What is With Some People's Obsession with ROTW?

[D-A-C]

Hey guys,

With a new patch/expansion, problems, bugs, complaints etc all making the rounds this probably isn't the greatest time to enquire, but I thought I'd ask anyway, because amongst all the feedback there seems to always be a few posts/threads that include 'ROTW' stuff.

My question is, why it that some posters seem really obsessed with the ROTW when leaving feedback or discussing the game?

Maybe it's my white Eurocentric ideological view of the world is kicking in, but in a game called 'Europa' Universalis based on a period when Europe went from being a bit of a backward, dirt poor, piece of crap, to global colonizer and subjagator, shouldn't Europe naturally get a bit of an in game preference and power? But for some people it seems when things are implemented which weaken, say, African nations or Native American tribes it's like the sky is falling or something.

Now I am not saying you shouldn't be able to play the 'what if' game with things like a major Chinese Empire forming, an outward looking Japan, Hordes going back to the glory days of Ghengis Khan etc, etc, but some posters seem obsessed with every single ROTW nation being able to ROFL stomp everything, and any limitations on their ability to do so are met with some really angry posts in certain instances. Shouldn't it be that some ROTW nations, with player management have potential, but others just wither away and die? I know its great being able to play every single nation ever in this time period, but shouln't some just be in a hopeless situation?

I am not trying to start any kind of argument, I am just genuinely curious why it shouldn't be that some countries just naturally get steamrolled and wiped off the map because of their situation ... as historical happened? Why shouldn't the game reference the fact, that in reality, Europe became the world power it historically was, at the expense of the rest of the world?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Maybe it's my white Eurocentric ideological view of the world is kicking in, but in a game called 'Europa' Universalis based on a period when Europe went from being a bit of a backward, dirt poor, piece of crap, to global colonizer and subjagator, shouldn't Europe naturally get a bit of an in game preference and power? But for some people it seems when things are implemented which weaken, say, African nations or Native American tribes it's like the sky is falling or something.

Yep. That underlined part would be it.

Europe has been massively stronger than ROTW since 1.0, that hasn't changed even one time. The relative difference has, but for the most part the game has given Europe an ahistorical advantage.

When it already has that, having PI nerf ROTW further while failing to provide a sound basis from EITHER a gameplay or historical basis for doing so, people get upset. Since PI often changes mechanics in such a way, you see such threads frequently.

Basically, PI is telling you for example that hordes must reform or die and their units never upgrade. Then you look at actual history and realize that their infantry used guns for centuries in this time period...pretty significant dissonance. Yet they get nerfed again despite that, and not a single developer can defend the action from a gameplay or historical perspective. Replace "horde nerf in 1.8" with any number of other changes that have hit ROTW hard over the patches (base tax --> goods produced, one of the other nearly double-digit horde nerfs, 1.6 neighbor bonus, same-continent colonization, berber nerf, Nepal nerf, size scaling nerf making Ming cost 598% more war score, westernization off trade companies blocked, inability for most westernized ROTW to vassal neighbors, just to name a few). The only buffs ROTW got for a very long time were the removal of the monarch point penalty (admittedly huge, but quite recent) and neighbor bonus, both recent. 1.8 is a very mixed bag for them.

Meanwhile, Europe gets crap like a government type that died a slow death across the period (merchant republic) get buffed + given a DLC about it, while NA/SA natives suddenly can't colonize adjacent land as effectively as the 13 colonies can and hordes are treated as some kind of subhuman race that can't figure out how to hold a rifle, even if they know about line infantry tactics.

Does it surprise you that some people find that absurd, and are off-put by the hand-holding? One of the worst things about being an experienced player in this game is how badly Europe's hand is held. They over-stack the features for them and then make mowing down ROTW a joke walkover. How many times does one do joke walkovers before getting tired of it? That kind of representation does neither European nor ROTW nations any favors, since European AI doesn't press into ROTW with any effectiveness anyway so we just wind up with ahistorical absurdity.

 

[Jokolytic]

It's a crime that Sweden has a patchwork few provinces, but India and Africa now have provinces out the wazoo that just suck performance.

 

[Freudia]

Maybe it's my white Eurocentric ideological view of the world is kicking in, but in a game called 'Europa' Universalis based on a period when Europe went from being a bit of a backward, dirt poor, piece of crap, to global colonizer and subjagator, shouldn't Europe naturally get a bit of an in game preference and power? But for some people it seems when things are implemented which weaken, say, African nations or Native American tribes it's like the sky is falling or something.

It's called 'Europa Universalis' because it's a brand name, at this point. It hasn't been a game solely about Europe since EU2 iirc.

