Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 20th of April 2021

[EMT0]

I think Paradox should buff the cultures you describe to reflect history properly. But only when they add smallpox, influenza, typhus, diphtheria, chicken pox and measles as well. You know, to reflect history properly.

This ain't the gotcha you think it is. So long as Paradox opens a history book and actually reads about the death rates of natives in different parts of the Americas to these diseases, I'm all for it. 90% death rates weren't universal across all of the Americas nor is it indicative of first contact death rates which we have little info about and have hard variance region to region. Death rates were tied to the spread which could be helped or hampered by geography and politics; see: Inca Civil War, active European presence versus distant European presence, geographic isolation, etc. Waves of disease only killed as many as the disease could spread to meaning some of the outbreaks for things such as measles and smallpox were regional outbreaks over the course of EU4's history. After the initial wave of disease hit, the populations of most areas thinned out enough that the possibility of spreading the disease from one end of the Americas to the other died with it. It's why you saw regional outbreaks crop up every few decades. It's also the same reason you saw European settler populations boom, low population densities = low death rates to disease for all peoples, especially children. Europeans had the same number of children in the New World as they did back in Europe, but minus the death rate due to decreased communicability of disease. So to bring this all back to the natives, that number, 90%? It's a cumulative estimate over the centuries that's generalized for the entire hemisphere, not some instant death KO where 9 in 10 immediately died to disease on Europeans making landfall in the New World.

Areas such as Paraguay and the Guarani actually boomed demographically in complete contrast to the stereotype about natives dying like flies. Why? Low population densities and the Europeans that came to Paraguay were primarily missionaries(Jesuits) which governed Paraguay waaaaayyy different than the encomiendas of the other Spanish colonies. Other areas such as California and the Pacific Northwest bounced back demographically to an extent due to the highly delayed contact with Europeans compared to say, the Valley of Mexico.

So absolutely, have disease brutalize the New World at first via a spread event. Have these events slash development by some X%, the severity affected by unrest, devastation, terrain, and European trade power in the node. Have these provinces suffer debuffs to all sorts of modifiers such as base tax, manpower, trade power, etc. for a decade or two on top of the slashing of development depending on the severity. But a well-managed realm(read: No European interlopers or lands being managed by non-conquistador types such as Jesuits) should be waayyyyy better off than a land being overran by Europeans or that's swamped by rebels. These development slashing events should go anywhere from 10%(Controlled spread of disease such as in Paraguay) best-case to 90% worst-case(Mississippians). Have the potential for these events to return multiple times too via contextual events such as via European invasion, though with the caveat that they should be reduced in severity each time they hit as the game goes on; tie it to institutions or something. If you can keep Europeans out or only interact with them on your terms as advisors or traders who you buy your boomsticks from, then your lands should be much better off versus if you let them run around your lands a-conquering

Tie it in with the idea of adding a 'natural development' cap to provinces so as to model the process of recovery where provinces that are underdeveloped but stable will trend towards the equivalent of a population cap mirrored instead by dev, and you're golden. You've got a dynamic system that accurately abstracts the biggest challenge natives faced when dealing with Europeans. The initial shock of first contact warfare + disease, and late-stage imperialism by their more developed settler colonies such as American encroachment on the 5 civilized tribes.

I agree with your premise but I can feel the "indigenismo" coming from this post you did, (before you say anything I am a hispanoamericano, Costarricense)
first, you say that "the Spanish to drop 40,000 men in the New World in 1530" I agree but that's the nature of the game, as the game has failed to emulate what really happen in the conquest and forces you to send your main army to speed up the process, basically you will need a good stack and full annex the native states as fast as you can, but in reality this is the more "preferable" way.

