The Presumption of European Advancement

[siafu]

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.

They did conquer Sicily, however, IRL. It's very possible that they could have gone further.

 

[MattyG]

They did conquer Sicily, however, IRL. It's very possible that they could have gone further.

And there was this thing where a small nation called England conquered half the world. It's less a matter of manpower than determination, planning and military advantage.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

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.

Wrong assumption, North Africa was up to the 14th century a very rich, commercially oriented, and active region in the world. It declined only because of the rise of Aragonese trade, Portuguese and Spanish attacks, and most importantly the waves of Bubonic plauge.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

They did conquer Sicily, however, IRL. It's very possible that they could have gone further.

Asad bin Al-Furat conquered Sicily. Quite a strange conquest, Muslims captured the island quickly, and lost it to two Norman adventurers quickly. The Arabs had a holding in Bari(mainland) for quite some time as well.

Never a defending bunch we were...

 

[unmerged(15247)]

maybe i am out of place, but i get the feeling that matty is suggesting making everything harder overall; i am of the principle of "if ain't broke do not fix it";

i will try to explain again: the next is true:
- that having something harder to achive will give higher satisfaction;

however the problem with it is that this days the youngsters are generally educated to be more flexible; wich translated in eu2 terms would mean that something that is HARDER while giving SAME results,( playing the historical modS itself) as any of the other mods/scenarios/maps ( after all is STILL EU2 no?) would quicklly make people drop this particular mod

the strenghts of this mod the way me and my buddies that played it before are in the fact that it builds an ALTERNATE history, and NOT that is HARDER to achive the same general objective of some level of world domination( preferences are various but in the end everyone wants to be the biggest , if not in teritorry then in economy, religion, etc) that can be find in any paradox game.

so, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE TARGET and effort of advancement should be put almost entierlly in event making AND country structures with SPECIFICS about each of those countries that can not be found anywhere; a good event well scripted and running ( not cousing ctd) will be more of play value, and not only, then the fact of trade provincial value( or goods) that might alterate simplly becouse he is too "good".or even worse, having events to break countries up. for that we have "victoria" or even eu3

now the playback of this is that after 1600's it gets BORING; very true 100%.
achiving the removal of this MAIN COUSE can be easilly done by having MASS events tied to provinces; already the ones that you guys have are quiet entretaining; how about EACH province have its own event regrdless of owner? the bored will dissipear when someone keeps getting events in colonies of various kinds( including defections). having a colonial new nation( that would be released at owners tech levels = harder) that has a high AGRESSIVNESS regarding its own continental claims would definatelly give headichs to anyone . to achive that roll back the revoltee dates so the tech levels would not be over 41 land and sea.

of course, a player could choose not to colonize then BUT if do so, ai will colonize wich might not have this revoltee problems . all at same time wich ai will have a very good economical base to make some impediments to continental european players; also , after 1600's , giving the indian 2 nations high agressivness could make caliphate trumble since i already see that it has all large forts by this time.....

 

[MattyG]

maybe i am out of place,

You are not. These fora are to discuss any aspect of Interregnum, from the triggers of a given event to the vstrategic vision for the mod. As long as people are polite, no idea or discussion is unworthy (but be prepared for your ideas to not be accepted )

but i get the feeling that matty is suggesting making everything harder overall;

If you mean 'more challenging' then absolutely.

i am of the principle of "if ain't broke do not fix it";

Myself included. But I don't get emails, PMs and there are no threads about how Interregnum is not broken. I get the opposite, including from you, about how we need to improve the game, make it more challenging and harder for the player to dominate the world by 1650.

i will try to explain again: the next is true:
- that having something harder to achive will give higher satisfaction;

however the problem with it is that this days the youngsters are generally educated to be more flexible; wich translated in eu2 terms would mean that something that is HARDER while giving SAME results,( playing the historical modS itself) as any of the other mods/scenarios/maps ( after all is STILL EU2 no?) would quicklly make people drop this particular mod

