Rant on unreal westernization...

[ep1c_fail]

I think it would be cool if you could change group to someone who was above you, so long as you were adjacent. So like Nomad could take Chinese tech group assuming they were next to a Chinese nation.

Alternativley, the further away from Western tech you are, I think the longer it should take to get there. So it should cost a native tribe more points and take more time to westernize than it would take, say, Poland to do the same.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I think it would be cool if you could change group to someone who was above you, so long as you were adjacent. So like Nomad could take Chinese tech group assuming they were next to a Chinese nation.

Alternativley, the further away from Western tech you are, I think the longer it should take to get there. So it should cost a native tribe more points and take more time to westernize than it would take, say, Poland to do the same.

It worked like that in EU3. You could jump single categories, but that sometimes led to odd moments where you couldn't improve because you were sat next to Western nations, not Eastern ones, and you were the tier below Eastern.

I can see the logic to being able to partially reform to the highest group you border, but it might be complicated to code, or end up with you reforming multiple times.

 

[Derp]

Alternativley, the further away from Western tech you are, I think the longer it should take to get there. So it should cost a native tribe more points and take more time to westernize than it would take, say, Poland to do the same.

Uh, that's how it works already. The base points required are multiplied by the tech penalty.

 

[Violent AI]

I often see people take it quite personal, people living outside Europe, that Europeans were ahead of everyone else quite heavily. It is a balance between not hurting peoples feelings and making it a nice game to play, I think.
Just look at the numbers on the first Opium war between England and the Quing dynasty --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

Yes they were. At exploiting and killing the people of rotw for own gains. Like killing 200000 people just so they could do some trade.

 

[wingzero890]

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.

Wrong, that period you're thinking of is actually outside the scope of this game. 1836 to 1936. There's a great game called Victoria 2 that covers it, alot more interesting than EU4. You should check it out

 

[alqemist]

I am not saying it wasn't the case. But if europeans were to be as superior as the numbers show in the opium war link I gave.. England only losing a handful soldiers to an absurdly bigger Quing army, it might be a quite silly game to play, outside Europe.
I am already getting the downvotes from people who, likely, have a hard time accepting that England could win a war with ~19000 men versus more than 200000 quing soldiers, only losing a handful. =/
This being at an even later date than the years the game runs in.

Qing. Yes but OTOH in RL GB could not have shipped 100k+ troops to China in early c19 whereas in game it is not difficult.

 

[bbqftw]

"help I'm getting trashed as a Western tech that starts with 5000-6000 free monarch points"

Try for something like Rajput Reich, or the more easymode Sun Never Sets (you can even pick Bahmanis!), then get back to me on how Indians have it easy. In all likelihood you are getting defeated by armies with significantly lower morale and tactics than you, that also have a military idea disadvantage. Generally, this implies something wrong with army control more than any underlying fault in the game.

As someone who plays both ROTW and European starts, I would say that any HRE start is easier than any non-Ming Asian/African start, and bar 15-20 starts (all except Knights aren't even Western), Europe really is EU4 on training wheels.

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

They do. It's called player bonuses.

 

[LikeNothing]

There is an event with gives Goa a portuguese core. So they wont conquor it always, but there is a core.

That event is changed into a Claim instead of a Core in later versions, and it generated many complaints about unrealistic Westernization in the earlier version before the change.

Perhaps OP is playing on one of those earlier versions.

 

[LikeNothing]

I think that westernization isn't just about technology, but was also about tradition, culture, and religion.

Do you think that now, in the year 2015, ROTW has Westernized?

Do you think, for places such as Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei, and Qatar, the tradition, culture, and religion of those places have ever been Western?

 

[GChapman]

Do you think, for places such as Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei, and Qatar, the tradition, culture, and religion of those places have ever been Western?

Westernizing in EU IV isnt about tradition, culture and religion.

Do you think those nations are currently behind on technology compared to Western Europa? If yes: How many behind are they? Do they still have to discover airplanes for example? Do they use wapens which Western Europa used 80 years ago and never upgrade there army? If no: Westernizing in EU IV terms is fine.

 

[petertel123]

I often see people take it quite personal, people living outside Europe, that Europeans were ahead of everyone else quite heavily. It is a balance between not hurting peoples feelings and making it a nice game to play, I think.
Just look at the numbers on the first Opium war between England and the Quing dynasty --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

But Europeans werent ahead of everyone heavily until the industrial revolution

 

[TheG-Man98]

Its a perfectly valid argument.

