Wasteland, Eurocentrism, and a petition for an expansion focusing on Africa

[Jomini]

The real problems are:
1. Nobody in Europe will ever ally the RotW (unless the AI is programmed to be moronic) because the RotW is too weak to warrant a relations slot. Most of the gains the RotW made came from alliance with one or more European powers.
2. Early era guns sucked against mounted horse archers. Muskets are nearly useless when you can get off only a single volley before mounted horse archers will cross their range and then stuff you full of arrows and several multiples of your fire rate. Further, until the Minnie ball, it is a fairly open question if muskets were even more lethal an arrow heads against unarmored foes).

China, India, Russia, Poland, etc. should not want the early gunpowder armies. They are not dealing with shock combat and they do not face a shortage of highly trained specialized warrirors (e.g. knights, samurai). Shock combat, like that practiced by the Ottomans, the French, the Austrians, etc. should be heavily improved by firearms, but not against the mobile horse archers.

Because we have linear tactics, we cannot set up the real tensions for adopting gunpowder warfare as early as possible.

Later in the era, it was far more efficient to trade for guns and powder whilst allying with one or more colonial powers. This dynamic is currently broke because nobody gives a rat's ass what Britain or France is doing in North America - they are too distant to care. Further, the biggest check on real world Western RotW conquest was other Europeans. France and England might both be able to stomp Mysore, but one of them can get a lot more by allying the place against the other.

Ideally we would have a DLC that actually encourages this sort of historical mechanism. Where getting the big bonuses is about managing allies and trade ... instead of waiting on European exploration and monarch timers.

 

[GC13]

Early era guns sucked against mounted horse archers. Muskets are nearly useless when you can get off only a single volley before mounted horse archers will cross their range and then stuff you full of arrows and several multiples of your fire rate. Further, until the Minnie ball, it is a fairly open question if muskets were even more lethal an arrow heads against unarmored foes).

What battles did this happen in? I haven't heard of anything like that.

 

[LinusLinothorax]

2. Early era guns sucked against mounted horse archers. Muskets are nearly useless when you can get off only a single volley before mounted horse archers will cross their range and then stuff you full of arrows and several multiples of your fire rate. Further, until the Minnie ball, it is a fairly open question if muskets were even more lethal an arrow heads against unarmored foes).

First at all, guns werent the primary missile weapon in Europe until the late 16th century, and in most of the Rotw even until the 19th/20th century (Not counting westernized armies ofc). They were always supported by bows or crossbows.

At second, it is not like that there was only one big bunch of gunners who shot at the same time, but rather rows who shot one at the time and then retreated behind the rearlines.

At third, lead balls often broke apart after hitting a body because of bubbles who occur in the smelting progress. Also dont forget blunt trauma against heavily armoured foes. So they were a useful, and cheap, weapon against both armoured and unarmoured enemies (Though poisoned barbed arrrows are probably still more leathal against unarmoured enemies, but on the other hand one can easily counter them with shields).

China, India, Russia, Poland, etc. should not want the early gunpowder armies.

In 1444 Ming China had one of the most advanced gunpowder armies in the world. Poland definetly also had handguns at that time. Not so sure about Russia and India tho.

 

[Trin Tragula]

This is a bit OT but:
India certainly had guns before the 15th century too. They did not become the primary infantry weapon until much later (when adopting European training and organization). Though as you note it's not clear it would have been beneficial until later either. Domestic production of handguns and artillery was not something the Europeans brought to India at all though and a European observer in the early days even mention Indian guns as being of higher quality than his own.
The big thing the Europeans brought to Indian battlefields was how to better make use of guns (and for that matter infantry in general) and to some extent better guns.

 

[Chronicler]

I gave you the most benefit of the doubt that I could, given what you said. I am not the one deflecting .



Then why do you have something against the historical reason West African nations didn't westernize, versus the game situations that allow it being different from history?



So, your first criteria is whether it happened historically, and your second criteria is also whether it happened historically?



