Rant on unreal westernization...

[jdavis86]

I think you're lumping me into a separate discussion.

It was suggested that disease was more crucial to the success of colonization than European technology. I disagree.

How would the Aztecs have survived?

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).

Whaaat?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think you're lumping me into a separate discussion.

It was suggested that disease was more crucial to the success of colonization than European technology. I disagree.

How would the Aztecs have survived?



Whaaat?

Are you saying that you predict a virtually identical scenario unfolding if the Aztecs and other mesoamericans were not vulnerable to disease? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's the only position you can take if you believe European technology would have conquered them eventually otherwise.

The amazing thing about your reaction is how powerfully it shows the bias. There's not a person alive that can reliably predict exactly how the events would progress w/o disease. If your position was "they might have been conquered anyway, but maybe not", *that* would be uncontroversial. But you didn't say that.

There is evidence that technology alone might have been decisive (British conquest of India while it was fractured). There is also evidence that it might not (several coastal African nations were never held by Europe throughout the period, and spent only a couple decades under others' rule in the post-industrial era, was this due to markedly superior technological achievement compared to Aztec or Inca?).

As I noted, any delay in timing of conquest of the new world gives the colonial powers potential involvement in religious wars, Italian wars, 80 years war etc to the extent that they can't commit a large enough force to secure an area that is not disease ridden/torn by civil war, regardless of technology on contact. Yet for some reason, your reaction was just "whaaat" .

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Aztec as in government probably wouldn't (as it kicked the bucket through civil war long before any ecological changes could take place), but that still leaves a fully functioning society with 100k+ warriors that can bid for time, adapt, and survive in multitude of ways.

That is in contrast to a society that after civil war, ends up losing roughly half of its population to a disease.

 

[jdavis86]

Are you saying that you predict a virtually identical scenario unfolding if the Aztecs and other mesoamericans were not vulnerable to disease? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's the only position you can take if you believe European technology would have conquered them eventually otherwise.

The amazing thing about your reaction is how powerfully it shows the bias. There's not a person alive that can reliably predict exactly how the events would progress w/o disease. If your position was "they might have been conquered anyway, but maybe not", *that* would be uncontroversial. But you didn't say that.

There is evidence that technology alone might have been decisive (British conquest of India while it was fractured). There is also evidence that it might not (several coastal African nations were never held by Europe throughout the period, and spent only a couple decades under others' rule in the post-industrial era, was this due to markedly superior technological achievement compared to Aztec or Inca?).

As I noted, any delay in timing of conquest of the new world gives the colonial powers potential involvement in religious wars, Italian wars, 80 years war etc to the extent that they can't commit a large enough force to secure an area that is not disease ridden/torn by civil war, regardless of technology on contact. Yet for some reason, your reaction was just "whaaat" .

A virtually identical scenario? Like the exact same thing? No I have no idea, nor did I claim that.

I said:

It was suggested that disease was more crucial to the success of colonization than European technology. I disagree.

The Europeans conquered much of the world, a notable amount of which was done despite "domestic" conflict. Some parts were harder to take than others, but their advantages clearly won out.

I don't claim to know how events would have exactly unfolded had disease not been a factor in the early 16th century.

Assembling a scenario whereby the Aztecs could have resisted European colonization seems far fetched.

 

[Pro]

Why? Many of the states of Southern Mexico held out for more than a century.

 

[jdavis86]

Why? Many of the states of Southern Mexico held out for more than a century.

Did they hold out forever? Or did Europe win?

 

[Pro]

Of course they lost eventually. But they held out for a long time, especially given how small they were relative to the aztecs. It suggests that it wouldn't be at all unrealistic for a stronger meso-american state to hold out into the Vicky era.

 

[Bigleady]

and just as importantly what else were the Spanish doing at the time, I suspect in technical terms it was "a lot".

 

[Angmokhan]

Jdavis you have to understand that muskets are not very advanced in that period, slow reloading .... Cant use during rain etc. Heck when your busy reloading after firing a shot, hordes of indians would have already appeared in your face before you have the chance to take another shot. Their main firepower comes from artillery & i dont suppose they can field that many artillery providing they are keeping it on mainland Europe for defensive purpose. With such numerical superiority, its not possible for Europeans to overpower them.