People are rational beings. We naturally take the easier road when it leads to the same place. However, I think your argument fails in assuming that acheiving a WC in an easy environemnt is the same result as acheiving it in a more difficult environment. If that were the case, no one would play EP or AGCEEP. They would all play Vanilla, and on Very Easy. Which they do not. The players who frequent the fora and play mods almost all play on Extremely Hard settings to increase the challenge. Proving that it isn't the destination, it's the journey. My job is to create a more challenging, intriguing and varied journey.

the strenghts of this mod the way me and my buddies that played it before are in the fact that it builds an ALTERNATE history, and NOT that is HARDER to achive the same general objective of some level of world domination( preferences are various but in the end everyone wants to be the biggest , if not in teritorry then in economy, religion, etc) that can be find in any paradox game.

OK, a lot of people like WC/WD. I am not one of them, but I know I am the minority. But let me ask you this, when you play AGCEEP, Vanilla or EP, do you always play Spain? or France? or England? Becaue those are the easy paths to WC/WD. Spain is a nonesense gemmie of a country to play. England and France at least have a little early-mid game shenanigans before their leaders, monarchs and explorers kick in, but even still, England won in the RW (in EU2 terms) and players can do the same with out too much effort. Instead, I'd hazard a guess that you play other nations too, because the goal is the fun you have along the way, not just the result.

so, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE TARGET and effort of advancement should be put almost entierlly in event making AND country structures with SPECIFICS about each of those countries that can not be found anywhere; a good event well scripted and running ( not cousing ctd) will be more of play value, and not only, then the fact of trade provincial value( or goods) that might alterate simplly becouse he is too "good".or even worse, having events to break countries up. for that we have "victoria" or even eu3

now the playback of this is that after 1600's it gets BORING; very true 100%.
achiving the removal of this MAIN COUSE can be easilly done by having MASS events tied to provinces; already the ones that you guys have are quiet entretaining; how about EACH province have its own event regrdless of owner? the bored will dissipear when someone keeps getting events in colonies of various kinds( including defections). having a colonial new nation( that would be released at owners tech levels = harder) that has a high AGRESSIVNESS regarding its own continental claims would definatelly give headichs to anyone . to achive that roll back the revoltee dates so the tech levels would not be over 41 land and sea.

I agree that events are critical to this mod and to enjoyable EU2 play generally. It's why we play this instead of EU3 (that and the pleasant graphics). But I have lots of elements of the game to work on. We all want the AI to do as well as possible, so that conquest is more than just taking candy from a baby. (ie of limited satisfaction). And getting the ai to work better takes thought, time, revision and - of course - events. Then there are the Housekeeping things (changes to game set-up, province values and the like), leader and monarch values, bug fixing and graphics. And these things are all of value. In fact, I think they are of greater value. I genuinely believe it is more important to fix what is already here than to layer on more material with more bugs and which throw existing problems even further out of whack.

I have in the past expressed support of the idea of province-based events, and have even implemented it in some areas. But province-based events are tricky, because flasvour is very important. Anyone can write an event which triggers in the 1650s if you control Nivernais which causes a revolt, loss of buildings or whatever. But if the premise of the event (the story behind it) does not make sense in the story of the country getting it, I guarentee players will NOT like it. Most of the events we have are keyed to countries and storylines, and still we get criticisms of events that don't 'make sense'. "This happened to me even though I had ...." It's a familiar line. So imagine the annoyance of players who get revolts, corruption, tax losses, assassinations, political crises etc, just because they own a certain province, regardless of their actual circumstances. It will seem like no more than another poorly designed random event.

I also find it odd that you hanker for events that will keep things 'interesting' and cause countries to split off etc and yet you have been the one voice complaining about the Large Nation Events. It was for you that they were made optional. I don't get it. There seems a lot of contradiction in what you are asking for. Please help me to understand.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

I have in the past expressed support of the idea of province-based events, and have even implemented it in some areas. But province-based events are tricky, because flasvour is very important. Anyone can write an event which triggers in the 1650s if you control Nivernais which causes a revolt, loss of buildings or whatever. But if the premise of the event (the story behind it) does not make sense in the story of the country getting it, I guarentee players will NOT like it. Most of the events we have are keyed to countries and storylines, and still we get criticisms of events that don't 'make sense'. "This happened to me even though I had ...." It's a familiar line. So imagine the annoyance of players who get revolts, corruption, tax losses, assassinations, political crises etc, just because they own a certain province, regardless of their actual circumstances. It will seem like no more than another poorly designed random event.

