• 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:
Nice job improving NA region, I also did some work about it in my mod:
NA global.jpg


NA mississipi.png


but as a way to give more depth to the region, would it be possible to add two new religions?
-Kachina religion: for Pueblo people (Hopi, Zuni, Hopi-Tewa, and Keresan tribes, as well as in most Pueblo tribes in New Mexico).
-Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (S.E.C.C ): for Mississippian culture peoples.

I honestly think that to generalize totemism religion for all NA natives is not adequate.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
That's a neat looking mod. Only points I would raise is that Stadaconan accounting for both Stadacona and Osheaga is roughly equivalent to having one French tag that covers both Burgundy and France, and that second the Meskwaki starting location is just a big red warning sign.

Even the sources (websites that rarely if ever give any sort of scholarly source) that give them a Laurentian valley origin associate them with the regions of Ontario north-east of Lake Ontario, not the Laurentian mountains of western Quebec. Even that is a highly questionable call, because archaeology tells us the Saint Lawrence valley between Lake Ontario and Quebec was also part of the St Lawrence Iroquoian territory, and later Algonquin territory. Most scholarly sources I'm aware of assocate the Meskwaki's early EU IV era dwelling with the region of Detroit, which fits the known history and the archaeology much better (and is still, technically, the Saint-Lawrence-lower-Great-Lakes Valley)

Which is not to say they never lived in the Saint Lawrence lowlands, just that I would tend to associate the timing of their inhabiting that region with the time of the Central Algonquian's western migration (eg, from Ojibwe history), so long before EUI IV, rather than due to European colonial pressure in the 1600s (the colonial pressure would be what forced them from Detroit to Wisconsin).

More to the point, putting the Meskwaki where you have them means not having the Algonquin/Omamiwininiwak/Anicinape (distinct as one group within the broader Anishinabe grouping) at all (since the Meskwaki now hog their starting location), and that seems like a serious omission (likewise the Innu) given everyone else you do have there, and the relative importance of those two groups in North American history.

One of those days, I'll get around to having one of thse mods where I cut completely loose and show off what my idea of a North America with an unlimited tags and provinces budget looks like. Not suitable for the base game, but I will make it a mod one day.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
That's a neat looking mod. Only points I would raise is that Stadaconan accounting for both Stadacona and Osheaga is roughly equivalent to having one French tag that covers both Burgundy and France, and that second the Meskwaki starting location is just a big red warning sign.

Even the sources (websites that rarely if ever give any sort of scholarly source) that give them a Laurentian valley origin associate them with the regions of Ontario north-east of Lake Ontario, not the Laurentian mountains of western Quebec. Even that is a highly questionable call, because archaeology tells us the Saint Lawrence valley between Lake Ontario and Quebec was also part of the St Lawrence Iroquoian territory, and later Algonquin territory. Most scholarly sources I'm aware of assocate the Meskwaki's early EU IV era dwelling with the region of Detroit, which fits the known history and the archaeology much better (and is still, technically, the Saint-Lawrence-lower-Great-Lakes Valley)

Which is not to say they never lived in the Saint Lawrence lowlands, just that I would tend to associate the timing of their inhabiting that region with the time of the Central Algonquian's western migration (eg, from Ojibwe history), so long before EUI IV, rather than due to European colonial pressure in the 1600s (the colonial pressure would be what forced them from Detroit to Wisconsin).

More to the point, putting the Meskwaki where you have them means not having the Algonquin/Omamiwininiwak/Anicinape (distinct as one group within the broader Anishinabe grouping) at all (since the Meskwaki now hog their starting location), and that seems like a serious omission (likewise the Innu) given everyone else you do have there, and the relative importance of those two groups in North American history.

One of those days, I'll get around to having one of thse mods where I cut completely loose and show off what my idea of a North America with an unlimited tags and provinces budget looks like. Not suitable for the base game, but I will make it a mod one day.

First of all, thanks for your suggestions and all this interesting information. I really appreciate your interest in my mod and over all in accurate history.

I have researched a lot in order to try recreate how could NA political situation be in the 14th century, keep in mind that my mod is based on M&T mod which has a 1356 startdate.