 

[Mikalos]

well, whats the fun of taking over the world as european doomlords if the rest of the world isn't that interesting of a place to go take over?

 

[Jokolytic]

It's called 'Europa Universalis' because it's a brand name, at this point. It hasn't been a game solely about Europe since EU2 iirc.

Europa Universalis means Universal Europe. As in, Europe everywhere, e.g. colonization, European philosophy, technology, etc.

 

[Mauer]

Europe should be and is the main focus of the game, but playing in Europe all the time eventually becomes boring, however when you try one of the other nations and see how full of maluses they are (were, kinda) it's just off putting.

Some of the limitations also made no sense before, like units of lower tech groups being really weak even at the same tech level as higher tech group ones, despite the fact that reaching the same tech level required investing much more heavily in tech, thismeant a double-handicap but it's ameliorated to an extent now.

 

[Freudia]

Europa Universalis means Universal Europe. As in, Europe everywhere, e.g. colonization, European philosophy, technology, etc.

Yes, I'm aware of the meaning. That does not change the fact that the name is a brand name at this point, however. As the scope of the game expands (and they let you play more and more nations outside of Europe) it becomes less focused solely on European nations. It's not a crime that people would want those nations to be somewhat as fleshed out as various European majors (or at least those that can be fleshed out to that degree, such as Ming or Japan).

 

[SacredDatura]

A problem that's always been in the EU series (or at least, since EU3) is that the Europeans become dominant way too quickly. So you have, for example, European übermenschs wiping out numerically-superior armies from the Muslim gunpowder empires or China by 1650 or the complete European colonization of the West African interior by 1750. In reality Europe did not pull decisively ahead of the RotW until near the end of the game period.

EU4 had been much better in this regard than EU3, it has to be admitted.

 

[Osman Pasha]

This game is so much harder than before, its not only for the Europeans, but for everyone else...

 

[hashinshin]

I think the problem is two-fold:

A. Why can't other locations be as powerful as Europe? We have examples of Japan and Russia westernizing and then being major players, as well as the Ottomans taking on half of Europe which just doesn't happen anymore. In an ahistorical game that is practically a very long roguelike why can't I take over Africa with Ethiopia and then Westernize to take over Spain? People want the option to have ahistorical things happen under player control, or not player control. Why can't the Golden Horde be the Russia of this game's universe? Why can't they conquer large swaths of land then settle down and reform then westernize?

B. The game often feels like there's just no point to playing huge territories of area. Why would I EVER play Chinese tech, for example?

C. I said it was two-fold but here's three: As mentioned above there's just an ahistorical love for the european powers. For example: Why does EVERY SINGLE western tech country become a huge power?

 

[D-A-C]

It's called 'Europa Universalis' because it's a brand name, at this point. It hasn't been a game solely about Europe since EU2 iirc.

That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?

The fact is, and I am seriously in no way trying to start a flame war, because I have sat through revisionist history lessons, have read about white-centric world views etc, etc, that even the most passionate post-colonial writers would acknowledge that over the course of the time period of the game Europe came to dominate or influence the vast majority of the world.

I am not saying other countries don't have interesting stories, potential, or histories of their own, but increasingly their stories start to include meeting European colonizers, traders or even soldiers.

Again, this isn't some 'Europe rules!!!' argument thread, it's a genuine attempt to understand why some mechanics cannot be in the game that limit the ROTW to a degree and give preference to Europe to reflect its historical acendency during this period without a small but it seems very angry backlash.

Some people just seem really passionate about being able to take minor nations that were on the wrong side of historical forces and be able to be world conqueror.

I think that that should be condensed to more logical 'what ifs' with countries that had potential but couldn't realise it. Not some magical dream world were NA/SA manage to colonize all of the America's fight off Europe, devlop cannons, TwoDeckers etc, etc easily and without limitations of some form.

 

[highsis]

but in a game called 'Europa' Universalis

Who seriously cares what the game is called when it the title has absolutely no impact on game play; should 'Victoria 2' only focus on England? The entire world is the scope of EU4, and people are naturally interested in more fun options of countries to play with; get over it.

but some posters seem obsessed with every single ROTW nation being able to ROFL stomp everything

That is what Europe does in current state of EU4 against ROTW without player intervention. It's ROTW players that should say this, not you.

I am not trying to start any kind of argument, I am just genuinely curious why it shouldn't be that some countries just naturally get steamrolled and wiped off the map because of their situation ... as historical happened? Why shouldn't the game reference the fact, that in reality, Europe became the world power it historically was, at the expense of the rest of the world?

