Rant on unreal westernization...

[Rajputs]

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.

The thing is that EU4 is not a History simulator. It allows for alt-history to take place. So while we can argue that historical powers should be powerful in EU4, a-historical things must also be able to take place. Anyway, though it is Europa Universalis, we are now at a stage were the entire world is covered in nearly the same amount of detail.

Also you can argue that if certain deaths or births did not happen, then the world would be much different to how we know it today. Just one example, what if the Rajputs had defeated the Mughals at the Battle of Khanwa and then marched on Delhi?

India could have been united and the British would have never conquered it, resulting in no industrial revolution.

Such scenarios are certainly possible, and EU4 allows for this.

But you are right in saying that westernisation should be replaced by modernisation. Westernisation implies, changing culture and traditions to adapt to the Western cultures. However, if China, say is ahead in tech then other countries should modernise to be on level with them .

 

[FreeSoc]

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

I responded to a claim made by DukeDayve that Europe was dominant throughout the period - he even went so far as to use the phrase "Absolute domination" to describe Europe's position in the period.

That is a transparently false statement. Highlighting that was my point.

 

[DanubianCossak]

The thing is that EU4 is not a History simulator. It allows for alt-history to take place. So while we can argue that historical powers should be powerful in EU4, a-historical things must also be able to take place. Anyway, though it is Europa Universalis, we are now at a stage were the entire world is covered in nearly the same amount of detail.

Also you can argue that if certain deaths or births did not happen, then the world would be much different to how we know it today. Just one example, what if the Rajputs had defeated the Mughals at the Battle of Khanwa and then marched on Delhi?

India could have been united and the British would have never conquered it, resulting in no industrial revolution.

Such scenarios are certainly possible, and EU4 allows for this.

But you are right in saying that westernisation should be replaced by modernisation. Westernisation implies, changing culture and traditions to adapt to the Western cultures. However, if China, say is ahead in tech then other countries should modernise to be on level with them .

EU4 is not a historical simulator, but it is in a way a simulation of history.

There are certain game mechanics that require certain countries to perform certain roles, or large part of the game content will never be unlocked.

For example there is a finite number of tags that are set to pick up exploration ideas. If all those tags fail, for example they get conquered (CAS, POR, FRA, ENG for the most part) then you either never get exploration&colonization, or youll get them much later on / in much reduced state.

So ultimately ahistoric things are allowed to happen. France can fail and be conquered by Auverge, Merwar can beat Delhi and dominate India, but when in the end overall it doesnt make much of a difference. Auvergne that just conquered France has a decision to form France, so France will pop up again and perform its historical role to a large degree, and although Merwar has performed way beyond its historical expectation in India, it will still be at a disadvantage compared to Europe, so some sort of quasi history like turn of events could happen.

Im afraid some people come to EU4 with a Civilization mind set, and EU4 is simply not a Civilization game. Everyone is not equal and everyone doesnt start with 1 city.

 

[kviiri]

In general I think they should nerf Westernization, but buff technology gain from Western ties. In particular, I think gains from being a protectorate, Western Arms Trade or other European contacts should be more proportional to the tech malus of the tech group in question. Sure, the Chinese had better technology than the American Natives when on their own, but I think it's a stretch that American Natives would stay significantly behind should both be under a constant bombardment of Western influences.

 

[Beagá]

One thing is certain, the pace of westernization is indeed bad.

Wanna westernize fast at the VERY least you should take Innovative. Or even fill it.

 

[Rajputs]

EU4 is not a historical simulator, but it is in a way a simulation of history.

There are certain game mechanics that require certain countries to perform certain roles, or large part of the game content will never be unlocked.

For example there is a finite number of tags that are set to pick up exploration ideas. If all those tags fail, for example they get conquered (CAS, POR, FRA, ENG for the most part) then you either never get exploration&colonization, or youll get them much later on / in much reduced state.

So ultimately ahistoric things are allowed to happen. France can fail and be conquered by Auverge, Merwar can beat Delhi and dominate India, but when in the end overall it doesnt make much of a difference. Auvergne that just conquered France has a decision to form France, so France will pop up again and perform its historical role to a large degree, and although Merwar has performed way beyond its historical expectation in India, it will still be at a disadvantage compared to Europe, so some sort of quasi history like turn of events could happen.

Im afraid some people come to EU4 with a Civilization mind set, and EU4 is simply not a Civilization game. Everyone is not equal and everyone doesnt start with 1 city.

