then remove it. And then rebalance the game so Europe doesn't stomp all over everyone outside of Europe 30 years into the game ridiculously. Westernization is an ahistorical fix to an ahistorical problem, so deal with it.

PS: Europe did not really get ahead of the rest of the world until the end of the time period, around the start of the Industrial Revolution. To say that Europe should be the dominant powers in this game is a total farce considering we're playing a game where we actively change the course of history over a period of 386 years (a period where Europe is notably behind a large portion of the world, for what it's worth), and there certainly was no guarantee that things had to happen the way they did historically, given how much of it was raw luck and not anything tangible that the Europeans had.

 

[NachoArcade]

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.

1# If You have issues with the AI attempting to survive then play on easy and youre unlikely to see any westernization before end game
2# Using historical accuracy as an argument is pointless, when has Europa Universalis EVER been historically accurate throughout the entire game
2.1# Try to make a game and go into observer mode, and you're HIGHLY unlikely to see westernisation as early as when you play, do you know why? because there's human intelligence involved, do not expect the game to adapt and do whatever YOU please

 

[randy47]

It sounds like you don't understand how westernization works in eu4. Have you ever played a nation that westernized.

Westernization is a long and hard process. For a large native American country it takes a minimum of 28 years to westernized. Where as a small eastern nation it can take less than 7. While westernizing a nation gains +5 national unrest. It also makes advisory(one of the main expense of nations) cost 50% more, and you generally have to keep up your military upkeep(you other major expense) at max to defeat rebels. Additionally while westernizing you start getting westernization events. This are horrible. They all have 2 option one being -120 westernization progress(4-8 months worth), the other potion ranges from things like -100 adm points, to -30 legitimacy, or -1 stability. Once you are done westernizing you don't instantly go up to the tech level of western nations. You receive the standard neighbor bonus. Even if you do mange to catch up you military units are inferior (your units don't change tech group and western nations have +3 pips late game)

If you are having problems with nations westernizing, here are a few tips to deal with them.

-In you first war take more land. Increase administrative efficacy makes conquest easier. You take multiple provinces in a war in Europe so why don't in Asia.
-Attack while they are westernizing. When a nation is westernizing they have +5 unrest, if you couple that with war exhaustion, their country will be quickly shatter them with rebels. Ending westernization, and removing all progress.
-If they do westernize and catch up on tech, you still have your standard not-being-a-dumb-AI bonus. Do what you do in any war against a strong, attack into plains for bonus moral, defend in mountains, bait them to attack you with smaller force, etc.

Finally for the historical accuracy of westernization.

There is not much technological difference between western and non-western nations in the 17-18 century. Things like the agricultural revolution start in Europe over a century before it spread to Europe. Native American would frequently raid and defeat European settlements. A major tech difference didn't develop until the 19th century. Where you had things like the Opium wars. However those aren't in the time frame of eu4. If you want one with a large tech difference play Vicky2. The only don't western nation that is powerful is Japan which they historically were (They won the Japo-Russain War).


Take everything a say with a grain of salt. I have less than 400 hrs in eu4, and I'm a freshmen(sophomore in the fall) in high-school.

I've westernized before, and it is difficult, but I have a principle issue with nations westernizing when it makes little historical sense, and this bugs me. And although it is difficult it happens all over Africa, Asia.

 

[randy47]

1# If You have issues with the AI attempting to survive then play on easy and youre unlikely to see any westernization before end game
2# Using historical accuracy as an argument is pointless, when has Europa Universalis EVER been historically accurate throughout the entire game
2.1# Try to make a game and go into observer mode, and you're HIGHLY unlikely to see westernisation as early as when you play, do you know why? because there's human intelligence involved, do not expect the game to adapt and do whatever YOU please

You're right. I do admit that I often benefit unrealistically at the expense of the bot... for instance when I inherited the whole of Lithuania and the entirety of Europe allied me against France (who knew that I would bubble out of control if I won...which I did). I guess it's only human for me to have that bias, but I still have some issue with it. And they should put some effort into "rebalancing" the game so that enemy countries do not end up needing to westernize. They should make it realistically harder for Europeans to dominate Asians/Africans so early on.

 

[Mafiabrett]

I'd like to see more of a chain-event system where nations start to westernize.

1. A nation can still westernize at -10 tech, but uses the old style of Westernizing where Thousands upon Thousands of rebels would appear (especially if your Russia/China huge).
2. If a non-western nation owns a western core province and has a core themselves, they can westernize like above but MUCH less rebels due to "Western Influence" event because of the Western core inside their land.
3. A optional third way and more historical.. using a passive westernization mechanic and via event-chain, being bordered with a western for 'x' amount of years you gain westernization points slowly based on how large/development you have, and tons of events that can either increase or lower.

