Rant on unreal westernization...

[Bigleady]

I love this discussion, it just shows how indoctrinated folks are these days

In reality European nations despite seemingly being perpetually at war with each other conquered the entire world with the exception of China and Japan (and most of Africa, better diseases than ours ). Now you can believe nonsense revisionist history and say this is all blind luck (a bit like every European power simultaneous winning the lottery) or just accept the most likely reality that they really were vastly superior over the time period (argue the specific dates if you must). Its not unreasonable for a player to want the game to reflect this reality more often that not regardless of the cause and arguing about complex reasons is somewhat irrelevant in terms of gameplay given the outcome.

 

[greendevil]

I love this discussion, it just shows how indoctrinated folks are these days

In reality European nations despite seemingly being perpetually at war with each other conquered the entire world with the exception of China and Japan (and most of Africa, better diseases than ours ). Now you can believe nonsense revisionist history and say this is all blind luck (a bit like every European power simultaneous winning the lottery) or just accept the most likely reality that they really were vastly superior over the time period (argue the specific dates if you must). Its not unreasonable for a player to want the game to reflect this reality more often that not regardless of the cause and arguing about complex reasons is somewhat irrelevant in terms of gameplay given the outcome.

That's the point. It's revisionist history and the fact that is sprawling in this period of history just reflects the fact that many ex-dominion/colony/subject nations are/had gaining ground, becoming themselves strong nations (almost everyone knows about China's historical revisionism, places like India/Korea/some countries in Africa might have that too). It's ridicolous.

 

[WeissRaben]

If there were no real progress in weapons technology between 1600 and 1800 then that means EU4s tech system is even more unrealistic.

After 1600 there was no more real innovation on the firing mechanism - which doesn't mean it wasn't improved, of course, and tactics changed a lot. But if you gave a soldier from 1640 a rifle from 1840, he might have wondered about its accuracy and reliability while not finding anything really strange about it. It's much like Japan, on it's own, perfected the matchlock and wheellock to reliable and precise gems - without going beyond up to the Perry Expedition.

Tactics changed, of course. They changed a lot. But the weapons these tactics were enacted with were quite alike, in 1640 and 1840.

 

[jdavis86]

Small arms is one thing, but there is certainly a more appreciable evolution in big guns.

 

[WeissRaben]

Small arms is one thing, but there is certainly a more appreciable evolution in big guns.

Absolutely - but that's because big guns are hell to develop. You have to contain one huge explosion in the cannon, not a firecracker like in small arms, and to do that almost everything was tried. Not without failures: the leather gun was absolutely horrendous, as far as reliability went. And still, cannons kept exploding. If you can lose an entire cannoneer crew, you sure are going to try and get the cannon into shape.

 

[LRDK]

They are a parliamentary democracy in the Westminster tradition. What do you think their current governing arrangements more resemble, the UK 1815 or Japan 1815? Japan didn't even have a deliberative legislature until 1889 when they introduced the Imperial Diet, explicitly on the British model. Here's a helpful wikipedia article for you.

Their democracy was based on British government, because they were under the influence of Britain. But democracy isn't by any means a new Idea. Democracy was implemented by many Mediterranean civilisations, and it seems unlikely that it was not found anywhere else.

 

[alqemist]

That the europeans were the main driving force of the era does not have to mean that they were more technologically advanced. China was the centre of the world for much of the timeframe, indeed, Europeans started exploration to get access to more chinese luxury goods that europeans themselves could not produce.
I have once read an interesting peae by a historian (I dont remember his name) who claimed that China stopped their explorations because there was simply nothing for them to gain: the farther they went from China the poorer the lands they encountered became, until they turned back after reaching Africa, this worked the other way around for the Europeans, who encountered increasingly cultured and advanced civilizations.

That's going too far. China was far behind Europe in the 18th century. There was no such thing as scientific theory in China. Where was the Chinese Isaac Newton? The most complicated 18th century machines were probably clocks, and European clocks were far more sophisticated than Chinese ones. As to astronomy, the Chinese even subscribed to the flat Earth theory until the 17th century, if Wikipedia is to be believed. (I find this a little hard to credit because the sphericity of the Earth had been accepted by educated Europeans since antiquity).

I think part of the problem is that advances in science historically happened in spurts rather than as a smooth, continuous increase, with some periods even experiencing regression.

 

[WeissRaben]

That's going too far. China was far behind Europe in the 18th century. There was no such thing as scientific theory in China. Where was the Chinese Isaac Newton? The most complicated 18th century machines were probably clocks, and European clocks were far more sophisticated than Chinese ones. As to astronomy, the Chinese even subscribed to the flat Earth theory until the 17th century, if Wikipedia is to be believed. (I find this a little hard to credit because the sphericity of the Earth had been accepted by educated Europeans since antiquity).

I think part of the problem is that advances in science historically happened in spurts rather than as a smooth, continuous increase, with some periods even experiencing regression.