I also find it odd that you hanker for events that will keep things 'interesting' and cause countries to split off etc and yet you have been the one voice complaining about the Large Nation Events. It was for you that they were made optional. I don't get it. There seems a lot of contradiction in what you are asking for. Please help me to understand.

there is a HUGE diffrence in what we mean here: having REVOLTEES in colonies is very diffrent then from having it in wurope by FORCE ; colonial ones are accepted becouse they provide the CHALANGE you mention and MAKES LOGICAL SENSE to the STORYLINE

am i really the only one one ehat complain about the large nation events? the question is this and no offense intended...when is the LAST time you did a full campaign from 1419 to 1820??? do it with the "feel" of a player and not a designer; maybe you agree with me then well i can only hope so no?

coming to storyline; last i did scotland( to 1750 only do); most of the scripts in the events made no SENSE to me and especially the choices they gave me. but then again , maybe is just ME franklly only caliphate and al andalus have any solid base and "caliphate" does indeed some intreasting things with the events i mean

how about do a poll of how many players this mod has???????????????????? you might get surprised who knows maybe i am complaining only myself for a very real reason...after the poll is closed take "out" the designers... i just realized this becouse the 15 people that answered to you map choice poll

-having PROVINCIAL events actually creates a more SOLID story line becouse it is involving LOCAL development; progress or regress...after all it is the each province SPECIFICS( tax base, fort, cot, etc) that CREATES a nation

 

[unmerged(76802)]

Where does Byzantium fall in the tech group reassignment? And what happens to the Renaissance if BYZ stubbornly holds on to its scholars and texts?

 

[Incompetent]

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.

I like this idea. High tech group requires more innovation to maintain.

Alternatively, we have events that take countries with high Inno, and offer to bump them up a tech group in exchange for a big Inno, stability etc drop (within limits of course). Low innovation countries could get events dropping them down a tech group, but then bumping up their innovation. In other words, we effectively extend the innovation slider so that high inno in one tech group is equated with low inno in the next one up.

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

Yes, that would be the way to do it.


I think we should take a general attitude that countries and regions can move up and down tech groups relative to their 'natural' level, and that European countries may not always be in the highest tech group on the planet. Here's a possible plan:

There are differences in what is plausible based on location, but they are nothing like the vanilla setup:
- Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Asia except for the isolated northern/desert/mountainous bits form the 'hub' of civilisation, with the most access to trade of goods and ideas. Here is where the highest tech levels will be found (but there's nothing to say they can't be higher in India than in Scandinavia, say).
- The Americas are initially cut off from the Old World, and have a low population. Opportunities for advancement are thus limited - until Old Worlders arrive. So initial techs will be very bad, but may improve after interaction with 'hub' countries.
- The terrain of sub-Saharan Africa encourages small, isolated states which find it difficult to trade over long distances, especially those which are far from the coast - the jungles and deserts in particular form formidable barriers to inland trade. Even in the 19th century much of Africa remained isolated from more technologically advanced countries. So most sub-Saharan African countries will start low-tech and stay there, except those states with a coastline and which make efforts to trade with markets on other continents.

In summary, every region should have a 'natural' tech group, and moving outside this is dependent on both internal and external circumstances. Note that Latin is not natural in any region, it can only occur under additional circumstances.

