Westernization is too easy and has too little effect in 1.8

[Ultrix Prime]

deleted here

The full post of your statement where you slaughter reality is here -> http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?816649-Westernization-is-too-easy-and-has-too-little-effect-in-1.8&p=18430124&viewfull=1#post18430124

My actual statements that you falsified later are here -> http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?816649-Westernization-is-too-easy-and-has-too-little-effect-in-1.8&p=18429965&viewfull=1#post18429965

You just took comments *I* did not make and stuck it in your response to me! - apparently creating a strawman for you to knock down - aka ->

"Anybody who has won as Byzantines at any point needs to ask themselves "can the ai win battles as easily as we can" if the answer is no then AI Europe does need buffs even if you are arguing it is ahistorical."

I NEVER SAID THAT

"What is more Europe's advantages aren't myths."

I NEVER SAID THAT EITHER

And interestingly, your last comment ->
"What's more is that canned statements that don't even quantify said advantages are junk."

This undercuts your previous comment that was in reference to the one thing from me you did quote - your concluding statement above was -> "so while you're right to push #'s it might be best to do a legit analysis including opportunity cost."

You *failed* to do this yourself. Show a "a legit analysis" - anyway - YOU failed to do a "legit" analysis of any kind. My analysis was VERY legitimate. I calculated the ROI for westernization in mathematical terms.

You hand waved about opportunity cost which is more often than not a QUALITATIVE consideration and threw it out there as a canned statement.

Thus *junk* in your own words.

Now then, several points:

1) someone stated that they saw Westernization as a waste of time (i.e. "So it's basically a lot of hassle for no reward") - I then showed the value thus reward in Westernization

This comment was to Carmilla and, hopefully was helpful to HIM/HER

YOU aren't relevant to the discussion, much less do you have ANY relevance when you take someone else's comments to another forum member and then slice and dice them to create a false narrative for you to attack

which brings us to point #2

2) These are public forums - people can see what was written, doing what you have done here is not only rude, dishonest, and imo, ABUSIVE, it is OBVIOUS

which brings us to point #3

3) Personally I see these forums as a way to SHARE INFORMATION - you apparently have a different viewpoint

THEREFORE

Please do not EVER AGAIN jump into a comment I made to SOMEONE ELSE, restate my comments inserting stuff I DID NOT SAY and make useless comments that are nothing more than an annoyance of no intellectual merit.

Because when you do the one and only word to associate with such conduct is this ->

TROLLING

now go away.

 

[frolix42]

Uh, no, the Tumu Crisis was very much a fluke. It was also pretty much the high point of the Oirats. The impression I get is that it was caused more by incompetent leadership on the part of the Chinese rather than any systemic stagnation, which is what the tech maluses represent.

I suppose again in 1550, when the Oryiat leader Altan Khan raided the suburbs of Beijing itself, this was another "fluke" or "high-point" for the Oryait, which just happened to be one-hundred years later. And you might think that the Manchu invasion which ultimately toppled the Ming, not because the Ming were in severe decline over centuries, but because the Manchu were having a sustained "high-point". I think you are being very selective with your interpretation or you should try to provide examples of the Ming's military technology or doctrine winning wars against horde nations.

You can choose to interpret Ming's long-term inability to pacify it's northern frontier after 1444 as "incompetence". But it is obvious that this persistent "incompetence" over multiple generations was a symptom of something bigger and institutional that many posters here would rather ignore.

http://totallyhistory.com/ming-dynasty-military/

So truly if Ming were to be rebalanced it should maintain it's 'Inward Perfection' modifier bonus in some form, and not become the Muscovy, Ottomans or France of East-Asia.

Because when you do the one and only word to associate with such conduct is this ->
TROLLING
now go away.

Don't engage with trolls. Just set to 'ignore'.

 

[Ultrix Prime]

One thing on this topic of westernization that I'd like to point out, and others, please double check this as well. It seems that as I recall, western infantry had 24 pips, eastern 22, everyone else 20, at the max. Now western is 22 max eastern 21 max and everyone else still 20.

So it seems to me that the new westernization (we must all admit here, I think, that the +5 unrest penalty combined with the far easier, imo, rebel management makes westernization a true breeze) when combined with the reduction in pips for the west and east is perhaps something of a trend to basically nerf Europe?