When did Russia conquer China, Korea, Japan? When did Chinese lag technically behind Europeans in 1444? When did Spain establish colonies in Japan? When did ANY European countries have a larger standing army than Ming?

I mean no offense, but saying that ROTW players' requests are over the top is rather a brazen claim; the Euro-centrism in the game is extremely strong, and if you couldn't see that before AOW and even now, you were mistaking.

Those 'many' won't complain if Europe were only as strong as it was HISTORICALLY.

Pre-AOW, Asian basetax were 1/5 of its historical value. See this thread for an explanation: "http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?777390-Asia-is-too-poor-Historically-it-should-be-5-times-richer-in-basetax."

You are telling the supporters of countries those were represented in 20% of its historical strength greedy casuals who want to ROFLSTOMP everything. Seriously?

 

[Freudia]

That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?

The fact is, and I am seriously in no way trying to start a flame war, because I have sat through revisionist history lessons, have read about white-centric world views etc, etc, that even the most passionate post-colonial writers would acknowledge that over the course of the time period of the game Europe came to dominate or influence the vast majority of the world.

I am not saying other countries don't have interesting stories, potential, or histories of their own, but increasingly their stories start to include meeting European colonizers, traders or even soldiers.

Again, this isn't some 'Europe rules!!!' argument thread, it's a genuine attempt to understand why some mechanics cannot be in the game that limit the ROTW to a degree and give preference to Europe to reflect its historical acendency during this period without a small but it seems very angry backlash.

Some people just seem really passionate about being able to take minor nations that were on the wrong side of historical forces and be able to be world conqueror.

I think that that should be condensed to more logical 'what ifs' with countries that had potential but couldn't realise it. Not some magical dream world were NA/SA manage to colonize all of the America's fight off Europe, devlop cannons, TwoDeckers etc, etc easily and without limitations of some form.

But Europe did not really pull ahead until near the end of the timeframe, and definitely ahead in the industrial revolution, which is outside the timeframe. Europe is not ahead of some parts of the world historically at 1444. That's what tech group scaling is supposed to indicate. Of course, there's a lot of "what ifs" that could have happened but didn't. What if England won the HYW? What if the native Americans didn't get wrecked by disease brought overseas? What if the Ottomans conquered Vienna? What if Muscovy failed to defeat the Steppe Nomads?

Also what you're suggesting is removing the number of starts that are worth playing, because you want to railroad starts to a degree so that a large number of states are just doomed due to "lack of potential".

 

[toroltao]

Because honestly the Eurocentrist parts of this game are trash. I want to play a historical grand strategy game, not a Stormfront make belief fantasy that shits all over history.

 

[hashinshin]

I think that's really what it comes down to. We have 400 years we play with, and people want the same outcomes every time. Europe comes in and conquers. A lot of people want to play the what-if situation that you prepared for and drove off the european powers or maybe Europe failed to achieve much at all. What if Ming colonized America? What if Ethiopia reformed eastern Africa? What if the Iroquois dominated north america and used it to form a massive empire?

Things like 50% autonomy for native penalties and Ming starting at 2/2/2 just ruin all the what-ifs. CK2 didn't have a policy of making sure eastern steppe tribes were useless because eventually they became useless, it says "here's the situation in this year, see what you can do!"


In 1444 Europe was NOT some great power but it had all the makings of one in the future. Why does that need to happen every time? What if the Mamluks pushed out the Ottomans only to find that the great Indian hordes were approaching from the east? That would make more dynamic and interesting games.

All people want is a more sandbox experience. Give an option for a historical experience and let me turn it off if I want tibet to conquer the Aztecs.

 

[SacredDatura]

Again, this isn't some 'Europe rules!!!' argument thread, it's a genuine attempt to understand why some mechanics cannot be in the game that limit the ROTW to a degree and give preference to Europe to reflect its historical acendency during this period without a small but it seems very angry backlash.

The game is, even after all the RotW buffs, still fundamentally Eurocentric, though. To stay technologically competitive, only non-Europeans need to modernize their country, which changes the country's tech group to 'western', with a process that is called 'westernization'. And it's a rare game that doesn't end with the top of the score ledger dominated by Europeans. I won't argue whether that's justified or not because that's a whole other, huge, can of worms, but it would not be a stretch still to take the game's title literally.

 

[D-A-C]

Who seriously cares what the game is called when it the title has absolutely no impact on game play; should 'Victoria 2' only focus on England? The entire world is the scope of EU4, and people are naturally interested in more fun options of countries to play with; get over it.

