please don't do Australia dirty again

[Sapa Inca]

Considering the finite resources available to any game company, I think it would make sense if native tribes were represented by unplayable chiefdoms at launch.

My only doubt is if native tribes will be playable at launch or at a dlc.
Because in my opinion it is extremely improbable for a big company to release a big game about colonization and imperialism in 2024-2026 without offering the possibility to play the other side of history.
People against playable natives are just setting themselves for future disappointment while mocking people that have fun playing natives and saying that they dont exist or that they have fun in the wrong way.

Also, the vast majority of the arguments against playable aboriginals are based around a belief that Project Caesar will have the same boring EU4 colonization system or the same EU4 native council system what will not be true at all in this new game.

If your arguments are based around how the old systems work in the old game while not knowing anything about the systems in the new game beyond the fact that the systems will be very differente, your arguments are just weak arguments.

 

[alexkowal123]

My only doubt is if native tribes will be playable at launch or at a dlc.
Because in my opinion it is extremely improbable for a big companhia to release a big game about colonization and imperialism in 2024-2026 without offering the possibility to play the other side of history.
People against playable natives are just setting themselves for future disappointment while mocking people that have fun playing natives and saying that they dont exist or that they have fun in the wrong way.

Also, the vast majority of the arguments against playable aboriginals are based around a belief that Project Caesar will have the same boring colonization system or the same native council system what will not be true at all in this new game.

If your arguments are based around how the old systems work in the old game while not knowing anything about the systems in the new game beyond the fact that the systems will be very differente, your arguments are just weak arguments.

I’d add that chiefdoms fit the game’s core mechanics.
Tinto seem set on not releasing a half finished game so i can’t see them making drastic changes in future dlcs. Non-playable tribes/groups of tribes and playable chiefdoms might be a shout, given the game can handle loads more tags. Maybe only making the most centralised/sizeable chiefdoms playable if there’s too many?

At the end of the day it needs to be fun, so if Tinto don’t think they can make the Aboriginals fun then they probably shouldn’t be playable. I still think a way to do this is with federations and confederations, but there obv needs to be more. I think another set of pops would need to be added if chiefdoms are to be included.

 

[Sapa Inca]

If you mean "they shouldn't have been made playable" or "they shouldn't have create all those tags in Australia / America", I agree.

The main reason to natives be boring to the majority of players in EU4 is exactly the lack of tag densisty in their home region. If you are confined in a region with only 4-8 tags for 25% of the game it will obviously have a tendecy to be unfun.

The most fun regions to play as natives in America are Andes, Mesoamerica and current patch east coast of USA. Because these regions have enough provinces and enough tag density to make war and local diplomacy cool. The game only stop to be fun in these regions if you unify your region too early and Europeans arrive too late (what is a problem and will happen to any experienced player in these regions).

I am not defending to every province in EU4 to be made a native tribe or chiefdom because of two reasons: EU4 engine cant handle it, EU4 colonization system cant handle it because it needs empty provinces to work.

But your solution to remove tags or decrease the number of tags is one of the main reasons that makes the local gameplay less fun, it is not a solution but something that makes the problem worse.

 

[AC1632]

The main reason to natives be boring to the majority of players in EU4 is exactly the lack of tag densisty in their home region. If you are confined in a region with only 4-8 tags for 25% of the game it will obviously have a tendecy to be unfun.

I think it also comes down to how many mechanics the older factions are locked out of. Obviously I'm not saying the Mayans should have an equal chance of discovering the printing press, but without equivalent stuff to do you're basically playing a dumbed-down version of EU4, making even fewer decisions per ingame year despite having a smaller world to conquer.
I almost wonder if these regions should have their own tech trees? I'm not sure how tech will work in this upcoming game, but if, for instance, native people in a certain region could develop their own ideas instead of waiting to onboard to the 14th century European tech tree, there would be ways to develop while preparing for the midgame Crisis

 

[William the Merry]

The solution to the representation of Aboriginals in this game is not to disregard them, whilst including other chiefdoms, and imply they have no history

A people always have a history, proto man has history, birds have history, plants have history. However people organising in such small numbers means they have no history of states, and so unsuitable to the game mechanics

just because there’s no written records. If they had been in the practice of writing down history we’d have volumes upon volumes detailing internal disputes, wars, events, etc. which could be used to make them interesting to play in a game such as this.

You could transcribe every oral source and still they wouldnt fit the game because of how much smaller the scale of their society is. Just as assassins creed couldnt be ported to eu5

No one should assume they know Aboriginal history because unfortunately nobody does.