The world in 15th century is a very different age, Europeans do not stand together in fact they rival each other & destroy each other colonies given the chance. In that kind of intense rivalry, if diseases didnt wipe them out, Europeans mught still be too busy fighting with each other over every inch of land since the New World has no rules & will not suffer any negativit from the pope if u wage war there.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

I just re-read the OP and this thread is a giant bag of fail because OP is describing a scenario that just doesn't happen all that much in the actual game. He/she is talking about some weird edge case where somehow most asian powers, including Ming, westernizing by 1700s... I played like 100+ hours of Common Sense. That is some super edge case and if you are arguing that it is the norm and hence the game needs to change, you are BSing yourself.

Of course they lost eventually. But they held out for a long time, especially given how small they were relative to the aztecs. It suggests that it wouldn't be at all unrealistic for a stronger meso-american state to hold out into the Vicky era.

To these guys, re-enacting colonialism 100 ~ 200 years ahead of schedule is just history. Delaying it? Impossible.

The 'bias; (to put it kindly) is pretty freaking transparent.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Assembling a scenario whereby the Aztecs could have resisted European colonization seems far fetched.

The Aztec specifically, yes (if Europe never showed up, Aztec might have been ousted all the same). Nations like Inca or someone unifying more of Mexico? No, that's not far fetched at all. The natives don't need to win an invasion of Europe, they just need to make it too costly for the land to be worth the effort.

A virtually identical scenario? Like the exact same thing? No I have no idea, nor did I claim that.

You can't take your position without claiming that or winding up in hindsight bias territory. You're a human being and have the same limitations we all have, there is no way to predict an alternative history where large populations didn't die to disease with any plausible confidence. You are making an assertion that literally can't be backed by evidence using any method known to us, and yet claim it is uncontroversial. Those two things don't mesh well.

Did they hold out forever? Or did Europe win?

Hindsight bias.

I just re-read the OP and this thread is a giant bag of fail because OP is describing a scenario that just doesn't happen all that much in the actual game.

It's true that the OP made some claims that aren't credible. I chose to ignore that for a while because it's a ubiquitous claim levied against westernization by players who, when asked, can't give a numerical breakdown of the tradeoff westernization currently entails. A nation that westernizes without using the freebie button available to Anatolian and higher is generally playing from behind for at least half the game, but usually more, and that's with a fast westernization that the AI can't manage, like doing it by 1550 with Aztec. If you westernize that early, you might catch up in both technology and ideas by 1700.

But the OP wants it weaker than that, apparently, and is willing to make claims that don't happen consistently in an attempt to plead the case.

Simply put, beginning the game western as compared to Indian tech spots you 4000-5000 points in each category, assuming the Indian tech nation completes westernization by 1600 (which is rare). If a western nation were to put those points into expansion (coring + vassals) with no discount, you'd have a nation with well over double the starting territory of France. This is *post buff* that gives Indian tech 3/3/3 at start, too. You could also fill out an entire military idea group relative to Indian tech and still be ahead.

But for some reason, the silly hat bothers the OP, and he feels that having points comparable to more than 2x France on day 0 just from tech group as an advantage isn't enough. It is "utterly difficult to move into India" with a colonial superpower .

 

[Kamiran]

Are you saying that you predict a virtually identical scenario unfolding if the Aztecs and other mesoamericans were not vulnerable to disease? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's the only position you can take if you believe European technology would have conquered them eventually otherwise.
...
There is evidence that technology alone might have been decisive (British conquest of India while it was fractured). There is also evidence that it might not (several coastal African nations were never held by Europe throughout the period, and spent only a couple decades under others' rule in the post-industrial era, was this due to markedly superior technological achievement compared to Aztec or Inca?).

As I noted, any delay in timing of conquest of the new world gives the colonial powers potential involvement in religious wars, Italian wars, 80 years war etc to the extent that they can't commit a large enough force to secure an area that is not disease ridden/torn by civil war, regardless of technology on contact. Yet for some reason, your reaction was just "whaaat"

Uh i really love people that call some aspects of the game "ahistorical" and set a big like under a "post your empire" when the 200th player achieve WC with the ottomans.