At least to me, when I look at the new numbers for these things, it certainly seems that the easiness of westernization goes hand in hand with the new rebel system and the apparently lower pips for western infantry (I didn't check cav) such that the overall theme to this is to perhaps address the "Paradox is euro-centric in EU4" criticism/complaint.

I fully realize jumping to that final conclusion is not really well founded, but it certainly seems that the entire rest of the world became a great deal more playable with 1.8 and that westernization being heavily nerfed was a part of this.

And I would say to the OP that the nerf to westernization was really the fact that rebellion mechanics have been so heavily nerfed. Even with +10 revolt risk previously, simply taking humanism, having a bunch of admin points handy to restore to +3 stability and having a theologian was sufficient to breeze through westernization anyway - it was never "hard," it just required more preparation and timing (to have a theologian).

But the overall combination of changes that I see say -> "Make it easier to play a non-european [western/eastern tech] country"

Thus, I believe that the nerfing of westernization, albeit I cannot prove this outright (rubber hose and bright lights at Paradox HQ would be required), is part of an overall series of changes to make non-european powers more easy to play and thus, in that context, one cannot cut out Westernization into a microcosm to look at, and one must look at it in the context of the other game changes and thus the *apparent* (to me, pure opinion in this), goal of achieving play-ability party for the rest of the countries in the game.

In that context, Westernization is probably about right.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The full post of your statement where you slaughter reality is here -> http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post18430124

My actual statements that you falsified later are here -> http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post18429965

You just took comments *I* did not make and stuck it in your response to me! - apparently creating a strawman for you to knock down - aka ->

"Anybody who has won as Byzantines at any point needs to ask themselves "can the ai win battles as easily as we can" if the answer is no then AI Europe does need buffs even if you are arguing it is ahistorical."

I NEVER SAID THAT

"What is more Europe's advantages aren't myths."

I NEVER SAID THAT EITHER

And interestingly, your last comment ->
"What's more is that canned statements that don't even quantify said advantages are junk."

This undercuts your previous comment that was in reference to the one thing from me you did quote - your concluding statement above was -> "so while you're right to push #'s it might be best to do a legit analysis including opportunity cost."

You *failed* to do this yourself. Show a "a legit analysis" - anyway - YOU failed to do a "legit" analysis of any kind. My analysis was VERY legitimate. I calculated the ROI for westernization in mathematical terms.

You hand waved about opportunity cost which is more often than not a QUALITATIVE consideration and threw it out there as a canned statement.

Thus *junk* in your own words.

Now then, several points:

1) someone stated that they saw Westernization as a waste of time (i.e. "So it's basically a lot of hassle for no reward") - I then showed the value thus reward in Westernization

This comment was to Carmilla and, hopefully was helpful to HIM/HER

YOU aren't relevant to the discussion, much less do you have ANY relevance when you take someone else's comments to another forum member and then slice and dice them to create a false narrative for you to attack

which brings us to point #2

2) These are public forums - people can see what was written, doing what you have done here is not only rude, dishonest, and imo, ABUSIVE, it is OBVIOUS

which brings us to point #3

3) Personally I see these forums as a way to SHARE INFORMATION - you apparently have a different viewpoint

THEREFORE

Please do not EVER AGAIN jump into a comment I made to SOMEONE ELSE, restate my comments inserting stuff I DID NOT SAY and make useless comments that are nothing more than an annoyance of no intellectual merit.

Because when you do the one and only word to associate with such conduct is this ->

TROLLING

now go away.

When I quote multiple people, I am responding to them rather than making separate posts. Relax. The part of yours I quoted was the only thing addressed to you, no need for a name calling tirade.

 

[Stategem161803]

I honestly find the opportunity cost to westernize to be too high very often. Mostly because you have to fall behind in tech. In my Qing game, I never westernized, but I still finished with 32/32/32 in tech, 56 ideas, and tons of buildings. I also culture converted a bunch of stuff.

If I get an easy opportunity to westernize, I will and if I'm a native, obviously I will, but otherwise I rarely will. The last time I westernized as a non-native was as Granada with massively gimped dip tech. Obviously not a typical situation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I honestly find the opportunity cost to westernize to be too high very often. Mostly because you have to fall behind in tech. In my Qing game, I never westernized, but I still finished with 32/32/32 in tech, 56 ideas, and tons of buildings. I also culture converted a bunch of stuff.

