• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 22th of September

Hey everyone! Today is the last day of us talking about the native americans and the rework they are getting. We’ll be talking about the changes to the Federations and the new world setup. As you’ll see on the pictures for the map, a lot of tags have been split up in order to represent federations properly. A prime example is the Iroquois who will now be several tags and start in a federation at game start.

So let’s start with how to form them. Since we are splitting up the federal tags like the Huron and Iroquois I still wanted to retain some kind of identity for them. As such when you invite the first member to form a federation with you, you get the opportunity to also name the Federation. There are some default options scripted that can be based on Tags and Cultures which it will suggest for you, but you can of course just write whatever you want here.

1600776828277.png


We’ve also redone how leadership of the federation is decided. It is no longer decided on the death of the monarch of the leader in the tribe, instead we measure a cohesion value of the Federation. This value changes each month depending on the composition of the Federation but also some external factors. Keep in mind that any numbers & values are work in progress!

1600778713850.png


If cohesion hits 0% then it will trigger a change in leadership. In order to keep the cohesion high you want to keep similar cultures within your federation, however having one or two of a separate culture group won’t really be problematic. Another source of loss of cohesion is also if there are members that are stronger than the leader. For later in the game to help you keep a large federation together, if you have any colonizers on your border it will help you keep it together by having an external threat increasing your cohesion.

If a leadership change is triggered it will try to pick the strongest member to be the new leader, if the leader is the strongest then the federation will be disbanded. This entire process is 100% done in script, from calculation of members strength to what happens during leadership change. Currently for testing the strength is calculated from the max manpower of members and is done as a scripted function with an effect and looks like this:

Code:
calculate_federation_member_strength = {
    effect = {
        export_to_variable = { which = our_manpower value = max_manpower who = THIS }
        set_variable = { which = federation_strength which = our_manpower }

    }
}

Here’s the current list of values that affect your cohesion
  • -1 For every member not of leaders culture group
  • +1 For every member of leaders culture group
  • -1 For every member stronger than the leader
  • +1 for neighboring hostile Europeans

The aim here is to make Federations more something you can count on, instead of having to try and keep your prestige high or stack diplomatic reputation at all times just in case your leader at some random point dies, you can now count on it instead and try to plan around what you need to do in order to keep the leadership position.


Now I’m going to hand it over to a member of our beta program. @Evie HJ who have done the excellent work of reforming North America’s setup making it a much more vibrant and interesting place.

It's a whole (new) New World we live in

The setup for North America hasn’t really changed much at all since the release of Art of War, almost ix years ago – and, as far as the list of playable countries is concerned, since Conquest of Paradise even earlier. The new changes to the Native game mechanics in this patch provided a perfect opportunity to take a new look at a region that has remained largely untouched for a long time.

In some ways, this overhaul is our most ambitious review of the North American setup to date. The province count does fall short of Art of War (though fifty-three new provinces, not counting wastelands, is nothing to sneeze at), but the list of new tags is more than we ever added to North America at any single time. In fact, with fifty-six new tags, we’re adding more North American tags in this one overhaul than we have in the entire history of the Europa Universalis franchise.

Those tags are not evenly spread out across the continent. Two regions (the South-East United States and the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence) get the lion’s share of the tags. Others like the Great Plains or Hudson Bay, get a handful of provinces or tags. The West Coast, for its part, where we know almost nothing of Indigenous people before the last century or so of the game, was entirely outside the scope of this overhaul. This applies to the provinces as well as the tags: in broad terms, we tried to add provinces in the same general region we were adding tags, to keep the amount of empty (or tribal land) provinces roughly similar.

With twenty-one new tags, it is the South-East United States that receive the most work in this new overhaul. The reason is simple: up until now, the 1444 setup in the game represented the historical situation around 1600-1650. The first 150 years of the game – a time when the last great cities of the Mississippian civilizations flourished in the region (the more northern city, like Cahokia, were likely abandoned by 1444)– were left out entirely. This was the first thing we set out to fix, and the new setup, as a result, emphasize the situation that early European explorers and archaeologists tell us about – not English colonists two centuries later. By and large, most of those new tags are settled nations, and (except the Cherokee) all belong to the Muskogean culture group. This is a compromise for some of them: while they spoke Siouan languages like Catawba, they were heavily influenced by the Southern Appalachian Mississippian culture, and it’s those cultural ties we chose to emphasize.