That is because if we are going to use the "historical" argument, then the new world was conquered by "private" entrepreneurship, almost everyone forgets that the Crown offered "licenses" to conduct trade and diplomacy and search for land for the land, but our ancestors (Cortez and Pizarro) mostly did it on their own expense and not the crown, it's why we hear how 500 conquistadores had conquered the new world and one of the reason for the "conquistador civil war" in south America, post the conquest, Spain basically had to place order for the unruly conquistadores who were going against the established crown law.

It actually goes both ways as paradox failed to show the might of the new world empire and how cunning and iron willed were the conquistadores on their quest, but I got to say that if Spain employed their might (actual resources and superior military technology) there is no way the new world empires would have stand a chance, you are talking of full plate armour that the Hidalgos could easily buy (they were the core of the conquistadores btw) and imagine if Spain had sent the "Gran Capitan" and his proto Tercios to the new world anything can happen but I can place my bet that the natives wouldn't stand a chance against an organize and recently professionalized army.

I just hate how a lot of people tend to minimize Spain's power during the time of conquest and over exalt the native empires.
But you are right, Paradox has failed to show the splendor of their achievements and how they pop over the natives of North America.

I mean this in the kindest way possible, but saying someone is Hispanic really isn't enough in this day and age to be taken at face value when talking about "indigenismo". Not only are Hispanics a highly diverse group, but we 100% also have Hispanics that are on the drip with the Spanish narrative of their New World adventures and discriminate against natives to this day in Peru. Not saying you're one of them, but my point is that saying I'm Hispanic doesn't equate to having the credibility to call something "indigenismo", which to those not familiar with Spanish, is as good as saying nativist revisionism. I'm not a Peruvian of any significant native descent, so long as we're dropping creds. Calling Pizarro and Cortez our ancestors though? Nope, not mine.

The caveat with the conquistadors being private ventures is that they were private ventures that only lasted a couple of generations, and came from the low nobility that arose during the Reconquista. Once the Reconquista was over, these 3rd sons and landless knights went to the New World in search of opportunities. Cortez's expedition turning into a conquest was only after previous expeditions to Central America had ended up in failure or the conquistador going native. And pretty much spur of the moment opportunism due to the blatant hatred held for the Aztec by all of its neighbors; Cortez didn't go to Mexico thinking he could conquer the whole area nor know the scope of what he got himself into, almost failing outright despite setting up alliances. As you highlighted, the conquistadors also weren't a unified force to the point that Cortez's political rivals almost had him declared a traitor during his Mexican expedition, had severe insubordination the point he burned his ships to force the expedition to continue, and hung several traitors loyal to the governor of Cuba who later sent an expedition to bring back his head while at the same time the Aztecs revolted, almost overthrowing his control of Mexico City entirely. There was also always the risk of his conquest not being recognized by the crown if the governor of Cuba swung the argument his way. This could have made Cortez go native, setting himself up as the head of a new Mesoamerican empire to replace the Aztecs, and effectively ended all future conquistador activity once the king of Spain hears about the betrayal.

Imagining what a Spanish army could do in the New World in 1530 doesn't mean anything when it was physically impossible to transport that many people over and feed them. Pizarro's expedition almost died multiple times just crossing the Andes to Cajamarca from either the cold or starvation, forget about an entire army. New World states were conquered by conquistadors that provided their own weapons and armor because it was the only people at the time who were in a position to do this. Fantasizing about a scenario that was logistically impossible isn't a point worth bringing up. The Spanish had no idea what they'd gotten themselves into until surprise, the missive from Cortez that came with a few members of his expedition that were sent back to Spain tell Charles V that they'd conquered a country multiple times larger than Spain itself. Prior to that? The Spanish would have never sent their soldiers over when they've got the Italian Wars and the Ottoman Empire to worry about.

You can hate it all you like, but it wasn't Spanish power, it was dumb luck at how ridiculous the Aztecs were at making themselves hated, cunning, and circumstance that carried the Spanish into Mesoamerica with multiple chances at failure throughout. From there it triggered a bunch of copycats, queue Pizarro. The native empires being over-exalted? Are we sitting in different realities? We've had almost 500 years of them being downplayed to glorify Spanish feats. Historians have only in the last century been in a position to study these states and the writings of those that didn't fit the narrative at the time. And that's "indigenismo"?