About Stadacona, I tried to use native names for NA tribes (avoiding exonyms as much as possible) instead of how European called them. With Stadacona I'm refering all St. Lawrence Iroquoians, since St. Lawrence Iroquoians is an anchaeological name to refer to all Iroquoian speaking natives who lived around St. Lawrence river, I chosed to call them by one of their most important villages instead of something like "Saintlauretians".

Regarding the Meskwaki (it includes Sauk native too) starting location, it's difficult to say where they were around 1356 but what I found is:

"Historically the Meskwaki lived along the Saint Lawrence River in present-day Ontario, northeast of Lake Ontario. The tribe may have numbered as many as 10,000, but years of war with the Huron, whom French colonial agents supplied with arms, and exposure to new European infectious diseases reduced their numbers. In response to these pressures, the Meskwaki migrated west, first to present-day eastern Michigan in the area between Saginaw Bay and Detroit west of Lake Huron. Later they moved further west into what is now Wisconsin."

"The Sauk, an Algonquian languages people, are believed to have developed as a people along the St. Lawrence River. They were driven west by pressure from other tribes, especially the powerful Iroquois League or Haudenosaunee, which sought control over hunting grounds in the area. Some historians believe that the Sauk migrated to what is now eastern Michigan, where they settled around Saginaw Bay"

In other words, they moved because of Iroquois natives pressure which happened at the beggining of European contacts.

Of course, this kind of sources are not always reliable and it's difficult to place every tribe in their right place along the timeline but I did what I could alone in my free time.

Finally, as I said I'm very pleased to know people interested in the history of this amazing but many times forgotten region.

PS: about Osheaga, the only thing I've found is a Music and Arts Festival. If you have more data about it, I would like to know.
 
Last edited:
It indeed is, and is generally proposed as a more accurate Kanien'ke:haka spelling of the name. Not perfect (it's not the Laurentian spelling), but likely closer than Hochelaga.

As to the Meskwaki: I've seen that Wikipedia and the New World Encyclopedia making that claim - in exactly the same language. In short, a copy-paste. Other sites, while they mention the (entirely plausible) Ontario/Saint Lawrence habitation fo the Meskawki, are careful not to give any time frame for when it happened - while some mention wars with "france and other tribes" in the same paragraph, they don't specify which wars pushed the Meskwaki from where. And since the Meskwaki were first encountered by the French around Detroit, clearly it's not actual war with the French that pushed them out of the Saint Lawrence - more likely war with other tribes. Which are not tied to French presence. Note also that NWE and Wiki don't cite any source for that claim.

And it doesn't stand up to historical examination. As I already noted, archaeology firmly place the Laurentians all the way to Lake Ontario. Later European records place the Algonquin in the same region, after the Iroquoian collapse. There is very little historical gap for the Meskwaki to have lived in the region. Also, Champlain documented his visits to the region - where he initiated French contacts with the Huron - extensively. Had the Meskwaki been there at the time in the kind of numbers cited, he would have been aware of them. He makes no mention of them.

More to the point, the Huron definitely lived at their first contact with the French in the area north of Lake Ontario. French can't have provided them with guns before their first contact, so for the Meskwaki to move to the Detroit area in response to Huron attacks would have involved them moving *through* the territory of the people attacking them (or through Haudenosaunee Territory, also unlikely to be tolerated) is not plausible.

The concept of the Meskwaki ocupying Ontario along the Saint Lawrence at the time of European contact or even in the last few centuries leading to it (Laurentian Iroquoian period) goes against the written records, against arcaheological record, and against logical examination. Absent any source cited in both of those editable encyclopedia, there appears little reason to believe it's part of oral tradition.

What's far more likely is that the dating of that part of the history in Wiki and NWE is off, and the movement refered to occured earlier, perhaps around the same time as the westward migration of the Anishinabe or in a similar period. as that migration is well documented in oral history across the Algonquian-speaking people. It may have been the result of the pressures of war (Natives were perfectly capable of attacking each others without any need for European incitement), but the idea that it happened in

Though really, the main point is that the Algonquin really should be there, and the Meswkakie right now extend in their historical homeland (and in lands that even the boldest claims about Meskwakie history don't support)
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
I have a couple of questions -
1) Will you split the trade nodes
2) What happens if you do not have Conquest of Paradise? Will the natives all start as OPMS or start with all their land
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Looks good! This is unrelated, but it's the only way for this to get a chance to reach you.

