Rant on unreal westernization...

[TheChronoMaster]

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.

I've actually been wondering about this, and what about an 'ineffecient logistics' penalty of some kind which causes massive attrition/loss of morale? Like, you need to 'commit' transports to 'supply', in a similar way to how light ships protect trade. For every 1000 men on a distant overseas province, you need one more transport committed to supply.

 

[CNY10000]

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

No, I'm not. The 200-year westernization I proposed also includes the period when only minor influence are taken from western nation.

 

[EMT0]

No, I'm not. The 200-year westernization I proposed also includes the period when only minor influence are taken from western nation.

Japan is a terrible argument on your behalf; they closed their ports down and barred all foreign influence. That's not at all representative of any form of modernization program. Your proposal is not only unreasonable, it's also something a player or an AI would never even use considering how miserable 20 years of Westernization is.

 

[eon47]

No, I'm not. The 200-year westernization I proposed also includes the period when only minor influence are taken from western nation.

Really depends on what we consider to be westernization. Japan was one of the largest manufacturers of rifles in the world in the late 1500s (I've even heard it claimed on here that they were number 1), which certainly seems like it should count for something in regard to tech. In any case, even Japan's later modernization only took 37 years from the restoration of the emperor to defeating Russia, a major world power, and the tech gap was larger then than at any point in EU4. 200 is simply ridiculous.

 

[myrsl0ken]

This thread isn't going anywhere, but I just have to point out how well this post sums up this thread:

What are you even trying to say?! That it didn't happen, it was all just propaganda?

It's a guy flaunting the confederate flag post-charleston accusing me of historical revisionism. Wow.

 

[oblio-]

I think that "westernization" should be renamed to "modernization" and that it should be a much tougher process. But, and this is big, the tech penalties should be smaller:
10% Eastern
15% Ottoman
20% Muslim
25% Indian
30% Chinese
40% Horde
Basically everyone except for hordes should have the option to not westernize.
And the end result should change the units as well, just like it did in the past. So you'd get 0% tech penalty + western units. Maybe some other perks as well, to reward you for going through the grueling process.

And before anyone goes full cry-baby over the smaller tech penalties, remember that there are also neighbor bonuses (especially strong for Western countries since all lucky nations are European), end trade nodes (all of which are in Europe) and rich provinces (most of which are European).

 

[alqemist]

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


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

It would be more useful if you said what the ideas were instead of trying to sound superior.

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.

A little bit but not very much. Cultures are not eternal distinct entities. They can evolve, split, merge, and cross-fertilize. There are no more pure cultures than there are pure races.

I think that "westernization" should be renamed to "modernization" and that it should be a much tougher process.

I agree on the change to a more neutral name. I am not sure about making it tougher. I tried it only once (as Russia) and found it so painful I gave up. Which brings me to...

Basically everyone except for horde should have the option to not westernize.

(Presumably you include the primitives in the "must westenize" group.) I thought that was accepted wisdom already, for human players against AI.

 

[CNY10000]

Japan is a terrible argument on your behalf; they closed their ports down and barred all foreign influence. That's not at all representative of any form of modernization program. Your proposal is not only unreasonable, it's also something a player or an AI would never even use considering how miserable 20 years of Westernization is.

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.

Westernization is supposed to be hard. It should only be completed after European absolute dominance because the reason why ROTW westernized was that they got dominated by European. However, even European absolute dominance happens quite late in this game.

Moreover, level 32 tech in 1835 isn't common in this game, then why do you suppose westernization in 1860s to be a common choice?

Really depends on what we consider to be westernization. Japan was one of the largest manufacturers of rifles in the world in the late 1500s (I've even heard it claimed on here that they were number 1), which certainly seems like it should count for something in regard to tech. In any case, even Japan's later modernization only took 37 years from the restoration of the emperor to defeating Russia, a major world power, and the tech gap was larger then than at any point in EU4. 200 is simply ridiculous.