 

[Lord_Baltimore]

Well, if I believe what I read elsewhere, their skin color and their firearms made them look like gods, or at least impress the natives enough for them to think that their doom was coming, that they should submit. No matter if a few other battles and they would have been powerless from lack of munitions.

You're thinking of Hernan Cortez. He claimed that the Aztecs thought he was their god Quetzalcoatl. Although it didn't last very long. The Aztecs rebeled after eight months, killed half of the Spanish soldiers and drove them out of Tenochitlan

 

[Vulpes Cinerea]

This ain't the gotcha you think it is. So long as Paradox opens a history book and actually reads about the death rates of natives in different parts of the Americas to these diseases, I'm all for it. 90% death rates weren't universal across all of the Americas nor is it indicative of first contact death rates which we have little info about and have hard variance region to region. Death rates were tied to the spread which could be helped or hampered by geography and politics; see: Inca Civil War, active European presence versus distant European presence, geographic isolation, etc. Waves of disease only killed as many as the disease could spread to meaning some of the outbreaks for things such as measles and smallpox were regional outbreaks over the course of EU4's history. After the initial wave of disease hit, the populations of most areas thinned out enough that the possibility of spreading the disease from one end of the Americas to the other died with it. It's why you saw regional outbreaks crop up every few decades. It's also the same reason you saw European settler populations boom, low population densities = low death rates to disease for all peoples, especially children. Europeans had the same number of children in the New World as they did back in Europe, but minus the death rate due to decreased communicability of disease. So to bring this all back to the natives, that number, 90%? It's a cumulative estimate over the centuries that's generalized for the entire hemisphere, not some instant death KO where 9 in 10 immediately died to disease on Europeans making landfall in the New World.

Areas such as Paraguay and the Guarani actually boomed demographically in complete contrast to the stereotype about natives dying like flies. Why? Low population densities and the Europeans that came to Paraguay were primarily missionaries(Jesuits) which governed Paraguay waaaaayyy different than the encomiendas of the other Spanish colonies. Other areas such as California and the Pacific Northwest bounced back demographically to an extent due to the highly delayed contact with Europeans compared to say, the Valley of Mexico.

So absolutely, have disease brutalize the New World at first via a spread event. Have these events slash development by some X%, the severity affected by unrest, devastation, terrain, and European trade power in the node. Have these provinces suffer debuffs to all sorts of modifiers such as base tax, manpower, trade power, etc. for a decade or two on top of the slashing of development depending on the severity. But a well-managed realm(read: No European interlopers or lands being managed by non-conquistador types such as Jesuits) should be waayyyyy better off than a land being overran by Europeans or that's swamped by rebels. These development slashing events should go anywhere from 10%(Controlled spread of disease such as in Paraguay) best-case to 90% worst-case(Mississippians). Have the potential for these events to return multiple times too via contextual events such as via European invasion, though with the caveat that they should be reduced in severity each time they hit as the game goes on; tie it to institutions or something. If you can keep Europeans out or only interact with them on your terms as advisors or traders who you buy your boomsticks from, then your lands should be much better off versus if you let them run around your lands a-conquering

Tie it in with the idea of adding a 'natural development' cap to provinces so as to model the process of recovery where provinces that are underdeveloped but stable will trend towards the equivalent of a population cap mirrored instead by dev, and you're golden. You've got a dynamic system that accurately abstracts the biggest challenge natives faced when dealing with Europeans. The initial shock of first contact warfare + disease, and late-stage imperialism by their more developed settler colonies such as American encroachment on the 5 civilized tribes.

