North Africa

Dafool · Jan 25, 2013

Hydro Globus said:
Dafool s right. However, it shouldn't matter. The point is, with "purposeful effort and investment", Spain lost 400 soldiers on the mainland, and gained Mesoamerica.

They lost ships, colonies, and far more than 400 men. And that's not even getting into the financial, demographic, and logistical problems they had to face to do so. It may look "easy" if you try to sum it up, but in reality we're looking at more than a century of work being put into that colonial empire.

unmerged(612669) · Jan 25, 2013

Dafool said:
Not that this topic needs to be discussed again, since we've had about three threads on it already, but the Spanish conquest of the New World took a lot of investment, effort, and risk on Spain's part. Cortes only managed to conquer Mexico with the help of thousands of native soldiers. He only ended up in Mexico because the Spanish conquest of the Yucatan failed. The Spanish were only trying to conquer the Yucatan because the fledgling colonies they set up were both difficult to maintain and not very profitable. Those colonies only started because the Spanish took a risk and set a poorly funded expedition in the right general direction under the command of a navigator that had no idea where he was going. Basically, the Spanish didn't just waltz into the Americas and sail back with boatloads of gold. It was the result of purposeful effort and investment. It should take a good deal of work to not only colonize and conquer the New World, but also to maintain it.

Those native soldiers joined Cortez without any urging or support to do it from the Spanish Crown which wasn't even aware they existed. The most significant Mesoamerican conquest by far was by only a few hundred Spaniards and Natives who were desperate enough to become allies of any enemy of the Aztecs. In the case of the Incas a civil war allowed a similar absurdly small force to succeed.

The other conquests were done by small forces to because they were small scale; the Spanish and native forces were few. Would 240 more men (what the Spanish initially sent into Yucatan) have been helpful in the fight against the Barbary States and Ottoman Empire? Well not especially.

Financially it is a different story; but the problem with the Barbary States wasn't that they lacked the money to form expeditions they did multiple times; it is that they lacked the military power to defeat them.

Mesoamerica was in many ways advanced; but there isn't any point fooling oneself about the actual difficulty involved for the crown of conquest (it was hands off for the crown) or number of soldiers needed from Spain (thanks to local help from friendly natives).

The Roman Empire was advanced and in 476 ad destroyed by a very small force.

Dafool · Jan 25, 2013

StupidGenius said:
Those native soldiers joined Cortez without any urging or support to do it from the Spanish Crown which wasn't even aware they existed. The most significant Mesoamerican conquest by far was by only a few hundred Spaniards and Natives who were desperate enough to become allies of any enemy of the Aztecs. In the case of the Incas a civil war allowed a similar absurdly small force to succeed. .

Most of the Native forces that joined the Spanish did so to depose whatever local power they feared. In turn, they were often offered promises of independence, plunder, and/or cooperation with the Spanish. These promises were made by the Spanish soldiers. Neither EU3 nor EU4 will ever display that level of detail in negotiations, but the Spanish were unintentionally dragged into Mesoamerican and Andean politics, even if the state didn't acutally direct those events. EU3 and presumably EU4 have always handled those situations as state guided, so that's the frame of reference we should be thinking in.

StupidGenius said:
The other conquests were done by small forces to because they were small scale; the Spanish and native forces were few. Would 240 more men (what the Spanish initially sent into Yucatan) have been helpful in the fight against the Barbary States and Ottoman Empire? Well not especially.

Small scale? The Spanish had thousands of Native allies with them during those wars. When the Spanish did try to invade an area without Native assistance, it usually ended in large losses or at the very least a disorderly retreat. Look at the Yucatan or the southern Andes.

StupidGenius said:
Financially it is a different story; but the problem with the Barbary States wasn't that they lacked the money to form expeditions they did multiple times; it is that they lacked the military power to defeat them.

Mesoamerica was in many ways advanced; but there isn't any point fooling oneself about the actual difficulty involved for the crown of conquest (it was hands off for the crown) or number of soldiers needed from Spain (thanks to local help from friendly natives).

I’m not arguing that Mesoamerica wasn’t conquered without state guidance, but it is highly simplistic to call it a simple and easy process. If EU4 were to handle it with any realism, it would likely be a processing of painstakingly send over a regiment of soldiers to a New World colony, allying with one or more Native states, using spies to destabilize the most powerful Native state, declaring war on that state, and then using Native mercenaries and Native allies to win the war. And this doesn’t get into the much larger problem of ruling and controlling those areas once conquered. It required just as much effort, even if not “state effort”, as fighting Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean.

StupidGenius said:
The Roman Empire was advanced and in 476 ad destroyed by a very small force.

The Roman Empire was destroyed by a statewide economic crisis, millions of neighboring refugees crossing into the Empire, and a decline in overall administrative capability.

Hydro Globus · Jan 25, 2013

Dafool said:
I’m not arguing that Mesoamerica wasn’t conquered without state guidance, but it is highly simplistic to call it a simple and easy process. If EU4 were to handle it with any realism, it would likely be a processing of painstakingly send over a regiment of soldiers to a New World colony, allying with one or more Native states, using spies to destabilize the most powerful Native state, declaring war on that state, and then using Native mercenaries and Native allies to win the war.

This is the part where the details are too minute for the EU series. There are no Native states but ten, five south of what is now the US-Mexican border. Out of those, Chimu and the Aztecs are unlikely to exist when the Europeans arrive, which leaves 3 countries: Zapotec, Maya and the disconnected Inca. This is not a framework where Castille can play Diplomacy.

(I'm not quoting the rest of your post, because that's probably right. It was a big, unlikely accomplishment for the men sent to the New World, but I'm still not convinced it was that for the Spanish Crown.)

unmerged(612669) · Jan 25, 2013

Dafool said:
Most of the Native forces that joined the Spanish did so to depose whatever local power they feared. In turn, they were often offered promises of independence, plunder, and/or cooperation with the Spanish. These promises were made by the Spanish soldiers. Neither EU3 nor EU4 will ever display that level of detail in negotiations, but the Spanish were unintentionally dragged into Mesoamerican and Andean politics, even if the state didn't acutally direct those events. EU3 and presumably EU4 have always handled those situations as state guided, so that's the frame of reference we should be thinking in.

Small scale? The Spanish had thousands of Native allies with them during those wars. When the Spanish did try to invade an area without Native assistance, it usually ended in large losses or at the very least a disorderly retreat. Look at the Yucatan or the southern Andes.

I’m not arguing that Mesoamerica wasn’t conquered without state guidance, but it is highly simplistic to call it a simple and easy process. If EU4 were to handle it with any realism, it would likely be a processing of painstakingly send over a regiment of soldiers to a New World colony, allying with one or more Native states, using spies to destabilize the most powerful Native state, declaring war on that state, and then using Native mercenaries and Native allies to win the war. And this doesn’t get into the much larger problem of ruling and controlling those areas once conquered. It required just as much effort, even if not “state effort”, as fighting Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean.

The Roman Empire was destroyed by a statewide economic crisis, millions of neighboring refugees crossing into the Empire, and a decline in overall administrative capability.

1. Cortez is not the crown; the Tlaxcalla had to renegotiate a less favorable treaty once it was over for that very reason. EU3 made it state guided but made it easy and profitless conquest. The point of reference is the King of Spain didn't have anything to do with his native allies.

