Europa Universalis 4: Too Eurocentric

[chuckman1]

I understand that the game is Europa not Africa or America. But I think that the game is too Eurocentric. I believe that 1400s Chinese technology was in some (if not most) ways superior to Western European. They definitely had better ships, yet they start at a lower tech leve. So why is Western Europe in the God tech group while others are left in the dust? The Ottomans and Muslim civilizations had long focused on science. Yet they are technologically inferior to "The Knights". What gives?If anyone isn't sure what I'm talking about http://www.eu4wiki.com/Technology
It feels like the designers just said WEST GOOD EAST DUMB. AMERICA SAVAGE AFRICA NOT KNOW TECHNOLOGY.

Am I looking too much in to this? Should Paradox revamp the tech groups? Why can't I kick EUrope's ass with my great Chinese warships?

 

[The Madman]

Because generally speaking that's kind of how it worked out historically, and EU is for lack of better description a historical fiction game. Like it or not the game actively tries to steer towards what happened in reality through it's rules and gameplay, and looking at that period of history is a long stream of European nations wandering the world fighting people far more than it is the other way around.

Heck, this is Britain alone:

The nations in white are the ones Britain hasn't fought at one point or another, a good chunk of which took place during the time period in which EU4 is set.

But then half the fun of EU is that if you want you can try to prevent that from having happened. To use your China example playing as the Ming, Zhou, or Qing isn't even very hard. They're big and powerful enough that with the foresight it's only a matter of time before the Europeans arrive you're easily capable of building up your defenses and preparing adequately. The real challenge is trying to survive as one of the smaller cultures, perhaps the islanders or one of the smaller North American peoples, they're pretty tricky to succeed with once the Europeans stomp into town as they inevitably will. Believe me, I've tried.

So in summary you're more than welcome in EU4 to change history. Go for it. Just don't expect it to be easy.

Incidentally it's worth mentioning that Paradox have actually revamped the tech trees in the past, though I forget exactly when and with which expansion they did it. When the game first launched it was damned near impossible to survive as some of the smaller or more isolated cultures, now it's merely really hard. New events are also being added in for different cultures regularly.

 

[Fractral]

Even though the game focuses on European nations far more than it perhaps should, in the most recent patch it is still very fun to play as a country in another tech group. Sure, you have to play carefully lest you piss off spain or Portugal, but with some planning and timely westernisation, it is absolutely possible to be very successful. The most recent patch also added a ton of flavour events to a lot of countries- I was surprised to see historical events relating to the assassination of the malaccan sultan in my Malaya game, for example.
It could definitely be better,but recent patches have made the game easier and more interesting as non western nations. Hopefully that continues in the future.

 

[raeior]

If you watch AI controlled countries you'll often see the Ottomans crushing everything in Europe or some small country in Russia suddenly starting to conquer everything from China to France (not even mentioning Russia/Muscovy roflstomping everything in it's path).

When a country is player controlled pretty much anything is possible anyway. As was stated before it's not that difficult to rule the world as Ming or the Ottomans and while difficult it's still very much possible to rule it with something like Tibet or one of the smaller nations in India. American nations are really difficult but even those have recently been giving a boost since technology groups and westernization aren't that important anymore (this is true for everyone outside the western tech group).

 

[Entitled]

I understand that the game is Europa not Africa or America.

The use of the continent's name doesn't just refer to the focus of detail, but to a narrative role.

The Paradox series are not just about specific time frames, but historical narratives, with the individual games' gameplay emphasizing those narratives. Hearts of Iron is not about "The World between 1938-1948", but about "World War II". You can make individual differences inside of that narrative, but you can't just discard it.

Victoria is not just EU at a later date with different countries, but explicitly about industrialization, the First Globalization, the rise of democracies and popular ideologies, and the Scramble for Africa. Crusader Kings is about religious conquest, feudal chains, and personality-driven states rather than nation-states.

Likewise, "Europa Universalis" is about that phrase in history when Europe became the global leader of the world through trade colonization, and empire-building. This is basically the plot. You can't play an Ottoman empire that stays technologically relevant, any more than you can play a communist Scotland in Crusader Kings, or become a feudal liege in Hearts of Iron. Even if these were not physically impossible, the fact that the nations didn't choose these paths, is taken for granted.


A good alternate history novel could be written about "What if Japan didn't choose isolationism but build an empire the size of Britain's by the 19th century?" but it is not the premise of this game, instead it is taken for granted that some basic behaviors that the nations showed historically, would stay true. (such as rejection of western-style scientific advancement).

