Westernization is too easy and has too little effect in 1.8

[TheMeInTeam]

Sorry, didn't know they were gone. In that case, they should be re-instated, since technology is primarily a function of monarch points. Or maybe removed all together, I'm not sure. Some all-round rebalancing would be necessary for this proposal.

I didn't realize the topic of this thread was sad jokes, but that's about where a "I didn't know they were gone, put them back" line of thought belongs. It gets pretty old seeing heavy discussion on a mechanic from players who don't use it, don't know how it works, and don't understand its opportunity costs. Someone who doesn't know that ROTW hasn't taken a monarch point penalty since 1.7 is not someone who has any legitimate knowledge or experience with westernization, or its limitations.

Just to be clear, when a tribal nation reforms their government (have all native ideas and a Western neighbor) their technology instantly jumps up to whatever their neighbor has for free, and they adopt the government type of one of the Western nations they border (using the overlord if the neighbor is a CN). There is no cost or penalty for doing this, other then losing their tribal ideas and buildings.

This is unique to the native council. The other tribal governments do not have this happen.

A nation that westernizes, as you say, can take anywhere from 50 to 100+ years to catch up in technology and ideas, depending on whether you're willing/able to do it very early. If you're westernizing in the 1600's, expect to catch up only very near the end of the game, if ever.

I would hardly call a mass intellectual movement "circumstance". The structure of European culture and it's development lead to a superior technological base. Even today Western cultures dominate the world.

The concept of westernization seems to reflect an alteration to adapt the strengths of that culture, rather than an alteration to actual technological prowess. Doing this in the pre-industrial era before the gap widened would logically have been easier than post as the differences were more recent historically, but it's better to stick to gameplay considerations here.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Just to be clear, when a tribal nation reforms their government (have all native ideas and a Western neighbor) their technology instantly jumps up to whatever their neighbor has for free.

The last time that I played with one NA tribe it was what the direct neigbor had -2 techs; regardless I was talking about from that point on. Thanks

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The last time that I played with one NA tribe it was what the direct neigbor had -2 techs; regardless I was talking about from that point on. Thanks

Unless 1.8 changed it and didn't say (not bloody likely in this case even though PI does like undocumented patch changes), it is still tech of bordering western nation -2 in each category.

 

[Zqrfmb]

I just want to point out that it is very hilarious to get the timbuktu golden age while westernized at -100% piety.

Now that that's over, an actual suggestion:

Personally, I think most countries (maybe not hordes or unreformed tribes) should have the same tech speed, and their tech group determining their ability to get events that slow their tech speed over time, with ottomans, eastern and western europeans getting the fewest of those, to some maximum slow determined by tech group. You could take some decision that would cost some substantial amount of MP or legitimacy or stab to remove a tech malus, and contact with western tech groups will allow cheaper decisions to remove a tech malus.

 

[dstarsboy]

I think westernization is fine, just a tad non-historical.

The OP's complaints are strange in that it's too easy to westernize and that it gives no real benefit. That's balanced, if it was too hard and gave no benefit, it would be broken. if it was too easy and gave a huge benefit, it would be broken.

I guess what you are looking for is making it very hard and making the benefit huge, which would be balanced, but then we're in a situation like 1.7 where no one westernizes because it interferes too much with their conquest.

You said yourself that westernizing puts your nation in limbo for 50-100 years, if it was 200 years of hardship and strife would you do it? No one would, even if the payoff was HUGE because no self respecting player can pull put aside 200 years of conquest time.

As it stands, it's sort of a "meh" where you can do it and suffer a small set back but you don't really get anything too special for it. Just continue playing.

It's perfect.

 

[unmerged(652342)]

I would hardly call a mass intellectual movement "circumstance".

- and i would not called seamanship, weapon smithing and battle tactics to be product of imagined "intellectual movements".

The structure of European culture and it's development lead to a superior technological base.

- europe for very long time was not a place of high learning and its "superior technological base" isn't based on some magical "culture structure".

Even today Western cultures dominate the world.

- that have nothing to do with quality of "culture" itself but have something to do with words like - colonialism and imperialism.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

I think westernization is fine, just a tad non-historical.

