EEP The Americas

[donagel]

Well, historically speaking, they should be rather useless to play.

One exception could be a game start event that changes the nature of the American Indians. This may change the nature of the game completely mind you, but what if there was a real slim chance that the Amerindians were a far more advanced people. They would still need to be isloationist so as to allow the normal historical progress in Europe to game start, but what if they were at the European level when they are discovered, and had realistic chances to advance. It would really strike a little realism into the exploration and discovery period since you won't be compleyely sure until you get there what you'll find. Hell, you could even go so far as to have a chance that the Amerindians "discover" europe.

I'm not advocating this completely, but it would be a nice touch.

 

[AlanC9]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But you'll also hinder the natives immensely, if all the provinces have tax value 1 they will become effectively useless to play. Not a problem for me, but understand that that's a big change and needs to be managed carefully and tested extensively.

Actually, there's a bigger problem. This fix would make the natives unconquerable. Captain Krunch and I have been working with the Incas and Aztecs, and the real problem in taking their provinces is that the supply values don't allow you to maintain sieges long enough to take their provinces. A human can storm, but the AI won't.

 

[unmerged(8894)]

I am sorry if this was answered before and I missed it but are there any plans to add Andrew Jackson as a general for USA? While he was famous for his roll in the war of 1812. He was active before hand in various Indian conflicts and judgeing by what I have read about him he would have decient enough stats to set him above being just a random general.

 

[AlanC9]

Good point on Jackson. He definitely should be in.

Care to suggest stats for him?

 

[unmerged(8451)]

Andrew Jackson was an evil man. Most people don't realize this, but he is responsible for the "Trail of Tears" where he forced the Cherokee out of their land. Many Cherokee died during the forced march. He did not even have the authority to do this, because they were supposed to be outside of U.S. jurisdiction at that time.

He was almost impeached, because he had over stepped his authority on this matter. But unfortunately, the wrong commited has not been undone to this very day.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

check the thread on leaders. Pretty sure he's in there.

 

[Halibutt]

Originally posted by Captain Krunch
Andrew Jackson was an evil man. Most people don't realize this, but he is responsible for the "Trail of Tears" where he forced the Cherokee out of their land. (...)

That's why he should be forgotten. Dot.
Cheers

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

No more pc bull

Everyone knows how horrible the the trail of tears was, but you can't throw out one of the early Republic's most important men for it. Tom Jefferson, Ben Arnold, and Vlad 'the impaler' Tepes, etc were 'evil men'. Should they not have a place in the game. Without 'evil' Andy, we would not have Florida (bad example) and 'the every man counts' view of Democracy (another Bad Example).
On second thought, we're ok without him.

 

[unmerged(8451)]

I wasn't saying he shouldn't be included. I was just making a statement.

 

[unmerged(7365)]

New Revolters?

What do people think about these two new revolters for North America?

1. Republic of Vermont (historical 1776-1791) They should be Reform/Anglo-Saxon. Here is why I think Vermont would be a good addition. First they were the first country to ban slavery in their constitution. Maybe the Confederates could have CB on them because of the slavery thing. There could be some good events around this issue. They also are a sort of buffer state between the US and UK/Canada. It might be interesting to see how they all react.

2. Acadia. Would be Counter reform/French. They could have some good events where Canada or England drives out the Acadians in some of the provinces to Louisiana changing the culture in say parts of Nova Scotia to Anglo-Saxon while adding French to Louisiana or giving whoever owns Louisiana CB on England or...

Any thoughts?

 

[Halibutt]

Re: New Revolters?

Originally posted by Penultimate
(...)2. Acadia. Would be Counter reform/French. They could have some good events where Canada or England drives out the Acadians in some of the provinces to Louisiana changing the culture in say parts of Nova Scotia to Anglo-Saxon while adding French to Louisiana or giving whoever owns Louisiana CB on England or...(...)

Yeah, this event should do -5000 manpower to Louisiana, due to introduction of tabasco sauce..
Cheers

 

[Jayavarman]

Re: New Revolters?

Originally posted by Penultimate
What do people think about these two new revolters for North America?

1. Republic of Vermont (historical 1776-1791) They should be Reform/Anglo-Saxon. Here is why I think Vermont would be a good addition. First they were the first country to ban slavery in their constitution. Maybe the Confederates could have CB on them because of the slavery thing. There could be some good events around this issue. They also are a sort of buffer state between the US and UK/Canada. It might be interesting to see how they all react.

2. Acadia. Would be Counter reform/French. They could have some good events where Canada or England drives out the Acadians in some of the provinces to Louisiana changing the culture in say parts of Nova Scotia to Anglo-Saxon while adding French to Louisiana or giving whoever owns Louisiana CB on England or...

Any thoughts?

Don't think Vermont should revolt.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Ethan Allen did threaten to offer Vermont over to the British, but I don't see that as justification for a revolter. And there aren't any Confederates in the game, nor do I think there should be. If anything a New England revolter might make sense, as there was a convention (in Hartford?) of the 6 New England staes where they floated the idea od seperating as a way to put pressure on the government to end the war of 1812. Still I don't think this makes much sense either.

As to Acadia, how distinct was Acadia from 'French Canadian' prior to the Acadian expulsions?

Given the small number of tags available I'd prefer to keep them for countries that exisited historically.

 

[unmerged(7365)]

Re: Re: New Revolters?

Originally posted by Phillip V


Don't think Vermont should revolt.

Why not? It is historical and if Texas is included Vermont should be too. Vermont was independent twice as long as Texas.

Originally posted by Isaac Brock


And there aren't any Confederates in the game, nor do I think there should be.

My understanding from reading earlier parts of this thread is that CSA will be a revolter.

 

[unmerged(7365)]

As to Acadia, how distinct was Acadia from 'French Canadian' prior to the Acadian expulsions?

French Canadian means any francophone in Canada. It includes Quebecois, Acadians, Métis (Native Canadian Indians who adopted French language and religion, especially Manitoba and west), descendants of early French settlers to what are now Anglophone provinces, as well as recent French speaking migrants to these Anglophone areas.

Acadia is distinct from Quebec as Massachusetts is distinct from Pennsylvania. They were settled at different times by different groups. They were governed as distinct parts of New France. This is recognized in the game. Notice that some provinces are in Quebec and others in Acadia.

On a related note, I think that Canada should have only Anglo-Saxon culture. This makes uprisings in the French regions more likely.

 

[unmerged(8570)]

Maybe this has already been suggested, but I remember a lot of complaints about the brits having to vassalize the US and/or grab a few of its provinces... well how about an event that gives england all of the US provinces back if they successfully capture them?