erm... Maya?
- Thread starter unmerged(457435)
- Start date
-
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.
There were lots of small Maya states in the Yucatan area but no large Maya state like the Aztecs or the Inca.
The Maya were still around when the Spanish arrived. It wasnt a great civilization like it was earlier, but they were still around....
But were they a SINGLE COUNTRY? Different people existing can be represented in provinces as natives, without there being countries that actually own these provinces, for example. Its somewhat hard finding reliable data on countries in that part of the world and historical rulers and so on.
Having the Maya as just natives would make them unplayable, however. I for one look forward to playing as the Maya.
There are already very few nations in that area. Taking the Maya away would make it more boring for the Aztecs.
Purely a concept of gameplay balance - The game engine doesn't properly simulate small tribal societies, they are turned into actual nations. None of the North American native tribes can claim to be a proper nations, but in EU they are. The alternative would be unplayable natives in every province with specific events for each tribe. (Which is entirely moddable should you feel the need to)
No. But none of the natives in the region are represented correctly, anyway.
Does any of the native tribes that are in game actually have historical rulers, or is everything just made up?
The Aztec and Inca are correct. The Maya's reflect the rulers of Mayapan and Xiu. Most of the rest I'm sure is just randomly assorted ruler names. It's a sad but necessary abstraction because the history of so many tribes and states was forgotten, lost, or destroyed.
If anyone here is interested a better setup for the Maya, see my sig. I plan to have this ready to go for release.
I still really wish they had added more states in the Americas ;(
--
...Literally just saw the signature of the person above me, neat! Though that only covers the Central and South, yes?
--
...Literally just saw the signature of the person above me, neat! Though that only covers the Central and South, yes?
Last edited:
In real life, both the Inca and Aztec were empires at the time EUIV starts. The Maya, by contrast, were something entirely different. The zenith of their civilization had long since passed (during what were the Early Middle Ages of Europe). By the middle 1400s they had been reduced to a collection of isolated, though vibrant, city-states. Besides, unlike the Aztec or Inca, the Maya never formed a centralized state, even during their Golden Age. They were always like the city-states of Classical Greece, incapable of allowing any single city to assume primacy.
Ideally, they'd be better represented by splitting their provinces into individual states representing different cities, but I can see there being a cost/benefit issue with this. Why bother encoding a bunch of new tags that will probably be gone by the time most players find them, anyway? On top of that, splitting them up would make coming up with plausible country and leader names even harder.
Perhaps because it allows the colonization of the region to be interesting and enjoyable. A gaming site criticized EUIV's treatment of colonisation as being dull, making the early game uninteresting. The magazine had played a beta of the game a couple of months ago, but it seems that the states are still simply Aztec, Maya, Zapotec. If anyone wants the link to the article, I could find it. I'm fairly sure the writer played as Spain, and found the treatment of what could have been an exciting expedition exploring, allying, and conquering a series of warring tribal city-states to be comparatively underwhelming.
Additionally, it makes gameplay in the region enjoyable. When playing as a native state in EU3, it simply consists of waiting for the Europeans to arrive before the game gets remotely interesting.