1600773970686.png


In the new setup, the Creek Confederacy is no longer available at game start, and the Cherokee are reduced to a one-province statelet in the mountains. In their stead, the Coosa Paramount Chiefdom is now the major power of the region. Though a one-province nation in itself, it rules through a network of subject states (Satapo, an area stretching from the Kentucky border to Alabama along the spine of the Appalachians. Surrounding it are a number of smaller, independent chiefdoms, including both sites visited by the De Soto expedition (Altamaha, Cofitachequi, Joara, Ichisi, Chisca, as well as Atahachi, the future home of Chief Tuscaloosa) and of Muskogean towns that would eventually form the seeds of the future Creek Confederacy, like Coweta and Kasihta. Further west, in the valleys of the Mississippi, they are joined not only by more of the chiefdoms documented by De Soto, (Quizquiz, Anilco, Pacaha and Casqui, the last three corresponding to the Menard-Hodges, Nodena and Parkin Mound archaeological sites), but also by the Natchez people, who would, in later century, become the last tribe to embrace Mississippian culture.

Further north, our other focus region was the Great Lakes of North America. Here, the main concern was nothing to do with our setup representing the wrong date (except along the Saint Lawrence, where the Iroquoians of the sixteenth century were mysteriously missing), and everything to do with the fact that the two most famous (con)federations of natives, the Hurons and Iroquois, were represented as monolithic nations with no use for the in-game Federation mechanism. Once it was decided to represent each of the nations making up those two confederations independently, adding in the other relevant nations in the region was an obvious choice. As with the United States South-East, these are largely settled nations of Iroquoian cultures, although a handful of them are migratory instead.

1600773986832.png


This gives us a sizeable five new nations where the one Iroquois tag used to be: Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca (plus, starting much further south at game start but not forgotten, the Tuscarora). Opposing them are the less well-known member nations of the Huron Confederacy: Tahontaenrat, Arendaronon, Attignawantan and Attigneenongnahac. In addition to them, we have a selection of minor Iroquoian nations that can struggle to strike the right balance to remain neutral between these two powerful Confederacies. This notably include the aptly named Neutral Nation (Attiwandaron), as well as the Tionontate (or Tobacco Indians), the Wenro of far western New York, and the Erie of Northwest Pennsylvania (plus the already existing Susquehannock). As the last two (Erie, Susquehannock) represent nations that claimed large territory but with very little united government, they are represented as migratory nations. You can think of the migration as representing shifting balance of power among the different villages and groups of their respective nations, rather than actual physical relocation. Also represented as migratory are the first two Iroquoian nations ever encountered by European: Stadacona, on the site of present day Quebec City, and Osheaga (Hochelaga), in present Montreal. In their case, leaving them migratory was the simplest way to enable them to potentially vanish from the Saint Lawrence lowlands, as they did in the late sixteenth century.

Our changes didn’t stop at those new areas, though they received the bulk of the changes. Existing tags that represented larger confederations or culture group were split into (some of) their constituent parts: the Illinois are now represented by the Kaskaskia, Cahokia and Peoria, the Shawnee by Chalahgawtha, Kispoko and Hathawekela, and the Puebloan people expanded from Keres and Pueblo to Acoma, Zia, Ohkay Owingeh and Sandiat. In a similar vein, some particularly large groups that used to be represented by a single tag now have additional tags to represent them: this is the case of the Cree, with the addition of the Nehiyaw (Plains Cree) nation, the Ojibwe, who are now additionally represented by the Mississage for their easternmost group and the Nakawe (or Saulteaux) for their western bands, and the Sioux, now expanded to include the Wichiyena (Western Dakota) and Lakota nations. Historical confederations that were lacking some of their members or needing a boost also gained it: the Iron Confederacy gained the Nehiyaw and Nakawe, described above; the Three Fires now add the Mississage to their alliance, and the Wabanaki Confederacy of North-East North America can now count on the help of the Maliseet and Penobscot as well as the pre-existing Abenaki. Finally, three more tags are added on sheer account of their historical importance in the Colonial era, two as allies of New France, one as ally-turned-enemy of New England: the Algonquin of the Ottawa valley, the Innu of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and the Wampanoag of Massachusetts Bay.