The OP's complaints are strange in that it's too easy to westernize and that it gives no real benefit. That's balanced, if it was too hard and gave no benefit, it would be broken. if it was too easy and gave a huge benefit, it would be broken.

I guess what you are looking for is making it very hard and making the benefit huge, which would be balanced, but then we're in a situation like 1.7 where no one westernizes because it interferes too much with their conquest.

You said yourself that westernizing puts your nation in limbo for 50-100 years, if it was 200 years of hardship and strife would you do it? No one would, even if the payoff was HUGE because no self respecting player can pull put aside 200 years of conquest time.

As it stands, it's sort of a "meh" where you can do it and suffer a small set back but you don't really get anything too special for it. Just continue playing.

It's perfect.

Ideally I think it should put you in strife for ~30 years that you might not succeed. If you do succeed, suddenly your nation is extremely powerful (or at least equal to Western nations). While failing puts you in an even worse position then you were before. Though if you try again and do succeed later, you end up just as strong as you could have been if you had succeeded the first time tech-wise.

Also, keep in mind how this translates to if you transfer the game to Victoria 2/3, when that gets worked out. It shouldn't be the case that almost every nation in the game is 'Civilized'.

 

[Kalderus]

I just disable the whole thing. Westernization is a silly notion.

So do you never play ROTW, or do you cheat to get extra monarch points so you don't have to?

 

[zorkman]

So do you never play ROTW, or do you cheat to get extra monarch points so you don't have to?

Surely playing the rest of the world is for a challenge, not to find ways to get the same advantages as you would do in a Western Europe game. We are always getting told the game tries to be as accurate as possible, then add a device that hardly ever happened in reality. Seems contradictory to me.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Surely playing the rest of the world is for a challenge, not to find ways to get the same advantages as you would do in a Western Europe game. We are always getting told the game tries to be as accurate as possible, then add a device that hardly ever happened in reality. Seems contradictory to me.

The current system is loosely modeled on Russia and Japan's modernization efforts during the timeframe. Both of which where successful, to an extent.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Surely playing the rest of the world is for a challenge, not to find ways to get the same advantages as you would do in a Western Europe game. We are always getting told the game tries to be as accurate as possible, then add a device that hardly ever happened in reality. Seems contradictory to me.

You are not always being told that, and selective history arguments are junk.

 

[Beagá]

- and i would not called seamanship, weapon smithing and battle tactics to be product of imagined "intellectual movements".
- europe for very long time was not a place of high learning and its "superior technological base" isn't based on some magical "culture structure".
- that have nothing to do with quality of "culture" itself but have something to do with words like - colonialism and imperialism.

Lol go read a book. You really need it.

Question for you: Why Newton was born on England and not on Timbuktu?

 

[Kalderus]

Surely playing the rest of the world is for a challenge, not to find ways to get the same advantages as you would do in a Western Europe game. We are always getting told the game tries to be as accurate as possible, then add a device that hardly ever happened in reality. Seems contradictory to me.

There is so much wrong with this statement I hardly know where to begin; however, you did answer my question, that you obviously do not play as anywhere outside Europe.

Playing the rest of the world already IS a challenge, and part of that challenge is overcoming the obstacles put in front of you (tech group, pagan religion etc.) and achieving something significant (westernizing, fending off the Euros, possibly controlling the curia, at least in 1.7). If you take away the ability to achieve anything, which I can guarantee you removing westernization will do, you only have a masochistic game mode where you will ALWAYS lose. In fact every game will go like this- fight your neighbours for 250 years and then...face instant death from hyper advanced Europeans. I'm sorry if I don't consider playing a game where you are designed to inevitably lose to a foe with enormous advantages every time a "challenge".

Again, selective history arguments are abundant and hollow. Which nation in history had a centuries old semi-omniscient, other-worldly supercomputer deciding its progress that could simulataneously send instant orders to armies on other sides of the planet?

 

[Grand Historian]

Agreed. Westernization used to be much more powerful and difficult, but now that units are reserved no matter what tech group you have (which I don't mind) and their pips have been spread out (which I do mind), and the fact that there is very little else other than a tech bonus, westernization has become an even bigger ahistorical joke.