Which is what I mean by "deep structural problems in society". The point being, science had a diminutive effect on practical problems (not "no effect", just not huge) until the Industrial Revolution, where a lack of educated bourgeoisie maimed completely many of the Asian countries (but not Japan, which had an excellent social composition and had "just" decided to ignore the rest of the world; as a matter of fact, as soon as it decided to move on it exploded in technology). But this is EU4: the education or presence of a middle class just doesn't exist as a mechanic. It's not there. The one real problem Oriental armies had (lack of beasts of burden good enough to move cannons, i.e. decent and numerous horses) should be represented somehow, but isn't.

 

[oblio-]

I love this discussion, it just shows how indoctrinated folks are these days

In reality European nations despite seemingly being perpetually at war with each other conquered the entire world with the exception of China and Japan (and most of Africa, better diseases than ours ). Now you can believe nonsense revisionist history and say this is all blind luck (a bit like every European power simultaneous winning the lottery) or just accept the most likely reality that they really were vastly superior over the time period (argue the specific dates if you must). Its not unreasonable for a player to want the game to reflect this reality more often that not regardless of the cause and arguing about complex reasons is somewhat irrelevant in terms of game play given the outcome.

The game does reflect reality:
That's a screenshot from the September 1820 EU4 bookmark, it's probably the most accurate historical map for the entire world that we could find. The average EU4 Ironman campaign going from 1444 to 1821 surpasses this bookmark greatly, especially concerning what the Europeans achieve. The only aspect that could be considered "under perfoming" is GB conquering large swathes of India in only 1-5% of the games (but then Portugal, Spain, France or even Russia come to the rescue ).

So your remarks are false.

Regarding the topic: everything started from the complaint of a player who probably just made some mistakes in his attempt to conquer India and is trying to shift the blame elsewhere.

 

[Pro]

Most of the african coast isn't colonized, even the easy to colonize provinces in inner south africa aren't. Madagascar isn't colonized, nor is any significant part of australia. Even some parts of america aren't colonized. That's definitely not something you'd see in a EU4 game. Marrocco has even taken back the provinces that the Iberians held early on.

 

[greendevil]

Which is what I mean by "deep structural problems in society". The point being, science had a diminutive effect on practical problems (not "no effect", just not huge) until the Industrial Revolution

Science had a gigantic effect on "practical problems" even before the Industrial Revolution, for example cartography and navigation, which made it possible for the Atlantic Nations to actually explore the seas and manage to build their colonial empires. Not to say Galileo's Projectile Motion that allowed artillery to be used efficaciously. And, afterall, I can't find subjects more "practical" than warfare and power.

The game does reflect reality: That's a screenshot from the September 1820 EU4 bookmark, it's probably the most accurate historical map for the entire world that we could find. The average EU4 Ironman campaign going from 1444 to 1821 surpasses this bookmark greatly, especially concerning what the Europeans achieve. The only aspect that could be considered "under perfoming" is GB conquering large swathes of India in only 1-5% of the games (but then Portugal, Spain, France or even Russia come to the rescue ).

So your remarks are false.

Regarding the topic: everything started from the complaint of a player who probably just made some mistakes in his attempt to conquer India and is trying to shift the blame elsewhere.

Still looks like from 2/5 to 3/5 of Earth's landmass (excluding wastelands) belongs to European powers or in their sphere of influence. Also, still another Ad Hominem logical fallacy in this post (the underlined part I quoted).

 

[petertel123]

That's going too far. China was far behind Europe in the 18th century. There was no such thing as scientific theory in China. Where was the Chinese Isaac Newton? The most complicated 18th century machines were probably clocks, and European clocks were far more sophisticated than Chinese ones. As to astronomy, the Chinese even subscribed to the flat Earth theory until the 17th century, if Wikipedia is to be believed. (I find this a little hard to credit because the sphericity of the Earth had been accepted by educated Europeans since antiquity).

I think part of the problem is that advances in science historically happened in spurts rather than as a smooth, continuous increase, with some periods even experiencing regression.

all of that is the result of the 18th century scientific revolution, which started europe's advancement over other civilizations in earnest

 

[greendevil]

all of that is the result of the 18th century scientific revolution, which started europe's advancement over other civilizations in earnest

18th saw the birth and the glory of Enlightement: scientific revolution dates at least 2 centuries before the 18th, with Kepler and Galileo. If you're dutch, as your avatar makes me think, you might find this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek) interesting. Full 17th century, so 100 years before.

 

[oblio-]

Still looks like from 2/5 to 3/5 of Earth's landmass (excluding wastelands) belongs to European powers or in their sphere of influence.

But it's "still" less than what happens in every game, where:
1. Europeans colonize every nook and cranny by 1750.
2. African countries drop life flies in 1600.
3. The map looks like something straight out of 1900, not 1800.

Also, still another Ad Hominem logical fallacy in this post (the underlined part I quoted).

Why is it a fallacy? I play a game, I lose to "primitives", I whine on the forums. I've seen so many of these threads that I'm way past boredom. Heck, I even saw one of these threads way back when the rest of the world had half the European military unit pips in 1750.