Naturally Orthodox:
- the inner hubs: Mediterranean, Black Sea, Middle East, India, eastern China.
- the part of Europe that has good sea access, but only after a certain level of naval tech is reached: British Isles, France, Low Countries, Iberia, Scandinavia, northern Germany
- Baltic sea, but only if there's likely to be a lot of trade there
- HRE, provided there are still plenty of minors and the place hasn't been totally devastated by war

Naturally Muslim:
- not ideally situated, but still with plenty of trade access: most of the rest of Asia, excluding Siberia but including all the islands; rest of Europe
- African coast, but only if they are in a position to trade with other continents

Naturally China:
- Rest of Africa
- Siberia
- Americas post-'discovery'
- If we have any countries there, Australia and Oceania post-'discovery'

Naturally Exotic:
- Americas, Australia, Oceania pre-'discovery'

On top of this, cultural phenomena will play a role:
Renaissance: +1 tech group
'Innovative' Reformation: +1, but only if you missed out on the Renaissance bonus
Mutazelism (sp?): +1?
Glorious isolation: -1 or -2
etc

Countries which directly neighbour the heartland of a high-tech country should also be able to get within one group of them (subject to conditions such as Innovativeness). Countries which are near an outpost of a high-tech country should have the potential to get within 2 tech groups of them. Examples: Innovative Sahel countries may get up to Muslim, if they border an Orthodox-tech Maghreb country. Native Americans may get up to Muslim, but only Latin-tech outsiders could help them get this high. (The latter may be hard to do exactly as described with events, but we can fudge it and assume most major European colonisers will be Latin, for example.)

Finally, there may be exceptional opportunities and pitfalls for particular countries, such as the Maya. But these will generally need to fit into some kind of storyline.

=======

coming to storyline; last i did scotland( to 1750 only do); most of the scripts in the events made no SENSE to me and especially the choices they gave me. but then again , maybe is just ME

Could you be more specific? It could be a scripting problem (events coming at the wrong time, not working as intended etc) or a design problem (story is too complicated, boring, implausible etc). What do you think needs to be improved?

 

[MattyG]

Another solid contribution, Incompetant.

I think, the next stage is for us to do it country by country. However, the assumption is that all countries in the Middle East and Europe begin in the Conservatism (muslim) tech group, and those in Asia in the Conventionalism (china) tech group. Naturally, all the Americas and African countries begin as Traditionalism (pagan), except where noted. Note that I have used the newly-revised in-game names for the tech groups.

Innovative (latin) at Start

Al-Andalusk, but soon drops to orthodox under the Nasrid conflict era. Also begins on Infra 2

Renaissance (orthodox) at Start

Leon
Galicia
Porto
Eire begins with Naval 2
Tlemscen, but drops to Conservatism if they become Almujadid Empire
The new Berber States
Seljuk Egypt

Conservatism (muslim) and Europeans with tech exceptions

Genoa, with Naval 2 and trade 2
Hansa, with Naval 2 and trade 2
Sicily, with naval 2
Wei
Song
Ming
Toluid Khanate, with land 2k, but soon drops to Conventionalism
Korea
Nippon

Conventionalism (china) at Start

Mali
Dichali

 

[siafu]

Matty and Incompetant, you are both saying just what I'm thinking.

I would add for your list, Matty, that most of SE asia would probably be "conservative", but the countries in Indonesia should be "conventional" at start, possibly with a naval bonus.

Specifically:

Conservativism:

Dai Viet
Luang Prabang
Cambodia
Myanmar
Ayutthaya
Champa
Lu Chuan

Conventionalism:

Malacca
Atjeh
Srivijaya
Sulu
Brunei
Mataram
Makassar

Also, I'm not sure where India would belong; SE asia has always been in a cultural push-pull between the strong empires of India and those of China.

 

[MattyG]

Siafu,

India ought to start lower, in part because of my own personal feelings about Bhuddism and Hinduism. I see these relgions as being - while not exactly anti-technologist - as being either deeply-seated in traditionism (Hinduism) or more uninterested in the mundane world (Buddhism) and therefore its pursuits.

The exception would be Sindh, which - because of its trade situation - would begin (or soon change to) Conservatism (the old muslim tech group).