If I get an easy opportunity to westernize, I will and if I'm a native, obviously I will, but otherwise I rarely will. The last time I westernized as a non-native was as Granada with massively gimped dip tech. Obviously not a typical situation.

That's the thing though; you stack either exploration or some other DIP idea depending on what's useful, core a bit and store for STAB while staying up in military and you're right there.

 

[Ame]

Westernization pays off easily outside of Europe; try playing outside of the euros and say it has little to no effect.

in Eastern Europe it wasn't lack of technology that brought down Poland-Lithuania it was a dysfunctional political system that makes the Holy Roman Empire look like the Roman Empire, Byzantines, Hungarians, Bosnians and Albanians got crushed by a militarily superior non-western power early, and the Tatars just couldn't stand up to Russia without allies. So where exactly could you point to an eastern European nation and say "had it westernized it would have survived to become extremely powerful?"

The events are painful enough to want a massive payoff; the problem is it needs to be balanced against just curb stomping non-euros once you westernize so maybe monarch points bonuses or base tax?

 

[Stategem161803]

That's the thing though; you stack either exploration or some other DIP idea depending on what's useful, core a bit and store for STAB while staying up in military and you're right there.

Depends a lot on the situation. Qing obviously has the advantage of a -10% tech NI and easy access to rich lands for +3 advisors. The opportunity cost can be very high though.

 

[Freudia]

In my Nepal game I westernized, and it was fairly easy; even fought a few wars during it just to maximize time efficiency. However, I'm fairly sure I westernized too late into the game, so I don't think I'll ever actually catch up now. The fact I have to westernize early enough or not at all feels wrong to me.

 

[CaptainChiatrol]

First of all, westernization should be renamed to modernization

as weird as it sounds this would make me extremely happy.

I hate the name. It sounds like i'm telling my nation to lose it's cultural identity which I don't think a change in tech cost reflects.

When trying to maximize what I get from it it does feel weird when I'm purposely technologically slowing myself down early so I can be 7 behind to westernize ASAP so it isn't meaningless like it would be in the 1700s.

Our conquests reached borders with Venice as the ottoman empire so it's time time to sit around popping up buildings and scratching ourselves for a a couple decades. That is the plan. It's weird and gamey but the optimized thing to do.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Depends a lot on the situation. Qing obviously has the advantage of a -10% tech NI and easy access to rich lands for +3 advisors. The opportunity cost can be very high though.

I agree that it can be, but I'm not seeing it for Qing with a +15 rate cap and only +5 unrest. Usually it's in narrow margins like "can I kill Mamluks before the Ottomans do so" or "I'm BYZ and need to keep momentum going". With +3 advisors and a decent CB mid game you can war and feed vassals even while westernizing.

As Qing, I probably wouldn't rush exploration ideas for it, but it's good all the same.

 

[Fire and Ash]

Westernisation is really only needed depending on what tech group you are. If you are Muslim, Eastern European or even Asian, you don't really need to westernise. If you have the money and can afford the advisor you can stay ahead of Europe.

That said as an African Nation I would very much consider westernisation. Your techgroups disadvantage is just too big. I know if you conquer most of Africa, you don't really need it, but if you are planning on a more passive RP play, then you will need to westernise.

 

[SacredDatura]

I suppose again in 1550, when the Oryiat leader Altan Khan raided the suburbs of Beijing itself, this was another "fluke" or "high-point" for the Oryait, which just happened to be one-hundred years later. And you might think that the Manchu invasion which ultimately toppled the Ming, not because the Ming were in severe decline over centuries, but because the Manchu were having a sustained "high-point". I think you are being very selective with your interpretation or you should try to provide examples of the Ming's military technology or doctrine winning wars against horde nations.

You can choose to interpret Ming's long-term inability to pacify it's northern frontier after 1444 as "incompetence". But it is obvious that this persistent "incompetence" over multiple generations was a symptom of something bigger and institutional that many posters here would rather ignore.

http://totallyhistory.com/ming-dynasty-military/

So truly if Ming were to be rebalanced it should maintain it's 'Inward Perfection' modifier bonus in some form, and not become the Muscovy, Ottomans or France of East-Asia.

You're conflating three distinct arguments though. The first is whether the Ming should, in game terms, already be behind in tech in 1444. The second is whether their tech malus is justified. The third is whether it's balanced in the game.