Theyre not a closed book, locked with chains of unobtanium, we have history at the time of colonalism, we have models for pangea and Europe just as the PIE were invading, we can know some aboriginal history at the least

I get the narrative of progress/advancement is not applicable to Aboriginals and that this may be why people think they shouldn’t be in an EU style game.

I think the devs may just have to use creative licence inspired by the crumbs of written history we have.

Use history to make a less historical game?

 

[Pellucid]

I think it also comes down to how many mechanics the older factions are locked out of. Obviously I'm not saying the Mayans should have an equal chance of discovering the printing press, but without equivalent stuff to do you're basically playing a dumbed-down version of EU4, making even fewer decisions per ingame year despite having a smaller world to conquer.
I almost wonder if these regions should have their own tech trees? I'm not sure how tech will work in this upcoming game, but if, for instance, native people in a certain region could develop their own ideas instead of waiting to onboard to the 14th century European tech tree, there would be ways to develop while preparing for the midgame Crisis

Realistically the natives should just have a fixed set of tech until Europe arrives. They made no meaningful advancements in the timeframe of the game prior to European contact, and once in contact with Europeans they basically just adopted European technology. They maintained their same power and social structure until well after EU4's ending, with tribes like the Seneca keeping their tribal structure until 1848.

I'd like to see a return to the EU2/3 "westernization" system, that would allow human players and unusually successful AI tags in North and South America to "catch up" to Europe.

But what I'd REALLY like to see is an arms and tools sale system, so that natives can acquire modern weapons and tools from trade partners pretty much as soon as contact is made if they can get access to a trade partner. It doesn't make sense that natives wouldn't see an immediate and significant jump in combat effectiveness by trading with Europeans, and then you could model the real world conflicts between tribes vying for access to those European traders.

 

[Kaspar Osraige]

I have thought some stuff over and I have a proposal: Not having a writing/records keeping system should limit your literacy to zero, having zero literacy should limit your technological progress to effectively zero. Natives should be trying to learn writing from Mesoamericans/Incans/Indonesians/Westerners and only then should they start to advance in technology. Before that they should only improve from hunting gathering to early agricultural society.

 

[Lindaegan]

I have thought some stuff over and I have a proposal: Not having a writing/records keeping system should limit your literacy to zero, having zero literacy should limit your technological progress to effectively zero. Natives should be trying to learn writing from Mesoamericans/Incans/Indonesians/Westerners and only then should they start to advance in technology. Before that they should only improve from hunting gathering to early agricultural society.

The Incans didn't have a writing system...

Also, many early civilizations (we're going far out of EU time, but stick with me for a second) got by just fine without it. The IVC had no writing, for example, but their cities are so standardized, down to the very dimensions of the bricks, and they even had a sewer system. Writing is not necessary to have an imperial state - though I will not deny it is extremely helpful.

 

[William the Merry]

My only doubt is if native tribes will be playable at launch or at a dlc.
Because in my opinion it is extremely improbable for a big company to release a big game about colonization and imperialism in 2024-2026 without offering the possibility to play the other side of history.

You can play the other side for every region bar south africa, veneuzla, and the carribean atm. If you think paradox will bend to social pressure then you set yourself up for disappointment with slaves actually moving from Africa to Carribean with eu5

People against playable natives are just setting themselves for future disappointment while mocking people that have fun playing natives and saying that they dont exist or that they have fun in the wrong way.

And people that want to play as aboriginal tags are also setting themselves up for disappointment with likely how boring theyd be on release, just as they are at the minute.

Also, the vast majority of the arguments against playable aboriginals are based around a belief that Project Caesar will have the same boring EU4 colonization system or the same EU4 native council system what will not be true at all in this new game.

If your arguments are based around how the old systems work in the old game while not knowing anything about the systems in the new game beyond the fact that the systems will be very differente, your arguments are just weak arguments.

They played badly in eu4 and are unsuitable for eu. Sure they'll play differently but how different will the gameplay be at release do you think that such a sparse people will be fun for 400 years prior to colonialism

 

[alexkowal123]

I have thought some stuff over and I have a proposal: Not having a writing/records keeping system should limit your literacy to zero, having zero literacy should limit your technological progress to effectively zero. Natives should be trying to learn writing from Mesoamericans/Incans/Indonesians/Westerners and only then should they start to advance in technology. Before that they should only improve from hunting gathering to early agricultural society.

Not all technology is progressed by being able to write things down? Society’s weren’t strictly oral or literate, it depends on where emphasis is placed in their culture. For instance, the civilisation in the south-east Nigeria that built the Ikom monoliths in 200 AD that we know nothing about had a writing script, just not much use for it.
Whilst Aboriginals didn’t have a writing script as we’d view it, they still used symbols sort of like hieroglyphs (or Chinese letters?)

