Europa Universalis IV Nations - Native Americans: Aztecs (with Quil18!)

[FredricBastiat]

I think the first 4 points are easy for most of us to agree on. Point 5 is where things get contentious. Some of us view the Aztecs and Inca as stagnant, tribal states that simply couldn't accomplish much. Then there are those of us who view them as relatively normal states, just with a unique geographic and technological position. The former group tends to favor leaving these areas alone, usually citing that the game is about Europe and that these states are just fodder for colonization. The latter group generally wants to see a better representation of the history and uniqueness of these states because it expands the scope of the game. I personally fall into the latter group. EU4 seems to have fixed much of what EU3 got wrong. Native states are no longer completely helpless even before the Europeans arrive. Still, PDS failed to provide any accuracy in the setup or mechanics for these areas, which is disappointing. Mesoamerica doesn't even vaguely resemble real life and the Inca Empire is far too big at the game's start. These are the kinds of things that need to be fixed if the game is to be grounded in history.

Honestly I haven't seen anyone arguing that the Aztecs et al were stagnant, tribal morons who did poorly due to insufficient forebrains. Many have argued they wouldn't be anywhere near Europe in the EU timeframe if left alone, and I'm not sure if anyone disagrees. Few have argued that playing the native Americans shouldn't be fun, certainly not Jomini who is the one person I have seen put forward a reasonable and plausible suggestion for how to better model the Mesoameriancs in a way that is reasonably historical and still enjoyable for the player.

The rest of it seems to have degenerated into mostly irrevelent and poorly defined tangents like how likely Aztec weaponry is to break on metal armor and exactly how long it would take Spain to take over if Cortez failed. The former is frankly irrevelent to the game, this is about grand strategy not dueling tactics. On the second everyone seems to agree the Europeans should take over sometime in the 16thc, so the details are not terribly relevent either.

Unfortunately, at this point it is unlikely anything will change, I imagine they are down on the priority list and there is such a thing as an opportunity cost. Maybe in a mod or DLC though.

 

[Dafool]

Honestly I haven't seen anyone arguing that the Aztecs et al were stagnant, tribal morons who did poorly due to insufficient forebrains. Many have argued they wouldn't be anywhere near Europe in the EU timeframe if left alone, and I'm not sure if anyone disagrees. Few have argued that playing the native Americans shouldn't be fun, certainly not Jomini who is the one person I have seen put forward a reasonable and plausible suggestion for how to better model the Mesoameriancs in a way that is reasonably historical and still enjoyable for the player.

I wouldn't put Jomini into that group, but there are others they do often pop into these threads and start arguments. In this thread alone we've heard some argue that they were stone age tribes that don't need real representation in the game. In other threads I've heard thing like they were too incapable to form real government and real states. Stuff like that isn't constructive.

Unfortunately, at this point it is unlikely anything will change, I imagine they are down on the priority list and there is such a thing as an opportunity cost. Maybe in a mod or DLC though.

Both Guillaume and I are planning on releasing mods for the New World, so one way or another players will be able to get a better representation if they want something more fleshed out. The main thing that bugs most of us is that the devs have changed so little in thee areas since EU3 was released.

 

[illapa]

Lets look at Byzantium, I also love these guys, they have a 1% chance of survival as an AI yet humans can pull it off. Can we get something like that Paradox? A system where the AI will lose almost always but mechanics exist for humans to triumph. Don't nerf their armies, tech, leader points, and economies into the ground like a hardcoded insta-fail.

If I die as a native nation I want to feel like I lost legitimately and not that the deck of cards was so incredibly stacked against me that the game was unwinnable from the start, and if I beat the AI I want it to be through skill not the abuse of AI stupidity and cheap tactics. I want it to be a war where I have to use attrition, terrain, great leaders, diplomacy, spies, my vast money and manpower reserves, and game mechanics to win. I don't want a system where I just instantly gift 1 province to the AI, use it to westernize, and then go on to do a world conquest instantly (I think this was removed though?). I also don't want a system where a European nation gets a random core on me and I instantly just hire European soldiers and gg I am now equal.

