skallben
Diplomat
Actually, the overwhelming majority of applied technical scientific research conducted today is funded through private companies. Before that and even during the scientific revolution, craftsmen contributed massively to innovation of technology. The gentlemen scientists needed craftsmen for the practical of their ideas and the creation of instruments and tools and in many cases the craftsmen solved practical problems. Until the scientific societies were founded most gentlemen scientists depended on mecenates for funding and support aswell. In times prior to this, quite alot of progress were made by accident or by every solutions to everyday practical problems and eventually such innovations spread.
On Britain vs. China, it is a complicated issue. Britain, being an island with plenty of canals offered superior logistics and therefor markets were integrated into the economy faster than the rest of europe, making it possible to supply goods to where they were demanded. Also, less restrictions on trade, the agrarian revolution should be counted aswell. There are more things to it but an early form of capitalism made it financially possible for the state to order enormous quantities of military equipment thus creating a huge demand for iron and thus coal. When all mines ran at full capacity the only method to increase output seemed to be to invent more efficient solutions. Steam engines allready existed, for instance as toys but it was not until it was properly engineered that it was efficient enough to drain the mines of water. Ironically, a key component was actually a chinese invention from the beginning.
China was, most likely even during early 18th century more advanced but China never really had the issue of limited space and resources as Britain had and the sheer amount of population kept production running. China deemed the rest of the world inferior and saw no need for expansion elsewhere but home and when the brits came to stay China had severe internal difficulties. Christianity for instance, sparked rebellions incredibly devastating.
The big factor though, should be imperialism because the european states colonial discourse meant that resources were put into warfare and colonialism and they beelined rifling, better cannons and military institutions because colonialism proved to be lucrative business. The colonized got their economies completely drained while the colonizers could just expand their military.
I have no idea how I managed to create this wall of text but I guess from the start, what I wanted to say was that population did matter but so did also trade, central managments attitude towards innovators, religious authorities. For the enlightenment, we have social policies in V, very good in historical context even though they do come too late IMO. Any half-decent sized empire will take a long time to unlock most of rationalism branch, even more so post december patch. In modern times, well we can buy stuff, economy takes over. Game-solution here might not really be accurate nor optimal.
-------------
Personally, what I oppose the most is how warfare=population=science. In a situation of being occupied by enemy forces it should take quite a while before the population starts working normally and contribute to beaker production. The ICS nerfs really adress this somewhat but I do not think it is reasonable that puppets or even recently annexed cities contribute as much to science as your happy homeland people. Also, I disagree strongly with the change to libraries, I wonder if it is not just a band aid to the overpowered GSs but leaving us with less tools to direct science is bad gameplay-wise. Even though perfect state control over it's territories is ahistorical we need the game to be fun and offer us some control of the different gameplay aspects. Arguably there should be more social policies to support science prior to rationalism. Also I would really like to see a more interesting trade system, in history we have seen the biggest leaps of culture and progress in societies flourishing much thanks to trading.
On Britain vs. China, it is a complicated issue. Britain, being an island with plenty of canals offered superior logistics and therefor markets were integrated into the economy faster than the rest of europe, making it possible to supply goods to where they were demanded. Also, less restrictions on trade, the agrarian revolution should be counted aswell. There are more things to it but an early form of capitalism made it financially possible for the state to order enormous quantities of military equipment thus creating a huge demand for iron and thus coal. When all mines ran at full capacity the only method to increase output seemed to be to invent more efficient solutions. Steam engines allready existed, for instance as toys but it was not until it was properly engineered that it was efficient enough to drain the mines of water. Ironically, a key component was actually a chinese invention from the beginning.
China was, most likely even during early 18th century more advanced but China never really had the issue of limited space and resources as Britain had and the sheer amount of population kept production running. China deemed the rest of the world inferior and saw no need for expansion elsewhere but home and when the brits came to stay China had severe internal difficulties. Christianity for instance, sparked rebellions incredibly devastating.
The big factor though, should be imperialism because the european states colonial discourse meant that resources were put into warfare and colonialism and they beelined rifling, better cannons and military institutions because colonialism proved to be lucrative business. The colonized got their economies completely drained while the colonizers could just expand their military.
I have no idea how I managed to create this wall of text but I guess from the start, what I wanted to say was that population did matter but so did also trade, central managments attitude towards innovators, religious authorities. For the enlightenment, we have social policies in V, very good in historical context even though they do come too late IMO. Any half-decent sized empire will take a long time to unlock most of rationalism branch, even more so post december patch. In modern times, well we can buy stuff, economy takes over. Game-solution here might not really be accurate nor optimal.
-------------
Personally, what I oppose the most is how warfare=population=science. In a situation of being occupied by enemy forces it should take quite a while before the population starts working normally and contribute to beaker production. The ICS nerfs really adress this somewhat but I do not think it is reasonable that puppets or even recently annexed cities contribute as much to science as your happy homeland people. Also, I disagree strongly with the change to libraries, I wonder if it is not just a band aid to the overpowered GSs but leaving us with less tools to direct science is bad gameplay-wise. Even though perfect state control over it's territories is ahistorical we need the game to be fun and offer us some control of the different gameplay aspects. Arguably there should be more social policies to support science prior to rationalism. Also I would really like to see a more interesting trade system, in history we have seen the biggest leaps of culture and progress in societies flourishing much thanks to trading.