The Presumption of European Advancement

[MattyG]

Ahmed wrote to me and one of his many ideas/rants/issues was the presumption in EU2 that catholic Europe was - as of 1419 - on the brink of advancement that was equal throughout Europe and superior to that of everywhere else. In a sense this statement is accurate, but only broadly. And it is comes from a backward look at history. Was Albania really ready to be 10% more advanced than the ottoman Empire in 1419? I think perhaps not.

The game is grand strategic, of course, and simplifies many things to make them manageable. We don't want to descend to the Victoria level of micromanaging how much tobacco our officer class likes to smoke. However, I think the argument that we have more 'movement' in between techgroups is a valid one. Equally that all of catholic Europe perhaps does not deserve to be in the latin tech group at gamestart.

Or event ANY of them. having the goal of gaining latin tech adds another reward, something more that player's can aim for. Very spicey especially for the MP scene, particularly as no-one can tell which tech group you are in unless they read the savegame file.

So, as much as I already have a lot of work on my plate at the moment, I'd like us to begin the debate about to what extent we ought to revise tech levels and how they can be earnt. It isn';t something new for us, already the Abbasids, Byzantium and the New World countries can go up in tech groups.

As for how to implement it, please, please let's not consider using random events.

Personally, I would be happy to see most of Europe begin in the orthodox group. The difference in the first 100 years is pretty marginal anyway. It really only starts to broaden when a nations gets to Infra and Trade 3.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

i think the following: considering neighbour bonus is of utmost importance since that by 1500 that is what generally decide who comes victorious ( the diffrence between tech 7 and 9 is very minimum compared to other CRT and that gives a certain time frame of luck for some ai nations)

just from the top of the head;
-teutonics should be latin tech from start( poor provinces area versus tech would give them a land tech boost at start as they should) after all it was a military order that died out of missing pragmatism and "diplomacy" in real history;as a side story there was a 100years period before eu2 time frame( caliphate starts exactlly from same premesis) that this order was establishied in transilvanya(no joke) and it actually helped a lot hungary overall. however they get no cores on ruthenian culture untill after 1500 (to help ukraine)

-finland and eire should be orthodos tech if it is not alread
-al andalus should be the shiite tech and never change it so there would be no nationm they get or give neighbour bonus since they are a complete unique identity
- genoa and sicilly and pope should be ortho tech but start with a a high naval tech; maybe same for maya , it definatelly needs to start in a better tech group other then the current one since i never seen it do good as ai( also it rarelly colonizes even a bit)
- golden horde should be in pagan group and only after the main revolt events should be portho( due to its mostlly plane provinces ideal for cavalery and its leader i am no worried at least will survive as ai)
- hansa league should be definatelly ortho becouse it was a merchant nation after all unless things change
-khalmar should be orto too but needs to get an upper hand in tech facing hansa eventually
-bavaria should stay latin but go one step down to ortho eventually( if ai especially)
-savoy and bavaria should stay latin actually BUT IF they loose the crusade they loose the tech ( as ai would certanlly loose that )
-former french minors always start as ortho but eventually go up in tech to get hands on france eventually

 

[MattyG]

-teutonics should be latin tech from start( poor provinces area versus tech would give them a land tech boost at start as they should) after all it was a military order that died out of missing pragmatism and "diplomacy" in real history;as a side story there was a 100years period before eu2 time frame( caliphate starts exactlly from same premesis) that this order was establishied in transilvanya(no joke) and it actually helped a lot hungary overall. however they get no cores on ruthenian culture untill after 1500 (to help ukraine)

But the order is hardly a cultural and forward thinking organization. They may have a good land tech at the start, but hardly deserve to be in an ehad tech group. And IRL even the land tech advantage they had in the 1300s had waned by the time they were routed at the Battle of Grunwald (Tannenberg). Of course, our history is a little different, but I still see military orders as have a focus, not a culture of inquisitivity, experimentation and adaptation.

-finland and eire should be orthodos tech if it is not alread

OK, at game start.

-al andalus should be the shiite tech and never change it so there would be no nationm they get or give neighbour bonus since they are a complete unique identity

There is no shiite tech group.