One of those scenarios sounds and feels like an epic struggle for my civilization the other ones just feel anti-climactic and hollow. Had the native nations in EU3 had 2x as many soldiers, manpower, and money they still would have been conquerable since basically 15k European troops can defeat 30k native troops AND probably annihilate the entire army in one battle because of the giant difference in tech. There is NO NEED to nerf natives into oblivion. Your fans are intelligent and want a challenge Paradox we don't want nations to exist just to die instantly we want to work for our empires!!!!!! If we wanted to be on rails where everything was handed to us on a plate we'd go play FPS games not a Sandbox Grand Strategy Game

 

[unmerged(612669)]

I personally think that the increase in tech cost is probably a sufficient penalty, especially since it looks like the cap on monarch points is gone. While New World states are better off than in EU3, there's still a massive incentive to westernize. Arbitrarily limiting their monarch points isn't really the right way to model their technological disadvantages.



I think the first 4 points are easy for most of us to agree on. Point 5 is where things get contentious. Some of us view the Aztecs and Inca as stagnant, tribal states that simply couldn't accomplish much. Then there are those of us who view them as relatively normal states, just with a unique geographic and technological position. The former group tends to favor leaving these areas alone, usually citing that the game is about Europe and that these states are just fodder for colonization. The latter group generally wants to see a better representation of the history and uniqueness of these states because it expands the scope of the game. I personally fall into the latter group. EU4 seems to have fixed much of what EU3 got wrong. Native states are no longer completely helpless even before the Europeans arrive. Still, PDS failed to provide any accuracy in the setup or mechanics for these areas, which is disappointing. Mesoamerica doesn't even vaguely resemble real life and the Inca Empire is far too big at the game's start. These are the kinds of things that need to be fixed if the game is to be grounded in history.

1. Then if not monarch points something else should be tied to the tech to encourage the ai to Westernize. I tried taking single provinces around the world in EU 3, but westernization just tends to not happen; eventually alliance stops being enough to protect them; Benin for example gets annexed if you don't vassalize...either way they seem not to westernize. The AI not using westernization should be something EU IV tackles in some way; although I agree no monarch points is extreme.

2. There are achievements Aztecs did that I think could be put in through special decisions; the decisions Moctezuma made should be fun provided there are more native states, you could use your monarch points to improve provinces to simulate the great markets and chinampas. They might not be what the EU IV buildings simulate but representing them that way could help bring the Aztecs to life and give them a better chance to project some power in their defense, even though still doomed without we players intervening.

Something else that would be nice to see in a mod is a representation of the autonomy that European colonies had, and the limited presence of the central governments forces which would make creating Native allies more attractive for use against other Europeans (simulate the Indian wars) and create a situation where it could be best not to gobble up everything.

Of course I trust your modding abilities more then my gut instinct because your EU3 mod improving the America's was wonderful, and I think what I said might apply more to North then central America; nomads in South America/Central America were a pain not a tool for use against other Europeans.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

I don't really mind the monarch points limit as much, considering that this was done in ways with the 'unreformed governments' in EU3. What I hope to see soon, though, is for the influential Altepetl to be added as nations in the game. I don't think I need to list which ones they are here, I'm sure it's been done several times before. Some flavour decisions and events wouldn't go missed, either; every region too often has the same events for European states, and some events to reflect playing as a Mesoamerican nation would work well.

As for buildings... I'd probably say buildings could use an overhaul or a rethinking in any case. They don't really feel so realistic (excluding the forts, obviously...) in terms of what buildings would have already been built in the settlement, in addition to the linearity of some of them. I'd probably like a road/infrastructure improvement sequence similar to how forts work. I would, after all, like to see the Inca have a more improved road network than the Mesoamericans, at the very least.

 

[Eh up me duck]

I wouldn't put Jomini into that group, but there are others they do often pop into these threads and start arguments. In this thread alone we've heard some argue that they were stone age tribes that don't need real representation in the game. In other threads I've heard thing like they were too incapable to form real government and real states. Stuff like that isn't constructive.

What are you talking about? The Aztecs were certainly stone aged, but they weren't tribal (in the sense that you mean anyway).

