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
-
Show this thread
-
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 reply 0 retweets 155 likesShow this thread -
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 reply 4 retweets 172 likesShow this thread -
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 reply 0 retweets 154 likesShow this thread -
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 reply 2 retweets 170 likesShow this thread -
...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 reply 0 retweets 155 likesShow this thread -
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 reply 2 retweets 159 likesShow this thread -
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
4 replies 3 retweets 189 likesShow this thread -
To be fair, that conclusion is not outside the history mainstream, G. Parker *The Military Revolution* (1996) and W. McNeill *The Pursuit of Power* (1982) both suggest European military competition drove these processes. 21/xx
1 reply 0 retweets 160 likesShow this thread -
But EU4, because of it's 'simulation' presentation presents that conclusion as an actual fact, rather than one of a number of theories. And its solution - the way to 'beat' colonialism - is generally for the non-European powers to become imperial masters themselves. 22/xx
2 replies 2 retweets 164 likesShow this thread
It doesn't present it as a conclusion or as a fact but as the result of an experiment under the stated conditions - it's a model that's up front about the rules implemented.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @BretDevereaux
One such assumption built in that can have a major effect on the outcome is modeling the state as a unitary actor when the reality is far from it - but an alternative to that is an entirely different "game".
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.