- genoa and sicilly and pope should be ortho tech but start with a a high naval tech;

Agreed on the high naval tech, but Genoa is one of the more culturally advanced states. Northern Italy was the home of the first universities and the lead in the renaissance upon which the premise of Europeans-getting-latin-tech seems based.

maybe same for maya , it definatelly needs to start in a better tech group other then the current one since i never seen it do good as ai( also it rarelly colonizes even a bit)

I think we have already pushed the believability envelope with the New World states. Maya can get all the way to orthodox tech, and a good player can have a fun ride with them. But, yes, we may need more ai help events for them and, as Ahmed has pointed out, they deserve at least one more good explorer.

- golden horde should be in pagan group and only after the main revolt events should be portho( due to its mostlly plane provinces ideal for cavalery and its leader i am no worried at least will survive as ai)

Not sure what the plains have to do with its tech group. They are based in Astrakhan, and are the very centre of the silk road which brought all the imaginable products, texts and materials through it. And although the Horde may not exactly be a forward thinking governance, they deserve better than to be in the exoctic group that pagans are. Maybe they start as China, but with a head start on land tech, and then they go up intech groups as they re-organise.

- hansa league should be definatelly ortho becouse it was a merchant nation after all unless things change

I do not follow the logic. Why are merchant nations orthodox tech?

-khalmar should be orto too but needs to get an upper hand in tech facing hansa eventually

That could be said about every nation which borders a nation with a higher tech group.

-bavaria should stay latin but go one step down to ortho eventually( if ai especially)
-savoy and bavaria should stay latin actually BUT IF they loose the crusade they loose the tech ( as ai would certanlly loose that )
-former french minors always start as ortho but eventually go up in tech to get hands on france eventually

You seem to be equating tech with state power, rather than a culture of adaptability and innovation.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

You seem to be equating tech with state power, rather than a culture of adaptability and innovation.

no matty, i simplly see things from a general gameplay point view , practical aplication i would think , since practically i test it all the time this days( wont last for much longer do ). sao i just arrange thoughts in order of what would suit the biggest VARIATION possible.( hopefully with much less bugs when everyone colonizes )

 

[unmerged(31994)]

Nations that are plural, tolerant, and forward thinking should begin with better tech groups.

Al-Andalus comes to mind, most of North Africa(orthodox since their influenced by north africa), Italy, and southern france.

 

[MattyG]

no matty, i simplly see things from a general gameplay point view , practical aplication i would think , since practically i test it all the time this days( wont last for much longer do ). sao i just arrange thoughts in order of what would suit the biggest VARIATION possible.( hopefully with much less bugs when everyone colonizes )

Beregic, I think I wrote in away that was a little dismissive, and I am sorry for that. I appreciate your many contributions.

I also think that somethimes I don't see what you are driving at because your writing can be difficult to decipher, but I should be asking questions, then, rather than assuming and dismissing.

Variation is a good thing.

I opened a can of worms, likely, because the realignment of the techgroups could become a very partisan 'who's in and who's out' and we may only end up trading one set of generalizations (Christian Europe was culturally set to advance) with another set, say, that because certain societies appear to have been (in hindsight) more liberal, that this would translate into a locus for tecnologial and economic advancement.

So, I might just bow out of this debate for a while and read what others have to say, rather than assuming it's my role to respond to everyone elses postings and assess their contributions. Sometimes the role of editor compels me to comment on everything anyone write, or I am somehow not doing me job and ignoring people.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Beregic, I think I wrote in away that was a little dismissive, and I am sorry for that. I appreciate your many contributions.

I also think that somethimes I don't see what you are driving at because your writing can be difficult to decipher, but I should be asking questions, then, rather than assuming and dismissing.

Variation is a good thing.

I opened a can of worms, likely, because the realignment of the techgroups could become a very partisan 'who's in and who's out' and we may only end up trading one set of generalizations (Christian Europe was culturally set to advance) with another set, say, that because certain societies appear to have been (in hindsight) more liberal, that this would translate into a locus for tecnologial and economic advancement.