What are you arguing against 90% for? I never said anything about percentages. Mostly I was joking, I actually enjoy reading your posts. It just seemed that you forgot about a pretty major thing that needed to be in the equation. Even if it 'only' was 30% on average, that would bring massive nerfs to american tags in game.

 

[Arizal]

You're thinking of Hernan Cortez. He claimed that the Aztecs thought he was their god Quetzalcoatl. Although it didn't last very long. The Aztecs rebeled after eight months, killed half of the Spanish soldiers and drove them out of Tenochitlan

Indeed. We are in agreement. I didn’t say it it was the sole reason he managed to beat the Aztecs, but it was one of them, as well as him having firearms and most of all, as @EMT0 said, the fact that those empires were recent and profoundly divided to the point that they were on the brink of civil war.

 

[EMT0]

What are you arguing against 90% for? I never said anything about percentages. Mostly I was joking, I actually enjoy reading your posts. It just seemed that you forgot about a pretty major thing that needed to be in the equation. Even if it 'only' was 30% on average, that would bring massive nerfs to american tags in game.

Apologies, the internet makes it hard to distinguish tone sometimes. I was 50/50 on what the tone of your original post was and couldn't tell if the closer was trying to be joking or snarky so I settled for just trying to present a factual case for why even accounting for diseases, there's a better way to model the New World states.

I'm used to people that have gone through AP History and think they're experts on the topic drive-by posting when I talk about New World empires as if disease was the end-all be-all to win internet points and shut me down. So I sorta defaulted to my usual counterpoints. Again, my b.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Well, if I believe what I read elsewhere, their skin color and their firearms made them look like gods, or at least impress the natives enough for them to think that their doom was coming, that they should submit. No matter if a few other battles and they would have been powerless from lack of munitions.

Well, yes and no. What Bernal Diaz Del Castillo (a conquistador that fought alongside Cortez in various of his expeditions) says in his book is that some natives thought that the Spanish were Demons/Gods because they came from the East and had beards, just like the stories foretold. The natives that hailed the Spanish as Demons/Gods started spreading the word around because they believed that they had come to liberate them from the Aztecs, and gladly submitted to the Spanish crown (well, at least temporarily). Cortez and the Aztecs, on the other hand, weren't entirely sold on them being the Demons/Gods that were described on the profecies but rather thought that they had come to liberate and subjugate the nations that paired tribute to the Aztecs. So much so that the Aztecs tried their best to convince the Spanish to not enter their territory and leave their subject's land.

There was also somewhat of a tug of war between the Aztecs and Tlaxcala to see on who the Spanish would side with.

Anyway, I kept using Demons/Gods because in his text Bernal uses both interchangeable, sometimes saying that the native word for them meant Demon in Castilian, sometimes saying that it means God. In any case, the Spanish being considered as supernatural beings doesn't mean that they were treated like the Spanish in The Road to El Dorado, no. A better comparison would be with how Caesar and the Romans were treated by the allied Gaulish tribes when they were marching in Gaul.

In regards to them submitting to Spanish rule, that was more of a consequence of how hierarchical societies operate rather than anything related to religious superstition. Cortez went around showing his military might, Strickling deals of friendship and offering to liberate tribes if instead of paying tribute to the Aztecs they would pay tribute to the Spanish and their King.

In terms of ammunition, Cortez expedition was well supplied with guns, crossbows, artillery pieces, horses and people that had the know-how to make more bolts, bullets, gunpowder, build fortifications, etc. Not only there were soldiers and sailors in their expeditions but also crafters, blacksmiths, cookers and so on so forth.

 

[ArtFart]

This looks epic, really looking forward to Tuesday, do we have a time in mind for release?

 

[celethiel]

Single best decision in EU4 history. Well done.
Reminds me in a way of the Anno 1800 team that decided to focus one of the main updates on Quality of Life upgrades instead of new features.
Now if the HOI4 team would do the same

yes Hoi4 could use quite a bit of love from the developers.