Matty

 

[MattyG]

I have been spending time trying to work out events for the start of the Renaissance. The triggers bedcame pretty complex, as did the pacing and the spread of the Renaissance.

But I have now realized that we need to rethink this.

The real Renaissance had already begun in 1419. If we argue that it has not yet begun and would only do so once texts begin to arrive from the Islamic world, then we are well and truly hosed when it comes to everything else we have designed in Europe.

I think we have gone too far with Interregnum's design to really delay the Renaissance. We need instead to think back, from the position that it needs to be underway and decide how this might have happened. There will still be a rich vein of variety here to plumb and some new interesting relationships to consider.

I think there are three strong candidates for how the texts and the ideas they represent would have made their way into christian Europe. I think we ought to use all three:

1. The Iberian Minors

Their history is different and the moors have won, including a Andalusian golden age under Mohammed VII (VI?). They instead forged stronger cultural and trading links instead of trying to isolate Al-Andalus. The Portugese attempted to rally the Christian in the early 1400s, but were crushed, to keep the henry the Navigator storyline alive for Eire.

This explains why they begin in the Renaissance tech group.

All instead begin the game in various states of vassalage or alliance with Al-Andalus.


2. Sicily

Sicily is one of the weakest of the 'majors' and is difficult for the ai to prosper with it, because it requires finesse and naval actions. It is also the target of the Almujadid Empire. Anyway, given its location, as close to Islam as to Christian Europe, its history and the need for it to find allies to challenge the Genoese, Byzantium, Venice (till recently) and Savoy, perhaps it has forged links with the welathiest and most advanced state in the Mediterranean, Al-Andalus.

This is tricky, of course, because they are Catholic but, unlike Leon, Porto and Galicia they have not been on the losing side of a conflict with Al-Andalus. Early on we would have an event that tests the players commitment to the Christian world over the benefits of associating itself with Al-Andalus.

It will also make it very very interesting in terms of Sicilian allegiance in the main Crusade.


3. Byzantium

If we have it that Byzantium has survived and is even flourishing, then we must assume that the cultural (as well as political) malaise did not occur. The Byzantium of Interregnum, is itself a repository of classical scholarship. Byzantium would begin the game in the Renaissance tech group.


My preference would be to fill out all three storylines and to therefore have the Renaissance spread from three points. The spread of the Renaissance would become based on a range of triggers, including:

1. Innovative, making this something now that a player would want to increase in the early game, rather than always hitting the Offensive and Land buttons at each opportunity.

2. Trade tech, as an indication of how far the merchants are going and the degree of activity. Getting to Trade tech 2 might hasten its arrival.

3. Proximity to one of these Renaissance nodes.

4. There would need to be an ai default date.


There is also room for nation-specific triggers or events.

 

[unmerged(30442)]

I think something not to forget is that one of the big reasons behind the spread of military technology in Europe (which was actually behind places like China in other areas even after if pulled ahead militarily) is the constant competition.

Geography plays a role here, China, the Middle East and India are all farily flat and open. This means that even if they split apart its only a matter of time before someone puts it all back together again, which in real history happened again and again and again in all thses places. Even in the context of Interegenum much of the Middle East is on the verge of being reunified by the Caliphate, which would strangle innovation just like in the Ottoman Empire.

Even in Europe where it was open and flat someone soon took control. France is a good example of this, becoming unified very early in history. Hungary is another one, almost the entire steppe was unified as early as the Avars. In eastern Europe the same thing with the Kyivan Rus, followed by the Golden Horde, followed then by the Russian Empire. France had the good fortune to be surrounded by all sorts of neighbours, keeping the competition fierce.

Militaries are expensive, they consumed a huge percentage of a states resources. As such, unless there was some pressing need it was very wasteful to constantly adopt new weapons and new tactics. When an area was unified there was far less need to constantly advance.

Another factor is the composite bow. In the middle east in particular this was a fairly widespread weapon, being used by nomad tribes. The Composite bow is superior in several ways compared to early guns. The lack of proper materials and nomadic culture mean't it could never spread to Europe on a great scale (Longbow being the exception, but even then the amount of longbowmen began to decline steeply as England progressed economically). This of course retards the development of firearms as for some time they are vastly inferior weapons.

