Or give Manchus a buff so they can realistically threaten and conquer Ming like they did irl?
What is With Some People's Obsession with ROTW?
- Thread starter D-A-C
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Or give Manchus a buff so they can realistically threaten and conquer Ming like they did irl?
I'd argue that Sweden is obscure compared to some of the countries in that list (when using their modern names).
I haven't had time to read through the whole thread. However, I think that if you "buff" the rest of the world to a historically plausible power-level (which is for many areas greater than it is in the game; EU is not set in the 19th century!), the game can't come up with a plausible development regularly? So, if you strengthen Ming/Qing, for example, they might end up doing things that they're rather unlikely to have done historically. So indeed I think that misrepresenting some parts of the world makes sure that the development is railroaded to a certain degree. The reasons are manifold. Apart from the lack of logistical problems to create and maintain armies, I think that the lack of internal mechanics also comes into play.
Here is where I would once again see the power of internal affairs. It feels very wrong to confine parts of the world in terms of absolute ressources/power (ideas, money). Rather, they should be confined via relative means: internal power structures and constellations that make a certain kind of behaviour unlikely/unfavourable. I think one should also consider that many bases of European powers outside of Europe were but tolerated by the local rulers, and that internal strife also played a large role in the "success" of European powers (e.g. South America).
Here is where I would once again see the power of internal affairs. It feels very wrong to confine parts of the world in terms of absolute ressources/power (ideas, money). Rather, they should be confined via relative means: internal power structures and constellations that make a certain kind of behaviour unlikely/unfavourable. I think one should also consider that many bases of European powers outside of Europe were but tolerated by the local rulers, and that internal strife also played a large role in the "success" of European powers (e.g. South America).
Well, I don't play Europe much because the only real challenge is in beating the local majors which isn't that hard so far because France loves allying every OPM because, you know, diplomats are cool, and trying to expand overseas is a peace of cake. That's my main grip with the game. If I'm Spain, I can just DOW some random OPM native American, land my 100k men, whipe and annex in 1 year (ok, 10k men is just enough, or even 5k but still I could land the 100k so why not?). Then, I just proceed to next tribe and in 10 years, I've annexed all the Americas. Fun? Historical? Neither to me. Historically, Europeans had quality, in some situations definately quantity but they just wouldn't send all their army across the globe and sometimes even weak and insignificant (in EUIV terms) nations could survive.
Also, in the 1600s, native Americans just weren't fighting solely with spears as the game considers they would. Rather, they were supported by Europeans to pull back their Europeans rivals and supported with European weapons, and sometimes even help from European armies (not just in Americas, but in India as well for exemple). That just doesn't happen in the game. If I don't westernize, I get nothing and the static modifier from being in good terms with Europe is insignificant for the poor tech groups. Europe doesn't holds any diplomacy with the locals either but it's Europe VS the rest of the world because, let's face it, it's so easy to conquer them that there's no need to interact with them, and helping them in any way wouldn't help them to pull back the Brits, and diploslots restriction doesn't help.
So, rather than giving historical ways for locals to try to defend against Europe, and forcing historical limits on Europeans (do you think it is realistic to keep Napoleonic squares supplied in China for years? Leave your homeland undefended for a decade and get away with this?), then I think the way how it is represented in the game is still more in favor of Europe than I wish it were. I also which though that such limits were forced on both parties (Europeans and the others), and not to be forced into starting as a small weakling, stick into being a weakling and then turn from weakling to European in a decade and then keep on playing as I were Western tech while my neighbours are the usual pushovers. I just don't want to end up being the American France as the Aztecs, but the game forces me to go that way, not just for an optimal playthrough but rather not to be annexed in a decade.
Long story short, it's either historical both side, or ahistorical both sides, otherwise it's poor gameplay.
Also, in the 1600s, native Americans just weren't fighting solely with spears as the game considers they would. Rather, they were supported by Europeans to pull back their Europeans rivals and supported with European weapons, and sometimes even help from European armies (not just in Americas, but in India as well for exemple). That just doesn't happen in the game. If I don't westernize, I get nothing and the static modifier from being in good terms with Europe is insignificant for the poor tech groups. Europe doesn't holds any diplomacy with the locals either but it's Europe VS the rest of the world because, let's face it, it's so easy to conquer them that there's no need to interact with them, and helping them in any way wouldn't help them to pull back the Brits, and diploslots restriction doesn't help.
So, rather than giving historical ways for locals to try to defend against Europe, and forcing historical limits on Europeans (do you think it is realistic to keep Napoleonic squares supplied in China for years? Leave your homeland undefended for a decade and get away with this?), then I think the way how it is represented in the game is still more in favor of Europe than I wish it were. I also which though that such limits were forced on both parties (Europeans and the others), and not to be forced into starting as a small weakling, stick into being a weakling and then turn from weakling to European in a decade and then keep on playing as I were Western tech while my neighbours are the usual pushovers. I just don't want to end up being the American France as the Aztecs, but the game forces me to go that way, not just for an optimal playthrough but rather not to be annexed in a decade.
Long story short, it's either historical both side, or ahistorical both sides, otherwise it's poor gameplay.
It´s more complicated than that. It can be argued that the difference in tech was too massive for any american country to resist, and as you said, when they used firearms, it was EUROPEAN weapons, not weapons made by them.
Add to that lack of agriculture on the scale of Europe, lack of cities and population density specially after diseases swept the native peoples (something EU is nice by not having, BTW).
So the situation in North and South America is acceptable. I don´t give a damn if Cherokee never survive. The problem is more Asia.
Add to that lack of agriculture on the scale of Europe, lack of cities and population density specially after diseases swept the native peoples (something EU is nice by not having, BTW).
So the situation in North and South America is acceptable. I don´t give a damn if Cherokee never survive. The problem is more Asia.
OP: here you have the answer, this guy nailed it
It is what happens when you play too much.
Thank you
I like to play different games, sort of rotating between Eu4 and Rome 2 atm. Like to play other paradox titles as well.
As for eu4 I almost only play as Byzantium, Sweden, Muscovy or England. I've yet to grow tired of it after about 800 hours. But perhaps Im just not easily bored.
Yeah Inca is definitely more fun since AOW, but then same as every native south american you need to be really lucky with ruler stats to suceed, westernizing took me 40 years (well 20 for westernizing but then I had a peasant war pop up just at the end when I was already heavily indebted and manpower dry, god that was fun
) and I had 5/4/5 and 6/3/3 rulers. And all the time you're just praying that no european power dow's you (which with inca is relatively easy since you're quite isolated, aztec would be much harder imo).To get back to the subject I don't think the tech penalties, colony autonomy (well maybe not this one) or low province base tax are really what is problematic with the ROTW, the problem is that to suceed you HAVE to westernize if you're anything other than muslim/eastern. having a new way of modelling the problems that the ROTW faced during the time period would be nice, something like instead of westernizing which is a bit wierd since you put some effort for 30 years and then poof you're western you could have a more progressive effort which lasts until the end of the game. I don't really have any solution but I would welcome an expansion which made tech progress for the ROTW more interesting (oh and also something to get ideagroups a bit earlier, the tech requirement are nice for europeans but it would be nice if it was adapted to rotw techgroups so that each techgroup had the same number of ideagroups at the same time).
This isn't really true for Ming. The fact is that pre-AoW you could tech up decently by manipulating the faction system and not fall behind enough to Westernize. There's also no real incentive to Westernize if you've already caught up on technology since you don't get Western units.
The real problem is that the AI has no idea how to play Ming, which I've read that has been somewhat fixed since AoW but still isn't up to snuff, and tech has been nerfed. So... I guess now there is an incentive to Westernize?
Asia's problem isn't that different. I've red that one of the reasons Napoleon invaded Egypt was to use it to support Indians (of Asia) to pull the Brits back. Again, in EUIV, it doesn't happen. They all get that shiny mission to get lands in India which results in every colonial power becoming hostile to every Indian nation, to the Hindustan Empire to random OPMs and land half if not all their armies there freely.
I wouldn't mind being unable to create my firearms as a native btw; I think expanded diplomacy with natives allowing them to recruit a small amount of good units (a bit as how you could recruit mercenaries) would be more interesting that the actual westernization system, but it's not what this thread is about.
In some ways native Americans are too strong before the Europeans arrive. They should never be able to recruit cavalry, because THERE WERE NO HORSES. What are they riding, llamas? Diseases should also ravage them when they meet the Europeans first. Once Europeans arrive, though, they should be able to trade for guns and horses to greatly improve their armies without westernising fully. Remember that many natives (the Apache, for example) survived until after the EU4 timeline.
Eastern Europe is in some ways underdeveloped. The Baltic region is utterly wrong, for a start. But the steppe nations to the east are gimped to the point where Muscovy can stomp them by 1480, whereas Muscovy was actually paying them occasional tribute not to attack at this time. They were also at war with the Golden Horde in 1444. And they are forbidden from using guns. As for China having lower technology than Oirats in 1444, that is total bollocks.
If Europeans, or anyone else, send their whole army overseas, they should 1. suffer horrendous attrition and 2. be invaded by their rivals back home.
The Manchu conquest of China was a highly unlikely event dependent on China's internal decline and a lot of luck. It should only very rarely happen in games running from a 1444 start.
Eastern Europe is in some ways underdeveloped. The Baltic region is utterly wrong, for a start. But the steppe nations to the east are gimped to the point where Muscovy can stomp them by 1480, whereas Muscovy was actually paying them occasional tribute not to attack at this time. They were also at war with the Golden Horde in 1444. And they are forbidden from using guns. As for China having lower technology than Oirats in 1444, that is total bollocks.