That is what Europe does in current state of EU4 against ROTW without player intervention. It's ROTW players that should say this, not you.

When did Russia conquer China, Korea, Japan? When did Chinese lag technically behind Europeans in 1356? When did Spain establish colonies in Japan? When did ANY European countries have a larger standing army than Ming?

I mean no offense, but saying that ROTW players' requests are over the top is rather a brazen claim; the Euro-centrism in the game is extremely strong, and if you couldn't see that before AOW and even now, you were mistaking.

Those 'many' won't complain if Europe were only as strong as it was HISTORICALLY.

Yeah, but my point is Europe has to be given certain weighted mechanics to ensure that there is some semblence of recognizable historical accuracy.

And before it even appears, don't hit me with 'anything can and should happen' there are structural facts why some regions and societies just weren't going to make it as superowers or even regional powers, and that's why many of the people's of games timeline were subjagated, or amalgamated into singular nations.

I am fully accepting of balancing Hordes, Ming, Japan, or some other nations, but the fact remains, at least to be, Europe should be given balanced but weightedl treatment mechanically to ensure its acsendency ... because that's what happened.

The game doesn't overly rely on fixed events shaping the world, and instead opts for dynamtic interaction, but that has to be slightly railroaded to ensure logical gameplay and logical historical outcomes.

But Europe did not really pull ahead until near the end of the timeframe, and definitely ahead in the industrial revolution, which is outside the timeframe. Europe is not ahead of some parts of the world historically at 1444. That's what tech group scaling is supposed to indicate. Of course, there's a lot of "what ifs" that could have happened but didn't. What if England won the HYW? What if the native Americans didn't get wrecked by disease brought overseas? What if the Ottomans conquered Vienna? What if Muscovy failed to defeat the Steppe Nomads?

Also what you're suggesting is removing the number of starts that are worth playing, because you want to railroad starts to a degree so that a large number of states are just doomed due to "lack of potential".

Again, to me this is both a balancing issue, and just accepting that some weight has to be placed in favour of Europe to ensure a logical historical playthrough.

Playing India, uniting it, and having that fun, without Europe turning up at some point would be silly, equally having Europe colonize all of India would be quite silly, it's a balance issue.

But its the sheer determination of some people to make the ROTW the focus of the game that seems bizarre to me, say whatever you like, Europe colonized, subjagated or influenced vast swathes of land by 1821.

Should Europe be balanced so that the whole world isn't painted a few colours ... hell yes ... but equally some ROTW nations should be dommed from the start, and have a difficult almost impossible feel to them, even under player control.


EDIT

Because honestly the Eurocentrist parts of this game are trash. I want to play a historical grand strategy game, not a Stormfront make belief fantasy that shits all over history.

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I just had to respond to this ... are you f*cking serious?

EUIV is deep down a White Supremecist game? Really? That's really what your saying? Like I said, I've sat through the Post-Colonial studies lectures ... even die hard champions of native people's acknowledge Europe's (often negative, but also plenty positive) impact on world history.

A 'historical' and that's the key word, 'historical' grand strategy game covering this period has to reflect the fact Europe could and did end up in a position of dominance by the periods end.

That's not some white power revisionism, that's just the way the world's cookie crumbled for a variety of economic and social factors. Europe should be open to assault from powers like the Ottomans, revived hordes, or even the Chinese to an extent, but, and as I said, I have been to some pretty liberal lectures, history, at the end of the day is history.

 

[Jokolytic]

Europe should be and is the main focus of the game, but playing in Europe all the time eventually becomes boring, however when you try one of the other nations and see how full of maluses they are (were, kinda) it's just off putting.

Some of the limitations also made no sense before, like units of lower tech groups being really weak even at the same tech level as higher tech group ones, despite the fact that reaching the same tech level required investing much more heavily in tech, thismeant a double-handicap but it's ameliorated to an extent now.

If playing in Europe "gets boring", the problem is with the game'sme hanics and immersion, not Europe itself. There's more to experience in 500 years of that continent than you will ever have the chance of knowing in your life.

 

[toroltao]

Yeah, but my point is Europe has to be given certain weighted mechanics to ensure that there is some semblence of recognizable historical accuracy.

But that's not how it works in the game right now.

Rather it's that Europe has been given too many weighted mechanics: Best technology group, best tax base, and the whole world is modelled in terms of "westernization, in blatant disregard of the ahistoric scenarios it creates.

So what actually happens is that every other nation has to game the system, even more than European countries, to "win". How the hell is island hopping to Africa in order to settle beside a European nation to Westernize even remotely historically accurate? It makes no sense.