 

[JCommander]

- You can centralize a state to reduce its governing cost.

Did this ever get rebalanced since it was discussed in the Dev Diary? Because as described there it's just... comically useless. It costs 100 Reform Progress but effectively gives you an extra 20 admin cap. Meanwhile, Expand Administration gives you 20 admin cap for (starting at) 20 Reform Progress, and I don't think I've ever used Expand Administration enough times for the cost to hit 100 Reform Progress. so Centralize State doesn't make the game worse but it also doesn't affect the game at all, because no human is ever going to actually use it.
For tall play, spending like 50 Reform Progress to get like 25% off the governing cap of a state would actually be a worthwhile investment under certain circumstances. Was that what the dev team was going for?

 

[JCommander]

yeah, there could easily be an update or dlc just about the jewish history in the game. I still miss that.

As a Jewish person, it's starting to feel to me like kind of a slap in the face that there are no mechanics for Judaism. With the new patch, the only two religions without mechanics will be Judaism and Animism, and Animism is just a catch-all for "not any other religion".

 

[EarlKonrad]

As a Jewish person, it's starting to feel to me like kind of a slap in the face that there are no mechanics for Judaism. With the new patch, the only two religions without mechanics will be Judaism and Animism, and Animism is just a catch-all for "not any other religion".

Animism and totemism are catch-all religion and have been since the game's religion. It is understandable that Judaism and Zoroastrianism would be the two last religions to get touched as they each exist on a handful of provinces at game start. I think Zoroastrianism being touched in this patch makes sense as Sinkh is also seeing some changes.

If I had to guess I'd say that Judaism will get something when the Devs touch Africa as the religion only exists there in 1444.

 

[JCommander]

Animism and totemism are catch-all religion and have been since the game's religion. It is understandable that Judaism and Zoroastrianism would be the two last religions to get touched as they each exist on a handful of provinces at game start. I think Zoroastrianism being touched in this patch makes sense as Sinkh is also seeing some changes.

If I had to guess I'd say that Judaism will get something when the Devs touch Africa as the religion only exists there in 1444.

Well, yes, when Zoroastrianism and Sikhism don't have mechanics, it's understandable that Judaism doesn't either - what bugs me is that Zoroastrianism is getting mechanics and Judaism isn't.

 

[mysticdueler]

Well, yes, when Zoroastrianism and Sikhism don't have mechanics, it's understandable that Judaism doesn't either - what bugs me is that Zoroastrianism is getting mechanics and Judaism isn't.

The one upside is that they have the opportunity to give Judaism fully fleshed-out mechanics, potentially even something unique (rather than slapping something together to try and squeeze it in)

 

[JCommander]

The one upside is that they have the opportunity to give Judaism fully fleshed-out mechanics, potentially even something unique (rather than slapping something together to try and squeeze it in)

I hope they do! I've written a few suggestion threads about Judaism mechanics!

 

[Battlex]

So long as we're throwing out feature requests and attention on areas that are lacking...as someone from Peru, your current Mesoamerica and Andes design makes my blood boil and I refuse to touch any part of it nowadays. It goes beyond misguided or inaccurate, something which I could deal with, but it's so insultingly wrong that it leaves me incredulous. I stick to the Old World exclusively out of frustration and do not play colonizer states in Europe so as to avoid playing with these mechanics. I'm not going to drop a drive-by post, I'm actually gonna list all of my grievances here:

1) Agriculture, what's that? - Paradox has decided that all New World states will start with the same institutions; that is to say, none. The idea that the Mesoamericans or Andeans didn't practice a form of feudalism is ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous, even. The Andes mita system was arguably one of the most comprehensive and effective forms of state-controlled labor in the world during this time period. We have so much Inca construction that remains standing to this day thanks to how organized their labor system was not just in agriculture but for public works, road building, establishing settlements, etc.