 

[Madkipz]

I understand that the game is Europa not Africa or America. But I think that the game is too Eurocentric. I believe that 1400s Chinese technology was in some (if not most) ways superior to Western European. They definitely had better ships, yet they start at a lower tech leve. So why is Western Europe in the God tech group while others are left in the dust? The Ottomans and Muslim civilizations had long focused on science. Yet they are technologically inferior to "The Knights". What gives?If anyone isn't sure what I'm talking about http://www.eu4wiki.com/Technology
It feels like the designers just said WEST GOOD EAST DUMB. AMERICA SAVAGE AFRICA NOT KNOW TECHNOLOGY.

Am I looking too much in to this? Should Paradox revamp the tech groups? Why can't I kick EUrope's ass with my great Chinese warships?

Because that is how it was within the context of history. The muslim techgroup sucked compared with the crusade machine that was The Knights, but muslims simply had numbers on their side, plus it was significantly harder for european nations to ferry troops down south than it was for muslims down south to rebel.

You can kick Europes ass with your chinese dudes, but it requires a process of westernization. Which is basically a game mechanic simulating the complete and total uprooting of traditional and cultural norms for the chance to benefit from western nation progress.

Which is what happened with these nations somewhere within EU's time period -.- IN REAL LIFE.

 

[Random Gamer]

There have been tens of similar topics, hundreds of pages and thousands of comments over the years on Paradox forums. Which are probably the best place to have in-depth discussion of the sort - though you'll easily fall into debate about details of which country should actually be in which tech group in year 1XXX

I tend to think half the world isn't developed enough indeed, but that didn't stop me from kicking out the Europeans from America with my Incas in Eu3, and to go on the offensive, conquering bits of Europe in late 18th century.
There's also a tough act of balancing civilizations and countries in the long run, which means some starting position aren't perfect - avoiding some unlikely countries repeatedly forming huge blobs isn't easy, it seems. Still, from what I've seen, non-Western tech trees lag far less in EU4 than in EU2 and EU3.

You can't play an Ottoman empire that stays technologically relevant

Oh yes, you can. Westernising helps a lot of course, but still.

And I'm not even talking about EU2, which was overall far more difficult and punishing, yet you still had some crazy people able to to world conquest with countries like Tibet.

A good alternate history novel could be written about "What if Japan didn't choose isolationism but build an empire the size of Britain's by the 19th century?" but it is not the premise of this game, instead it is taken for granted that some basic behaviors that the nations showed historically, would stay true. (such as rejection of western-style scientific advancement).

Well, with EU, you're supposed to be able to do it in the long run, though that requires you to make many decisions with that specific goal in mind - which is totally ahistorical of course.

You can kick Europes ass with your chinese dudes, but it requires a process of westernization. Which is basically a game mechanic simulating the complete and total uprooting of traditional and cultural norms for the chance to benefit from western nation progress.

The main reason why Chinese didn't try to kick European butts in the 15th century, or even the 17th, is that they're at the opposite ends of Eurasia, with plenty of steppes and nomadic tribes inbetween. Has China been geographically in Russia's place, we would've had plenty of direct conflicts - in which case, I'm not sure what the outcome would've been, at least before the 1600s.

 

[Dragonlayer]

I understand that the game is Europa not Africa or America. But I think that the game is too Eurocentric. I believe that 1400s Chinese technology was in some (if not most) ways superior to Western European. They definitely had better ships, yet they start at a lower tech leve. So why is Western Europe in the God tech group while others are left in the dust? The Ottomans and Muslim civilizations had long focused on science. Yet they are technologically inferior to "The Knights". What gives?If anyone isn't sure what I'm talking about http://www.eu4wiki.com/Technology
It feels like the designers just said WEST GOOD EAST DUMB. AMERICA SAVAGE AFRICA NOT KNOW TECHNOLOGY.

Am I looking too much in to this? Should Paradox revamp the tech groups? Why can't I kick EUrope's ass with my great Chinese warships?

Because that is how it was within the context of history. The muslim techgroup sucked compared with the crusade machine that was The Knights, but muslims simply had numbers on their side, plus it was significantly harder for european nations to ferry troops down south than it was for muslims down south to rebel.