2. The second time was with 20 Spaniards and 80 Mayans. One time they brought 3000 native allies; compare that to the great battles Spain Portugal, Genoa, Venice and The Knights waged with the Barbary States. Andrea Doria would be very surprised to know that you consider his campaigns to have been as small as the Yucatan Campaigns. The Great Campaign against Aztecs and Inca's were the toughest the Conquistadores waged and unusually large in scale. The Barbary States were waging war with more men and those men were technologically equal to their enemies and usually won at sea.

3. For the crown this was as hard as giving Cortez formal permission to sail the ocean sea. The conquest was extremely tough for the conuistadores who did it; but not for the king who profited from it. For the king he did nothing and got convoys of gold literally sailing to him; with which he actually did wage campaigns against the Barbary States and lost. You play as the state not as the conquistadores. For the state it lost against muslim powers and without trying found entire empires falling into his lap in the new world.

4. I would say by the civil wars but that goes off topic. The New World was an easy conquest for the Spanish that cost very little for the crown, was mainly done by locals in a desperate situation combined with good look in the case of the Inca's and gave Spain a fortune in gold. It wasn't a matter of having the choice of North Africa or America, it took America easily (from the perspective of the state) and was able to field significantly more and higher quality forces against the Barbary States as a result. The Crown didn't even finance Cortez; just something to keep in mind when thinking of the comparison. Cortez actually when restored to favor in the court of the emperor took part in a failed expedition to North Africa. Also the issue is as much French North Africa and Portugese North Africa (particularly amusing in light of the way Portugal lost it's independence).

5. Just to clarify I know things could have gone differently, that the Aztecs did have a chance; but that wasn't a matter for the Emperor who first heard of them when they were already conquered.

6. In EU terms I would say it should be an event chain; 90% of the time the obvious choices for you are the right ones, and 90% of the time the ai makes the wrong decisions when they come. For example when you make a decision to grant Cortez permission the Aztecs get an event asking if they should do a massive festival of sacrifice that will give them 200 gold and 6 stability. No is the right answer 90% of the time it says yes.

mudcrabmerchant · Jan 25, 2013

It perhaps isn't as easy as StupidGenius makes it out to be, but he has a point. It should not be an either/or question for Spain - rather, the fight against the Corsairs (or anyone in the Old World for that matter) should be supported by the wealth of the New World.

I'm sure the King of Spain got a kick from seeing SPAIN painted across large swathes of the map, but European superpowers were primarily concerned with goings-on in Europe, and their New World colonies existed to support the seat of the empire back in Europe. Portugal and perhaps the Netherlands are the only countries that should focus entirely on creating and maintaining an overseas empire.

Dafool · Jan 25, 2013

Hydro Globus said:
This is the part where the details are too minute for the EU series. There are no Native states but ten, five south of what is now the US-Mexican border. Out of those, Chimu and the Aztecs are unlikely to exist when the Europeans arrive, which leaves 3 countries: Zapotec, Maya and the disconnected Inca. This is not a framework where Castille can play Diplomacy.

(I'm not quoting the rest of your post, because that's probably right. It was a big, unlikely accomplishment for the men sent to the New World, but I'm still not convinced it was that for the Spanish Crown.)

The problem is that we don't play as the Spanish crown. We play as Spain. Those may seem like the same thing at a first glance, but they're not. Out ability to affect everything from troop movements to tech investment transcends the abilities of a monarch. We play as the entirety of the state, not just the leader or government. As such, things like conquistadors, units, and assets are at our disposal and therefore if we want to use them to make those same accomplishments, then we should have to follow through.

StupidGenius said:
1. Cortez is not the crown; the Tlaxcalla had to renegotiate a less favorable treaty once it was over for that very reason. EU3 made it state guided but made it easy and profitless conquest. The point of reference is the King of Spain didn't have anything to do with his native allies.

But Spanish leaders, soldiers, money, and colonies did have something to do with those things. Those are all things we control. Things like merchants are equally abstract and unrelated to the ability of a monarch, but are directly under our control. The argument that the King of Spain must have assented to these events for them to be controllable is completely without merit.

StupidGenius said:
2. The second time was with 20 Spaniards and 80 Mayans. One time they brought 3000 native allies; compare that to the great battles Spain Portugal, Genoa, Venice and The Knights waged with the Barbary States. Andrea Doria would be very surprised to know that you consider his campaigns to have been as small as the Yucatan Campaigns. The Great Campaign against Aztecs and Inca's were the toughest the Conquistadores waged and unusually large in scale. The Barbary States were waging war with more men and those men were technologically equal to their enemies and usually won at sea.

Hundreds of Spaniards died to conquer the Yucatan and several thousand were involved in the overall process. Tens of thousands of Natives were involved. The Barbary Pirates primarily sacked and enslaved. Yes, there are few large battles to gawk at, but even the one you referenced didn't reach unheard of numbers, especially in such a logistically accessible area.

StupidGenius said:
3. For the crown this was as hard as giving Cortez formal permission to sail the ocean sea. The conquest was extremely tough for the conuistadores who did it; but not for the king who profited from it. For the king he did nothing and got convoys of gold literally sailing to him; with which he actually did wage campaigns against the Barbary States and lost. You play as the state not as the conquistadores. For the state it lost against muslim powers and without trying found entire empires falling into his lap in the new world.

See me previous comments. Should ships, armies, leaders, colonists, merchants and so on all be uncontrollable by the player? If they should be, then your argument is invalid.

StupidGenius said:
4. I would say by the civil wars but that goes off topic. The New World was an easy conquest for the Spanish that cost very little for the crown, was mainly done by locals in a desperate situation combined with good look in the case of the Inca's and gave Spain a fortune in gold. It wasn't a matter of having the choice of North Africa or America, it took America easily (from the perspective of the state) and was able to field significantly more and higher quality forces against the Barbary States as a result. The Crown didn't even finance Cortez; just something to keep in mind when thinking of the comparison. Cortez actually when restored to favor in the court of the emperor took part in a failed expedition to North Africa. Also the issue is as much French North Africa and Portugese North Africa (particularly amusing in light of the way Portugal lost it's independence).

Once more though, these are things under the player's control. Unless we decided to strip of them of control over everything that "the crown" didn't directly handle, then there is no point in saying "Cortez did it by himself". We as players hire Cortez, attach him to an army, send that army somewhere, declare war, guide his forces, direct battles, and gain the benefits and difficulties of our conquests.

StupidGenius said:
5. Just to clarify I know things could have gone differently, that the Aztecs did have a chance; but that wasn't a matter for the Emperor who first heard of them when they were already conquered.

I can't imagine how this makes the slightest bit of difference. Are you suggesting that the player randomly get an event annexing the Aztecs before they've even discovered Mexico?

StupidGenius said:
6. In EU terms I would say it should be an event chain; 90% of the time the obvious choices for you are the right ones, and 90% of the time the ai makes the wrong decisions when they come. For example when you make a decision to grant Cortez permission the Aztecs get an event asking if they should do a massive festival of sacrifice that will give them 200 gold and 6 stability. No is the right answer 90% of the time it says yes.

