It's abstracted into other things right? So reducing them would represent reducing the population no?
As to CK2, theyre not just mild, but unnoticeable. I liked how they were in CK
Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise – Dev diary 4: American Progression
- Thread starter Besuchov
- 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.
It's abstracted into other things right? So reducing them would represent reducing the population no?
As to CK2, theyre not just mild, but unnoticeable. I liked how they were in CK
Mainly manpower, and some loss of income (recognising that NNA states weren't terribly effective at collecting revenue & people dying that weren't paying revenue anyway isn't going to affect it).
Arizona being colonized is hardly a stretch. Mission San Xavier del Bac was founded in 1700, and Tucson in 1775. Granted, European settlement didn't advance any further north than the Santa Cruz River valley during the game's time frame, but it's not outright implausible for it to have done so...
Arizona is PTI in the game right? [I just chose something random from what I guessed was still PTI.]
The point was, if any of the south-west isn't plausible for settlement by the British, it is plausible by a westernised and powerful Pueblo empire [if they're in the game again guessing at something in the region.] so if the focus is on playing the NA tribes, then that's the consideration right?
Utah maybe as a better example, it doesnt make sense for a european colony, but for a Pueblo empire with holdings in Oregon, it would as itd be an important trade route across your empire. [And stop grey hole ugliness]
A lot of it is wasteland, but I'm pretty sure that at least the southernmost parts of Arizona are colonizable.
A chunk of that area is arid mountains & no more settleable with pre-1800s technology than the Sahara or Gobi deserts, trade routes or not. But clearly they will be not be a barrier in game.
This. A good example of this in play might be the Knahaten Flu from the Elder Kings mod.
You think you could introduce something similar for westernization? Because, right now, it's quite boring and no fun at all. You just click the button and wait 15-20 years chasing rebels.
Then include those bits as under the control of the settled parts with big provinces.
Provinces with provinces along one edge would work to get rid of the PTI. And with with natives, well a handful of scattered settlements with vast desert between them that only matter for being trade routes works for the African provinces in the actual sahara in CK2 so itd work for utah too.
This DD is like negative advertisement. What a horrible expansion concept. "Let's shove in a mini-game for native americans, but only the stone age ones in North America, not the actually civilized ones in central or south america."
At least some words about how the Incas and Mesoamericans wil also get some love... wouldn't have been too hard, would it?? They're not SERIOUSLY going to focus on just the likes of Huron, Cherokee, Iroqois???
At least some words about how the Incas and Mesoamericans wil also get some love... wouldn't have been too hard, would it?? They're not SERIOUSLY going to focus on just the likes of Huron, Cherokee, Iroqois???
Mesoamericans are completely different people and ought to require different systems, we can't get everything in a single DLC.
Given, the system would also work great for Steppe Hordes too. My guess is that they are doing this so that they do not spoil potential DLC down the road.
All of Arizona is in game other than the small area to the north of the Grand Canyon.
If you have a good colonial infrastructure in the area, it wouldn't be too far fetched for the Gila and Salt River Valleys to be colonized in game. Once there were enough people here and they got the infrastructure up by re-using the old native irrigation systems to bring the river water to crops - hence the name "Phoenix" for a city rising from the ashes of the old civilization - populating and feeding the region wasn't a problem, despite the hellish summers. The rivers were actually fairly substantial at the time (and indeed the upper Salt still is - I've gone boating on it), but are mainly dry now for that very same reason: diverted for crops and drinking water...
Utah is similar case; the area around the Utah River and the Great Salt Lake could definitely be colonizable by the technology of the game period. But since they are so far distant from any other reasonable colonies, I can see why they would be wasteland.
No they are not "completely different" at all. Unless your version of North American history begins with Francis Cooper's Leather Stockings and the French and Indian wars.
North America had lots of towns and cities in the time before the European arrival. In fact the first European explorers of the North American shores actually reported that the coasts of, for example, New Jersey and Virginia were densely settled and that the landscape was quite thoroughly cultivated by obviously sedentary people. The Mississippi valley and the Ohio valley were home to settled civilizations centered around large towns with huge ceremonial buildings. (The mound builders.) These civilizations had spread all the way throughout the southeast of the US, where the 1539-1543 expedition of Hernando de Soto encountered a fairly densely populated region full of towns.