If you want African nations that have boats at the start of the game to not have boats at the start of the game, that is reasonable. Though of course Muscovy should then be *much* weaker (and at war with Kazan) and which nations have or do not have cores needs to be cleaned up a ton. We're not in disagreement that the 1444 board should look like history though.



1000 is hyperbolic. I don't even have 1000 debates on it and I have over 5x your post count. That said, what you say is correct. These railroad non-dynamic non-historic events need to not happen, unless there is a mechanic whereby they can potentially happen between other nations as well. The treatment of the Timurids is patently absurd too, all of flavor.bur could reasonably be thrown out, etc. It's ridiculous that NED and only NED gets to appear out of nowhere with phantom cores and the nation that held the territory has to fight a similar war to Spain even if they have wildly different circumstances.

I will hold consistent with my position in saying that these things don't belong in the game either, unless the circumstances that allowed them historically are mirrored.

"Then why do you have something against the historical reason West African nations didn't westernize, versus the game situations that allow it being different from history?" <---And what is the reason West African nations didn't westernize according to you?

"So, your first criteria is whether it happened historically, and your second criteria is also whether it happened historically?" <--No, my argument is that why should we expect that something could have happened historically if it hasn't happened yet? Africa is actually deindustrualizing today, and we see more and more Western firms pulling out.

"If you want African nations that have boats at the start of the game to not have boats at the start of the game, that is reasonable. Though of course Muscovy should then be *much* weaker (and at war with Kazan) and which nations have or do not have cores needs to be cleaned up a ton. We're not in disagreement that the 1444 board should look like history though." <---Was Muscovy really that weak long term though? It's a problem that there isn't really a good mechanic for historical development and inventions.

"1000 is hyperbolic. I don't even have 1000 debates on it and I have over 5x your post count. That said, what you say is correct......" <---To be fair though, if you check my games they are only Europa Universalis games =P, I have had no debates on any other game or anywhere else . But yeah, civil war events are probably the most lame ones.

 

[BrokenSky]

To be fair the game being historical is not about mechanics being historical, its about outcomes being historical. While those things are ahistorical themselves they all aid the creation of historically plausible situations and historical relevant strategic choices for the player.

which is why the only score really worth counting is your treasury.

 

[Jomini]

What battles did this happen in? I haven't heard of anything like that.

I will see if I can find an example, the problem is most of the empires of this era were not run by idiots and almost always they co-opted a number of the horse archers to fight for them. If you look at the order of battle for the PLC, China, Russia, or the OE you find that they have a much more diverse set of units including far more horse, more heavily armored horse, and muskets and cannon. A number of military theorists make a pretty compelling case that early firearms are most useful in shock combat where they are cost effective, but not particularly deadly.

Certainly when we get out west with the North American natives, we see things like the Commanche dominating with bows until the advent of repeating weapons.

First at all, guns werent the primary missile weapon in Europe until the late 16th century, and in most of the Rotw even until the 19th/20th century (Not counting westernized armies ofc). They were always supported by bows or crossbows.

At second, it is not like that there was only one big bunch of gunners who shot at the same time, but rather rows who shot one at the time and then retreated behind the rearlines.

At third, lead balls often broke apart after hitting a body because of bubbles who occur in the smelting progress. Also dont forget blunt trauma against heavily armoured foes. So they were a useful, and cheap, weapon against both armoured and unarmoured enemies (Though poisoned barbed arrrows are probably still more leathal against unarmoured enemies, but on the other hand one can easily counter them with shields).


In 1444 Ming China had one of the most advanced gunpowder armies in the world. Poland definetly also had handguns at that time. Not so sure about Russia and India tho.

The problem with the PLC, Ming, Russia, and to a lesser extent the OE is that they had to fight both heavy shock armies (e.g. the Teutonic Order, Japan, Sweden, and Austria) and also highly mobile horse armies (Crimea, Manchu, Kazan, and Aq Qoyunlu). Having to face both types of opponents made these armies adopt a wide variety of tactics, but doing so also prevented the military from investing as heavily into firearms tactics and production.