It would be awesome if it became possible to add in a "Feitoria" mechanic.

If you look at colonial empires like Portugal or The Netherlands, they made their fortunes off of tiny trade ports and stations dotted all along the coast of Africa and Asia.

Yet the current state of the game requires conventional conquest of major provinces to gain trade influence.

If there were to be a mechanic, similar to the trade post mechanic in CK2, that would allow for trading nations to exert influence without requiring conquest, the game could be more accurate to history, as well as enable more diverse gameplay.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
One way to slow the European steam roll, more accurately reflect history and shift the mid and late game away from emphasis on interior provinces to the more realistic coastal game would be to split some of the east coast provinces. Manhattan should be three, if not four or five (Hudson Valley, Manhattan Island, East/West Long Island and Richmond). Particularly the islands. Make them work to get to the Iroquis/Huron. A similar argument can be made for the Tidewater region, but Nieuw-Amsterdam is the most obvious.
 
  • 1Love
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Splitting Manhattan five way would involve some of the smallest provinces size in the game, and some of the specific ones you propose (eg, Manhattan Island, two Long Island provinces, Staten Island/Richmond County) would be Gibraltar sized or smaller. While that's not a completely unheard off province size, it's mostly only ever used for isolated islands - and Manhattan doesn't warrant that kind of detail. Richmond County/Staten Island are even worse, at half the size of Malta, already the smallest island in the game.

You could argue for a case for Hudson Valley, New York City, Long Island (minus the boroughs) but any more than that is a major stretch.

The other problem with making people work to get to the Iroquois is that, in terms of inland colonization, they didn't really - and the Hudson valley is the case in point. Albany got its start at almost the same time as Manhattan, whereas the Hudson Valley in-between was only back-filled later.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Splitting Manhattan five way would involve some of the smallest provinces size in the game, and some of the specific ones you propose (eg, Manhattan Island, two Long Island provinces, Staten Island/Richmond County) would be Gibraltar sized or smaller. While that's not a completely unheard off province size, it's mostly only ever used for isolated islands - and Manhattan doesn't warrant that kind of detail. Richmond County/Staten Island are even worse, at half the size of Malta, already the smallest island in the game.

You could argue for a case for Hudson Valley, New York City, Long Island (minus the boroughs) but any more than that is a major stretch.

The other problem with making people work to get to the Iroquois is that, in terms of inland colonization, they didn't really - and the Hudson valley is the case in point. Albany got its start at almost the same time as Manhattan, whereas the Hudson Valley in-between was only back-filled later.
Well, just my two cents, but I always found it strange that there is no strait here, but instead there are these funny cuts through the peninsula. One or two straits would be good, I guess. You know better "how" to do this, so I don't even attempt to make a sketch.... :)

1601330676499.png
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I mean, that one *is* the historically accurate border - Virginia does own the southern tip of that peninsula (and did through all colonial time).

It would need to be split off as its own province if we were to have a strait, and again that would result in an extremely small (smaller than Gibraltar) province. So having a Virginia province extend on both sides of the strait is the best balance.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The icon is problematic, but so would any other symbol we could use. It may happen some day, but I wouldn't personally see it as a good use of my time right now.

Considering you're not a paid employee or apparently receiving independent contractor pay expecting anything isn't reasonable. Given that this is a publicly traded company with extensive revenues and probably considerable profits, off of this product no less, this is at best a little tacky.

That said, this statement grossly oversimplifies things. Given your research into other facets, I'm pretty sure you understand why totem poles are problematic. They carry baggage by being over used as a generic cultural trope for natives in the Western fiction genre. Other symbols would be a gross over generalization, but they don't have the same history.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
On the other other hand, border gore is more of an aesthetic concern than a gameplay one, and those borders have broadly existed (though disputed at times and changing in the details of specific lines) from 1632 to 2020 and counting. They'e essentially the only European political arrangement the region has ever known. There's always been a distinct southern tip linked to Virginia, a central-western section linked to Maryland (and cutting the other two apart), and a north-eastern section varyingly claimed by New Netherland, New Sweden, New Netherland again, Pennsylvania and Delaware).