Here's a short statement I'll always stand behind: a human controlling GB should never lose to Indian nations, no matter what allies they have, after 1650.

 

[greendevil]

But it's "still" less than what happens in every game, where:
1. Europeans colonize every nook and cranny by 1750.
2. African countries drop life flies in 1600.
3. The map looks like something straight out of 1900, not 1800.

The central african colonialism is something as problematic and unrealistic as the widespread westernization of ROTW during the game's timeframe (as the main reason for the European inability to penetrate trough Africa's coastline was Malaria, and only after the discovery and usage of Quinine the colonial powers were able to acquire the inner land); however, they are two different problems that require distinct solutions.

Why is it a fallacy? I play a game, I lose to "primitives", I whine on the forums. I've seen so many of these threads that I'm way past boredom. Heck, I even saw one of these threads way back when the rest of the world had half the European military unit pips in 1750.

Here's a short statement I'll always stand behind: a human controlling GB should never lose to Indian nations, no matter what allies they have, after 1650.

Is is a fallacy because you are either making assumptions on the reasons why the TS had opened the discussion (you can suppose it, but you can't know that it's what you're saying, as the TS hasn't said it explicitly) and because it diverges the focus from the actual problem to a problem related to the person who said it.

 

[Pro]

as the main reason for the European inability to penetrate trough Africa's coastline was Malaria, and only after the discovery and usage of Quinine the colonial powers were able to acquire the inner land

Malaria was *a* reason, but in the EU4 era it was hardly the only one. European wars with africans didn't become really one sided until the invention of the maxim gun.

 

[WeissRaben]

Science had a gigantic effect on "practical problems" even before the Industrial Revolution, for example cartography and navigation, which made it possible for the Atlantic Nations to actually explore the seas and manage to build their colonial empires. Not to say Galileo's Projectile Motion that allowed artillery to be used efficaciously. And, afterall, I can't find subjects more "practical" than warfare and power.

You don't need the Scientific Method to study astronomy, simply because beyond a certain level it's just not enough. The Mesoamerican civilizations reached an incredible level of accuracy with almost no tools at all; Erathostenes measured the Earth's radius with an extremely well-thought gimmick, and also its inclination. Knowing how many moons Jupiter had, or seeing with precision the craters on the Moon, were things of relative use, in the Early Modern era: they still built the basis for modern astronomy.

Ballistics are a better example, indeed, but I have no qualms pointing out that European artillery and gunnery were top-notch. This said, many studies about ballistics had happened before the Scientific Method became a recognized thing: the first treatise about ballistics, the Nova Scientia by Niccolò Tartaglia, is from the beginning of the 16th century. It will be validated later by Galileo (this time using the Method), but it came to important conclusions on its own (first of all, 45° as the longest-range angle).

 

[Beagá]

I don't really see how one could dispute a European advantage in technology. At what point do technology and knowledge differ?

The mere fact that the Europeans were walking around mesoamerica should tell us all we need to know.

Their technological advantage can't be doubted just because many died from disease, and said advantage wasn't tested as sharply. Not disagreeing that the disease part was very helpful.

The fact british had a very hard time advancing in India and needed local alliances tells everything about trying to invade a land without disease as ally.

 

[wingzero890]

The game does reflect reality:
That's a screenshot from the September 1820 EU4 bookmark, it's probably the most accurate historical map for the entire world that we could find. The average EU4 Ironman campaign going from 1444 to 1821 surpasses this bookmark greatly, especially concerning what the Europeans achieve. The only aspect that could be considered "under perfoming" is GB conquering large swathes of India in only 1-5% of the games (but then Portugal, Spain, France or even Russia come to the rescue ).

So your remarks are false.

Regarding the topic: everything started from the complaint of a player who probably just made some mistakes in his attempt to conquer India and is trying to shift the blame elsewhere.

Get out with your facts, this is a place for people to feel good about Europe and how it ABSOLUTELY DOMINATED THE ENTIRE WORLD by 1600. Anyone who says otherwise is a historical revisionist, even that bookmark of EU4 is revisionist!

 

[Angmokhan]

Some people are just so nit picky about everything in the game... Dude your playing a game not living a history & btw if Non European countries are well informed early on & know the advantage of science & westernizing that separates its social norm, mysticism & taboo, i suppose more will go on the road of westernization.

As many posters have said, European powers dominating everyone at 1444 is pretty unlikely when everyone is basically having the same tech. It was only during the Reinassance period that science & technology took a huge leap & they overtook other Non European nations. So you should curb down on that European supremacist perception. Gameplay wise, European nations already have a huge advantage early on. If you ever tried playing as African nations u understand why when European power declares war on u, the only thing u can do is keep sending your precious army stacks to their doom due to their overehelming tech advantage. If you remove this ability to westernize, heck Non European nations are just food waiting to be eaten wheres the fun. Btw it is NOT necessary to westernize just to grow strong. I usually only westernize when i grow really strong & i learned a trick to let the greedy Europeans be my protectorate until i grow big & kill them.