Westernization brainstorm

[Sarmatian]

Preamble​

I believe Westernization, as it is now, needs improvement to make it more enjoyable, sensible and allow for greater player input. In the latest patches, ROTW has had a lot of new provinces and countries added and westernization is really important if one plays in ROTW. Paradox have gone back and forth, making westernization too easy or too hard, but they haven’t change the underlying mechanics for a long time. Purpose of this thread is to talk about how westernization can be improved. I will be offering my views and I would like to hear your opinion on them. I will also be throwing some numbers around – those will be used just as an example, I haven’t really thought this through enough to have balanced numbers. I will be talking at first about how it is set up at the moment and why I think it should be changed – the proposed ideas for change start from “So, how to improve the current situation? “, so you can just start from there, although I’d recommend reading from the beginning.

What is westernization?​

Both historically and in EUIV, westernization refers to polities understanding they lag behind western countries and taking necessary steps catch up. Two most obvious examples from history are Russian reforms under Peter the Great and Japanese Meiji restoration. There have been many unsuccessful attempts and many other more or less successful.

In EUIV, it refers to the process of westernization at the end of which your country changes its tech group to Western. To be allowed to westernize, you need to own or be adjacent to western tech country core (not trading company!) and be 7 techs behind.

In the light of this, westernization process in the game can be divided into two aspects:

1) When to allow westernization

2) How to deal with the process itself

I will talk about how we can improve these two aspects, in my humble opinion, keeping in mind that westernization needs to: a) interesting and fun, b) hard but achievable and c) allow more involvement from the player.

1. When to allow westernization​

At the moment, non western tech country needs to own or be adjacent to a western core and be 7 tech behind. This is a rather arbitrary limitation. For some countries, those in eastern and ottoman tech, it is hard to even lag behind that much. Now they can westernize painlessly and instantly if they own certain provinces. BUT, for the rest of the world, Asia and Africa, lagging behind is not the problem, it is that elusive western core. Most western provinces in those continents will be trading companies so in order to westernize, Asian and African countries often have to colonize all the way to Americas, which is silly and totally unhistorical. If the player wants to do that, that is fine, but it is extremely weird to be forced to colonize all the way to Brazil as an Indian nation, often when you have Europeans right on your doorstep, carving their way into Indian core territories.

2. How to deal with the process itself​

At the moment, as soon as you’re allowed to westernize, you can start the process which starts draining (or investing) your Monarch points by a certain amount every month. The process length is based on your tech group and the size (read: development) of your country, the bigger it is, the less monarch points are drained and it takes longer. During the process, bad stuff happens to your country.

This is rather poor mechanic, both from historical and from gameplay points of view. It forces you to keep your country small to achieve easier westernization. It has been allieviated some when Paradox made the lowest amount of monarch point that can be drained 5, which allows even the largest countries to westernize in a reasonable amount of time. The problem with this is that it doesn’t take into account any external or internal factors. It is based just on the total development of your country, period. Some countries, depending on the situation, should have easier or harder time westernizing, and most importantly, players should be able to influence it somewhat. It is sensible to make it somewhat harder for larger countries, but it feels bad since player don’t have any influence on it.

So, how to improve the current situation?​

I will start with number 2, the process of westernization itself. Instead of having your Monarch points drained based on your total development, we should instead get a slider, similar to missionary, colony, army… maintenance ones. On that slider, we should be able to set how many Monarch Points we want drained every month (3-21, obviously ranging from 1 to 7 in each category). The catch obviously is, it costs money. The more Monarch points you want drained and invested in westernization per month, the more you have to pay, with costs exponentially increasing the more you want to invest. Also, possibly even revolt risk and other nasty stuff that happens during westernization can go up if you try for a rapid westernization.

