Europa Universalis IV

[Evie]

I was indeed talking about Native America.

China is a much thornier issue, and very hard to get right given its size and wealth and yet relative slow teching.

 

[sophie]

I was indeed talking about Native America.

China is a much thornier issue, and very hard to get right given its size and wealth and yet relative slow teching.

You missed my point then. The "teching" (whatever the hell that means in the Early Modern period) was not slow in China for the vast majority of the period covered by the EU series, and the technology gap between China and Europe wouldn't even widen enough to become an issue until into Victoria's traditional timeline.

 

[Angst]

Owen thanks for the link! Really interesting

although small note: Please, anyone, do not use that formatting when writing a paper. ever. it hurts my eyes xD

Sorry, i thought you were naming supposedly negative things?

byzantium sucks

 

[civ_king]

You missed my point then. The "teching" (whatever the hell that means in the Early Modern period) was not slow in China for the vast majority of the period covered by the EU series, and the technology gap between China and Europe wouldn't even widen enough to become an issue until into Victoria's traditional timeline.

What about weapons and military tactics? The Europeans seemed to have an edge on killing.

 

[madviking]

uh gunpowder was invented in china

 

[Kyriakos]

byzantium sucks

Don't hate the nation, hate the game

 

[sophie]

What about weapons and military tactics? The Europeans seemed to have an edge on killing.

When/How/Where before 1800?

 

[Angst]

Don't hate the nation, hate the game

byzantium was not a nation

 

[uat2d]

When/How/Where before 1800?

Yup, I didn't see Africans or Asians crossing an ocean and conquering a continent, having free reign to enslave in another and undisputed control of the seas in yet another. This in 1600s.

 

[Sonereal]

Yup, I didn't see Africans or Asians crossing an ocean and conquering a continent, having free reign to enslave in another and undisputed control of the seas in yet another. This in 1600s.

They didn't have free reign to enslave Africans. They still had to trade guns and European manufactures with Africans to get those slaves, and the price of slaves wasn't exactly what you call "low". It was Africans who captured Africans, not Europeans, because Europeans would have little chance enforcing much against the African interior.

As for the Americas, that completely ignored the fact that an invasion is easy when 95% of the people you're fighting die of disease.

The Iberian Empires that "enforced" this dominion over the Americas went bankrupt several times despite the fabulous wealth of the Americas, so by 1600 all you really have is the Dutch and a bunch of second tier power players and rising players, but none of them have military forces capable of challenging China, or else they would've tried.

 

[W|M]

Even in 1800, most of the Americas were claimed but barely populated by white people.

 

[sophie]

Yup, I didn't see Africans or Asians crossing an ocean and conquering a continent, having free reign to enslave in another and undisputed control of the seas in yet another. This in 1600s.

That says nothing about the technological quality of the Europeans relative to the Chinese during this time period. A lot of the effectiveness of the European colonialism came about as a result of incentive, organization, and an absolute crapton of luck.

The undisputed control of the seas didn't come until the tail end of the period covered in EU3. And again, that's more down to organization on the part of the Dutch, lack of organization on the part of the Indian/SEA princedoms, and a whoooole lotta luck, rather than marginal technological advantage. Not that "technological advantage" was really much of A Thing in this period, anyway.

 

[uat2d]

The way you're talking, it's as if the great divergence wasn't meant to happen and you'd rather see African tribes conquering Europe and Asia colonising the Americas.

 

[sophie]

The way you're talking, it's as if the great divergence wasn't meant to happen and you'd rather see African tribes conquering Europe and Asia colonising the Americas.

No, it's more like that the great divergence wasn't A Thing until the later 18th century and really shouldn't be a major part of the game, and certainly not for Eastern Europe/Middle East/India/China.

What I'm saying is that Paradox is full of Eurocentrist asshats who refuse to accept that characterizing China as "inwards looking and technologically backwards" is a) dumb and b) ahistorical.

 

[NBAfan]

What about weapons and military tactics? The Europeans seemed to have an edge on killing.

