Rant on unreal westernization...

[EMT0]

People went from loudly parroting that Yurop was superior, to now calling everybody that says otherwise a butthurt revisionist from not-Yurop who's ancestors were put under the glorious European boot once they were outargued with facts?

Lol

 

[Kalderus]

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.

In 1600, European armies were still using matchlocks, as wheellocks were way too expensive and complicated to build/maintain to equip an entire army with, and the flintlock mechansim hadn't even been invented yet. Until ~1650, they were still even using steel chest plates and helmets. By 1840, the percussion cap had not only been invented, but was now in widespread use. Sure it may seem minor, but having to rely on a lit, gunpowder-soaked, cotton match versus a sealed/water-resistant chemical cap was a huge innovation.

 

[jdavis86]

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.

Why? Please explain.

A lack of devastating disease did not play a significant role in British expansion into India.

And you can't really compare the two. Different continents, vastly more people, and much further travel time and supply lines.

 

[Angmokhan]

Btw westernizing in this game makes perfect sense as it is INITIATED by the monarch/leader of that country & the citizens have no right to oppose whatever, the only way is to rebel. Whole system works based on HISTORICAL context just like the Meiji restoration in Japan initiated by the emperir or the Tsar Peter who tried to westernize Russia.

 

[wingzero890]

Btw westernizing in this game makes perfect sense as it is INITIATED by the monarch/leader of that country & the citizens have no right to oppose whatever, the only way is to rebel. Whole system works based on HISTORICAL context just like the Meiji restoration in Japan initiated by the emperir or the Tsar Peter who tried to westernize Russia.

According to EU4 Russia, in fact, does westernize. Load up one of the 1700 bookmarks and see for yourself.

 

[Gearsnughunter]

Unreal westernization needs to exist as long as Europe can unrealistically land and maintain massive armies in far off distant lands. It is the only way that the ROTW can deal with these ahistorical doomstacks in India, Africa, and the Americas. Fix both or neither but don't cherry pick just to fill up your unrealistic EU4 outrage meter.

 

[WeissRaben]

In 1600, European armies were still using matchlocks, as wheellocks were way too expensive and complicated to build/maintain to equip an entire army with, and the flintlock mechansim hadn't even been invented yet. Until ~1650, they were still even using steel chest plates and helmets. By 1840, the percussion cap had not only been invented, but was now in widespread use. Sure it may seem minor, but having to rely on a lit, gunpowder-soaked, cotton match versus a sealed/water-resistant chemical cap was a huge innovation.

You can't really speak of the percussion cap as viable before the Dreyse, and the first nation to get Dreyse was Prussia in 1841 - with no wide spread up to 1848. As for the flintlock, I didn't mean 1600 as a precise date - you'll see that the example pointed to 1640. But this was an error on my part - I wasn't really clear, so mea culpa. But the percussion cap being widespread before the Dreyse is a point I won't concede - it simply isn't true. Fulminates were discovered in 1800, the tape primer was a mostly failed experiment, and repeating caps were a failure as a whole.

 

[Beagá]

Why? Please explain.

A lack of devastating disease did not play a significant role in British expansion into India.

And you can't really compare the two. Different continents, vastly more people, and much further travel time and supply lines.

Aztecs were conquered mostly because of disease, technology being seconday but still important.

Despite having already superior technology, which wasn´t really even THAT superior (musket, cannon, steel), british didn´t wage war against whole India - they advanced slowly and only because of Divide & Conquer policy. Would they invade and conquer ALL of India? Impossible.

I only used that an example that the technological advantage, while existing, was not enough to make the british conquer India before 1822, the end date for the game. But would it be enough if disease ravaged India? Yes.

Also, both were very distant. India a bit farther yes, but Mexico was a long way too.

Anyway this isn´t really the topic

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hindsight bias is not a good criteria to use to argue against mechanics.

Westernization is costly. A new world nation that westernized in 1560 will still be behind in ideas and/or tech by 1700.

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

"Mods" is a popular out for that on the forums. Specifically, you can mess with 1 line in the defines and make it require 30 techs behind to westernize or some such if you want.

But a more rigorous counter-point is that westernization isn't even close to the most unrealistic game facet of EU IV, and singling it out based on realism alone is biased and unconstructive.

 

[CNY10000]

Japan's army if not its navy was comparable to any western power at the beginning of that time period,

True, but I don't understand how it contradicts to my arguement.

the Tokugawa Shogunate was comparably advanced in terms of administration. In game terms, Japan went from having equal tech to falling behind, with the greatest disparity being just before the reforms of the Meiji government.

Administration does not equal to adminitration tech in EU4. Administration can went down due to disaters, unrests, or so on. Adminitration tech doesn't go back. The administration in your arguement is simulated as "legetimacy" and "stability" in EU4.

It makes sense to count from when they started improving their tech, not from when their tech didn't particularly need to be improved.

During the period of in-game westernization, there can be gradually increased tech bonus.

 

[eon47]

True, but I don't understand how it contradicts to my argument.

If their tech was on par, they wouldn't need to improve it, contradicting your choice of westernization date.