 

[Dafool]

What are you talking about? The Aztecs were certainly stone aged, but they weren't tribal (in the sense that you mean anyway).

And this is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Evie HJ]

I believe in EU3 the AI is specifically DISCOURAGED from westernizing. As in Paradox went out of their way to make westernization less likely to happen. I think they argued this was a matter of immersion.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Well outside of eastern Europe how many nations actually successfully westernised during this time period? The fact that any eastern nation with a land border with a western nation can westernised at all is there for gameplay - otherwise anyone who played as a non European nation would simply be crushed without any gameplay options to actually turn things around. I think the system in eu3 is actually pretty neat, will wait and see how eu4 handles it.

 

[Heatth]

Well outside of eastern Europe how many nations actually successfully westernised during this time period? The fact that any eastern nation with a land border with a western nation can westernised at all is there for gameplay - otherwise anyone who played as a non European nation would simply be crushed without any gameplay options to actually turn things around. I think the system in eu3 is actually pretty neat, will wait and see how eu4 handles it.

The problem is that one nation that actually came close to westernising was Japan. Which can not happen unless the Europeans get an ahistorical foothold on the islands. Unless you consider the influence of the Portuguese over Nagasaki as them owning the province? I am not sure how appropriate that would be.

 

[WeissRaben]

The problem is that one nation that actually came close to westernising was Japan. Which can not happen unless the Europeans get an ahistorical foothold on the islands. Unless you consider the influence of the Portuguese over Nagasaki as them owning the province? I am not sure how appropriate that would be.

Japan did it in a very Victoria 2 way - got farther and farther down the way to westernization, then it was all canceled. As far as we know, Westernization is so completely all or nothing in EU4 that it isn't even funny.

 

[Fawr]

The problem is that one nation that actually came close to westernising was Japan. Which can not happen unless the Europeans get an ahistorical foothold on the islands. Unless you consider the influence of the Portuguese over Nagasaki as them owning the province? I am not sure how appropriate that would be.

1. Then if not monarch points something else should be tied to the tech to encourage the ai to Westernize. I tried taking single provinces around the world in EU 3, but westernization just tends to not happen; eventually alliance stops being enough to protect them; Benin for example gets annexed if you don't vassalize...either way they seem not to westernize. The AI not using westernization should be something EU IV tackles in some way; although I agree no monarch points is extreme.

Looking at these quotes in conjunction worries me.

If players can do things which the AI doesn't (for example Westernise) then the AI will be artificially weak. Which is bad game design as it basically puts players in easy mode.

However if the AI commonly westernised because players commonly westernise then you start to get a situation where very few non-European countries are playing out the way they were historically. If something historically happened in 1% or 2% of cases the game isn't playing out very plausibly if you end up with 10% or more countries doing it.

Also linking land connections to westernisation is still a very odd decision. Particularly since the historical example paradox were trying to aim for was Russia under Peter the great. It would work much better if the link was European tech counties having dominance over the trade node closest to your capital. Hence Peter's move to St. Petersburg, and wanting to use it as an opening (by sea) to Europe.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

Well outside of eastern Europe how many nations actually successfully westernised during this time period? The fact that any eastern nation with a land border with a western nation can westernised at all is there for gameplay - otherwise anyone who played as a non European nation would simply be crushed without any gameplay options to actually turn things around. I think the system in eu3 is actually pretty neat, will wait and see how eu4 handles it.

That depends on what you mean by Westernization; arguably North American Natives did a great deal of it, The Warring State of Benin was the main supplier of slaves because it involved Western ideas and reforms that gave it a massive advantage over other Africans, Indian states had armies in western gear (although they did poorly in actual war with Europeans most of the time). Westernization and being a success story isn't the same thing.

If you mean what Peter the Great and Globalization did then you already know the answer; if you mean adopting Western ideas then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that ideas spread.

Looking at these quotes in conjunction worries me.

If players can do things which the AI doesn't (for example Westernise) then the AI will be artificially weak. Which is bad game design as it basically puts players in easy mode.

However if the AI commonly westernised because players commonly westernise then you start to get a situation where very few non-European countries are playing out the way they were historically. If something historically happened in 1% or 2% of cases the game isn't playing out very plausibly if you end up with 10% or more countries doing it.

