They weren't that civilized back then

[kristoff]

are we a bit happier now?

A bit - yes Thanks for pointing it out.

Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy this game (erm, demo). It's just I'm a Vicky fanboy and on a slider nice&simple v. complicated&accurate I always want to go far right. EU3 went too far left. And just playing a demo and not getting many events because of demo's timeframe EU:R seemed to resemble EU3 quite a lot.

 

[kristoff]

You do realise that just because there's few or no Crimean Tartars or Moldovian hospodars around you don't *have* to call them savage or dirt(y) poor..

Geez, I did not call anyone names... I ment it would be nice to have i.e. Tartars high land tech (superior combat skills - that's why they were feared in early period) but low government tech. And if some lands were dirty poor back then it's not an insult, but a historical fact. It only means such factions maybe should not start witch trade & production techs the same as - just an example - Ottomans. It's all about not having EVERY country starting with every tech at - i.e. - 10 level. What is it, political correctness, affirmative action? We're talking about history. OK, enough OT.

 

[Alexander Seil]

On the one hand, I have to agree that basing this kind of thing on civilization is better. It is progress - we are moving towards a game where it is the country's territory and not its setup file that actually determine how it plays. However, then it almost seems as if the technology system is a EU2/HoI2 holdover that may turn out to be completely useless (that is, uninteresting!), depending on how factions progress through tech levels.

 

[ForzaA]

Geez, I did not call anyone names... I ment it would be nice to have i.e. Tartars high land tech (superior combat skills - that's why they were feared in early period) but low government tech. And if some lands were dirty poor back then it's not an insult, but a historical fact. It only means such factions maybe should not start witch trade & production techs the same as - just an example - Ottomans. It's all about not having EVERY country starting with every tech at - i.e. - 10 level. What is it, political correctness, affirmative action? We're talking about history. OK, enough OT.

Well, I'd say that "savage" is enough namecalling that an "enlightened Poles" isn't out of place; savage isn't a neutral adjective, neither is "dirt poor" (poor alone would be more or less). And yes, a little differentiation between tech levels would be nice, but the amount of work going into it would, IMO seriously outweigh the additional benefit (since a more warrior-centered culture will already have the sliders (&what have you) more towards the militaristic.


...It's not about political correctness or affirmative action, it's about saving a lot of trouble (during creation, and now that people are picking their own starts) at a (very) marginal cost.

On the one hand, I have to agree that basing this kind of thing on civilization is better. It is progress - we are moving towards a game where it is the country's territory and not its setup file that actually determine how it plays. However, then it almost seems as if the technology system is a EU2/HoI2 holdover that may turn out to be completely useless (that is, uninteresting!), depending on how factions progress through tech levels.

In a sense, it's probably a holdover (if paradox had started *completely* from scratch with this being their first game), but the tech sliders still serve a purpose, more on a general development<->specific implementation level.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Actually, maybe they picked the wrong holdover. Perhaps a CK-style invention system would be more appropriate. You could implement advisers, but all the tech development would then take place locally with assistance from his attributes.

 

[Sol Invictus]

My take on this is that while I think we all want some differentiation between cultures/states, there is a limit that can reasonably be expected in a game. It seems that Paradox has achieved a reasonable approximation. Also, when it come to trying to model culture and its effects on technological advancement, it would be appropriate to remember that the "dirty barbarians" advanced the military tech of the era quite a bit. Rome adopted the gladius hispanesis from the Iberian "barbarians", assorted armor tech from the Celtic "barbarians", and the Steppe Nomad "barbarians" invented the most revolutionary military tech in centuries with the recurve bow and stirrups. So it is all very subjective.