I'm sorry, but I can't really figure out what you're suggesting past the part where you suggest an event chain.

mudcrabmerchant said:
It perhaps isn't as easy as StupidGenius makes it out to be, but he has a point. It should not be an either/or question for Spain - rather, the fight against the Corsairs (or anyone in the Old World for that matter) should be supported by the wealth of the New World.

I'm sure the King of Spain got a kick from seeing SPAIN painted across large swathes of the map, but European superpowers were primarily concerned with goings-on in Europe, and their New World colonies existed to support the seat of the empire back in Europe. Portugal and perhaps the Netherlands are the only countries that should focus entirely on creating and maintaining an overseas empire.

It should certainly be a matter of choosing your focus. I wouldn't mind if one could participate in both partially, but the devs seem to have decided, rightly in my opinion, that the player can't easily pursue a "Conquer North Africa" and a "Conquer and Colonize the New World" strategy at the same time. This is especially true when we consider that colonizing the New World was a very expensive process in real life and required a lot of attention and maintenance.

Casiru · Jan 26, 2013

Makes me sad to see a north Africa thread devolve into a Spain/new world thread. You guys have been playing too much EU3.

unmerged(612669) · Jan 26, 2013

Dafool said:
The problem is that we don't play as the Spanish crown. We play as Spain. Those may seem like the same thing at a first glance, but they're not. Out ability to affect everything from troop movements to tech investment transcends the abilities of a monarch. We play as the entirety of the state, not just the leader or government. As such, things like conquistadors, units, and assets are at our disposal and therefore if we want to use them to make those same accomplishments, then we should have to follow through.

But Spanish leaders, soldiers, money, and colonies did have something to do with those things. Those are all things we control. Things like merchants are equally abstract and unrelated to the ability of a monarch, but are directly under our control. The argument that the King of Spain must have assented to these events for them to be controllable is completely without merit.

Hundreds of Spaniards died to conquer the Yucatan and several thousand were involved in the overall process. Tens of thousands of Natives were involved. The Barbary Pirates primarily sacked and enslaved. Yes, there are few large battles to gawk at, but even the one you referenced didn't reach unheard of numbers, especially in such a logistically accessible area.

See me previous comments. Should ships, armies, leaders, colonists, merchants and so on all be uncontrollable by the player? If they should be, then your argument is invalid.

Once more though, these are things under the player's control. Unless we decided to strip of them of control over everything that "the crown" didn't directly handle, then there is no point in saying "Cortez did it by himself". We as players hire Cortez, attach him to an army, send that army somewhere, declare war, guide his forces, direct battles, and gain the benefits and difficulties of our conquests.

I can't imagine how this makes the slightest bit of difference. Are you suggesting that the player randomly get an event annexing the Aztecs before they've even discovered Mexico?

I'm sorry, but I can't really figure out what you're suggesting past the part where you suggest an event chain.

It should certainly be a matter of choosing your focus. I wouldn't mind if one could participate in both partially, but the devs seem to have decided, rightly in my opinion, that the player can't easily pursue a "Conquer North Africa" and a "Conquer and Colonize the New World" strategy at the same time. This is especially true when we consider that colonizing the New World was a very expensive process in real life and required a lot of attention and maintenance.

1. To what extent can we really say Conquistadores were part of Spain? Clan Pizzaro had to be put down; while the members of Cortez' family who didn't get executed ended up exiled from the land their father had conquered. Besides what they did was they recruited as you said locals who overthrew the empires for them; in eu terms I wonder if spies are a better representation then soldiers; it is not too big a stretch to call the Aztec collapse rebellion backed by Spaniards.

2. But it does tell us the level of difficulty for Spain as a Nation (contrasted with the extreme trials of the Conquistadores) the conquest really was. Compare the difficulty for Spain with the struggle of the Ottomans to conquer Moldavia, Wallachia, and Albania for some examples of how tough a successful conquest of a weak nation in Europe was. It was tough for the people who conquered it but for Spain as a nation this was an easy thing done by small numbers of adventurers.

3. Not unheard of for the region but enough to dwarf everything a Conquistadore besides Cortez and Pizzaro commanded. Disease did kill 80% of the mesoamerican population afterall so numbers later on are smaller. They did a lot of piracy and enslavement around the clock much more then Andrea Doria which is why they are the only actual navies called corsairs but the idea that they could have been conquered had the new world not been taken is laughable. The New World Conquest allowed Spain to build it's vast armies and super fleet; The Barbary Corsairs defeated them; it would have been worst if the Spanish lacked new world gold not better. The Portugese Royal Family with most of it's nobility died fighting the Corsairs which is why Portugal entered into a personal union with Spain. These were not pushovers; they were very powerful for the first two hundred years of the EU IV timeline but stagnated later on.

4. In many ways Cortez matches the spy more then a regiment.

5. No the player if he or she discovers Mexico first gets events about what to do about it. These follow history if you decide on following the historical path and the ai does to you win; if either you don't or the ai doesn't you fail to take Mexico. AI Spain and AI Aztecs will follow history 90% of the time; Aztecs surviving 10% I think reflects the history well because Moctezuma really did make all the wrong decisions both before and after Spanish arrival. It also allows the player to stand against Spain by making the right decisions.

6. The new world was not an end in itself but a resource for use in the old world. Spain became much stronger and much harder for anyone to defeat thanks to the conquest of the new world. The result of the conquest was being able to launch the armada, expeditions to fight the Barbary Corsairs, finance of the Hapsburg resistance against the Ottoman Empire whenever it happened, fighting the French in both Italy and Lorraine, a very strong presence in Germany, and a very long war over the Netherlands. The idea that the America's was over stretching Spain is ahistorical; the new world to the contrary enabled Spain to exert itself as a super power; even if it's fighting against the French, English, Barbary, and Ottoman enemies didn't always succeed.

7. "conquer North Africa" would have been as viable for the emperor as conquering France or Poland; especially in a hypothetical that the new world empire never comes to be. The New World shouldn't hurt Spain; it's natural enemies instead should be given their historical strength.

Dafool · Jan 26, 2013

StupidGenius said:
1. To what extent can we really say Conquistadores were part of Spain? Clan Pizzaro had to be put down; while the members of Cortez' family who didn't get executed ended up exiled from the land their father had conquered. Besides what they did was they recruited as you said locals who overthrew the empires for them; in eu terms I wonder if spies are a better representation then soldiers; it is not too big a stretch to call the Aztec collapse rebellion backed by Spaniards.

They were Spanish men, often pulled from Spanish colonial forces, who led expeditions in the name of Spain. Yes, they may have been messy affairs and not always legal, but it's not as if all the nobles of Europe were passive and loyal. Especially given the sheer distance and logistical issues involved in governing those lands what unfolded in the aftermath was hardly unthinkable. As I said, things like spies and diplomats could certainly be viewed as part of the conquest of the New World, but that's assuming that the process isn't simplified to dropping off a regiment and being done with it.

StupidGenius said:
2. But it does tell us the level of difficulty for Spain as a Nation (contrasted with the extreme trials of the Conquistadores) the conquest really was. Compare the difficulty for Spain with the struggle of the Ottomans to conquer Moldavia, Wallachia, and Albania for some examples of how tough a successful conquest of a weak nation in Europe was. It was tough for the people who conquered it but for Spain as a nation this was an easy thing done by small numbers of adventurers.

