Some things about South America that I'd like to see implemented in EU2

[Pred]

Hi everyone!
Here are my suggestions for South America in EU2.

1) The province name Artigas, in today's Uruguay, is wrong. It's named after an uruguaian leader that lived after the period of the game.

2) Mendoza, Corrientes, Misiones, Paraguay and parts of Bolivia that were heavily colonized by the Spanish in the 16th and 17th century are terra incognita in EU1. I suggest to add them, instead of some useless land in siberia.

3) The right order for the Argentinian provinces, from north-west to south-east, is: Jujuy, Salta, Tucuman, Cordoba, Rosario, Buenos Aires. Mendoza is west of Cordoba and south of Salta, and Corrientes is north of B.A. and northeast of Rosario.

4) The Incas weren't that far inside Argentinian territory, and not that south of Chile.

5) In EU2, I'd like to see Argentina as a possible revolter, since the "Revolución de Mayo" was in 1810, and our independence was in 1816 (i.e. inside the EU2 timespan).

If Johan or any other guy from Paradox is reading me, please listen to my suggestions and apply them in EU2 if possible!

Hail Paradox!!!

Pred_

Ps: Just in case someone here likes soccer, I have this avatar because the colors of the swedish flag are the origins of the colors of my favourite team, Boca Juniors (2000 world champions!!!).

[Pred]

20 views and no replies... I guess that reflects how much do you care about us, poor South American guys...

[Pred]

...are terra incognita in EU1.

Stupid me, I meant PERMANENT terra incognita.





...


Nobody read it anyway... am I wrong?

[Emre Yigit]

Certainly, if you can have a revolution in N America, why not in the South?

But I hope that revolt likelihoods will be influenced by the various political sliders.

I.e., if the Chinese colonise S America, would the continent necessarily have revolted in the same fashion?

[Heyesey]

I don't see why modern-day Argentina should be the only part of the map with no glaring geographical errors in it. Everywhere else in the world has some

Naming provinces where the only name in use today is a modern one can be a problem. I'm sure better suggestions will be welcome, though. The more info you have on an accurate-looking south america, the better


Ps. Boca Juniors can't possibly have been the world champions of 2000. The inaugural World Club Championship tournament in 2000 didn't even have an Argentine side in it, and the final was played between two Brazilian teams

[alvaro]

I agree with you, pive. There has been a lot of talking about the US rebelion, but not so much about the spanish America independence which can be perfectly included in the period and even before. Well, is also our fault, ain't it?
I have seen an idea in other post talking about rebel leaders. That could be very nice, after a certain date any rebellion produced in america should have Bolivar or SanMartin as a leader, making it more likely to get the independence. what do you think? Also the independence of a single country in the continent should work as a bonus to provoke others in neighbouring places.

about the names, here the general told it beter than I would, with that caracteristic english humor:"I don't see why modern-day Argentina should be the only part of the map with no glaring geographical errors in it. Everywhere else in the world has some"

[Pred]

Hi guys,

"I don't see why modern-day Argentina should be the only part of the map with no glaring geographical errors in it. Everywhere else in the world has some"

Well... I guess I'll have to live with it!

I'll be happy if they add at least Paraguay and Mendoza... come on, Alvaro, you're Spanish... you know Asuncion was more important than Buenos Aires in the beggining. It can't be PTI.

Ps. Boca Juniors can't possibly have been the world champions of 2000. The inaugural World Club Championship tournament in 2000 didn't even have an Argentine side in it, and the final was played between two Brazilian teams

I was talking about the Intercontinental Cup... and we're winning again this year for sure!

I agree with you, pive.

[Heliumgod]

Originally posted by Pred
4) The Incas weren't that far inside Argentinian territory, and not that south of Chile.

5) In EU2, I'd like to see Argentina as a possible revolter, since the "Revolución de Mayo" was in 1810, and our independence was in 1816 (i.e. inside the EU2 timespan).

Pred_

6) Continuing along #5: include the campaigns of San Martín and Símon Bolívar! Even though the game ends in 1820, that gives 10 years during which these important liberators can give hell to the Spanish. I'd love to see these grand leaders appear in the game, even if for a short time. (Perhaps there can be a revolt chance for Spanish regions in the northern and southern halves of S. America that will in the proper situation spawn independent nations and wars, etc.

[celedhring]

Yeah, but make it more subtle than that clumsy Netherlands hardwired indepence. "Look, now all Netherlands provinces have a +50 to revolt risk and will stay so until they become independent". I always wondered why hardwire this revolt precisely and not others like the USA one?

[Heliumgod]

Originally posted by celedhring
Yeah, but make it more subtle than that clumsy Netherlands hardwired indepence. "Look, now all Netherlands provinces have a +50 to revolt risk and will stay so until they become independent". I always wondered why hardwire this revolt precisely and not others like the USA one?

The explanation I've commonly heard is that "The circumstances in the Netherlands were such that a revolt was inevitable!"... I am not truly equipped to say that this is or is not so, to be quite honest.

I definitely would not wish to see a hard-wired independence movement for Colombia or Argentina... but I would like to see a good possibility of them occurring!

The rash of rebellions/revolutions/revolts in the Americas in the 18th-19th centuries brings me to wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of difference between colonies established in these countries and those established elsewhere?

My gut feeling says no, but all the same it would be cool to somehow model the fact that the pesky Americas had lots of rebellious folk living there.

[Pred]

The explanation I've commonly heard is that "The circumstances in the Netherlands were such that a revolt was inevitable!"... I am not truly equipped to say that this is or is not so, to be quite honest.

The Netherlands was a very important colonial and economic power in the EU era, so it's revolution is a must for gameplay and historical reasons.
Agreed, USA is a superpower now, but back then it wasn't. And if it forms, it does a few years before the end of the game, so it's not that important. The same goes for Argentina or Colombia.

