Has someone any idea if this is editable? Currently the indian-nations keep their technology on 1 and are not able to build improvements. If it is editable, can someone tell me how?
-
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.
I think all you have to do is change their tech group from exotic to something else (muslim?). I'd do a search on aztec tech group or some such thing.
How can I change tech group without changing the savegame file? Changing the group in savegame does not affect technology or fortifications.
The game sets begin of the next month every technology expanded back to 1.
they are not supposed to have advanced tech. they never really discovered iron and so never entered the iron age necessary for further tech improvements. though i don't see why their trade doesn't improve.
I just read the Huszics-FAQ and it seems that all countries of which the capitol is placed in exotic-territories (America, Africa, Eastern-Asia) are not able to build improvements no matter what techgroup they are. It seems that it`s the same for technology: 1 for central/south america, 5 for east-asia, etc. If that`s true it really sucks because it means no exotic country is really playable.
I'm not too sure that this is completely true - I've seen the United States break loose and be able to build stuff. Or perhaps are the coastal North American territories not coded as exotic?
I think N-america & f.a. persia & northern-india are not penaltiesed. I played with Mughals and was able to develop my technology & build improvements. The same with USA. My only experiences until date is that building improvements is not possible with Aztecs, Inca`s & Japan.
I though at first that the penalty was country-tag-bounded so I replaced original Aztecs with Aragon-tag, but the result was the same: no improvements. I`m not sure what`s about technology-development however.( I forgot to test it before I reinstalled EU to unmake all changes)
I though at first that the penalty was country-tag-bounded so I replaced original Aztecs with Aragon-tag, but the result was the same: no improvements. I`m not sure what`s about technology-development however.( I forgot to test it before I reinstalled EU to unmake all changes)
Originally posted by Kasperus
If that`s true it really sucks because it means no exotic country is really playable.
They're playable, but only in a completely realistic sense: a kingdom which remains rooted in the Stone Age due to lack of any workable metals, and therefore cannot compete with Eurasia on any remotely comparable tech level, being unable to develop even basic cannon or gunpowder weapons.
Which, I grant you, doesn't allow much scope for gameplay, but the Aztecs and Incas didn't have any IRL either. They got discovered: they got waxed: they got annexed. Game over.
OK, I can perhaps accept that from a historical point of view. But then how you explain the same penalty for Japan & China? The last time I looked they were still there.
Btw, the game is meant to try to change the history.
Which btw is AFAIK not true for Japan. They had (may be learned from the Cinese) powder and fireworks - and used it, though mainly for entertaining and not for warfare purposes.
Regards
Thorsten
The complete refusal of China and Japan to innovate technology and explore/compete in/conquer the world is definitely more cultural than enforced: EU2 will apparently make it possible to change this, but only at the cost of stability problems. The way EU1 is written simply does not admit of enabling those kind of changes. The IGC crew might be able to do it as a fantasy option, but you're better off if they don't - given Western modes of thought and Eastern riches, even the AI China will manage to conquer the world before 1600
The Aztecs/Incas et al are several thousand years behind in the technology race as of 1492. However much you are able to change what happens from that point *onwards*, you can't alter the fact that they're *already* far too far behind to ever catch up. EU is about changing what happens during its time period: changing previous history to give the Aztecs an unreal technology level is not what the game's about, although I can well understand people wanting a game where you can do that.
Yes, I know the second paragraph isn't in reply to Thorsten; I'm just too dumb to split this into two posts thereby increasing my postage count.
Last edited:
Historical accuracy vs. historical possibility - again?
I think this discussion is similar to many earlier ones on various subjects, which all boils down to the question of historical accuracy vs. historical possibility.
I, for one, am willing to take the path of possibility any day, since, as I argued in another thread, the road of accuracy, in it's most extreme, leads to documentaries. I love the historical framework, but don't think hardcoding possibilities out because of enlightened hindsight as to what this and that civilization historiccaly accomplished, is the way to go.
I feel that all and every possibility should be open to the -UNDISPUTED- ruler as a path to follow, although, as in the protestant pope thread, they should not all be easy routes to lead. And this is how this should be treated if you ask me: there should be different chances of success, differing costs, varying time requirements etc., etc; The ways to illustrate the complexity of various techs as compared to the level and branches in question for instance, are many, and should be explored and tried out before banning the possibility altogether as some sort of "historical impossibility", 'cause I for one don't believe in those.
To take the above given example of a pagan techgroup not being able to advance is positively absurd to me. Of course they would be able to learn new technology, extract and use new resources etc. if given a chance; when ninety percent or more dies in - what? Fifty years, or so when being introduced to the european culture, then of course it gets harder. One must also remeber that we are often talking about old, sophisticated cultures here, like the chinese and azteq for instance, and many, many of the european basic innovations rely heavily on these to begin with.