China never adopted the high power composite bow as an infantry weapon, but whenever they unified they became so powerful, especially relative to their tiny neighbours, there was no need for substantial military advancement. Unification of course was quite common, as a consequence of China's geography, particularly in the core regions.

Another further reason for Gunpowder proliferation in Europe is the development of plate armour. The later incarnations of plate were almost totally invulnerable to all bows and crossbows. This stimulated the development of firearms, which could defeat the plate. Plate was tremendously expensive though, and proliferated as a result of Europes unique Feudal Structure. The relatively small number of very wealthy knights could afford to equip themselves with the absolute best armour available. In countries with more developed state apparatus's (like China) mass infantry was the norm, and disciplined infantry was generally superior in combat compared to shock cavalry. Infantry however is also very cheap, so when a state is already strong enough to raise large armies it has no need to develop the immensely expensive heavy armour that characterized European knights.

The overall point of this is Europes advancement in military, especially gunpowder, technology had alot to do with some very specific historical and geographic factors not present just about anywhere else. Culture and religion were not particularly important. Of course in the game context Al-Andalus is in an excellent position for a takeoff alongside Europe.

The Americas, which didn't even have wheels, are almost totally out for high levels of indigenous technical development. The pervasive lack of any animals suitable for domestication and decent crops for intensive agriculture pretty much trapped them at a prehistoric level.

Africa had a similar issue with lack of animals the could be domesticated for agriculture. This handicapped them from some of the very earliest stages of economic development and technological development.

This is made even worse by the north-south distribution of Africa and the America. Since climate changes over latitude there is no way to spread suitable crops or animals, even if they existed, over a large area.

Edit: Hmm, reading my own post a thought occured, what if the neighbour bonus was beefed up alot, and the religion component greatly reduced. For example the religions (except maybe Pagan) would give maybe a 5% bonus or penalty to tech, so if say China suceeded in unifying early, like in history, it would stagnate. But if China stayed fragmented, even if it consolidated somehwat, it would continue to push ahead.

 

[siafu]

I think something not to forget is that one of the big reasons behind the spread of military technology in Europe (which was actually behind places like China in other areas even after if pulled ahead militarily) is the constant competition.

Geography plays a role here, China, the Middle East and India are all farily flat and open. This means that even if they split apart its only a matter of time before someone puts it all back together again, which in real history happened again and again and again in all thses places. Even in the context of Interegenum much of the Middle East is on the verge of being reunified by the Caliphate, which would strangle innovation just like in the Ottoman Empire.

Have to disagree here. China is actually quite mountainous, with only the North China plain being a flat and open expanse. India is somewhat the same, being very geographically diverse. Open and flat areas actually tend to be rather disunified, like central Asia, as it's rather easy to raise an army, travel long distances, fight, and run away without being caught.

Even in Europe where it was open and flat someone soon took control. France is a good example of this, becoming unified very early in history. Hungary is another one, almost the entire steppe was unified as early as the Avars. In eastern Europe the same thing with the Kyivan Rus, followed by the Golden Horde, followed then by the Russian Empire. France had the good fortune to be surrounded by all sorts of neighbours, keeping the competition fierce.

France is home to four mountain ranges. How is this flat?

Militaries are expensive, they consumed a huge percentage of a states resources. As such, unless there was some pressing need it was very wasteful to constantly adopt new weapons and new tactics. When an area was unified there was far less need to constantly advance.

With this one, I agree. Peace is not good for weapons technology. ;p

Another factor is the composite bow. In the middle east in particular this was a fairly widespread weapon, being used by nomad tribes. The Composite bow is superior in several ways compared to early guns. The lack of proper materials and nomadic culture mean't it could never spread to Europe on a great scale (Longbow being the exception, but even then the amount of longbowmen began to decline steeply as England progressed economically). This of course retards the development of firearms as for some time they are vastly inferior weapons.

