Could those who know tell me how relationships with native inhabitants of the Americas etc are handled? Is there an Imp style choice of conquer or colonise? Are there realistic differences between them, or do nomadic peoples live in towns and have capitals, as they tend to in games of this type?
-
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.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 19.083
- 73.540
Most of the time, native population in provinces are disorganised and doesn't form a country. Meaning you don't have to declare war to kill them or colonise their lands.
Some non-european countries exist however in their historical areas. In the Americas, the Aztec Nation, Inca Empire and the Iroqouis, in India several Mogol Empire, Hyderabad and Mysore. We also have Oman, Aden, China and Japan outside of Europe, as nations.
There are several hundreds of provinces where the natives are disorganised though.
/Johan @ Paradox
[This message has been edited by Johan (edited 21-01-2000).]
Some non-european countries exist however in their historical areas. In the Americas, the Aztec Nation, Inca Empire and the Iroqouis, in India several Mogol Empire, Hyderabad and Mysore. We also have Oman, Aden, China and Japan outside of Europe, as nations.
There are several hundreds of provinces where the natives are disorganised though.
/Johan @ Paradox
[This message has been edited by Johan (edited 21-01-2000).]
I know that natives don't pose much of a threat and that apparently one of the beta testers cleared the entire stretch of Northern America with 2 forces of 500 'swedish style' infantry.
Are there any other dangers faced by the conquerors, such as death through attacks by wild animals, death/disease from eating poisonous plants ..
Is it also possible for the natives to lead atleast a few large organised attacks on the invaders with any chance of success? Say 500 Spanish infantry vs 5000+ natives? Obviously moral plays a major role, but if the conquerors are sufficiently tired and depressed is there anyway that they can lose a battle such as this?
Sapura
Are there any other dangers faced by the conquerors, such as death through attacks by wild animals, death/disease from eating poisonous plants ..
Is it also possible for the natives to lead atleast a few large organised attacks on the invaders with any chance of success? Say 500 Spanish infantry vs 5000+ natives? Obviously moral plays a major role, but if the conquerors are sufficiently tired and depressed is there anyway that they can lose a battle such as this?
Sapura
- Dec 14, 1999
- 19.083
- 73.540
I always seem to lose my battles against the natives. Especially in India and Indonesia, where they are huge numbers and more advanced technology. The later in the game, the easier it is to kill the natives, simply because of more guns.
/Johan
/Johan
The 'American tour' was in mid 1600. I had cheated for just finding out how the game worked (it was my first longer game), and had much colonies around the world, and maybe one tech level over normal (add 10-20 years for getting that in a normal game). I didn't go for any indian countries like Johan describes, but just clearing the 'free' territories.
In a later game played with everything as it should be, my Chinese army of around 10.000 started there crusade south and then west to India. I didn't mopp up all territoires, and when I finaly made contact with another civilazation I had 17 soldiers left!!! They managed to get back home for getting much rewards from there general (me). I must admit that if I had been one of those surviving 17 I had deserted after loosing all faith in my leader, lol. For short it can be said that Asia is NOT for overtake by 1000 men, all natives aren't as crappy.
When moving around in low level areas like America it is often a good idea to have just small units since otherwise attrition would be enormous.
In a later game played with everything as it should be, my Chinese army of around 10.000 started there crusade south and then west to India. I didn't mopp up all territoires, and when I finaly made contact with another civilazation I had 17 soldiers left!!! They managed to get back home for getting much rewards from there general (me). I must admit that if I had been one of those surviving 17 I had deserted after loosing all faith in my leader, lol. For short it can be said that Asia is NOT for overtake by 1000 men, all natives aren't as crappy.
When moving around in low level areas like America it is often a good idea to have just small units since otherwise attrition would be enormous.
Does the conquistadors have the 'disrupting' effect they had in the boardgame ?
Pierre
Pierre
17/10,000 soldiers? Ye Gods, remind me never to conscript into YOUR army, you tyrant 
Sap
Sap
I take you as a 'volunteer' then , at least you would get plenty of exercise . Don't forget that your surviving chances would still be greater then winning on lottery...
For those (read Pierre) who askes about the 'real' game versus the computer, I have to admit I have never played the real one. So sorry if I don't have much for answears on those topics.
[This message has been edited by kullenius (edited 21-01-2000).]
, at least you would get plenty of exercise . Don't forget that your surviving chances would still be greater then winning on lottery...For those (read Pierre) who askes about the 'real' game versus the computer, I have to admit I have never played the real one. So sorry if I don't have much for answears on those topics.
[This message has been edited by kullenius (edited 21-01-2000).]
ok...The boardgame was in french and I doubt it was ever translated in any other langage.
Every post I can do here is based on my experience of the boardgame, which is a really really good game.
My previous post was quite unclear for people who don't knoçw the boardgame, I admit...Sorry.
In the boardgame, conquistador leaders were able to disrupt the social structure of natives by their only presence. This simulated the behavior of people like Cortes in America.
So, the conquistadores, with a tiny troop, are able to 'defeat' entire provinces. But, as the same troop and conquistadores were obliged to advance into unknown territory, players had to roll on a table to see the fate of the troops, that can simulate disease, accidents etc etc...
So your troop + conquistador could, maybe, completely disappear into the amazonian forest.
My (too short) question was : someone know if that kind of system exist in EU ?
Sorry again for the previous post
Pierre
I read quite a bit of the board game before joinin up as a beta tester. It was said to have a crapy translation into English. (I couldn't probably have done it worse even with my spelling, lol).
The exact game engine for conquistadors I do not know, but they are in the game. Since I have never played a country having one of them I'm not sure how they actually work. However can armies loss quite a lot to attricion, but I have never came upon my army just being lost.
The exact game engine for conquistadors I do not know, but they are in the game. Since I have never played a country having one of them I'm not sure how they actually work. However can armies loss quite a lot to attricion, but I have never came upon my army just being lost.
In the boardgame, you could have armies and detachments (troops of 10 units or less).
To send an army, for example, in America, you had to create an enough large fleet to transport it.
Considering the losses of the trip for Europa to America, considering the price of a fleet and the maintenance of an army, players often sent only detachments commanded by a conquistador.
Conquistador disrupting effect was independant of the quantity of troops with him. So, with a good conquistador, even with only a detachment, you were able to decimate natives.
The possibility of losing an entire detachment is tied to the attrition table (the same as forced walk), which is used for both losses due to exploration and due to the fact that extra european provinces are huge in size (so long trip for the europeans when they want to travel).
Losses were counted in percent (like in fights), rounded up.
Then, the longer a unit + conquistador explore and walk outside europa, the more chances they had to see their number lowering.
Add to that the hostility of natives and some expeditions can turn quickly to disaster.
Of course, all those comments are based on the boardgame rules...
Pierre
To send an army, for example, in America, you had to create an enough large fleet to transport it.
Considering the losses of the trip for Europa to America, considering the price of a fleet and the maintenance of an army, players often sent only detachments commanded by a conquistador.
Conquistador disrupting effect was independant of the quantity of troops with him. So, with a good conquistador, even with only a detachment, you were able to decimate natives.
The possibility of losing an entire detachment is tied to the attrition table (the same as forced walk), which is used for both losses due to exploration and due to the fact that extra european provinces are huge in size (so long trip for the europeans when they want to travel).
Losses were counted in percent (like in fights), rounded up.
Then, the longer a unit + conquistador explore and walk outside europa, the more chances they had to see their number lowering.
Add to that the hostility of natives and some expeditions can turn quickly to disaster.
Of course, all those comments are based on the boardgame rules...
Pierre
After reading your comments on how it worked in the board game, I can only say that Paradox have done a good job in keeping those rules line for line
The boardgame exists in english as well, Pierre. But it takes a bit of time and good will to translate some of the rules into understandable language.
It's much easier to explore both at land and at sea. 'cause there is no 'disaperence' of explorer, conqvisador, as in the boardgame. They, as far as I know, only dies in combat or by age. And sometimes by attrition, almost expolrers when in stormy sea.
In the game died all of my explorers trying to sail pass south africa, as England.
But in the boardgame, as England, I had a hard time to find the way to north america
To Pierres question. No, there is no 'disrupting' effect, as far sa I can see, not as in the boardgame where conquistadors could have natives on their side in battles against natives.
The boardgame is indeed really a very good game, great I must say. And this computer game is far more exciting than I would expect.
------------------
It's much easier to explore both at land and at sea. 'cause there is no 'disaperence' of explorer, conqvisador, as in the boardgame. They, as far as I know, only dies in combat or by age. And sometimes by attrition, almost expolrers when in stormy sea.
In the game died all of my explorers trying to sail pass south africa, as England.
But in the boardgame, as England, I had a hard time to find the way to north america
To Pierres question. No, there is no 'disrupting' effect, as far sa I can see, not as in the boardgame where conquistadors could have natives on their side in battles against natives.
The boardgame is indeed really a very good game, great I must say. And this computer game is far more exciting than I would expect.
------------------
I only hope that the boargame rules are better written than the french ones which lack a serious organization.
Furthermore, still concerning colonialism and boardgame, Azure Wish released a game supplement to Euorpa Universalis where you found new leaders, new counters for some minors, catholic missions (a great supply base for conquistador) and rules clarifications.
I don't know if some of thoe features are in the PC version
Pierre
Furthermore, still concerning colonialism and boardgame, Azure Wish released a game supplement to Euorpa Universalis where you found new leaders, new counters for some minors, catholic missions (a great supply base for conquistador) and rules clarifications.
I don't know if some of thoe features are in the PC version
Pierre
>I only hope that the boargame rules are >better written than the french ones which >lack a serious organization.
Well, no. The text is not idiomatic and even in the single paragraph there exists contrary rules.
In the English rules conquistadors work as throwing a dice and checking from a table how many natives switch sides, desert or continue resisting. After that battle is fought normally. (But if you have half of Aztec army on your side, it would be much easier.;-)) Of course doing that in the same region again isn't any more as easy as the previous ones.
For those interested in board game, I have a diary of almost finished Grand Campaign on my web site. It also has some self made sheets and player aids as binaries. I also 'collect' results of other EU board games played. http://www.iki.fi/~whiskey/EU.html
Ville
Well, no. The text is not idiomatic and even in the single paragraph there exists contrary rules.
In the English rules conquistadors work as throwing a dice and checking from a table how many natives switch sides, desert or continue resisting. After that battle is fought normally. (But if you have half of Aztec army on your side, it would be much easier.;-)) Of course doing that in the same region again isn't any more as easy as the previous ones.
For those interested in board game, I have a diary of almost finished Grand Campaign on my web site. It also has some self made sheets and player aids as binaries. I also 'collect' results of other EU board games played. http://www.iki.fi/~whiskey/EU.html
Ville