So, I might just bow out of this debate for a while and read what others have to say, rather than assuming it's my role to respond to everyone elses postings and assess their contributions. Sometimes the role of editor compels me to comment on everything anyone write, or I am somehow not doing me job and ignoring people.

no worries, can not make progress if no criticism

what i am trying to say about tech froup is that IF someone might get too much on explanation of why and how things are as such, then there might be a loss in practical game value. i mean explanation for certain events are nice to read, adds flavour, etc BUT who was first; the egg( game interface and ai behaviour, and that no matter what might "represent") or the chicken( all explanations used to justify certain events or the history itself)

now i might have got it backwards but i am sure you get the point

 

[MattyG]

Ahmed writes:


(Christian Europe was culturally set to advance) with another set, say, that
because certain societies appear to have been (in hindsight) more liberal, that
this would translate into a locus for tecnologial and economic advancement.
------------
This is kind of wrong asumption.
Europe become more and more liberal when they rejected christianity.

But Europe and not muslims has expearence of burning scientists and "witches".

There have been some repression against some deviant and not deviant islamic sholars which said something which was not taken lightly by _ruler_. But has there ever been any scientist who have been executed? To my knowledge - noone.

There is different reasons for stagnation in muslims world, and btw - it is
commonly accepted that 1100th-1200th was best time in muslim world from
nonreligios world.

Between several main reasons for muslim world degradation is quoted three which is not in INT: Mongol invasion and destruction of Iraq (Bagdad and another cities of science and learning), losing muslims spain - another center of learning and science, and destruction made of Tamerlane.

Also if INT history changes in the time where muslim world is on high, cordoba
and iraq (abbasid cal) ir even stronger than in real life, no Tamerlane, then muslim world could (should) be much stronger.

But European renaisance begins after INT history changes and on real scale even after 1419.

So from these points - logical would be that muslim world has no stagnation, but from where does European renaissance begins?

There is quoted several reasons, main of them do not happen in INT - reqonqista.

In reqonqista catholics got greek heritage preserved and advanced by muslims.

That connected with blow on church reputation from 1330th black death and greek interes about human and his body, + what crushaders had pillaged in Levant, brings to renaissance (and on some way reformation).

Also in real world after reformation when started contrareformation, it was
together with lot of different kind of inquisiton.

While kind a funny that everyone thinks that witch burning was catholic hobby, this in reality on large scale was done by mostly 1700th protestants and not catholic.

There was decret of catholic officiol that there is not such thing as witches
and statistic shows that in protestant areas was almost all those witch burning whose peak was not at 1400th, but at 1700th...

So I guess we could doubt that muslims start 1419 with worse tech then europe. Except north italia, oposite is logical.

Also as in real history, countries after reformation could become morenarrowminded and more witchburning...

 

[MattyG]

My own corollary to Ahmed's comment is that it is not MY set of beliefs that Catholic Europe was more prepared for intellectual and cultural advances, that statement was my very brief description of the set of beliefs inherent in the EU2 game.

The real reasons are very complex and I am certain that many, many large books have been written on the subject.

 

[MattyG]

So, if the following is true:



The Renaissance was so called because it was a "rebirth" of certain classical ideas that had long been lost to Europe. It has been argued that the fuel for this rebirth was the rediscovery of ancient texts that had been forgotten by Western civilization, but were preserved in some monastic libraries and in the Islamic world, and the translations of Greek and Arabic texts into Latin.[11] Renaissance scholars such as Niccolò de' Niccoli and Poggio Bracciolini scoured the libraries of Europe in search of works by such classical authors as Plato, Cicero and Vitruvius.[12] Additionally, as the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula from Islamic Moors progressed, numerous Greek and Arabic works were captured from educational institutions such as the library at Córdoba, which claimed to have 400,000 books.[13] The works of ancient Greek and Hellenistic writers (such as Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Ptolemy) and Muslim scientists and philosophers (such as Geber, Abulcasis, Alhacen, Avicenna, and Averroes), were imported into the Christian world, providing new intellectual material for European scholars.

Greek and Arabic knowledge were not only assimilated from Spain, but also directly from the Middle East. The study of mathematics was flourishing in the Middle East, and mathematical knowledge was brought back by crusaders in the 13th century.[14] The decline of the Byzantine Empire after 1204 - and its eventual fall in 1453 - led to an exodus of Greek scholars to the West. These scholars brought with them texts and knowledge of the classical Greek civilization which had been lost for centuries in the West.


and the Renaissance is essentially reprersented in the game as latin tech...