You're ignoring the point though. Spain, the nation, was deeply involved in what happened. The King, the homeland, and the government may not have had much involvement, but that doesn't make these events any less "Spanish". The game gives us full control over these events and as such they need to be designed and balanced in a way that represents the actual effort of the forces involved.

StupidGenius said:
3. Not unheard of for the region but enough to dwarf everything a Conquistadore besides Cortez and Pizzaro commanded. Disease did kill 80% of the mesoamerican population afterall so numbers later on are smaller. They did a lot of piracy and enslavement around the clock much more then Andrea Doria which is why they are the only actual navies called corsairs but the idea that they could have been conquered had the new world not been taken is laughable. The New World Conquest allowed Spain to build it's vast armies and super fleet; The Barbary Corsairs defeated them; it would have been worst if the Spanish lacked new world gold not better. The Portugese Royal Family with most of it's nobility died fighting the Corsairs which is why Portugal entered into a personal union with Spain. These were not pushovers; they were very powerful for the first two hundred years of the EU IV timeline but stagnated later on.

Who is arguing that the Barbary pirates would have fallen if not for the New World? No one is saying this. It's been suggested that if Spain wants to focus on conquering North Africa, it's going to be a big diversion from the New World. Similarly, colonizing the New World would be a big diversion from North Africa. The idea is that expansion and consolidation are limited.

StupidGenius said:
4. In many ways Cortez matches the spy more then a regiment.

See my previous comment.

StupidGenius said:
5. No the player if he or she discovers Mexico first gets events about what to do about it. These follow history if you decide on following the historical path and the ai does to you win; if either you don't or the ai doesn't you fail to take Mexico. AI Spain and AI Aztecs will follow history 90% of the time; Aztecs surviving 10% I think reflects the history well because Moctezuma really did make all the wrong decisions both before and after Spanish arrival. It also allows the player to stand against Spain by making the right decisions.

I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to have an event which automatically annexes a country for you with no effort. It would be one thing if it gave a conquistador and/or a CB, but it's another thing to just auto-annex someone for no reason.

StupidGenius said:
6. The new world was not an end in itself but a resource for use in the old world. Spain became much stronger and much harder for anyone to defeat thanks to the conquest of the new world. The result of the conquest was being able to launch the armada, expeditions to fight the Barbary Corsairs, finance of the Hapsburg resistance against the Ottoman Empire whenever it happened, fighting the French in both Italy and Lorraine, a very strong presence in Germany, and a very long war over the Netherlands. The idea that the America's was over stretching Spain is ahistorical; the new world to the contrary enabled Spain to exert itself as a super power; even if it's fighting against the French, English, Barbary, and Ottoman enemies didn't always succeed.

The New World was both a resource and an end. Yes, much wealth was siphoned off to fund ventures in Europe, but many wars were fought over the colonies themselves and the trade routes in the New World. Additionally, populations in the New World grew rapidly, making colonies a legitimate part of each respective empire. Things like administration and colonial protection become serious matters. Spain spent a lot of time, money, and effort on holding its colonial empire together. Despite a much different process of expansion and consolidation, colonial possessions were a resource just like any piece of land in Europe.

StupidGenius said:
7. "conquer North Africa" would have been as viable for the emperor as conquering France or Poland; especially in a hypothetical that the new world empire never comes to be. The New World shouldn't hurt Spain; it's natural enemies instead should be given their historical strength.

Hurt isn't what matters. What matters is the capability of Spain to administer a large North African empire while simultaneously colonizing and conquering the New World. Even if the New World was only positive for them (which it wasn't at first or in the long run), the question still remains as to whether they would have devoted as much time and effort to those endeavors if they had been bogged down in crusades and conversions in North Africa.

Vence · Jan 26, 2013

The last European crusade died in Morocco during the battle of three kings, after that an equilibrium was reached around the Mediterranean sea, there was a period mutual fascination and Orientalism is born in Europe, let's not forget also that there was no major technological gap back then and even sometimes the Muslims were ahead of Europe, like with gunpowder, and nobody was able to project force very far from homeland because of logistical limitations, in EU its too easy to project force even at the early stages, and north Africa is overall underpowered

Chamboozer · Jan 26, 2013

Vence said:
and nobody was able to project force very far from homeland because of logistical limitations, in EU its too easy to project force even at the early stages, and north Africa is overall underpowered

Exactly. This is a big problem.

Conquests in EU are too easy for two main reasons: It's too easy to send giant armies very great distances, and defending countries don't get enough advantages.

For me the most strikingly dumb mechanic in EUIII is that an army besieging a fort still gets the entire defensive bonus when an enemy relief army shows up. So if Castile lands an army on a Moroccan coastal mountain province, the Moroccans have to win a battle with a -5 combat modifier even though they're defending their own country and haven't lost any provinces yet. It entirely negates the defensive benefit of controlling mountains, since unless you can station an army on every border province the enemy invaders will probably get there first and get the defensive bonus in your own territory.

DanubianCossak · Jan 26, 2013

My north africa that has like 40ish provinces almost never gets conquered by CAS etc any more. Not sure if its due to better balance of the Africans, or something done by Paradox in 5.2 though. Either way im quite happy to see Morocco or Tunisia in 1600s regularly.

Antoine · Jan 26, 2013

In my opinion the problem of North Africa in all Paradox games (or at least EU2, EU3, CK and CK2) is they don't simulate the strategic depth given by deserts as they make them a terrain impassable for all countries ; and in addition their map which always has a too small density of provinces north of the Sahara, a depth of 2 or 3 is definitively not enough to efficiently maneuver to defend a country.

Fact is the sahara has never been unhabited, and what makes the difference between locals and European is the first know the tuareg tribes living there, who have the survival technology to live in this desert. To resume what would probably have happened in case of a conquest of a North African state (before the huge tech difference of the 19th century) is the monarchs/ main tribal leaders seeking asile in the nomad tribes of Sahara with their most loyal men, and a continuous war for decades with raids from the desert against European held provinces. Instead not only the Sahara is closed to everyone but this invisible wall does help the european to easily destroy muslim armies, who have just 2-3 provinces of depth to retreat and recover if they lose a battle (instead of the dozen or so they should have, would european and african provinces be at the same scale / level of detail).

Instead of one big impassable zone (although there may also be one in central sahara, but I think tuaregs would make it about 10 times smaller than Paradox), a better way to represent the desert would be a lot of small empty provinces, with high attrition and a tax base of 0 making them uncolonizable, basically allowing an army to hide 7 or 8 provinces far from the front to recover morale (provided it doesn't stay in the desert too long to be destroyed by attrition). And North African states would naturally have a reduced attrition as national bonus, meaning their enemies would have to take heavier losses to follow them there.