This is not to say that the mobile horse armies stayed solely as archers, but rather that the cost exchange rate for civilizations facing highly mobile horse armies was a lot less than for armies facing less mobile shock armies.

Consider for instance firing by ranks in rows. Firstly, this leaves your flanks highly vulnerable so you either need strong anchors to your lines, or you need to bend the line and have truly massive amounts of flank support. If you are firing by ranks, you cannot manage to either form a bayonet square or mix in pikes to stop a dedicated charge. If you have the discipline, terrain, and numbers to actually pull this off then the more mobile horse army can just decline battle unless you are sieging their cities.

By far, the most common approach to horse armies was either to rent your own (e.g. Cossacks) or fortify the place and slowly starve them out with pasture denial.

It would be very odd if westernized firearms were so superior that every state adjacent to the Mongol remnants just happened to not adopt them in mass quickly for idiosyncratic reasons. The simplest explanation is that firearms were cost effective in places that favored their use (e.g. the HRE, Japan, West Africa) but less (or not) cost effective in other places (basically inside and adjacent to the Horde belt).

Cossacks has a lot of fun mechanisms, but I had been hoping that Pdox would finally make the tribes be something that could sack Moscow, beat back the PLC, and defy China in the early era. They really were the single biggest threat facing their neighbors for quite some time.

 

[Evie HJ]

Some personal thoughts on easy westernization.

Things in the game can't always be the way they were historically, because the nature of the beast that is EU is to be a game, not to simulate history. This especially apply to technology. A lot of things have to be simplified, or made to fit players expectations, in order for them to work as a game. This affect the tech system in that, because players expect even a one-level tech advantage to be a significant boost against enemies (and because nobody want to deal with complex calculations to make the impact of new techs variable), a several-levels tech advantage is going to be enormous...far more so than it was in history (where technological advantage eventually hit a point of diminishing return that required huge new improvements (eg, the machine gun) to really make a difference.

At that point, the choice is not "fix the tech system" - it's a game mechanism that has to be the way it is because EU is a game. The choice is between "accept easy conquest of the ROTW" and "allow for easier-than-historical westernization so the ROTW can compensate for Western tech advantage".

Two wrongs don't make a right. Sometimes, though, you have to go with the lesser evil.

 

[BrokenSky]

The real problems are:
1. Nobody in Europe will ever ally the RotW (unless the AI is programmed to be moronic) because the RotW is too weak to warrant a relations slot. Most of the gains the RotW made came from alliance with one or more European powers.
2. Early era guns sucked against mounted horse archers. Muskets are nearly useless when you can get off only a single volley before mounted horse archers will cross their range and then stuff you full of arrows and several multiples of your fire rate. Further, until the Minnie ball, it is a fairly open question if muskets were even more lethal an arrow heads against unarmored foes).

China, India, Russia, Poland, etc. should not want the early gunpowder armies. They are not dealing with shock combat and they do not face a shortage of highly trained specialized warrirors (e.g. knights, samurai). Shock combat, like that practiced by the Ottomans, the French, the Austrians, etc. should be heavily improved by firearms, but not against the mobile horse archers.

Because we have linear tactics, we cannot set up the real tensions for adopting gunpowder warfare as early as possible.

Later in the era, it was far more efficient to trade for guns and powder whilst allying with one or more colonial powers. This dynamic is currently broke because nobody gives a rat's ass what Britain or France is doing in North America - they are too distant to care. Further, the biggest check on real world Western RotW conquest was other Europeans. France and England might both be able to stomp Mysore, but one of them can get a lot more by allying the place against the other.

Ideally we would have a DLC that actually encourages this sort of historical mechanism. Where getting the big bonuses is about managing allies and trade ... instead of waiting on European exploration and monarch timers.

So it's like the whole cold war ally everyone and make war by proxy thing? Wouldn't making Dip techs give extra diplomacy slots (and maybe 1 extra diplomat) be a good way to represent this?