 

[wingren013]

LOL... I'm not under any colonial rubbish, I simply know the history. India did not westernize 1444-1821. Period. Neither did China. And I do know that India and China were significantly weaker than the west around 1821 (although I agree with the opponents that Europeans didn't really have a complete dominance until the late 1700s, 1800s.

The Marathas westernised, as did Russia, the Ottomans, Persia, the PLC, and Japan westernised 60ish years after the games end.

 

[wingzero890]

LOL... I'm not under any colonial rubbish, I simply know the history. India did not westernize 1444-1821. Period. Neither did China. And I do know that India and China were significantly weaker than the west around 1821 (although I agree with the opponents that Europeans didn't really have a complete dominance until the late 1700s, 1800s.

This could easily be modeled by giving other tech groups inferior units in the late game. (or in the case of native americans, all game?)

Oh wait, they do have inferior late game units to western

And on top of that, they have a hefty tech malus so they suffer from massive tactics penalties against westerners.

And even if they westernize, they keep their inferior late game units.

Westernization, what a well thought out game mechanic!

 

[DanubianCossak]

Just thought I'd throw this out there but it's called Europa Universalis because it was originally based on the board game of the same name.

This is why its called Europa Universalis, regardless of its history as a board game:

Regardless of its name, it's a strategy game set between the years 1444-1821. Europe dominated the world in this period. Absolute domination. I don't think other nations should be able to westernize at all. I think they should be given other ways of defeating Europe, though it should still be challenging for them.

And to expand that point a little bit:

The whole concept of Westernization is utter nonsense. In fact IMO thats a lot more "European supremacy" than anything ive read in this thread (up to the end of page one at least).

What they should do, is do away with Westernization and instead introduce Modernization.

 

[NachoArcade]

You're right. I do admit that I often benefit unrealistically at the expense of the bot... for instance when I inherited the whole of Lithuania and the entirety of Europe allied me against France (who knew that I would bubble out of control if I won...which I did). I guess it's only human for me to have that bias, but I still have some issue with it. And they should put some effort into "rebalancing" the game so that enemy countries do not end up needing to westernize. They should make it realistically harder for Europeans to dominate Asians/Africans so early on.

Dont get me wrong, I love history and I'd prefer that the game was closer to historical situations. But as Cinigs said, its a hard process and you never really "get over" the penalty of being a non-western at the start. I can understant that the concept of westernization is annoying considering that there are still several countries struggling with westernizing in OUR MODERN DAY. Westernization should without a doubt be reworked, but when I play an european nation i'd rather have a fast westernizing AI than stomping the AI down and getting word conquest pre-1700

 

[Dakilla TM]

I feel like a rework of the tech system would be a much better solution.

 

[Kinghillard]

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.

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.

Saying a "westernized" India is ahistorical is like saying that the ottomans taking Vienna is ahistorical, sure it never happened, but it is in no way impossible, in fact India was primed for an industrial revolution when it was subdued by imperialism, there is nothing about western culture that makes us more innovative, if that were the case then Asia minor and Asia would never have been the technological centers of the world before the west was, material conditions control innovation, not our silly traditions.

India should be hard to move into if it isn't fractured, historically the mughal empire had just collapsed into small factions and kingdoms, if that isn't the case when you arrive, tough shit.

And you seem confused about how these conquests worked out, the Incas could never have been conquered in one stroke without Indian auxilliaries, if you really think less than 200 spaniards could defeat an empire you're just another european supremacist, and if you did know this you would know that it should be impossible to just take a port from a massive bahmanis or Orissa.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Problem is, we don't know what westernization is. The tooltip says that you have reached military parity with the West. This is perfectly reasonable: Japan arguably achieved this during the Sengoku Jidai, before closing down again. For most of the timespan, it just boils down to manufacturing/importing muskets and learning early firearms drill. On the other hand, westernization removes a silly tech malus from ALL research areas: a malus that shouldn't even be there. For the Native Americans, it almost makes sense: they had no significant animal power, no metallurgy and the like, so the technological infrastructure was lacking to begin with. For Asians, the system falls apart. The reasons Asians lagged behind are mostly social and cultural, it's not that they lacked some key components for technological growth. Having a cadre of european-trained infantry is no good when your bureaucracy/princes/eunuchs block you from mobilizing it efficiently and make deals with conquerors under your nose.