Out of that you can change the tech level or give better generals to north african states, the problem will remain : basically if they lose one big battle their whole army is easily surrounded and destroyed with the help of the saharan invisible wall, then allowing the european to conquer all the land and obtain extreme peace conditions (and as African states don't have a very high manpower even with all the provinces they have at start they are also sure to lose the next war).

unmerged(362834) · Jan 27, 2013

RealityGuy said:
NA should be very interesting area in this game. I look forward for some morroco action

Me too! Unfortunately, Morroco isn't even in the third tier of countries that will get some special attention... despite it had been a powerful empire (by Africa's standards) in EU4 timeframe!

so it seems like NA will just be everyone's bitch... like in CK2!

unmerged(612669) · Jan 27, 2013

Dafool said:
They were Spanish men, often pulled from Spanish colonial forces, who led expeditions in the name of Spain. Yes, they may have been messy affairs and not always legal, but it's not as if all the nobles of Europe were passive and loyal. Especially given the sheer distance and logistical issues involved in governing those lands what unfolded in the aftermath was hardly unthinkable. As I said, things like spies and diplomats could certainly be viewed as part of the conquest of the New World, but that's assuming that the process isn't simplified to dropping off a regiment and being done with it.

You're ignoring the point though. Spain, the nation, was deeply involved in what happened. The King, the homeland, and the government may not have had much involvement, but that doesn't make these events any less "Spanish". The game gives us full control over these events and as such they need to be designed and balanced in a way that represents the actual effort of the forces involved.

Who is arguing that the Barbary pirates would have fallen if not for the New World? No one is saying this. It's been suggested that if Spain wants to focus on conquering North Africa, it's going to be a big diversion from the New World. Similarly, colonizing the New World would be a big diversion from North Africa. The idea is that expansion and consolidation are limited.

See my previous comment.

I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to have an event which automatically annexes a country for you with no effort. It would be one thing if it gave a conquistador and/or a CB, but it's another thing to just auto-annex someone for no reason.

The New World was both a resource and an end. Yes, much wealth was siphoned off to fund ventures in Europe, but many wars were fought over the colonies themselves and the trade routes in the New World. Additionally, populations in the New World grew rapidly, making colonies a legitimate part of each respective empire. Things like administration and colonial protection become serious matters. Spain spent a lot of time, money, and effort on holding its colonial empire together. Despite a much different process of expansion and consolidation, colonial possessions were a resource just like any piece of land in Europe.

Hurt isn't what matters. What matters is the capability of Spain to administer a large North African empire while simultaneously colonizing and conquering the New World. Even if the New World was only positive for them (which it wasn't at first or in the long run), the question still remains as to whether they would have devoted as much time and effort to those endeavors if they had been bogged down in crusades and conversions in North Africa.

1. But for the nation as a whole it wasn't difficult which I think you conceded by your agreeing it was easy for the homeland. Every colony struggled to succeed at first. However in EU3 terms all the Spanish did was send a spy; a powerful and gifted spy but a spy nonetheless. Spies don't simulate men in back alleys stalking nobles; they include the incite nationalists/patriots (I know that sounds familiar to you from Cortez). For Conquistadores this was extremely difficult; as was the act of exploring the Ocean Sea by Columbus, which is even easier in EU3 then conquest of the Aztecs.

2. the overwhelming majority of those forces were natives; it was still part Spanish and wouldn't have happened without Spain, and Spain was the beneficiary but a simulation lets say of allowing 5000 Spaniards; don't they win? I have in OSC kept vast native forces at bay with 2000 infantry and 1000 cavalry (who were then trounced by other europeans) allowing a simulation of the numbers involved just seems to give Spain a 100% victory; is that really a better way to portray it?

3. Spain concentrated as much on North Africa as it's resources would allow; that didn't actually change at all; Spain was devoted to the Crusades and even sent a relief force to save the Knights. Ideologically Spain had a Christianizing; not civilizing mission and unlike the more race based colonial goals the Spanish won (Mexico is almost everyone a descendant of mixed race and catholic for example).

4. You do have control over it; the event is if you make a decision the ai (or if you are the Aztecs you) get a counter event where they make a decision lets give an example. "Cortez has encountered multiple factions in the New World he
A. offers a treaty of alliance and trade with the most powerful
B. tries to ally with weaker factions to conquer the new world
C. stays at Vera Cruz and yells at the governor giving you a headach"

If you press B the ai gets an event

"the strange but advanced people from across the sea have joined our enemies we
A. Throw everything we have at them (50% chance of victory ending the chain)
B. Invite them to Tenotchiclan we could kill them there if we have to
C. Do nothing; lets hope the coalition falls apart"

Lets say both pick B (historical so far)

"Cortez has arrived we

A. Sacrifice everyone who enters when night falls; don't give them a chance to get to know the city let alone return
B. Keep Faith
C. Submit to any demand he gives including religious"

If the AI follows the historical choices which it usually will Spain takes the Aztecs down, if it doesn't as you see they survive and get a chance to thrive which they don't under the current system.Their survival as AI will be unusual but possible.

5. The wars were fought because of the value of those resources; Santo Domingo produced most of europes sugar but they weren't the end game itself. Spain of course had to defend it's resources against enemies; but those enemies had european based ambitions. The French and British generally setup their own colonies which Spain easily prevented during the 17th century (see French Colonization of Florida).

6. Spain could have administered areas of the area close to home that it conquered; it's problem was getting the conquest. This should be simulated by making NA as powerful as it was historically. Of course if the ai or player mismanages those forces and fails to focus enough on technology that should go away but the way eu3 had determinism force 100% defeat for NA was even more outlandish then the 100% defeat for the Aztecs because unlike the Aztecs NA thrived through the 17th century until it's stagnation and decline in the 18th.

Dafool · Jan 27, 2013

StupidGenius said:
1. But for the nation as a whole it wasn't difficult which I think you conceded by your agreeing it was easy for the homeland. Every colony struggled to succeed at first. However in EU3 terms all the Spanish did was send a spy; a powerful and gifted spy but a spy nonetheless. Spies don't simulate men in back alleys stalking nobles; they include the incite nationalists/patriots (I know that sounds familiar to you from Cortez). For Conquistadores this was extremely difficult; as was the act of exploring the Ocean Sea by Columbus, which is even easier in EU3 then conquest of the Aztecs.

It's hard to call Cortez a spy. A spy is someone who operates undercover in order to destabilize the opponent. While that was certainly one aspect of Cortez's campaign, it can hardly be called the bulk of it. That forgets the part where he forged alliances, led soldiers, participated in battles, and led campaigns. Cortez clearly was, and in EU3 is, a leader. And as such he was under Spain and the player's control. Therefore, regardless of the effort at home, the player should have to go through some of the same struggles as Cortes if they want to follow that route.

StupidGenius said:
2. the overwhelming majority of those forces were natives; it was still part Spanish and wouldn't have happened without Spain, and Spain was the beneficiary but a simulation lets say of allowing 5000 Spaniards; don't they win? I have in OSC kept vast native forces at bay with 2000 infantry and 1000 cavalry (who were then trounced by other europeans) allowing a simulation of the numbers involved just seems to give Spain a 100% victory; is that really a better way to portray it?

That is a failure of the system and the ways in which military bonuses accumulate. That has not to do with the historical results.

StupidGenius said:
3. Spain concentrated as much on North Africa as it's resources would allow; that didn't actually change at all; Spain was devoted to the Crusades and even sent a relief force to save the Knights. Ideologically Spain had a Christianizing; not civilizing mission and unlike the more race based colonial goals the Spanish won (Mexico is almost everyone a descendant of mixed race and catholic for example).

"As it's resources would allow". That's the point. Spain sent men and ships and soldiers into the New World. The question is whether diverting those resources towards North Africa would have a different effect.

