Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AGC/EEP: Americas

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Personally I'm for making all but the Aztecs and Inca as natives really...

Also, the Aztecs and Inca should be given an all-out colonizing AI, and start out very, very small. (1 province)
Give them conquistadors in place of their normal leaders.

Benefits: They start out their proper size and grow slowly over time into a powerhouse, right before they get blasted by the Spaniards. Also, they will be spending all their money expanding, and won't have money to build adequate defences.

I'm going to playtest this right now :D
 
To be completely honest about North America, I would be in favor of eliminating all the native countries except the Iroquois and the Huron. All natives in NA do is assist the player in his colonization by giving him easy colonial cities.
 
Originally posted by Twoflower
It is imperative that you don't only consider each state by itself, but also in relation to others. Unless we are planning to remove all North American native states, we have ensure at least basic playability of all nations still present there. Therefore at the very least leave the Iroquois the Huron as a state they can interact with, and keep another state that borders the Cherokee. Otherwise there is not much point in keeping unplayable Cherokee and Iroquois when their tags could be used for playable nations elsewhere (which could also be an option, though).
Click to expand...
that is true. but if i m forced to choose between leaving more nations around or eliminating all nations, i would be in favour of the latter.
 
Originally posted by Mad King James
Personally I'm for making all but the Aztecs and Inca as natives really...

Also, the Aztecs and Inca should be given an all-out colonizing AI, and start out very, very small. (1 province)
Give them conquistadors in place of their normal leaders.

Benefits: They start out their proper size and grow slowly over time into a powerhouse, right before they get blasted by the Spaniards. Also, they will be spending all their money expanding, and won't have money to build adequate defences.

I'm going to playtest this right now :D
Click to expand...

That would however suck for the Aztecs and Inca. Cleary in Meso- and Southamerica there were several more states who don't deserve inclusion any less than 6 new Indonesian sultanates. A roughly historical, playable - which requires enough nations for them to interact with and fight against - setup in pre-columbian Meso- and South America would definitely be the first thing tags freed in North America should be used for.
 
Your setup is great, but unless more tags are granted I'm afraid it is impossible to implement. :(
 
Originally posted by Twoflower
That would however suck for the Aztecs and Inca. Cleary in Meso- and Southamerica there were several more states who don't deserve inclusion any less than 6 new Indonesian sultanates...
Click to expand...
while i disagree with that statement, i do agree that a few nations should be included around Aztec and inca to make it playable. i think El Leon is already working on that in the Mesoamerica thread.
 
Making the Aztecs small but colonizing does make them interesting in a fantasia sort of way, and isn't THAT ahistorical, as especially the Inca were building the first real 'empire' ever seen in the area. Don't forget that until the Inca and Aztecs, all the cities were just that, cities, not empires per se. There were TRIBAL empires, and tribal hegemonies over cities, but nothing like the Aztec or Inca empires.

Also, it represents quite a bit better the way the Aztecs and Incas expanded their empire. Conquest yes, but also extensive city building.
 
Originally posted by Mad King James
Making the Aztecs small but colonizing does make them interesting in a fantasia sort of way, and isn't THAT ahistorical, as especially the Inca were building the first real 'empire' ever seen in the area. Don't forget that until the Inca and Aztecs, all the cities were just that, cities, not empires per se. There were TRIBAL empires, and tribal hegemonies over cities, but nothing like the Aztec or Inca empires.

Also, it represents quite a bit better the way the Aztecs and Incas expanded their empire. Conquest yes, but also extensive city building.
Click to expand...

The Incas were experts at integrating the lands they conquered. They were able to make Quechua the dominate language across their empire by doing such things as shuffling populations around, and moving sacred tribal artifacts to the capital of Cuzco. This made Cuzco the center of every religion in the empire.
 
Originally posted by C.N.
I think that the conclusion so far is to remove Lenape and Dakota, and that Iroquios and Cherokee are the most important ones. So what about Shawnee, Huron and Creek? I know next to nothing about these ones, how much did they contribute to the political affairs of NA?
Click to expand...

- you can't have the Iroquois without the Huron, they were mortal enemies. The Huron-Iroquoian situation had a HUGE impact on French, English and Dutch colonial enterprising.
 
Originally posted by ribbon22
I like what you've done wtih NA MKJ, I'd have added the Shawnee and the Creek though. ;)
Click to expand...

Did they do enough to be in the game instead of some real state, like the many possible ones in Indonesia?
 
Originally posted by ribbon22
- you can't have the Iroquois without the Huron, they were mortal enemies. The Huron-Iroquoian situation had a HUGE impact on French, English and Dutch colonial enterprising.
Click to expand...

The Cherokee and Iroquois *barely* made it in man... and only because they had a semblance of a state going on, and were just beginning the opening stages of a central american style agrarian empire. Their enemies well... the Huron didn't want to be assimilated and appealed to the French to aid them, but you couldn't call them a state.

The Shawnee were subjugated by the Iroquois in a rather colonial fashion, and the Creek were raiders, not conquerers.

To spice up North America, with the new rebel rules, spawning rebels upon the event of an indian raid would make things quite spicy ;)
 
Originally posted by Mad King James
The Cherokee and Iroquois *barely* made it in man... and only because they had a semblance of a state going on, and were just beginning the opening stages of a central american style agrarian empire. Their enemies well... the Huron didn't want to be assimilated and appealed to the French to aid them, but you couldn't call them a state.

The Shawnee were subjugated by the Iroquois in a rather colonial fashion, and the Creek were raiders, not conquerers.

To spice up North America, with the new rebel rules, spawning rebels upon the event of an indian raid would make things quite spicy ;)
Click to expand...

The point is however that if the Iroquois and Cherokee aren't really playable anyway - due to lack of opponents - they could just as well be dropped in favour of more useful, playable nations in other areas. What matters here is not just whether each state by itself deserves to be in (which only the Iroquois and Cherokee really qualify for) but if there is a political environment of at least two nations bordering each other that makes for a playable situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back