Muslim and European military technology of the time was roughly equal, differing largely in the approach to battle: European tactics relied on the shock impact of heavily armoured and heavily armed cavalry to break enemy formations on the field and allow their infantry to pour in through the breach. Conversely, Muslim tactics centered around lightly armoured but fast cavalry and horse archers using their superior maneuverability to exhaust the enemy while filling him full of arrows before going in for the kill up close. To say one was manifestly superior to the other is like trying to argue the length of a piece of string; both served well in certain conditions and less well in others. Furthermore, the Muslim powers of the region were (usually) more successful in maintaining a united front to the enemy, while the Crusaders were (usually) divided from the get-go; this combined with the logistical difficulties of planning an multilateral invasion into a vaguely charted hostile area of completely different terrain and climate with all those knights, lords and bishops arguing over the details, means it was amazing that the Crusades actually managed to leave Europe, let alone carve out a substantial foothold in the Holy Lands and hold it so long.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that like any conflict, it was more complex then "Crusaders were better fighters than Moslems" or "Moslems won because God was on their side".

OT

Like others have said, the game is Eurocentric because it takes place within a locale and timeframe in which Europe began its historical march to relative supremacy.

 

[Aerotrain]

The game called Europa Universalis is a little eurocentric? What a twist!

Anyway, if it goes anything like Crusader Kings II you'll have the option down the line to buy some DLC that add some interesting mechanics and flesh out the play style of non-European nations making it a much more well rounded game.

 

[Kathinka]

Derailing history is always the most fun part. Nothing like seeing the face of the french-spanish eperor when the Cherokee nations land on his shores to manifest destiny his ass.
Works even better if you import a CK2 savegame file where crazy stuff happened, like a powerful transatlantic Aztec empire, a United Islamic Republic or a stable Mongolian alliance with Rome as the capital.

 

[Ryotknife]

they did actually give a rather large tech buff to the non-european nations

take china for example. It used to be something like technology is 60% more expenisve and -2 penalty (you get 3 base points, so if you have a 0/0/0 king you will gain only 1 point per month rather than 3), but they removed the point penalty.

There are also balance reasons as to why it is this way. If a non-european power manages to westernize and catch up in tech, there isnt a single power in the world that can stop them. Their territory is usually as rich as europe, especially in trade goods, but they have access to a lot more of it and can conquer whole swaths much easier than Europe can. European nations have pretty harsh mechanics that limits their expansion (the holy Roman Empire, excommunication, etc). My Japanese Empire game is kicking the Europeans out of the New World (i think the year is around 1640). The Europeans are still pretty far ahead of me in tech, but i can outspend them 4 to 1.

 

[Amaror]

Haha, hilarious. Yes Europe gets better tech than other nations and that's because historically Europe advanced technologically faster than the rest of the world, which resulted in Europes power at the time.
That in no way means that a good player can't crush europe easily.
Here's for example a recent video series of the Let's player arumba were he goes on a conquering and conversion spree with freaking Najd.

 

[Muspelheim]

It isn't a case of the game going "Europe best, gib clay to master race", it's a case of modelling the time period. The European nations were simply the first to have both the means to give the world conquering idea a rough stab, but also the need.

China no doubt had the means and the power to expand like the colonial powers did, but the rulers simply didn't find it neccessary. Partially due to Chinese philosophy, partly because they had or could get what they needed by other means. The Emperor sent a few treasure fleets to East Africa, but the Chinese rulers mainly chose to stay at home.

As for the tech, I don't think it'd be fair to say that it's an attempt to portray Europeans as more clever and inventive. I think it's more to do with modelling the way the European powers often applied the inventions in new ways. For instance, it was the Portugese that introduced firearms to Japan. They had of course known of gunpowder before, but the new, hand-held arquebusses were a new, better design. They were also better fitted for mass production, and within a few years the Japanese had made several thousands of them.

The tech system doesn't neccessarily reflect how clever a particular nation is, but how well new tech is developed and applied.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

EUROPA universalis... eurocentric


oh boy

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

The Ottomans and Muslim civilizations had long focused on science. Yet they are technologically inferior to "The Knights".

That's not really true though. The muslim tech group is militarily superior to the western units at the start of the game. Especially their cavalry which will stomp an equivalent European force.
For the most part the biggest difference between the tech groups is simply how fast you can tech up. With each tech groups units being better than their equivalents at various parts of the game.

Regarding China though, if you read the "Dev Diaries" it was definitely clear that they regarded China as something of an anomaly. Where anyone could reasonably assume China could have become the most dominant force in the world... except it didn't. And they couldn't really find a way to simulate or balance that without just nerfing them (which honestly isn't a great solution but I can't really think of a better one) ... the other option is to have a non nerfed China dominate the world in every single game.

 

[Joseph Hutzulak]

My experience with Paradox games is in Crusader Kings 2 and trust me...

While PD might be a strange creature, nationalistic swedes, see "the Rings" stats or Germanic Pagans, I would not accuse them of designing the Western Nations as too strong or being Euro-centric

Umayyads will often take out the majority of continental Europe and the Crusades rarely succeed outside of Continental Europe without player intervention.

