What you say might make some sense for a modern state that dominates centralized funding for research, and even then not entirely. The war-mongering state par excellence these days is the US, but its huge ("snowballed") research lead in military matters is not hindered, and you might say is actually aided, by its continuous low and medium intensity military postwar adventures.
But that's really beside the point. In the early modern period centralized research like this did not exist. Sure enough, the state (the monarchs or the Parliament that funded them in Britain's case) made most things possible, including exploration and trade, by granting lucrative monopolies, franchises and licenses. And of course, the endless warring led to centralized purchases of the latest and greatest, thus driving research (say, from bows, to matchlocks, to flintlocks, and from pikes to plug and then socket bayonets). Even more importantly, big infrastructural projects might have been costly but they generated self-starting research afterwards.
There was no greater warmongering state than France in the 17th and (in particular) Britain in the 18th centuries in our period. And no greater infrastructure investors either. Under EU4, their policies would leave them last in research, whereas they were in fact tops.
As I mentioned in my original post, I like the way EU4 is trying to create a game system that forces the player into hard choices. And I don't mind at all the idea that the random stats of a ruler have a huge influence in the production of points, at least for the absolutist era. But they've gone too far from a "money is key to everything" system to a "points are everything" one, and the result is counterintuitive, often ahistorical, and occasionally silly. It would be better if infrastructural and institutional ("ideas") investments were hugely costly, in money AND points, to make in the first place, but would pay off in the long run by defraying the cost and then some. In money AND points. A well built-up nation who invested heavily in ideas rather than core-making or religious converting, should find itself in the 18th century in a position when the accession of a moron should matter less than in the 15th century. As people mentioned above, 18th Britain wasn't too bothered that its kings were unimaginative and parochial at best, and raving idiots at worst, when they had institutions like the Admiralty, the Royal Society, Parliament, a comparatively vigorous press, turnpikes, improved agricultural land etc etc.
In game terms, the player should be rewarded by foregoing ahistorical expansion in the early centuries, by making core creation and casus belli generation points-expensive outside missions (I like the fact that opportunistic and greedy war goals in peace treaties cost diplo points). Converting should also cost a boatload of points not only to make it tougher to e.g. paint the Balkans Sunni green by 1500, but to also reflect the sidetracking of nation-building by the essentially medieval concept of universal religious conformity: in game terms, if you want a smaller rebel risk by bible thumping your population into conforming with your state religion, be prepared to suffer elsewhere including tech. Make infrastructure costly too, if you will, but give a sufficient benefit (in points or modifiers) so as to make a well built-up 18th century nation, in institutions as well as infrastructure, more dependent on those bonuses than the accident on birth. Penalise large empires by making the bonus a percentage of built up areas, rather than making it additive - so a sprawling centralized blob will have trouble creating such moderating institutions compared with one who's just on the sweet spot, and so making it more vulnerable to a moron on the throne.
And be prepared to accept some snowballing in that case. Well managed nations should be ahead more often than merely lucky ones. A well managed country should be well ahead; but that should come from good, intuitive and historically proven policies, rather than gaming the system as we all do at present. Such a snowball leader is preferable to clumsy hardwired limits like the "Western tech bonus". Yes, Europe should be well ahead from the ROTW in tech by the end of the 17th century in 90 out of 100 games, but that should be because of its development of better institutions and (very eventually) infrastructure than, say, China, as well as the lottery win of having an entire continent full of resources fall in its lap.
No what I said wouldn't make sense today exactly because of how centralized things were. And that people are out of the "it has worked for the last century so don't change anything" mindset.
France and Britain in the 16~18th Century were often at the cutting edge sure even though they were warmongering. This was when they had a person like Louis XIV+Vauban, or William III+Newton. If you had the equivalent of that in game terms and you can't be cutting edge while doing whatever, I think you're doing something wrong.
But France and Britain were not always at the cutting edge. Far from it. Naval Tech-wise the Dutch was often better than Britain. After the "Renaissance" moved north, science kind of jumped around between France, Germany, and Britain. Army jumped around even more.