To make it harder for large countries to westernize, the costs should also be scaled to total development level. So, if you want to westernize as China, for instance, you can do it relatively quickly, if you can afford it , but be prepared to pay an arm and a leg for it. This has the added benefit of creating another money sink which is especially important for ROTW countries, as they can get really large and rich, and because they lag in tech, they often can’t spend as much on buildings.

Another important aspect which should affect the costs, is how aware your country is of the need to westernize. I will tackle this issue in the next paragraph, when I talk about the first aspect - When to allow westernization.


When to allow westernization – Historically, some countries understood earlier the need to westernize. They had more contacts with the western world, they were more immediately threatened or some other reason. To make it solely dependent on western cores and -7 techs is too simplistic. There were many more factors at play.

Instead, we should have sort of a scale to represent just how aware your country is of the need to westernize. That would work with some sort of “Westernization Awareness” (WA for short) which should work similar to current Power Projection – based on what happens around you, you should be getting points to your Westernization Awareness. Some should be permanent, and some should be fading, exactly like Power Projection works. The scale should go from 0 to 100. Player should be allowed to westernize when a certain amount is accumulated.

For instance,

1) +1 point for every 10 or 20 trade power western nations hold in your trade node – permanent as long as western nation are present in your trade node.

2) + 1 for every western trade company that borders you – permanent as long as it borders you

3) +2 for every western core province that borders you – permanent as long as it borders you

4) +2 for every western trader in your trade node - permanent as long the trader is present in your main trade node

5) +5 if the western country embargoes you – permanent as long the embargo is in place

6) +2 if a western country DOW you – fades after some time

7) +0.1 for every battle (or maybe scalable with size of battle?) – fades after some time

8) +1 for every 5 points of development lost to a western nation – fades after some time

9) +2 for every province a neighbouring country lost to a western country – fades after some time

10) +1 for every tech level your behind a western nation bordering you (or trading in your node?) – permanent as long as it borders you.

… and similar things. Obviously there can be many, many more ways to gain or lose westernization point.

Player should be allowed to westernize when they have, for instance, 20 Westernization Awareness points. What’s deal with the 0-100 scale of WA points, then? Simply, the more points you have, the easier it would be to westernize. The westernization slider I mentioned, in which you decide how much money you want to spend to westernize quicker? Well, the amount of money should drop significantly. At high levels of WA, everyone and their mother in your country understands the need to westernize, thus you don’t have to spend that much money to keep the process going or suffer such a huge unrest.

So, in theory, if you’re Ming China, some Europeans show up, start taking some of your trade, bringing your WA to 20, you can westernize, but it would cost a lot (for instance a 50, 100 or 200, ducats per month to do it at reasonable pace. On the other hand, if those westerners start declaring war on you, taking your provinces, beating you in battles, taking most of your trade etc… and bring your WA to 100, you can westernize at a fast pace for only 5, 10 or 20 ducats per month.


Pros:

1) It allows the player to have input when and how to start westernization and gives options to speed it up
2) It takes into account a wide variety of factors, instead of just tech lag
3) It makes sense from a historical perspective
4) It is more interesting than the current method
5) It creates another money sink, as there is little use for money except for armies/navies
6) It stops ahistorical and weird strategies players have to employ in order to westernize
7) It also keeps Monarch Point cost, which I guess is important to Paradox.
8) It keeps the “hard, but achievable” aspect, and gives player more choice.
9) It would hopefully stop or slow down the "chain westernization"

Cons:

1) It may be slightly confusing at first, although I believe it is straightforward and logical enough so I don’t expect players to have many issues in the long run
2) It would be a bitch to teach AI when is the proper moment to westernize, although I think that could be served by the old solution, give the AI some bonuses and/or less penalties.
3) It would need to be properly balanced, to discourage strategies of players losing wars on purpose to bring their WA high so that it would be extremely easy to westernize. The balance between factors which the player can influence and those he can't needs to be in the Goldilocks zone, ie. "just right".

