Lets pretend that a game with 27000+ locations will not be full of equally relevante or obscure micronations around the world.
- 10
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You know that add every single tribe in existence is not the only way to put them in the map right?
They can do like Vic3 and Imperator Rome and choose to represent only the dominant culture/dominant tribe in the area.
So, instead of dozens of independent city states in Missisipi like EU4, you would have only one tag "Muskogee" with appropriate goverment type "Autonomous City States" or something similar.
- 6
- 1
A german imperial free city is far more relevant than australian native tribes yes
- 8
- 3
- 2
1. Please don't write off these places as uninteresting when you know nothing about them
2. I think part of the problem with a lot of the gameplay of native countries is largely that the scope of EU is so large that any regions that largely operated within a smaller scope tend to be less interesting - the regional rivalries of mexican states during the rise of the Aztec Empire is cool, but it's like 10 tiles wide in EU4, and comprises a small timescale for the game's full length.
2. I think part of the problem with a lot of the gameplay of native countries is largely that the scope of EU is so large that any regions that largely operated within a smaller scope tend to be less interesting - the regional rivalries of mexican states during the rise of the Aztec Empire is cool, but it's like 10 tiles wide in EU4, and comprises a small timescale for the game's full length.
- 4
- 1
- 1
Or you know - keep it like it is/was - as a natives in uncolonised province, who from time to time attack your colony, or your troops, or having some events regarding them few times a decade, because that is the best way of representing stateless societes of the time?
- 13
- 3
These were not decentralised stateless societies. Please just google Elman Service and read my previous post about chiefdoms. Decentralised societies obviously shouldn't be included, but it isn't binary, it doesn't go from centralised to decentralised. Chiefdoms should be included because they fit how the game is played. And no, not every tribe has a chief/kingship. There were no decentralised societies in EU4 other than the few stateless societies.
Last edited:
- 9
- 1
Outdated model used by an outdated game. Project Caesar has more map granularity and more scope.
- 7
- 5
wouldnt vicky3 decentralized be better than just nothing to show decentralized societies?
- 1
- 1
No it wouldn't. There is no reason to copy-paste from Victoria 3, when what we've got since Europa Universalis worked well.
Great model used by an outdated game.
You are just trying to reinvent the well here.
- 8
- 5
- 1
It is funny how the majority is against historical railroad and would be against the removal of player agency to pull out ridiculous things like buddhist Spain or Ulm Empire.
But in the moment that natives in America or Australia are mentioned they become hardliner historical railroaders that have their immersion broken by anything. God forbidden that players can play an aboriginal nation and click in a button to progress technology how absurd! Now let me recreate my Roman Empire with Ulm. The doublethink here is ridiculous.
But in the moment that natives in America or Australia are mentioned they become hardliner historical railroaders that have their immersion broken by anything. God forbidden that players can play an aboriginal nation and click in a button to progress technology how absurd! Now let me recreate my Roman Empire with Ulm. The doublethink here is ridiculous.
- 10
- 7
- 3
It has nothing to do with immersion. It just doesn't have any sense to make them into playable nations.
- 11
- 2
- 1
Why? We dont know nothing about the gameplay loop yet to make this type of affirmation.
- 2
- 1
Again we are talking about australian natives not the oromos of ethiopian
- 4
A model where natives behave like wild animals that attack your province and nothing more is not a good model.
- 7
- 6
- 1
Like... wild animals? Because they attack people who came to their home, trying to steal their land, and enslave them? Thats a bold statement mate. Natives in America or Africa, or New Zeeland, fought colonizers because they did not want to have their home taken by someone else, yet they ultimately had no means to oppose them. And this is modelled very well across all iteration of Europa Universalis.
- 12
But we do know things about them and how they formed no settled societies after being on the continent for so long, and how even with a more granular provincial approach, having a few hamlets be owned by australian tags would be the wrong decision
And with eu5 the tiles will be far wider. No one is saying delete the aztec empire from game start, just australian natives
- 4
- 1
We know that populations will be simulated as will epidemics, which means an already small population ought to be absolutely decimated by Eurasian diseases. Maybe it could be played in an enjoyable way, but I don't see an obvious method
He means the lack of diplomacy with uncolonised provinces compared to other tags.
- 2
Well Africa often did, but most of Subsaharan Africa also wasn't colonized in the game's time frame.
- 2
Yes buddhist spain is beyond stupid and should instantly trigger civil wars. Ulm empire possible within who else expanded in the 400 years of the game frame
- 2