StupidGenius said:
4. You do have control over it; the event is if you make a decision the ai (or if you are the Aztecs you) get a counter event where they make a decision lets give an example. "Cortez has encountered multiple factions in the New World he
A. offers a treaty of alliance and trade with the most powerful
B. tries to ally with weaker factions to conquer the new world
C. stays at Vera Cruz and yells at the governor giving you a headach"

If you press B the ai gets an event

"the strange but advanced people from across the sea have joined our enemies we
A. Throw everything we have at them (50% chance of victory ending the chain)
B. Invite them to Tenotchiclan we could kill them there if we have to
C. Do nothing; lets hope the coalition falls apart"

Lets say both pick B (historical so far)

"Cortez has arrived we

A. Sacrifice everyone who enters when night falls; don't give them a chance to get to know the city let alone return
B. Keep Faith
C. Submit to any demand he gives including religious"

If the AI follows the historical choices which it usually will Spain takes the Aztecs down, if it doesn't as you see they survive and get a chance to thrive which they don't under the current system.Their survival as AI will be unusual but possible.

In my opinion, and probably the bast majority of players, events that basically say "You lose" or "You win". Not only is it highly anticlimactic, but it also can completely confound the player with a result that they had no say in.

StupidGenius said:
5. The wars were fought because of the value of those resources; Santo Domingo produced most of europes sugar but they weren't the end game itself. Spain of course had to defend it's resources against enemies; but those enemies had european based ambitions. The French and British generally setup their own colonies which Spain easily prevented during the 17th century (see French Colonization of Florida).

The Caribbean was one of the few very wealthy parts of the New World. Colonial nations were willing to trade away larger swaths of the mainland to preserve their colonies there. And colonies were commonly conquered and destroyed in the New World. Spain, England, France, Portugal, the Netherlands. They all lost colonies to Natives or rivals during this period. Protecting colonial possessions became a big chore and many nations went to great lengths to protect them. Spain's downfall, the loss of the New France, and the independence of the United States all hinged on how well one could protect and govern their colonial possessions.

StupidGenius said:
6. Spain could have administered areas of the area close to home that it conquered; it's problem was getting the conquest. This should be simulated by making NA as powerful as it was historically. Of course if the ai or player mismanages those forces and fails to focus enough on technology that should go away but the way eu3 had determinism force 100% defeat for NA was even more outlandish then the 100% defeat for the Aztecs because unlike the Aztecs NA thrived through the 17th century until it's stagnation and decline in the 18th.

You're looking at these separately. That's not what's being discussed. Yes, conquering North Africa and administering and converting it would have been a major hassle. Similarly, maintaining a colonial empire, conquering natives, and converting them was also a long tiring process. Neither was easy to pull off and, if EU4 was going to handle it with any realism, they would both take centuries to fully complete, not decades as in EU3. The question though is whether we should simultaneously be able to tackle two major challenges such as these at the same time with as much ease as just one.

unmerged(612669) · Jan 27, 2013

Dafool said:
It's hard to call Cortez a spy. A spy is someone who operates undercover in order to destabilize the opponent. While that was certainly one aspect of Cortez's campaign, it can hardly be called the bulk of it. That forgets the part where he forged alliances, led soldiers, participated in battles, and led campaigns. Cortez clearly was, and in EU3 is, a leader. And as such he was under Spain and the player's control. Therefore, regardless of the effort at home, the player should have to go through some of the same struggles as Cortes if they want to follow that route.

That is a failure of the system and the ways in which military bonuses accumulate. That has not to do with the historical results.

"As it's resources would allow". That's the point. Spain sent men and ships and soldiers into the New World. The question is whether diverting those resources towards North Africa would have a different effect.

In my opinion, and probably the bast majority of players, events that basically say "You lose" or "You win". Not only is it highly anticlimactic, but it also can completely confound the player with a result that they had no say in.

The Caribbean was one of the few very wealthy parts of the New World. Colonial nations were willing to trade away larger swaths of the mainland to preserve their colonies there. And colonies were commonly conquered and destroyed in the New World. Spain, England, France, Portugal, the Netherlands. They all lost colonies to Natives or rivals during this period. Protecting colonial possessions became a big chore and many nations went to great lengths to protect them. Spain's downfall, the loss of the New France, and the independence of the United States all hinged on how well one could protect and govern their colonial possessions.

You're looking at these separately. That's not what's being discussed. Yes, conquering North Africa and administering and converting it would have been a major hassle. Similarly, maintaining a colonial empire, conquering natives, and converting them was also a long tiring process. Neither was easy to pull off and, if EU4 was going to handle it with any realism, they would both take centuries to fully complete, not decades as in EU3. The question though is whether we should simultaneously be able to tackle two major challenges such as these at the same time with as much ease as just one.

1. The spy options definitely include what Cortez did; the spy in EU 3 raises and leads an army of natives (patriots, or nationalists, or fanatics, or reactionaries or revolutionaries) which is exactly what Cortez did. It involves local alliances to raise such an army (which Cortez did) it is significant that every successful spy mission ends with a general (your spy) leading the army.

2. But in game if you try to simulate the numbers you get the same results as EU3.

3. The New World allowed Spain significantly more resources. The expeditions against North Africa (all of which failed) were funded by Gold from the New World they couldn't have been sent at all without the new world conquest. Without the colonial empire frankly Spain would have not been able to save Malta or fight at Lepanto. The Spanish Fleet and Army were funded by New World Gold. It didn't stretch Spanish resources by any stretch of the imagination; their focus on North Africa was much more dangerous for the Barbary States in the 16th and 17th centuries then any part of the 15th.

4. The point in mentioning Santo Domingo is that the colonies weren't the goal; you just agreed that European powers willingly gave up significant mainland possessions for a slice of the Carribean; the reason is what mattered was what it gave the homeland. For the nation as a whole conquest of the new world was easy; just as being the first to explore the Ocean Sea (The Atlantic) was easy for the nation as a whole even if it was nearly death for Columbus and his sailors.

5. You do have control; if you make the right choices you will survive; if not the game will allow Spain to be unleashed against you and you stand no chance. Nothing unfair about that; especially if you give the player the choices available to Moctezuma and if you pick the same decisions he did; Spain may have as much of you as it pleases; if you diverge from history Spain's ability to attack you is restricted by bonuses for you.

6. Actually cultural conversions do take centuries in EU3, I find that Aztecs aren't worth conquering in EU3; it just means needing to maintain a large army there for whack a rebel which also makes gameplay annoying. Religion on the other hand took a long time for Aztecs to turn into the Catholics they are today; but the official adoption of Christianity you see on the game screen was fast.

7. North Africa couldn't have been conquered like the Aztecs because of it's power; it matched Spain ship for ship canon for canon and gun for gun. The Alcácer Quibir battle alone should prove that because it shows what Portugal was capable of in North Africa. There was never a question of "Exploration or Crusades" in the Iberian Peninsula it was "exploration to fund the Crusades". The long term effects of Gold Inflation were invisible until well into the 17th century which is also when the Barbary Corsair's reached their heights stagnated and declined.

8. Spain and Portugal explored to improve their situations at home and that is what they did; The wars Spain fought in Europe were funded by their conquests; think of how friendly the world would have looked to Spain if it had lacked the funding to fight the Italian Wars.