Given everything they've changed, I don't see why Paradox doesn't remove it altogether. The only real Westernizations to happen were the Petrine reforms in Russia and the Ottomans attempts to reform, with smaller scale (mainly military) reforms occurring in Japan, the Kongo, and certain parts of India. But we already have events that give tech bonus' (and a mechanic for Native Americans) to represent this.

The only real westernizations outside of Europe occurred during Victoria's time frame, and even then were only among a select number of nations that were able to resist or avoid colonization (Japan, Siam, Ethiopia and Afghanistan to a lesser degree).

 

[Jephery]

Westernization is ahistorical and nonsensical in this period. Leave it for Victoria where European dominance and superiority is clear and historic fact at the start of the game.

Tech groups should have a tech bonus based on the amount of trade the tech group as a whole controls.

European and Muslim (merge Ottoman into Muslim, Eastern and Western into singular European) will have the largest share of trade income at the start of the game, and Native Americans the lowest. Indian, and Chinese will be some where in the middle.

As the game goes on, Europeans will dominate world trade as they colonize America, Africa, and Asia. This is because of their geographical position, which is irrefutably a clear advantage the Europeans have on the world stage. So their tech group will get significant reductions in tech costs.

What this allows is for both the historical outcome of European technological and trade dominance, and the possibility that the Europeans will fail to monopolize world trade and another tech group succeeds. Tech groups become cultural spheres where ideas are shared, and become more vibrant as they become economically dominant, instead of an arbitrary tech malus for non-Europeans.

 

[ThatGuyYouKnow1]

Given everything they've changed, I don't see why Paradox doesn't remove it altogether. The only real Westernizations to happen were the Petrine reforms in Russia and the Ottomans attempts to reform, with smaller scale (mainly military) reforms occurring in Japan, the Kongo, and certain parts of India. But we already have events that give tech bonus' (and a mechanic for Native Americans) to represent this..

Native Americans also westernized in a way. They were traded european weapons for furs(Atleast in Canada), though I wouldn't call it full westernization. Maybe there should be a mechanic where you can get certain tiers of westernization based on your tech group and maybe religion/culture

 

[LanMisa]

Westernization is powerful. It is not super-uber-mega powerful and depends more on the situation, but you can't deny that it has its uses.

For example: You are a nation that often gets attacked by colonizers: Spain, Portugal, France, what you like. You are overseas and the AI has already a base in the area - making them more likely to drop off troops. Now you have a strong navy with even more ships than the Europeans. Even more Heavys. But you lose every time against their ships (even with much bigger fleets!) because they have a newer ship model (or even two!) and have at least +1 morale from technology! All of this happened to me TWICE with Japan. After Westernizing. I have to admit that it was quite some time ago when the monarch point malus was still intact. But to get my point across: If you don't have an almighty uber-military force (or the manpower to keep up with them - for example in Northern Africa) or have many islands in your realm you NEED tech parity not only in the military sector but also in terms of Ship technology. Try to keep both up and to expand (costing you points for coring/vassalizing) and to keep up with military ideas. Or you just accept that the Great colonizers will always be unbeatable and that you depend on their mercy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Westernization is ahistorical and nonsensical in this period.

And yet, not as nonsensical as the quoted argument.

What's a good gameplay reason for targeting this particular mechanic as ahistoric? How does it negatively influence gameplay?

 

[unmerged(463193)]

Surely playing the rest of the world is for a challenge, not to find ways to get the same advantages as you would do in a Western Europe game. We are always getting told the game tries to be as accurate as possible, then add a device that hardly ever happened in reality. Seems contradictory to me.

westernization is not the only thing that is ahistorical in this video game. selective historical arguments are meaningless.

 

[Jephery]

And yet, not as nonsensical as the quoted argument.

What's a good gameplay reason for targeting this particular mechanic as ahistoric? How does it negatively influence gameplay?

Because from the start of the game, Europeans are declared the winners and its up to everyone else to play catch up.

The game shouldn't be about Europeans claiming the world as their destiny, it should be about Europeans climbing their way to the top. They don't need any intrinsic advantage other than their geographical position and high base tax/trade values/man power relative to the rest of the world.