 

[Jomini]

Some personal thoughts on easy westernization.

Things in the game can't always be the way they were historically, because the nature of the beast that is EU is to be a game, not to simulate history. This especially apply to technology. A lot of things have to be simplified, or made to fit players expectations, in order for them to work as a game. This affect the tech system in that, because players expect even a one-level tech advantage to be a significant boost against enemies (and because nobody want to deal with complex calculations to make the impact of new techs variable), a several-levels tech advantage is going to be enormous...far more so than it was in history (where technological advantage eventually hit a point of diminishing return that required huge new improvements (eg, the machine gun) to really make a difference.

At that point, the choice is not "fix the tech system" - it's a game mechanism that has to be the way it is because EU is a game. The choice is between "accept easy conquest of the ROTW" and "allow for easier-than-historical westernization so the ROTW can compensate for Western tech advantage".

Two wrongs don't make a right. Sometimes, though, you have to go with the lesser evil.

The problem is that westernization is currently boring. Unless you take exploration as RotW, you get the lovely choice between waiting for the European to show up (so you can westernize) or waiting forever to expand/get ideas/get interesting techs.

From any sort of efficient play standpoint, going exploration early is almost a no thought decision. The potential to get started on massively reducing your costs sooner is worth a huge amount.

This emphasis on Westernization as the only efficient play for RotW then makes the game much more highly contingent. Western AIs get bogged down in Africa? Well then you just kinda gotta ... wait ... for a Kirishitan Daiyamo run. Oh the AI settles adjacent to your main rival, they immediately westernize. Your options are to: wait for westernization or to wait for westernization.

The problem is, as always, that monarch points are the be all, end all currency for so much of the game. It would be fine if the RotW could make a conscious choice to Westernize through same painful process ... or to stay technologically backward, but had other options to expand. This is why Hordes are so vastly more interesting with razing - you have an alternative to being essentially forced to Westernize through the same bog standard route every time.

Having the whole game go through one chokepoint variable means that things, like westernization, that change efficiency of that variable have huge effects. Personally, I wish they would do things for all of RotW like they have for Hordes and to a lesser extent the Mesoamericans - you have some alternative gameplay that allows you to not gun for westernization every game. It would be nice if we could get some mechanism that would make everyone have some nice early game benefit (e.g. Chinese tech countries with Confucian or Buddhist religion can get free cores after owning provinces for 50 years, Indian tech countries can give away all their trade power and eat a negative military tradition modifier to get the tech cost - not neighbor bonus - of whomever they cut the deal with, African states get a mil tech modifier for allying European/Muslim/Anatolian states).

Sure it would be nice to just back to EUII where tech costs scaled (for a long time) with your income density and there was a direct tradeoff between tech & military expenses ... but no Westernization is not well done and it does not make the RotW fitting foes.

 

[Jomini]

So it's like the whole cold war ally everyone and make war by proxy thing? Wouldn't making Dip techs give extra diplomacy slots (and maybe 1 extra diplomat) be a good way to represent this?

What I would really like to see is giving everyone one free alliance on each continent where they can core or trade or where their ally can core or trade. This means there is a premium on being the only within range (as was historical) and means that alliances in secondary theaters are neither overwhelming (e.g. one NA tribe gets all the European alliances for free) nor futile (current setup where allying low tech tribes in faraway places is almost always a losing bet). This would also have the benefit of encouraging proxy wars (thanks to the higher relations from an alliance).

Obviously, something would still need to be done with the horrid cannot shift AI out of Neutral attitude stuff, but we want a general Franco-English war to be fought on several continents with local allies stretching colonial powers. Particularly it would be nice to have something so that you can fight colonial wars without having to always preposition troops (a task at which the AI sucks) or play cat and mouse with a fleet engagement (another task at which AIs suck).

it should be far more cost effective to have native allies that to fight in every theater entirely on your own.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No, my argument is that why should we expect that something could have happened historically if it hasn't happened yet?