In your post I was replying to, you seem to be implying that the Tumu Crisis proved that the Ming lost because they were already backward. That was not the case at all. That's what I was objecting to. Even the wiki link you provided makes it quite clear that incompetent leadership was to blame more than anything. You accuse me of being selective with evidence, but unless you simply didn't read the article you yourself linked (and can make a good case for an alternate interpretation of the Tumu Crisis) it is you who is being selective.

And yes, I agree that nomads should punch above their weight against Ming, but that is part of a whole bigger problem with nomads that should be fixed by making nomad troops have better than average pips and/or upgrade with tech. Right now nomads are pretty stable but are pushovers on the battlefield after the very early game, when it should really be the opposite.

And you mention the Manchus toppling the Ming... but here's the thing, in game terms, the Manchu were Chinese tech, not Nomad tech when they supplanted the Ming. The Qing very consciously sinicized themselves in the process of becoming a real rival and then supplanting the Ming. It's also represented in the game, incidentally - taking the 'form Qing' decision changes your tech to Chinese.

 

[Stategem161803]

I agree that it can be, but I'm not seeing it for Qing with a +15 rate cap and only +5 unrest. Usually it's in narrow margins like "can I kill Mamluks before the Ottomans do so" or "I'm BYZ and need to keep momentum going". With +3 advisors and a decent CB mid game you can war and feed vassals even while westernizing.

As Qing, I probably wouldn't rush exploration ideas for it, but it's good all the same.

In that particular instance, I didn't consider westernizing till the late 16th century. Considering I was the world tech leader, I just felt like it would be a waste. It's not that easy to fall behind 8 techs at that point. It takes a while and the whole time, you have to dump DIP and/or ADM into something else. This can prevent you from getting new ideas, which can cause you to hit the MP cap in MIL points.

All westernization would have meant for me would have been taking techs 8 years ahead of time rather than 2-3 to avoid the MP cap.

 

[Eh up me duck]

I'll do you one better. I'll name mechanics that never happened a single time.

1. Coalitions of 5+ members including great powers against nations with <4 provinces.
2. 15 year truces that would massively destabilize a nation to break.
3. Colonization being impossible where supplying 20000 troops is practical, even trivial.
4. Carpet conversion of religion across entire regions inside a century, with no loss to human capitol or technological progress.
5. Rebellions 2-4 times larger than the largest army a peaceful nation with the territory could possibly field, revolting for years w/o foreign support.
6. War score limitations (war score actively blocks historic peace deals in fact).
7. China starts behind Europe in tech, heck China starts behind hordes in tech.
8. 50 regiments of infantry and artillery in India in 1550, shipped straight from Europe, and nobody in Europe massacres the idiot who did it.
9. Artillery moving at the same speed as infantry with no logistic consideration on how you're moving heavy pieces whatsoever.
10. Annexing vassals reduces the rate at which one can improve his navy.

I specifically asked for a game mechanic that never happened in history. You've provided a list of game mechanics with extreme data ranges.

Westernisation represents the develeopment of more efficient methods of government, law and production to bring ROTW nations on a par with Western Europe. As I said above, the only nation that did that during this time frame was Russia, and with an option for the Ottomans (or at the very most, all Middle Eastern nations). The idea of an Indian or Chinese nation trying to Westernise during this time period is pure fantasy, the idea of a New World nation doing so is absurd.

 

[Rubidium]

I specifically asked for a game mechanic that never happened in history. You've provided a list of game mechanics with extreme data ranges.

Westernisation represents the develeopment of more efficient methods of government, law and production to bring ROTW nations on a par with Western Europe. As I said above, the only nation that did that during this time frame was Russia, and with an option for the Ottomans (or at the very most, all Middle Eastern nations). The idea of an Indian or Chinese nation trying to Westernise during this time period is pure fantasy, the idea of a New World nation doing so is absurd.

Actually, as I mentioned, several New World tribes very much did this very late in the period. Consider e.g. the Cherokee: adopting written constitutions inspired by the US, creating their own writing systems, starting newspapers, converting to Christianity, starting plantations (complete with African slaves). It's one of the reasons they have a unique path to Westernization.

Of course, they were effectively vassals of the USA by that time, but EU does last till 1821.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Actually, as I mentioned, several New World tribes very much did this very late in the period. Consider e.g. the Cherokee: adopting written constitutions inspired by the US, creating their own writing systems, starting newspapers, converting to Christianity, starting plantations (complete with African slaves). It's one of the reasons they have a unique path to Westernization.