Also linking land connections to westernisation is still a very odd decision. Particularly since the historical example paradox were trying to aim for was Russia under Peter the great. It would work much better if the link was European tech counties having dominance over the trade node closest to your capital. Hence Peter's move to St. Petersburg, and wanting to use it as an opening (by sea) to Europe.

Well westernization isn't everything in EU3, I just don't like ahistorical African Colonization (more of Africa is colonized by 1700 then historically 1800), Papal South America etc. Westernization would cure one province minors of being able to do that while allowing major powers to project enough force to put the historically weak non western nations in their place. Ultimately 2-3 province minors aren't going to stand against the historical colonial powers whatever tech group they have thanks to the absolute CB those powers always had. However they could stand up to Albania which is good because the idea of Albanian North America is just absurd and even ruins the ability of European powers to crush Albania because you have to occupy their colonial possessions to actually get them to sign an agreement.

Colonization is just too easy in EU3 and I always saw it as my mission to make life hell for colonial powers to try and contain them to historical borders; unfortunately the idea I often had of westernized natives never worked.

 

[Sappho of Lesbos]

The thing I most dislike about Westernization is that it requires you border an advanced nation. As others have suggested, trade routes and trade nodes would be better. I would say that Japan did successfully Westernize, and is possibly a better example than Peter's Russia.

This might have to wait for an expansion, but I think it would be useful to create a mechanic for setting up trade posts. For example, let's say England wants a to influence/make money off the Aztecs. Rather than invading, they contact the Aztecs and ask for permission to set up an English trading post in a given Aztec province. Or the Aztecs decide to try and ward off possible Spanish aggression by inviting the English in. This would require a good bit of money, but it would also attract trade routes, particularly between England and their trading post. The province would remain under full Aztec control, but the English would get half of the profits from the trade post (or more, or less). And it would absolutely fit the bill for enabling the Aztecs to Westernize. Of course, there would probably be events where the English seek to spread their religion (and possibly values) to the locals.

Having the AI generally resist Westernization is something I agree with - it was a rare thing. The only nations I can think of that really went through Westernization were Russia, Japan, Ethiopia, and Kemalist Turkey. In three cases, it was a visionary leader that pushed the process through, so I think that the AI shouldn't Westernize without a really good leader. In most games of Europa Universalis, it should only happen once or twice (most of my examples occurred well after the EU timeframe).

 

[Evie HJ]

The thing, though, is that there is no "alternate" process to simulate what the Natives went through. They did not truly westernize, but they did not (by and large) stick to their ways. They adapted, changed, and they learned a lot from European contact . It was a form of westernization, but nowhere near the Russo-Japanesse one.

 

[Fawr]

The thing, though, is that there is no "alternate" process to simulate what the Natives went through. They did not truly westernize, but they did not (by and large) stick to their ways. They adapted, changed, and they learned a lot from European contact . It was a form of westernization, but nowhere near the Russo-Japanesse one.

England also adapted, changed and learnt a lot from other Europeans, but for them that's just represented by gaining tech levels.

Well westernization isn't everything in EU3, I just don't like ahistorical African Colonization (more of Africa is colonized by 1700 then historically 1800), Papal South America etc.

Are you suggesting that two broken mechanics are needed to fix these problems? I agree there are some problems with colonisation in EU3 which is too quick (particularly in uncontrolled areas), but I'd try to fix those rather than break a different mechanic.

 

[WeissRaben]

England also adapted, changed and learnt a lot from other Europeans, but for them that's just represented by gaining tech levels.

Yes, but there is no way at all for the Japanese daimyo to reach the same military tech level as the Europeans in the 16th century, move at the same speed on their own for a while, and then freeze there. Because this is what happened - Japan was Western until the Sakoku came. In all meanings, even - I think that a Christian daimyo, enormous distance notwithstanding, sending an embassy to Europe to visit all the great monarchs and the Pope counts as being diplomatically Western.

 

[Evie HJ]

England also adapted, changed and learnt a lot from other Europeans, but for them that's just represented by gaining tech levels.