I don't really know what to add here beyond just stating that no, this is incredulously wrong. Words fail me to go more into this topic because I feel like I'm being gaslighted. The truth of the matter is that Paradox had no idea how to properly model non-settled states such as steppe hordes, the tribes of the Arabian interior, and the hunter-gatherers of the New World and decided well, they'll start without feudalism as an institution. And if steppe hordes, the same 'backwards' steppe hordes that brought gunpowder to Europe don't have feudalism, well, neither does anybody in the New World. I don't agree with this setup at all in the Old World, but let's not do the double silly in the New World for arbitrary reasons

2) Every New World religion is Aztec blood sports - So...reforming religions. The organized states of the New World in Mesoameria and the Andes are doomed to perish and unable to change their society without changing their inherently flawed religions that practice human sacrifice. All New World peoples tore out hearts by the tens of thousands for their religion...hmmm, wait a sec. It's almost as if this was a strictly Aztec phenomenon and while some human sacrifice was practiced, it was the Aztec that were infamous for it and all of their neighbors thought they were lunatics. Stick the reforming the religion business due to extreme human sacrifice to the Aztecs. The Inca practice of human sacrifice was only ever internal and restricted to stereotypical stuff like trying to get rid of a drought or the death of an emperor. It'd make far more sense to give a diplo rep negative to Andean and Mesoamerican states that practiced some form of human sacrifice once they make contact with Europe. The Aztecs...well, they're not my ballpark. But it's important to highlight just how much of an anomaly the Aztecs were, and that the current system that delegitimizes the religions of the New World is a tremendous frustrating design choice. And pretty clearly made so as to reuse the same mechanic across all three major civilizations in the New World(and doing the Muisca dirty in the process).

3) Oh backwards, backwards people, just sitting there waiting to die - There are multiple elements to this; a complete failure to understand why Spain was so successful in conquering established states in the New World, as well as either blinders or indifference to the complexity of New World organized states and their achievements. Let's start with the latter first, and focused exclusively on the Inca as those are my area of comfort on the topic.

The Inca were not backwards. I know, I know, you learned otherwise. And here's the caveat; the only thing that's true about that statement is with respect to their weapons and armor. The Inca were a highly centralized realm spanning almost the length of the Roman Empire at its peak from one end to the other. And instead of a sea that can provide rapid transportation from end to the other, there were mountains. The Inca system largely ran on its bureaucracy based out of Cuzco through which labor was controlled. This realm was so stable that it took the death of its emperor and the heir apparent back to back in order to start a civil war; prior to this, the Inca had no succession crisis at all. Despite the inherent hostility of the terrain, the realm was reunited, but the Spanish showed up days after the civil war ended. The one that ravaged the entirety of the Inca realm, lasted years, and further spread the disease that killed both the emperor Huayna Capac and his heir Ninan Cuyochi? Yep, that one. To say that the Inca system was stressed to all hell would be putting it lightly, yet despite that, it held. It would have probably started to recover. Up until the Spanish arrived at the best moment imaginable to topple it all over, but more on that later.

Back to the Inca, their political system was very complex and they had the economy to match. Yes, I hear you say, no currency, no writing system. To that, I say, centrally-ran economy and the quipu system. The Inca didn't manage to run this entire system and keep it rock solid throughout their entire history via the seat of their pants. Their economy was robust, demonstrably effective, and productive. Inca agricultural yields to this day are something we struggle to emulate on the terrain they farmed on. It was risk-mitigating, with a focus on stockpiling food in safehouse throughout the empire. The Inca were talented craftsmen both with metal and stone and built things such as suspension bridges, aqueducts, and mortar-free buildings that are standing to this day in one of the most earthquake-prone regions of the world.

On the conquest itself, well, I highlighted it up above to an extent. Pizarro showed up at the best time imaginable and decapitated the head of the state; taking the Sapa Inca hostage after an enormous political crisis had only just finished. This paralyzed all possibility of responding, and the Inca fell having never fought a proper battle because by this point they'd exhausted the armies long past their due service time(all men were obligated for a fixed amount of time to serve in the army) just wrapping up the Inca civil war. What about the Battle of Cajamarca? Well...that wasn't really a battle. Let me explain the Inca perspective. The Sapa Inca went to meet Pizarro as the first act of a new Sapa Inca looking to legitimize himself, and before he even got a chance to step foot in Cuzco after concluding the civil war. He went to meet Pizarro because he saw an opportunity for a show of strength by having these foreigners do the equivalent of kowtowing to him, Andean style. For more info on this, the book 'History of the Inca Realm' by Maria Rostworowski covers this in detail. To keep it short, Andean civilization had developed where hosting others with your own hospitality was a way to affirm the vassalage of the person being hosted. Rather than going to war, you'd lavishly treat the petty ruler and in exchange receive what you want out of that war be it labor, goods, vassalage, or all of the above. It's an act of submission by the one accepting. Coming from two entirely different and independently developed civilizations, neither understood what the other was after, especially with the language barrier.

So, Battle of Cajamarca. The Sapa Inca shows up with his army, but his army is largely unarmed and dressed for the ceremonial show of strength. He greets Pizarro's party warmly, and hosts them as is the tradition in the Andes. To him, they're submitting to him. To the Spanish, well, we know what happens. The Spanish pre-planned to ambush Atahualpa and got fortunate that his show of strength meant minimal guards and no weapons. They ambush his guard which included some of his best generals, capture the Sapa Inca, and with the majority of his army not even armed nor close, demand a ludicrous ransom for his release. With all organization collapsed, so did the army which never engaged directly with the Spanish and instead dispersed after a loooong civil war. In other words, the 'battle' is really just Spanish propaganda to glorify their conquest of the Inca. It was a small ambush where the Spanish arguably arrived at the best time imaginable and rolled a 20. Even a few days later and Atahualpa would have been in Cuzco and busy with far bigger fish to fry than interloping Spaniards. And the Inca weren't the Aztec; the Inca were more demographically cohesive, better governed, and with far fewer tribes to incite against the Inca and almost no significant organized neighbors like the Aztec had with their vassals and enemies. It's telling that the most notable native aids were the Chachapoyas which were a recent conquest during the reign of Huayna Capac; again, that's down to the mita system. The Inca were brutally efficient at demographic control and wrote the script on how to assimilate the recently conquered via resettlement, controlled marriages, encouraging Quechuafication, etc.

So with all that said, Paradox are doing Mesoamerica and especially the Andes dirty, and placing them on the same level as the tribal societies of the New World that didn't practice agriculture. Can basically be summed up as pulling the 'they're all the same' card on an entire hemisphere of people. And that's ignoring the ability of the Spanish to drop 40,000 men in the New World in 1530 ingame and the silly as all hell ability to wipe stacks of natives at 5-to-1 losing odds. All of that so that Paradox can model a failed narrative on the conquest of the Aztec(which depended on the Spanish playing the diplomacy game and functioned more like supporting the independence of all of their vassals) and the Inca(actual stars align scenario where barely any battles were fought). And that's on top of all the hurdles Paradox added because that was too easy. Between forcing a religious reformation of their religions for arbitrary reasoning that applies to only one society in the New World, penalties to production in the New World because the New World natives are too simple to know how to handle gold, terrible development for how prosperous the region was before the conquest, etc....it's maddening and frustrating as all hell.

2) what are you talking about? Aztec and Northern mesoamerica gets nahau, southern mesoamerica gets mayan, Andean America gets inti, tribals get animism

 

[Battlex]

Would say they weren't much of a factor at all. As in both cases Spain's case relied on exploiting internal instability. Disloyal tributaries in the case of the Aztecs and the aftermath of a civil war in the case of the Inca. They obviously are part of their capacity of bringing the instability a bit of an extra shakeup, but the conquistadors alone were extremely few in number and relied heavily on locals in both cases.

But they're obviously highly relevant for why the Spanish conquered, rather than it be another Nahua city state rise to power

 

[Battlex]

Yeah, the limitations are both in how Paradox has modeled/balanced the region and the linearity of their design for colonization. If it were anybody but the Aztec at the head of Mesoamerica's political hierarchy, I don't think New World colonization would have kicked off anywhere near as fast or as effectively, nor would states in Europe have been quite as interested. If it were any other state, It wouldn't have been as easy to conquer the region, and in turn, invading the Andes would have been physically impossible without ports and resources on the Pacific.

Paradox doesn't have the scope nor interest in imagining a scenario where the Spanish weren't able to exploit the instability and resentment in the Aztec Empire to topple the whole thing and were instead forced to act as traders and courtiers to start instead of conquerors. I sort of don't blame them, if I'm being honest., because the entire game premise is European colonialism into the rest of the world. Spanish success in Mexico inspired Spanish adventures not just in the Andes(Muisca and Inca) but also the Rio de La Plata, the American South, the Pueblo lands, etc. as well as inspired the colonial ambitions of the non-Iberian states to emulate Spain. I can absolutely understand not wanting to consider the consequences of a failed conquest of Mesoamerica because it turns the entire premise of the game upside down.

What would be nice, however, would be to at least ditch the tropes and bad history so that it isn't arbitrarily deterministic against the organized states of the New World. Force the player/colonizing AI to actually do what was done historically, which would be to either play the diplomacy game or to waltz in during peak instability, and don't pretend as if Europeans are just built different or some other nonsense. I share your frustration about the DLC they've dropped for the New World. I really regret giving them money for it and validating their terrible ideas.

On the topic of never accurately representing IRL, one thing that isn't actually related at all to New World natives is their borders for La Plata/Peru. For some reason, Chile's under La Plata :') Chile has NEVER been governed from Buenos Aires in their entire history. They were either very loosely governed from Lima, or autonomous and effectively their own colony. I'm Peruvian and we stereotypically have beef with Chile, but throw some damn respect on their country, goddamn. Either make it its own colonial region or have it(and Bolivia) share a colonial nation with Peru. If there's one thing that makes it abundantly clear that they have no idea what they're doing in Latin America, it's their colonial borders in South America. Actually just tabbing open Wikipedia and copying the first map they see levels of research.

The Inca also have no way of reaching their historical borders before Europeans show up, and that's with a player actively trying to recreate it. It's probably lowest on my list of concerns but it's just another thing that baffles me that they thought they could get away with charging money for. I don't know what Paradox thinks they've done in the Andes, but this ain't it chief.

I think fixing colonization is doable just using the systems that EUIV has, but I agree it's horribly done as-is. I actually tackled the topic just yesterday as it's my first time in a long time visiting the Paradox forums after hearing about the new upcoming update and figured well, I talked about colonialism, let's talk about colonization too.

Incan borders might not be doable by historical date but neither is the Spanish or ottoman empire. Mughals is quite hard to get their phases in time, although the peak is relatively easy

 

[mathieukls]

.... 1100 bugs and 657 open tickets on Jira... phew! As a tech PM myself, that's quite a scary number. Maybe it's just me but a day in the life of devs at Paradox would be a fun thing to watch.

- Severely lowered reformation desire gain.

Having recently mostly played in Europe (reformation spawning sometimes in the 1470s or 50 years ahead of schedule) this is a welcome change. I see a couple of NED changes too. Does that mean that they won't spawn under Burgundian PU?

I can go through so many of these and just say a huge thank you! You guys did well and I appreciate the hard work!

 

[SemirDahak]

Christian countries can join HRE by simply bordering it.

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[afowl]

Yes. This was needed because before developing the first thing you would do is turn on the development edict

And now since that option was removed it clearly indicates that you should not run eddicts right?