I wish people would stop trying to see Nativia Universalis or ROTWia Univeralis - whichever one you prefer - in EU4.

After all it IS called Europa Universalis.

So Great Britain should be extremly overpowered in Victoria 2 just because of the games name

 

[alqemist]

Do you think that now, in the year 2015, ROTW has Westernized?

Do you think, for places such as Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei, and Qatar, the tradition, culture, and religion of those places have ever been Western?

Last I looked at Japan they were wearing Western clothes and had a Western form of government. They celebrate Western festivals. Their legal system is based on a Western model. I don't know if they are Western but it's a lot more Western now than it was 200 years ago. It's not a binary.

 

[TheAtreides84]

I think the old Magna Mundi mod showed the right idea. It was a convoluted system, but the gist of it could be adopted: you have three types of maluses, one social, one economic and one military. Say: China has a strong malus to society because of inner perfection and the like, and weak maluses to economy and army. The first one could be overcome with ADM points, a completed idea group (innovative or administrative or humanistic), and would spawn events like "bureaucrats challenge your rule" and hits to stability. The economic one would require less DIP points and take less time... I would argue this should be applied even to europeans: Tuscany has no malus, but Spain should suffer from a somewhat backward civil society.

 

[Quendorsof]

It worked like that in EU3. You could jump single categories, but that sometimes led to odd moments where you couldn't improve because you were sat next to Western nations, not Eastern ones, and you were the tier below Eastern.

You could westernize (Muslimize / Easternize?) to Muslim / Eastern just fine by having a western neighbour rather than a Muslim Tech / Eastern one in EU3.

 

[HerrStarr]

There is an event with gives Goa a portuguese core. So they wont conquor it always, but there is a core. So India can westernize. It isn't like the whole world except Europe was an idiot. Even with westernizing they still lack behind on tech. So European nations will still be better. There armies will be still the same. Westernizing gives you no western army. So even if they are at the same tech level, your army has more pips, and thus is better. So even after westernizing, European nations will still be better.

Event now give claim

 

[DukeDayve]

Wrong, that period you're thinking of is actually outside the scope of this game. 1836 to 1936. There's a great game called Victoria 2 that covers it, alot more interesting than EU4. You should check it out

No, no that's wrong. When gunpowder was incorporated in to warfare Europe (it started to play a major role as early as 1453 when The Ottomans used it in the siege of Constantinople) tactics started to develop rapidly. Over the next couple of centuries (especially starting around the mid 17th century) every major advancement in military, social, economic spheres came from Europe. In the 18th century Europe only pulled ahead of the rest of the world even harder in every way imaginable.

That's still happening today in Europe and places colonized by Europe like America and Australia. It's to a much lesser extent, with Russia and China more-or-less caught up and other countries not far behind, but even to this day Europe (and north America) are still ahead. Israel too, which is heavily westernized. I mean, particle acceleration isn't being studied in central Africa, is it? Most of your advanced electronics aren't being created by China or India. They might be being manufactured in China (in western factories) but not developed and created there.

These are just facts, the way the world is and has been for centuries. I'm sure if they'd had internet 2,000 years ago some Romans would be on here saying "yeah we did pull ahead of the rest of the known world somewhat, what with the intricate systems of sewers and aqueducts we build everywhere" and some tribesmen from Germany would be going NUH UH! NUH UH!

 

[greendevil]

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.

Yes, it was because no other "region" had such expansion, even if the European one was not total. So, what's your point?

 

[DanubianCossak]

So Great Britain should be extremly overpowered in Victoria 2 just because of the games name

I wouldnt say overpowered, but it will definitely be covered in higher detail, with more events, decisions and content, compared to, say, Zulu or something.

Or for example Germany, Italy, Soviet Union, US etc being covered in higher detail, with more content centered around them in Hearts of Iron, than say Argentina, Chile or Tibet.

Its only natural.

 

[DanubianCossak]

But Europeans werent ahead of everyone heavily until the industrial revolution

We cant measure who was ahead of whom meta physically.

We can however look at what who achieved what. And in EU4 period Europeans were the main drives of most important world changing events.

You may argue that Ming could have initiated exploration/colonization instead of Europeans, but the ultimate argument is that they didnt. Europeans did. You could spend countless hours arguing for technological and cultural achievements of say Indians during that time period, but in end the technology is abstracted according to who achieved what. And Europeans simply rose up to dominate the world. Some people might not like it, and thats understandable, but it is what it is.