In 1500s, even Europe has not yet "westernized". Many nations were doing better than Europe until 1700, and this cannot be the reason to call these nations "westernized"

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.

 

[oblio-]

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 should be the time needed to catch up with western nations after complete westernization.

Have you westernized in-game? It takes at least 10 years of a super-ruler to catch up to western nation. Frequently the only tech on-par is military cause you know, you don't want to die.

But Admin tech, Dip tech, ideas? They're waaaay behind Europeans.

 

[CNY10000]

Have you westernized in-game? It takes at least 10 years of a super-ruler to catch up to western nation. Frequently the only tech on-par is military cause you know, you don't want to die.

But Admin tech, Dip tech, ideas? They're waaaay behind Europeans.

I am thinking of something completely new.


I am likely to post a thread after the devs come back from holiday.

 

[bbqftw]

And the end result should change the units as well, just like it did in the past. So you'd get 0% tech penalty + western units. Maybe some other perks as well, to reward you for going through the grueling process.

you can already get western units once you westernize via core recruit (you can use this to run westernized 100% cav ratio horde Poland with western / eastern units)

 

[oblio-]

you can already get western units once you westernize via core recruit (you can use this to run westernized 100% cav ratio horde Poland with western / eastern units)

Now, now, my friendly chap, such weird loopholes only a handful of people know about are not really what regular players would consider "get western units".
Plus it's the kind of thing about which you're never sure that Paradox won't patch out.

 

[ozyhuboi]

something something Vic 2 and westernization and hoping for Vic 3.

 

[RedBstrd]

Japan is absolutely a good example of westernization.

Well, it certainly was one of the best models of Westernization/modernization for late 19th and early 20th century nationalists in former colonial or semi-colonized nations. Various Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Indian, etc., nationalists looked for some degree of inspiration from Japan despite the historical contingencies and peculiarities (like closed ports) that characterized the Westernization/modernization and industrialization process. We should probably take them seriously regarding their sense that Japan's experience was an informative model of the processes they wished to enact or replicate.

It isn't, by contrast, a great example of how Westernization or modernization should work in EU4... because it both started and ended after the time frame of the game. IMHO, whatever Westernization or modernization is for the game should be modeled after one of the examples that took place over the course of the game. Lots of examples are probably disputed (whether Peter the Great really Westernized, for example), but I think that one or more of them should be the example and the mechanics should try to encapsulate the heart of whatever Paradox thinks those specific examples accomplished, what difficulties they entailed, how they affected balances of power, how gameplay mechanics will be affected, and so on.

 

[eon47]

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.

Westernization is supposed to be hard. It should only be completed after European absolute dominance because the reason why ROTW westernized was that they got dominated by European. However, even European absolute dominance happens quite late in this game.

Moreover, level 32 tech in 1835 isn't common in this game, then why do you suppose westernization in 1860s to be a common choice?



In 1500s, even Europe has not yet "westernized". Many nations were doing better than Europe until 1700, and this cannot be the reason to call these nations "westernized"

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.

Not sure I'm understanding you. What is it you disagree with exactly? (Not trying to be rude, btw.)

 

[CNY10000]

Well, it certainly was one of the best models of Westernization/modernization for late 19th and early 20th century nationalists in former colonial or semi-colonized nations. Various Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Indian, etc., nationalists looked for some degree of inspiration from Japan despite the historical contingencies and peculiarities (like closed ports) that characterized the Westernization/modernization and industrialization process. We should probably take them seriously regarding their sense that Japan's experience was an informative model of the processes they wished to enact or replicate.

It isn't, by contrast, a great example of how Westernization or modernization should work in EU4... because it both started and ended after the time frame of the game. IMHO, whatever Westernization or modernization is for the game should be modeled after one of the examples that took place over the course of the game. Lots of examples are probably disputed (whether Peter the Great really Westernized, for example), but I think that one or more of them should be the example and the mechanics should try to encapsulate the heart of whatever Paradox thinks those specific examples accomplished, what difficulties they entailed, how they affected balances of power, how gameplay mechanics will be affected, and so on.