One could think of Japan which, although in a slightly different situation during the fourteen hundreds obviously, but nevertheless thought of as pagan in EUI and absolutely not in the latin tech tree, are today one of the leading nations in advanced technology of any kind. When motivated, a civilization can absorb tech and build upon it quite easily it seems to me.
pH.
I think this discussion is similar to many earlier ones on various subjects, which all boils down to the question of historical accuracy vs. historical possibility.
I, for one, am willing to take the path of possibility any day, since, as I argued in another thread, the road of accuracy, in it's most extreme, leads to documentaries. I love the historical framework, but don't think hardcoding possibilities out because of enlightened hindsight as to what this and that civilization historiccaly accomplished, is the way to go.
I feel that all and every possibility should be open to the -UNDISPUTED- ruler as a path to follow, although, as in the protestant pope thread, they should not all be easy routes to lead. And this is how this should be treated if you ask me: there should be different chances of success, differing costs, varying time requirements etc., etc; The ways to illustrate the complexity of various techs as compared to the level and branches in question for instance, are many, and should be explored and tried out before banning the possibility altogether as some sort of "historical impossibility", 'cause I for one don't believe in those.
To take the above given example of a pagan techgroup not being able to advance is positively absurd to me. Of course they would be able to learn new technology, extract and use new resources etc. if given a chance; when ninety percent or more dies in - what? Fifty years, or so when being introduced to the european culture, then of course it gets harder. One must also remeber that we are often talking about old, sophisticated cultures here, like the chinese and azteq for instance, and many, many of the european basic innovations rely heavily on these to begin with.
One could think of Japan which, although in a slightly different situation during the fourteen hundreds obviously, but nevertheless thought of as pagan in EUI and absolutely not in the latin tech tree, are today one of the leading nations in advanced technology of any kind. When motivated, a civilization can absorb tech and build upon it quite easily it seems to me.
pH.
Last edited:
perhaps if you could give them a -10 in all tech categories and have them advance normally (from -10 so one tech advance would raise them to -9) after meeting the european community, it would be semi realistic.
but i doubt the game engine supports that.
on the other hand, i believe they should be given the ability to explore and colonise their surrounding provinces. the one problem i had while playing them was the lack of anything to do except sit and wait for spain to land.
but i doubt the game engine supports that.
on the other hand, i believe they should be given the ability to explore and colonise their surrounding provinces. the one problem i had while playing them was the lack of anything to do except sit and wait for spain to land.
What's funny (one of the many things) in EU is the possibility to change history. When someone chooses to play with an exotic country (correct me if I am wrong) it's because he is looking for some extra fun. But the game, when we are playing with these countries, cuts our legs.
You have to remember that most of these exotic countries were so technologically behind that they had no chance of fighting a war against a European power and winning, except by extreme force of numbers. In the case of the Aztecs, I believe the historical Spanish conquered their entire empire with less than 10,000 men, because the Aztecs lacked horses, gunpowder, or most forms of worked metals, while the Spanish were largely veteran soldiers equipped with horses, steel swords and armor, crossbows designed for piercing steel armor, and primitive firearms.
I severely doubt that, regardless of how much they spent on technological advancement, the Aztecs could have mounted those sorts of technologies even in the 1750s (if left unmolested till then); they were conquered in the 1520s I believe.
In the case of China and Japan, at least they had horses and metalworking technologies. But even then, they were centuries behind in most forms of military-related technology or (in the case of gunpowder) simply did not use those technologies they did have for military purposes. Yes, Japan did come up to the same technology level as the Western European powers, but that didn't happen until the 19th century, and then only due to a LOT of shameless borrowing, rather than native invention. China - well, it could be argued that they still are playing catch-up.
Now, I'm no stickler for complete historical accuracy, but giving any of these nations technological improvements at anything close to European levels is simply unrealistic for at least the first two-thirds of the scenario (with possible exceptions in the trade and infrastructure areas). It's possible they could start playing catch-up late in the game (as Japan did in the mid 1800's), but by then they should be so hopelessly behind in land and naval techs that they don't have enough time to catch up before the end of the scenario (even in GC).
I severely doubt that, regardless of how much they spent on technological advancement, the Aztecs could have mounted those sorts of technologies even in the 1750s (if left unmolested till then); they were conquered in the 1520s I believe.