China never adopted the high power composite bow as an infantry weapon, but whenever they unified they became so powerful, especially relative to their tiny neighbours, there was no need for substantial military advancement. Unification of course was quite common, as a consequence of China's geography, particularly in the core regions.

The composite bow was primarily a cavalry weapon, actually. It was very effective (so long as it was dry), but not cheap. It was also very difficult to learn-- this is actually the real appeal of firearms (as opposed to artillery) in their early development. Proper training of archers required years of work, whereas someone could learn to acceptably fire an arquebus or musket in only a few months. They also cost a similar amount to a composite bow, but the cost was mostly in materials, unlike the bow where it was so expensive because of the need for a skilled craftsmen.

On China in particular, they didn't use the composite bow because a) it wasn't an infantry weapon in general, and b) they already had and used various types of crossbows, including heavy crossbows and the much lauded repeating crossbow. No need for a difficult, heavy weapon when you can send an untrained peasant horde out to fire 10,000 bolts a minute.

Unification was actually not as common as all that, either. There have been five great unifying dynasties in Chinese history-- Han, Tang, Song, Ming, and Qing. Each lasted between 200-300 years only. Qin and Sui also managed to unify China, but collapsed within a generation, to be replaced by Han and Song, respectively. Overall, since ~500 BCE, China has spent about as much time disunified as unified.

Another further reason for Gunpowder proliferation in Europe is the development of plate armour. The later incarnations of plate were almost totally invulnerable to all bows and crossbows. This stimulated the development of firearms, which could defeat the plate. Plate was tremendously expensive though, and proliferated as a result of Europes unique Feudal Structure. The relatively small number of very wealthy knights could afford to equip themselves with the absolute best armour available. In countries with more developed state apparatus's (like China) mass infantry was the norm, and disciplined infantry was generally superior in combat compared to shock cavalry. Infantry however is also very cheap, so when a state is already strong enough to raise large armies it has no need to develop the immensely expensive heavy armour that characterized European knights.

Plate armor was actually quite effective against early firearms. The term "bulletproof" emerged from the practice of firing a pistol at a new suit of armor to prove that it would not be penetrated (this is "proof" in the sense of "tested", which has passed out of common use). Armor was simply expensive, and the utility of large, cheap armies was great, not to mention the increased mobility and logistical simplicity of doing without heavy cavalry and their attendants (~3 men for each actual fighting man).

The overall point of this is Europes advancement in military, especially gunpowder, technology had alot to do with some very specific historical and geographic factors not present just about anywhere else. Culture and religion were not particularly important. Of course in the game context Al-Andalus is in an excellent position for a takeoff alongside Europe.

Historical features, yes, and geographical I only agree in terms of the disunified nature of the European polity allowing for greater competition. The "open and flat" hypothesis you're putting forward doesn't make any sense, and is, frankly, wrong. Culture and religion were in that sense very important, as they led to a lot more fighting going on.

The Americas, which didn't even have wheels, are almost totally out for high levels of indigenous technical development. The pervasive lack of any animals suitable for domestication and decent crops for intensive agriculture pretty much trapped them at a prehistoric level.

Africa had a similar issue with lack of animals the could be domesticated for agriculture. This handicapped them from some of the very earliest stages of economic development and technological development.

This is made even worse by the north-south distribution of Africa and the America. Since climate changes over latitude there is no way to spread suitable crops or animals, even if they existed, over a large area.

True and true.

 

[unmerged(30442)]

North China was also were the vast majority of Chinese lived and all Chinese dynasties were based until quite a ways on in Chinese history. France also started in its core region around the Seine, another flat area. Once the States had developed they extended their control elsewhere, but in the beginning they were based in areas which are easy to unify.

I also happen to think five unifying dynasties is quite alot. Especially compared to Europe, which had only one (the Romans) who only controlled part of Europe and were based around the mediteranian. Even when China was disunited it tended to break into a small number of massive blocs, this of course limited the intensity of competition. It was during the famous Three Kingdoms period when the competition between the kingdoms was extremely intense and protracted that is frequently considered the pinnacle of the Chinese Art of War.