I have to admit that that is true. Of course not all the countries are equal. But the developers have to find a balance between actual history and alternate possibilities. In the end no one will completely agree. I would even argue that the game is very loosely based on actual history as there are so many random factors involved.

 

[DanubianCossak]

I have to admit that that is true. Of course not all the countries are equal. But the developers have to find a balance between actual history and alternate possibilities. In the end no one will completely agree. I would even argue that the game is very loosely based on actual history as there are so many random factors involved.

The developers have to find a balance between actual history and alternative possibilities only under the assumption that what we have right now - Europe having advantage over everyone - is a result of lack of balance and not the actual game design.

Assumption being the key part. In my opinion, in this case its wrong.

 

[LikeNothing]

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

Good, then you agree me and disagree with the OP.

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.

You have a very different idea of what is meant by "tradition, culture, religion" than I do. Perhaps the OP does as well.

Keep in mind that Christmas is a Roman Pagan festival, and democracy is Greek in origin. So by your argument, the traditions, culture, and religion of Japan is also Roman Pagan and Greek.

 

[PeterCorless]

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...

I think it is hilarious to begin your Euro-centric argument by citing the Ottomans, who, as far as the game is concerned, are not Westernized at game start, yet were more technologically advanced.

 

[DukeDayve]

I think it is hilarious to begin your Euro-centric argument by citing the Ottomans, who, as far as the game is concerned, are not Westernized at game start, yet were more technologically advanced.

I think it's hilarious that you haven't figured out I've been talking about real life for the last few pages, not the game.

 

[TheG-Man98]

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.

The title hearts of Iron isn't saying anything about the nations on wich the focus lies

 

[lecobra92]

Here is something I posted in another thread where the OP there complained about tech groups other than western being on part with westerners even lateish in the game. It got a few agrees so I'll post it here.

There is nothing wrong with those outside of Europe keeping up (relatively) well until the 1700's. After all, that's kind of what happened. What needs to happen if we wish to "model" history properly is a drop off around this point when the agricultural revolution in Europe really kicked off and enabled a surplus of manpower combined with advanced banking and investment techniques derived from trading investments/missions on the part of proto-capitalists in the Netherlands and Great Britain that allowed Europe to run away from the rest technologically. And you know what? Most Asian/Islamic World nations actually do start lagging rather significantly in the 18th century in my games so, from my limited point of view, this seems like a good balance. Not perfect, but it works.

The best way to model this (imo ofc)? Do what I listed above. Have advancements in Banking and Infrastructure be derived from having extensive trading influence, a more advanced form of government to distance from feudal/medieval tax collection methods, relative cultural homogeneity, and a much higher development to province ratio to represent how an expansionist empire like the Ottomans empire would have difficulties with this sort of advancement would then enable them to invest in further internal improvements like a proper Academy of Sciences or "nudge" them slowly to a proper scientific revolution. Anyone who accomplishes this should be able to "modernize" and experience and exponential growth in tech advancement. It just so happens that these things rather favor Western Europeans due to their position to easily influence trade and the HRE and large number of Great Powers in the area ensuring (hopefully) that the province to development ratio stays high. If this is implemented properly then honestly we could do away with tech groups all together, simply giving Europeans the tech advantage to mil that they get during the religious wars should be sufficient to represent their increasing skill at waging warfare. And the religious wars themselves should be expanded to include things like the French Wars of Religion, the expulsion of Puritans from England, and all those other fun things.

In fact the reformation itself should provide a rather substantial tech discount to those that convert due to the proliferation of bibles and how everyone in Northern and Central Germany all of a sudden started reading due to the importance of the personal interpretation of the Bible and the spread of the printing press (another possible way to give Westerners a tech reduction without making "groups"). The Counter Reformation should provide a MATCHING tech discount as it was an intellectual refutation of the arguments of the Reformation while still making some concessions and led to the development of perhaps the most venerable collection of intellectuals formed by any institution ever under the Jesuits. Seriously, these guys were basically intellectual missionaries that got people to convert by proving how smart they are.

TLDR Get rid of tech groups and have dynamic events and mechanics instituted that allow anyone to modernize but still favor Europeans.

 

[EMT0]

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.