In the case of China and Japan, at least they had horses and metalworking technologies. But even then, they were centuries behind in most forms of military-related technology or (in the case of gunpowder) simply did not use those technologies they did have for military purposes. Yes, Japan did come up to the same technology level as the Western European powers, but that didn't happen until the 19th century, and then only due to a LOT of shameless borrowing, rather than native invention. China - well, it could be argued that they still are playing catch-up.
Now, I'm no stickler for complete historical accuracy, but giving any of these nations technological improvements at anything close to European levels is simply unrealistic for at least the first two-thirds of the scenario (with possible exceptions in the trade and infrastructure areas). It's possible they could start playing catch-up late in the game (as Japan did in the mid 1800's), but by then they should be so hopelessly behind in land and naval techs that they don't have enough time to catch up before the end of the scenario (even in GC).
well, about the spanish numbers, it wasn't quiet that small. they also had a native army numbering about 100k, gathered from independant tribes that hated the aztechs. add on top of that the millions that perished due to diseases in their first encounter with spain. they still managed to put up a good fight. some spanish were captured and sacrificed to aztech gods.
True, but Cortes landed with between 200 and 300 Spaniards, and they were enough to conquer the entire Aztec Empire. And their first battle (against the Tlaxacalans who eventually helped Cortes) the Spanish fought without any native allies. Horses and steel were enough to totally demoralize their opponents.
Re: Historical accuracy vs. historical possibility - again?
I don't think you can possibly compare the Aztecs to China. Their civilization was nothing like as old, and certainly Europe had learned nothing from the Aztecs as of 1500, and none of their technology depended on Aztec or other Amerindian innovations. Aztec culture may have been sophisticated, but not in ways that affect the game - in the technology of warfare, of trade and of goods production.
And the fact that some 90% of the population was wiped out on contact with Europeans was more or less inevitable, as almost all of the population loss was due to diseases that the Americas had never been exposed to. The Spanish might have been able to reduce the losses somewhat if they had treated the natives better, but no one knew how to cure these diseases and the natives had no immunity. Contact with Europeans was an unmitigated disaster for all of the Americas, and should be in any historical game.
A decent case can be made that China and other Asian societies shouldn't have such disadvantages in the game, but I think the case for the Amerindians is extremely weak.
I don't think you can possibly compare the Aztecs to China. Their civilization was nothing like as old, and certainly Europe had learned nothing from the Aztecs as of 1500, and none of their technology depended on Aztec or other Amerindian innovations. Aztec culture may have been sophisticated, but not in ways that affect the game - in the technology of warfare, of trade and of goods production.
And the fact that some 90% of the population was wiped out on contact with Europeans was more or less inevitable, as almost all of the population loss was due to diseases that the Americas had never been exposed to. The Spanish might have been able to reduce the losses somewhat if they had treated the natives better, but no one knew how to cure these diseases and the natives had no immunity. Contact with Europeans was an unmitigated disaster for all of the Americas, and should be in any historical game.
A decent case can be made that China and other Asian societies shouldn't have such disadvantages in the game, but I think the case for the Amerindians is extremely weak.
Re: Re: Historical accuracy vs. historical possibility - again?
I don't either. I am making a general statement here saying that they are both sophisticated (in various ways) and old.
Furthermore I am completely aware of the fact that you have to know a civilization to learn from it, i.e. you have to discover them: duh!
By saying the aztecs are sophisticated, I mean in government, religion and that kind of thing.
When it comes to China: they invented both gunpowder and printing, the difference to us is just how these inventions were put to use.
Someone were talking about shameless borrowing by the japanese in this thread, but the europeans started with nothing but borrowed tech and catching up to do before their heyeday.
I am certainly not making any evaluative moral judgements here. I am merely saying that if given a chance they, as others have, can learn and use new tech. As long as they haven't been eradicated yet, I mean.
Besides; people dying of disease is not part of the game, is it?
Again: I believe they all have, given time and space from european expansion and cultural influence from the same.
pH.
I don't either. I am making a general statement here saying that they are both sophisticated (in various ways) and old.
Furthermore I am completely aware of the fact that you have to know a civilization to learn from it, i.e. you have to discover them: duh!
By saying the aztecs are sophisticated, I mean in government, religion and that kind of thing.
When it comes to China: they invented both gunpowder and printing, the difference to us is just how these inventions were put to use.
Someone were talking about shameless borrowing by the japanese in this thread, but the europeans started with nothing but borrowed tech and catching up to do before their heyeday.
I am certainly not making any evaluative moral judgements here. I am merely saying that if given a chance they, as others have, can learn and use new tech. As long as they haven't been eradicated yet, I mean.
Besides; people dying of disease is not part of the game, is it?
Again: I believe they all have, given time and space from european expansion and cultural influence from the same.
pH.