Bottom line, we need a different system for each tech group AND we need a way to stop the deployement of huge armies the other side of the world. Then you could have backward ROTW nations who survive because europeans can't use their full might against them.

 

[Enavic]

If this game was set in the modern era, it would be the wars between the corporations. Conflict drives innovation. Europe had a precarious balance of power as did Japan. Like a large entrenched company, China had little incentive to innovate and stagnated under internal propaganda.

I think Paradox got it backwards. The exploration of the world is what led to european dominance, it's the exposure to different cultures and technologies combined with competition from rivals. Rubber was used by indigenous people in Brazil to waterproof clothing. Potatoes are said to underpin the industrial revolution as the low maintenance crop urban labors could grow. Arabic numerals allowed real math. Europe was somewhat behind in overall technology at the start of the age of exploration. The influx of new ideas and technologies that allowed more people to leave agriculture is what created the rapid change in Europe. I'm sure east asian countries also had merchants that sailed east who are now lost to history.

I think a game based around that technology system wouldn't be fun though, it would be hard to model and hard to manage. Most major scientific discoveries are accidents. Engineering improvements are for this time period, just of function of how many people you are incentivized to put on it.

 

[FrigidSoul]

This could easily be modeled by giving other tech groups inferior units in the late game. (or in the case of native americans, all game?)

Oh wait, they do have inferior late game units to western

And on top of that, they have a hefty tech malus so they suffer from massive tactics penalties against westerners.

And even if they westernize, they keep their inferior late game units.

Westernization, what a well thought out game mechanic!

Agreed that the westernization system is a cobbled-together lamefest conceptually, but it is fairly well balanced, to the point where you have elite players credibly arguing that various ROTW starts are easier than European starts.

As far as units are concerned, the pip difference is negligible. We're a long way from the days when ROTW countries had a huge tech penalty, a huge monarch point deficit, and crappy units. It's just a tech penalty now, and removing that penalty (westernizing) is hell of a lot easier than it used to be.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

The solution to ahistorical early european dominance and lategame rampant westernization spread lies with the tech groups.

It makes no sense that other tech groups have a fixed % on top of the western group right from the start in 1444
All tech groups should start at the same tech speed, with few exceptions like hordes, and the modifier for increase over time should simple increase faster for the other groups. So by 1550 there would be a slight advantage of the average european nation over asian nations with bad rulers, by 1650 europeans should start to pull ahead against all but a few asian countries, and by 1750 it should definitely be near impossible to keep up with western tech.

Westernization? Given the fact that only a very few countries did so in this timeframe (undisputedly only Russia, few other countries like Oman or Mughals definitely got their military up to "western standards") there should be more requirements for westernization, namely a 4/4/4 ruler at least, peace and good relations with a western neighbour, etc.

Europeans slapping Indians silly because of a "tactics" advantage in 1530 is absurd. Not until the 18th century should there be a noticeable gap in land military power at all between europeans and asian nations.

 

[Derp]

Westernization is fine and it's easy enough to roll the AI, whether they have western tech or not

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

The solution to ahistorical early european dominance and lategame rampant westernization spread lies with the tech groups.

It makes no sense that other tech groups have a fixed % on top of the western group right from the start in 1444
All tech groups should start at the same tech speed, with few exceptions like hordes, and the modifier for increase over time should simple increase faster for the other groups. So by 1550 there would be a slight advantage of the average european nation over asian nations with bad rulers, by 1650 europeans should start to pull ahead against all but a few asian countries, and by 1750 it should definitely be near impossible to keep up with western tech.

Westernization? Given the fact that only a very few countries did so in this timeframe (undisputedly only Russia, few other countries like Oman or Mughals definitely got their military up to "western standards") there should be more requirements for westernization, namely a 4/4/4 ruler at least, peace and good relations with a western neighbour, etc.

Europeans slapping Indians silly because of a "tactics" advantage in 1530 is absurd. Not until the 18th century should there be a noticeable gap in land military power at all between europeans and asian nations.

Even this is far from perfect. Why should Europe be "special" and have a lower increase in tech costs over time than anywhere else? For that matter, what's the practical difference between the tech cost being 25% higher, and the increase over time providing an equivalent penalty?

If starting Westernisation requires a 4/4/4 or better monarch, what happens if you lose that monarch and get a poor quality one? Does it stall? Do you lose all the progress? Does that make sense if one day before finishing, you suddenly can't complete the process, or you lose perhaps 20 years of attempting to westernise?