They were always near the top for sure. As you can be. You should have no problem fighting major wars or massively expand infrastructure while be only 1 or 2 tech behind the leader, which would mean you are up to date. I was Venice and fought for my life against the Ottoman for decades, then I massively expanded my infrastructure. All I did was slightly slouch on NI, and I pulled it off. While a republic. On my first game. But if you're mucking around so much that you get 4 tech behind then well...let's just say these countries also didn't stay near the top when they drained their nation like that. They caught up later sure, just like you can as well.
Somebody like Frederick II spent his reign building up his nation. He did fight wars, but he did not "warmonger" and he did not take a lot of territory. When it passed to his son, Prussia had the highest quality (tech or NI, you decide) army and also very up to date administration. His talented son used this power potential to greatly expand Prussia. And after Frederick the Great's death then what? Prussia fell behind. It's commonly seen in history from Europe to India to Japan. One ruler decide not to do much outward and focus inwards, and build up such a power behind his nation that his successor(s) use it to kick some serious ass. And sometimes use up all that power that the country fall backward again. That sounds quite like what's happening with MP. Besides you can take the middle ground, like other countries did. Be up to date but not cutting edge while expand slowly and steadily.
You are right about 18th Century Britain of course. But the problem is not MP. The problem is that Constitutional Monarchy should have some or all of its MP based on an elected/appointed Prime Minister, instead of the Monarch.
"Hardwired Limits" are realistic because by the start of the game time (Late Middle Ages-Renaissance-Early Modern), Europe has a very good system of learning(tech-advancing) and advancement that was better. Like I said before Ming (1550) China was asking
Europeans to calculate the
Chinese calendar. Because European math and astronomy was already a lot better in the early 16th century. Sengoku Japan Daimyo imported European cuirass. European wasn't just ahead of the Japanese in guns and ships, but also in armor. Winning the Americas lottery helped Europe gain a lot of practical power yes. Land for plantations, new trade income.
But tech? What tech did they get from the Aztecs/Incas that helped them expand into Asia 3 centuries later?
Europe did of course get gold, silver, and potatoes. But so did China and Japan via European trade, and they didn't even do any colonization.
So in short. At the start of this game tech-wise, Europe already INHERITED a better institution.
Oh my god! I just tried to Westernize. Idiotic idea. First, you are set back to -100 in everything. Then, a near *constant* stream of events keeps docking you 100 MPs. So you can't get out of it.
Then, to actually get up even 1 Stab, you need about 320 Adm points. If you have a typical nation, you will go up about 5 points a month. So that would be about 64 months * 6 = 384 months -- 32 years.
Through save scumming before attempting, I even got an über leader and a +2 advisor, so I was getting +10 Adm a month. So, that would be 32 months for +1 stab * 6 = 192 months of hell. 16 years to survive.
Yet on a near constant basis I was getting about 15-30 regiments per revolt, and about 2-4 revolts a quarter. Plus my income dropped so far that I was going bankrupt even with army maintenance down at 0%. You can't fight wars with army maintenance at 0%.
So, basically, "Westernize" is NOT an option.
Considering the amount of people saying in other threads that it's easy, just plan long term, I think it's not the game. Japan, the most successful Asian nation to westernize in history, in its process of westernizing, fought a couple of foreign wars that it lost, 2 to 3 civil wars, and a large scale rebellion in the space of over 20 years, and it was around 50 when they finally overtook the most behind of the major powers. And this is the
most successful nation.
Also don't think "Westernize" is just importing guns, or ships. Many nations tried that. Doesn't work. Guns need the soldier to back it up. The soldier need to be paid, need an educated officer and NCO. The guns need a factory. All need a government and society capable of supporting these. And when you try to affect major changes government and society at the same time in a short time span, you will get instability and government function will hurt. What did you think Japan just decided one day there will be no more class system, they want a constitutional monarchy, and people should start building factories? Sorry didn't happen that way.
The people who only imported guns were not the ones to become major powers. They're the ones either still in civil war, or had to keep fighting them or were still behind until they imported the other stuff.