You did remind me that westernization for Eastern/Ottoman techgroup is very different from westernization for Chinese/Indian techgroup. Thanks.

However, if the devs were to implement the westernization for Eastern/Ottoman techgroup, we should suppose that westernization mostly happens in Eastern/Ottoman techgroup nations, and it should be extremely hard or impossible for Indian/Chinese/African techgroup nations to westernize. This westernization system would be great because Chinese/Indian didn't westernize successfully in EU4 period anyway.

Edit: I just don't want to see ridiculously easy Indian/Chinese westernization.

Not sure I'm understanding you. What is it you disagree with exactly? (Not trying to be rude, btw.)

200 is simply ridiculous

 

[CSARebel]

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

This thread isn't going anywhere, but I just have to point out how well this post sums up this thread:



It's a guy flaunting the confederate flag post-charleston accusing me of historical revisionism. Wow.

My response was in regards to your statement about colonialist propaganda. How about leaving the modern politics out of a game discussion.

 

[BlackBarook]

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

I think there should be a mechanic, similar to Ming's 'Internal Perfection', where a nation's ability to advance technologically and evolve socially is dependent on political leaders and its socio-economic climate.

Good rulers, advisors, open borders and trade relations with neighbors, as well as a cohesive population should give positive modifiers to technological advancement and political development. On the other hand terrible rulers, closed door policies, high intolerance towards religious and ethnic minorities should give negative modifiers.

The existing disasters mechanics and ideas could be tied into it. Having the 'Humanist' idea group in a religiously mixed nation could lead to events give positive modifiers, but in a religiously uniform nation it could cause severe backlash.

 

[WeissRaben]

Westernization shouldn't have a reason to exist, period. I know, I know. I can feel the "Malacca! Plassey!" on the tips of your tongues. They were proof of undeniable superiority, right?

Wrong. Malacca was a specop led with superb perfection - unload on the city's main bridge, fortify it, deny access to the royal palace, shell the royal palace. It had nothing that implied technological supremacy, just a very good general with a very good plan. Of course, these things can't happen in game - that's a problem, but what can we do.

Plassey. Has anyone of you read how Plassey actually went? Because, for how it is mentioned, it almost seems like it's colonialists machinegunning the helpless natives... and French. Oh, yes, there were French as well on the Indian side. They were primitive too? Nah: the battle was against (again) a well-fortified position, and there was one tactical mistake that lead the Indian general to his death. At which point, the Indian army - a bit bloodied, but essentially all there still - retreated. Doesn't look like a rout, to me.

And someone named the Opium War. The problem being, you need some decades after the game ends for that - and while it might be a short time, it's all the time needed, because the height of the First Industrial Revolution is there.

All said, in 1820 many Asian countries (but not all of them) had deep structural problems in their societies that eventually locked them from industrialization, and led to Britain having the Maxim Gun and them not; but these things are of minimal or no impact at all, in EU4, because no system represents them.

 

[RedBstrd]

You did remind me that westernization for Eastern/Ottoman techgroup is very different from westernization for Chinese/Indian techgroup. Thanks.

However, if the devs were to implement the westernization for Eastern/Ottoman techgroup, we should suppose that westernization mostly happens in Eastern/Ottoman techgroup nations, and it should be extremely hard or impossible for Indian/Chinese/African techgroup nations to westernize. This westernization system would be great because Chinese/Indian didn't westernize successfully in EU4 period anyway.

No problem. Thanks for being civil in a discussion where people have strong feelings.

For my part, I would be comfortable seeing a rework of the system so that Eastern/Ottoman tech groups experienced some sort of Westernization process while the rest of the world had a different "modernization" mechanic to close the tech gap. I can see why Paradox would feel that juggling too many mechanics like these would be undesirable from a gameplay point of view, though.