1600774009748.png


Along with all these changes, we finally introduced Wasteland mountain ranges to North America. Not in the Rockies (where the handful of connections already represent major passes through the mountains), but rather, in the East, along the Appalachian mountains. While they may not seem like much today, they were formidable obstacle to westward expansion in colonial time, when it was said that there were only five paths from the East Coast westward that could be taken by large groups of people: around the mountains to the south in the Piedmont of Georgia, through the Cumberland gap on the border of Virginia and Tennessee, through the Cumberland Narrows of western Maryland, the Allegheny gaps of Pennsylvania, and finally through the valley of the Mohawk river, in New York. In addition, through it didn’t allow for east-west travel per se, the Great Valley of the Appalachians was another significant route through the region, running from Alabama to Pennsylvania. All of them are now represented in the game, along with the mountains that bordered them.

We also tried to adopt a somewhat consistent standard in the naming of provinces, and revise province names accordingly. The new standard prefers the self-given names of a Native group (tribe, nation, band…) who lived in the region where we can find one. If none can be found, other options include a name given to a local people by a neighboring tribe (provided it’s not derogatory), or a geographic name in a local Native language. In all cases, we now tend to favor native spelling where we are able to find it, though symbols that are particularly unusual in the standard Latin Alphabet may be set aside or approximated for our players’ benefit.


That’s it for today, as usual I’ll answer questions in the thread however there’s one I want to address yet again as it keeps getting asked and I can’t answer every single time it gets asked. People have asked if these features will be applied to South America or the Siberian Natives etc. It all depends on time, the main focus is to rework the North Americans and if I have time I will make sure it plays nice with others that can also benefit but it is not a priority. Next week will have it’s development diary written by Johan.
 
  • 153Like
  • 69Love
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
Reactions:
Will Federations be moddable?

I think there are quite a few people who would love the ability to create something like the Swiss Confederacy with perhaps a leadership stuff like you did for the Natives.

Just to poke this again. This federation system looks like it has the potential to be very interesting, and if the "unify the tags" stuff discussed here goes through, even more so.

I think it would be worth it considering to add the same or a similar system for other places in the world. There are quite a few (con)federations in the old world that could use some more love, a certain alpine alliance included. This is of course slightly out of scope for this particular overhaul, but I'd suggest keeping the possibility in mind going forward.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Ah ha! Did something just slip there? :p

Haha. Sorry to disappoint, but this was a reference to past work, not future. It's fairly public knowledge that I worked on West Africa for the Art of War overhaul.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
British Columbia is extremely mountainous and it's on a latitude comparable to Moscow.

I mean, that's technically true, but it's also highly misleading. The *northern* parts of BC (Fort St John or so) are on a similar latitude to Moscow (55/56 degree). Fort St John is also the first European settlement within British Columbia (in timeline, at that), well before electric heating or any of those comforts (so it,s not exactly uninhabitable), and the province corresponding to Fort St John is also the *northernmost* in-game province for British Columbia (Alberta goes a little further north, simply because the Peace river country was of great importance in Hudson Bay Company explorations and operations.

Pretty much every province in British Columbia on the map is thus actually well south of Moscow. And while the landscape is rugged, a lot of the interior is rugged plateaus of valleys hills rather than out and out impassable mountains.

The existing wasteland is underselling it, in my opinion. It's definitely missing the Coast Mountains in the southwest, which to my knowledge are essentially impassible.

It wouldn't change much, actually. Mountain wastelands are narrow strips a few pixels wide representing only the impassable ridgeline itself. It wouldn't actually affect the existing province count (the coastal provinces to the west represent the Native-inhabited bays and islands along the coast; Tsiloqtin to the east represent the also-inhabited Chilcottin plateau). The Coast Range are the area in-between, not any of those provinces.

Plus, generally speaking, Mountain wastelands would only be added if two conditions are met:
1. There are two provinces that should have absolutely no connection to each other (no transportation at all between them). If there is any part of the border between the two province that we think should be traversable (mountain pass, desert path, etc), then we just represent the two provinces as adjacent, and we don't put any mountain wasteland between them.
AND
2. There isn't an already-existing wasteland province of the map that the new province can be part of. Otherwise, we just extend that existing wasteland a bit rather than adding a new one under a different name.

Under these rules, we wouldn't actually add the Coastal range: we'd just extend the existing BC wasteland a little further south to come between Tsiloqtin and the sea. It wouldn't have much impact on overall percentage.

Comparing that to how things have panned out historically, the current map feels slightly arbitrary. And while we're on the subject, it really doesn't help that outside of San Francisco, the provinces are all basically at the same level of development, even when that doesn't make a lot of sense.