If anyone is still reading at this point, thank you for bearing with me . I’d really like to hear your opinions. If I have been unclear, tell me, and I will try to explain better. English is not my first language. Cheers.


EDIT: Edited based on the points raised in the discussion.

 

[Mattius]

Your english is really good, actually. Maybe the WA numbers are a little too small though.

 

[Sarmatian]

Your english is really good, actually. Maybe the WA numbers are a little too small though.

Numbers are arbitrary. I haven't given them that much though, but the general idea is that it should be hard to westernize, but easier as the time goes by, when more and more Europeans show up, start dominating trade, beating everyone up and conquering and colonizing provinces left and right. In the end those numbers are just examples.
There could literally be dozens of additional ways to gain WA, like if non western country in your region successfully westernize another +5, representing the mind set "if they could do it, why can't we?" and also would allow a model on which to westernize on. If a rival country westernizes, that may be +10 to WA or something...

It is a work in progress, though, and the reason I posted it is to hear opinion and (hopefully) peak the interest of devs, although they probably have their own ideas which are on a back burner until more important things are improved.

 

[moscal]

+1

This game needs a better way to westernization. Your proposal is (IMO) very good. Country should be able to invest monarch-points to WA - effect encourage elites to pro-western attitudes.

 

[Denkt]

It could work, the big problem is that this would risk making westernization only available for players and players could exploit these things to make westernization unavailable for ai/make it easy for themself.

 

[Sarmatian]

It could work, the big problem is that this would risk making westernization only available for players and players could exploit these things to make westernization unavailable for ai/make it easy for themself.

One of the starting points in this deliberation was that ROTW countries shouldn't always westernize. In my experience, the current situstion depends on western core and it has a snowball effect - if one country in Asia westernizes, most of the continent follows.

When Paradox implemented trading companies, they made sure that most of the countries in Asia and Africa wouldn't westernize. It would even be easier for a player to make westernization unavailable now then with this system. Even if the player chooses not to meddle in the east, other AIs will for sure. Also, some bonuses for AI westernization could be implemented for AI, depending on how often we want them to westernize. Some could even get permanent WA bonus through national ideas or events.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

Your idea sounds good, I like the general idea of extended interaction needed prior to starting the process.

Maybe also some sort of diplomatic prerequisite? Where you have to establish some sort of arrangement with a western power before you start the process. Historically, when countries "westernized", they needed to include westerners in the process to get the know-how.

Let's say I'm China and want to westernize since my rival Russia is pounding me in every war, so I turn to Russia's rival Great Britain for help in doing so.
That kind of concept is what I mean.

 

[BlackBarook]

I'd much rather see the entire system scrapped and replaced with something more fluid.

Maybe get rid of the whole tiered system and place more emphasis on good rulers, advisors, stability and idea groups for better teching ability (maybe even replace the tech groups with a branching tree).

 

[Sarmatian]

Your idea sounds good, I like the general idea of extended interaction needed prior to starting the process.

Maybe also some sort of diplomatic prerequisite? Where you have to establish some sort of arrangement with a western power before you start the process. Historically, when countries "westernized", they needed to include westerners in the process to get the know-how.

Let's say I'm China and want to westernize since my rival Russia is pounding me in every war, so I turn to Russia's rival Great Britain for help in doing so.
That kind of concept is what I mean.

That is implied in WA, I believe. The more contact you have with westerners, the more your WA rises and that implies importing know-how.

There can be many additional stuff, like special advisors you can employ that raise your WA or make it cheaper to westernize, events that fire both for you and rival of a western power that's beating you (like in your example GB assisting China to curb the influence of Russia that's beating China). Some very interesting stuff, indeed.

I'd much rather see the entire system scrapped and replaced with something more fluid.

Maybe get rid of the whole tiered system and place more emphasis on good rulers, advisors, stability and idea groups for better teching ability (maybe even replace the tech groups with a branching tree).

