Westernazation needs more requeriments

[carlos193]

I think one of the problems with westernization in 1.4 is that the requirements are extremely low. Just needing a western neighbor and a difference of 8 techs means that is almost imposible to NOT westernise. westernization should need a strong infraestructure and national ideas that back that kind of progress. Having more requiements would make westernization meaningful because as it is right now there aren't no feeling of progress or accomplishment, it feels like you press a button and magically all society evolves. In this version countries like Mali are being able to westernize in 1500s even they have tribal despotism (that makes no sense because the hordes and north amercian tribes need to reform their goverment first) and indian countries are capable to westernize as soon as the europeans reach India, making protectorates useless.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"I don't like this one unrealistic feature among other unrealistic features"

--> suspect it's because it's inconvenient to you, otherwise you'd also complain about how unrealistically weak the other groups are at same tech, too. However, that's not happening. I wonder why that is?

No, instead we're getting suggestions to further nerf nations other than Europe, as if it isn't already comically unrealistic .

 

[Siddyus]

Maybe in EU5 or 6, but as it is now in the current engine... there are far too many limitations to properly "simulate" a realistic and complex westernization. Not to mention the AI needs development too or else the benefit will only favor the player just like back in 1.3 and previous versions.

 

[carlos193]

In fact, I would like they would do some balancing with the current tech groups, europeans absolutely stomping every other group without trouble also makes no sense. I'm just saying that as it is right now virtually every country in game can westernize within the time game without trouble. Just adding a small requirement would do some difference, like needing a specific national idea like innovative, a minimun adminstrative level depending of the tech group or maybe a good ruler, Russia is good example of this. There alot of posibilities, we just need to think something that gives an actual sense of advancement when you westernize.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not sure westernizing in the sense of "switch unit types entirely" is appropriate, but rather influence and/or combat vs western forces would confer military development, while other investments would pull other tech groups closer. Of course, you'd have to re-do the pips in the tech groups somewhat.

 

[Noctus]

I think one of the problems with westernization in 1.4 is that the requirements are extremely low. Just needing a western neighbor and a difference of 8 techs means that is almost imposible to NOT westernise. westernization should need a strong infraestructure and national ideas that back that kind of progress. Having more requiements would make westernization meaningful because as it is right now there aren't no feeling of progress or accomplishment, it feels like you press a button and magically all society evolves. In this version countries like Mali are being able to westernize in 1500s even they have tribal despotism (that makes no sense because the hordes and north amercian tribes need to reform their goverment first) and indian countries are capable to westernize as soon as the europeans reach India, making protectorates useless.

I completly agree.

I want to have the possibility for an outcome that resembles that what happened in our timeline. A successful westernisation ofnatives or east-asian nations did not happen in our timeline. So shouldit be impossible? - No, because if theoraticall could have happened if many things went a bit different.

But each and every tribe, mesoamerican city-state and asian nation westernising a few decades after meeting a western nation it absolutly unrealistic. A complete and utter restructuring of all social and national norms and values was a very difficult process. Atm it is much too easy, and thats why the AI does it all the time. Itis simply not plausible.

A succesful westernisation should be an accomplishment you are proud of, not a trivial step.

 

[unmerged(804580)]

A complete and utter restructuring of all social and national norms and values was a very difficult process.

1. Such a Westernization as you describe, that a society "completely" and "utterly" restructures its "all" social and national norms, has never happened up to the present day.

2. Previously you were given just a popup once the Westernization is complete, with no explanations on what went on. Now you're told more: you're told that you modernized the military to the Western standard. Westernization in this game is a pure military reform.

Such a military reform to reorganize an army in a European model was widely attempted, some failed, some succeeded. AFAIK, Russia, Ottoman Empire and Persia all attempted by 18th century, and the Plain Indian adaptation of horses and guns could be counted into the list. Further down in the line, by 19th century, most of East Asia will follow, not only Japan.

If Westernization is to change, then the rest of the world needs to be balanced before that. The current advantage that the Western tech group has over the rest of the world is completely ludicrous and unrealistic. The gap in the unit types gets impossibly large, it's as if they're projecting 19th century imperialism retrospectively back into 17th when the gap wasn't that horrible. Japanese were able to successfully copy the musket technology from Portuguese by 16th century; Korea had Dutchmen in advisory positions in weapon manufacturing and military training in the capital in 17th century; Qing had access to European cannons at the same time, etc.