9. Considering you would like to have the Conquistadores trials and the fact that they accomplished what any reasonable person would say is impossible featured I highly doubt you disagree with the idea that the power the Barbary States had in 1444 should be given to them at the game start. If the ai or player playing those states makes the wrong decisions; declares a war too many; raises a force too large; goes for a foolish focus at the wrong time etc it could decline just like any other nation in game but at no point before the 18th century could the Barbary States be called basket cases; or even weaker then the European nations they defeated.

Dafool · Jan 27, 2013

StupidGenius said:
1. The spy options definitely include what Cortez did; the spy in EU 3 raises and leads an army of natives (patriots, or nationalists, or fanatics, or reactionaries or revolutionaries) which is exactly what Cortez did. It involves local alliances to raise such an army (which Cortez did) it is significant that every successful spy mission ends with a general (your spy) leading the army.

If Cortes had been a Native and led only Native forces, then yes your take on things might have some validity, but Cortes was leading Spanish soldiers in the name of Spain. That is an army in every way by EU standards.

StupidGenius said:
2. But in game if you try to simulate the numbers you get the same results as EU3.

Not necesarrily. If you remove the auto-defeat rule for outnumbered armies, there's almost no way to replicate those numbers.

StupidGenius said:
3. The New World allowed Spain significantly more resources. The expeditions against North Africa (all of which failed) were funded by Gold from the New World they couldn't have been sent at all without the new world conquest. Without the colonial empire frankly Spain would have not been able to save Malta or fight at Lepanto. The Spanish Fleet and Army were funded by New World Gold. It didn't stretch Spanish resources by any stretch of the imagination; their focus on North Africa was much more dangerous for the Barbary States in the 16th and 17th centuries then any part of the 15th.

It also forced to Spain divert a lot of attention. The Reconquista succeeded without New World wealth. There's no indication that a Spain focused on the task of conquering North Africa and willing to seek out help in the matter couldn't have made more headway. Instead they put massive fleets in the Atlantic, wasted time and money protecting their sea lanes, and went into an economic spiral in the end.

StupidGenius said:
4. The point in mentioning Santo Domingo is that the colonies weren't the goal; you just agreed that European powers willingly gave up significant mainland possessions for a slice of the Carribean; the reason is what mattered was what it gave the homeland. For the nation as a whole conquest of the new world was easy; just as being the first to explore the Ocean Sea (The Atlantic) was easy for the nation as a whole even if it was nearly death for Columbus and his sailors.

No. Just no. The conquest of the New World was a significant and painstaking process during which European nations stretched the limits of their economic and logistical abilities. Only after decades or even centuries of effort were they able to turn those colonies into self-sufficient and production parts of their empires.

StupidGenius said:
5. You do have control; if you make the right choices you will survive; if not the game will allow Spain to be unleashed against you and you stand no chance. Nothing unfair about that; especially if you give the player the choices available to Moctezuma and if you pick the same decisions he did; Spain may have as much of you as it pleases; if you diverge from history Spain's ability to attack you is restricted by bonuses for you.

But the fact of the matter is that you have an event saying "Would you like to lose the game?" or "Would you like to automatically annex this nation?". That is simply not acceptable to most players. If you want to recreate those historical successes or failures, then it should happen through gameplay.

StupidGenius said:
6. Actually cultural conversions do take centuries in EU3, I find that Aztecs aren't worth conquering in EU3; it just means needing to maintain a large army there for whack a rebel which also makes gameplay annoying. Religion on the other hand took a long time for Aztecs to turn into the Catholics they are today; but the official adoption of Christianity you see on the game screen was fast.

Actually the Natives of Mexico adopted Christianity fairly fast. Only a few decades. Not only are there some basic theological similarities, but the strong cultural and religious presence of the Spanish sped up the process.

StupidGenius said:
7. North Africa couldn't have been conquered like the Aztecs because of it's power; it matched Spain ship for ship canon for canon and gun for gun. The Alcácer Quibir battle alone should prove that because it shows what Portugal was capable of in North Africa. There was never a question of "Exploration or Crusades" in the Iberian Peninsula it was "exploration to fund the Crusades". The long term effects of Gold Inflation were invisible until well into the 17th century which is also when the Barbary Corsair's reached their heights stagnated and declined.

The age of crusading largely ends by the time this game starts. The Ottoman led piracy in the Mediterranean caused a clear reaction, but to say that the Spanish were still crusading is a stretch. Additionally, the wealth taken from the New World hardly went towards fighting the Barbary pirates. Most of it went towards imports and maintenance of the larger Spanish Empire. Also it's completely false that the effects of these precious metals had an invisible effect. It was well know that it was causing economic issues in the mid-16th century, with Spain's bankruptcies in 1557, 1560, 1575 and 1596 only confirming the fact. Other European powers began to acknowledge Spain's economic spiral by the beginning of the 17th. If anything, this disproves your point, because it shows that Spain was not able to govern a colonial empire, European empire, and fund ventures in the Mediterranean at the same time.

StupidGenius said:
8. Spain and Portugal explored to improve their situations at home and that is what they did; The wars Spain fought in Europe were funded by their conquests; think of how friendly the world would have looked to Spain if it had lacked the funding to fight the Italian Wars.

Yes, the Habsburgs did use much of the incoming funds from the New World to fund their wars. However, that's assuming that Spain would evolve into the same Habsburg empire. This is hardly set at the start. A 1444 Castille to Spain situation hardly guarantees that Spain will be forced to fight major wars all over Europe, losing much of their wealth in the process.

StupidGenius said:
9. Considering you would like to have the Conquistadores trials and the fact that they accomplished what any reasonable person would say is impossible featured I highly doubt you disagree with the idea that the power the Barbary States had in 1444 should be given to them at the game start. If the ai or player playing those states makes the wrong decisions; declares a war too many; raises a force too large; goes for a foolish focus at the wrong time etc it could decline just like any other nation in game but at no point before the 18th century could the Barbary States be called basket cases; or even weaker then the European nations they defeated.

What the conquistadors accomplished was indeed unlikely in any predictive sense, but the more factors placed in line, the more likely it looks to become. You as the player have to put those factors in line. You have to explore, then set up colonies, then send a conquistador into Mexico. Just the same, just because Spain didn't conquer the Barabary states doesn't mean that the player should be disallowed that possibility. Yes it should be difficult, but once more it's about lining things up. The player can make the choice to contain the Ottomans at all cost. To raise the most massive navy they possibly can. To throw every possible soldier at the North African coast. And if they manage all of this and manage it well, then yes, there should be some form of victory to be had.

unmerged(612669) · Jan 27, 2013

Dafool said:
If Cortes had been a Native and led only Native forces, then yes your take on things might have some validity, but Cortes was leading Spanish soldiers in the name of Spain. That is an army in every way by EU standards.

Not necesarrily. If you remove the auto-defeat rule for outnumbered armies, there's almost no way to replicate those numbers.

It also forced to Spain divert a lot of attention. The Reconquista succeeded without New World wealth. There's no indication that a Spain focused on the task of conquering North Africa and willing to seek out help in the matter couldn't have made more headway. Instead they put massive fleets in the Atlantic, wasted time and money protecting their sea lanes, and went into an economic spiral in the end.