That would probably be the best, but I'm not sure Paradox is ready for such a move. I haven't play EU1 and EU2, but they basically haven't changed westernization at all since EUIII. If anything they've simplified it even more (in EU3 you've had to westernize over tech groups gradually, like if you're Chinese you'd go Indian->Muslim->Eastern->Western and then go through military modernization to get western units, as non western units sucked big time, unlike in EU4, where they're only slightly worse at similar tech levels).

I don't think we'll see a radically new system until at least EU5, so it might be better to scale our expectations accordingly and aim to get a change that is smaller in scope.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It could work, the big problem is that this would risk making westernization only available for players and players could exploit these things to make westernization unavailable for ai/make it easy for themself.

Any human player controlling a western power can block westernization and/or stomp on non-western targets with pathetic ease. Future system would have to really reach to be more game-able from that end.

 

[LanMisa]

I agree that Westernization should be changed. I, too, am for a more fluid apporach. Here is my idea: Instead of going from, let's say, 210% cost to 100% cost there should be steps in-between, for example in 10%-steps. The more backward you are the faster you reach the next step , but getting from 110% to 100%, for example, should take quite a while - with the differences between the cultures so low most people won't see the need to westernize even further. And thus protest about giving up even more of their cultural heritage than they did already. This would allow Reactionaries, for example, to not halt the whole process when they win, but rather give you a malus of...20%? 30%?...tech cost. After all, nobody can take back all the changes already made at once, especially when you are already at 98% completion...

I too agree that westernization should cost money, the nations who did so sent their elites into Western countries, bought western tech and hired Western Advisors to implement the changes. This aspect is totally missing in this game. The more you spend the faster you implement the new techniques, but the more the people will resist these fast changes.

And I agree to TheMeInTeam that one has to carefully think about a way to make Westernization non-exploitable by players. One Idea I have is to use the WI idea of Sarmatian and add a "Technologically behind" value. Which increases by a) the amount of tech malus you have and b) the amount of tech levels you are behind. This would, of course, decrease during Westernization, making it harder to westernize after a while AND increase over time - thus a 1500 westernization will be much harder then a 1700 one, because the Westerners will be further ahead of you, making Westernizations happen later in the game (as long as a non-player nation tries it), preventing all of Asia westernizing before 1650, which apparently happened in earlier patch versions.

 

[Clausewitz_]

I like this, but it would lead to alot of intentional losing

 

[Sarmatian]

I like this, but it would lead to alot of intentional losing

Well, damn you sir, I think you found a flaw in what I thought was a perfect plan.

That is indeed a potential worry. I'm not sure if there's a way around it. It obviously can not be exploited too much, or the player would end up with too many lost provinces/armies to make it worthwhile.

On the other hand, a fully formed Hindustan wouldn't really feel the loss of 10 or 20 provinces. Hmm, maybe have WA gained from losing provinces depend on the percentage of provinces lost, rather then the number of provinces lost (with some bonus for development, forts and COTs?)?
Obviously, the point of WA is to represent how threatening western expansionism is. If you're a huge country, losing a few backwater provinces shouldn't make the nation so alarmed as losing some highly developed/important provinces.

 

[Clausewitz_]

Well, damn you sir, I think you found a flaw in what I thought was a perfect plan.

That is indeed a potential worry. I'm not sure if there's a way around it. It obviously can not be exploited too much, or the player would end up with too many lost provinces/armies to make it worthwhile.

On the other hand, a fully formed Hindustan wouldn't really feel the loss of 10 or 20 provinces. Hmm, maybe have WA gained from losing provinces depend on the percentage of provinces lost, rather then the number of provinces lost (with some bonus for development, forts and COTs?)?
Obviously, the point of WA is to represent how threatening western expansionism is. If you're a huge country, losing a few backwater provinces shouldn't make the nation so alarmed as losing some highly developed/important provinces.