Its the goal of the game, its the reason why you play the game, its the point why its fun: CHANGING THE TIMELINE!!!
So why are you whining?

The aztecs fall to europeans cause they harassed other native tribes that finally allied the europeans to stop the harassment of the aztecs. 200-500 europeans lead an army of 10-15k natives vs 20k aztecs.
The appearance of unknown horses, unknown technology and an old prophecy that told a story of an bearded god had much more impact then 200-400 musketry.
But its hard to represent this in a game.

Do you think its historical that you are able to send 50.000 man over the atlantic with only 30-35m long boats??

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Uh i really love people that call some aspects of the game "ahistorical" and set a big like under a "post your empire" when the 200th player achieve WC with the ottomans.

Its the goal of the game, its the reason why you play the game, its the point why its fun: CHANGING THE TIMELINE!!!
So why are you whining?

The aztecs fall to europeans cause they harassed other native tribes that finally allied the europeans to stop the harassment of the aztecs. 200-500 europeans lead an army of 10-15k natives vs 20k aztecs.
The appearance of unknown horses, unknown technology and an old prophecy that told a story of an bearded god had much more impact then 200-400 musketry.
But its hard to represent this in a game.

Do you think its historical that you are able to send 50.000 man over the atlantic with only 30-35m long boats??

Are you sure you're quoting the right post here ? It looks like you meant to be addressing someone else but it turned up on my alerts lol.

 

[yerm]

I have a problem with westernization, and go the exact opposite route. I hold that it is absurd and bad game design that all of these nations are westernizing, and/or that nations are actively trying to westernize in the 16th century.

My problem with this is that western is too good too early. My solution isn't to make westernization harder or arbitrarily tell the AI to be stupid and not do it despite its advantages, my solution is to make being non-western less impactful early in the game. The tech penalty should be diminished, and should instead have a larger increase over time malus, such that early techs are barely off while later techs start reaching those levels. Instead, the penalty should be heavier on ideas, which would mean disadvantages that aren't totally insurmountable the way being backwards on tech can be.

Westernization should be an opportunity cost, and currently that cost is way too slanted in favor of do it ASAP. The balance should put it reasonably close to historical, and barring that, maybe just reasonably close to fun. There's nothing exciting about needing to westernize ASAP. The current situation for eastern tech, where it's a debatable option with pros and cons, is far more ideal and should be the situation for most of the world. Just have tech costs start climbing gradually and that'll make the advantages of westernizing become more useful as time passes, and the need for it becomes more situational and strategic.

Basically, the current mass westernization that can happen, and the current need to do so to stay relevant early game as ROTW, is not historically accurate nor is it exciting/fun. I'm ok with fudging history in the name of fun, or leaving some tedium in to keep history alive, but westernization currently accomplishes neither.

 

[Beagá]

Well Vijnayagar westernized in 1602 in my Austria game.

GG Pdox.

Seriously just put a step-by-step process like Victoria 2 has, at this point all I can say is the system sucks.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Vijay westernizing in 1602 puts it roughly 5000 points behind a western start in each category. I'm curious why people are arguing that this is an insufficient disadvantage for Indian tech nations.

The game is otherwise rife with egregious deviations from history to the extent that westernization doesn't make top 10, so that angle isn't credible by itself.

 

[yerm]

Vijay westernizing in 1602 puts it roughly 5000 points behind a western start in each category. I'm curious why people are arguing that this is an insufficient disadvantage for Indian tech nations.

The game is otherwise rife with egregious deviations from history to the extent that westernization doesn't make top 10, so that angle isn't credible by itself.

It's two problems. The first problem is that India is so thoroughly behind by 1600 that westernizing would be advantageous. The second is that this can and does chain react into a completely western India across the board before long, resulting in the subcontinent being just a different-religion Europe with maybe a bit of catchup left to do for some of them.