Fudging them a little would be one thing, but ignoring them entirely for the sake of aesthetics is not something I'd personally consider.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Fudging them a little would be one thing, but ignoring them entirely for the sake of aesthetics is not something I'd personally consider
Oh, I'm certainly no map addict and I couldn't care less as to the exact historical borders as these were more often arbitrary than dictated by reason. But I think a good strait should never be omitted from the game if opportunity arises (same for islands btw), purely because they make army movement and interaction with ships more interesting. :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I mean, I'm all for straits when useful, but here the only reason to have them would be if we had a map that ignored historical borders entirely - all the good locations for straits are already adjacent.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Little late to the party but I have some comments on the new world. I love playing as the North American tribes already (the masochist in me maybe?) One problem I regularly encounter is that the Europeans will take their sweet time visiting North America. I had games where I hit the late 1600s without having major European contact and it is a little game ruining. This is especially true if Iberia gets wrecked or if I play as a western tribe. As such, I would really love it if there was some form of "American Renaissance" that could trigger in the 1600's if the Europeans are being a little slow. Basically let the remaining natives "reform" without institutions or tech advancement and have them get feudalism. From there it is up to the player to advance through the actual Renaissance and catch up on the tech tree. Would make the sunset invasion a tiny bit more likely and make the push west take more than a few years in North America like it did in reality.

Then there is razing cities. The Europeans acted much like the Mongolian horde in the Americas. The "plunder of paradise" is a sorely missing mechanic and the mechanic already exists. Allowing conquistadors to raze like the horde mechanic, but only to the new world natives that have yet to westernize, would be appropriate and fairly historically accurate (probably fairly easy to implement too). Entire nations only went to the new world hoping/expecting to find gold and other plunder, it is a big part of why most North American colonies failed at first. It missing from the game has always made me a little sad.

The other major missing piece for the America's is the currently sad and incredibly short term plague mechanic. A bubble with a "you lose manpower/goods/taxes for a year" is a really bland way to represent the apocalyptic destruction European plagues caused in the America's. I would love to see a devastation "ticker" event where devastation increases by 1% per month in every province in the new world. You can spend monarch power to clear it like usual but the more you own when the plague ticks the more likely it is you will have 100% devastation provinces in time for the European conquistadors to waltz in and take over. Plus, if provinces do get developed more, there will be more plunder for the Europeans. Once again, it would only effect non-westernized provinces.

Those are my takes on the missing parts of the new world. I am sure there is a lot more but those things are the things I would expect to be fairly easy to implement and help make the playthrough in the new world more interesting overall.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I know this is almost ghosting an old thread, but with the new provinces in Canada and Eastern America is there any remote possibility of seeing the Hudson bay and James bay areas improved?

I dislike how no British missions give development like settling greenland does. It would be nice to see another nation get a foothold in Canada except for the one spot of Quebec. Currently the province development is too low to make it feel worth it, but in my Great Britian games with friends I settle in the Hudson bay to allow another nation to get parts of colonial Canada to compete over.

Finally to the point of development in the New World, historical evidence suggests the Aztecs might have had the most development in the World. I'm not opposed to this & neither should others be since Indonesia & other parts of the world (Asia frequently) have the most development in the world. Brunei & Malacca alone often beat Constantinople, Paris, Amsterdam and London for the tallest city in the world. At worst North America is two techs behind Europe which is already the case for most of Asia.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
British Columbia has 12 provinces for 944 000 square kilometers (about 40-50% of which is wasteland). Oregon and Washington have 11 (Salish, Chehalis, Quileute, Yakima, Spokane, Palus, Chinook, Siuslaw, Kalapuya, Klamath, Umatilla) for about 450 000 square kilometers.

Don't see what's weird. Seems to me they have comparable province density. Actually, given the wasteland chunk in Oregon, Oregon and Washington probably have the higher density.
The Pacific North West Coast need some Love!!!
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I'd love to (I could do so much with that region!), but there are only so many hours in the day, and I do have a day job! At some point, when doing volunteer work on the map, I have to chose what gets done and what cannot be done right now. Someday, maybe. Hopefully!
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: