It's almost as bad as seeing Europe westernised without any effort in every single game....
- 4
- 1
Wiz, the Portugal-India Core event is ridiculous
- Thread starter PerryCaravello
- 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.
It's almost as bad as seeing Europe westernised without any effort in every single game....
It's strange the way this thread has gone. While westernization is not the greatest of features in the game, the problem here is not westernization, who's westernizing or how they're westernizing. The problem is why they're able to, and the reason for that is an event that was added that pops a free western core in their land. To fix that problem, you address the problem and stop giving Portugal a free core in India. If you then feel that India should get there earlier, make a case for it, but don't change a game mechanic because of a single event.
- 3
well, I'd remove the event alltogether and rework the mission colonizerts get for India.
- 3
Yes, this was the goal of this thread, to change or remove this event, not to rework the westernization mechanic. While I'm sure it could use some work, it would be a much simpler fix to simply not give Portugal the core.
- 2
As other people said the event should be removed or at least reworked completely.
I'm not 100% sure but in one of my games I think I saw Portugal get Goa although they hadn't even discovered anything beyond Cape, not to mention any colony. And their closest province to India was Madeira at that moment.
I'm not 100% sure but in one of my games I think I saw Portugal get Goa although they hadn't even discovered anything beyond Cape, not to mention any colony. And their closest province to India was Madeira at that moment.
The problem is hardly the event. It puts a Western nation into the region, allowing progress in that direction to move at a more rapid pace. I'd like even more similar events to push colonial powers into Asia; it makes things more interesting over there.
The real problem is westernization off it. If you couldn't westernize off Portuguese Goa, it really wouldn't be a problem, would it? So, either the events can be made more difficult to exploit for westernizing (eg it removes all other's cores and spawns as a trade company), or westernization can be changed, or the tech groups can be changed. My vote is the latter. Nations didn't westernize not because they were lazy, stubborn, incapable or otherwise failures, they didn't adopt western ideas and practices because there was no need to. It was after there became an obvious need that you historically saw western influences spread, and that need didn't appear to exist in the 16th century.
We all bitch and moan about Portuguese Canada and Castillian Siberia, this event at least is historically accurate and in Portugal's interests (and currently in everyone non-western there's too).
- 1
The BS is claiming there is "westernization fest all over India in the 1500's". At max rate, which the AI rarely achieves, it costs an Indian tech nation 3000 points and a bit over 8 years nonstop to westernize. In reality it's more like 10ish. That AI, now western, must tech to the point where it is 7 technologies ahead of its neighbors, but since it just spent more than an Indian tech's worth of points on westernization, it has to climb out of a hole first. They have to come up with at least 1200 points in two categories and closer to 1800 in a third category just to advance 8 technologies. But the Indian tech nations don't stop teching as AI, so they'd need to come up with closer to 1800 points in two categories and over 2000 in the 3rd, just to let a 2nd nation start westernizing...but then those new westernizing nations have to repeat the process.
Morocco westernizes as fast as it can for cheaper, and it still takes into the 1500's for African nations like Timbuktu to westernize, and in the 1600's nations like Air still aren't typically. In claiming this happens all over India in the 1500's, you're basically saying it's much faster in India. That is false.
Remember that part where they had to actually fight to get the territory? You know, that part that is central to gameplay and crucial to the historical event happening? No, you are applying history selectively here and arguing in favor of ahistorical events in the name of history. That's not credible.
When trade companies were introduced, the developers outright stated that nations that capture the province can westernize. Claiming this a bug in that context is misinformed at best.
- 2
Except that it's not even helping in this regard. Colonization of the Far East was just fine prior to El Dorado when the new exploration mechanics were introduced and such railroading wasn't necessary back then and it's not fixing the problem now.
- 1
The problem isn't the western nation getting there, it's how it's done and the side effects it causes. The solution is for Portugal to be better at exploring/colonizing so that they can get there in a timely manner. That's probably already on Paradox's list of things to fix.
I would add though that working on a solution so that Portugal is expanding in this direction in a more organic way should still be an important part of the list. As much as I despise Iberian incursion, I do expect it to happen and feel that the present pace is quite slow.
I didn't quite put it right. Goa IS a trade company province, so it should be forbidden to westernize off it if you conquer it FROM portugal. The problem is that the nations there can westernize themselves off that core, without Portugal ever being present there in the past, because the core magically appears in a province that Portugal never owned. Thats why I suggested to give colonizers only a core there based on a mission, after they capture an Indian province for real.
As of now, the entire Goa event allows for gamey westernising strategies for ROTW nations, and I don't think that was intended.
If it WAS intended, then I don't get the reason.
- 1
Nah, the real BS is the idea that in the 1500s India should be far enough behind Europe for "Westernisation" to be possible even if there is a Portuguese core there....
- 1
Free cores handed like candy out-of-context are way more gamey than westernization has ever been. Stuff like Castile/England/PLC freebies or BI can give so many free cores that they yield 1000's of ADM worth, all for 0 AE, and all low LA. In contrast, to westernize you're paying points, not getting them for free.
The poster who said the Portuguese event is a drop in the bucket by comparison is correct. This event is annoying because it's neither dynamic nor historical, but in terms of its impact on gameplay it's nowhere near the worst of its kind. A mission would work, but how is that materially different from the generic "get a presence in India" mission that the AI wrecks its alliances over?
In past versions of the game, you could westernize by around 1600 in India without exploration. In fact, in my Orissa game I did it just after 1600 opening religious first. You could westernize well before 1540-1550 if you took it first. That has been unchanged in 1.11. You can still westernize faster by exploration rushing than waiting, but this event narrows the time between the two (in practice, you just need to declare on someone allied to Portugal or Portugal directly, but you could easily get a new world colony done before 1520 also if you needed to do it).
If the "problem" is that India is putting up too much of a fight for rookie players because it's westernizing, there's no sympathy. If the "problem" is "immersion", I mock the bias of westernization killing immersion, but not the historical context of the event itself being completely ignored (including the part where they had to actually fight for the province). If the "problem" is that good players can westernize sooner, the claim is false outright, and the optimal timing of it is debatable anyway.
TL;DR this event nor the fact that it allows "fast" (lol) westernization is NOTHING compared to crap like Burgundian Inheritance, but is bad for exactly the same reason that event is.
- 2
- 1
hrrm, I suppose you are right. Still, the entire Goa event still looks clumsy 
- 1
Hardcoing the way the AI acts if they take a specific missions is a bad idea. If the mission then gets removed it can cause issues like crashes than then need to be fixed. This becomes an even bigger problem for modders as they cannot change the hardcoded aspect of it and are forced to keep the mission (and if they remove the mission and start crashing, it becomes really hard to figure out what is causing the crash).
It's very easy to code the mission so that it awards cores when completed. But that doesn't change that even if the mission were to give award cores, the AI has no way of knowing that. If the AI doesn't take the provinces because of lack of coring range then it won't take the provinces regardless of the mission's rewards. This change then becomes something that helps the player and has no effect on the AI.It isn't hard to code that I guess. I just suggested this to give an alternative to a core in Goa that people can westernise from early on, when playing ROTW. The core there makes no sense, whatsoever.
Alternatively, maybe accepting the mission gives the involved colonizer CORES all over India that expire within a few years. But this can be abused by a colonizing player to core entire india..
Feel free to suggest a solution yourself
Most missions are not available to the AI because they don't understand how to do them. They can't understand what they're supposed to do and cannot weight the rewards against other things. The missions generally available to them are usually the conquest missions that give claims or CBs as that gives them an interest on the target.
If the getting a presence in India mission needs anything changed is that it should not occur unless any province is within range.
My suggestion would be to give the core as a reward for the mission to own a province in India.
No need for such events. Just teach AI Castille/Portugal/Whoever with a colonist that Navarra = Indian OPM = free lands asking for being grabbed by the greedy.
I'm not sure why the AI is so passive overseas; I often see Zanzibar node left as is while it's super easy and awesome lands; rich node, nice goods owned by defenseless nations. It's free candies; what else does the AI needs to go for it?
I'm not sure why the AI is so passive overseas; I often see Zanzibar node left as is while it's super easy and awesome lands; rich node, nice goods owned by defenseless nations. It's free candies; what else does the AI needs to go for it?
Last edited:
- 1
Poor response, Europe was on the path to be the technological leaders of the world. Sure there is a chance for India to westernize in the 1600's but its a really slim chance. Could Indian nations have westernized later in the game? Yes to an extent once European Nations got a foothold and started to spread influence, but not in the 1600's.
As it stands between the period of 1444 and 1821 a handful of nations westernized. To see a good portion of the world westernized by 661650's is completely immersion breaking for me.
- 4
- 3
Different regions were on that path at different times. There are some scenarios that can happen in the game that would markedly alter history. But the biggest mistake here is equating a nation westernizing to being exactly like Europe, or even necessarily in a competitive position. The examples you are trying to cite for westernization in history did not stagnate the nations in question technologically for the better part of 2-4 decades (westernization cost, then catch-up to where they would have been). A nation westernizing in 1600 will take 100+ years to match Europe in both tech *and* ideas in most cases (barring the player running 3/3/3 advisors and roflstomping around in a way that carries not even a passing resemblance to history for any nation anyway).
But at its core, this is an empire-builder game with a historical basis. Non-European nations were designed to be playable, and while the situation favored Europe in this timeframe, the wide gaps created by technology just weren't that great yet during this time period. Even the Opium wars are after the period, and even then that might have gone very differently without Manchu --> Qing happening, same thing with India's situation sans Mughals or a weaker Ottomans.
Claiming that westernization is materially more immersion killing than coalition mechanics, war score, or even the war leader concept is bogus, and vexing because you're essentially arguing against a mechanic that is put in place to make disadvantaged positions more competitive (while still markedly inferior overall) as the major source of immersion killing. I don't know your stance on other mechanics of course, but westernization in this capacity shouldn't be altered without also altering the game systems that surround it.
It's somewhat offensive that somehow a land-locked Portugal receiving a core in India by scripted event is okay, while "westernizing" (IE changing processes at great expense to set up the potential for future tech) isn't, which more than one poster here has done. It's a hell of a lot more likely that an Indian nation would have made such investments given different history, than a militarily beaten husk of a nation would suddenly inherit land across the world, but we somehow still have posters here saying the reverse (note I'm disambiguating this portion of my discussion from what was addressing you directly above).
- 1
In 1444 Europe was well positioned to become the technological leaders and indeed dominate the world. But it was by no means inevitable. European dominance both in technological and other aspects occurred primarily as a result of events and decision made during the EUIV time period (along with a large helping of luck). For Europe to always end up dominant, regardless of what happens (barring direct player involvement), and with no real effort, is stupid.
Although I do agree - India shouldn't "westernise" by 1600. Because by 1600 there was very little about "the West" that India would've aspired to. Copying them at that time wouldn't have been "advancing". It was only well into the 17th century that European dominance came into being.
- 1