The civic "memes" of these civilizations were quite similar to the mesoamericans: They were centered on towns, made a living off intensive agriculture and long-distance trade, maintained powerful priestly castes who ran much of the civil organization, and they dedicated immense efforts towards the construction of landmarks. Obviously the mesoamerican peoples were technologically more advanced and had in general more people living in their cities, had more social sophistication and made more ambitious conquests when they went to war. But as far as archaeology and the few sources can give us an image of the north american civilizations, these people weren't hugely different from the mesoamericans.
This is the world in which a pre-"discovery" native American experience should take place. Not this farcical last-of-the-mohicans-themed, peace-pipe-smoking joke of a mini-game.
This DD is like negative advertisement. What a horrible expansion concept. "Let's shove in a mini-game for native americans, but only the stone age ones in North America, not the actually civilized ones in central or south america."
At least some words about how the Incas and Mesoamericans wil also get some love... wouldn't have been too hard, would it?? They're not SERIOUSLY going to focus on just the likes of Huron, Cherokee, Iroqois???
No they are not "completely different" at all. Unless your version of North American history begins with Francis Cooper's Leather Stockings and the French and Indian wars.
North America had lots of towns and cities in the time before the European arrival. In fact the first European explorers of the North American shores actually reported that the coasts of, for example, New Jersey and Virginia were densely settled and that the landscape was quite thoroughly cultivated by obviously sedentary people. The Mississippi valley and the Ohio valley were home to settled civilizations centered around large towns with huge ceremonial buildings. (The mound builders.) These civilizations had spread all the way throughout the southeast of the US, where the 1539-1543 expedition of Hernando de Soto encountered a fairly densely populated region full of towns.
The civic "memes" of these civilizations were quite similar to the mesoamericans: They were centered on towns, made a living off intensive agriculture and long-distance trade, maintained powerful priestly castes who ran much of the civil organization, and they dedicated immense efforts towards the construction of landmarks. Obviously the mesoamerican peoples were technologically more advanced and had in general more people living in their cities, had more social sophistication and made more ambitious conquests when they went to war. But as far as archaeology and the few sources can give us an image of the north american civilizations, these people weren't hugely different from the mesoamericans.
This is the world in which a pre-"discovery" native American experience should take place. Not this farcical last-of-the-mohicans-themed, peace-pipe-smoking joke of a mini-game.
Please, say if I'm misunderstanding what you say, but it seems that CoP will be exactly that : possibility to migrate for some tribes, possibility to settle for others. And we may bet the nations in Western North America will try to migrate before settling, beucause there is space. As for Eastern North America, we may think they won't migrate a lot, because there's not enough space for that, and will prefer to build and reserch progress. So, what's not conform to your view in all of this?
The DLC is designed around tribes like the Huron, the Iroquis and the Lenape. Which is like designing 1444 Europe around nations like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and the French IIIrd republic, struggling to discover democracy, fascism and communism so they can better survive the reformation.
For a history-themed game this is worse than the Aztec invasion DLC. At least the Aztecs were only misplaced by ~150 years, and part of an obviously humorous design aspect.
This farcical game design aspect doesn't even state that it's a nonsensical back-projection of 17th century North America into the 1444 start date. North America in 1444 looked absolutely nothing like the situation the game depicts. This is a total fantasy scenario.
I know nothing of this period or area. But, interested by your comment, I googled Iroquois, and the first paragraph of the main part of their wiki article (history section) indicates that the Iroquois League predates European discovery and may have been formed as early as 1450 and no later than 1600. (some historians even suggest as early as 1150 but apparently this is rejected by many others.) They then became one of the most powerful tribes in the northeast in the 17th and 18th centuries.
So it sounds reasonable to me that they feature in a game set from 1444 to 1821.
Can you elaborate on your objections?
But they're not distant from the native americans who start at they're doorstep, so if it's reasonable for them to support sedimentary society in the time frame, then they ought to be provinces not wasteland as those indians are the focus of the expansion, not Euro colonials
They tribes might not have been organised the same way, but they were there and probably in the same places even if under different alliances.
We lack the paperwork but archaeologists can tell how long buildings sat somewhere too. And if they can do it for stone age huts and vikings in canada then presumably we can trust them on mississippi villages, pueblo stone cities and huron huts.
Same question for me, notably if this concerns the fact that the Great Plains tribes shouldn't migrate. I'm not a specialist, but would like a lot to learn a little about that.
it'd be nice if you could migrate only with certain late-game conditions, have horses or border scary europeans for example.
Not one province nations only, maybe one province at a time and only to a province boring your own so you could go in steps.