Then, let us advance this theory that the European Renaissance requires one of three things to get going.


1. Strong links with Al-Andalus or the ideas, texts etc come from there.

2. Al-Andalus get crushed and the Renaissance is presumed to happen in the more-or-less traditional manner.

3. We conceive of how enlightened ideas and technology might have generated themsleves again in Europe.


And, all of Europe would start off as orthdox tech (and some in the muslim tech group, I hate that they use these relgious terms for the tech groups ...) and that unless some kind of Renaissance happens, it all stays that way.

Al-Andalus, of course, ould begin the game in the latin tech group.

 

[Avernite]

IF we go this route, I think we should decide on one thing first, in Europe/NA/Middle East:

Is techgroup assigned primarily by story (Liberal scientific state) or gameplay (weak underperforming state)?

If the former, I think the system could be fairly simple:

In 1419, Al-Andalus is on the verge of a civic breakdown through continuous civil war, hence it shouldn't be at the forefront of advancement. Getting your country burned tends to do that. Orthodox tech, I'd say, untill the Shepherd king.

Genoa and Florence are merchant republics, likely tied extremely close to advancement aswell as ancient learning. Latin tech, which Sicily can join after they break with Genoa, diplomatically (the deal) or confrontationally.

The Hanse, while thick in the trading business, is cut off from ancient learning that spurred the renaissance. Maybe an early period of Orthodox, with some reforms in the mid-15th century passing them to Latin.

Eire, Savoy and Brittany are fairly similar, kingdoms with strong merchant classes. Start in Orthodox, but early advance to Latin due to New world exploration for EIR/BRI or the new lineage in Savoy (A saint doesn't make a great scientist, usually, thus my tying it to the lineage event).

The rest of Europe and the near east would likely be mostly similar, going up into Latin from Orthodox when the New world is well and truely in range, 1550 and later, depending on DP's. Say, INNO 5 goes up in 1590, INNO 1 only in 1650 or so. This would cover all included in the European continent, I suggest.


One problem: Orthodox tech group will have bucketloads of neighbour bonus, unlike Latin...

 

[MattyG]

IF we go this route, I think we should decide on one thing first, in Europe/NA/Middle East:

Is techgroup assigned primarily by story (Liberal scientific state) or gameplay (weak underperforming state)?

I think this should depend on part whether the state is player or ai controlled. The ai can never be relied upon to acheieve certain goals for advancement. Sometimes we just need to give it the goods.

If the former, I think the system could be fairly simple:

In 1419, Al-Andalus is on the verge of a civic breakdown through continuous civil war, hence it shouldn't be at the forefront of advancement. Getting your country burned tends to do that. Orthodox tech, I'd say, untill the Shepherd king.

The Al-Andalus stoyline is being re-written, but it is broadly similar in structure. I think it ought to start off as Latin and move down to Orthodox, if only for the flavour of it all. Also, the tech group it finally gets will be somewhat contingent on the storyline it takes. There are two planned, the default is toward a more enlightened, liberal state that colonizes less and has mutazelism as the state religion. The second a more 'traditionalist' state which will focus a little more on colonization and land conquest in Europe. The former can get latin tech, the latter cannot.

Genoa and Florence are merchant republics, likely tied extremely close to advancement aswell as ancient learning. Latin tech, which Sicily can join after they break with Genoa, diplomatically (the deal) or confrontationally.

Agreed, and excellent point on Sicily and the 'deal'. However, I am concerned that this puts Genoa in too much of a strong position: latin tech, ahead on Trade at game start, CoT. I know the ai won't know how to use all that to its best advantage, but a player (in SP or MP) could tear away. We need to think of something that will hold Genoa back. Maybe a series of poor monarchs? They don't currently even have a period of political instability, possibly the only major in the game not to have one. (Ummm, OK, Burgundy too, and Swabia, OK, there are a few ...)

The Hanse, while thick in the trading business, is cut off from ancient learning that spurred the renaissance. Maybe an early period of Orthodox, with some reforms in the mid-15th century passing them to Latin.

Yep

Eire, Savoy and Brittany are fairly similar, kingdoms with strong merchant classes. Start in Orthodox, but early advance to Latin due to New world exploration for EIR/BRI or the new lineage in Savoy (A saint doesn't make a great scientist, usually, thus my tying it to the lineage event).