I think at least with battles it shouldn't be lost battles, but just battles in general. Just like you gain army tradition whether you win or lose. I really like and desperately want a rework of westernization and i like your ideas, but the flip side needs to be addressed. If ROTW world cant westernize as accessibly/easily, you cant have french doom stacks marching into India to conquer them. There needs to be a representation of the major issues there were(still are) with transporting a large army overseas. Diplomacy, cunning, and striking at the right time should be key skills needed to conquer overseas. This would also make navies, at least for colonizers, be much more important, something that is also desperately needed.

 

[Sarmatian]

I think at least with battles it shouldn't be lost battles, but just battles in general. Just like you gain army tradition whether you win or lose. I really like and desperately want a rework of westernization and i like your ideas, but the flip side needs to be addressed. If ROTW world cant westernize as accessibly/easily, you cant have french doom stacks marching into India to conquer them. There needs to be a representation of the major issues there were(still are) with transporting a large army overseas. Diplomacy, cunning, and striking at the right time should be key skills needed to conquer overseas. This would also make navies, at least for colonizers, be much more important, something that is also desperately needed.

I believe it would be better to keep these issues separate. While I definitely agree how implausible it is to see European doomstacks in Asia early, it has been discussed many times already, both in EU III forum and during EU IV development. Pdox didn't change anything, I don't think there's a chance we see anything remotely resembling a supply system prior to EU V at least.

With WA, I'm hoping to find a balance - giving ROTW countries an option to westernize and not making it worthwhile always and for everyone. I dislike how hard is to westernize and I dislike how it starts a chain reaction of westernization all over Asia and Africa.

I think your point of getting points for being in battles in general is a good one, possibly with lost battles giving slightly more, just like how army tradition works. With provinces, it would be better not to count actual number of provinces, but development - say a point of WA for every 5 development lost. That way you can not game the system by surrendering unimportant provinces and getting high WA that way is gonna hurt seriosly, as it should. After all, countries westernized because they were threatened, not because they felt like changing their ancestral ways on a whim.

 

[theJ]

well... I'll be honest, What I would like to see is a complete ground-up rework of tech, a removal of tech groups as we know them, and probably a rethink of monarch points while we're at it.
Yes, yes, monarch points are a core concept within EUIV, and a necessary block to unlimited growth... but that doesn't make it a fun or interesting system. It's too limiting, and too non-interactible.

What I would much rather see is some more work put into the economy system.
An idea I've been thinking of is to expand the number of sliders to also include "research points", "development points", and "administration points" - pick a number between 1 and 10 - you get that many points each month, plus/minus various modifiers, with an exponentially growing cost the higher you put the sliders(to both somewhat limit the power of super-economies, and to encourage some basic level of balance between the power types). These would replace the current admin, diplo and military points.

Research points would be used for research(duh) - each tech would cost a fixed number of points, decreased slightly for every nation you have relations with(thus encouraging RotW to interact more directly with more advanced nations, rather than just being kinda close to them).
Important modifiers to your researchpoint gain include government type(more advanced ones get more - you want to reform to advance your nation), relative rival strength(thus not only representing actual rivalry, but also encouraging people to pick more interesting rivals), as well as stability(TWIST - this one works in reverse - a perfectly stable realm is strong but long-term stagnant, while a more chaotic realm will find new solutions - while also rewarding players for playing more risky). In place of westernization, you are now more actively sacrificing stability, strength and resources to gain technological advancement.

Development points would be used to develop provinces, using our swanky new development system - giving them their own distinct "type" of points would help ensure everyone actually gets to play around with 'em(rather than save every single point for tech, as is currently ever so often the case), while also putting the three types of development in direct competition with one another. It might also be used to "activate" development-themed events and decisions.
Important modifiers to development point gain would include government type(once again, encouraging us to actually reform our countries from time to time), and ruler & advisor traits(historically, there was a HUGE difference between rulers who cared, and those who didn't care, about where their resources came from).
P.S. I wouldn't be against the idea of a tech-based "roof" to how high development could go in any given province, possibly even replacing the current "constantly increasing cost" system, as I believe that would both encourage highly historical "super-provinces", while also giving a much needed limit to how "high" a given province can get - building tall is all well and good, but so is reason.