Yeah, because they're European tech group and therefore *able* to gain tech levels at a reasonable pace.

There is no mechanism in place to represent the greatly increased pace of adaptation and change in native societies post-Contact.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

England also adapted, changed and learnt a lot from other Europeans, but for them that's just represented by gaining tech levels.



Are you suggesting that two broken mechanics are needed to fix these problems? I agree there are some problems with colonisation in EU3 which is too quick (particularly in uncontrolled areas), but I'd try to fix those rather than break a different mechanic.

1. So what would you call the changes that resulted from influence of European powers if not westernization to a lesser degree then Japan?

2. Gameplaywise yes two wrongs could make a right. A westernized native will get crushed and annexed with both eu3 and eu iv mechanics thanks to being unable to wield enough men to live should a CB wielding Spain/France come; however they will be able to crush any opm attempt at colonizing them; win win isn't it? Too fast is an understatement, more of Africa is colonized at the end of EU3 then start of Vicky 2; now that is saying something big. I just don't see the downside to westernized natives; win win because the westernized natives aren't big enough to field a force to defend against the coming of say Portugal or England or Spain etc; but they will be able to crush the OPM who always have so much colonization to do.

 

[Fawr]

Yes, but there is no way at all for the Japanese daimyo to reach the same military tech level as the Europeans in the 16th century, move at the same speed on their own for a while, and then freeze there. Because this is what happened - Japan was Western until the Sakoku came. In all meanings, even - I think that a Christian daimyo, enormous distance notwithstanding, sending an embassy to Europe to visit all the great monarchs and the Pope counts as being diplomatically Western.

The game isn't great at simulating jumps and then stops in technology. For example Italian income in 1500 was about equal to that in France in 1820, but it didn't grow over the whole time period. There is also no way for the Italian states to start at the same tech level as France for production, but never to go anywhere. Westernising Japan in the 1500s won't let it simulate a jump in tech followed by stagnation - in that case you would be better able to give people a bunch of extra monarch points for their first contact with Europeans (getting more with some downsides if you want an open country, getting less with less downsides if you want a more closed country).

I'd also contest that the Japanese had caught up to western literacy, production methods, incomes, international trade or shipbuilding - all of which I'd consider key before they had the same tech group & same tech level.

Yeah, because they're European tech group and therefore *able* to gain tech levels at a reasonable pace.

There is no mechanism in place to represent the greatly increased pace of adaptation and change in native societies post-Contact.

Some countries changed faster than others (as an average over the whole time period), and tech levels are the game's way of doing that. EUIII's system of incremental modernisation was able to let countries increase the speed they adapted, and so I'm sorry its gone in EUIV (even if it had odd side effects like map sharing with weird tech groups).

1. So what would you call the changes that resulted from influence of European powers if not westernization to a lesser degree then Japan?

Gaining a few tech levels rather than a lot of them?

2. Gameplaywise yes two wrongs could make a right. A westernized native will get crushed and annexed with both eu3 and eu iv mechanics thanks to being unable to wield enough men to live should a CB wielding Spain/France come; however they will be able to crush any opm attempt at colonizing them; win win isn't it? Too fast is an understatement, more of Africa is colonized at the end of EU3 then start of Vicky 2; now that is saying something big. I just don't see the downside to westernized natives; win win because the westernized natives aren't big enough to field a force to defend against the coming of say Portugal or England or Spain etc; but they will be able to crush the OPM who always have so much colonization to do.

The problem with 2 wrongs making a right is that you end up playing ahistorically to get around the mechanic which the game presents you rather than the one that really happened.

For example consider Poland in the 1700s. Historically they were competitive at the start, but by the end they were partitioned off the map. The main cause was the political system (election of kings and the magistrates veto). If you believe 2 wrongs make a right you could model the fall of Poland by giving them a special modifier which made military tech costs extremely high, causing them to fall behind until they weren't competitive anymore by the end of the century. However because the problem facing Poland isn't what really happened a player or competent AI will try to work around this by doing things which weren't at all relevant to the real situation. Instead of reforming their political system Polish players would look to get tech bonuses.