Europe was disunited precisely because of its geography, the dense mountain/forest/wetlands (before they were drained by early farmers) all made for an area that is very difficult to control. Large armies are by far more effective in areas where there is alot of open and flat ground. There is plenty of historical precedent for this, remember the Roman legions being ambushed in Teutoberg forest, the Mongols being halted militarily for the first time in Vietnam and many others.

Look at large flat areas and you see empire after empire. Remember Egypt and Iraq, home to Empire after empire since the earliest days of human Civilization. Even look at the steppe, which has hosted countless horse empires, including some of the largest ever.

Of course don't forget either that Europe was fairly rare in that there was no need for irrigation in almost the entire continent. Although the hydraullic empire theory is far from perfect, it does correctly point our that massive irrigation projects tend foster a powerful central government.

I can't take credit for this concept though, it is based in a large part on the work of Jarod Diamond and others. I can't say I agree with everything he said, but I do think he was onto something.

Regarding guns, yes they were fairly ineffective against plate at first, but they were still quite a ways beyond what you could do with a bow. Namely they had a chance of defeating it, however small. Even if they didn't they would have packed a very nasty punch from energy transfer alone.

Culture and religions still plays in all this, but Culture developed around the places people lived. Rarely has religion alone been the motivator in war, especially later in history as war became more expensive. Even the Crusaders, supposedly fighting for god, had little qualms about sacking Constantinople when they needed cash. The increasing apathy to the Crusader ideal and most of Europes vague disinterest in the Ottoman-Hapsburg conflict in later years also show that religion was not enough in itself to bring about war.

 

[Garbon]

I echo the statement that I think geography is being conveniently re-imaged. By no stretch of the imagination can one say that India is a relatively flat country. You might have some support with parts of the region known as Hindustan (northern/north eastern India) but that's about it. Same story with Persia, a rather mountainous region.

I'm not even sure that the competition angle should get as much play as it does either, considering that for all the conquerors, India pretty much existed as a collection of small states for most of its history. Even when conquerors made "empires" they really had little control over the territory they "owned." Proof positive of this is the massive variation one sees in terms of cultural-historical practices, which you'd not expect to see from a flat land that made itself a natural foundation for empires.

 

[unmerged(30442)]

An addendum, because I just did the comparison myself and I found the correlation to be quite beautiful.

Here is an elevation of map of Europe, note the Nice flat areas in North-Western France, England, Hungary, Russia/Ukraine and Poland:

Now here is a historical map of Europe, showing it Circa the year 1000:

Notice how France (excluding the Mountainous south east) England, Poland and Hungary have all unified by this time. The biggest anomaly is the Holy Roman Empire.

Now move forward to 1740:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v693/Nigthbringer/?action=view&current=Europe_1740.jpg

Now the anamalous Holy Roman empire is gone. However there's France, England, Sweden, Russia and Hungary all still around and in one piece and they have gotten bigger to. Also interesting is that in flat Northern Germany we now see Prussia establishing itself as a power.

Of course nothings perfect but I think this about as good as it gets for historical validation of my arguement, at least in Europe.

Edit: That map was to big, and I just noticed Sweden fits my hypothesis to.

 

[Garbon]

Of course nothings perfect but I think this about as good as it gets for historical validation of my arguement, at least in Europe.

So you picked a date and particular map (one that suggests a strong sense of statehood - look at France, I don't think France (although existent as a term) would be considered a particularly stable and solid state at that time) and are pleased to find that your proposed meta-narrative can generally describe it? I'm not really sure what is surprising about such. Of interest to me is the mountainous states of the Caliphate and the Byzanteens...oh and Norway.

 

[unmerged(30442)]

Hence the reason I posted another map, from 1740. Looks who's still there, and look who is long gone.

Everything was unstable in 1000 in Europe, but France was still better than most. Further, as I just mentioned, note the incredible continuity over 740 years between the last two maps.