Sub-Saharan African and Native American tech groups Westernize/Modernize too quickly?

[Chronicler]

Hi!

I've noticed in many of my recent games (might have been this way for a long time, haven't been paying attention until now, I run game+all DLCs/expansions) that sub-saharan africans and native americans westernize much too quickly.

With much too quickly I mean they westernize so quick that the CBs given by expansion and exploration becomes useless
quite fast, and this is long before you get the Imperialism CB, so you got no CB to use against these tribes almost.

For example, I'm looking at a world map in my current game as Spain (1729), eastern Europe is still eastern tech, everything east of this is muslim tech, chinese tech or whatever (not western tech), North Africa is muslim tech. I also see all the tech levels etc. Ottomans has not westernized either.

Then we come to such places as Kongo, Mali, Timbuktu, Ethiopia etc, all these are western tech, and range around 25 - 25 - 25 (while other countries more modern historically range around 20 - 20 - 20 or lower).

Native americans that were non-coastal modernized very quickly just when I got a neighbour next to them, for example Foxe (right spelling?) became an administrative monarchy and westernized long before I got Imperialism CB.

Take notice that Foxe, Mali and Timbuktu for example did not border anyone else or where ever established as protectorates, (Kongo was I think by France in this game).

I just think it's a bit silly how quickly the CBs from expansion/exploration becomes useless, this should be fixed.

 

[Denkt]

On one hand Africa and Americas truly westernize surprisingly easily - by late game often majority of world is in western tech group - but natives here still tend to be smashed by colonial empires so I don't have problems with it...

Well in real life native americans and africans did use muskets and did defeat colonial armies. Without westernization they will not be able to have their historical armies because no other way such as trading for technology do exist.

Saying westernization is easy then it cost you 5k monarch point is not correct.

 

[Freudia]

On one hand Africa and Americas truly westernize surprisingly easily - by late game often majority of world is in western tech group - but natives here still tend to be smashed by colonial empires so I don't have problems with it...

I feel it is important to mention that just because you're western tech group does not mean you have western tech. You have western tech speed, but westernization does not slingshot you up to par, so there is a catchup period of at least a century for nations in the Americas and Africa.

...Well, I don't know of the catchup period for El Dorado/Conquest of Paradise-mechanic natives, but speaking strictly from the base game, it applies.

 

[Darth Samuri]

Yes, I agree here. Part of what makes it great is that there's something for you and something for me, even though we're on the opposite side of the same spectrum. But...



I feel this statement is worth looking at. I'm not opposed to the game becoming more of a historical simulation, but I am opposed to half-way 'attempts' at 'making it more of a historical simulation'. People get offended at the assertion that natives needed boats to fend off European invasion as if natives should be able to, but the thing is that Natives weren't conquered by 20k+ European soldiers sailing halfway around the world, either, so it's a necessary evil. I would have been much more receptive to the change of removing Native boats if they simultaneously introduced proper logistics so that Europe couldn't just send half their armed forces halfway around the world or had they introduced proper risk for fielding all those troops overseas while leaving their mainland undefended.

Much in this train of thought, westernization's current implementation is a necessary evil because it's required to fend off ridiculous unrealistic and ahistoric European incursion. History does not tell of the successful Russian invasion of the Qing Empire because the Russian Empire could not realistically field that many troops to succeed there because it would leave their western borders undefended. Guess what happens in-game and guess why westernization is needed as a result to fend that off.

Anyways, the point is that I think your point of view has merit, and I feel it's worth pointing out that none of these changes are necessarily flawed by themselves but they should accompany changes that address why the old situation was required in the first place. Paradox has no interest in doing so, though, at least from what I understand. Failure to do so just results in an odd scenario where nations who are already weak are being nerfed for no reason, and it certainly doesn't make the game any more of a historical simulator than what's already happening, so the changes can't really be defended from a historical stance.

Well, I have to say I pretty much agree with you. We could still argue about this change or that change and how historically accurate it was all day, but I think in principle we pretty much agree. I especially like your suggestion about the boats and logistics. Allow the europeans to send enough forces to have a pretty good chance to conquer most of the americas, but do not let them send half of there force limit. Even if they are repulsed the first time. Fifty years later when they could send many more troops they could then conquer all the americas. This would give the natives a fighting chance while still not removing the fact that the europeans completely conquereed all of america with relative ease.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

I've witness, all too often, a great chain of westernization fanning out across Africa. Morocco westernizes off of Spain, Mali westernized off of Morocco, and then you've got literal tribal people running around with guns and classical architecture while Ming just sits around twiddling its thumbs and imploding.

The only case of westernization I'm aware of in this time period is Russia, and that's using the term lightly, as they were still breathtakingly backwards until the Victorian Era.

I'd rather the Westernization system be scrapped in exchange for some sort of program where non-Western nations can "buy" progress on a tech. That would allow a very successful non-Western nation to stay competitive without ending up wit an African utopia.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've witness, all too often, a great chain of westernization fanning out across Africa. Morocco westernizes off of Spain, Mali westernized off of Morocco, and then you've got literal tribal people running around with guns and classical architecture while Ming just sits around twiddling its thumbs and imploding.

The only case of westernization I'm aware of in this time period is Russia, and that's using the term lightly, as they were still breathtakingly backwards until the Victorian Era.

I'd rather the Westernization system be scrapped in exchange for some sort of program where non-Western nations can "buy" progress on a tech. That would allow a very successful non-Western nation to stay competitive without ending up wit an African utopia.

In game westernization should not be compared to Russian, Japanese, or any other model in history, because the game's version emphatically does not reflect that kind of progress. True westernization in EU IV for nations below Muslim is usually a 100 year process, give or take a few decades.