Administration points would be... basically everything not covered by research or development - you use them to reform your government, expand administration in newly acquired territories, managing your various advisors, agents and generals, as well as a wide range of thematically appropriate events and decisions. Important modifiers to administration point gain include stability(putting them in direct competition with research points), your existing administrative network(overextention = bad), your cultural and religious unity(your own & accepted are easier to boss around - although more diversity might give research... not entirely sure), as well as prestige and power projection(people care about what you have to say).

As for what monarchs do when they no longer give MP - they now simply have traits. One might be a great general(bonus tactics), another an amazing diplomat(extra relation, higher reputation), another a combination of both, and a fourth a gibbering fool(penalty to prestige and legitimacy).
--
Anyway, let's move back to research for a moment - the idea is for "european technological superiority" to be born in a more natural, and dare I say realistic way than the game currently gives us - because it's a very chaotic continent, filled to the brim with ancient rivalries, conflicting agendas, and near-constant one-up-manship, all of which spurs new solutions and imrovements.

In addition, as a replacement of monarch points, it still serves the primary purpose of acting as a limit to how much a nation can do, while being a lot more interactive, presenting more direct, and more interesting choices, and tying the concept to a thematically fitting core(trade, development and economy feeding trade, development and economy - pretty much what the era was all about), and away from a less fitting one(monarch is be-all end-all of a nation is more of a CK thing).

The above is just an idea, one which I believe could be made to work, but as usual, it's far from uncommon for me to be proven wrong.
Either way, whether with my idea or something completely different, and in spirit of what technological advancement is all about, I believe the "correct" approach to tech in EUIV is to come up with a new, deeper, richer system, rather than continuing to fiddle with one of last few systems that has remained largely the same since launch and expect results to be "just as good"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I believe it would be better to keep these issues separate. While I definitely agree how implausible it is to see European doomstacks in Asia early, it has been discussed many times already, both in EU III forum and during EU IV development. Pdox didn't change anything, I don't think there's a chance we see anything remotely resembling a supply system prior to EU V at least.

With WA, I'm hoping to find a balance - giving ROTW countries an option to westernize and not making it worthwhile always and for everyone. I dislike how hard is to westernize and I dislike how it starts a chain reaction of westernization all over Asia and Africa.

I think your point of getting points for being in battles in general is a good one, possibly with lost battles giving slightly more, just like how army tradition works. With provinces, it would be better not to count actual number of provinces, but development - say a point of WA for every 5 development lost. That way you can not game the system by surrendering unimportant provinces and getting high WA that way is gonna hurt seriosly, as it should. After all, countries westernized because they were threatened, not because they felt like changing their ancestral ways on a whim.

Mechanics don't exist in a vacuum. You can't keep them separate. Westernization exists in its present form in part because of the other mechanics that influence nations that westernize. It's already a painful process that leaves the nations doing it markedly behind for over half the game. You can have 4 idea groups (3 completed) as Livonian Order while conquering all the land needed for Baltic crusader by 1600 and be current in tech or...you can pick an Indian nation and have 1-2 groups completed in the same timeframe, maybe.

I do like the concept of having other things than western border directly being factors, I dislike encouraging losing on purpose.

If one seeks to make ROTW more interesting, we might need to dump westernization as a mechanic entirely. You could accomplish this via tech group cost modifiers dependent on some criteria. For example different groups could have different cost increases over time, with some ability to invest to reverse those. Even European nations could use this model.

That way, an Indian tech nation that controls 2/3 of eastern Europe isn't still teching like an Indian tech nation that never left the Bengal/Ceylon/Goa nodes. They obviously aren't the same thing and shouldn't be treated that way.