Actually, European weapons were the same as China and India's up until the Industrial revolution. I remember reading the edge the British armies had over the Indian in the late 1700s and into the 1800s was superior discipline. I can't quite remember the book I read that in sadly.

 

[Kyriakos]

 

[salty mud]

No, it's more like that the great divergence wasn't A Thing until the later 18th century and really shouldn't be a major part of the game, and certainly not for Eastern Europe/Middle East/India/China.

What I'm saying is that Paradox is full of Eurocentrist asshats who refuse to accept that characterizing China as "inwards looking and technologically backwards" is a) dumb and b) ahistorical.

You're obviously quite derriére destroyed over this. My suggestion: don't buy the game, and read a book or watch a documentary to get historical accuracy.

 

[Angst]

nonsense

nah, not what i said man. stop being a roman buttkisser.

 

[sophie]

You're obviously quite derriére destroyed over this. My suggestion: don't buy the game, and read a book or watch a documentary to get historical accuracy.

And while we're on the topic of preempting common rebuttals to these sorts of arguments: no I do not want a history lesson/exact copy of how it happens. I am not saying that every time I play the game I want France to go through the Wars of Religion and I'm not expecting the 30 Years' War to break out in 1618 every single campaign. I freely admit that these were highly contextual events which, based on contingent circumstances could very easily have gone the other way. But I'd like to see the possibility of them happening. Right now in EU3 when the reformation happens here's what goes down: 2 or 3 German minors accepts it, maybe one of the major European monarchies adopts it. If one of them takes substantial colonies you might see a larger world presence but generally the reformation becomes localized. I'm not saying an outcome like this is impossible historically, this retrospectively this is certainly a possible outcome for the reformation. But the other point is that in EU3 there is basically no conflict over the reformation. Nobody collapses in 30 years of vicious civil wars. The Holy Roman Emperor essentially does nothing to stop the spread of the Reformation (and even what he does is of little consequence). When you look at the sorts of conflicts events like the Peace of Augsburg and the Diet of Worms created in Central Europe, or even the massive revolts England experienced over religion (The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Bishops' War to name just the two most prominent ones) it's hard to believe the Reformation would have been tolerated so peacefully. Right now EU3 is a rather drab boring affair where the only time you don't expand rapidly and easily with little internal (or even external troubles) is because you're purposefully not doing so for "historical realism". Playing as one European state versus another makes little difference besides "which countries I attack first" and "how long is it going to take me to switch into Noble Republic"? I think representing Europe even a little more historically would make for a much more fun, varied, and interesting game.

I'm butthurt over this because Paradox constantly places their games (especially over the last year with these dev diaries) in a strictly historical context, and yet refuses to represent their games in a historical way, or even to acknowledge that their games aren't really very historical at all. The monarch and trade mechanics are huge steps forward for this game, but everything else is a major step backwards. Or are you going to tell me that "Chinese religion" is an improvement over depicting Buddhism and Daoism separately.

I'm not an opponent of alternate history. I'm closely associated with and critique people who spend months writing veritable tomes of alternate history for chrissake. All I'm asking for is a game which portrays history in a more realistic sense so the alternate history depicted is actually plausible and interesting. I want a better portrayal of internal affairs because a) It gives a legitimate check on both human and AI players' mindless expansion and b) it makes for a significantly less boring and single-faceted game.

No I will not be buying this game on release. It's more because of that godawful map than anything else. I'll probably wait until a D&T-equivalent mod has been release for the game.

 

[Joecoolyo]

What I'm saying is that Paradox is full of Eurocentrist asshats who refuse to accept that characterizing China as "inwards looking and technologically backwards" is a) dumb and b) ahistorical.

Not to dispute the whole Eurocentrist thing, because its true. But after the massive waste of money spent on Zheng Hu's treasure fleets, didn't the more interior concerned faction in the Ming take control? I recall them stopping the fleets from sailing, and instead re-purposing the money towards failing to hedge in the Mongols on the north western frontier.

Though, now that I think about it, that's not really inwards looking at all. That's just as focused on other countries as sending out gold barges to Africa (and the moon).