I definitely would not wish to see a hard-wired independence movement for Colombia or Argentina... but I would like to see a good possibility of them occurring!

Agreed. There should be revolter tags for Argentina and Colombia, but no hardcoded revolts like in Netherlands (i.e. just like USA is in EU1).

6) Continuing along #5: include the campaigns of San Martín and Símon Bolívar!...

Excellent idea!

7) Minor thing: there are two very important (and navigable) rivers that end in Rio de La Plata: Uruguay and Paraná. In EU1 there's only one.

[Heyesey]

Originally posted by Heliumgod


The explanation I've commonly heard is that "The circumstances in the Netherlands were such that a revolt was inevitable!"... I am not truly equipped to say that this is or is not so, to be quite honest.

Nahh ... the Netherlands played such a big role in the colonisation of the New World that it was felt necessary to find some way of putting them in. Paradox decided that the least historically-inaccurate way of making sure they turned up, was to give the land to Spain to start with and have the Dutch revolt after Calvin, on religious grounds. That way you get the same end-result as in real life: Holland and the Spanish Netherlands. If Patric had had something different for lunch that day, they might have shoved in an artificial already-there-in-1492 Holland that you could have played as a major from the beginning.

Whether or not the USA turn up really makes no difference to a game that ends in 1792 anyway, because they had zero influence on the world up to that point. Since EU2 runs to 1820, a general tendency of colonial possessions to begin to seek independence, should be in there somewhere - in any areas that have been settled for a long period of time.

[Alexander Seil]

To Pred: I fully agree to suggestions....just don't touch Siberia, there is too few land out there for Russia to grab and exploit...unfair!

[Txini]

Originally posted by Heliumgod
6)Include the campaigns of San Martín and Símon Bolívar! Even though the game ends in 1820, that gives 10 years during which these important liberators can give hell to the Spanish. I'd love to see these grand leaders appear in the game, even if for a short time.

NO!! NEVER!! They not, first must appear a revolter named Washington in the "USA" English territories.

[alvaro]

Originally posted by Pred
By the way... Alvaro, are you Spanish?

kinda
yeah! I'm "gallego"

About that rebellion thing. I think that the importance of the Netherlands, as Heyesasy says is in the colonization though that looks to me a very weak reason to make the AI to provoke the rebellion and crush everything until they get the independence, and on the other hand, it's correct that american countries didn't have a big role in this period, but they all together where very important as England and Spain lost quite a lot of territory and wealth, as well as, the loss of stability and the diverting of resources from other purposes. IMO the rebelion of the americas is more important and had a bigger impact than the rebelion of the Netherlands.

[Heyesey]

Originally posted by alvaro
. I think that the importance of the Netherlands, as Heyesasy says is in the colonization though that looks to me a very weak reason to make the AI to provoke the rebellion and crush everything until they get the independence.

You've got to get them in there somehow... either enforced huge revolt risks until they break free, no matter what the political situation; or put them in from the start. Neither is historically accurate, but ... you've got to get them in there somehow

[Heyesey]

Originally posted by Txini


NO!! NEVER!! They not, first must appear a revolter named Washington in the "USA" English territories.

Blah blah.

Whether or not Washington turns up is immaterial. One person on his own cannot possibly have a major impact on human history. The tendency for colonial regions to seek independence is the important factor, and it should apply across the board in any regions that have been colonised for a considerable time. Which ones happen to escape first is dependent upon a multitude of factors, but having a guy called George Washington is NOT one of them. Neither is Simon Bolivar, for that matter.. if he'd been shot dead at the age of six, Bolivia would just be called something else, and we'd have a different national hero across most of South America.

[alvaro]

Gosh, mate, shot at the age of 6, I think you watch too much violence on channel4, I mean...on television

What I really meant is that, if are not given the chance to stop the dutch rebelion... then what's the purpose of the game. I like the historic games but if the AI 'rule' your destiny..., what if it were also hardcored, uppss sorry , hardcoded, the loss of Calais? At certain point England is always attacked by 200000 soldiers army no matter what you try. It wouldn't be funny like now playing England, don't you think?
Is better IMO to give the high probability of independece to any historic country that ever had a national feeling, but of course, just if you are not able to control the rebelion quickly.

[Heliumgod]

Originally posted by Txini


NO!! NEVER!! They not, first must appear a revolter named Washington in the "USA" English territories.

Uh... IMHO that's a silly requirement, considering that there is certainly the distinct possibility that the game will go differently from history. I see no reason why, in a slightly different universe, San Martín could not have been the first President of the first American democracy. After all, you are highly unlikely to get EXACTLY the same things to happen in the game as happened in real life, so why put the game into such a straight-jacket?

[heagarty]

In the IGC, which seems to be a model for a lot of the EUII expansion, there is a common event, the revolution of New Spain, that occurs from time to time, so Argentinian revolts would seem to make sense with the new time line.

But, what bugs me about the New Spain revolution is that, since the Aztec capital is always too large to accept any Spanish colonists (most of the time, anyway) New Spain always becomes a "Pagan" nation. If "New Spain" is really New Spain shouldn't it continue to be dominated by the decendents Spanish (or other European) conquerers aand this be Catholic? Otherwise, if the revolt is the actual inhabitants of the province throwing off their "colonial yoke", and maintaining their original beliefs and customs, wouldn't they resume their identity as Aztecs? I don't know the Aztec name for their nation, but wouldn't they choose that over "New Spain"? Even if Europeans wanted to call them something else seems like "New Spain" sounds inappropriate for a culture many of them would think to be "uncivilized" or "barbarian".