How things panned out historically is largely outside the scope of this game, and largely a factor of nineteenth century social and political circumstances - in game terms, the mid 19th century united states had a lot more monarch points and willingness to spend it on the Pacific Northwest than the British Crown.

In 1444, or even 1821 (the period we're interested in), the development differences would be slight if existent at all. Terrain type (which affects development costs) may need to be revised, but that's about the extent of any changes that might need to be made with regard to development.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The one nice thing about PDX Tinto taking point on future EU4 content is that, being that it’s based in Spain (where people speak Spanish, and is neighbor to Portugal where people speak Portuguese), as it’s bring set up and developers are hired, those locally-hired devs will speak Spanish (and potentially Portuguese), meaning that the chances that South America (where people speak Spanish, and includes Brazil where people speak Portuguese) gets its much-needed overhaul sooner rather than later increase dramatically.

It’s an area that’s been in need of much love for awhile, but considering 99% of the continent has either Spanish or Portuguese as their country’s official language, it does put a barrier up to a vast amount of historical records for the devs who are not fluent in either. It actually would not surprise me if it’s the next place to receive a numbered patch dedicated to it, in the same way that this is the SEA [and friends] update, now that the people directly working on EU4 will be able to read, understand, and apply those historical records to the game, and if said theoretical update extended to include all of SA, the Caribbean, another pass at Central America, and even Southwest US which was historically Spanish- or Mexico-controlled for a lot of the time, that would be triply-swell

But for now, I’m happy with the changes we’re getting in North America, and hopefully I’ll be able to say the same about South America soon too!
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The one nice thing about PDX Tinto taking point on future EU4 content is that, being that it’s based in Spain (where people speak Spanish, and is neighbor to Portugal where people speak Portuguese), as it’s bring set up and developers are hired, those locally-hired devs will speak Spanish (and potentially Portuguese), meaning that the chances that South America (where people speak Spanish, and includes Brazil where people speak Portuguese) gets its much-needed overhaul sooner rather than later increase dramatically.

It’s an area that’s been in need of much love for awhile, but considering 99% of the continent has either Spanish or Portuguese as their country’s official language, it does put a barrier up to a vast amount of historical records for the devs who are not fluent in either. It actually would not surprise me if it’s the next place to receive a numbered patch dedicated to it, in the same way that this is the SEA [and friends] update, now that the people directly working on EU4 will be able to read, understand, and apply those historical records to the game, and if said theoretical update extended to include all of SA, the Caribbean, another pass at Central America, and even Southwest US which was historically Spanish- or Mexico-controlled for a lot of the time, that would be triply-swell

But for now, I’m happy with the changes we’re getting in North America, and hopefully I’ll be able to say the same about South America soon too!

I'm not saying another update to Central America and the US southwest would be bad (far from), but as far as maps and countries go, I'd consider them to be largely on a level with where Eastern North America is now - this overhaul is North America catching up to what Central got in Golden Century, since they were both at Art of War level before then. South America on the other hand is not in good shape.

Of course, at some point, adjustments may need to be made to use new game mechanisms, but that's true of the whole world.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The one nice thing about PDX Tinto taking point on future EU4 content is that, being that it’s based in Spain (where people speak Spanish, and is neighbor to Portugal where people speak Portuguese), as it’s bring set up and developers are hired, those locally-hired devs will speak Spanish (and potentially Portuguese), meaning that the chances that South America (where people speak Spanish, and includes Brazil where people speak Portuguese) gets its much-needed overhaul sooner rather than later increase dramatically.

It’s an area that’s been in need of much love for awhile, but considering 99% of the continent has either Spanish or Portuguese as their country’s official language, it does put a barrier up to a vast amount of historical records for the devs who are not fluent in either. It actually would not surprise me if it’s the next place to receive a numbered patch dedicated to it, in the same way that this is the SEA [and friends] update, now that the people directly working on EU4 will be able to read, understand, and apply those historical records to the game, and if said theoretical update extended to include all of SA, the Caribbean, another pass at Central America, and even Southwest US which was historically Spanish- or Mexico-controlled for a lot of the time, that would be triply-swell

But for now, I’m happy with the changes we’re getting in North America, and hopefully I’ll be able to say the same about South America soon too!
Last 20 years saw an increase in publications about Iberian colonialism in English.
That's not an excuse I would give to the devs for making poor to no research.