Administration does not equal to administration tech in EU4. Administration can went down due to disasters, unrests, or so on. Administration tech doesn't go back. The administration in your argument is simulated as "legitimacy" and "stability" in EU4.

Legitimacy is the public perception of the government's right to rule. Stability is vague, but I interpret it as the ability of people to live relatively consistent lives--the trains running on time, so to speak. Administration, however, very much equals administration tech. Think about it; forms of government and economic and social policies are all explicitly tied to admin progression in EU4, which is why higher admin let's you become, say, an administrative republic or constitutional monarchy. You're literally upgrading your administration.

During the period of in-game westernization, there can be gradually increased tech bonus.

I guess? Not sure how that responds to my point that it doesn't make sense for Japan to westernize when they're already at tech parity.

 

[Rajputs]

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.

Maybe. But, I think that in this case we have to assume as we cannot access the minds of the devs!

 

[jdavis86]

Aztecs were conquered mostly because of disease, technology being seconday but still important.

Despite having already superior technology, which wasn´t really even THAT superior (musket, cannon, steel), british didn´t wage war against whole India - they advanced slowly and only because of Divide & Conquer policy. Would they invade and conquer ALL of India? Impossible.

I only used that an example that the technological advantage, while existing, was not enough to make the british conquer India before 1822, the end date for the game. But would it be enough if disease ravaged India? Yes.

Also, both were very distant. India a bit farther yes, but Mexico was a long way too.

Anyway this isn´t really the topic

Sure I agree they shouldn't be able to conquer India before 1822. I just don't agree with the premise that colonial expansion wouldn't have been successful without disease, or that a lack of it somehow prevented the British from doing as they pleased in India. Conquering India and conquering Mexico are two very different matters.

As already stated in this thread, "musket, cannon, and steel" may not sound like much to us, but their technological advantage was considerable in all areas.

The fact that disease helped in conquering the Aztecs, doesn't negate the technological advantage the Europeans had. Nor does it imply that they wouldn't have been conquered eventually, anyway.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sure I agree they shouldn't be able to conquer India before 1822. I just don't agree with the premise that colonial expansion wouldn't have been successful without disease, or that a lack of it somehow prevented the British from doing as they pleased in India. Conquering India and conquering Mexico are two very different matters.

As already stated in this thread, "musket, cannon, and steel" may not sound like much to us, but their technological advantage was considerable in all areas.

The fact that disease helped in conquering the Aztecs, doesn't negate the technological advantage the Europeans had. Nor does it imply that they wouldn't have been conquered eventually, anyway.

Hindsight bias truly is a powerful force.

 

[SignedName]

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.

No, that was during the period of Victoria II. That's when Europe dominated the world.

Also, miltech is WAY too important in EUIV. Two tech levels shouldn't make a game-making difference.

 

[alqemist]

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.

Neither is true in the majority of my games, e.g. current game 1776 still has uncolonized provinces in the West of NA, Siberia virgin and Kongo strong.

 

[jdavis86]

Hindsight bias truly is a powerful force.

I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[TheChronoMaster]

I'm not sure what you mean?

He means that you are looking at how actual history went, and basing all suppositions of how hypothetical histories can go upon the premise that actual history is the most likely course of events.

 

[jdavis86]

He means that you are looking at how actual history went, and basing all suppositions of how hypothetical histories can go upon the premise that actual history is the most likely course of events.

Hmm I don't think I made any radical suppositions.

The idea that the Europeans would have (eventually) conquered the Aztecs with or without disease cannot be too controversial.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hmm I don't think I made any radical suppositions.

The idea that the Europeans would have (eventually) conquered the Aztecs with or without disease cannot be too controversial.

That depends on the Aztecs met. Unified Aztec --> delayed conquest --> Dutch independence --> time to pick up on technology (quite possibly supplied by the Dutch or French).

I'm not sure what you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Even people who are cautioned against it, commit it, even if livelihoods are on the line (IE two groups of juries are given a test court case and asked to determine negligence, but one is given the outcome and post-event data while the other is given the information available to the person making the decision when it was made). Even though both juries have the same pre-decision information, and even though the one with results has been warned against it, the guilty disparity is enormous.

Now, here we are, in the future relative to the EU IV period, but there is no way to disguise what happened and force players to argue from neutral potential in 1444. Human beings can't even conceptualize that, yet you're claiming it as if it's common knowledge.

The bias against westernization specifically, and not other mechanics that are equally or more ridiculous, is related to this issue as well. In the history of mankind, no losing coalition has ever completely blocked separate peace. At least with westernization, we have a couple out-of-period examples and knowledge that some of the native American tribes attempted it to survive, but were too small in number and bullied by the US government out of their land regardless. As shaky as that is, it's something, which is more than we can say for colonial range, "war score", current regency mechanics, hordes not getting new units, or cannon/cavalry logistics on long marches. It's more than we can say for gigantic 1444-1500 standing armies too.

But what comes up over and over again as "unrealistic"? AE and westernization.

In order to prevent having to repeat this many times in the future, I will generally just shorten the westernization complaint to the accepted term for it.