Your argument is hindsight bias. That isn't an actual argument.

Was Muscovy really that weak long term though?

1444 isn't long term. It's the 1444 historical state. Favoring Muscovy over other nations is arbitrary favoritism. Maybe it wasn't so probable in history, and Muscovy's leadership did something impressive. Mughals did something impressive too.

The problem is that westernization is currently boring. Unless you take exploration as RotW, you get the lovely choice between waiting for the European to show up (so you can westernize) or waiting forever to expand/get ideas/get interesting techs.

Pretty much. It is also possible to punch through to western borders pretty fast (done by elite players like Path, faster than you can get with exploration, but even for me it's pretty close). But that's a strange incentive and it doesn't add a whole lot to the decision making process; you're still pushing for a western border if optimizing because it's such an obvious incentive.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

"Then why do you have something against the historical reason West African nations didn't westernize, versus the game situations that allow it being different from history?" <---And what is the reason West African nations didn't westernize according to you?

Imagine a scenario where one of the West African powers like, say, Songhai conquered a lot of land and made a pretty nice empire for themselves... as they did historically. Let's imagine that they get a leader who reforms the empire politically and economically... as they did historically (Askia of Songhai). Now let's imagine this leader's successors don't fuck up everything, but actually build on his progress and create a stable, westernized state. Boom, historically plausible West African westernization.

 

[LinusLinothorax]

Imagine a scenario where one of the West African powers like, say, Songhai conquered a lot of land and made a pretty nice empire for themselves... as they did historically. Let's imagine that they get a leader who reforms the empire politically and economically... as they did historically (Askia of Songhai). Now let's imagine this leader's successors don't fuck up everything, but actually build on his progress and create a stable, westernized state. Boom, historically plausible West African westernization.

Westernization is a retarded concept only in the game because Paradox is too lazy to think of a more fitting and historical plausible mechanic to make the Rotw nations not entirely frustrating because of their European techtrees with huge researchpenalties.
Except of Russia, there was not a single kingdom which westernized in EU4 timeframe, and i bet my ass Songhai or any other Sudanese kingdom wouldnt have done either. Highest of all feelings might be the invitation of Ottoman advisors who reform the army by importing guns and properly drilling the infantry with them, and maybe also the invitation of other Ottoman scolaries. But Westernizing and ergo Europeanizing the whole state? Nope.

 

[Chronicler]

Imagine a scenario where one of the West African powers like, say, Songhai conquered a lot of land and made a pretty nice empire for themselves... as they did historically. Let's imagine that they get a leader who reforms the empire politically and economically... as they did historically (Askia of Songhai). Now let's imagine this leader's successors don't fuck up everything, but actually build on his progress and create a stable, westernized state. Boom, historically plausible West African westernization.

How is that nation sub-saharan? It seems to have had more territory in the Sahara than outside it.

And whatever this Askia did, when the West colonized Africa in the sub-saharan regions there were not a written language, no two-story buildings etc etc.

 

[quoms]

How is that nation sub-saharan? It seems to have had more territory in the Sahara than outside it.

And whatever this Askia did, when the West colonized Africa in the sub-saharan regions there were not a written language, no two-story buildings etc etc.

Mali and Songhai were Sahel kingdoms, in the transitional band between Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa. They're not "sub-Saharan" in the sense of Bantu-dominated central and southern Africa, but they also weren't the desert nomads of the Sahara.

And they definitely did have a written language, and they definitely did have multiple-story buildings. As I'm sure you can imagine, it would be very difficult to maintain a completely illiterate Muslim society.

 

[Xeorm]

The problem is that westernization is currently boring. Unless you take exploration as RotW, you get the lovely choice between waiting for the European to show up (so you can westernize) or waiting forever to expand/get ideas/get interesting techs.

From any sort of efficient play standpoint, going exploration early is almost a no thought decision. The potential to get started on massively reducing your costs sooner is worth a huge amount.