Yes, I like all of this.

The rest of Europe and the near east would likely be mostly similar, going up into Latin from Orthodox when the New world is well and truely in range, 1550 and later, depending on DP's. Say, INNO 5 goes up in 1590, INNO 1 only in 1650 or so. This would cover all included in the European continent, I suggest.

We might want to tie it all to the reformation process and choices. Would we, could we, dare we tie latin tech to having protestant, reformed or mutazelism as a state religion? (Broadly, with some exceptions). I am instantly and deeply draw to this. And, those nations which had latin tech beforehand would drop to orthodox after the reformation if they remained catholic (like Genoa).

One problem: Orthodox tech group will have bucketloads of neighbour bonus, unlike Latin...

Maybe this is not a problem, but another saving grace. Latin tech not only had the speed advantage, it had the neighbour bonus advantage. handing this to orthodox could be one of the better technical aspects of this move/change.

 

[Avernite]

We might want to tie it all to the reformation process and choices. Would we, could we, dare we tie latin tech to having protestant, reformed or mutazelism as a state religion? (Broadly, with some exceptions). I am instantly and deeply draw to this. And, those nations which had latin tech beforehand would drop to orthodox after the reformation if they remained catholic (like Genoa).

I dunno, Catholic France managed to stay on the money quite well in our world...

For CRC, yeah, it might work, but if anything the protestant faiths (barring the alternate reformation) are the more bible-thumping kind, while the catholic church allows tradition to develop, even if slowly.

 

[siafu]

Sorry for the lack of commentary; both my brothers have decided to get married this summer, so travel is common.

I heartily disagree with the idea of tying tech group to religion; it's always been the case that different societies, while nominally of the same religion, will be more or less conservative. As an example from the real world, catholic Spain managed to fall well behind catholic France, and Italy was the birthplace of the Rennaissance, also while staunchly catholic. I think this really needs to be something we have to deal with individually, nation by nation.

I do however think that it should always be possible for a player to choose a path leading any country to rise up out of the incredibly restrictive tech levels (chinese, pagan, possibly even muslim), though not always to latin.

Additionally, I'd like to see what others have to say if we expand this conversation geographically. So far there has been much commentary on the European Rennaissance, but what about Africa and Asia? Obviously I'm particularly interested in China, but what about India? Also, Timbuktu in Mali was the home to the world's first university, so what about them?

I understand that this is a very complicated issue, and I don't think we are going to come up with a very solid reason as to why some areas developed technology and industrialization whereas others did not. I found a great quote about this, actually, which I'll reproduce despite it's length:

Since China from Sung [Song] times on became so notably commercialized and industrialized in comparison with other areas, and since abundant investment capital was available from both governmental and private sources, the question naturally arises: Why did traditional China not generate its own industrial revolution? The question has bedeviled specialists for generations. It is increasingly clear that as early as Sung times Chinese science and technology were already at a level that should have made full industrialization an easy next step, at least in certain manufacturing realms. Was there something inherent in China's national psychology or its patterns of political and social organization that made that step impossible? Difficult, perhaps; impossible, probably not. Even the availability of a large, cheap supply of human labor should not have been a deterrant; at least, it did not deter the Chinese from developing many sorts of labor-saving devices that utilized animal, wind, and water power. It can be argued persuasively that smothering governmental control of large-scale business stifled private investment in innovations that might have significantly altered the economic order, or that technology and manufacturing capacity in the later dynasties were so much more than adequate for the existing market that there was no incentive for such innovations. However, since there seems to be no natural law of progression that propels societies inevitably from preindustrial to industrial status, it will probably always be easier to analyze the peculiar combination of circumstances that caused or allowed Europe to generate an industrial revolution than to explain why China did not.

(from China's Imperial Past by Charles O. Huckley)

Though this is about China specifically, I think it is easy to apply the general point. The result, IMHO, is that we can easily contrive ways for various countries to develop technologically very rapidly or not without having to create a generalized theory of how and why societies industrialize/develop/advance or stagnate.

 

[MattyG]

Here are some major points I'd like to make


1. Tie Tech groups to Religion

Yep, bad idea of mine.