Bwahahaha. No. Not even close. The only places Europe literally charged through paper thin resistance was in the Eastern Seaboard, the Caribbean, and Australia. Mesoamerica required several lucky breaks and the Maya continued to wage war on the Spanish until the 1800s; people like the Comanche and Mapuche were the nightmare of the Spanish colonial authorities. The conquest of the Inca are objectively the greatest stroke of timing the Spanish ever experienced. And that's without discussing the rest of the world. In Africa the Spanish were countered by the Moroccans or the Ottomans. The Portuguese conquered East Africa...and were then promptly kicked out by Oman of all people. India isn't even a conquest. It took the implosion of two empires back to back for the British to advance past the trade post system. The only trade concession given by the Chinese in the entire EUIV timespan is Macao, and that was by the ailing Ming dynasty. Other than that you've got...the spice islands and Java. Everything else in Indonesia were the equivalent of lone scattered treaty ports. Hell, even the North American tribes were important allies well into the 1700s rather than easy conquests exactly because Europeans did not have the ability to project power and send in troops.

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)

You know nothing. Absolutely nothing, and you just made that painfully clear. The conquest of the Inca for one, took over 30 years of continuous effort.

The inherent unrest would be false. The Inca Empire didn't collapse to disease in and of itself. The disease just got the catastrophe train rolling. If you were to translate what happened to game mechanics, an 'Old World' disease modifier hit the Inca Empire that made it incredibly likely that the ruler would die and halving or even quartering their manpower. The Inca then lost 2 stability because of the heir and the Emperor dying, triggering a Civil War crisis. This crisis cost the Inca the remainder of their manpower, their treasury, and to top it all off the movement and recruitment of armies resulted in a provincial modifier spreading called 'Old World Disease' resulting in the loss of half of all taxes/manpower/production and increased unrest. So the instant the Civil War crisis is over, the Inca can finally breathe easy. But then the Spanish show up, kill your monarch(more -1 stability), fund rebels already high on revolt risk, and proceed to loot your nation. Even then though, you still had a prayer; you've managed to beat a small army and destroyed a few lone regiments. But then your siege of Cuzco broke because your damn general lacked 1 more siege pip before the Spanish showed up with their morale regained.

As-is, we've already got a series of annoying railroading events, dubious penalties, general poverty in the region, and the devs actively making the region worse to play and less fun than ever.

If you're going to come and talk about the supremacy of Yurop, at least go and get your facts straight.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

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

They...kind of are. Like, the UK is Vicky 2's final boss.

 

[Vaximillian]

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.

Now the proponents of China in CK2 would jump on you, if they hadn't already. „Even the devs themselves don't like the name Crusader Kings!“

 

[GChapman]

Event now give claim

You could be right. I haven't played in India for a long time.

 

[CNY10000]

Regardless of whether ROTW should stand a chance against European in EU4 timeframe, westernizaiton is absolutely way too easy in this game. Westernization needs to take a overall of about 200 years and should raise more hell than most disasters.

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.


Edit:
From a game play aspect, Westernization temporarily delays the tech advancement of a nation, which is ridiculous. I once got 4 mil tech level ahead of Russia only because Russia was westernizing.

The current westernization system is absolutely a garbage and I would rather have it temrarily removed.

Edit 2:
The European dominance happened in the very end of EU4 period has already been made into the game by giving Western Tech the best late-game units, but this advantage could be a bit earlier and more significant.

Hopefully we can get a better thread when the devs came back, instead of having so many people arguing about the name of this game.

 

[EMT0]

Regardless of whether ROTW should stand a chance against European in EU4 timeframe, westernizaiton is absolutely way too easy in this game. Westernization needs to take a overall of about 200 years and should raise more hell than most disasters.

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.

If you're trying to represent Japan's introduction to firearms as the start of a concentrated Japanese effort to reach technological and social parity with the West you're really misrepresenting the facts.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

If you're trying to represent Japan's introduction to firearms as the start of a concentrated Japanese effort to reach technological and social parity with the West you're really misrepresenting the facts.

He might be thinking of the Meiji Restoration, which is waaaaaaay after the introduction of firearms to Japan. During the period between the Sengoku and Meiji periods, very little was accomplished socially or technologically in Japan, and the gates to the West were effectively closed -- even moreso than China. (yes, I know that's an unfair generalization)

 

[Denkt]

Compared to real life Europe is way stronger in the game then it was in real life relatively compared to rest of the world.
Europe owned more of their success to diplomacy then technology.

Westernization is expansive and with tech malues you will lose alot of monarch points if you develop your technology, starting in western tech group save a huge amount of monarch points. Removing westerinzation or making it harder will just make the gap between western and non western even more ridiculous then it is now.

In the game a European nation can send 90% of its army to India and do a very successful invasion (and without any foothold) because the technology advantage mean that European nations both have the quality and quantity advantage and this in early 1500s. This is way more ridiculous then any westernization.