Consequently, while some players play 'tall' (that is try to maximize power without territorial expansion), the game is really about maximizing the power of the state through expansion, colonization, conquest and internal development. 12/xx
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Success is measured not by the living standards of people but by the state power that development and expansion produces. Culture, religion and language exist, but are primarily viewed in terms of their impact on the state (where, for the most part, homogeneity is better) 13/xx
1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 174 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Previous versions of the EU series were *very* Euro-centric in outlook (the game, which features the entire globe, is called *Europa*Universalis after all). EU4 has tried to avoid this trend, with mixed success. 14/xx
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 154 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
So the good news is that the game accurately reflects Europe's status in 1450 as something of a backwater. The bad news is that the game's mechanics pretty much ensure that the 'rise of Europe' is pre-determined in each game, presented as a consequence of technology. 15/xx
1 vastaus 4 uudelleentwiittausta 171 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
While a skilled player playing outside Europe can 'hold off' the wave of European colonialism, that wave is going to occur in every game, as the innovation system allows Europe to steadily pull ahead and the AI (which controls all of the non-player states) tries to expand. 16/xx
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 153 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Part of this is a consequence of EU4's quite brutal realist political model ( I discuss this a bit here: https://acoup.blog/2020/04/03/fireside-friday-april-3-2020/ …). To be quick about it, apart from two unusual areas, states in EU4 exist in a state of militarized interstate anarchy... 17/xx
1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 169 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
...and consequently the player (and the AI) has to constantly prepare to fend off aggressive war. Since the primary way to build military strength is to expand, player (and the AI) generally has to expand to survive ('get fat or die'). 18/xx
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 154 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Consequently, EU4 presents European colonialism in some sense as the inevitable consequence of military competition within Europe - deciding *not* to do colonialism or military expansion means handicapping yourself in an all-or-nothing game of military power. 19/xx
1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 158 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
That conclusion - European states had no choice BUT to expand militarily in order to survive - is essentially smuggled in by the game mechanics rather than stated outright, but it is a clear conclusion players will draw from playing the game, consciously or no. 20/xx
3 vastausta 3 uudelleentwiittausta 188 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
What are some counter points to this? As someone with an interest in history but no formal education past high school, it’s hard to frame the consequences of European imperialism as anything other than an inevitability.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
Reading suggestion: Abu-Lughod, *Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350* (1989) to get a sense of the many ways it didn't *need* to be Europe.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.