What greases the wheels is market, and on that North America has a big share of it with all their Northern European ancestry. Hence the focus.

The difference between the UK expansion and the Iberian expansion is telling.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
If South America will be redone, then the Amazon is a big place to start - we have proof now that there were truly gargantuan cities along the Amazon and that the area was quite developed - but the diseases wiped all of them out quickly and little traces remain as they mostly used wood
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
If South America will be redone, then the Amazon is a big place to start - we have proof now that there were truly gargantuan cities along the Amazon and that the area was quite developed - but the diseases wiped all of them out quickly and little traces remain as they mostly used wood

That's true. But while Archaeology can guide where new things are added, it's a very poor source of information on what to add itself. Speaking for a moment of my experience with the North American gargantuan ruined cities of the Mississippi (and with attempts to add them in 1399, way back when I was an EU3 modder...)

Archaeological ruins are extremely hard to add without some sort of record (written OR oral) of their existence to give us a basic idea of what the notable political entities were. That's what makes the Southern Mississippian much easier to add, for example: we have both written (De Soto and Prado's accounts, predating the main devastation from diseases) and oral history (the Creeks are the direct descendants of the southern Mississippian, and the Cherokee their long time neighbor, and they kept the memory of the older cities alive in their traditions). They also kept names alive for the older moundbuilders cities near them (or sometime even, the cities in which they lived - The Cherokee weren'T moundbuilders, but they borrowed former moundbuilders cities aplenty).

We don't have anything comparable for the Middle Mississippians. Only a handful of the sites even have native names at all (and none of them are the names the inhabitants of the city used). The rest have names like "BBB Motors" or "Kincaid Site" based on whatever colonial European features existed near the ruins when they were found - because we have no idea whatsoever what the Indigenous people may have called those sites. The oral histories we know of in the region give us almost nothing to go on. We have some outlines of their culture thanks for archaeology, but almost no indication of their political situation.

Now, I'm not especially versed in the history of the Amazonian cities (I know about the topic, but I don't know what the latest research say about them). But I know their North American cousins are essentially unrepresentable, and, unless we have a lot more oral history from the neighboring Amazonian people than I was given to understand, representing them in game as anything more than, say, a province modifier would be extremely difficult.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Last 20 years saw an increase in publications about Iberian colonialism in English.
That's not an excuse I would give to the devs for making poor to no research.

What greases the wheels is market, and on that North America has a big share of it with all their Northern European ancestry. Hence the focus.

The difference between the UK expansion and the Iberian expansion is telling.
Of course, and my intention wasn’t to make excuses for the Devs. But on that note, another nice thing about the development studio now being one based in Spain is that the people working on the game will in theory care about a lot more about Iberia and the places that Spain and Portugal affected historically, such as South America. It doesn’t excuse the prior devs for neglecting it up to now, but with a fresh set of eyes from a different area - one that has a connection to South America that Sweden does not - it is a lot more likely that Brazil, and Argentina, and Columbia, become the passion projects of these devs and receive the rich content that those regions deserve, as well as obviously Iberia too possibly getting another pass from the people who actually live there.

Marker does dictates, but people will always gravitate towards working on what they’re familiar with to when given the option, so now you have people who will be more familiar with these under-represented areas, so hopefully they don’t stay under-represented for long!
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The one nice thing about PDX Tinto taking point on future EU4 content is that, being that it’s based in Spain (where people speak Spanish, and is neighbor to Portugal where people speak Portuguese), as it’s bring set up and developers are hired, those locally-hired devs will speak Spanish (and potentially Portuguese), meaning that the chances that South America (where people speak Spanish, and includes Brazil where people speak Portuguese) gets its much-needed overhaul sooner rather than later increase dramatically.

It’s an area that’s been in need of much love for awhile, but considering 99% of the continent has either Spanish or Portuguese as their country’s official language, it does put a barrier up to a vast amount of historical records for the devs who are not fluent in either. It actually would not surprise me if it’s the next place to receive a numbered patch dedicated to it, in the same way that this is the SEA [and friends] update, now that the people directly working on EU4 will be able to read, understand, and apply those historical records to the game, and if said theoretical update extended to include all of SA, the Caribbean, another pass at Central America, and even Southwest US which was historically Spanish- or Mexico-controlled for a lot of the time, that would be triply-swell

But for now, I’m happy with the changes we’re getting in North America, and hopefully I’ll be able to say the same about South America soon too!
There have been some great threads on South America in the suggestions forum; here, here and here for example. Being a dumb American, I'm no expert on this stuff but from what I have looked into a lot of the research is pretty good (or at least good enough for EUIV purposes). You don't need any special connection to the Latin world, just for someone at Paradox to follow up on what others have done.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
If South America will be redone, then the Amazon is a big place to start - we have proof now that there were truly gargantuan cities along the Amazon and that the area was quite developed - but the diseases wiped all of them out quickly and little traces remain as they mostly used wood
Agree.