Of course, they were effectively vassals of the USA by that time, but EU does last till 1821.

To me that sounds more like assimilation than Westernisation. According to wikipedia by 1735 the Cherokee had sixty four towns and villages, according to this site the white population of the US 40 years later was 2.5 million. Clearly the natives were overwealmed and desperate to civilise in order to survive, this is an entirely different scenario than the one Westernization is supposed to represent - i.e. an existing, functioning nation transforming its government, laws, military and production to Western standards.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Westernisation represents the develeopment of more efficient methods of government, law and production to bring ROTW nations on a par with Western Europe

No, it does not. It represents some sort of societal mindset change, but that's it. Development of government, law, and production in the game is clearly governed by tech, which westernization freezes completely and will temporarily leave you behind where you'd be otherwise. Whatever it's supposed to be in the game, it is most obviously not what Russia or Japan did, since both of them advanced technologically during their "westernization".

All westernization would have meant for me would have been taking techs 8 years ahead of time rather than 2-3 to avoid the MP cap.

Fair enough, it's probably good if it isn't always the right decision regardless.

I specifically asked for a game mechanic that never happened in history. You've provided a list of game mechanics with extreme data ranges.

I gave you a list of mechanics with either some applications or all applications having never happened in history. You're ducking that reality now, trying desperately to grasp at the straws of a historical argument while ignoring the overwhelmingly fantasy aspects of this game's mechanics when inconvenient. If you who dislikes westernization can't do better than that, it's similar to validating the mechanic when compared against others.

In a game where you can indefinitely support 20000 troops across the world, calling out westernization for being ahistorical makes no sense.

 

[frolix42]

In your post I was replying to, you seem to be implying that the Tumu Crisis proved that the Ming lost because they were already backward. That was not the case at all. That's what I was objecting to. Even the wiki link you provided makes it quite clear that incompetent leadership was to blame more than anything.

If Ming proved capable of subduing Oryiat after the Tamu crisis, you might have a point. I already covered this:

You can choose to interpret Ming's long-term inability to pacify it's northern frontier after 1444 as "incompetence". But it is obvious that this persistent "incompetence" over multiple generations was a symptom of something bigger and institutional that many posters here would rather ignore.

Was the reason that Ming was plagued over centuries by, and eventually succumbed to, it's northern neighbors totally attributable to "incompetence"? If I took this seriously I would find this more offensive than Ming's failure being institutional. To think that the fall of Ming was due to "incompetence" is over-simplistic, offensive and an instance of misdiagnosing the symptoms as the disease.

You accuse me of being selective with evidence, but unless you simply didn't read the article you yourself linked (and can make a good case for an alternate interpretation of the Tumu Crisis) it is you who is being selective.

You aren't being honest here. I provided you a link, apparently you didn't read it. Let me make it easier for you and provide a sample.

During the Ming Dynasty, soldiers had one of the lowest social standings. Unlike the western armies, a soldier in the Ming Dynasty military was an inherited job and they came from a professional warrior class. Due to the low social status of a soldier, the morale of the troops was low and the motivation was survival.

So I'll emphasize, if Tamu was an isolated incident, you could cite other incidents where "Ming Stonk kill hordes" and make a reasonable argument that Inward Perfection is BS, Chinese Tech should be > than Nomad Tech, and Ming should be able to blob uncontrollably from 1444. The Oryiat Altan Khan's exploits in the 16th century and the conquest of Ming by the Manchu in the 17th century show that this specific incident wasn't a "fluke" or "high-point", but that it was an indication of what was to come. Ming became more and more unable to deal with their northern neighbors as time went on. I do not think there is data which I am being selective about, like I said before if there is please do present examples where this pattern doesn't hold.

And yes, I agree that nomads should punch above their weight against Ming, but that is part of a whole bigger problem with nomads that should be fixed by making nomad troops have better than average pips and/or upgrade with tech. Right now nomads are pretty stable but are pushovers on the battlefield after the very early game, when it should really be the opposite.

It does seem obvious that Hordes should get a rework, and new Horde units will have to be implemented eventually, but this will need to be balanced against more than just Ming. The other major power bordering them, Muscovy, rekt and subjugated the steppe hordes in the 1500s and 1600s. Crimea was reduced and survived longer because it was allied with the Ottomans. If you buffed Horde units at the time when historically they fell behind Muscovy and Ottomans, it would unbalance the game just because some people are upset Chinese Tech is slow.