Not only the tech, also the numbers are completely wrong, that I still remember my Gujarat, which held the entirety of India AND Persia, still had less manpower and force limit compared to France. Seriously, all of the Indian subcontinent cannot provide more soldiers than France? Even if it can be somehow justified that the Western military technology was still absolutely superior over Asian that a 30K vs 30K battle should result in stackwipe on Asian with 152 men dying on Western side, it makes no sense that China or India fields less soldiers than any European nation. So, not only the tech/unit type is unfair, even the numbers are in favor of the Western Europe in a way defies justification.

My point?

The game doesn't make historical sense at all. This is a freaking video game, and all "arguments from history" that I've seen on this forum are purely selective. In my very humble opinion, 98% of historical arguments on this forum have been utter bullshit reflecting the poster's own biases rather than historical truths, and further ruining gameplay balance based on selective evidence is unacceptable.

 

[AndreasPhokas]

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that westernization is an easy process. No not really if you prepare for it, its not thaaaaaaaat bad but still. Your nation is pretty much made stagnant until it's completed and you go through the negative events. Its not exactly easy. That being said I like how it is currently. Not to mention non-Europe needs buffs and making westernization harder is not the answer.

Ideally non western troops need buffed to atleast eastern levels, the Asian tech groups need to lose their monarch power malus and perhaps make the tech restrictions disappear but make the overtime malus stronger for them than westerners. To show how the western world was pulling ahead of them by the 1700s.

 

[aitaituo]

I have taken to making island bases from which I protectorate ALL the Asian nations, so they can't westernize and stop giving me trade power.

 

[Noctus]

1. Such a Westernization as you describe, that a society "completely" and "utterly" restructures its "all" social and national norms, has never happened up to the present day.

It has. Japan and South Korea are fully western-tech.

 

[Noctus]

The game doesn't make historical sense at all.

This is a blatant lie and you know it. there is a wealth of historical events and mechanics in Eu4.

This is a freaking video game, and all "arguments from history" that I've seen on this forum are purely selective. In my very humble opinion, 98% of historical arguments on this forum have been utter bullshit reflecting the poster's own biases rather than historical truths, and further ruining gameplay balance based on selective evidence is unacceptable.

Your preferences would be better served in a game in which all nations start in exactly the same position, same tech, same number of provinces to have a "fair game", best with a completely random map, so your Brandenburg, Songhai or France have an equal chance for worldconquest. With throwing historic plausibility right out of the window.

Ever tried Cv5? because that is a game that should suit your taste for no historic plausibility quiet good.

 

[unmerged(804580)]

It has. Japan and South Korea are fully western-tech.

Based on my lifelong observation as a native of South Korea, a fluent speaker of Japanese, a naturalized Canadian and a current resident in Austria, who has spent half of life in East Asia and the other half in the West, I would rather suggest that both nations you mention are fully "Western" only in terms of science and technology, but not "Western" in a way that it "completely and utterly restructured all their social and national norms."

Technology by itself is culture-neutral. You have the materials, you know how to make X, you make X. There are more to it, of course: how do you get people to do X? How should the process be organized? What do you do with the product once it's finished? How do you distribute the finished product? etc, etc. To make a more specific example, just because Samsung can shamelessly copycat after Apple and put the knockouts on the market, it doesn't mean Samsung shares any of Apple's corporate culture.

 

[unmerged(804580)]

This is a blatant lie and you know it. there is a wealth of historical events and mechanics in Eu4.

Your preferences would be better served in a game in which all nations start in exactly the same position, same tech, same number of provinces to have a "fair game", best with a completely random map, so your Brandenburg, Songhai or France have an equal chance for worldconquest. With throwing historic plausibility right out of the window.

Ever tried Cv5? because that is a game that should suit your taste for no historic plausibility quiet good.

No not really. I'm OK with the Western tech getting an upper hand. That makes playing other non-Western nations more challenging and interesting to play.

Thats said, I'm more interested in actual gameplay with a decent amount of challenge throughout. If you think launching large-scale expeditions to distant Asia and Africa and ruling over their provinces directly is a trivially easy task as it is in the game, fine. If you think a single boatload of 25k Europeans should arrive in Macau with negligible amount of attrition on board and be sufficient to defeat the entire Ming as if it's nothing, fine. If you think France should be able to raise more men than the entire Indian subcontinent combined, fine. I may question your sense of "historical plausibility" but I can respect your gaming taste.

So, yeah, there are lots of historical events. Muscovy, France and England can usually defeat their rivals Novgorod, Burgundy and Scotland. The balancing and events are pretty good there in Europe, the Europa part. The other part, the Universalis part, is somewhat more questionable.

Ashikaga Shogunate almost never falls. I never saw an AI Daimyo ever succeeding overthrowing the Shogunate, unless I cripple the Shogunate myself. Majapahit never disintegrates - relatively speaking, this is as weird as Byzantium holding on to Constantinople to the end of the game. Two historical victors, Aq Qoyunlu and Taungu, never rise even half of what they historically became. Assam and Shan were Tai people who conquered Assamese and Burmese, and while Shan is given their identity and assigned a proper culture group, the Ahom Tai of Assam aren't. Oh, and by the way, why is Shan even one centralized nation when it wasn't? I guess I can stop around here, I hope you get the point. This is the kind of stuff I mean by "arguments from history" almost always being "selective" - people feel annoyed when the Ottomans or Russians don't expand as much they historically did, but what happens to AQ doesn't bother them.

 

[Yoosong]

This is a blatant lie and you know it. there is a wealth of historical events and mechanics in Eu4.




Your preferences would be better served in a game in which all nations start in exactly the same position, same tech, same number of provinces to have a "fair game", best with a completely random map, so your Brandenburg, Songhai or France have an equal chance for worldconquest. With throwing historic plausibility right out of the window.

Ever tried Cv5? because that is a game that should suit your taste for no historic plausibility quiet good.

I'm fairly sure, he meant as in that it's entirely unrealistic when you can hold all of India or China and have equal or less manpower to holding a part of Europe, when in realistic terms, all of Europe can't even compare in manpower to either nation, historically or in the present.

I also believe western units are just far too strong, even by the 1500s, the units that the Western Europeans have trumps what the other tech group's units by so much, you need an insane advantage in terrain, discipline, tradition, prestige and whatever else to even a battle on EVEN numbers. Why not give a more realistic portrayal of manpower then? Since the Western civilisations already have a huge technological advantage.

 

[Ame]

No not really. I'm OK with the Western tech getting an upper hand. That makes playing other non-Western nations more challenging and interesting to play.

Thats said, I'm more interested in actual gameplay with a decent amount of challenge throughout. If you think launching large-scale expeditions to distant Asia and Africa and ruling over their provinces directly is a trivially easy task as it is in the game, fine. If you think a single boatload of 25k Europeans should arrive in Macau with negligible amount of attrition on board and be sufficient to defeat the entire Ming as if it's nothing, fine. If you think France should be able to raise more men than the entire Indian subcontinent combined, fine. I may question your sense of "historical plausibility" but I can respect your gaming taste.

So, yeah, there are lots of historical events. Muscovy, France and England can usually defeat their rivals Novgorod, Burgundy and Scotland. The balancing and events are pretty good there in Europe, the Europa part. The other part, the Universalis part, is somewhat more questionable.

Ashikaga Shogunate almost never falls. I never saw an AI Daimyo ever succeeding overthrowing the Shogunate, unless I cripple the Shogunate myself. Majapahit never disintegrates - relatively speaking, this is as weird as Byzantium holding on to Constantinople to the end of the game. Two historical victors, Aq Qoyunlu and Taungu, never rise even half of what they historically became. Assam and Shan were Tai people who conquered Assamese and Burmese, and while Shan is given their identity and assigned a proper culture group, the Ahom Tai of Assam aren't. Oh, and by the way, why is Shan even one centralized nation when it wasn't? I guess I can stop around here, I hope you get the point. This is the kind of stuff I mean by "arguments from history" almost always being "selective" - people feel annoyed when the Ottomans or Russians don't expand as much they historically did, but what happens to AQ doesn't bother them.

The Portugese conquests were unbelievably easy for Portugal. I have also never seen the ai attack India before it is actually historical. Maccau successfully fended of Portugal? Because I was under the impression Portugal conquered Malacca in 1511, and the force that did it numbered only 12,000 Portugese? Am I wrong because this is what every historian of European Colonialism claims.

To be clear the player can't use the brain to do things the ai never does/can't do then complain about how easy it is. The AI struggles very hard on any naval invasion; if you make colonialism harder you will find it is 18,000 and none of the colonization of Asia has happened by the ai but low and behold the player will have total and absolute monopoly on everything east of the muslim tech.....

Early colonization is just a player exploit; the things the ai colonize "early" is historical.

 

[Rubidium]

Based on my lifelong observation as a native of South Korea, a fluent speaker of Japanese, a naturalized Canadian and a current resident in Austria, who has spent half of life in East Asia and the other half in the West, I would rather suggest that both nations you mention are fully "Western" only in terms of science and technology, but not "Western" in a way that it "completely and utterly restructured all their social and national norms."

Technology by itself is culture-neutral. You have the materials, you know how to make X, you make X. There are more to it, of course: how do you get people to do X? How should the process be organized? What do you do with the product once it's finished? How do you distribute the finished product? etc, etc. To make a more specific example, just because Samsung can shamelessly copycat after Apple and put the knockouts on the market, it doesn't mean Samsung shares any of Apple's corporate culture.

Note that a lot of the "technology" in-game is social innovation; things like "The Constitution" or "The Enlightenment" aren't physical objects per se, but represent ideas shaping your country. That's one reason why I've always seen Westernization as including an element of social restructuring (on the order of Peter the Great's Russia or the Five Civilized Tribes), in order to allow new ideas to percolate more readily through society (thus why your tech costs go down to the western level).

 

[Patter Song]

When Westernization isn't an absolute necessity for survival for anyone below the Ottoman tech group maybe we can talk about making Westernization harder again. As is, it keeps the game more competitive to have Ming suddenly Westernize and become a big contender, or half of India doing so and making conquest of India that much harder. Dealing more players into the game as serious contenders makes things more competitive and more fun.

 

[carlos193]

When Westernization isn't an absolute necessity for survival for anyone below the Ottoman tech group maybe we can talk about making Westernization harder again. As is, it keeps the game more competitive to have Ming suddenly Westernize and become a big contender, or half of India doing so and making conquest of India that much harder. Dealing more players into the game as serious contenders makes things more competitive and more fun.

I agree, having a lot of westernized countries around the world may look odd for me but it does help to avoid european snowballing. Maybe if they buff the other tech groups enough to avoid the snowballing, as a lot of people have suggested, there would be no necessity to have an easy westernization.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree, having a lot of westernized countries around the world may look odd for me but it does help to avoid european snowballing. Maybe if they buff the other tech groups enough to avoid the snowballing, as a lot of people have suggested, there would be no necessity to have an easy westernization.

IMO it's not sure-thing that westernization should be a mechanic. Some of the troops late in Sub-Saharan and NA trees have names like "westernized" in them even while part of those tech groups. The reason that westernization is a functional necessity right now is that the other tech groups are so awful. By making them more competitive and making westernizing very, very expensive or disallowing it, you'd have a valid tradeoff.

I'd advocate something along the lines of:

1. No more monarch point penalties, for anybody. They're not fun and they utterly screw the game for bad king luck, which we can't control. There's not upside to these; just the extra tech cost is enough to keep nations down relative to the powers.

2. Improve the unit quality at a given tech level such that if India somehow manages to be a tech ahead of Muscovy, they'd actually be stronger before ideas are factored.

Doing this, the western powers would still have a nightmarish advantage; they have better NIs, can take idea groups and still tech while Asians would have to just tech to keep up, and would still be able to win if fighting intelligently. It would be a lot harder, however, to stupidly land a stack across the world against a decent-sized asian power that's unified its peoples and make progress. You'd have to actually EARN victories in those wars rather than just derping around.

Right now, conquest of non-good tech groups with Europe is so easy it's pointlessly boring, which means that if you want any challenge at all you have to just fight other Europeans....and Europe is the one place where the broken coalition mechanics regarding war score still rear their head. Functionally, this makes Europe among the most boring starts in the game, since no matter who you pick you're just gaming around the broken coalition mechanic or curb stomping giant native nations even as an OPM.

 

[Zagys]

Ideally I think they should remove Westernization completely (doesn't make sense for time period). Quite a radical move, but reasonable if non-Western tech and units are buffed as they should be.