The Muslim's are just strictly superior to Christians in Crusader Kings 2, better Tech, better succession laws, better attributes, and better governance.

 

[NemotheElvenPanda]

Well the focus of the game is kinda, sorta, maybe in the name. I don't deny that they get a lot wrong, especially when it comes to how they depict the many relevant civilizations of say, Africa which wasn't at any point in history just home to mud hunts and barely naked people with stone spears, but it is a game based around the Age of Imperialism, AKA White-People-In-Boats-Fucking-Shit-Up-For-Everyone. You're supposed to play a European power like France, Austria, or England, and make it a world power through conquest and colonialism because this is the window of history when it happened. However you CAN choose to take a more difficult role and choose to play a non-Western power like China, Maya, or Mali, or even a minor nation and manage to do the exact opposite. With all the expansions and patches, it's much easier to play non-European nations and more interesting. EU isn't Eurocentric as in saying that white people are better, it's Eurocentric in that it's narrative is mostly from a European perspective due to the game's historical context.

 

[Rozalia1]

While perhaps not completely accurate at the earliest start date, its supposed to simulate how Europe in that period of time rapidly advanced in tech while others stagnated. The Muslim's who are often cited as being hard done by I'm pretty sure stagnated around that time as theology (likely not the best way to put it) won the debate shall we say.

Anyway its not hard to play as a non western nation and there are several big players outside Europe. As Japan for example I was able to quickly unite Japan, colonize pretty much all the surrounding areas as there is no competition, take Korea, and steadily obliterate the Chinese piece by piece. Additionally I won the race to America and so I held practically all of Central America.
My current favourite outside Europe is Oman so I'd check them out.

 

[Platypus540]

When the game is set, those other countries were already declining, or at least stagnating relative to Europe. Besides, it's called Europa Universalis. The 'protagonists', so to speak, are the European imperial nations.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I understand that the game is Europa not Africa or America. But I think that the game is too Eurocentric. I believe that 1400s Chinese technology was in some (if not most) ways superior to Western European. They definitely had better ships, yet they start at a lower tech leve. So why is Western Europe in the God tech group while others are left in the dust?

Frankly, even with its disadvantages Ming can still remain competitive with most European nations because it can afford high level advisors from day one, which only the richest nations in the world can do. Even in the hands of the AI Ming seldom falls very far behind until the mid-17th century, which is about accurate.

In EU3, I understand Ming didn't have the unique balance restrictions it does in EU4 and as a result it would inevitably just blob all the way to Europe. China in EU4 is just staggeringly (and realistically) wealthy. Ming technically starts with about three times as much base tax as the entire French region, which is the richest area of Europe. To add to this, Ming is surrounded by relatively weak nations which it can often vassalize diplomatically. In short, Ming is by far the most powerful nation on earth in 1444. It is so powerful it needs a special handicap to stop it from unrealistically taking over the world and making everyone else not fun to play. I'd hardly call that Eurocentric.

Many players feel very nervous about playing weaker tech groups, but actually.. the difference has been toned down as the game has evolved and it's really not that difficult any more. It's actually very hard to spend all the monarch power you will end up with as a Western tech nation, being any other tech groups means having to run a bit leaner but it's quite doable.

On the broader point..

Europe in the 15th century was in a period of rapid social and technological innovation spurred on by war and instability, resulting in the rapid evolution of military equipment and tactics as the new, emerging states of the period sought to gain an edge over each other. Socially, the 4th crusade had suddenly injected a massive influx of Greek learning into the Latin world, which would ultimately lay the foundation for the renaissance.

Ming China, by contrast, was a huge, confident state with no real need to innovate. It's only real credible threats were nomadic people who, while incredibly ahead of their time in some ways, also didn't really innovate.

The Islamic golden age ended with the Mongol sacking of Baghdad. It's impossible to emphasize how devastated the Islamic world was by the Mongol invasions. The legacy of science and Greek learning was pretty much wiped out in one fell swoop. There's a theory that Iran only reached its pre-Mongol population levels in the mid-20th century, for example.

I think one thing the game does is to make technology unrealistically advantageous (at least prior to the 18th century, which is really when the differences between Europe and everywhere else started to show), but the actual distribution of tech groups is pretty okay. If we were going super realistic, it seems like maybe Ming in particular should start at tech 3 rather than tech 2, but since starting techs are generalized across tech groups it would be unprecedented.

What really needs an overhaul is the Westernization system, which is incredibly gamey and unrealistic and doesn't really reflect the flow of knowledge between nations.