Is there a reason for American states to be so narrowminded?

[Shirohi]

I've been recently playing a game with Tenochtitlan, and I'm just struck how all their sliders are at extremes of repression. In particular, I have problem seeing the logic of making pre-columbian states max narrowminded.

The gist of my argument against this goes like this: what is max narrowmindedness supposed to represent? I take it, it's not just lack of innovativeness, in the way the opposite of centralization is decentralization. No, it represents repression, and max narrowmindedness is supposed to represent extreme repression. Is there a reason to think pre-columbian states were like that, or actively policed their thought? I don't think so. Both Inca and Aztec states had vibrant culture, and made modest innovations, such as the Inca Quipu writing system, or the way the states were organised. Admittedly, there's no reason to think these were particularly liberal states, but that's not a reason for putting them at +5 narrowminded; it's a reason to put them at around +2.

Of course, one could argue max narrowmindedness from the point of view of not making westernising too easy. But I don't think you can argue this based on history. These states were annihilated almost immediately after the first contact with europeans, and one cannot know how it would have turned out without conquestadors.

In short, I propose moving American states closer to innovative. Similar arguments could be made for free trade (in case of Aztecs) and centralzation (in case of Incas). But that's another argument...

[CyberEagle]

Most Nations outside of Europe have high narrowmindedness, actually. One could think that it's supposed to represent how they tended to be less advanced at this point in history, but... we already have variable research speeds for that, no?

[James_Manring]

Most Nations outside of Europe have high narrowmindedness, actually. One could think that it's supposed to represent how they tended to be less advanced at this point in history, but... we already have variable research speeds for that, no?

Yes, that is correct. Additionally we can limit then to westernize at a higher requirement. There are many things we can do for game balance beyond using the sliders. In fact I do believe that our goal should be to have most nations start at slider position 0, and balance the game from the beginning by other means. All the sliders would represent at that point is how you want to deviate from baseline history. Of course some nations would be logically be far from 0 at the start, but those would be the exception not the rule itself.

[gigau]

In short, I propose moving American states closer to innovative. Similar arguments could be made for free trade (in case of Aztecs) and centralzation (in case of Incas). But that's another argument...

I'm okay with this motion.

Any comments or objections ?

[James_Manring]

I'm okay with this motion.

Any comments or objections ?

You get nothing but approval from me. From my knowledge of native americans, it makes sense.

[Shirohi]

Well, that was smooth. As a side-note, if you want to make it harder for americans to westernise, which might be more realistic, you could always add a special westernising decision to them which would include a tech-requirement. That would model their technological backwardness better, imo.

[gigau]

Well, that was smooth.

I think that it's been proven, along the years, that we are open to constructive criticism and to suggestions.