This emphasis on Westernization as the only efficient play for RotW then makes the game much more highly contingent. Western AIs get bogged down in Africa? Well then you just kinda gotta ... wait ... for a Kirishitan Daiyamo run. Oh the AI settles adjacent to your main rival, they immediately westernize. Your options are to: wait for westernization or to wait for westernization.

The problem is, as always, that monarch points are the be all, end all currency for so much of the game. It would be fine if the RotW could make a conscious choice to Westernize through same painful process ... or to stay technologically backward, but had other options to expand. This is why Hordes are so vastly more interesting with razing - you have an alternative to being essentially forced to Westernize through the same bog standard route every time.

Having the whole game go through one chokepoint variable means that things, like westernization, that change efficiency of that variable have huge effects. Personally, I wish they would do things for all of RotW like they have for Hordes and to a lesser extent the Mesoamericans - you have some alternative gameplay that allows you to not gun for westernization every game. It would be nice if we could get some mechanism that would make everyone have some nice early game benefit (e.g. Chinese tech countries with Confucian or Buddhist religion can get free cores after owning provinces for 50 years, Indian tech countries can give away all their trade power and eat a negative military tradition modifier to get the tech cost - not neighbor bonus - of whomever they cut the deal with, African states get a mil tech modifier for allying European/Muslim/Anatolian states).

Sure it would be nice to just back to EUII where tech costs scaled (for a long time) with your income density and there was a direct tradeoff between tech & military expenses ... but no Westernization is not well done and it does not make the RotW fitting foes.

I really like that point, and think it should be taken into account wherever possible. Nations westernizing feels odd right now. Not so much because of how quick or not that it happens, but that it's so important for power and so clear a decision. There should be good reasons for countries to not choose to westernize, and still be capable in their own spheres.

 

[joe9594]

And they definitely did have a written language, and they definitely did have multiple-story buildings. As I'm sure you can imagine, it would be very difficult to maintain a completely illiterate Muslim society.

Yeah. These societies did definitely reform and accomplish things, and they obviously were not illiterate savages but I thing there is an important difference between the kind of reform that they carried out and the concept of westernization.
Reform is a continuation and improvement of your existing traditions. Westernization is a rejection of those things.
If one ruler reforms that is very useful but if the next ruler after them also reforms the state that doesn't really do much. The kind of reform done is about bringing the state up to the newest concepts in your society. Doing it many times in a row will not bring you up to the level of Europe.
It is totally different to radically altering your society as required by westernization. I think that people really underestimate what would have indeed been required of societies in order to westernize. For states as far behind as those in sub Saharan Africa it really would have been an absolute rejection of their traditions which is hard to do.

Personally I think a good solution would be to have modernization which reduced military tech penalties by about half and dip/adm penalties by a little bit then after having been modernized for like 100 years give the option to get a modifier which is a lot like libetaire egalataire fraternitaire which gives you tech parity at the cost of significant revolt risk.

 

[Evie HJ]

How is that nation sub-saharan? It seems to have had more territory in the Sahara than outside it.

And whatever this Askia did, when the West colonized Africa in the sub-saharan regions there were not a written language, no two-story buildings etc etc.

Not only were there two-story buildings south of the Sahara (the Niger river bend region, mostly), where they had writing, but there was one of the major centers of learning of the Muslim world at the time.

There were regions in Africa where they did not have writing, and some where they didn't build two-story buildings (not that this is an important sign of civilization or technological advancement, it's just a sign that you aren't building two-story buildings).

 

[Chronicler]

Not only were there two-story buildings south of the Sahara (the Niger river bend region, mostly), where they had writing, but there was one of the major centers of learning of the Muslim world at the time.

There were regions in Africa where they did not have writing, and some where they didn't build two-story buildings (not that this is an important sign of civilization or technological advancement, it's just a sign that you aren't building two-story buildings).

The Niger river bend region is part of the Sahara......

And two story buildings shows that you can build two story buildings.