No. Just no. The conquest of the New World was a significant and painstaking process during which European nations stretched the limits of their economic and logistical abilities. Only after decades or even centuries of effort were they able to turn those colonies into self-sufficient and production parts of their empires.

But the fact of the matter is that you have an event saying "Would you like to lose the game?" or "Would you like to automatically annex this nation?". That is simply not acceptable to most players. If you want to recreate those historical successes or failures, then it should happen through gameplay.

Actually the Natives of Mexico adopted Christianity fairly fast. Only a few decades. Not only are there some basic theological similarities, but the strong cultural and religious presence of the Spanish sped up the process.

The age of crusading largely ends by the time this game starts. The Ottoman led piracy in the Mediterranean caused a clear reaction, but to say that the Spanish were still crusading is a stretch. Additionally, the wealth taken from the New World hardly went towards fighting the Barbary pirates. Most of it went towards imports and maintenance of the larger Spanish Empire. Also it's completely false that the effects of these precious metals had an invisible effect. It was well know that it was causing economic issues in the mid-16th century, with Spain's bankruptcies in 1557, 1560, 1575 and 1596 only confirming the fact. Other European powers began to acknowledge Spain's economic spiral by the beginning of the 17th. If anything, this disproves your point, because it shows that Spain was not able to govern a colonial empire, European empire, and fund ventures in the Mediterranean at the same time.

Yes, the Habsburgs did use much of the incoming funds from the New World to fund their wars. However, that's assuming that Spain would evolve into the same Habsburg empire. This is hardly set at the start. A 1444 Castille to Spain situation hardly guarantees that Spain will be forced to fight major wars all over Europe, losing much of their wealth in the process.

What the conquistadors accomplished was indeed unlikely in any predictive sense, but the more factors placed in line, the more likely it looks to become. You as the player have to put those factors in line. You have to explore, then set up colonies, then send a conquistador into Mexico. Just the same, just because Spain didn't conquer the Barabary states doesn't mean that the player should be disallowed that possibility. Yes it should be difficult, but once more it's about lining things up. The player can make the choice to contain the Ottomans at all cost. To raise the most massive navy they possibly can. To throw every possible soldier at the North African coast. And if they manage all of this and manage it well, then yes, there should be some form of victory to be had.

1. The problem is his Spanish soldiers were a small minority; and I don't think the spy is meant to represent an individual more like a small army consisting of a nobleman and his entourage. Just look at the amount of gold you give him; more then a years income for most nations. He left with permission of the crown, established alliances, mapped and explored, raised the locals against their rulers, and setup the administration for the provinces joining Spain (although legal niceties had to be redone because he exceeded his authority in many of the agreements he made). Perhaps the proper gameplay would be to give the Aztecs bonuses for human sacrifices; but extreme vulnerability to rebellion and whoever discovers them first gets to launch those rebellions and rebels defect to that country. Game mechanics could just make rebels defect to the first european that discovers them.

2. I find from OSC that at very most it takes 5000 to destroy any number of natives, and it is very rare to need over 3000. The only time I ever need to reinforce OSC colonies (surrounded by natives who go to war once in awhile) is if European enemies kill my garrison.

3. That is because Granada only held on account of Spanish disunity; it was doomed by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella. Prior to that reconquesta was effectively held up by the different states not wanting each other to be too powerful. Despite having some good (by that centuries standards) artillery Granada was very weak; the Barbary States were not.

4. You went off topic in response which is usually a sign of concession of the point. I stated that the colonies were not the goal; the goal was a good return and the resources the colony would give usually in the long term but once in awhile in the short term; which is why as you pointed out the Indies were so much more valuable then mainland territory. Even on the mainland you could see the pattern of early on the state doesn't intervene in the private transactions of the (fill in colony) company, and the colonists struggle (I already said every colony struggled at first) but then once developed the colony would for one reason or another be valuable and actual military resources would be required to defend it if other Europeans attacked or if the colony got into a conflict with natives that it couldn't handle on it's own (see transition of the 13 colonies into royal colonies). In the case of the Iberian Peninsula see the legal controversy over the Dutch East India Company taking a Carrack from the Portugese East India Company; it wasn't clear to Europeans at the time that these companies were part of their nations. The colonists also often had very good reasons to struggle to make the colony succeed when it was done by a company; for example religious minorities who didn't want to return to England. The Spanish Colonies gave wonderful returns for little effort from the nation; a colonial revolt that didn't involve fighting, wars were natives did most of the fighting for them allowing the treasury to be unscathed, for the conquistadores they could have easily died in battle and for the colonists they could and many did starve; but for the nation as a whole this was a massive reward for little effort. One of the most notable things about Spanish Colonization is that the colonies remained loyal and lacked independence movements until Ferdinand VIIth. Had Spain been going direct like Roanoke Island was for Queen Elizabeth I would agree it was hard for Spain but the fact is the people at the time didn't even know if the activity of colonial companies were legally the same as state activity (again see the case of the stolen Carrack). I never suggested that building a colony was easy for colonists; just that it was easy for Spain.

5. Under the current situation you just wait for a long time until the Spanish arrive and they kill you and you die. To win you will either need massive bonuses; a player should earn those bonuses by making the right decisions. It isn't unreasonable to have to think better then Moctezuma to get better results is it? In the case of the Byzantines they have one strategy and it works or they die, yet the first nation you will play thread is full of nearly all Byzantines.

6. That is true, and I should add that culturally changes are very hard. It takes 100% cultural tradition, settler colonies, and national focus, and then the conversion takes a long time.

7. Strictly speaking the Papacy was as in favor of these wars as the actual Crusades, and these weren't dynastic wars like Italy. Religion had a much greater say in these wars then anything between Europeans. Protestants even joined the Corsairs to fight catholics; one of the greatest Barbary Admirals was a Dutch Protestant. Largely ended refers to France and England the traditional focus of Anglo and Francophone Histories and so world history outside of Europe; but there is also Italy and Spain, the Knights were a significant force to. Not to mention the Balkans; the last Crusade could accurately be called the relief of Vienna by Jan Sobieski in 1683.

8. The point is the Hapsburg Wars including the Spanish Attempts at conquering North Africa were funded by the New World Empire. Without it we could see that Spain can't afford it's expeditions and warfare. The Hapsburg Empire did happen; and Spain did need it's gold.

9. Is that a good argument for keeping North Africa weaker then it was historically? Give it the power it historically had; i.e. the power to defeat the Spanish Fleet and the power to crush the Portugese Army and slaughter all it's officers; and if either Spain is played brilliantly or Barbaries played poorly the conquest could happen (Spain could have easily administered NA and it's colonies had it conquered NA) if not the barbary nations stay significant forces which is historical. The point of EU3 is at the start date you get as close to history as you could; how exactly does NA being much weaker then historically square away with that concept? It doesn't. The Conquistadores did things everyone thought impossible; but did so without any support from their nation and often found an ungrateful nation looking for legalistic reasons to reprimand them for it (Cortez needed to go through many ordeals before he was brought back to favor and given a command in a NA expedition). To many people they hate conquistadores.

North Africa

Field Marshal

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

First Lieutenant

First Lieutenant

Deputy of the People

Field Marshal

Major

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

Sergeant

Field Marshal

DaputinCozzak Specyal Snowflake

Captain

First Lieutenant

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

First Lieutenant