I agree having a sophisticated writing script should make it easier to advance tech though, that’s a good idea

 

[William the Merry]

I’d add that chiefdoms fit the game’s core mechanics.
Tinto seem set on not releasing a half finished game so i can’t see them making drastic changes in future dlcs. Non-playable tribes/groups of tribes and playable chiefdoms might be a shout, given the game can handle loads more tags. Maybe only making the most centralised/sizeable chiefdoms playable if there’s too many?

At the end of the day it needs to be fun, so if Tinto don’t think they can make the Aboriginals fun then they probably shouldn’t be playable. I still think a way to do this is with federations and confederations, but there obv needs to be more. I think another set of pops would need to be added if they are to be included.

But tags dont make sense for such tiny societies

 

[William the Merry]

The main reason to natives be boring to the majority of players in EU4 is exactly the lack of tag densisty in their home region. If you are confined in a region with only 4-8 tags for 25% of the game it will obviously have a tendecy to be unfun.

The most fun regions to play as natives in America are Andes, Mesoamerica and current patch east coast of USA. Because these regions have enough provinces and enough tag density to make war and local diplomacy cool. The game only stop to be fun in these regions if you unify your region too early and Europeans arrive too late (what is a problem and will happen to any experienced player in these regions).

I am not defending to every province in EU4 to be made a native tribe or chiefdom because of two reasons: EU4 engine cant handle it, EU4 colonization system cant handle it because it needs empty provinces to work.

But your solution to remove tags or decrease the number of tags is one of the main reasons that makes the local gameplay less fun, it is not a solution but something that makes the problem worse.

Try pre and post leviathan NA, its still boring either way, more tags doesnt make it that much more fun if youre still a native that cant do much due to being native

 

[William the Merry]

Yeah so?

Because no one wants to sit as an opm for 400 years then get deleted

that would make it all the more satisfying to advance the tech and defeat any colonisers

By the time you have colonisers to learn tech from theyll have global empires, your chances of keeping independence extremely slim

as a compromise for Gmaply amd balance

Whats gmaply

 

[alexkowal123]

You can play the other side for every region bar south africa, veneuzla, and the carribean atm. If you think paradox will bend to social pressure then you set yourself up for disappointment with slaves actually moving from Africa to Carribean with eu5

And people that want to play as aboriginal tags are also setting themselves up for disappointment with likely how boring theyd be on release, just as they are at the minute.

They played badly in eu4 and are unsuitable for eu. Sure they'll play differently but how different will the gameplay be at release do you think that such a sparse people will be fun for 400 years prior to colonialism

It would be v funny if Tinto already have a good idea on how they’re going to do Aboriginals and we’re wasting our time

 

[alexkowal123]

But tags dont make sense for such tiny societies

I can’t really refute that, societies that number in the hundreds are probably too small. I guess you could group by languages/ethnic groups?

 

[Thorum]

It would be v funny if Tinto have already decided how they’re going to do Aboriginals and we’re wasting our time

They've even already said that almost every location will have population, and a beginning of how they work.

Wether that's enough or wether some sort of states are needed, we need to know at least in basis how colonisation works...

In a game that should have huge impacts from slavery and the plague, these ethical discussions (aka, most of the last 9 pages) are at best secondary to gameplay and history.

 

[alexkowal123]

They've even already said that almost every location will have population, and a beginning of how they work.

Wether that's enough or wether some sort of states are needed, we need to know at least in basis how colonisation works...

In a game that should have huge impacts from slavery and the plague, these ethical discussions (aka, most of the last 9 pages) are at best secondary to gameplay and history.

I wouldn’t say this is a discussion on ethics. I think the only part on ethics was on being consistent in which types of polities are represented as tags, and the bit on including different perspectives

 

[Sapa Inca]

Try pre and post leviathan NA, its still boring either way, more tags doesnt make

East coast of USA is much more fun to play as a native in current patch than it was pre-Leviathan.

 

[Sapa Inca]

You can play the other side for every region bar south africa, veneuzla, and the carribean atm. If you think paradox will bend to social pressure then you set yourself up for disappointment with slaves actually moving from Africa to Carribean with eu5

What was the point here? No one is speaking about transatlantic slave trade in this thread and I doubt that anyone in this thread would be against the existance of historical slavery in the game.

 

[Lindaegan]

What was the point here? No one is speaking about transatlantic slave trade in this thread and I doubt that anyone in this thread would be against the existance of historical slavery in the game.

I feel like they're just not getting what we've been trying to say for this entire thread? Historical gameplay = always good - it is the judgement of that historicity that we have been discussing.

And that bit of tosh about "bending to social pressures," my gods...