And you mention the Manchus toppling the Ming... but here's the thing, in game terms, the Manchu were Chinese tech, not Nomad tech when they supplanted the Ming. The Qing very consciously sinicized themselves in the process of becoming a real rival and then supplanting the Ming. It's also represented in the game, incidentally - taking the 'form Qing' decision changes your tech to Chinese.

I feel like this is a misunderstanding of how the game is balanced. In order to form Qing, Manchu must own several important Ming provinces including it's capital. So Manchu is not likely to change to Qing and only then begin invading Ming, Ming will be weakened before the Qing tag appears. Once the decision to switch to the Qing tag is enacted, Qing only changes tech group, but it keeps Manchu's higher tech level. In other words Qing gets to keep it's more advanced military advantage over the Ming while it is Qing and it also does not have the 'Inward Perfection' modifier.

So to zoom out and bring this back to my original point, I think assertions of Ming Tech superiority, over Hordes and over Europe, come from some fundamental misunderstandings about technological progress, more specifically that progress itself is something taken for granted by the modern world. Today technology is advancing at a pace where we can empirically see it. We expect the next generation of electronics will more sophisticated than the last. We expect the next generation of weapons to be more powerful than the last. A modern person might assume that since the Song Dynasty metallurgists and chemists pioneered gunpowder weapons in the 11th century that over the next centuries their descendants would continuously to develop these weapons, creating more and more improved models in the same general way we improve our weapons today.

This sort of progress did not always happen. For a long time the educated people in Europe looked to the legacy of Rome as the ideal for science, technology and governance. The same was true in China; during obvious and steady decline of the Ming Dynasty, the Wanli Emperor tried to recreate the tranquility of previous Emperors by emulating their practices, not encouraging technological progress and governmental reforms. To us this is obviously the wrong choice, but unlike the Wanli Emperor we have a more complete understanding of technological imperatives (Well...maybe some don't, but I imagine players do understand that a Tech 14 army will annihilate a Tech 10 army).

So finally we might want to change history and like Robert Frost go down the road not taken. To steer such a massive the ship of state as the Ming in a different direction it must reform, which is in EU4 is called "Westernizing". I have no problem with the principle behind this mechanic. From a realism point, the Ming should not be able to shrug off it's established traditions without upheaval. From a gameplay perspective, buffing Ming by removing the 'Inward Perfection' modifier would be disastrously unbalancing.

 

[Ultrix Prime]

I honestly find the opportunity cost to westernize to be too high very often. Mostly because you have to fall behind in tech. In my Qing game, I never westernized, but I still finished with 32/32/32 in tech, 56 ideas, and tons of buildings. I also culture converted a bunch of stuff.

If I get an easy opportunity to westernize, I will and if I'm a native, obviously I will, but otherwise I rarely will. The last time I westernized as a non-native was as Granada with massively gimped dip tech. Obviously not a typical situation.

You need to think in terms of the numbers. For muslim tech tech with a 40% penalty, after 3 1/3d levels you break even. If you advance 10 more levels after that in all of adm/diplo/mil that is 720 MPs across the board. Do that for 10 levels and it's 7,200 MPs. And that is just for the muslim tech group. For Eastern tech at a mere 20% penalty one could easily argue that taking nearly 8 levels in each category to break even before you start having an advantage from the 120 fewer MPs is "not worth it" in terms of opportunity because the numbers are basically harder to justify.

But saying "opportunity cost" means one should look at the math. If the tech group is muslim or any other group with an even worse penalty, the math, depending upon *when* you westernize, favors you westernizing.

As for the idea of opportunity cost in general, even in 1.7 I had no problem handling a war while westernizing at the same time. In 1.8, I've simply sat back and westernized while losing a war. If you bank up your MPs to handle westernization events (fewer and less expensive in 1.8 than in 1.7 from what I've seen) then you really don't have to do much of anything differently at all. You do and should plan a bit beforehand, but Westernization in 1.8 is so close to trivially easy that not doing it is the real cost if the tech group is 40% or higher in the penalty. The ROI in MPs is huge from 40% onward and really and in 1.8 in particular, Westernization is practically a non-event - it doesn't even matter other than making sure enough MPs are sitting around for it to complete. Someone like Ming should be an easy breezy no brainer for westernization.