What I wonder the most is why we can do the 1804-1086 Pacific North West Lewis and Clark expdition route, but can not the 1541-1542 Amazon Francisco de Orellana expedition?

Also, we must remember that Portuguese were going all up the Amazon river to attack the spanish missions on the Upper Amazon.

EU4 alredy have huge playable parts of Inner Africa, so an Amazon route should be complety justifiable for both native and colonial interaction. All we need is some of the better know Amazonian nations like the Omaguas (Cambeba).
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I really dont think a studio in Spain will change much at all really.

Regarding amazonian cities, its important to note that much like many missisipian cities, we still know very little about the societies places like Kuhikugo, and even less about some of the other more recently discovered cities and sites. We'd be walking into some fairly uncertain academic territory, and that kind of thin ice can quickly cave in below you. Bottom line is, knowing the cities and cultures existed doesnt necessairly mean we know the four main ''components'' of a tag all that well (religion, culture, flag, ideas). But as mentioned, specific tags are of lesser importance than the vast mechanical problems present in South America.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I mean, even knowing a name of native origin (Kuhikugu) put it ahead of just about any Middle Mississippian City except Cahokia, and unlike Cahokia (named for a tribe who lived there later, who may or may not be related to the people of the city), Kuhikugu appears to be named in a language that seems likely to be the language of the descendants of the people of the city...and I'd still go for Cahokia anyway if it was timeline-appropriate (largely abandoned by 1450).

Honestly, on that strength, if I were doing South America (which, again, I won't), I'd probably throw Kuhikugu in. Religion would have to be simplified to the South-American catchall, Culture would likely represent the people currently believed to be descendants of the inhabitants, flag can be winged from pottery, and archaeology can be surprisingly useful in figuring out ideas (or push come to shove, generic ideas still exist if nothing else can be found).

Name is really the lynchpin. If you have a reasonably appropriate name and you have arcaheological remnants, you can wing the rest. It may not be very detailed, but it will be there.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Honestly, on that strength, if I were doing South America (which, again, I won't), I'd probably throw Kuhikugu in. Religion would have to be simplified to the South-American catchall, Culture would likely represent the people currently believed to be descendants of the inhabitants, flag can be winged from pottery, and archaeology can be surprisingly useful in figuring out ideas (or push come to shove, generic ideas still exist if nothing else can be found).

I for one long for the days of when a South American religion exists, and we leave the dark days of the Cult of the Great Boar behind us :). But i think the real uncertainty lies on more recent sites, as opposed to Kuhikugu, such as the cities more ''deep'' into the ''wasteland'' of the current map uncovered with orbital imagery.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Yeah. Those, like many of the Mississippian sites, might just not be doable. I don't foresee much chance, for example, of a mosaic of local cities in the jungle able to interact with one another.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I really like the look of a lot of these changes, the way North America previously felt like terra nullius that was just there for Europeans to claim really bugged me. I feel like federations should be able to maintain themselves when they reform btw, either by integrating as a new form of republic (maybe similar to Switzerland) or by getting a new mechanic (literally a federation of indigenous nations with guns and banking).

Also, would like to see if anything similar is being added for South America - certainly some more Tupi nations are needed (with the possibility of a big Tupi Confederacy) and the Wayuu would be cool too at a minimum. I also feel like Inca should have more places to conquer, once they actually form (if you select the later start date at least) they basically can't see beyond their own borders. Irl each Sapa Inca had to conquer new lands so he'd have an estate to pass on to his descendants, because he and they were disinherited upon becoming emperor. So it would be cool to have something to represent that need for the Inca state to expand. They also desperately need their own government form (like with Russians, there should be a version shared between all small Andean monarchies at the start and then a unique version for whoever manages to eat up their neighbours and form Tawantinsayu). I've been considering how to mod this myself but it would be great if that region got a proper official update.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: