- Dec 29, 2017
Will there be any new formable tags in North America?
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
New tags of similar culture to a tag that already has models usually get them. All the new Bavarian tags in 1.30 got Bavarian unit models for instance. Same for the Pomeranian ones and so on.A small point, but what about unit models? I don't think we can expect a completely new unit pack for these, but will some of these new nations have some of the existing unique models for north america to break up the tedium of all the generic unit models that they'd otherwise get? In particular those nations who were born out of the splitting of a former nation with a unit model set, like the Iroquois ones?
That's a cool ideaThere is that now-empty advancement part of the menu, maybe there could be some system of unifying bonuses (at the cost of some cohesion and or other resources like mana) that at the end would have the nations unite into a new single tag. A bit like mini-HRE reforms.
It's much better than it was before, but groups like the Powhatan in particular sill seem to have a relatively small influence despite having influence all over the bay IRL. At the end of the day though, the provinces do sort of have their populations represented even if it isn't colonized. And as Groogy said in the diary, Northern migrations are as a proxy to groups disappearing or various villages becoming dominant within a region over time rather than populations literally moving. There's no reason not to have the entire eastern seaboard depicted as tribal land, seeing as it can be colonized like anything else though, really.I like the map changes, but I'm getting more concerned about how empty the eastern seaboard is. Much of the entire settlement period in the game involved internecine warfare where native people were progressively displaced west of the Appalachians. There are very few tribes there at all. I get the intent to leave some areas empty to allow colonization targets, but this really promotes a "terra nullus," pro-European interpretation, instead of the more complex history that there were lots of native peoples there that got evicted by war.
With the expansion of the various major tribes and confederations, have any changes been made to the Blackfoot? As they had been a major confederation up until the beginnings of westward expansion by the Canadians and Americans.Third, could you perhaps look at adjusting some of the colonial regions in North America to reflect those of the colonies that developed? For example perhaps splitting Canada to have one for Ontario and Quebec (Upper and Lower Canada), the Maritimes (Acadia), and the west (Hudson's Bay Company).
On that same note, could you perhaps look into a special mechanic for the HBC land in Canada? As that was sparsely settled, with most Europeans wintering solely in the various forts in small numbers, whilst the Indigenous people populated the land in great numbers, all the way up until the late 1800's when westward settlement really began, post confederation. With this idea, would you be able to also look into the development of the Métis culture? As they were an important aspect of colonial Canada and their culture played an important role in settling the West, especially in and around the Manitoba/Winnipeg region.
Powhatan in that specific image is bugged, they do claim all of the area as their tribal land. Here you goIt's much better than it was before, but groups like the Powhatan in particular sill seem to have a relatively small influence despite having influence all over the bay IRL. At the end of the day though, the provinces do sort of have their populations represented even if it isn't colonized. And as Groogy said in the diary, Northern migrations are as a proxy to groups disappearing or various villages becoming dominant within a region over time rather than populations literally moving. There's no reason not to have the entire eastern seaboard depicted as tribal land, seeing as it can be colonized like anything else though, really.
Same applies to my favorite native tribe, who would be Meskwaki, but are called the Fox by the West.Our general approach to name has been to use endonyms for provinces, and the best known english name for the playable nations, in much the same way that the playable countries are China, Muscovy and (when formed) Germany. There have been a few exceptions where the native names use outright english or french words (Saulteaux, Plains Cree),but these are not the norm.
Thus, the tag is called Maliseet, but one of their provinces is Wolastoqiyik.
Given the Haudenosaunee are dubbed Iroquois and the Kanien'kehá:ka are dubbed Mohawk, I don't think they are actually going for endonyms here.If you're going for indigenous self-given names rather than settler-given names, you might want to change the name of the Huron confederacy to the Wendat confederacy.
In my experience, I've never met anyone who self-identifies as Huron, they all rather identify as Wendat.
What's more, it's possible that 'Huron' is viewed as derogatory. Which wouldn't be surprising since the word seems to come from French words meaning 'unkempt, shaggy, rough'.
But this is only my secondhand reporting to you guys. So don't just take my word for it. Rather, give it a serious looking-into before releasing the patch