 

[Sarmatian]

Mechanics don't exist in a vacuum. You can't keep them separate. Westernization exists in its present form in part because of the other mechanics that influence nations that westernize. It's already a painful process that leaves the nations doing it markedly behind for over half the game. You can have 4 idea groups (3 completed) as Livonian Order while conquering all the land needed for Baltic crusader by 1600 and be current in tech or...you can pick an Indian nation and have 1-2 groups completed in the same timeframe, maybe.

I do like the concept of having other things than western border directly being factors, I dislike encouraging losing on purpose.

If one seeks to make ROTW more interesting, we might need to dump westernization as a mechanic entirely. You could accomplish this via tech group cost modifiers dependent on some criteria. For example different groups could have different cost increases over time, with some ability to invest to reverse those. Even European nations could use this model.

That way, an Indian tech nation that controls 2/3 of eastern Europe isn't still teching like an Indian tech nation that never left the Bengal/Ceylon/Goa nodes. They obviously aren't the same thing and shouldn't be treated that way.

I understand where you're coming from, and I mostly agree, I just don't think Paradox will do away with tech groups. Initially, I also thought of removing tech groups and replacing them with a wide variety of modifiers, but in the end, I felt that there's zero chance devs do that, at least until the next game in the series. Tech groups, however unelegant, are integral to the current game mechanics, and even if devs have a better solution on hand, revamping the game and balancing everything out would be too much work, especially as their time is finite, and I'm pretty sure there are much more "cashable" improvements to be made.

That's why I was going for something smaller in scope, but achievable. First by getting Paradox attention that there is a number of people who want westernization to be improved and then coming up with a somewhat working model as an idea.

Encouraging losing on purpose is a potential problem, but I think it could be solved with proper balancing of WA numbers, so that it wouldn't encourage too much losing on purpose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I understand where you're coming from, and I mostly agree, I just don't think Paradox will do away with tech groups. Initially, I also thought of removing tech groups and replacing them with a wide variety of modifiers, but in the end, I felt that there's zero chance devs do that, at least until the next game in the series. Tech groups, however unelegant, are integral to the current game mechanics, and even if devs have a better solution on hand, revamping the game and balancing everything out would be too much work, especially as their time is finite, and I'm pretty sure there are much more "cashable" improvements to be made.

That's why I was going for something smaller in scope, but achievable. First by getting Paradox attention that there is a number of people who want westernization to be improved and then coming up with a somewhat working model as an idea.

Encouraging losing on purpose is a potential problem, but I think it could be solved with proper balancing of WA numbers, so that it wouldn't encourage too much losing on purpose.

One small change that would cause a lot of rookie complaints to go away because they don't know any better is to retain the tech groups after westernization, but just remove the tech penalty . This way they could use their EZ CBs, but the defending nations wouldn't necessarily be helpless. Of course, it opens up some abuses too.

 

[MWSampson]

I mean you could make westernisation a disaster.
I know it sounds ridiculous, but your ticking up is visible to two decimal places (but it might calculate to more) so you can make the speed of increase once a basic criteria is fulfilled 10000 months, but make it faster for smaller countries.

Off the top of my head:
+ 0.05 for bordering a western country
+ 0.05 for allying/being vassal of a western country
+ 0.04 for being at war with a western country
+ 0.01 for every province in capital region owned by western country
+ 0.01 for every admin skill point of leader above 3
- 0.01 for every 100 development

I mean that's the basic idea, but the numbers are terrible. It would make westernisation a passive process - but once the disaster fires you can have your period of turmoil. It would make westernisation longer, but the turmoil more intense in a shorter period - instead of now when it's not that likely to break your country.

EDIT: I believe passive westernisation to be less game-y. But maybe westernising through other tech groups passively is a better method. After all bordering an Eastern Country means you can't westernise even if they're the world tech-leader.