If Europeans, or anyone else, send their whole army overseas, they should 1. suffer horrendous attrition and 2. be invaded by their rivals back home.
The Manchu conquest of China was a highly unlikely event dependent on China's internal decline and a lot of luck. It should only very rarely happen in games running from a 1444 start.
i have pneumonia i found out..but
basically...
my main issues are the things dealing with if you start an iron man, your country will be weaker than if you start a ta later date wher eyour country colonised lands between the dates... makes me sad.
remember that you can not choose to play as released nations or colonial nations in iron man...
basically...
my main issues are the things dealing with if you start an iron man, your country will be weaker than if you start a ta later date wher eyour country colonised lands between the dates... makes me sad.
remember that you can not choose to play as released nations or colonial nations in iron man...
You remind me of those Dota players that out of 100 heroes only play 4, despite having played the game for hundreds of hours. I'd call you a hipster, instead.Thank you
I like to play different games, sort of rotating between Eu4 and Rome 2 atm. Like to play other paradox titles as well.
As for eu4 I almost only play as Byzantium, Sweden, Muscovy or England. I've yet to grow tired of it after about 800 hours. But perhaps Im just not easily bored.
My point is: don't be so quick to judge others.
Ok, then let's switch places: you're obviously a hipster and I'm the oddball since I don't drink coffee at allWhat can I say, I do actually have a mustasche and prefer fairtrade coffee!
I think both EU3 and EUIV put European countries in a favourable position compared to the rest of the world. =S Tech groups and what not. It's not like AI Kanem Bornu regularly comes and wipes their butts with Austria or Castille or whatever, at least not what I've seen lmao.
Ok, then let's switch places: you're obviously a hipster and I'm the oddball since I don't drink coffee at all
Rule #1 of being a hipster: never admit being a hipster! But for you I can make an exception!
Man, if only there was some mechanic which made certain historically strong nations in Europe directly better in every way than the rest of the world peers. Like... +1 to every ruler skill, reduced revolt risk, increased prestige and legitimacy, free general pips, reduction to agressive expansion, so that...
oh.
Right.
It's http://www.eu4wiki.com/Lucky_Nations which are all Europe (even the Ottomans are European, or they wouldn't have been called 'the sick man of Europe'.)
And that should be enough. If the AI can't consistently out-perform ROTW with those bonuses alone, the AI needs to be looked at, we don't need to keep introducing mechanics that make playing as Orissa or Aztec less fun.
oh.
Right.
It's http://www.eu4wiki.com/Lucky_Nations which are all Europe (even the Ottomans are European, or they wouldn't have been called 'the sick man of Europe'.)
And that should be enough. If the AI can't consistently out-perform ROTW with those bonuses alone, the AI needs to be looked at, we don't need to keep introducing mechanics that make playing as Orissa or Aztec less fun.
- All of the trade routes lead to Europe.
- Most of the features are solely for Western tech, e.g trade company.
- Most of Europe starts with universities, manufactories and other buildings.
- Most of the European nations start with free generals or admirals.
- Europe has way more DHEs, Missions, and Decisions than ROTW, which gives all kinds of free bonusses.
- Europe has in 1444 way too much BT/MP compared to the ROTW.
These are just a couple of things that already give (Western) Europe the starting edge, so further arbitrary limitations like putting a cap of 50% for natives or asking to westernize when reforming Iqta are unnecessary.
- Most of the features are solely for Western tech, e.g trade company.
- Most of Europe starts with universities, manufactories and other buildings.
- Most of the European nations start with free generals or admirals.
- Europe has way more DHEs, Missions, and Decisions than ROTW, which gives all kinds of free bonusses.
- Europe has in 1444 way too much BT/MP compared to the ROTW.
These are just a couple of things that already give (Western) Europe the starting edge, so further arbitrary limitations like putting a cap of 50% for natives or asking to westernize when reforming Iqta are unnecessary.
Also many of those features are less useful for non-European western nations. For example, an Asian nation will get far less use out of trade companies than an American or European (or even African) western(ized) nation because it can't form most of the TCs.
And many of those European DHEs are also better. A lot of the ROTW DHEs are negative (revolts and MP loss) or relatively lame (glorified Great Person events).
I am not a skillful player, as in, I formed Netherlands as Friesland yesterday and was in a celebration mood.. only to find out tag changing bugs stuff out.. yet again. (distance between borders)
So basically for someone like me, rest of the world doesn't exist, is not an option to play, especially when they are portrayed as laughable children playing at war.
So basically for someone like me, rest of the world doesn't exist, is not an option to play, especially when they are portrayed as laughable children playing at war.
- Status