I agree that it needs to be nation by nation, situation by situation. I don't even necessarily want to see it tied too closely to DP sliders, although these are a more obvious point of departure, with Innovative nations surely being more likely to go up in a tech group.

2. Tying Tech to Innovative

However, I would argue that Innovative should not be viewed as a static number. It ought to decrease naturally over time. That which was innovative in 1600 is downright backward by today's standards. So, if we were to tie tech advancement to Innovative levels, then there would need to be tech-group-based events that forced Innovative down and (therefore) forced a player to use DP slider change opportunities to keep it up in order to maintain that tech group. Change, advancement and innovation are a constant state of being, not a final position.

3. Rest of the World

As far as the RotW is concenred, I think we have always been reviewing the assumption about their tech levels, from the very beginning of Interregnum. The Song, Wei and Ming all begin as Orthodox tech, for example. In the New World,the Dichali begin as China tech and Maya and Dichali can both make it to Orthodox.

4. The Renaissance Must happen ... Eventually

We need to make more of the Renaissance, with events, announcements etc, but there need to be multiple ways to acheive the renaissance. In a real sense the Christian world is ready to move out of the dark ages. It isn't just that these greek and Roman texts became available, scholars and thinkers were hankering for them and the change they represented. It's like thold psychologist and lightbulb joke ... the lightbulb has to want to change. Clearly, in the 1400s, enough people were ready to want to bring in change. This needs to be seen as as an almost-inevitable groundswell. And if the muslim world (at least that centred around Al-Andalus) leads out with ideas and technology, it WILL get the attention of the European elites, one way or another.

5. Europe, the Backward

If we want to really take this alternative history seriously and acknowledge the origins of the Renaissance, we have to be prepared to accept that much - sometimes even all - of Europe may never reach Latin tech, and that Al-Andalus especially, but even China, might be the real powerhouses. I am cool with that.

6. These Changes Make for More Tools for Us

There is no trigger for tech group. This has sometimes been very frustrating for me. NOW, we can revise the opening "I See You're Playing X" events so there is one for the player, one for the ai. In addition to setting the flag player_run, these events can set a flag which corresponds with that nation's tech group (something obvious like setflag which = orthodox_tech). Whenever a nation switches tech groups, it would clear and set a new flag. In this way, we could at last make events tied to a nation's tech group.

Matty

 

[Avernite]

Sorry Matty.

Province numbers and value will make Europe somewhat powerfull, always. As evidenced by China in Vanilla, which can do incredibly well if played by humans, despite horrid techgroup and events.

 

[MattyG]

Sorry Matty.

Province numbers and value will make Europe somewhat powerfull, always. As evidenced by China in Vanilla, which can do incredibly well if played by humans, despite horrid techgroup and events.

Sure, players can do wonders, but ...

1. More provinces will make it a little harder, because there's more BB being earned in conquest.

2. The idea is still just to build a better, more interesting milieu with as much variety as makes historical sense and which we can keep track of wwithout going insane.


As for Europe, its wealthy, of course, having all the natural resources required to develop itself quickly. It will never be a 'backwater', but the nations of Europe at gamestart may not be those which succeed. Just wait till the Almujadids capture all of wealthy Italy and move into Latin tech .....

 

[Avernite]

As for Europe, its wealthy, of course, having all the natural resources required to develop itself quickly. It will never be a 'backwater', but the nations of Europe at gamestart may not be those which succeed. Just wait till the Almujadids capture all of wealthy Italy and move into Latin tech .....

:rofl:

Not if I am playing

Anyhow, if they do that something isn't being too realistic

 

[MattyG]

:rofl:

Not if I am playing

Not if you are playing the Almujadids? Really, you have such a good reputation ...

Anyhow, if they do that something isn't being too realistic

Maybe, if only because the Almujadids are arch-conservative, but not because they come from North Africa and are Islamic.

 

[Avernite]

Not if you are playing the Almujadids? Really, you have such a good reputation ...



Maybe, if only because the Almujadids are arch-conservative, but not because they come from North Africa and are Islamic.

Well...

There's few people who conquered Italy from North Africa, because Italy is fertile and populous, and North Africa is somewhat lacking in that regard.


And no, I don'tplay almujadids. I tried it once, and got annoyed by the centralization decreasing events. Plus, the fun was a bit gone when Sicily fell