This westernization setup results in Vijay being horribly stifled in the 16th century, and can then spend the 17th making up for it by being equal to Europe and shooting ahead of anyone local who doesn't follow suit. Good game design wouldn't have India terribly far behind in 1600, and also wouldn't have them catching up by 1700. It should be the complete other way around; they should spend the 17th century starting to fall behind, not spent catching back up, and this flat tech penalty coupled with rampant westernization screws that up. It's not historical, and I for one don't think it's particularly fun to play in or against.

 

[oblio-]

yerm's proposal sounds great, the only thing I'm worried about: in Africa and Asia frequently the competition is less fierce (as is the AE), so how would we counterbalance the extra monarch points early game? Otherwise it would just mean that blobbing is easier outside of Europe early game.
I think that one factor would be the increased AE for blobs, from 1.13, another would be to give lucky nation status to various nations in Asia and Africa that did well for during the period: Persia, Manchu, Mughals, Marathas if they form (does the game engine allow granting lucky nation status dynamically during a campaign?). Taungu, maybe Bengal, Songhai.

Once this is in a place a possible system would be:
1. 0% tech penalty up to 1550 for everyone.
2. then varying tech penalties for everyone non-Western, increasing at a constant rate so that Chinese tech, for example, would be at 90% tech penalty in 1800.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's two problems. The first problem is that India is so thoroughly behind by 1600 that westernizing would be advantageous. The second is that this can and does chain react into a completely western India across the board before long

"Before long"? Nation has to first fall behind its neighbors to the tune of 1000 points/category (a bit more than one tech). It then must tech sufficiently (starting from pretty close to no points) to reach 8 techs ahead of the other nations. From the moment they westernize, it's unreasonable to conclude that their completing it will allow other nations to westernize before 15-20 years pass. Westernization itself takes 8.3 at absolute max speed (ten progress/month, no slower westernization attempts/reactionary occupations/income must be below 15). 10 years is a more realistic westernization time.

In practice a "westernization cascade" is going to happen at the rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of "next nation westernizes in 25-30 years", even if the next AI up hits the button *instantly*. This means northern India won't have even started by 1700, despite OP's claim, and that it would be too late for those nations to have any real benefit conferred.

The chain reaction "problem" is trivial compared to the designed "need".

yerm's proposal sounds great, the only thing I'm worried about: in Africa and Asia frequently the competition is less fierce (as is the AE), so how would we counterbalance the extra monarch points early game? Otherwise it would just mean that blobbing is easier outside of Europe early game.

What difference do you realistically anticipate? You blob now at the expense of tech anyway (each 5% neighbor bonus added on each tech is worth 3 development in savings, but when going 75% --> 70% --> 65% and so forth you're getting 30 ADM for each 5% each time, so a 75% discount is worth 45 development, then you get 42, etc to the point of going that deep in neighbor bonuses is worth 360 development if you catch up), and sac tech in DIP and ADM (thus missing ideas). Yerm proposes a situation where you sac ideas but can tech up slightly better.

Here's an example from when I was theorizing this and wanted to test it, from 1.9:







Now that ADM efficiency reduces core cost, I think one might want to run administrative + influence and hard-blob, time it best you can to vault into ADM efficiency (feeding vassals while stocking up for efficiency), then westernize + use neighbor bonus discount. It's still markedly worse than starting western, but you can curb some of the cost damage of westernizing at the price of ideas.

 

[yerm]

I'm not simply proposing offloading the tech penalty to ideas in equal measure. I'm suggesting that's one shift, and idea costs are less anyway, and the other is to scale the tech penalty. A 60% penalty means you can hit the 1500s behind. A 3% penalty per tech over 5 penalty means tech 10 has a whopping 15% penalty, but tech 20 is 45%, and tech 30 is 75%. It could be actually curved, so that tech 10 is still no penalty, while tech 20 is that 60% and tech 30 is something absurd.

Cascading westernization happens, I assume, because multiple nations are bordering. If Vijay finishes westernizing in 1602, it's possible another nation or two is already underway already off whoever Vijay was off. It's also possible that 5 nations will all westernize off Vijay now, not only one after another sequentially. Seeing the Indian ocean lined with western nations IS something I do routinely see when I play games out to the 1700s.